UNBIASED - What You Can ACTUALLY Expect Regarding Same-Sex Marriage at the Supreme Court, the Legality of Removing Homeless Encampments in D.C., the Review at the Smithsonian, and More.

Episode Date: August 14, 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: Trump Administration Informs Smithsonian of "Internal Comprehensive Review" (0:12) Appeals Court Allows Trump to Proceed With Freezing Congressionally Approved Foreign Aid (9:58) Trump Orders Homeless Individuals Off Streets in D.C. (13:15) Supreme Court Asked to Review Same-Sex Marriage; Here's EVERYTHING You Need to Know (20:10) Quick Hitters: Google's News Filter, ICE Applications Skyrocket, Zelle Sued, New Detention Facility in Florida, Mortgage Rates Fall (31:17) Rumor Has It: Are Republicans Really Pushing to Lower the Age of Consent for Marriage to 14? Did Pete Hegseth Say He Doesn't Think Women Should Have the Right Vote? (33:49) Critical Thinking Segment (46:05) 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

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, August 14th. Let's talk about some news. Starting with this internal review at the Smithsonian, this is something that many of you wrote into me about. You wanted some clarification. So let's do it. According to an official letter sent to the secretary of the Smithsonian Museum by the Trump administration, certain administration officials will lead what they're calling a comprehensive internal review of selected Smithsonian museums and exhibitions. According to the letter, the initiative aims to, quote, ensure alignment with the president's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions. end quote. Notably, this review follows a March executive order, which in part had accused the

Smithsonian of embracing a race-centered ideology that portrays American and Western values as harmful. So that executive order reads in part, quote, for example, the Smithsonian American Art Museum today features the shape of power, stories of race and American sculpture, an exhibit representing that societies including the United States have used race to establish and maintain systems of power, privilege, and disenfranchisement. The exhibit further claims that sculpture has been a powerful tool in promoting scientific racism and promotes the view that race is not a biological reality, but a social construct, stating, quote, race is a human invention, end quote. The order goes on to say that the National Museum of African

American history and culture has proclaimed that hard work, individualism, and the nuclear family are all aspects of white culture. And the forthcoming Smithsonian American Women's History Museum plans on celebrating the exploits of male athletes participating in women's sports. The order says these are just a few examples. So per that order, Vice President Vance, who happens to be a member of the Smithsonian's Board of Regents, as well as the director of the Office of Management and Budget, were tasked with ensuring that federal funds are not spent on exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with federal law and policy. They were also tasked

with ensuring that federal funds celebrate the achievements of women in the American Women's History Museum and do not recognize men as women in any respect in the museum. So this new internal review that we're hearing about follows that earlier executive order. Per the letter to the Smithsonian Secretary, this review will focus on five areas. One, public-facing content, a review of exhibition, text, wall didactics, websites, educational materials, and digital and social media content to assess tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals. Two, curatorial process. So that'll consist of a series of interviews with curators and senior staff to better understand

the selection process, exhibition approval workflows, and any frameworks currently guiding exhibition content. Three, exhibition planning, so a review of current and future exhibits with particular attention to those planned for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Four, collection use evaluating how existing materials and collections are being used or could be used to highlight American achievement and progress, including whether the Smithsonian can make better use of certain materials by digitizing or conveying to other institutions. And then five narrative standards, the development of consistent curatorial guidelines that reflect the Smithsonian's original mission. The first phase of this review will focus on eight Washington, D.C.

based museums. These include the National Museum of American History, National Museum of Natural History, Natural Museum of African American History and Culture, National Museum of the American Indian, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian American Art Museum, National Portrait Gallery, and the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. Additional museums will be reviewed in Phase 2. To assist in the review, each of the aforementioned museums are to submit the following to the administration within 30 days. exhibition plans, draft concepts, and event outlines related to America 250, supporting materials

such as proposed artwork, descriptive placards, exhibition catalogs, event themes, and lists of invited speakers and events, catalog and programs for all current and ongoing exhibitions, including budgets, digital files of all wall didactics, placards, and gallery labels currently on display, a full index of scheduled traveling expeditions, or not expeditions, exhibitions for years 26 to 2029, proposals, projected schedules, and preliminary budgets for upcoming exhibits over the next three years, curatorial and staff manuals, job descriptions and organizational charts, documentation outlining the chain of command for exhibition approvals, scheduling, and content review and internal communications or memos pertaining to exhibits or artwork selection

and approval processes. During these first 30 days, a team from the Trump administration will be conducting on-site observational visits to document themes, visitor experience, and visual messaging. Within 75 days, museums are to submit more documents, including but not limited to access to all inventory of all permanent holdings, teacher guides, student resources, and supplementary educational content linked to current exhibitions, a list of active partnerships with outside contributors, copies of grant applications and funding agreements tied to past or current exhibitions, surveys, and other evaluations of visitor experience, and more. During that time period, the team from the Trump administration,

will be scheduling and conducting voluntary interviews with curators and senior staff, which are meant to help the team, quote, better understand each museum's goals and the broader curatorial vision guiding the institution. End quote. Each museum is to finalize and submit its updated plan to commemorate America's 250th anniversary and ensure coordination with the White House salute to America 250 task force to messaging and public engagement. And then finally, within 120 days, museums should begin implementing content corrections where necessary, replacing divisive or ideologically driven

language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions across placards, wall didactics, digital displays, and other public-facing materials. The letter concludes, quote, if all benchmarks are met on schedule, we anticipate completing our review and preparing a final report for your review in early 2026. This report will include museum-specific assessments, institutional trends, and constructive recommendations for future exhibition strategy. We view this process as a collaborative and forward-looking opportunity, one that empowers museum staff to embrace a revitalized curatorial vision rooted in strength, breadth, and achievements of the American story. By focusing on Americanism, the people, principles, and progress that define our

nation, we can work together to renew the Smithsonian's role as the world's leading museum institution. End quote. As for the Smithsonian, it told outlets that it was currently reviewing the letter from the administration. However, just a couple of months ago, in light of Trump's March executive order that we talked about, the Smithsonian did issue a statement that read in part, quote, since its inception, the Smithsonian has set out to be a nonpartisan institution.

As the nation's museum, the Smithsonian must be a welcoming place of knowledge and discovery for all Americans. The Board of Regents is committed to ensuring that the Smithsonian is a beacon of scholarship free from political or partisan influence, and we recognize that our institution can and must do more to further these foundational values. To reinforce our nonpartisan stature, the Board of Regents has directed the Secretary to articulate specific expectations to museum directors and staff regarding content in Smithsonian museums, give directors reasonable time to make any needed changes to ensure unbiased content and to report back to the board on progress and any needed personnel changes based on success or lack thereof in making the needed changes.

The Board of Regents will continue its vigilant, independent oversight of the Smithsonian and its museums to protect their rigorous scholarship and expertise, non-partisanship, and accuracy, and ensure the Smithsonian is welcoming to all Americans. End quote. So that's what we know about the internal review at this point. point. I'm sure we'll have more to talk about in the next six months or so once some of the changes are implemented following the review. Next is an update on the foreign aid front. So a federal appeals court says the Trump administration can continue with its plans to end grants for foreign

aid. Importantly, though, this decision was not based on whether the funding cuts were constitutional or permissible. Instead, it was based on an issue called standing. We've talked about standing before, but just as a quick refresher, standing is the legal ability to sue. I cannot sue you if you have not harmed me in some way. I would not have standing to sue you. You cannot sue your spouse's employer because he or she was wrongfully terminated. Your spouse would have to sue. You would not have the standing to sue. And I guess I'll caveat that by saying you most likely wouldn't have the standing to sue. Typically, to show standing, you have to have suffered a real specific harm. that harm must have been clearly caused by the action you're suing over and a court decision has to

have the power to fix or remedy said harm. So in this case, Trump cut about $2 billion in foreign aid even though Congress had already approved it. Various organizations went ahead and sued the Trump administration arguing that these funding cuts were unconstitutional because only Congress has the constitutional power to decide how taxpayer money is spent. But the appeals court yesterday said, no, no, no, no, no, no. You guys don't have standing to sue. There's only one party that has standing to challenge these kinds of impoundment decisions. And that is the government accountability office. The government accountability office has the authority to challenge cuts made to funding already appropriated by Congress under a law called the impoundment control act of 1974. And just to be

clear here, impoundment is the term that refers to a president's either delaying or withholding funds that have already been approved by Congress. And that's obviously what's happening here. So under the impoundment control act, the GAO plays an important oversight role. Not only does the GAO review the impoundment and report to Congress if the president failed to report an impoundment as required by law, but the GAO also has the authority to bring a civil lawsuit when it comes to impoundment. Now, basically, the appeals court said, look, it doesn't matter how important the programs or aid might be. The impoundment control act tells us who has the right to challenge it, and that right belongs to the GAO and no one else. What's interesting, though, is that the court

below found the opposite. So the court below found that these organizations did have standing to sue because they suffered actual financial harm when the funds were frozen. The harm was directly caused by these funding cuts and a court ruling would remedy the situation. So we could see this case get appealed to the Supreme Court. That'll be up to the organizations to do. If that's the case, the justices will then decide whether to hear the case. We could potentially see it on the docket for their next term. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the homelessness situation going on in D.C., the Supreme Court being asked to overturn same-sex marriage, and more. Welcome back. As part of President Trump's plan to tackle crime

in Washington, D.C., he announced this week that the homeless population currently living on the streets of D.C. must leave, be taken to a shelter, accept addiction or mental health services, or otherwise face consequences like fines or jail time. The White House press secretary explained in a press conference on Tuesday, quote, homeless individuals will be given the option to leave their encampment to be taken to a homeless shelter, to be offered addiction or mental health services, and if they refuse, they will be susceptible to fines or jail time. And quote, Leavitt explained that the initiative comes as part of Trump's effort to make

D.C. safe and beautiful, saying, quote, while we are targeting criminals and trying to remove criminals off the streets, we also want to make D.C. safe and beautiful. And that move involves removing mentally disturbed individuals and homeless encampments as well. And quote, Trump similarly posted these plans on true social in his own post, which reads, quote, I'm going to make our capital safer and more beautiful than it ever was before. The homeless have to move out immediately. We will give you places to stay, but far from the capital. The criminals, you don't have to move out.

We're going to put you in jail where you belong. It's all going to happen very fast, just like the border. We went from millions pouring in to zero in the last. last few months. This will be easier. Be prepared. There will be no Mr. Nice Guy. We want our capital back. End quote. So just to give you some numbers first. And these numbers are according to a nonprofit called the Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness. There are currently about 798 people sleeping on the streets in D.C. on any given night. There are roughly 3,200 people in emergency shelters and another 1,000.

65 in transitional housing facilities. Those numbers make up the total homeless population in D.C. The city of D.C. has reported a 9% decrease in the number of people experiencing homelessness this year. That number includes all people in various types of housing as well as those on the streets. If you look at data charts provided by the Department of Housing and Urban development in 2024. Homelessness or homeless numbers in D.C. decreased between the years 2016 and 2022, but started to tick back up in 2023 and 2024. That chart has not been updated for 2025. Perhaps once it is, we'll see that 9% decrease reflected. Now let's talk about the legal basis. There are two local laws we have to talk about here, 22-307 and 24-100. DC Code 22-13-07,

reads in part, quote, it is unlawful for a person, alone or in concert with others, to crowd, obstruct, or in commode, the use of any street, avenue, alley, road, highway, or sidewalk, the entrance of any public or private building or enclosure, the use of or passage through any public building or public conveyance, or the passage through or within any park or reservation. And to continue or resume crowding, obstructing or incommoding after being instructed by law enforcement to cease the crowding, obstructing or incommoding. That section of the law is the most relevant to the removal of homeless individuals. The other section of the law deals more with demonstrating, which isn't really applicable here, unless, of course, a homeless individual is trying to persuade someone through demonstration where they're not allowed to be or they're protesting some action, attitude or belief that that's when they would fall under that demonstration subsection but really it's that first subsection i read that's applicable here those that violate 22 1307 are guilty

of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not more than 500 dollars imprisoned for not more than 90 days or both so under 22 1307 if a homeless person is obstructing or causing an inconvenience on any public street, sidewalk, alleyway, etc. A police officer can ask them to leave, and if they don't leave, or if they leave and come back, they can be charged with a misdemeanor under this local law and subsequently fined or jailed if convicted. Now, DC Municipal Regulation 24100 says, quote, occupation of public space beyond the extent permitted by existing law or regulation is hereby forbidden." End quote. That law allows the mayor to authorize permits for certain public spaces, but only when the use does not adversely affect the public interest or prevent

public endangerment, interfere with traffic, or increase the area of the public space that the applicant of the permit is authorized to use. Violators of that local law can be punished by a fine of up to $300, but there's no jail time for that. On a national level, when we we talk about homelessness, we actually just got a ruling from the Supreme Court. And that ruling deals with homeless encampments and what localities are allowed to do as far as punishments. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Grants Pass v. Johnson that cities can enforce criminal penalties and punishments against homeless individuals for encampments that are inside the cities without violating the Eighth Amendment, which is the cruel and unusual punishment,

provision of the Constitution. The court did raise the possibility that removing homeless people could violate other constitutional rights, like, you know, our right against unreasonable search and seizure, our right to equal protection under the law, possibly even the Americans with Disabilities Act, but that criminal punishments for homeless encampments do not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. Despite those aforementioned laws and Supreme Court precedent critics have expressed concern over the unprecedented nature of the move. D.C. Attorney General said, quote, the administration's actions are unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful. D.C.'s mayor similarly called the initiative, quote,

unsettling and unprecedented. Jesse Rabinowitz of the National Homelessness Law Center called the plan fascist and a waste of resources and argued that if the intent was safety, the better approach would be to invest in housing and support and not punish people. Other critics say that without details on where people will go or how they'll be transported, plus the absence of viable shelter options, the plan appears more like a political stunt than a real solution. Supporters of the plan, on the other hand, they argue that law enforcement hasn't been enforcing the laws that have been on the books and that enforcement is necessary to clean up the streets of the nation's capital and make it a safer and more beautiful place. All right, now we're going to talk about same-sex marriage.

I featured this story as a quick hitter in Monday's episode, but I have since received a ton of request to talk about it. So I figured I would dive a bit deeper in today's episode. I have seen some creators on social media, fearmongering like crazy, saying that the Supreme Court is going to overturn same-sex marriage. And I'll quote this. This is a text overlay on a creator's video. It says gay marriage equality to be struck down. Okay. That video has three million views. Three million views. Now, that's crazy. And I'll tell you why. We don't know. if gay marriage equality is going to be struck down. Could it be? Maybe. Could it not be? Maybe. But the Supreme Court hasn't even agreed to hear the case yet. So for this creator to say that

gay marriage equality is going to be struck down is just absolutely unprofessional journalism. It's wrong. This is someone that has a million followers on Instagram, another three and a half million on TikTok. And it's just wild to me. So you want the truth. Here's the truth. A woman has gone to the Supreme Court asking the justices to overturn gay marriage. I'll tell you the backstory. This woman, her name is Kim Davis. She was a Kentucky County clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Now, Obergefell is the case that said same-sex couples have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. The same-sex couple that was denied a marriage license ended up suing Davis for damages. And they won in 2020.

a jury awarded them $50,000 each. Davis appealed that ruling to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. She argued that she should not be held liable for damages because issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple would have violated her right to freely exercise her religion. On appeal, the court said, no, no, no, no, no, you are acting as a state actor here because you are issuing marriage licenses for the state. So you don't get to claim a constitutional violation. You're protected by the Constitution. in the First Amendment as a private citizen, but when you're acting on behalf of the government, you're not afforded the same protection. The appellate court wrote in its ruling, quote, the bill of rights would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official's conscience so dictates. End quote. So last month, Davis decided she's going to take this to the

Supreme Court. She asked the justices in her petition to not only review the Sixth Circuit's decision that she's not protected by the First Amendment as a state actor, but, also to overrule their decision in Obergefell. She argues that the right to same-sex marriage has no basis in the Constitution. Now, when Davis went to the Supreme Court, the same-sex couple had two options, okay? They could either file a response to Davis's petition or they could waive their right to respond. And there are a few reasons why one might waive their right to respond. It's not something a party has to disclose, but a party might choose to waive their right because they find the case to be meritless. Maybe it's because of financial reasons, whatever it might be. In this case,

that is what the couple did. They waived their right to respond. When a party does this, the Supreme Court typically does one of two things. It either denies review of the case based solely on the petition that was filed by the petitioner, or it directs the party that waived the right to respond to now file a response. The justices can grant review of a case without request a response from the other party, but that rarely happens. So last Thursday, the justices went ahead and directed the couple to file a response by September 8th. It's worth noting the couple has requested an extension until October 8th. But once the couple files their response, that's when the justices will decide whether they are going to hear this case. They typically

look at a few factors when making their decision. The main factor is usually whether there's a circuit split. So whether the appellate courts are currently split on the question that the Supreme Court is being asked to decide, to take up the case, they need at least four justices wanting to do so. Now, we probably won't know until October, maybe even a bit later, whether the Supreme Court is going to hear this case. And keep in mind, even if the court agrees to hear this case, they don't have to answer all three of Davis's questions. Davis presented three questions to the court. Number one, whether the First Amendment free exercise clause provides an affirmative defense to liability in the same way that the free speech clause does. Two, whether a

government official sued in her individual capacity is entitled to assert personal First Amendment defenses. And three, whether Obregafel should be overturned. The court does not have to answer all three questions. It can agree to only answer one. Maybe it agrees to answer two. It could agree to answer all three. It just doesn't have to. So that's another thing that we'll have to be on the lookout for. But let's talk about what we can expect if the justices do decide to take up the case, because a lot of people are saying, well, Roe versus Wade was overturned, so Obergefell is next. What I'm going to do here is first tell you how Obergefell and Roe are similar yet different and therefore makes Obergefell less susceptible to being overturned. And then I'll tell you a

hypothetical scenario in which Obergafel could be overturned. So we'll talk about both possibilities. When Roe v. Wade was overturned, Justice Thomas, the most conservative justice on the bench, wrote a concurring opinion. And he said that based on the rationale that they used to overturn Roe, they should also consider overturning other similarly decided cases like Obergafel. Obergafel and Roe were both decided based on our right to privacy. But here's the thing. Obergefell has a stronger foundation. And here's why. Roe was based solely on our right to privacy. Okay. Basically, the court held that the decision to terminate a pregnancy fell within this constitutional zone of privacy that had been established by earlier cases. Obergefell was based on, yes, our right to privacy, but also equal protection.

The court said that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty and that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples, violated equal protection because it treated them differently without adequate justification. And just to kind of illustrate the difference there, even Justice Ginsburg, who was a major advocate for abortion rights, felt very passionately that the right to privacy argument was not a strong argument and that it left the cases that were based upon it susceptible to being overturned in the future. Ginsburg wished that Roe had been decided on an equal protection basis because she felt that if it was, it wouldn't be overturned in the future. The equal protection ground is much more solid.

The thing is, the right to privacy is not explicitly in the Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause is. So the right to privacy is more susceptible to being overturned than the equal protection, than cases that are based upon the Equal Protection Clause, okay? Obergefell's dual foundation, privacy and liberty plus equal protection, likely makes it legally more fortified than Roe was. Now, that's not to say that Obergefell couldn't be overturned. Okay, I want to be clear on that. That's just to say that if it were overturned, it would require a bigger overhaul of legal reasoning and it would cause far greater legal disruption than

overturning Roe did. Roe and Obergefell aren't necessarily apples to act. apples. So now I want to talk about how Obergefell could be overturned. For starters, at least five justices would need to agree that like Roe, Obergefell's privacy, liberty reasoning was wrongly decided, right? That the Constitution doesn't actually mention marriage. So it's not actually a deeply rooted right in U.S. history, just like the court decided abortion wasn't a deeply rooted right in U.S. history. In Dobbs, which is the case that overturned Roe v. Wade, the court set forth a test which says only rights that have long been recognized in history and tradition count as fundamental rights. Applying that test to the same-sex marriage case

could possibly erase the right to marry for same-sex couples because same-sex marriage is not a deeply rooted right in U.S. history. But still, the court has to address the equal protection issue. If heterosexual couples have a deeply rooted right to marry in the U.S., how do you deny that same right to same-sex couples? Well, perhaps, okay, hypothetically, a majority of justices interpret the Equal Protection Clause in a way that says marriage bans aren't discriminatory as long as they apply equally to men and women. In other words, men can only marry women, women can only marry men. This technically treats both genders the same, so it's not sex discrimination. This rationale would effectively sidestep the equal protection rationale in Obergefell.

And also, the justices could emphasize that regulating marriage has traditionally been a state power, not a federal one, right, because marriage laws differ from state to state, so defining marriage maybe should be left to the states. That path is potentially how we could see Obergefell get overturned. But hopefully that answers a lot of your questions. There's a lot that we have to wait and see about here. Will the court even take up the case? If it does, will the court answer all three questions presented? And if it does agree to answer all three questions presented, will the court ultimately overturn or uphold Obergefell? What kind of votes does it have? There are three justices that are still on the bench that dissented in Obergefell, meaning they voted against the right same-sex marriage.

and those are Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito. Now, Justice Gorsuch, if I had to put him somewhere on the, you know, if I had to guess what his vote would be, he would side against same-sex marriage, okay? So that would mean that either that Justice Barrett or Justice Kavanaugh would also have to side against same-sex marriage. Justice's Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan are definitely voting to uphold same-sex marriage. that's not even a question. So it's really going to come down to Justice Barrett and Justice Kavanaugh, which tend to be the swing votes anyway. But that's what we're looking at as far as court makeup and what we can expect there from the justices. I just want to remind you, don't fall into the fear-mongering traps out there. Always remember that I will keep it real with you. Okay. That's what,

that's what this podcast is for. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll do quick hitters, rumor has it, and critical thinking. The new Bimo, V.I. Porter, Master is your ticket to more, more perks, more points, more flights, more of all the things you want in a travel rewards card, and then some. Get your ticket to more with the new BMO ViPorter MasterCard and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months. Terms and conditions apply. Visit BMO.com slash ViPorter to learn more. Welcome back. Let's do some quick hitters. Google introduced the feature called Preferred Sources, which allows users in the U.S. and India to pick their favorite news websites so that those outlets appear more often in the top stories section

of a user's Google search. Selected sources will not only show up more prominently, but may also be grouped under a new From Your Sources section. And the reason I chose this quick hitter is because I think it poses some interesting critical thinking questions. So we're going to return to it at the end of this episode when we do the critical thinking segment. The DHS says it's received more than 100,000 applications for 10,000 new ICE officer roles after offering various incentives and relaxed requirements. To incentivize applicants, ICE is offering up to $50,000 signing bonuses and up to $60,000 in student loan repayment. Ice also removed age and education limits with applicants no longer needing an undergraduate degree or having to be under a certain age.

The funding for this hiring push comes from the recent One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which allocated $30 billion to ICE specifically for hiring funds. New York's Attorney General Letitia James has filed a lawsuit against the parent company of Zell, alleging that the platform's weak security features enabled more than $1 billion in consumer fraud between 2017 and 2023. According to the suit, Zell's design allowed scammers to impersonate trusted entities and exploit users' trust. while the company delayed implementing known safeguards and failed to help victims. James is seeking restitution, damages, and stronger fraud protections. Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, announced the opening of a second state-run immigration detention center, this one called Deportation Depot. This is at the Baker Correctional Institution in northern Florida.

The facility initially accommodating more than 1,300 detainees, but is expandable to around 2,000 with temporary dorms, is aimed at easing. Overflow at Alligator Alcatraz. And the average U.S. rate on a 30-year mortgage dropped to 6.58% hitting its lowest level since October 24. One year ago, the rate averaged 6.49%. Borrowing costs on 15-year fixed-rate mortgages also fell. The average rate dropped to 5.71% from 5.75% last week. A year ago, it was 5.66%. And now it's time for rumor has it, which is my weekly segment where I address recent rumors submitted by all of you and either confirm them, dispel them, and or add

context. This first one consists of a few rumors in one. So a lot of you sent me this post by the same creator that made the viral same-sex marriage post and asked me if her claims in her video were true. In this particular video, she makes a few claims. Number one, that Trump and Republicans are proposing legislation to hold 14-year-olds accountable for adult offenses and to consider anyone older than 14 an adult for purposes of marriage and how they would be treated for sex crimes. She also claims that Wyoming, West Virginia, Missouri, and New Hampshire, all mostly Republican states, have rewritten laws that allow children to get married. She claims that these state laws invalidate the age gaps for sex crimes. And finally, she claims that the Utah

state Senate president rewrote a law to get his 18-year-old nephew a lesser charge for rape. So basically, this creator is attempting to illustrate this larger plan by Republicans across the country to lower the age of consent for marriage and sex crimes. And she says they're doing this by putting up a facade that teenagers are responsible for a lot of the crime that's being committed across the country and they need to be held accountable as adults for their actions. The White House addressed these rumors as fake and the GOP National Press Secretary. said, quote, this smear is a blatant lie pushed by far left media propagandists. No state in the U.S.

allows 14-year-olds to marry adults. And the false claim that Republicans are trying to change that has zero basis in fact. End quote. So what I want to do is I want to take one claim at a time, starting with whether Trump and Republicans are proposing legislation to hold 14-year-olds accountable for adult offenses. This is true. Let's add some context. Trump recently posted a true social quote, the law in D.C. must be changed to prosecute these minors as adults and lock them up for a long time starting at age 14. And quote, last Friday, a House Republican introduced a bill called the D.C. criminal reforms to immediately make everyone's safe act, also known as the D.C. Crimes Act. A similar bill was introduced in March of last year. It passed the House. It failed to

pass the Senate before the end of the congressional session. That meant the bill automatically died. This proposed bill would limit youth offender status in D.C. to individuals 18 or younger. Currently, youth is defined as individuals 24 or younger under the Youth Rehabilitation Act of 1985. Now, the portion of the bill that's triggering discussion about 14-year-olds is this provision that removes judicial discretion to allow youth offenders to be sentenced below the mandatory minimum for a crime. A mandatory minimum is, of course, the lowest sentence that the court is required to give a person convicted of a crime. Crimes that commonly have mandatory minimums include drug offenses, firearm offenses, and sex crimes. So if this bill passes as it's written, it would mean that it doesn't matter the age of the youth offender, whether 14 or 18. They would face the same mandatory minimum sentence for a crime as an adult offender would.

A judge couldn't reduce the sentence based on age. The exceptions here are mandatory life without parole sentences and certain other sentences that can't apply to minors. Also, there are currently some exceptions for when a minor can be charged as an adult already. For example, if a minor between the ages of 15 and 17 commits certain violent crimes, the office of the attorney general can transfer them to the adult system based on the seriousness of the crime. Now, when we talk about sex crimes specifically, what this would mean is that no matter an individual's age, even if that person were 14 years old. There would be no judicial discretion to sentence minors to a lesser

sentence than whatever the mandatory minimum is for that sex crime. So that's potentially what this creator is referring to when she says Trump and Republicans are trying to change how 14-year-olds would be treated for sex crimes. Her next claim is that the proposed legislation would consider anyone 14 and older in adult for purposes of marriage. This is false. There is no confirmation anywhere on the internet of any legislation. seeking to lower the age of consent for purposes of marriage to 14 years old. So how about in the states? Have Wyoming, West Virginia, Missouri, and New Hampshire rewritten laws that allow children

to get married and do those laws invalidate the age gaps for sex crimes as this creator claims? This is also false. A fact check by Snopes, which is a fact checking platform, found no documentation of any state governments, including the four aforementioned states, drafting any legislation to lower the age of consent to 14 years old. On the contrary, the aforementioned states have all either prohibited or tightened restrictions on marriage for anyone under the age of 18. For example, last month, Missouri enacted a law which raised the legal marriage age to 18 without exception. In 2024, New Hampshire raised the legal marriage age to 18 with no exception.

In 2023, West Virginia prohibited marriage under the age of 16 and allowed 6. and 17-year-olds to marry only with parental consent, provided that the spouse is not more than four years older. And in 2023, Wyoming set a minimum marriage age of 16 as long as there is both parental consent and judicial approval for minors aged 16 or 17 to marry. And if you're wondering, if there are any states that allow marriages at any age, those would be California, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Mississippi, which currently don't have any statutory minimum age, meaning with parental consent and judicial approval, marriages can happen at any age. Now, the creator claims if you can get married at 14 years old, any sort of age difference

between you and your spouse that would have been considered a sex crime is no longer considered a sex crime. It's important to note that age of consent laws are separate from marriage laws. This means that any changes to state marriage laws do not have. have a direct impact on age of consent laws. Now, this can become more nuanced in states where the legal marriage age is lower than the age of consent because in these states, marriage laws create a legal exemption that overrides age of consent restrictions for that specific marriage.

In other words, the court interprets marital consent as satisfying sexual consent requirements. But the only state referenced that would be impacted by this legal exemption is Wyoming, where there's a minimum marriage age of 16 and the age of consent is 18. Finally, the last claim we have to address from this viral post is, did the Utah state Senate president rewrite a law to get his 18-year-old nephew a lesser charge for rape? We need to add quite a bit of context to this one. According to a Newsweek report, Senate President Jay Stewart Adams allegedly told his colleagues in the legislature that they should review a bill that could change how his 18-year-old

relative was treated under the law. A new bill was ultimately passed in 2024, and according to a Newsweek report, Adams' relative avoided additional jail time as a result of this law changing. Adams has denied the allegations that he changed the law for the interest of his relative and told local news, quote, some have suggested this change was made to benefit the case I was made aware of involving the high school senior. That is simply not true. While the sponsor of the bill was aware of the case, I did not request the legislation and did not intervene or give input on the drafting of the bill. And quote, just to give some more context here, an 18 year old was charged with child rape and child sodomy after having sex with a 13 year old. We do not currently have

confirmation that the 18 year old is related to the Utah Senate president. However, here's what happened to the law prior to the 24 amendment in a situation where an 18 year old had sex with a 13 year old. That 18-year-old would have faced a child rape charge, which is a first-degree felony that requires the perpetrator to register as a sex offender and could have received a prison sentence anywhere from six years to life. A 17-year-old who committed the same-sex crime would have received a third-degree charge of unlawful sexual activity, which is a much lesser offense. And so what happened is the new law extended that provision for 17-year-olds to 18-year-olds so long as the 18-year-old is still in high. high school. If the 18 year old is out of high school, doesn't apply. It's important to note that this new law actually did not prevent this 18 year old charges because he was charged prior to the new law taking effect and the new law doesn't apply retroactively. What the new law did for the 18

year old is it improved his plea deal because it caused the government to change their offer. So at the end of the day, the 18-year-old spent a week in prison. He was charged with child rape and sodomy, but he did not receive any additional jail time and he didn't have to register as a sex offender. So that's what we know about the Utah State Senator changing a law for the benefit of a supposed relative. Like I said, there's just some context that we need to add to that claim. And just to close the loop on this entire story, Snopes, which as I said is a reputable fact-checking platform, contacted this creator that I've been referencing throughout this episode that's been spreading these claims, also contacted another creator that's spreading similar claims,

and asked them both for evidence to back up their claims. Snopes said that it would update the story if it received more information from either of those creators, but so far the story has not been updated, which means they have not received the evidence that would back up these claims. Rumor has it that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth believes women shouldn't have the right to vote. This needs context. So CNN did a segment on the head of Christ Church's crusade for Christian domination in the age of Trump. That's what the segment was called. In the segment, a CNN journalist had conversations with various individuals, but two men in particular spoke about voting rights. One of the men is the executive pastor at Christ Church. The other is a senior pastor

at a different church, Kings Cross Church. Here's how the dialogue went. The senior pastor for Kings Cross Church says, quote, in my ideal society, we would vote as households, and I would ordinarily be the one that would cast the vote, but I would cast the vote having discussed it with my household. The reporter then asks, but what if your wife doesn't want to vote for the same person as you? And he replies, right, well, then that's a great opportunity for good discussion. The reporter then said to the two men, there are some who have gone so far as to say that they want the 19th amendment repealed. The executive pastor at Christ Church replied, quote, I would support that, and I'd support it on the basis that the atomization that comes with our current system is not

good for humans, end quote. That conversation that was featured in the segment took about 35 seconds of the seven minute clip. The rest of the segment discussed views on Christianity in the nation, women and women, women and equality between men and women, why people have joined this church, and more. So Hegeseth went ahead and shared that seven-minute CNN segment to X, and he wrote with it, quote, All of Christ for All of Life. And that is part of the Christ Church's motto. This share by Hegset has led people to assume that Hegset endorses the various statements made in that CNN segment by the people that are affiliated with this church, including the comments about the 19th Amendment and the man voting for the household. Notably, Hexeth has not said whether he supports either of those things.

Joe Rigny, an associate pastor for the church, said in an email about the claims that while Hegzeth and his family had attended a few services at the church in the last month, they were not aware of his views on women's suffrage, nor did the church expect its parishioners to agree on every one of its doctrinal beliefs. Rigney also added that Hegseth had not become a member of Christ Church. Okay, so that's the rumor has its segment today. Let's finish this episode with some critical thinking. Again, the critical thinking segment is not meant to be too complex. It's not meant to stump you. It's just to get you thinking deeper about a particular issue or story and to challenge your own views and beliefs a little bit. I want to revisit that story about

Google letting users set their own news preferences. I know this is a little bit different than what we typically do with critical thinking. Usually we tie it back to a political story, but I don't know. I figure this is so relevant to what I do with unbiased news that let's ask some questions. There are a couple of obvious effects with a feature like this, right? On one hand, letting people choose their preferred sources could make the news they seem more relevant. relevant and engaging. On the other hand, it might reinforce existing biases and limit exposure to differing viewpoints. This is what we call an echo chamber. My question for you is, which effect you think will be stronger and why? And then, does offering preferred sources relieve

Google of a duty, let's just say, let's assume the duty exists, of a duty to ensure balanced news coverage or does it actually increase their responsibility since it's guiding what shows up first for certain users? And as always, ask yourself why. That's what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. Have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.