UNBIASED Politics (6/12/25): Here's What To Know About the LA Protests, Riots, and Raids. PLUS Trump to Phase Out FEMA, Kennedy Removes ACIP Members, and More.
01:06:22 Share

I'm not switching my team to some fancy work platform that somehow knows exactly how we work. And its AI features are literally saving us hours every day. We're big fans. And just like that, teams all around the world are falling for Monday.com. With intuitive design, seamless AI capabilities, and custom workflows, it's the work platform your team will instantly click with. Head to Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use.

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis.

Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, June 12th. Let's talk about some news. Before we do, though, I do have one favor to ask you. So a few times during the year, I ask you this one favor. Usually, you know, when I put out a really informative episode, that's when I ask. But the favor is that you share this episode with at least one friend or family member. If you can share it with more people, great. Obviously, the more the better. But even if

each of you just shared it with one person, it would make an enormously positive impact, not only on the show, but also on those that you love, because we need to get as many people as possible listening to unbiased, nonpartisan news sources so that we are all as informed as we can be. There's a lot going on across the country right now, and this is just one of those episodes that

I'm going to give you a ton of information that you're not necessarily going to get anywhere else, let alone in under an hour. So please, either now or when you're done listening, I would really appreciate it if you shared today's episode with at least one friend or family member. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Starting with an LA update. So two-thirds of this episode is going to be about...

what's going on in LA. I would say one third is just kind of a timeline and an update of what we've seen in the last week. And then the second third is going to be that Q&A. And then the last third, we'll talk about some other news that's totally non-immigration related.

So starting with this L.A. update on Monday, I did give you a brief rundown of what we saw take place in L.A. last weekend. But my main focus in that episode was really on President Trump's deployment of the National Guard and the legalities of that.

So today I want to focus on the events that have taken place in L.A. over the course of the last week or so and tell you what's true and what's not, because I know there's a lot of conflicting information out there about the sequence of events, whether the violence started before the National Guard was deployed, etc., etc. So how I would like to do this is I'll give you sort of a timeline of what we have seen take place.

place and then we'll do a Q&A where I'll answer some of your more specific questions about ICE, the deportation efforts, the raids, all those things.

So last Friday, ICE agents carried out a raid at a Home Depot and at a clothing manufacturing site both near downtown LA. Reports say that at the Home Depot raid, the day laborers, the migrants that were there, started running. Someone started yelling ICE. They started running. And then the ICE agents started running after people in the parking lot. I mean, actually, just so that I'm totally clear on that, I do believe it was Homeland Security agents

I just don't want to give you any false information, but either way, law enforcement, immigration officials were running after them. Meanwhile, aerial footage taken by a local outlet in L.A. shows Homeland Security agents specifically at a clothing manufacturing site loading two white vans with people in handcuffs.

There was a small crowd outside of that facility who unsuccessfully tried to stop the vans from driving away. One person was seen lying in the road at one point in the path of those cars trying to stop them. So this was around 3 p.m. local time on Friday. Between the raid at Home Depot and the raid at the clothing manufacturing site, more than 40 migrants were arrested.

Hours later, that same night, so Friday night, a bigger crowd gathered outside of a federal building complex downtown. And this is where that detention facility is, as well as the federal courthouse.

The group specifically gathered there because there were news reports that migrants were being detained in the basement of that detention center. According to outlets like CBS News, who heard from some of the attorneys that represent these undocumented immigrants, many of them were taken into custody when they appeared for their check-in appointments, and then they were brought to the basement and held there in these rooms that can reportedly fit up to 30 people at one time.

One attorney told CBS that a couple and their two children, one of those children is a U.S. citizen, spent the night in a room with no beds and limited access to food and water. The father of that family had previously been issued a stay of removal, which prohibits him from being deported, but he and his family were detained anyway.

As of last Friday, he was still being detained, but his wife and two kids were released last Wednesday because the wife needed medical attention due to a high-risk pregnancy. So amid stories like that one, people started gathering outside of this detention facility. Video footage shows these protesters vandalizing the building, heckling police, throwing bottles and other objects at the officers who were using shields to protect themselves.

At this point, police in riot gear are seen confronting protesters with batons and what appears to be tear gas launchers. Sometime around 6.30 that night, federal authorities had asked the LAPD to assist them, and the LAPD says it arrived about an hour later. It said its response time was delayed due to traffic, demonstrators, and by the fact that federal agents had deployed irritants into the crowd prior to their arrival.

Notably, the DHS said that the LAPD's response time was closer to two hours, not one, and that ICE had requested assistance multiple times before the LAPD eventually arrived. At around 7 p.m. local time on Friday, the LAPD declared the area around the courthouse in downtown LA an unlawful assembly area, meaning people could not assemble there, and if they did, they would be arrested.

Saturday morning around 10.15, the L.A. Sheriff's Department gets a report that there's a large crowd gathering in Paramount, California, which is a small suburb of L.A. Apparently, people thought that ICE was preparing to conduct another raid, this time at the Paramount Home Depot location. And the reason they thought this was because federal law enforcement officers were outside of that Home Depot location already.

around 9:30 that morning. However, LA's mayor says that there were no ICE raids in Paramount or anywhere else in LA County on Saturday and that federal law enforcement were only present in that area because they were staging at an office.

Deputies ordered the crowd to leave and fired tear gas and flashbangs when people refused to leave. Around that same time, another protest broke out in Compton. In Compton, there were reports of vandalism and a car being set on fire. Then around 6 p.m. that night, so we're still talking about Saturday, this is when Trump signed that presidential memo that authorized the deployment of 2,000 National Guard members to L.A.,

LA's mayor and California's governor both immediately objected to it and said that the deployment would only increase tensions. Now, until recently, within the last day or two, it was unclear whether President Trump and Governor Newsom had talked before the National Guard was deployed. And Trump has since shared a screenshot of his phone call with Governor Newsom, which lasted about 16 minutes and took place at 1.23 a.m. on June 7th.

Keep in mind that despite authorizing the deployment Saturday night and, you know, the country finding out about the deployment Saturday night, the first National Guard troops did not arrive in the L.A. area until Sunday early morning around 4 a.m.,

Throughout the night, though, people had gathered at the downtown federal buildings where they were throwing fireworks, rocks, glass bottles, and other objects at police. In response, police fired what are called less lethal projectiles and flashbangs. So less lethal projectiles are projectiles that are meant to cause injury but not death. These could be things like rubber bullets, beanbag rounds, plastic rounds, pepper balls, etc.,

So that's happening on Saturday night, hours after Trump signs the National Guard order. And I should also say that I just talked about the fact that, you know, Trump showed that phone call with Governor Newsom.

And despite the phone call, Governor Newsom has said that he told or he I don't know if he says he's told the president, but he has adamantly denied that he wants or needs National Guard. So in Monday's episode, I talked a lot about the legalities of that when the governor does not consent to.

to the National Guard deployment because it's one thing to have a phone conversation. It's another thing if Governor Newsom said he didn't want it, it kind of turns into a different story. When a governor requests the National Guard, then it's permissible. But if a governor doesn't, that's when you start to get into the legal gray area, which I did cover in a ton of detail on Monday.

Okay, so we are now in the timeline where we're Sunday early morning. So Sunday early morning is when the National Guard troops get there and they take their position at the federal building in downtown LA. And on Sunday, that's when things start to get a little more violent. So people had marched onto the 101 freeway. Two LAPD officers were hurt by motorcyclists that were driving where they weren't supposed to. People on the overpass were throwing things onto the officers that were on the highway below. They were throwing things onto the officers' cars.

And the LAPD chief said that people were shooting commercial grade fireworks at the officers. This is also the same day that that Australian journalist was hit with a rubber bullet outside the detention center in downtown LA. You may have seen that now by viral video. She's fine. Her crew is fine. But that's when that happened.

Sunday night is when Governor Newsom formally requested that Trump withdraw the deployment of troops. And around midnight that night is when the LAPD declared all of downtown L.A. an unlawful assembly area. Keep in mind that the city of L.A. is about 502 square miles. It is very big. The area that was declared an unlawful assembly area was specifically downtown L.A. It takes up just under five square miles. So a very, very small portion of L.A.,

Despite this unlawful assembly order, people lit fires in dumpsters and trash cans. They were looting storefronts, vandalizing buildings with graffiti. They graffitied the LAPD headquarters, the downtown federal courthouse. So people were arrested at this point. On Monday, the military confirmed that it was sending in 700 Marines and another 2,100 National Guard troops.

though only the National Guard troops were on the ground as of today. The Marines were still undergoing training as of this morning, and it was not clear when they would actually be deployed or if they would actually be deployed on the ground.

Nonetheless, the Pentagon has said that the deployment of the Marines and the National Guard troops would cost around $134 million. Some other things that happened on Monday besides more National Guard troops coming in and the Marines being ordered in, California's attorney general announced that he filed a lawsuit against the administration for its initial unlawful deployment of troops.

LA's mayor announced that on Monday alone, 23 downtown businesses were looted, and in response, she declared a local emergency and imposed an 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew for a one-square-mile area of downtown LA.

That night, around 7.30 p.m., so about a half hour before that curfew was supposed to take effect, the crowd was continuing to throw objects at the National Guard troops and the police who were stationed outside this federal complex in L.A. Around 9 p.m., which would have been an hour after that curfew took effect, the LAPD said mass arrests were being initiated due to people failing to abide by the curfew.

On Tuesday alone, we know that 197 people were arrested downtown, which brought the total arrested since Friday to more than 450.

Tuesday night, Governor Newsom addressed the nation with a nine-minute speech. He said in part, quote,

End quote.

So let's talk a little bit about that lawsuit filed by California's attorney general. It alleges that the administration unlawfully invoked Title 10 to federalize California's National Guard without the governor's consent or a proper legal basis. And again, if you have not listened to Monday's episode, that'll give you a lot of context for this part of the story. The lawsuit says that Title 10 does allow the president to call up National Guard troops in limited situations.

like when there's an insurrection, rebellion, or when enforcement of federal law becomes impossible with regular forces, but only through the appropriate channels and under extraordinary circumstances. California argues that none of those criteria were met in this case and that the president sidestepped statutory requirements by acting unilaterally absent any formal declaration of an insurrection under the Insurrection Act.

The lawsuit further argues that the administration mischaracterized peaceful protests as violent up uprisings to justify the deployment and in doing so violated the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which protects the state's rights to command their own militias.

and unlawfully usurped the governor's authority over state military forces. The lawsuit frames the deployment as an unlawful, dangerous misuse of federal power that threatens both civil liberties and constitutional norms and accuses the administration of creating a manufactured crisis by exaggerating the scope and severity of protests in L.A., most of which the state says had remained peaceful or had been effectively managed by local authorities.

Now, in filing this lawsuit, California requested an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to immediately block further deployments of federalized troops and to ban federal use of active duty military personnel, specifically the Marines.

for any domestic law enforcement purposes within California. So it didn't necessarily ask that the guard be stopped from protecting the safety of federal buildings or property, but rather to prohibit the guard from enforcing federal immigration laws.

Keep in mind, as we talked about on Monday, the military, including the National Guard, cannot carry out the law unless the Insurrection Act is invoked, which has not been invoked here. The only thing the National Guard or the Marines can do is support law enforcement on the ground like the LAPD.

If that emergency request would have been granted, the California National Guard would have been placed under the full authority of Governor Newsom, meaning Newsom could have directed the troops to leave. He could have directed the troops to say whatever he wanted. But the federal government...

would no longer have any say and could not deploy any additional federal forces. However, the court denied the state's request for immediate intervention and gave the administration until 2:00 PM yesterday to file its response ahead of today's hearing. That hearing kicked off around 4:00 PM Eastern time today. So there will likely be an update by the time this episode is out, maybe even tomorrow. But as of right now, as of the time I'm recording, we do not have a decision from the judge.

And then the last and final update I have for you is that today, while DHS Secretary Noem was holding a press conference in L.A., Senator Alex Padilla of California interrupted her with questions and was taken out of the room by her security detail and handcuffed. So from the video that's available to us, you can hear you can see her.

and hear her talking. And then you can kind of hear someone else trying to talk above her, which is presumably Senator Padilla. It's hard to make out his initial words, but then you can hear him say, I'm Senator Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary. And this is as he's getting pushed out of the room by security and he's eventually handcuffed.

After the press conference, Noem said, quote, when I leave here, I'll find him and visit and find out what his concerns really were. I think everybody in America would agree that this wasn't appropriate, that if you wanted to have a civil discussion, especially as a leader, a public official, that you would reach out and try to have a conversation. For instance, I have left voicemails for Governor Newsom wanting to have a conversation. Has he returned them? No, he hasn't.

End quote. As for Padilla, he said at his own press conference, quote, At one point I had a question, and let me emphasize, just emphasize, the right for people to peacefully protest and to stand up for their First Amendment rights, for our fundamental rights. I was there peacefully. At one point I had a question, and so I began to ask a question. I was almost immediately forcibly removed from the room. I was forced to the ground, and I was handcuffed.

I will say this. If this is how the administration responds to a senator with a question, I can only imagine what they're doing to farm workers and what they're doing to farm workers, to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community and throughout California and throughout the country. End quote. It was unclear at the time that I finalized this episode whether Noam and Padilla had spoken to one another, but that is where things stand as of today.

Let's take a quick break here. When I come back, I'll answer some more of your specific questions about ICE, the deportation efforts, the raids, all of those things.

I'm just going to be so straight up right now and say I love ZocDoc. ZocDoc is a sponsor of today's show, and what they are doing is seriously changing the game in the medical world. So you know how most of us humans will come up with any excuse to not go to the doctor? We'll say, you know, we're too busy, we can't fit it into our schedule, or, oh, it'll go away, not that big of a deal, or we can't find a doctor, let alone a good doctor, or, you know, we can't find a good doctor.

or a doctor that takes our insurance. There's just so many reasons to not go to the doctor, but it shouldn't be like that. We should be going to the doctor, right? And ZocDoc is making that easy. ZocDoc literally takes away every excuse. ZocDoc is a free app and website where you can search and compare high quality in-network doctors and click to instantly book an appointment. And I mean booking in-network appointments with more than 100,000 doctors across every specialty, from mental health,

to dental health, primary care, to urgent care, everything. The filters I love most are the in-network search and the verified patient ratings because it's most important to me to find a highly rated doctor and someone who's in my network, and ZocDoc just makes it super easy to do that. Stop putting off those doctor's appointments and go to ZocDoc.com slash unbiased to find and instantly book a top-rated doctor today. That's Z-O-C-D-O-C dot com slash unbiased.

ZocDoc.com slash unbiased. This episode is brought to you by Redfin. One of my favorite things to do, seriously, since I was like eight years old, is look at homes and apartments that are for sale or for rent around the country just for fun. In fact, just last week, I was looking at homes outside of Nashville, Tennessee, and

and apartments in Austin, Texas. Why? Because it's fun and I just choose random locations. I love seeing what new apartment buildings look like, how they're being designed, what amenities they have nowadays because these amenities are getting out of control. And then for houses, I personally love finding houses that have architectural character, a ton of bedrooms, a big yard, maybe even a hidden slide that takes you down to the basement, you know,

All the things I have dreamed about having since I was a kid. The Redfin app makes it fun to search for homes and apartments in your neighborhood and beyond. And if you're not just daydreaming like me, but you find a place that you love, Redfin makes it easy to go see it in person. Just schedule a tour right from the app.

Plus, if you're looking to sell, Redfin agents know how to get you the best price possible for your home. That's because they close twice as many deals as other agents. And with a listing fee as low as 1%, Redfin's fees are half of what others often charge, which means that you'll have more money to put towards your next home. Download the Redfin app to get started.

Welcome back. Now for a little Q&A, let's start with a broad question, which is what is ICE? What is its role and how is it different from the local state and federal police? So first, ICE stands for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It was created in 2003 by merging the U.S. Customs Service, which focused on enforcement and investigations within the United States and

and merging it with the Naturalization Service, which oversaw the entire immigration process. ICE is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security. So in the past, I've talked about how the federal government has 15 executive departments and then many, many agencies within each of those 15 departments. The Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, is one of those 15 departments, and then ICE is one of the many agencies within the DHS.

According to the DHS, the primary purpose of ICE is securing our nation's borders and safeguarding the integrity of our immigration system. Now, as far as how ICE differs from local, state, and federal police, ICE is specifically a federal immigration enforcement agency. So it cannot enforce local or state laws, and it cannot enforce all federal laws. It can only enforce federal immigration laws. State

State and local police generally cannot enforce federal laws. And the reason I say generally is because there are certain federal programs that grant exceptions. So as an example, if a state or local law enforcement agency joins the 287G program,

They are now authorized under federal law to carry out immigration actions under specific circumstances. There are three models that ICE uses as part of this 287G program, and state and local law enforcement can choose which model they want to involve themselves with. The

The first model is the jail enforcement model. It allows officers to identify and process removable aliens currently in their facilities who have pending or active criminal charges. The second model is the task force model, and this allows officers to enforce limited immigration authority when performing routine police duties like identifying an alien at a DUI checkpoint and then sharing that information directly with ICE.

And then the third model, the Warrant Service Officer Program, allows ICE to train, certify, and authorize state and local officers to serve and execute administrative warrants on aliens that are currently in their custody. So how it works is this: the state or local agency wanting to join the 287 program will send a signed letter of interest to ICE and submit their desired program model in a letter of agreement.

Currently, there are about 650 active 287G agreements across the United States, and of those, 514 have been issued since Trump took office in January. So to be clear about the difference, ICE has the authority to enforce federal immigration laws specifically.

State and local police only have state and local jurisdiction, but they can assist in immigration enforcement if they are authorized to do so under federal law by joining a program like the one we just talked about. If they are not authorized under federal law to enforce immigration law, they cannot do so. Immigration law is a federal matter, and state and local police are generally limited to state and local jurisdiction enforcing state law.

and local laws things of that nature next question is it true that migrants have been getting arrested at immigration check-ins and elementary school graduations immigration check-ins yes elementary school graduations no so what we know about the immigration proceedings portion of this question is that ice has been arresting people at immigration check-ins now when someone enters the united states they're detained and then they're released by ice and

they have to attend these check-ins as a condition of their release. It's the way the government keeps track of the people that it lets into the country. And it's at those check-ins where people are getting arrested. Arrests are not happening at elementary school graduations, though. There are concerns that they could happen. So people living in those communities who are scared of the possibility are opting not to go to their children's ceremonies this graduation season. But there's been no record as of now of an immigration-related arrest

at an elementary school graduation ceremony. It's true that there's been some school-related immigration enforcement actions, but nothing at any elementary school graduation. So back in April, two Homeland Security agents who claimed that they were not a part of ICE, but rather with Homeland Security,

attempted to enter two LA schools. They were denied by school employees, but they were trying to enter to talk to some of the students there. Another example, there were two high school students in New York City that were detained by ICE in the last few weeks. One was detained following his attendance at a legal hearing to seek asylum. The other was detained after a quote-unquote routine court hearing.

We also know that an 11th grader in Massachusetts was detained by an ICE agent on May 31st when he was stopped on his way to volleyball practice. Federal officials said they were looking for the student's dad, who they say is undocumented and has a history of reckless driving. But following that arrest, same thing. People in the community were voicing concerns about attending graduations because there were rumors that ICE could be on school property. But just to be clear, as of now, there have been no immigration raids or arrests at school graduation ceremonies.

Where else have raids been taking place? Mainly at workplaces. So just this past Tuesday, more than 100 people were arrested in Omaha, Nebraska at a meatpacking facility called Glen Valley Foods. On Monday, a couple of businesses were raided in two cities in Texas. A few months ago, there was that raid at a seafood facility in Newark. So mainly workplaces. Outside of work

places. I've seen video footage of a man getting arrested by an immigration officer while taking out his trash in Miami that was just in his front yard. Some, you know, are getting pulled over on the roads. If there's a traffic violation and then they're detained, we saw one happen at a car wash in L.A. last weekend. I saw a video of migrants being arrested on a farm. But again, I guess those last two examples are technically work sites. So that's

mainly workplaces, but they're also happening elsewhere. What are these people being arrested for? So when we talk about the workplace raids specifically, ICE has to get a search warrant to enter these places, right? They can't just go in. They have to have a warrant. And

and to obtain a search warrant from a judge, these immigration officials have to show probable cause that some crime has been committed by the people that work there. Now, this can be the actual employer hiring illegal workers,

Or the search warrant can be based upon crimes by employees. According to ICE, their recent search warrants have been based upon evidence of human trafficking, money laundering, fraud, and most commonly, fake IDs or false documentation by the employees. For instance, the raid that just happened at the meatpacking facility in Nebraska was, according to law enforcement, based on evidence that people working there were using fake ID documents.

The owner of the facility said that he used the federal E-Verify system to check workers' eligibility, but he claims that he was deceived by employees that had used stolen identities of U.S. citizens, which allowed them to pass background checks.

In other scenarios, like people who get pulled over or people who are arrested at their immigration appointments, those arrests are mostly or are most likely based on a lack of proper documentation and being subject to removal. In some cases, people who have no criminal record and are here lawfully and have not violated any immigration laws are

are being detained on suspicion of having violated immigration laws. But note that detention and arrest are two different things. You can be detained without being arrested. Detention doesn't necessarily mean you're going to face charges, whereas arrest does. So

Some of these people are being detained because they're suspected to have violated immigration laws. But then at some point when it's determined that they haven't, they have to be let go. There's no basis to keep them in detention. The only basis to keep them in detention is if they're here unlawfully, whether by crossing the border unlawfully or by overstaying their visa.

That brings me to my next point, which is criminal versus civil offenses. Both subject you to removal, but one means you are a criminal. The other doesn't. This is important because not all undocumented immigrants have committed a crime. Here's the deal. Those that cross the border illegally have committed a crime. Okay. Under federal law, it is illegal and a crime to step your foot across the U.S. border without lawful authorization. Okay.

Then there are the people that came here lawfully, typically on a visa, but overstayed that visa. This is a civil offense, which, yes, results in deportation as well, but it's not a crime and therefore they are not criminals. By definition, they are not criminals. So I'll try to frame this a little bit differently. If you commit a robbery, you're a criminal. You have committed a crime and you may be sentenced to jail.

If you get pulled over for speeding, that is a civil offense. You violated the law, but you have not committed a crime by speeding. There are consequences for both robbery and speeding, but one is a crime and makes you a criminal, the other doesn't. Just like there are consequences for both crossing the border illegally and overstaying your visa. But one is a crime and makes you a criminal, the other doesn't. Finally, let's talk about asylum seekers.

When people come to this country because they're afraid to be in their home country, that is called seeking asylum. It is a legal process. All non-citizens, including asylum seekers, have to carry proof of their status. For asylum seekers, this would be the asylum receipt and or biometric receipt, the work permit, passport, etc.,

If someone seeking asylum does not have their paperwork on them, ICE can arrest them because, again, it is a violation of law. If they do have their paperwork on them, there is no basis to arrest or detain them so long as they're not suspected of another crime, so long as they're not suspected of another crime.

they've appeared for all of their immigration proceedings so long as they do not have an order of removal against them okay so just because someone is here seeking asylum there are still laws that they have to abide by and if they don't that could subject them to arrest

What are the potential constitutional violations we're seeing here? Well, the constitutional provisions that come to mind are the Due Process Clause and the Fourth Amendment. So due process, in the simplest of terms, means you have a right to be heard. The Fourth Amendment protects you from warrantless searches and seizures. Both due process and the Fourth Amendment apply to everyone, even non-citizens.

What that means is that non-citizens cannot be the subject of a search without a warrant unless they're within 100 feet of the southern border. That is an exception. But otherwise, it's a very bright line rule. You cannot be the subject of a search without a warrant. And under the due process clause, they presumably cannot be deported without a hearing. But we need to talk about the due process clause specifically because it's actually a lot more complex.

While non-citizens are entitled to due process,

We also have something in the United States called expedited removal, which allows immigration officers to remove non-citizens, to deport non-citizens without a hearing in certain situations. So in 1996, Congress created the expedited removal process, which allowed immigration officers to remove non-citizens without a court hearing if they had no valid entry documents or

or they used fraud or misrepresentation to enter the United States. Initially, this only applied to non-citizens that arrived at U.S. ports of entry without proper documentation. But over time, expedited removal was expanded.

In 2004, President Bush expanded expedited removal to non-citizens that were caught within 14 days of entry and within 100 miles of any land border. In 2009, Obama kept Bush's expansion in place, but he didn't really expand it any further.

In 2017, when Trump took office the first time, he expanded expedited removal nationwide. So it no longer applied only to those non-citizens within 100 miles of the border. Under Trump, non-citizens anywhere in the United States who could not participate

that they had been continuously present in the United States for at least two years were subject to expedited removal. And in 2020, the Supreme Court upheld that expansion. They found that it did not violate due process. So now only

Only non-citizens who can prove that they have been continuously present in the United States for at least two years are exempt from expedited removal. Any non-citizen who can't show that they've been continuously present in the U.S. for at least two years can be expeditiously removed and is not entitled to a hearing before a judge.

In addition to that, individuals can only challenge their expedited removal order if they are a lawful permanent resident or if they were already determined to be a refugee or granted asylum. But other than that, expedited removal leaves little to no options when it comes to challenges. So that's why I say that while non-citizens are technically afforded due process, it's a lot more complicated than that because of expedited removal.

And on the topic of due process and expedited removal, I found a pretty interesting statistic from the ACLU, which was provided in 2014 while Obama was in office.

And that statistic said that in 1995, 1,400 immigrants were subject to nonjudicial removals, meaning they were deported without seeing a judge. That number represented 3% of total deportations. In 2012, there were 313,000 nonjudicial removals. That number represented 75% of people deported.

Per this article from the ACLU, as of 2014, only 25% of people facing deportation were receiving the chance to present their case before an immigration judge. Now, the article is a bit misleading in the way that it presents the information because remember, it wasn't until 1996 that the government enacted expedited removal. So you can't really compare 1995 numbers to anything after 1996, 1997.

With that said, numbers in 1997 and 1998 were a lot lower than what they are today. Non-judicial removals peaked in 2013, though last year they came close to breaking the record, and this year they may break the record. We just kind of have to see how it pans out. Let's take our second break here. When I come back, we still have a few more questions and answers to get to, and then we'll move on to some other news stories.

Okay, a podcast listener gave me a really nice compliment the other day. They said I'm the calm in the chaos. And obviously the chaos they were talking about is the current political landscape. But it made me so happy because I think everyone needs a calm in the chaos or multiple calms in the multiple chaotic events that life throws at us because it's not just politics that are chaotic, right? We all have our own

Life chaos. And as much as I would love to find the calm for every single one of you, I can't. That's a job that only you can do. Who I can help though are those of you that are listening that are specifically in charge of order fulfillment for an e-commerce business. I want to tell you about ShipStation. I used ShipStation to call my chaos when I used to own a cookie company and it made life so much easier. So let me fill you in. ShipStation is a shipping software meant for those fulfilling online orders.

Back when I used it, there were a few features that I would consider to be my favorite. So for one, everything is laid out on one simple dashboard so you can see everything at a glance. I also loved that you'd have all of your orders in one place and then you could print out all of the shipping labels with a click of a button. And then of course, the shipping discounts are insane, up to 88% off UPS, DHL Express, and USPS rates, and up to 90% off FedEx rates. So calm the chaos of order fulfillment with the shipping software that delivers.

Switch to ShipStation today. Go to ShipStation.com and use code UNBIASED to sign up for your free trial. That's ShipStation.com, code UNBIASED. Don't forget to use code UNBIASED.

I'm not switching my team to some fancy work platform that somehow knows exactly how we work. And its AI features are literally saving us hours every day. We're big fans. And just like that, teams all around the world are falling for Monday.com. With intuitive design, seamless AI capabilities, and custom workflows, it's the work platform your team will instantly click with. Head to Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use.

Welcome back. Moving on to the next question, is what Trump is doing any different than what Obama did?

well there's a few things we could talk about here right we could talk about the similarities and differences in the deportation process the raids the arrests and i'm sure there's more you could compare and contrast but let's cover those three things so i think the reason that this person asked about obama specifically is because obama deported about three million non-citizens from the united states over his two terms which is more than any other president in american history we'll see how that squares up with trump's numbers at the end of his second term but currently obama holds that record

Now, Obama's deportation efforts were more structured, okay? So...

The Obama DHS basically set this tiered system of priority. And the first tier had top priority. The second tier obviously had second priority. And then the third tier was third priority. So in the first tier, the administration prioritized threats to national security, border security and public safety. And this included individuals who were engaged in or suspected of terrorism, espionage or national security threats.

This also included those who participated in organized criminal gang activity, those apprehended at the border, and those convicted of a felony or those with outstanding warrants. The second tier dealt with those who had recently crossed the border illegally, those that had knowingly overstayed their visa, those that had committed a significant misdemeanor, or those who had been arrested for a crime.

or those that had obtained a visa ID or immigration benefit by fraud. And then the third tier dealt with all other immigration violators, which included people who reentered the United States unlawfully after being removed or failed to abide by a final order of removal. Now, the reason that the DHS created this tiered structure is because of the limited resources available for enforcement. So the rationale that the administration cited to at the time was the fact that

you know, they had a limited number of personnel, limited amount of detention space, and a limited number of removal assets. So ICE could only remove an estimated 400,000 undocumented immigrants each year at most. Because of that, the administration prioritized the more urgent threats. And that's why it's in that tiered structure, right? So the first tier was prioritized the most, then the second, then the third.

In addition to this tiered structure, both sets of Obama-era memos emphasized that prosecutorial discretion had to be used in order to determine the appropriate level of enforcement against an individual. So officers actually had to take a look at things like

in individuals' ties and contributions to the community, whether that person's spouse is pregnant or nursing, whether the person is a veteran, a minor, an elderly individual, a victim of domestic violence, etc., etc.,

The Obama era deportations were a bit more organized as illustrated by that tiered structure that we just went over, as well as those prosecutorial discretion guidelines. By contrast, in Trump's first administration, as well as what we're seeing now, there's less structure. What do I mean by that? Well, when Trump first took office in 2017, he issued this executive order, which led to DHS guidance that basically set out seven categories of people that should be removed.

The categories were not broken down by tiers, but rather given equal weight, right? Some of those categories included people that had been convicted of or charged with a crime, have abused any program related to the receipt of public benefits, those that are subject to a final order of removal but haven't complied, etc. It's just kind of basically one category of seven things, and it says if any non-citizens have done any of these things, they are removable.

When it comes to prosecutorial discretion during Trump's first administration, there were also no positive or negative factors set forth in the DHS guidance like we saw with Obama. So those factors like ties to the community, a pregnant spouse, etc., those were not explicitly noted.

Trump's DHS instead said that prosecutorial discretion was to be made on a case-by-case basis and also said that prosecutorial discretion was not to be exercised in a way that exempts or excludes a specified class or category of non-citizens from immigration enforcement actions.

Most recently on Trump's first day in office of this current term, he did away with prosecutorial discretion. So instead, everyone in removal proceedings is a priority. Now, when we talk about raids and we compare and contrast the raids, Obama carried out the same workplace raids we're seeing now, but definitely less than other presidents who have done so. And this is because Obama

Obama prioritized the prosecution of employers who knowingly hired workers illegally and not the workers who were submitting false documents. So instead of focusing on raids at work sites to target employees like President Bush had done before him and now we're seeing President Trump do, ICE under Obama focused on audits of employers' I-9 forms and then in some cases followed up with on-site law enforcement.

Media reports in 2010 and 2011 called these ICE audits silent raids because they would often lead to employees getting fired once the employers were notified of the irregularities on the I-9 forms.

Despite Obama's change in approach, though, workers were still getting arrested during these raids. So it's not that the workplace raids stopped under Obama, but they were significantly decreased from the Bush era and definitely from what we're seeing now. So that's the compare and contrast when it comes to workplace raids. And then finally, we'll talk about the arrests of non-criminals. So first of all, let's note there's a difference between deportations and arrests. We're talking about arrests right now.

In 2016, Obama's ICE arrested 110,000 immigrants, 16% of whom did not have a criminal record. In 2017, Trump's ICE arrested roughly 155,000 immigrants, 30% of whom did not have a criminal record. Right now, it's too early to tell how many people being arrested by ICE do and don't have criminal records. So that's why I think it's best to kind of look back in time until we have those updated numbers.

Okay, next question. Can even non-criminal immigrants lawfully be arrested? Yes. ICE can legally arrest immigrants that do not have a criminal background so long as there is another reason to arrest them, such as them being in the country unlawfully. And this goes back to the question or the conversation about criminal offenses versus civil offenses. Remember, it's a

crime to cross the border. It's not a crime to overstay a visa after coming in lawfully, but it is a civil offense, which you can be arrested for and deported for because you're still here without lawful authorization. So yes, non-criminal immigrants can lawfully be arrested if they are present in the United States without lawful authorization. Now, here's the other thing.

ICE has the power to detain individuals who are suspected of violating immigration laws. So even if they haven't violated immigration laws, but ICE agents suspect that they have, they can be detained until it's proven that there's been no violation. So I just want to note that too.

Next question. Do immigrant children have legal representation? Yes, but this issue is currently playing out in the courts. So here in the United States, citizens are entitled to representation, but non-citizens are not. Some aspects of the Constitution apply to everyone, regardless of citizenship status, like due process, but other aspects of the Constitution do not. Non-citizens are not entitled to representation.

Non-citizen children are a different story though because of federal laws. So one example is the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. That law mandated that unaccompanied minors have legal counsel to protect them from mistreatment and exploitation. One of the biggest providers of legal aid services to unaccompanied migrant children is the Acacia Center for Justice. They have a contract with the government that allows them to provide these services through federal funding.

But in March, the Trump administration terminated that contract. So without that money, they were at risk of losing the attorneys that work for the organization and provide the services, which in turn would have left unaccompanied migrant children without legal representation. Unless, of course, those attorneys decided to do pro bono work and work for free. But given the fact that 26,000 children were at risk of losing their attorneys, it's not likely the attorneys would even be able to represent all of them, even if they did agree to do pro bono work.

So the Acacia Center sued the administration in April and a federal judge told the administration that it had to restore the funds. That case is still playing out, but the way it currently stands, yes, unaccompanied minors are entitled to legal aid through entities like the Acacia Center.

Okay, so that concludes the Q&A. I hope that gives you a lot more clarity on the situation, and I hope you learned at least one new thing. Let's switch gears a little bit and talk about some non-immigration news from this week. Earlier this week, HHS Secretary RFK Jr. removed all 17 members on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or the ACIP.

He subsequently announced eight new members. So let's talk about what the ACIP is for a second. It's an independent agency that advises the CDC on how vaccines should be used in the United States. So who should receive available vaccines? When should vaccines be given? What are some special circumstances that could affect vaccine scheduling? What are safety concerns? Things like that.

This independent agency is composed of scientists and experts in the field, like vaccine and infectious disease experts who evaluate vaccine data and develop recommendations on topics like vaccine scheduling.

Members of the committee are appointed to the ACIP by the HHS secretary and typically serve a four-year term. Now, most of the members on the committee that were just removed by Kennedy were serving terms that did not expire until 2028.

So on Monday, Secretary Kennedy announced in a Wall Street Journal op ed the removal of all 17 voting members of the ACIP. In his announcement, he claimed that public trust had been eroded and he argued, quote, a clean sweep is needed to reestablish public confidence in vaccine science.

End quote. He also outlined a history of corruption at the ACIP as his reasoning for the removals. He wrote, quote, The committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine. It has never recommended against a vaccine, even those later withdrawn for safety reasons. It has failed to scrutinize vaccine products given to babies and pregnant women.

To make matters worse, the groups that inform the ACIP meet behind closed doors, violating the legal and ethical principle of transparency crucial to maintaining public trust. End quote. Specifically, he referred to a 2009 HHS inspector general report and a 2000 House of Representatives investigation, which he said found weak enforcement of conflict of interest rules.

He later wrote on X, quote, the most outrageous example of the ACIP's malevolent malpractice has been its stubborn unwillingness to demand adequate safety trials before recommending new vaccines for our children, end quote. In response to this announcement, former director of the CDC, Tom Frieden, said, quote, make no mistake, politicizing the ACIP as Secretary Kennedy is doing will undermine public trust under the guise of improving it, end quote.

Opposition also argues that Kennedy is citing data that is out of context and outdated. So unbiased science, which is a platform on social media, it's on sub stack as well, wrote that the data that Kennedy cited is 15 to 25 years old and is missing context.

They said in their write-up, quote,

A further dive into the data suggested that only 3% of the votes included some form of conflict of interest, and a member who should have recused themselves did not. But we don't know how many votes within the ACIP were among those impacted. End quote.

A couple of days after the removal, Secretary Kennedy announced eight new appointees. If you want to read about them, I do have a few links for you in the sources section of this episode, which you can always find a link to in the show notes. So how does this change affect you? Well, the CDC bases its official vaccine guidelines on the ACIP's recommendations, which subsequently determines which vaccines must be covered by insurance.

However, it's also worth noting that the CDC director does have the authority to override the recommendations of any independent agency like the ACIP. Okay, let's take our third and final break here. When we come back, we have some more news to cover. If you're like me and you want to look put together without spending a ton of money, you have to check out Quince. I've told you about Quince before, but lucky for you and me, they are a long-term sponsor of the show, so I get to continue telling you how much I love their stuff.

Quinn's pieces are chic, timeless, and also incredibly affordable, like 100% linen for less than $30, basic tees for less than $20. And Quinn's doesn't just sell women's clothes, by the way. They have men's stuff too. So I always get my husband something whenever I buy for myself. I'll actually tell you what's in my cart right now. So I have the 100% European linen high-waisted shorts for me, the 100% European linen strapless top also for me,

And then for my husband, I have the 100% European linen jersey polo. I'm kind of on a European linen kick for the summer, as you can probably tell. Now I just need to book a European getaway, which, let's be real, is not going to happen. But at least I'm not spending too much money on clothes. Each of those pieces are under $35. And that's the best part about Quince. Everything with Quince is half the cost of similar brands. That's because Quince works directly with top artisans and cuts out the middleman, which means they're able to give up

us luxury without the markup. So give your summer closet an upgrade with Quince. Go to quince.com slash unbiased for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's q-u-i-n-c-e dot com slash unbiased to get free shipping and 365 day returns. quince.com slash unbiased.

You know what I love to do when the weather's nice? I love to eat dinner outside. Whether it's on the patio, maybe you're lucky enough to have a pool, or maybe it's just on your front porch, there's something about eating at dusk when the weather has cooled down a bit and you just enjoy the fresh air after a long day.

But you know what I love more than eating dinner outside? That is not having to actually go to the store and get the ingredients for said dinner. I just like them delivered straight to my door, and that's why I love HelloFresh. They make it easy. Now, they have something for everyone, so if you like being in the kitchen and you like cooking, you can of course get some of their incredible curated meals. If you're like me, you don't necessarily love cooking, you'll do it, but you don't love it, you can get their new ready-made meals, which are ready in just...

If I could give you some recommendations, I would say try the San Antonio Beef Bowls, the Crispy Parmesan Chicken, and the One Pan Trattoria Tortelloni Bake. So, so good. Feel great with meals that fit your spring schedule and make the season even more delicious. Go to HelloFresh.com slash Unbiased10FM now to get 10 free meals with a free item for life. One per box with active subscription, free to order.

Free meals applied as discount on first box, new subscribers only, varies by plan. That's hellofresh.com slash unbiased 10 FM, as in 10 free meals.

Welcome back. In some more agency-related news, on Tuesday, President Trump announced plans to start phasing out FEMA. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is currently part of the Department of Homeland Security, and its main role is to help people before, during, and after disasters. So FEMA was initially created in 1979 under President Carter to coordinate federal disaster response and to assist states that were overwhelmed by disasters. In 2003 is when FEMA became part of the DHS.

Now, before FEMA's creation, the government would step in and help with disasters, typically by relying on congressional acts. There wasn't a centralized agency to oversee response and recovery efforts. In the 50s is when the government started to shift towards federal coordination. But before that, Congress would just pass laws in response to different disasters across the country. Whenever a disaster would happen, it would pass a law.

Back in January, though, Trump signed an executive order, which was intended to evaluate the effectiveness of FEMA. The executive order established a council with a maximum of 20 members co-chaired by the DHS secretary and defense secretary.

And per that order, the council was to look into FEMA's operations and assess whether FEMA is capable of impartiality when addressing disasters that occur in the United States. And then subsequently, the council was to advise the president on any recommended changes to FEMA to best serve the national interest.

The exact details of the administration's plans to phase out FEMA are unclear. However, Trump did suggest that if FEMA were eliminated, the states would be mainly responsible for disaster relief and that federal disaster relief would be provided to states more directly. This approach appears to be similar to the pre-FEMA days. Trump also noted that the phase out would start after this upcoming hurricane season, which runs until November 30th. And

And in talking to reporters in the Oval Office, he said, quote, we want to wean off of FEMA and we want to bring it down to the state level. A governor should be able to handle it. And frankly, if they can't handle it, the aftermath, then maybe they shouldn't be governor. End quote. Trump went on to say, quote, it's extremely expensive. And again, when you have a tornado or a hurricane or you have a problem of any kind in a state, that's what you have governors for. They're supposed to fix those problems. End quote.

It's important to keep in mind that under federal law, Trump cannot unilaterally eliminate FEMA. Dismantling it would require Congress to either pass a law or reinstate what's called the Presidential Reorganization Act, which would allow the president to propose a plan to reorganize or eliminate the federal agency. Either way, dismantling would require an act from Congress. It is not something the president can do himself. And

And if FEMA were eventually eliminated, the appropriated disaster relief funding would presumably go directly to the states. But it would all depend on what Congress decides to do with it because Congress has the ultimate say over spending. They have the power of the purse.

Okay, moving on to the next story, President Trump announced that his administration will restore the names of several U.S. Army bases that originally honored Confederate generals. This decision reverses a renaming process mandated by Congress and completed under President Biden, which aimed to strip military installations of Confederate symbolism. Notably, rather than reinstating the Confederate names as they existed before, Trump's new strategy gives the bases...

The same name, but honoring different U.S. military service members who share the same name as the Confederate figure. So I'll give you some examples. Fort Gordon in Georgia was once named after Confederate General John B. Gordon. It was renamed Fort Eisenhower, but it will now honor Master Sergeant Gary I. Gordon. He was a Medal of Honor recipient from the Battle of Mogadishu.

Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia was renamed Fort Walker under Biden. It will now commemorate three black Union soldiers who received the Medal of Honor during the Civil War. Those were Lieutenant Colonel Edward Hill, First Sergeant Robert A. Pinn, and Private Bruce Anderson. Fort Hood, renamed Fort Cavazos in 2023, will instead recognize World War I veteran Colonel Robert B. Hood.

Similarly, Fort Lee will now honor Spanish-American war hero Private Fitz Lee. Fort Pickett will now honor World War II hero Vernon W. Pickett. Fort Polk will now commemorate General James H. Polk, a World War II officer. And Fort Rucker will now bear the name of World War I aviator Captain Edward W. Rucker. So same names as they had before they were changed, just honoring different people.

Trump had already made similar changes earlier this year by restoring the names of Fort Bragg and Fort Benning, though both are now linked to non-Confederate soldiers who, again, share those same names. To give you a bit of recent history here, when Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act in 2021, it included a provision to rename military bases bearing the names of Confederate officers, meaning it wanted to change them from the Confederate officers' names to other names.

Trump had vetoed the bill at the time, objecting to a few things in the bill, but one of those things he objected to was the renaming clause.

Despite Trump's veto, Congress overrode the veto, and that was actually the only veto override of Trump's presidency, and it happened just a few weeks before he left office. So the passage of that law led to the formation of the naming commission, which spent more than a year evaluating these base names and proposing replacements. By 2023, the Biden administration had enacted the commission's recommendations, resulting in widespread changes to 10 military installations.

The Trump administration says the redesignations are in line with laws that prevent the Pentagon from naming bases after Confederate leaders or battles, but critics disagree, arguing that the whole purpose of the new rule was to remove Confederate symbolism. Last story of the day before we get to quick hitters, the

The Supreme Court released six decisions today, four of which were unanimous. The other two only had one dissenter. So eight to one. The court is finishing up its current term in the next few weeks. So we should start to see some some more of the controversial decisions get released soon. They always save those for last. Today was actually a relatively low key day, though, at the court. It seems they're getting out all the unanimous decisions.

and then, you know, they'll start getting a bit more controversial as we go. I'm only going to cover two of the court's decisions today because I don't want to bore you too much. The other cases were just like boring procedural cases. There was a tax law case in there. This episode is already long enough. I don't need you falling asleep on me in the last five minutes.

So the first case we'll talk about is Martin v. U.S. This was unanimous. And to keep it short, FBI agents raided a home in 2017 outside of Atlanta. The intention was to raid. They were executing a search warrant at an address where they believed that suspected gang members were hiding out. Turns out they had the wrong house.

house but before they found out it was the wrong house the FBI agents detonated a flashbang grenade they pulled a man from the closet where he was hiding and handcuffed him and then they held the man's partner at gunpoint after seeing the mail with the home address on it an officer realized that you know they had gone to the wrong address so the men filed this lawsuit against the government and normally you cannot sue the federal government for its mistakes because it has immunity but

But under a law called the Federal Tort Claims Act, you can sue when federal employees cause injury while acting within the scope of their employment. So that's what they did. They sued under that law. The Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the agents had made an honest mistake. And because their actions involved judgment calls, they were still immune under what's called the discretionary function exception.

However, the Supreme Court said today that the appellate court applied the wrong test in coming to its conclusion. So now the case will go back to the appellate court where the court will have to apply a different test. The appellate court will now have to decide whether the agent's decision qualifies as a protected judgment call. And if it doesn't, they then have to apply Georgia's state law to see if a private person would be liable for the same conduct. If a private person would be liable for the same conduct, then the agents can be held liable.

The second case we'll talk about was also unanimous. It's called AJT versus OCO Area Schools. In this one, the parents of a student brought a disability discrimination case against the school district. And the lower court held that in order to succeed on the claim against the school district, the parents had to show that school officials acted with bad faith or gross misjudgment.

The parents appealed that decision, arguing that they shouldn't be held to a higher standard than any other disability discrimination claims. And the Supreme Court today agreed. The justices unanimously held that school children bringing claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act are required to meet the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. So this case will go back to the lower court where the merits of the case will be assessed under the same standards as any other disability discrimination claim.

We should get more decisions from the justices either early next week or midweek next week, and I will certainly let you know when we do. Like I said, the more controversial decisions will start coming soon.

Now for some quick hitters. First, a couple of updates to the last episode we did on Monday. ABC News officially fired senior correspondent Terry Moran following his social media posts that criticized Stephen Miller and President Trump. ABC News said Moran's dismissal was due to a violation of the company's policies, and Moran announced that he will be continuing his reporting on Substack.

Elon Musk called President Trump on Monday night to apologize for his social media post last week. Musk's call reportedly came after Vice President Vance and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles spoke with Musk late last week asking him to end the fight. Following Monday's call, Musk posted to X on Wednesday, quote, I regret some of my posts about President Trump last week. They went too far, end quote.

This weekend, Washington, D.C., will put on a parade to celebrate the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary. The parade also happens to fall on President Trump's 79th birthday and Flag Day. And this is something the Army's well, I should say the Army's been preparing for some sort of celebration for over a year now. But the idea of a parade began more recently with President Trump.

The parade is expected to cost between $25 and $45 million, and more than 6,000 soldiers from all Army divisions are expected to participate. If you do want to know more about the parade, I did talk about it in the Rumor Has It segment of my May 8th episode.

The HHS is rehiring more than 450 previously fired employees to multiple divisions within the CDC. Secretary Kennedy told CBS News in April that this was always part of the plan. He said personnel that should not have been cut were cut and were reinstating them, and that was always part of the plan. He said at Doge, we talked about this from the beginning, we're going to do 80% cuts, but 20% of those are going to have to be reinstated because we'll make mistakes.

So the National Center for HIV, Hepatitis, STD, and Tuberculosis Prevention will see the most employees return, 214 employees, while the National Center for Environmental Health will see 158 employees return. The immediate office of the director will see 71 employees return, and the Global Health Center will see 24 employees return.

Effective yesterday, the Trump administration is now requiring everyone who applies for permanent residency to submit a medical examination form. Pending applications without an accompanying medical exam form will be denied. So to give some context, as of December of last year, all people seeking permanent residency in the United States have to undergo a medical exam by a civil surgeon and submit their vaccination record. But until now, only certain people who could be inadmissible on medical grounds are

were required to file this medical exam form. Now, all people who apply for permanent residency will have to. And lastly, the House agreed to President Trump's rescissions proposal today, sending it to the Senate. If passed by the Senate, it would cut $9.4 billion in federal spending, mostly for foreign aid and public radio. If you want more on that rescissions package, tune in to last Thursday's episode. That's my June 5th episode.

That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here as always. And I do have a new newsletter going out tomorrow morning, which covers the top headlines and not just politics, but also business, pop culture, health and international news. So definitely make sure you are signed up for that if you're not already. I always have the signup link in the show notes. So it's really easy to find. Have a great weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible. Financial geniuses. Monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit Progressive.com to see if you could save. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.