UNBIASED - What the Democrats Actually Want to Add to the Funding Bill, What You Need to Know about the ICE Raid in Chicago, Why the Epstein Petition Can't Pass Until New Democrat is Sworn In, and More.

Episode Date: October 6, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Here's What the Democrats Want to Add to the Funding Bill and What Needs to Happen for the Government to Open (1:12) Messages on Federal Agency Websites Blame Democrats for Shutdown; Do These Messages Violate the Hatch Act? Here's What to Know (14:34) Epstein Petition Can't Pass in the House Until Newly-Elected Democrat is Sworn In (21:33) What We Know About the ICE Raid in Chicago; Were Children Really Zip-Tied and Removed from their Parents? (26:54) What to Know About President Trump's Proposal for Israel and Hamas (33:18) Quick Hitters: Federal Judge in Oregon Blocks Deployment of National Guard Troops, Ghislaine Maxwell's Appeal Denied By Supreme Court (42:55) Critical Thinking Segment (45:37) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When you're with Amex Platinum, you get access to exclusive dining experiences and an annual travel credit. So the best tapas in town might be in a new town altogether. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at Amex.ca. welcome back to unbiased your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis welcome back to unbiased politics today is monday october sixth let's talk about some news before we do though i do just

want to quickly say thank you so much for being patient with me while i took a week off last week to spend some time with family it's really important that i do that kind of stuff from time to time just because, as you might imagine, talking about politics 24-7 can be exhausting, to say the least. This time we went to Jackson Hole, Wyoming. We had the best time. I actually have a ton of recommendations if you're interested. Maybe I can do a little blog post on my substack or something. I don't know.

And just kind of like talk about everything I did and leave my recommendations there. So let me know if you'd be into something like that. Looking ahead, just to give you a heads up as far as days off from the podcast, I'll be taking Thanksgiving day off, of course, which is Thursday, November 27th this year. And then my final break of the year will start on December 19th, which is a Friday. So I'll be off starting December 19th. And then I'll be back on the mic for next year, starting Monday, January 5th. I will of course remind you of those dates as we get closer, but I did just want to give you a heads up. Now, without further ado, let's talk about some news. Starting with the big news from last week, as we know, the government shut down last Wednesday and

is currently still closed. Now, before I left for my trip, I made sure to include a five minute segment just kind of prepping you for the shutdown. I knew it was likely the government would shut down. I also knew I was going to be out of town when it did shut down. So I included that segment in the September 25th episode, just kind of as a heads up. Now that it's happened, I want to talk about the impasse specifically because I know a lot of you have questions as to what exactly the Democrats want to include in the funding bill, why Republicans are unwilling to negotiate and where the truth actually lies. Per usual, both sides are blaming each other for the shutdown. Just to quickly recap what Congress is attempting to do right now is pass a continuing resolution.

The reason they are trying to do that is because they have been unable to pass the 12 appropriations bills that are required each fiscal year to keep the government funded. So now they're trying to pass this funding bill called a continuing resolution that will temporarily keep the government funded while they try to work out those 12 appropriations bills. Each continuing resolution usually lasts anywhere from a month to a few months. Now when it comes to continuing resolutions, they can either be clean or they can have added provisions. A clean continuing resolution simply keeps the government funded at current levels and that's it. There is nothing added to the bill. If the bill includes added provisions, it can sometimes be harder to pass, depending on what those provisions are

and what the majority in, you know, in the congressional chambers looks like. And that's what we're seeing right now. So this is where the issue lies. Democrats do not want a clean continuing resolution. Republicans do. Democrats have a list of provisions that they insist on being included in this continuing resolution. One of those provisions is an extension on enhanced premium tax credits for the Affordable Care Act, which are essentially subsidies that help roughly 4.2 million people in America afford health insurance on the federal marketplace through Obamacare. These tax credits were last expanded during the pandemic, but they are set to expire at the end of this year. If those tax credits expire, health insurance premiums could nearly

double for certain people from a monthly average of around $888 to more than $1,900. Of course, how much, you know, of an increase people see depends on the plan that they have and where they live. It's not automatically double for everybody. Democrats argue that if these tax credits are allowed to expire at the end of the year, it'll be devastating, specifically to lower income Americans who rely on health care coverage to survive. Democrats also, emphasize the risk of higher income users pulling out of the ACA marketplace, which could then increase premiums for all people left on the marketplace, not just those who receive these premium tax credits. Republicans, on the other hand, argue that extending these tax credits is too

expensive for the federal government to maintain. They cite the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's estimate that this extension proposal would cost the federal government $1.4 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. The Democrats also want to include rollback provisions in the continuing resolution that would undo multiple health care cuts that were recently included in that one big, beautiful bill act. Now, that takes us to this free health care for illegal immigrants claim. Okay. So as we know, Republicans have been saying that Democrats are trying to give health care to illegal immigrants, whereas Democrats are saying that's not true. Vice President Vance said during a recent press conference, quote, the Chuck Schumer AOC wing of the Democratic Party

shut down the government because they said to us, we will open the government only if you give billions of dollars in health care in health care for illegal aliens. That's a ridiculous proposition. And quote, House Speaker Mike Johnson similarly said Democrats, quote, wanted to give health care to illegal aliens instead of keeping critical services provided for American citizens. end quote. In article posted by the White House was titled, quote, fact, Democrat shut down government over free health care for illegals, end quote. So to be clear, here is what is actually going on. First and foremost, by law, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for health care under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, or Medicare. The Democrats' proposal is not trying to change that. The Democratic proposal also does not create new health care programs for undocumented immigrants. Instead, what their proposal seeks to do is, one, reverse recent cuts to emergency hospital reimbursements, which would reimburse hospitals for emergency care for all people, regardless

of legal status. Two, extend the Affordable Care Act premium tax credits, which apply to all of those individuals who are eligible for the tax credits and can include what are called lawfully present non-citizens. And then three, they want to reverse limits on eligibility for Medicaid, CHIP, which is the Children's Health Insurance Program, Medicare, and ACA subsidies. So those are the three things that they want to do related to immigrants. So we're going to take this one piece at a time, starting with the first one and kind of expand on all three of those things.

The first one is Democrats are calling for the reversal of cuts to emergency hospital reimbursements. Up until the passage of the Big Beautiful bill, hospitals were reimbursed by the federal government for the emergency care that they provided to low income and uninsured patients. Now, the vast majority of those patients are lawful citizens of the United States. Some of those patients are what are called lawful non-citizens, and some of those patients are undocumented immigrants who are able to come in and receive medical care in emergency situations. In the United States, we have a law called EMTALA. It requires hospitals to provide stabilizing care to everyone in an emergency situation, regardless of financial status or citizenship

status. So hospitals have to provide emergency services to undocumented immigrants. Even though they're not entitled to enroll in health care programs here in the United States, they're still entitled to emergency services at hospitals. Under the reimbursement program, hospitals get reimbursed for all emergency services rendered to low income and uninsured patients, regardless of immigration status. That reimbursement program, though, was cut in the big beautiful bill. So Democrats want that program reinstated. Okay. So that's the first piece of this debate. If it's reinstated, hospitals would be reimbursed for emergency services, regardless of who those emergency services are provided to. And yes, this can include undocumented immigrants.

It also includes lawful non-citizens. It also includes lawful U.S. citizens. So that's the first piece of this. The second piece stems from the proposal to extend ACA premium tax credits. So premium tax credits have always been available only to U.S. citizens and lawfully present non-citizens. Lawfully present, non-citizens are those that we've been talking about. Whenever I say lawful non-citizens, this is who I'm talking about. So lawfully present non-citizens are those that don't have citizenship, but they have legal permission to be here. This can include those with a green card, those with a valid visa, those seeking asylum, et cetera. They have lawful permission to be here. These premium tax credits have never been available to undocumented immigrants. And Democrats are

not trying to change that. What Democrats are trying to do is extend the ACA premium tax credits that are set to expire at the end of this year for those that are eligible. So that would only help U.S. citizens and the lawfully present non-citizens that are entitled to those premium tax credits. That's the second piece. The third and final piece is the proposal to reverse limits on eligibility for Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare, and ACA subsidies. Under current law, like with the ACA premium tax credits we just talked about, eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP is limited to U.S. citizens and lawfully present non-citizens. Again, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for either of these things, and the Democrats are not trying to change that. However, the Big Beautiful Bill cut coverage for some groups of lawfully present non-citizens. It maintained eligibility for green card holders, Cuban and Haitian. entrance and citizens of countries that are a part of the compacts of free association. But the bill removed eligibility for refugees, asylees, and survivors of trafficking or abuse.

Prior to the Big Beautiful Bill, all of those aforementioned groups had access to these programs. So Democrats are wanting to repeal that recent change. So all of the aforementioned groups are still eligible for Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare, and ACA subsidies. Keep in mind, again, this does not include undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for these programs. So those are the three pieces of the puzzle. Democrats wanting to reverse recent cuts to emergency hospital reimbursements, extend the ACA premium tax credits, and reverse limits on eligibility for Medicaid,

chip, Medicare, and ACA subsidies. So again, Democrats say they're not asking for free health care for illegal immigrants, as Republicans are claiming, but Republicans are arguing that they are asking for free health care for illegal immigrants because restoring hospital reimbursements can indirectly support health care for those individuals. So that is what the controversy is all about. Again, just to be very clear, Republicans are wanting to pass a clean continuing resolution without any add-ons from Democrats. Republicans argue that continuing resolutions should be used strictly as a means by which to temporarily fund the government and claim that the Democrats are holding the federal

government politically hostage using the proposed additions as ransom. And by the way, using funding deadlines as leverage is not new. So just to give you an example on the flip side of this, back in 2013, Republicans did exactly what the Democrats are doing now by refusing to pass a continuing resolution that would have funded the government without delaying or defunding Obamacare. That holdout led to the government being shut down for 16 days. So this, This tactic isn't unprecedented. Both parties have used funding deadlines as leverage to push for policy priorities because it's harder to advance those same priorities during regular legislative sessions. One final thing to note here is that a clean continuing resolution has already passed the House. The resolution is in the Senate's hands now. The reason for the holdup is that the Senate has a rule called the cloture rule.

In the Senate, most bills, including funding bills, can be blocked by what is called a filibuster. To move past a filibuster and hold a final vote on the bill, the Senate needs 60 votes. So the Senate needs 60 votes to end debate on a bill and send it to a vote. This means that even though the Republicans have the majority in the Senate with 53 seats, they still don't have enough to meet that 60 vote threshold to end the filibuster and send this continuing resolution to a vote. They need seven Democrats to get on board, and that is not happening as of right now. If and when seven Democrats vote with all Republicans to end the filibuster and send a clean continuing resolution to a vote, that is when Republicans will be

able to pass the resolution with a simple majority. Now, assuming the Senate eventually passes the continuing resolution with zero changes, it'll head directly to the president's desk for signature. It won't need to pass the House again because the House has already. passed it. But if the Senate changes anything at all on the bill, whether it's one word or one provision, the Senate's version will need to go back to the House for a vote before it can go to the president's desk. Now, I realize that that was a dense explanation. Okay, you might have to go back and re-listen to it to fully capture all the details and have a complete understanding, but at least it's there for you to rewind and listen to as many times as you need to. For now,

let's take a quick break and reset. When I come back, we'll talk about whether the recent blame on the Democrats violates the Hatch Act, some new Epstein updates, and more. If you're dealing with hair issues like thinning or shedding, but you feel totally stuck on what to try next, I get it. There are so many products out there. It's hard to know which ones are actually going to do anything, but if I could recommend one that you look into, it's Nutraful. It's physician formulated, clinically tested, and even recommended by dermatologists. Neutrophol is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand, trusted by over one and a half million people. You can feel great about what you're putting into your body since Nutraful hair growth

supplements are backed by peer-reviewed studies and NSF contents certified, the gold standard in third-party certification for supplements. See Thicker, stronger, faster-growing hair with less shedding in just three to six months with Nutraful. For a limited time, Nutraful is offering my listeners $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to Nutraful.com and enter the promo code Unbiased. Find out why Nutraful is the best-selling hair growth supplement brand at Nutraful.com, spelled N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L dot com promo code unbiased. That's Nutraful.com promo code unbiased. Did you lock the front door? Check. Close the garage door? Yep. Installed window sensors, smoke sensors, and HD cameras with night vision? No. And you set up credit card transaction alerts,

a secure VPN for a private connection, and continuous monitoring for a personal info on the dark web? I'm looking into it. Stress less about security. Choose security solutions from TELUS for peace of mind at home and online. Visit tellus.com slash total security to learn more. Conditions apply. Welcome back.

Before we took a break, we talked about the impasse in the Senate. Running parallel to that storyline is the blame that is being placed on Democrats by federal agencies and officials. And this blame game has led a lot of you to ask whether the administration is violating what's called the Hatch Act. Now just very quickly, the Hatch Act basically prohibits partisan political activity by federal employees. Okay. So under the law, federal employees cannot engage in partisan political activity while they are on duty, while they are in a federal facility, while they are wearing an official title, or while they are using government property or resources.

This includes things like websites, official email accounts, et cetera. So for example, using official government systems like websites or emails to send messages that support or oppose a political party is generally disallowed when it's done as part of official duties. The whole purpose is to maintain non-partisanship in the administration of federal programs and prevent the use of taxpayer dollars for political campaigning. Campaigning is the key word there, okay? So the Hatch Act typically applies when it comes to campaigning and elections. So knowing that, in the days after the government officially shut down, multiple federal websites and agency communications ran messages that directly blamed Senate Democrats for the shutdown. I'll give you a few examples. The White House posted a page

titled Democrats betray Americans with government shutdown. The first sentence of that page reads, quote, Democrats have officially brought on a full-blown government shutdown engineered by the radical left lunatics who control their party. End quote. On the Department of Housing and Urban development website, a banner and pop-up message read, quote, the radical left in Congress shut down the government. Hood will use available resources to help Americans in need, end quote. Several Department of Education employees say their official out-of-office email auto replies were changed without their consent to say, quote, thank you for contacting me on September 19th, 2025. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 5371, a clean continuing resolution. Unfortunately,

Democrats senators are blocking passage of H.R. 5371 in the Senate, which has led to a lapse in appropriations. Due to the lapse in appropriations, I am currently on furlough status. I will respond to emails once government functions resume. End quote. NPR reported that similar auto replies were sent by staff at the Department of the Interior, Department of Congress, Department of Labor, State Department, Treasury Department, DOJ, HHS, Department of Agriculture, the Social Security administration, the General Services Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the SEC, and the Office of Personnel Management, and the National Labor Relations Board. So this begs the question, do these messages, including the one posted on the White House,

including the one on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's website, including the emails, do these things violate the Hatch Act? The answer as to the first two, so the federal agency websites and the White House posting, right? Those are in a gray area, whereas the emails sent the auto replies, the answer is likely no. Okay. So we're going to walk through some of the arguments on both sides, starting with why these may be illegal. Number one, the websites that are posting these messages are taxpayer-funded sites. And this includes email systems as well, but we're talking about the websites here. Using websites to promote partisan messages can cross the line because they're using taxpayer dollars, right?

And that's exactly what the law is meant to prohibit. Two, the messages clearly target and blame the Democratic Party. They're not simply neutral policy explanations of the shutdown. And when I say that, I'm talking about the Department of Housing and Urban Development website and the White House's post, okay? So an example of a neutral policy explanation would be that email, that auto reply message that was sent out by employees of those various departments. That was a neutral policy explanation explaining why, you know, they're out of office, why the government is shut down. Those emails would likely be okay under the Hatch Act because

their neutral policy explanations. There was no direct blame, right? So, those are a few of the arguments. I mean, I guess I kind of combine them, but you get what I'm saying here. When it comes to arguments as to why, you know, why these messages might not be a violation of the Hatch Act, one, the Hatch Act tends to draw a line between campaign or election-related political activity and policy or legislative debates. So if a message is taken as discussing or defending a policy position, rather than trying to influence an election or promote a certain candidate, it might not violate the Hatch Act. It likely won't violate the Hatch Act. Blaming a party for a shutdown is part of a policy dispute. It's not promoting a candidate or influencing an election. So it's likely okay under the Hatch Act.

And then two, the other argument, enforcement of the Hatch Act often considers the context and the intent behind the communication, whether it was meant to influence an election or or whether it was a partisan attack. The Office of Special Counsel, which is the office that investigates hatch act violations, has often been reluctant to treat references to political parties in legislative

or, you know, budgetary disputes as hatch act act violations, so long as the messaging isn't targeted at an election or at a candidate specifically. When investigating a potential violation, though, the OSC would likely ask questions such as, Was the messaging ordered or coordinated by senior officials? Did it use official titles or government infrastructure?

Were employees required to send or display it? Was it tied to an upcoming election or was it tied purely to the shutdown dispute? And are there precedents where similar messaging was found to have violated the law? So while the federal messaging might be ethically questionable, that doesn't necessarily mean that it violates the Hatch Act. whether it violates the act depends heavily on the OSC or how courts interpret the messages as well as the purpose of the messages. And then also whether they differentiate the messages from typical policy advocacy. So it's really not cut and dry. And that's just the law, right? I've said this before. I'll say it again, the law is never black and white. There's always arguments for and against.

And then it's up to the court to interpret or in this case the office of the special council. All right, let's circle back to Congress for this next story because I quickly want to talk about what's going on with the vote to release the remaining Epstein files. About a month ago, we talked about a petition in the House that would force the release of the remaining Epstein files with redactions. Currently, the petition has 217 signatures and it needs 218 because 218 would be a simple majority. However, it is only a matter of time before Congress gets that 218th vote. The only reason they don't have it right now is because Republicans are putting off swearing in a newly elected Democrat. So here's what happened and here's what we can expect sometime in

the near future. Democratic representative Adelita Grisolva was elected in a special election last month to fill the vacancy that was left by her father who recently passed away. She has already said that she will vote to pass the petition once she is sworn in. Why she hasn't been sworn in yet is the question no one besides, you know, the actual decision maker or maybe some members of Congress have the definitive answer to because the House could have sworn her in already, sure, but but they haven't. The core issue of the debate between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to swearing her in centers on the fact that the House hasn't technically been in a regular legislative session since last week. Whenever the House or Senate is out of its regular legislative

session, they can hold what are called pro forma sessions. And these are basically quick meetings between House or Senate members, just so the chamber can say that it is technically still in session. It hasn't officially adjourned. So even though most lawmakers are not present for these pro forma sessions and votes and debates aren't happening during these pro forma sessions, these sessions are held. so that Congress isn't officially on break. If Congress were to officially go on break and adjourn, the president could then use special powers, like making temporary appointments without Senate approval,

and certain deadlines in the legislative calendar could be triggered. But by saying, hey, look, we're still in session. Technically, lawmakers are able to keep control over their own schedule and limit what the president can do while they're away. Pro forma sessions are basically Congress's way of keeping the lights on so that the president can't use these extra powers that kick in when Congress is officially on recess. The most recent pro forma session was on Friday. So, and actually by the time this episode goes out, I do believe they will have had one today. But knowing that, Republicans are saying

the reason this representative hasn't been sworn in is because they believe the full house should be present for her swearing in ceremony and because it's standard to wait until the next regular legislative day to swear her in. They also say that they want to confirm that all the requisite paperwork is in before they administer the oath. Democrats on the other hand say the paperwork has been in. It's been submitted and there should be no reason for a holdup. They also argue that other newly elected members have been sworn in during pro forma sessions in the past. So there's no reason for this time to be any different unless House Republicans are simply just trying to prevent the passage of this Epstein resolution. So this,

this is the truth when it comes to newly elected members being sworn in. In the past, newly elected members have been sworn in during pro forma sessions so that their constituents are not without representation during a vacancy. It's not necessarily standard, but it has happened before. There's nothing that says a newly elected member of Congress can't be sworn in when Congress is out of office. Even during a government shutdown, Congress can still swear in newly elected members. And that's because Congress is power to swear in comes from the Constitution. It doesn't come from appropriations bills. So Congress can still carry on business as usual when the government is shut down. In fact, during past shutdowns, the House

has met, it's held votes, it's past legislation, et cetera. So a swearing in is simply just part of House business. It's not affected by a lapse in funding or a government shutdown. Now, with all of this said, we don't know when the House is going to resume its normal operations. Like I said, it did meet briefly today at 3 p.m. But now, starting tomorrow, it's going on a district work period through Friday where House members are supposed to work with their constituents. Basically, what's happening right now is the House is just waiting for the Senate to pass a funding bill. So once that happens and the House does come back, it will have to swear in this new Democratic representative. And from there, the House will presumably have the 218 votes that it needs

to pass this Epstein petition, unless one of the lawmakers changes their mind between now and then. So that, because obviously, let me just be clear on that, if a lawmaker were to change their mind, then this newly elected representative would be only the 217 vote, right? And there needs to be 218 votes to pass it. So so long as all the lawmakers that are currently on board, stay on board, and then this newly elected representative comes in and votes to pass it, in that case, the petition will pass. So that is what is going on with the Epstein vote.

Now we're going to switch gears a little bit. We're going to talk about the ice raid at the Chicago apartment building last week. So last Tuesday, around 1 a.m. Federal agents raided a five-story apartment building in Chicago's South Shore neighborhood. Many of you have since reached out asking for clarification, specifically regarding reports that naked children and babies were zip tied and that ice ransacked various apartments. This operation involved a property. approximately 300 agents who was part of a larger immigration enforcement effort called Operation Midway Blitz, which we have talked about in the past. DHS officials said in a statement in

part, quote, in the early morning hours of September 30th, allied federal law enforcement agencies with CBP, FBI, and ATF executed an enforcement operation in Chicago's South Shore area, a location known to be frequented by Trendy Aragua members and their associates. Some of the targeted subjects are believed to be involved in drug trafficking and distribution, weapons crimes, and immigration violators, end quote. In total, DHS reported that 37 people were arrested, including two alleged members of Trende Aragua. DHS officials also noted that four U.S. citizen children were taken from their parents during the raid because the parents lacked legal status. A spokesperson for the DHS told Reuters that the children were taken into custody until they

can be put in the care of a safe guardian or in the custody of the state. Now, we know that several South Shore residents reported being temporarily detained as part of the raid. And some said they witnessed unclothed children being removed from their apartment. So one woman who lives in the apartment building said that agents had asked her for her name and date of birth and whether she had any warrants. She told them she didn't, but she was still handcuffed anyway. And she was quote unquote piled up on one side of the building where she says, was no room to move. She was ultimately released around 3 a.m., which is roughly two hours after the raid began. Ebony Watson, a woman who lives across the street from the building, so she was

not involved in the raid, but she described federal agents removing residents, including children, out of the building. She said, quote, they were terrified. The kids was crying, people was screaming. They looked very distraught. I was out there crying when I seen the little girl come around the corner because they was bringing the kids down too, had them zip tied to mother. It was heartbreaking to watch, even if you're not a mother, seeing kids coming out buck naked and taken from their mothers. It was horrible. And quote, Watson noted that trucks and military style vans were used to separate parents from their children and said, quote, you could see people's birth certificates and papers thrown all over. Water was leaking into the

hallway. It was wicked crazy. End quote. So photos of the apartment building do depict shattered windows and hallways lined with debris and plastic bags. However, it is important to note that we do not have anything to compare this to, right? So it's unclear how much of this damage can be attributed to the raid because we don't have any quote unquote before pictures of the building and hallways to compare. Similarly, whether children were completely naked or, you know, the exact circumstances of the zip ties is based on witness statements like Ebony Watson. It has not been confirmed by official records. Now, that's not to say it's not true. That's not to say it didn't happen. That's just to say we don't know with 100% certainty what actually took place.

right now we are going off, or I guess reports are going off eyewitness accounts. Following those eyewitness reports, Governor J.B. Pritzker directed the Illinois Department of Child and Family Services and the Illinois Department of Human Services to provide support services and evaluate the treatment of the children involved and to investigate. However, the DHS maintains the operation was conducted legally with a spokesperson saying that the operation was performed in full compliance of the law. Now, if the eyewitness reports are accurate, okay, and the children were detained, unclothed, or restrained with zip ties, these actions would certainly raise legal concerns

because under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, law enforcement is allowed to execute warrants and make arrests, but all searches and seizures have to be reasonable. Okay, that's the key word reasonable. Even if law enforcement is executing a lawful warrant or arrest, officers can only use force that is reasonable under the circumstances. The use of excessive or unnecessary force is unconstitutional. So when it comes to what is considered reasonable, that is a question for the courts. The presence of children or otherwise vulnerable people can certainly raise expectations of greater restraint, but courts will ultimately look at whether the force used was proportionate to the risk. So that is what they look at. Now, as for the last,

legality of separating citizen children from their non-citizen parents, that is lawful. If a parent is detained due to immigration violations, the government can and often does, take the parent into custody even if the child is a U.S. citizen. In fact, this is the main reason that families sometimes get separated during immigration enforcement actions. The child, though, cannot be deported. The parents can, the child cannot. When parents are detained, and there is no other parent or guardian immediately available, state child protective services or sometimes a designated family member or foster care will take temporary custody of the child. But to be clear, there is no law or statute that specifically authorizes family separation. Okay. Separation happens as a byproduct of existing laws. So it's not

that the law says parents and children must be separated if one lacks legal status. Instead, what existing law says is that adults without legal status, can be detained pending removal proceedings, but a U.S. citizen child cannot be detained in a detention facility with the parent. So that is what leads to separation. Hopefully that sheds a little bit of light on the legality of things. So once more develops, once we find out more about what actually took place at these raids, we can speak a bit more to legalities, but that is what we know as of right now. Let's take our second break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the potential agreement between Israel and Hamas. We'll do quick hitters and critical

thinking welcome back let's talk about this potential agreement between israel and hamas first though i do want to reiterate that i typically stay away from international affairs okay the only way that i really get involved in international affairs is if the u.s is playing such a role in something so you know the u.s provides aid to israel but that's not enough for me to get involved in the conflict between israel and hamas the u.s provides aid to ukraine but again not enough for me to get involved in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. And honestly, even when the U.S. is involved in negotiations between Israel and Hamas or Russia and Ukraine or any other foreign nation, I typically don't get involved. However, this situation is a little bit different because it was President

Trump himself who gave the 20 bullet point proposal to end the ongoing conflict and because it seems there may be an agreement sometime soon. So this is a rare instance where I feel as if an international situation fits into my otherwise domestic news show. show. I just want you to keep that in mind because I don't want the expectation going forward to be that I cover international affairs. And just so we're all on the same page. The reason that I stick to domestic news is because the quality of my work is much better that way. If I had to focus on the whole globe, you know, I can't promise you that I that I'd have enough time, I guess, to really adequately cover and learn everything that's necessary to learn. I'm very familiar with

the legal process here in the United States. I went to law school. I have my law degree. I know a lot about the Supreme Court and, you know, domestic matters generally. So that is what I stick to. All right. With that little side note out of the way, what I'm going to do is I'm going to read you the proposal that President Trump gave the parties. And then I'm going to review Hamas's rebuttal and what Israel and Hamas have so far agreed to, or I should say conditionally agreed to. I do want to remind you of a few things before we read the proposal. I think it's important to just keep these things in the back of your mind as we go through it. One, both sides have agreed on parts or conditionally agreed on parts of the proposal and both are willing to negotiate.

And then two, peace talks did begin today in Egypt to finalize an agreement, but they are expected to last a few days. So I doubt we really know anything after today. It'll likely start to take shape at the end of the week. Keeping those things in mind, let's review the proposal as it was initially written. I will paraphrase some of the bullet points where I can without removing any necessary context. Starting with number one, Gaza will be a deradicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors. Two, Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza. Three, if both sides agree to this proposal, the war will immediately end.

Israeli forces will withdraw to the agreed-upon line to prepare for a hostage release. During this time, all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment, will be suspended and battle lines will remain frozen until conditions are met for the complete staged withdrawal. Four, within 72 hours of Israel publicly accepting this agreement, all hostages alive and deceased will be returned. Five, once all hostages are released, Israel will release 250 life sentence prisoners plus 1,700 Gossens who were detained after October 7, 2023, including all women.

women and children detained in that context. For every Israeli hostage whose remains are released, Israel will release the remains of 15 deceased Gazans. Six, once all hostages are returned, Hamas members who commit to peaceful coexistence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty. Members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries. 7. Upon acceptance of this agreement, full aid will immediately be sent to the Gaza Strip. 8. Entry of distribution and aid in the Gaza Strip will proceed without interference from the two parties through the United Nations and its agencies and the Red Crescent, in addition to other international institutions, not associated in any manner with either party.

9. Gaza will be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for the people in Gaza. This committee will be made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body, which will be headed and chaired by President Trump with other members and heads of state to be announced, including former Prime Minister Tony Blair. 10. A Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energize Gaza will be created by convening a panel of experts who have helped birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle

East. 11. A special economic zone will be established with preferred tariff and access rates to be negotiated with participating countries. 12. No one will be forced to leave Gaza. and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza. 13. Hamas and other factions agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form.

All military terror and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapons production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt. 14. A guarantee will be provided. provided by regional partners to ensure that Hamas and the factions comply with their obligations and that new Gaza poses no threat to its neighbors or its people. 15. The United States will work with Arab and international partners to develop a temporary international stabilization force to immediately deploy in Gaza. This temporary force will train

and provide support to vetted Palestinian police forces in Gaza and will consult with Jordan and Egypt to have extensive experience in this field. 16. Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza. As the temporary international stabilization force establishes control and stability, the Israel defense forces will withdraw based on standards, milestones, and timelines linked to demilitarization with the objective of a secure Gaza that no longer poses a threat to Israel, Egypt, or its citizens. 17. In the event Hamas delays or rejects this proposal, the above, including the scaled-up aid operation, will proceed in the terror-free areas handed over from the IDF to the temporary international stabilization force.

18. An interfaith dialogue process will be established based on the values of tolerance and peaceful coexistence to try and change mindsets and narratives of Palestinians and Israelis by emphasizing the benefits that can be derived from peace. 19. While Gaza redevelopment advances and when the Palestinian Authority Reform Program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian's self-determination and statehood. And number 20, the United States will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous coexistence. So those are the terms of the proposal.

Now, there are multiple phases to this deal. Phase one of the deal includes an immediate ceasefire, the hostage and prisoner exchange, Israel's military withdrawal to an initial withdrawal line, and an increase in humanitarian aid for Gaza. Certain components of phase one have been conditionally agreed to by both sides. So for example, both sides have conditionally agreed to the hostage and prisoner exchange, but certain details like timelines, which prisoners and sequencing are still being negotiated. the Israeli military has also conditionally agreed to withdrawal, but the timeline and the exact extent of that withdrawal are still being negotiated. So far, Hamas has not addressed

the issue of disarmament, but did say that it was ready to hand over the administration of the Gaza Strip to a Palestinian body of independence based on Palestinian national consensus with Arab and Islamic support. So they are willing to hand over the administration of the Gaza Strip, but their suggestion actually differs from the terms of the proposal in that it appears to indicate that Hamas wants Gaza to be administered by Palestinians rather than Trump's proposed International Board of Peace. Hamas also said that aspects of the proposal that touch on the quote, future of the Gaza Strip and the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, end quote should be decided on the basis of a quote unanimous national position and relevant

international laws and resolutions and quote so as you can probably tell there's still you know plenty to sort out here we should know more by the end of the week as a final note i do want to make mention that there is no formal ceasefire in place right now nothing is stopping either side from continuing the fight we know that president trump asked israel on friday to stop bombing gaza during the talks, but as of now, Israeli military operations continue. Okay, let's do some quick hitters. We're just going to do a couple today. When I say a couple, I literally mean a couple.

So we're going to do two. The first one is a story I know many of you want to know more about, but this episode just got to be really dense. So I'm including it as a quick hitter instead. If Thursday's episode has the space, I will include it as a story there. A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from sending any national Guard troops to Portland, Oregon for a second time. So the second temporary restraining order came after the Pentagon announced that it would send roughly 200 members of the California

National Guard to Oregon, despite the judge previously blocking the deployment of Oregon's own National Guard. In granting this temporary restraining order, the judge held that city and state officials are likely to succeed on their claim that the president exceeded his constitutional authority and violated the 10th Amendment in ordering the deployment of federal. troops. The judge also noted that she didn't appreciate the administration seemingly attempting to sidestep her original order by deploying the California National Guard instead of the Oregon National Guard. Okay. And then the Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from Jisleine Maxwell, who is currently serving time after being convicted of sex trafficking, of a minor, and other charges.

So Maxwell had asked the justices to review an appellate decision on a, what's called a non-profileged prosecution agreement from 2007 that she says should have prevented some of her charges. Now, this agreement that she's referring to was an agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. And the agreement specifically protected Epstein from future charges in that district, as well as potential co-conspirators. So Maxwell argued that that co-conspirators clause was binding on all U.S. attorney's offices in the country, and therefore she should not, you know,

the attorney's office in New York, the prosecutor her, shouldn't have been able to bring charges. However, the appellate court ruled that the agreement was binding only on the region that made the deal, so South Florida, unless the agreement affirmatively showed that it was intended to bind multiple districts, which the appellate court said it didn't. So by refusing Maxwell's appeal, Maxwell's conviction will stand. Just as a quick heads up before we get to critical thinking, my rumor has its segment, as most of you know, is on Thursdays. So I know there have been a few topics that a lot of you want clarity on, like how much of Project 2025 has been completed by the administration and whether there's really going to be this new coin with President Trump's

base on it. So I want you to know that I'm saving those things for Thursday's episode. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your requests. I'm just waiting for the next rumor has it segment. Now to finish this episode, let's do some critical thinking. For those that are new to this segment, the segment is one I try to incorporate at the end of every episode. It's just a little exercise to get your brains going. It's meant to challenge your thoughts and opinions. It's it's meant to make you think a little bit, right? We're constantly being told how and what to think. I think it's important to remind ourselves that we're capable of thinking for ourselves.

So for today's segment, I want to revisit the potential Hatch Act violation. We went through the arguments on both sides of the legal debate. I want you to pick one of those arguments that doesn't align with how you feel. And I want you to elaborate on it. So I want you to build the argument as if you were the lawyer, representing that side. So for example, if you as you sit here right now listening to this podcast feel as if the administration's messaging does violate the hatch act, I want you to formulate an argument for why the messaging doesn't violate the hatch act. For those of you that don't see

a hatch act violation, I want you to build an argument for why the messaging does violate the hatch act. You're basically going to act as if you are the attorney for the side that you don't necessarily want to represent. Okay. And I want you to do your best to win the the case. So that's your critical thinking exercise for today. That is what I have for you. I hope that you have a great next few days and I will talk to you again on Thursday.