← UNBIASED Politics
UNBIASED Politics
UNBIASED Politics (4/10/25): Trump Pauses Some Tariffs, But Increases China's; PLUS Is Trump Declaring Martial Law Soon? Increased Logging on Public Lands? And More.
00:44:42
Loading summary
Transcript6 lines
- [00:00]
Marketing Voice
Work management platforms. Ugh. Endless onboarding IT bottlenecks, admin requests. But what if things were different? Monday.com is different. No lengthy onboarding, beautiful reports in minutes, custom workflows you can build on your own, easy to use prompt, free AI. Huh. Turns out you can love a work management platform. Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use.
- [00:30]
Political Analyst
Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, April 10th. Let's talk about some news. Just as a quick heads up, you really should stick around for the end of this episode. I have a pretty cool homework assignment for you, but that is all I will say about that for now. Also, I know that a I know that Congress passed a budget resolution today. Unfortunately, I did have to get this episode out early so so I am not able to cover that in today's episode. But I will try to get to it as soon as I can. If I can't, you know, post a separate video about it in the coming days on social media. I will touch on it on Monday's episode. I know that's not ideal, but you know, it's just how things have to go. Okay, let's start today's episode with the latest update in the Alien Enemies act case. On Monday night, shortly after the last episode went live, because that's just how things work, the Supreme Court held that the Trump administration can continue to deport suspected gang members under the Alien Enemies act, but that the deportees must have the opportunity to challenge their removal. And to do so, they have to file the challenge as a habeas challenge in the jurisdiction where they are being detained. So let's back up. We've talked about this case a lot. Short Summary President Trump signed a proclamation invoking an old law called the Alien Enemies Act. He invoked the law for the specific purpose of deporting suspected Trende Aragua gang members. Because what the law says is that the President has the authority to detain or deport citizens of any enemy nation without a hearing when either Congress has declared war or an invasion has taken place. Contrary to the belief of many, citizenship status does not matter when it comes to due process. So even if you're in the United States unlawfully, you are still entitled to due process, which involves a hearing. What the Alien Enemies act does is it removes that hearing requirement for citizens of enemy nations when the US Is either in a war or when an enemy nation has invaded the US now in invoking this act, Trump's argument was that the Venezuelan Trende Aragua gang has invaded the United States and therefore he has the authority to deport any suspected Trende Aragua gang member without a hearing. Critics, though, say no, no, no, no, no. This is an overreach. The law specifically applies to wars with or invasions by enemy nations. And Trend Aragua is not itself a nation, nor are we at war with Venezuela. So there's no legal justification to deport Venezuelan citizens and or Trend Aragua gang members. Long story short, a lawsuit ensues. And while this lawsuit is playing out in the very early stages, the President sends three flights of suspected gang members to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Ultimately, the district court judge issued a temporary restraining order against the administration, which prohibited it from using the Alien Enemies act for future removals. While this lawsuit is playing out, so to be clear, the district court did not issue a final decision as to whether the President has or does not have authority under the Alien Enemies Act. Rather, he said, while I consider this issue further, the administration is barred from carrying out any other removals under this Alien Enemies Act. Nonetheless, the Trump administration appeals, and on appeal, in a 2 to 1 decision, the restraining order was upheld. From there, the administration goes to the Supreme Court. So the question for the Supreme Court was, can the President lawfully use his authority under the Alien Enemies act to deport Trende Aragua gang members while the litigation is pending? And in a 5 to 4 ruling, the court said yes. Note though this does not mean the President has lawful authority to do this forever. This means that while the lawsuit is pending, the President can continue deporting suspected gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. Now, if the district court ultimately issues a final decision that says the President does not have the authority to issue these kinds of removals, the administration can then appeal that decision. And that's when the question would become, does the President have the lawful authority to deport suspected Trende Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies act in perpetuity? The justices, in issuing their 54 decision, did not just stop at lifting the restraining order against the administration. The justices also clarified that all deportees are entitled to notice and an opportunity to to challenge their removal, and that the proper way to challenge their removal is by filing a habeas petition in the jurisdiction in which they are detained. A habeas petition is a specific legal pathway to challenging one's detention or imprisonment. The case before the Supreme Court was different because it was filed as a challenge to the actual Presidential Proclamation. The challenge was that the Presidential Proclamation exceeded the President's authority. So what the Supreme Court's ruling means is that this action needs to be refiled by the defendants as a habeas petition, not a challenge to the Presidential Proclamation. And it has to be refiled in Texas, where the deportees are detained, not Washington, D.C. where it was originally filed. Now, I want to note here that this doesn't mean the President's proclamation can't be challenged. It can. It just has to be a different lawsuit. This lawsuit we're talking about here was potential deportees that were saying they, you know, they can't be deported because the President exceeded his. His authority. If this lawsuit is brought by other plaintiffs that are challenging the actual authority of the Proclamation, that would be a different case entirely. But this case was challenging the removal of deportees, which the Supreme Court justices said must be done via a habeas petition, and it has to be filed in the jurisdiction where the deportees are detained. The dissenting justices included Justices Sotomayor, Justice Jackson, and Barrett. And in writing the dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote in part, quote, critically, even the majority today agrees and the federal government now admits that individuals subject to removal under the Alien Enemies act are entitled to adequate notice and judicial review before they can be removed. That should have been the end of the matter. Yet with bare bones briefing, no argument, and scarce time for reflection, the court announces that legal challenges to an individual's removal under the Alien Enemies act must be brought in habeas petitions in the District where they are detained. The court's legal conclusion is suspect. The court intervenes anyway, granting the government extraordinary relief and vacating the district court's order on that basis alone. It does so without mention of the grave harm plaintiffs will face if they are erroneously removed to El Salvador or regard for the government's attempts to subvert the judicial process throughout this litigation. Because the Court should not reward the government's efforts to erode the rule of law and discretionary equitable relief. I respectfully dissent. End quote. Now, before I move on to the next story, I did want to address two recent rulings out of New York and Texas that were issued following the Supreme Court's ruling and require the Trump administration to again stop deporting suspected gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. We know that the Supreme Court has the final say on matters. So many of you might be wondering how these two lower courts in New York and Texas can come in after the Supreme. After the Supreme Court said deportations were okay and now say deportations are not okay. Well, in short, just to clarify, it's not that the New York and Texas courts are saying deportations are not okay. It's saying that the administration cannot deport any other suspected gang member or without first providing notice and an opportunity for them to challenge their removal, basically just imposing a hold on the administration until it complies with the recent Supreme Court ruling. So I just didn't want you to get confused in case you saw any headlines about the administration not being able to deport suspected gang members. That's what's going on there. On to the next story. Another one out of the Supreme Court. So remember when the administration fired thousands of probationary employees across various federal departments? I think. What was that? Maybe a couple of months ago now, following that, various organizations sued the Office of Personnel Management, arguing that the Office of Personnel Management, or the opm, exceeded its authority in directing these agencies to terminate probationary employees. So here's the thing. The OPM is basically the HR department for the executive branch. It coordinates the recruiting of new employees. It manages employees health insurance and retirement benefits programs. It. It provides resources for student jobs, scholarships, and internships. But it does not hire or fire employees within the government. So the plaintiffs argue that the OPM unlawfully directed these firings, whereas the OPM argues that it simply gave a recommendation to these various agencies to terminate its probationary employees. At the end of February, after this lawsuit was filed, a judge granted a temporary restraining order against the OPM and later issued a preliminary injunction, which basically meant that the OPM was prohibited from taking similar action in the future and required the reinstatement of the roughly 16,000 probationary employees that had been fired. So after the judge grants that preliminary injunction against the opm, the OPM appeals the case. It eventually lands in front of the Supreme Court. And the OPM was essentially asking the court to overturn the lower court's order on the basis that the nine nonprofits that filed the lawsuit against it lacked the necessary direct injury to file the lawsuit. Right. So this is what we call standing. In order to file a lawsuit, you have to have suffered some. Some type of harm by the defendant. So in other words, what the OPM is saying is that the nonprofits didn't directly get hurt by the OPM's actions, so they shouldn't be able to Sue. In a 7 to 2 decision, the Supreme Court agreed. The justices granted the OPM's request to lift that lower court's preliminary injunction against it on the basis that the nonprofit's allegations were not a sufficient basis for the original preliminary injunction. Put another way, the justices didn't feel as if the non profits would suffer immediate harm without the injunction, and therefore they couldn't establish a proper basis for the injunction. The effect of this ruling is mainly that the government no longer has to reinstate the 16,000 probationary employees that were laid off. But there's a related case playing out in Maryland where a Maryland Judge just ordered 20 federal departments and agencies to rehire thousands of probationary employees. And when I say just ordered, I mean, like, just a few days ago. So, again, similar to the Alien Enemies act case, you might wonder how, how this Maryland ruling is possible if we just got this ruling out of the Supreme Court. And the answer is that the foundation of each case is different. And therefore the Supreme Court's ruling does not prohibit the Maryland judge from ordering the reinstatement of probationary employees. In the OPM case, the Supreme Court ruled the way it did because it felt as if the nonprofits were unable to prove immediate harm. In the Maryland case, the reinstatement order was issued because the judge felt that the federal agencies who actually did the firings, not the opm, but the federal agencies, acted illegally in issuing these terminations by not giving the states advanced warnings of the firings, you know, that would ultimately affect various operations within those states. So the underpinnings of the two cases are completely different. And therefore the Maryland restate reinstatement order can stand, despite the recent Supreme Court ruling that said the probationary employees don't have to be reinstated. All right, one more legal update, and then I think we're done with the law. This update will be much shorter than the other two, by the way. So, earlier this week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore the Associated Press's access to certain White House spaces after it was banned over the outlet's refusal to use Gulf of America. After the AP was banned by the White House from accessing certain areas like the Oval Office and Air Force One, the AP sued the administration, and it argued that it has a constitutional right to editorial independence, it can choose what words and phrases it wants to use, and that it was a violation of their First Amendment rights to ban them as a result. The administration, on the other hand, argued that the AP was not entitled to access to these special areas, and therefore they didn't have any constitutional rights infringed upon because. Note that the AP still had access to the press briefing room. What the AP lost access to were these special areas in the White House and on, you know, like Air Force One 2, which isn't technically in the White House, but these are areas that are usually limited to about 13 members of the press. Ultimately, the judge held that the ban on the AP was unconstitutional and that the decision to limit the AP's access violated the outlet's free speech rights. The judge also noted that the access ban had real world consequences, like limiting the AP's coverage of a meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky. The judge wrote that because the AP couldn't be present for the meeting between the two presidents, the outlet had to use delayed photos from a foreign correspondent that didn't meet its usual standards. Now, it is possible that the administration appeals this ruling, but time will tell. It could also die out here. Let's take a break and I will be right back. Question for you when was the last time you needed to go to the doctor but you pushed it off? Maybe you were too busy, maybe you thought whatever it was would heal on its own. Or maybe you just didn't know which doctor to go to or where to even start the search. That was always my excuse. We've all been there though, right? It's. It's super daunting. Booking a doctor's appointment is just one of those adult things that is so, so annoying. Zoc Doc makes it easy though. I actually just needed a last minute appointment a couple of weeks ago. I hopped right on ZocDoc and got it done. So 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. I'm talking about booking in network appointments with more than 100,000 doctors across all kinds of specialists, specialties from mental health to dental health, primary care to urgent care and more. The filter capability within ZocDoc is my favorite because you can actually filter for doctors who take your insurance, doctors located nearby by rating and by the particular issue that you're having. So again, once you find the right doctor, you can see their actual appointment openings. Choose a time slot that works for you and click to instantly book an appointment right then and there. Zocch makes my life easier and I know it can make yours easier too. So. So stop putting off those doctor's appointments and go to Zocdoc.comunbiased to find and instantly book a top rated doctor today. That is Zocdoc.com unbiased Zocdoc.com unbiased.
- [15:42]
Marketing Voice
Work management platforms. Ugh. Endless onboarding IT bottlenecks admin requests but what if things were different? We found love in an open Monday.com is different. No lengthy onboarding, beautiful reports in minutes, custom workflows you can build on your own, easy to use prompt, free AI. Huh. Turns out you can love a work management platform. Monday.com the first work platform you'll love to use.
- [16:12]
Political Analyst
Welcome back. A couple of immigration related stories for you. The IRS and DHS have entered into a Memo of Understanding which will allow the sharing of certain tax taxpayer information to aid in immigration enforcement efforts. More specifically, the agreement allows ice, which is an agency within the dhs, to request specific tax data for individuals that are either subject to final deportation orders or are under criminal investigation. The IRS will then verify the provided names against its records and share relevant information like addresses to help locate these individuals. And just to be clear, a Memo of Understanding is a formal agreement that outlines how the multiple agencies will share information or cooperate on specific issues. In this case, the memo includes provisions that ensure compliance with existing privacy laws and mandates that all data sharing activities adhere to sound administrative practices. Despite these safeguards, the agreement has faced criticism from immigrant advocacy groups and legal experts who argued that it might violate taxpayer confidentiality protections and actually deter undocumented immigrants from filing taxes. Notably, acting IRS Commissioner Melanie Krause announced her resignation shortly after this agreement was reached, citing concerns over the implementation of this policy. So the finalization of this memo has sparked some conversation about Internal revenue code section 6103, which governs the confidentiality of tax return information. The law generally prohibits the IRS from disclosing taxpayer information to anyone, including other government agencies, without the taxpayer's consent. However, there are exceptions, including a criminal investigation exception. So if an individual, let's just say hypothetically, right, because this is all about immigration enforcement. If an individual entered the US Illegally, that's a crime, as we've talked about before. And that may fall into this criminal investigation exception, though it may not. This is something that will likely be challenged in the court. So it is something that this is just one of those things that has to kind of like play out for us to, you know, see what happens here. But the next immigration Related Story the DHS announced the revocation of parole status for some of the 900,000 people that entered the United States using the CBP1 app during the Biden administration. So the CBP1 app was first launched in January 2023, and it allowed migrants to schedule appointments at lawful ports of entry along the border, which therefore facilitated a legal pathway for asylum seekers to enter the country while also attempting to reduce and disincentivize illegal border crossings. Those that use the app were granted parole status and work authorization for up to two years while they awaited immigration proceedings. When the when the Trump administration took over, the app was shut down temporarily, but did end up coming back this time as the CBP Home app. And under the rebrand, migrants could now report their intention to leave the United States on Monday and into Tuesday and potentially even into later in the week. Some individuals who entered the United States via this former CBP1 app got an email to their phone and that email notified them that the DHS was exercising its discretion to terminate their parole immediately and that they needed to leave the country unless they've obtained a lawful basis to be here. The DHS confirmed that it sent formal termination notices, however, it did not say how many migrants received them. According to the termination notice, the DHS is encouraging migrants to report their departure via the app, and a DHS spokesperson said that those who refuse will be found, removed and permanently barred from re entry. Notably, the parolee is designated under United for Ukraine, which provided legal status for Ukrainians affected by war and Operation Allies welcome, which resettled Afghans following the US Exit from Afghanistan won't be affected by this announcement. All right, now it's time to talk about the tariff situation, the discussion we've all been waiting for. As you probably know, President Trump announced on Wednesday that there would be a 90 day pause on most tariffs, but that China would see a tariff increase. Now this is interesting because in Monday's episode we talked about CNBC airing unconfirmed information about a potential 90 day tariff pause. The White House subsequently denied the report. The press Secretary called reports of a 90 day pause fake news. Two days later, the 90 day pause was officially announced. So let's back up. The last time we talked, the US was getting ready to impose a baseline 10% tariff on all countries and territories and additional country specific tariffs that the administration calls reciprocal. Well then the United States and China start to get a little more aggressive with each other. China said it would impose an additional 34% tariff on us because of our new tariffs on them. And then all of a sudden the tariff on China by, you know, imposed by US was up to 104%. That 104% tariff went into effect Wednesday at 12:01am China then proceeded to impose an 84% tariff on US which also went into effect on on Wednesday. Wednesday Rolls Around President Trump announces that he's pausing all country specific tariffs for 90 days and increasing the tariff on China to 125% Trump posted to Truth Social Quote Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the world's markets, I am hereby raising the tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125% effective immediately. @ some point, hopefully in the near future, China will understand that the days of ripping off the USA and other countries is no longer sustainable or acceptable. Conversely, and based on the fact that more than 75 countries have called representatives of the United States, including the Departments of Commerce, treasury and the US Trade Representative to negotiate a solution to the subjects being discussed relative to trade, trade barriers, tariffs, currency manipulation and and non monetary tariffs and that these countries have not, at my strong suggestion, retaliated in any way, shape or form against the United States, I have authorized a 90 day pause and a substantially lowered reciprocal tariff during this period of 10%, also effective immediately. When the President was asked why he made the decision to pause country specific tariffs, he said that people were, quote, jumping a little bit out of line, end quote and starting to get quote, yippee and afraid, end quote. The President also noted that the pause is in part because none of the countries besides China retaliated and many of them have tried to make a deal with the United States. So what does this mean? Well, during the 90 day pause, all countries will face that 10% tariff, right? That same baseline 10% tariff we've been talking about for the last week and a half, two weeks or so. To be clear, what are on pause are those higher tariffs on countries like Madagascar, Vietnam, Switzerland, Japan, et cetera. These are the country specific tariffs, right? That's what's on pause. The 10% baseline tariff still applies to all countries and territories as it pertains to China's new increased tariff. US Companies importing goods from China will now have to pay a 125% tax to receive those goods and Chinese companies importing goods from the United States will have to pay an 84% tax to receive those goods. On a related note, the and actually before we get to the related note, just note too that this tariff situation is constantly changing. So by the end of the day today it could change again. This is just what we know as of noon on Thursday. On a related note, the Trump administration also announced that it's revising an earlier plan to impose steep port fees on Chinese built vessels to lessen the impact on US Exports in the wake of the new tariffs. So the original plan was to charge Chinese built vessels between 500,000 and 1 and a half million dollars for each port stop, whether it was to load or unload cargo, refuel, undergo repairs, whatever caused them to stop at a US Port, it's called a port. A typical route from Asia involves an average of four U.S. port calls. The intention behind the plan was to encourage shipbuilding in the United States. However, after the announcement, shipping companies and trade groups pointed out that the fees would result in higher costs for American consumers, hurt US Farm exports, and threaten dock workers jobs. Container operators also said they would cut their calls to US Ports by half as a result of these fees. So after this pushback, a U.S. trade representative announced on Tuesday that the administration would revise the plan based on public feedback. And the new plan will base the fees mostly on vessel capacity, which will result in lower fees for the smaller ships coming into American ports like la, New York, Savannah, Georgia and Oakland, California. The US Trade Office is also reportedly looking into easing the charging, easing the charges on ships that carry agricultural exports like soybeans and timber. Speaking of tariffs, let's talk about what's going on between Peter Navarro and Elon Musk. Over the course of the last few days, Elon Musk and Peter Navarro, Trump's senior counsel of trade, have taken part in a bit of a public dispute over tariffs. So at a press briefing this week, Press secretary Caroline Levitt said, boys will be boys. When asked about the public dispute. Musk fired the first public shots, so to speak, when a user on X made a post that referenced a CNN interview with Peter Navarro on tariffs and Navarro's Harvard PhD. Musk responded to the post writing, quote, a PhD in econ from Harvard is a bad thing, not a good thing. It results in the ego brains over one problem, end quote. Later in the week on Sunday, Musk took part in a video call with the Italian deputy prime minister. I actually talked about this call in Monday's episode briefly, but Musk basically said he wants a zero tariff solution between the United States and Europe. The next day, Navarro was being interviewed on Fox News. He was asked about Musk's comments on a zero tariff solution, to which he responded that Musk doesn't understand tariffs on the eu. And quote, the thing that I think is important about Elon to understand is he sells cars. That's what he does. Then in a separate interview, this time with cnbc, Navarro said, quote, we all understand in the White House and the American people understand that Elon's a car manufacturer, but he's not a car manufacturer. He's a car assembler in many cases he can go to his Texas plant and a good part of the engines that he gets, which in the EV case is the batteries, come from Japan and come from China. What we want and the difference between our thinking and Elon's thinking on this is we want the tires made in Akron, we want the transmissions made in Indianapolis, and we want the cars manufactured here, end quote. Navarro then goes on to say that what Musk wants is cheap foreign parts. So then most recently on Tuesday, Musk wrote on X in a reply to the clip of that interview with Navarro, quote, navarro is truly a moron. What he says here is demonstrably false. Tesla has the most American made cars. Navarro is dumber than a sack of bricks. End quote. And whether you like Musk or not, the reality is Tesla manufactures a significant amount of their own parts here in the United States. Tesla even refines some of the lithium used in the car's batteries at a in house lithium refinery in Texas. Companies like Cars.com and Kelly Blue Book have actually named Teslas as some of the most American made cars. So contrary to Navarro's comments, Musk isn't as much worried about cheap foreign parts as he is about Tesla being hurt by reciprocal tariffs from other countries. So to be clear, the reason for the disagreement is Musk isn't necessarily a proponent of Trump's tariff strategy, whereas Navarro is. Navarro says he is focused on the country as a whole and asserting our power in trade, whereas Musk is only focused on car parts. But Musk says no, that's not true. His disagreement with the trade policy goes far beyond cars and car parts. Okay, let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll do Quick Hitters, rumor has it, and we'll finish with that fun homework assignment. Spring has officially sprung, which means I officially have the travel itch. I have no clue where I'm going yet. Maybe the Turks and Caicos. I know someone who just went there that said it was incredible. Regardless though, I need to get new travel gear because after my trip to Europe in the fall, my suitcase is officially done with me. Both handles snapped off. There's just no getting it back. But it was time to upgrade anyway, and I've decided to treat myself to the luxe upgrades that I deserve with Quince's high Quality Travel Essentials. The reason I love Quince is all of their products are priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands because they actually partner directly with top factories. So it allows them to cut the cost of the middleman and pass the savings onto the customer. Quinn's has all kinds of premium luggage options, from large suitcases to carry on bags to tote bags to toiletry bags. There's something for everyone. I'm actually eyeing a few things. I really like the aluminum carry on suitcase as well as the Italian leather triple compartment weekender and the Napa leather duffel bag. So we'll we'll see which one I end up going with. For your next trip, treat yourself to the luxe upgrades you deserve from Quince. Go to quince.comunbiased for 365 day returns plus free shipping on your order that is Q-U-I-N-C-E.comUnbiased to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comUnbiased on average, you'll have to wait.
- [29:59]
C
31 days to see an OB GYN and if you're dealing with an infection or outbreak, you know you need care fast. That's where WISP comes in. Connect with a U S licensed provider online and pick up safe, effective treatment at your local pharmacy that same day. Plus get birth control and more delivered in all 50 states. Take control with comprehensive sexual and reproductive care all from your phone. Wisp. That's hello whisp.com the waiting room can wait.
- [30:27]
Political Analyst
Okay, welcome back. Time for some quick hitters. The Trump administration reportedly froze more than $1 billion in federal funding for Cornell and 790 million for Northwestern while it investigates both schools over alleged civil rights violations. The latest Consumer Price Index showed inflation cooling to an annual rate of 2.4% in March. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices decreased by 0.1% in March compared to the previous month, compared to the 0.2% increase recorded in February. This marks the first time since May 2020 that prices have declined on a monthly basis. The US and Russia took part in a prisoner swap. The swap occurred at an airport in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the uae, and resulted in the release of Arthur Petrov in exchange for Cassinia Carolina. Carolina is a Russian American citizen. She had been serving a 12 year sentence for treason in a high security prison colony in Russia. In February of last year, while visiting her parents in Russia, she was detained and accused of financing the Ukrainian army by donating approximately $50 to the U S based Ukrainian aid charity Rasm for Ukraine. Petrov, on the other hand, he's a Russian German citizen who is being held in the United States on charges related to export control violations, smuggling, wire fraud and money laundering. He was specifically accused of illegally exporting military grade electronics in violations of US Sanctions on Russia. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the Trump administration is relaunching the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement Office, otherwise known as Voice. During the press conference, Noem said, quote, the Voice office has three different objectives. The first is that it uses a victim centered approach to provide support for crime victims and their families. Second, it will promote greater awareness of services available to victims of migrant crime. And third, it builds strong partnerships with community stakeholders assisting the victims of immigrant crime as well. End quote. On Wednesday, President Trump sent an executive order titled Maintaining Acceptable Water Pressure in Showerheads. The order aims to restore a policy from Trump's first term by overturning a reversal made by former President Biden. Biden's order had reinstated 2013 regulations that required an entire shower unit to fall under a two and a half gallon per minute flow limitation. Trump's new order emphasizes that, quote, over regulation chokes the American economy, entrenches bureaucrats, and stifles personal freedom, end quote. The order directs the Secretary of Energy to publish a notice in the Federal Register rescinding the Energy confirmation program's definition of showerhead. And that change will go into effect 30 days after that notice is published. And finally, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has announced his candidacy for the U.S. senate, challenging incumbent Senator John Cornyn in the upcoming Republican primary. Paxton made this announcement during an appearance on Fox News and emphasized his commitment to to Republican values and support for President Trump. And now it's time for Rumor has It, my weekly segment where I address recent rumors submitted by all of you and either confirm them, dispel them, or add context. Rumor has it that President Trump is set to declare martial law on April 20th. This is false. The rumor has spread like wildfire on TikTok and other social media platforms. So let's clear the air. On the day that Trump took office, he signed a proclamation declaring a national emergency at the southern border. Consistent with that proclamation, he directed the DoD and DHS to submit a joint assessment within 90 days about the conditions at the southern border and any recommendations regarding additional actions that might be necessary to obtain, quote, complete operational control of the southern border, including whether to invoke the Insurrection act of 1807, end quote. That 90th day, when the joint assessment is due, falls on April 20th. And that is where this rumor is coming from. But here's the thing. The Insurrection act of 1807 is not at all the same as martial law. So let's Differentiate the two the Insurrection act was passed all the way back in 1807. It allows the president to deploy the US military or National Guard in the following one when a state legislature or governor requests the help of the federal government to address insurrection occurring in the state two to address state level insurrections that are impractical to address through law enforcement and three to address threats to constitutionally secured rights that occur in the presence of insurrection, violence or civil unrest. Typically, under federal law, the federal government cannot use the military for law enforcement purposes domestically Right, but the Insurrection act provides the exceptions. In the past, the Insurrection act has been invoked by President Lincoln during the Civil War, President Ulysses S. Grant against the kkk, President Eisenhower and President Kennedy to enforce desegregation and and President George H.W. bush against the LA riots protesting police brutality against Rodney King and black Americans. More recently, in 2020, President Trump threatened to invoke the act in light of the George Floyd protest, but he never did. While it's true that both the Insurrection act and martial law deploy the military domestically, martial law actually goes much, much further than the Insurrection Act. Martial law not only replaces the authority of law enforcement with military with the military and soldiers, and allows military personnel to decide policy rather than elected officials, but also suspends civil liberties for citizens by putting the military in a position of power. The Insurrection act does none of these things. Put another way, the invocation of martial law means the suspension of constitutional rights for all citizens, including suspending the right to freely assemble, to speak, or to receive due process in court. It also suspends all local laws, civil authority, and sometimes local judiciaries. The Insurrection act does does none of these things. The Insurrection act allows the military to be deployed to a specific area to assist law enforcement when the burden of a situation becomes too much for local law enforcement to effectively handle, but it does not allow the military to replace law enforcement. It's also important to note that we don't even know if the president has the authority to unilaterally declare martial law. Martial law is not in the federal Constitution, and the Supreme Court has never answered that question. State constitutions actually give the power of declaring martial law to state governors, but our federal constitution does not contain the same grant of authority. So to bring this back home, Trump's order regarding the southern border says nothing about martial law. Rather, it only mentions the Insurrection act, which is entirely different than martial law. And therefore I can confirm that the rumor that President Trump may declare martial law on April 20 is false. Rumor has it that the Trump Administration is logging on public lands. This is true. So the act, a lot of you wrote in about this one, the act of logging is the process of cutting trees and preparing timber. Logging projects are often contested by conservation groups, which can drag out the approval process and wind up taking years. Now, the administration's position is that the National Forests are in crisis due to uncharacteristically severe wildfires, insect and disease outbreaks, invasive species and other stressors, and that the Forest Service needs to take action to get a handle on these issues, which includes various actions, including logging. Also, the administration, which I will talk about in a second, Trump just, just signed a, or executive order that directs the various agencies to do what they need to do to increase timber production. So that's the second part of this. But allow me to note that logging is not new, right? In fact, the Biden administration also went after more logging projects specifically to combat fires. According to U.S. forest Service records, the volume of trees logged equaled about 2.3 billion board feet in 2021. And by 2023, that number rose 24 to nearly 3 billion board feet in 2024. The Biden administration was accused of rushing the approvals of new logging projects, something the Forest Service has denied. Notably, though, the Biden administration also tried enacting plans to protect old growth forests, but those plans were dropped amid pushback from Republicans and the timber industry. So when President Trump took office, he signed this executive order titled Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production. That order called on federal agencies to issue new or updated guidance regarding tools to facilitate increased timber production and sound forest management, reduce time to deliver timber, and decrease timber supply uncertainty. The order reads in part, quote, the production of timber, lumber, paper, bioenergy and other wood products is critical to our nation's well being. Timber production is essential for crucial human activities like construction and energy production. Furthermore, as recent disasters demonstrate, forest management and wildfire risk reduction projects can save American lives and communities. Now, as we know, an executive order directs federal agencies to take action. So in accordance with that order, on April 3, last Thursday, US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins issued a memo which essentially laid out actions for the Forest Service to take in response to Trump's order. And this is what everyone's talking about. Rollins writes in that memo that U.S. domestic timber supply is enough to meet our timber production needs, but federal policies have stopped this and forced the US to rely on foreign producers. She goes on to say that by reversing these policies and increasing domestic timber production, it will, quote, protect our national and economic security and better provide domestic timber supply, create jobs and prosperity, reduce wildfire disasters, improve fish and wildlife habitats, and decrease costs of construction and energy, end quote. The memo then talks about how national forests are in crisis due to uncharacteristically severe wildfires, as well as insect and dise outbreaks, invasive species and other stressors which have, quote, been compounded by too little active management, end quote. Accordingly, the memo makes an emergency situation determination on over 112 million acres of national Forestry System land. It's equivalent to about 59% of all national Forestry System lands. And this was done citing high wildfire risk. 66.9 million of those acres are rated as very high or high wildfire risk. Another 78.8 million acres are experiencing a decline in forest health, and the remaining 33.8 million are at risk of both wildfire and insect and disease risk. Now, the reason for this emergency situation determination is because now the Forest Service can carry out relevant, you know, quote, unquote emergency actions to mitigate risk. The actions listed in the memo include things like the salvage of dead or dying trees, harvest of trees damaged by wind or ice or other natural disasters, removal of hazardous trees in close proximity to roads and trails, removal of hazardous fuels, replacement of underground cables, and more. As it pertains specifically to timber production, the memo says, quote, in order to increase domestic jobs and prosperity, increase economic independence and protect our national security, the Forest Service will issue new or updated guidance to increase timber production, decrease the time to offer timber supply and and increased certainty in future timber supply. The Forest Service will also streamline, to the extent allowable by law, all processes related to timber production, including project planning, decision making, implementation, and required certifications. In other words, the Forest Service will work to fast track the approval process to the extent allowed under the law. Now, I did link both the executive order and the memo from the usda. If you're interested in reading either of those. As always, you can find them in the sources section of this episode, which is linked in the episode description. Before we end this episode, I have some homework for you. In this episode description, you will find a link that is titled Ask the administration. So I've set up this webpage on my website specifically because I want to know if you were given the chance to ask the President or his administration any question, what would you ask? This is. This is basically today's critical thinking segment. Okay, so again, if you were granted the opportunity to ask the administration or the President anything, what would it be? You can find that submission link in this episode description. Or just go to unbiased network.com Ask the Administration. That is unbiasednetwork.com Ask the Administration. Or just go to this episode description and click the link that says Ask the administration. I can't wait to see what you guys come up with. That is what I have for you today. Have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday. Actually, don't forget I introduced I totally forgot to say this in the beginning of the episode. I introduced this new unbiased in under five minutes. Unbiased politics in under five minutes. So the day after each full length episode, I'll post an under 5 minute episode which is kind of like an episode full of quick hitters, but it goes through all of the stories we covered in today's episode just in a lot less time. So if you're ever in a time crunch but you want to get caught up, maybe that episode is for you. It seems like you guys are loving it so far, so I will actually talk to you tomorrow for that under five minute episode. But I'll be back on Monday for a full length episode.