A

The top three things you need in the summer in my opinion, sunscreen, a portable fan and temperature regulating bed sheets. Now the portable fan, that might just be a me thing. Okay, I run hot. Not only do I run hot, but I live in Florida so you can do the math there. Not enjoyable. The temperature regulating sheets though are something I think everyone can benefit from. Mine are obviously from Cozy Earth. That's the only place I get my bedding and they're just amazing. Now if you've never had temperature regulating sheets, I want you to imagine laying on a pillowy soft bed and with a silky smooth and incredibly cozy material wrapped around you. But you're not hot. You're cool. The sheets, even though they're super soft and truly make it so difficult to want to be anywhere other than your bed, literally feel cool on your body despite you being wrapped in them. I've been raving about Cozy Earth bedding for years. I probably will for the rest of my life, honestly. But if you haven't upgraded your sheets to Cozy Earth, let summer be the time. Seriously, co Cozy Earth knows they make good products too. They stand behind everything they make. There's a 10 year warranty, 100 night sleep trial and hassle free returns on bedding. No company is going to offer a 100 night sleep trial if they're not confident you're going to love their product. Made from viscose from Bamboo, breathable, soft and built for summer. Head to cozyearth.com and use my code UNBIASED for an exclusive 20% off. That's code UNBIASED for an exclusive twenty percent off. And if you see a post purchase survey mention you heard about Cozy Earth right here. Here cozyearth.com code unbiased for an exclusive 20% off welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, July 2nd and we're talking about a new second amendment case on the Supreme Court's docket, a judge blocking USPS from moving forward with a new controversial mail ballot rule, the possible return of the Press 3 option of the 988 crisis hotline, the new DOJ memo regarding disabilities, and much more. Now, because Monday's episode was solely focused on Supreme Court decisions, or I guess it was Tuesday's episode, we are going to be playing catch up a bit in this episode because there are a few things from the end of last week and the beginning of this week that we need to talk about that we weren't able to cover on Tuesday. But first, let's start with some more Supreme Court news. Just when you thought we were finished talking about the Supreme Court, I do have another story for you. The Supreme Court has decided to take up a big Second Amendment case. And this one involves the constitutionality of bans on AR15 style rifles and semi automatic rifles. Now, before we get into the exact issue presented by these cases, I do just want to note that we did kind of see this one coming. Last year, the Supreme Court turned down a request to consider the constitutionality of of laws that ban semi automatic rifles like the AR15. And three justices, Justices Thomas Alito and Gorsuch, all kind of indicated that they would have granted that petition for review. And Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the Supreme Court, quote, should and presumably will address the AR15 issue soon in the next term or two. And end quote. And, and of course, here we are. So on Tuesday, the justices agreed to take up these two cases. Both cases involve laws that restrict AR15 style rifles and similar semi automatic firearms. One is a Connecticut law, the other is a county law in Cook County, Illinois. And these challenges are arguing, these challengers are arguing that these laws violate the Second Amendment because AR15s ands similar rifles are commonly owned for lawful purposes. Now the government's defending the laws. They argue that these restrictions are constitutional and that these types of firearms can be limited because of the public safety concerns that come with them, especially given their use in some mass shootings. Now, the most important case in the background of these two cases is of course, bruin you. In 2022, the Supreme Court said that the government has to show that a gun restriction is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. And ever since Bruin lower courts have been applying that test to different gun laws, including these AR15 style rifle bans. So in the Connecticut case, the lower courts declined to block the law and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and said that Connecticut's restrictions were were consistent with the country's historical tradition of firearms regulation. And a similar thing happened in the Cook county case. So now the Supreme Court is stepping in and the question for the justices will be, does the Second Amendment protect the right to possess AR15 style rifles and similar semiautomatic rifles. So the court will hear arguments during its next term, which starts in October, and then we'll get a decision at some point thereafter. If, if I had to guess, I would guess that that'll probably be a June 2027 decision, but who knows? In the meantime, these laws in Connecticut and Cook county remain in place. And just in case I wasn't clear on this, these two cases will be heard together. So whenever oral arguments do happen, these two cases will be heard at the same time. The next Story A federal judge has blocked the US Postal Service from moving forward with proposed new rules for mail in ballots. Now I briefly this story in the Quick Hitters segment last week, but I know a lot of people had questions about this proposed rule, so I do want to use this as an opportunity just to talk about it a bit more. Earlier this year, President Trump signed an executive order dealing with election integrity and male voting. As part of that, the Postal Service proposed a new rule for federal elections and that proposed rule would create new USPS standards for mail in and absentee ballots in federal general, special and runoff elections. So for example, states or authorized election officials would have to use a new USPS federal ballot mail portal to tell USPS which voters are being sent mail in or absentee ballots. For each voter, the state would have to provide the voter's name, address, the unique barcode on the outbound ballot envelope being sent to the voter, the unique barcode on the return ballot envelope the voter would use to send the ballot back, and the originating election office state. The rule would also require both the outbound ballot envelope and the return ballot envelope to meet certain USPS design standards. So they would need to include the official election mail logo, be compatible with USPS automation equipment, include a unique intelligent mail barcode. They they would have to undergo USPS review for for envelope design and barcode placement. Timing wise, election officials would generally have to submit the the voter barcode information at least 30 days before the federal election to the extent practicable or by the date when ballots are allowed to start being mailed under state law, they could keep adding or modifying voters on the list until the last day ballots may be mailed. State law Then USPS would review outbound ballot mail before accepting it. So USPS says it would check whether the ballot mailing meets the envelope standards and whether the ballots are being sent to people enrolled on that state's USPS participation list. Mail in and Absentee participation list USPS says it wouldn't decide whether someone is actually eligible to vote. It would only check whether the person is on that state submitted list. Furthermore, if a state did not certify the required information or if the ballot mail didn't comply with the new standards, USPS wouldn't accept and transmit that outbound ballot mail. Now these last two points we just went over are what made this rule controversial because under the, under the rule, if a voter wasn't included on the state's USPS mail in and absentee participation list, you USPS would not mail out a ballot for that voter. If a state didn't submit the required certification, USPS wouldn't accept outbound federal ballot mail from authorized ballot mailers in that state. And if a ballot mailing didn't comply with the new standards, USPS wouldn't accept it and would return it to the ballot mailer mailer to fix the errors. Now, the Postal Service has said the goal was to create more uniform ballot mail procedures, improve tracking and and help enforce federal election law. But the the NAACP sued and they argued that the Postal Service was violating a previous 2021 settlement agreement from litigation filed during the 2020 election cycle. So back in August 2020, the NAACP sued USPS. This was during COVID obviously the election cycle was happening during the pandemic. This was during that time because there were concerns about mail delays and whether mail in ballots would be delivered in time. That lawsuit was ultimately settled in 2021 and under that settlement, USPS agreed to keep certain election mail safeguards in place through the 2028 election cycle. And this included prioritizing the monitoring and timely delivery of election mail. So in this case, the NAACP is saying, hold on, this new proposed rule doesn't prioritize the timely delivery of election mail in the way that that USPS agreed to. And the judge agreed with the double the naacp. The judge said that the Postal Service could not claim that it was prioritizing the timely delivery of election mail while also adopting a policy that would allow the agency to refuse to accept and deliver certain ballots, or potentially not mail ballots to any voters in a state that failed to certify the required list. So for now, the proposed rule is blocked from from moving forward, but the administration can appeal. And it's also important to note that this was still a proposed rule. It was not a final rule. So this wasn't taking effect immediately. It was a proposal from USPS that would have had to move through the the standard rulemaking process before being finalized. But because of this ruling, USPS cannot continue moving forward with with that rulemaking process unless the ruling is changed or lifted. Okay, next story. The Trump administration is moving to restart the specialized LGBTQ+ option for the youth and young adults who contact the 988 crisis hotline. This time, though, it'll likely be without the Trevor Project. So a little bit of background on the 988 hotline first, the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline is something that launched in 2022. It's a federally funded resource for people experiencing either mental health center, substance abuse or suicidal crises. President Trump signed the National Suicide Hotline Designation act into law in October 2020, and that is the law that designated 988 as the three digit dialing code to be used for a nationwide suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline. So when the 988 line was ultimately launched in 2022 under the Biden Administration, it included multiple call in options. So veterans would press one, Spanish speakers would press two, and then option three would specifically direct callers to counselors who are who were trained to work with LGBTQ people who were under 25 years old. The Trevor Project, which is a nonprofit that focuses on suicide prevention and crisis intervention for LGBTQ youth, was the main contact center that partnered with the 988 lifeline to provide this option 3 support. So if someone called 988 hit the 3 option, some of the time they would be directed to someone from the Trevor Project and to give you numbers as as to how this this broke down the between 2022 and 2024 agency data showed that of the more than 14 and a half million people who called, texted or sent chats to the 988 hotline and were transferred to a crisis contact center to roughly 1.3 million of those people were routed to the LGBTQ specialized service by pressing option three. And the Trevor Project handled about half of that you know, option three traffic. But in June of last year, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration SAMHSA announced that it would no longer quote SILO LGB plus Youth Services to focus on serving all help center seekers, including those previously served through the Press three option, end quote. And the administration's reasoning at the time was that the Press three option was specifically established as a pilot program in fiscal year 2022 under a government agreement with the Trevor Project, but the funds that were appropriated to that program had been exhausted and therefore the option was being terminated. So with that announcement, press 3 was no longer offered as a specific call in option, but all callers could still call 988 and get help from counselors. And then separately, the Trevor Project announced that it would still be running its own crisis hotline to help those specifically looking for LGBTQ counselors. Now, though, the administration says it's working to bring this press 3 option back by the end of this year it appears to be because Congress directed funding for it. So a letter written last month by samhsa, it was written to a member of Congress said says fiscal year 2026 appropriations include restoring $33.1 million for specialized LGBTQ+ youth services, including the 988 press 3 option. It also requires LGBTQ+ youth cultural competency training, and a system to route LGBTQ+ youth to a specialty organization. The SAMHSA letter said it's still figuring out how to implement that or while complying with Trump's executive order on gender ideology. Now, as for why the Trevor Project might not be involved this time around, the issue has to do with which organizations are currently allowed to apply to help operate this possibly restored service. According to reporting, those applications are limited to crisis centers that are currently active in the 988 network. And because the Trevor Project is no longer active in that network and after, you know, the Press three option was shut down, it might not be eligible to apply. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we will talk about this new DOJ memo regarding institutionalization for people with disabilities and much more. Welcome back.

B

DSW semi annual sale starts now. Twice a year. Tons of deals going fast. It's all or nothing. A designer shoe warehouse will give you something to brag about. Like 40 off clearance in all DSW stores or an extra 10 off clearance@dsw.com don't sleep on these savings. Find shoes that get you at prices that get your budget. DSW let us surprise you.

A

You know how sometimes you have those days where the first time you sit down it's like 7:30 at night. That was me the other day. I was out running errands for most of the day. Then I had to come home immediately. Had to get on some calls. Then I had to work a little bit. Before I knew it, it was time to put my baby down. That was like a whole hour, hour and a half thing. So I finally sat down on the couch at like 7:30 and I realized I hadn't eaten all day. And the last thing I'm gonna do is get up from the couch and cook. Okay? So I was sitting there like, what do I do? What do I do? I just need to eat something. And that's when I remembered I had four factor meals left in the fridge. My day or my night turned around in an instant. I was so happy, so excited. Because factor meals, not only are they convenient, they're genuinely good. Now if you've never heard of factor, these are fully prepared meals designed by dietitians and crafted by chefs. Delivered right to your door. Factor has meals built around your goals, whether that's weight loss, overall Nutrition, more protein, GLP1 support. Personally I'm eating gluten free right now, so I tailor all of my meals around that. But what I really love is that every meal is made with functional ingredients. Lean proteins, colorful veggies, whole foods, healthy fats and factor bands. More than 175 ingredients. There's no artificial colors or sweeteners, no high fructose corn syrup, no refined seed oils, just nutrient dense food. Head to factor meals.com Jordan is my lawyer 50 off and use code Jordan is my lawyer 50 off to get 50% off and free daily greens per box with new subscription only one while supplies last until 927 2026. See website for more details.

C

Monday.com AI agents took over my work and I absolutely love it. Chasing deadlines, writing status reports, updating stakeholders. Agents handle the daily grind. Now I stay in the loop only when it matters. Create your own AI agent in minutes on Monday.com so there's a lot of

A

fear stemming from the DOJ's new memo on institutionalization of people with disabilities, and I've received a lot of requests requests to talk about it. So let's do that. First and foremost, what we are talking about here is a legal opinion from the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, or OLC. This is the office that gives legal advice inside the Executive branch. Now, this opinion in particular is a slip opinion, which just means that this is the released version of the opinion before it's formally published in OLC's official opinion volumes. OLC opinions are written to answer questions, questions from the Council to the President about how certain laws should be read. This opinion is titled Application of the Rehabilitation act and Americans with Disabilities act to State Institutionalization of Patients with Severe Mental Illness or Disabilities, and it deals with two federal laws, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation act and Title 2 of the Americans with Disabilities act or ADA. Section 504 bans disability discrimination in programs that receive federal financial assistance. Title 2 of the ADA applies disability discrimination protections to public entities so state and local government services. The specific question in this memo is whether those laws require states to provide care to people with serious mental illnesses or disabilities and in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. And that phrase, most integrated setting is really important here. The most integrated setting means the setting that allows a person with a disability to live and interact with non disabled people as much as possible. So in this context, we're typically talking about the difference between someone receiving care in an institution versus receiving care in a community based setting, a group home, supported housing, some other less restrictive environment. Now, the memo says DOJ and HHS regulations have long required covered entities to administer programs in the most integrated setting appropriate, and that the DOJ previously defined that as a setting that lets disabled individuals interact with non disabled, non disabled individuals to the fullest extent possible. And that idea is often called the integration mandate. So for years, the federal government has used that integration mandate, along with a Supreme Court case called Olmstead, to push states away from unnecessary institutionalization and toward community based care. So quickly, let's talk about what Olmstead stands for. Olmstead was a 1999 Supreme Court case that involved two women in Georgia who had mental disabilities and had been put into a state psychiatric facility. Both women alleged that Georgia officials violated the ADA by keeping them in the institution, even after professionals who had treated them determined that community based placement was more appropriate for them. And the Supreme Court ultimately held that unjustified institutional isolation, isolation of people with disabilities can be a form of discrimination under Title 2 of the ADA. That holding became a major disability rights precedent for disability advocates. Olmstead stands for the idea that people with disabilities shouldn't be unnecessarily segregated in institutions when they can otherwise safely and appropriately receive care in the community. But this is where the new DOJ memo comes in. The memo says that Olmstead has been read too broadly. According to olc, Olmstead did not hold that the ADA, or Rehabilitation act, requires states to treat people in the most integrated setting appropriate for their needs. Instead, OLC says that the actual holding was narrower than that that unjustified institutional isolation can be discrimination. But that doesn't automatically mean states must always provide care in the most integrated setting possible. So the memo is essentially drawing a distinction between two ideas, right? On one hand, you have the idea that you can't institutionalize someone without a legitimate reason, and the memo agrees with that. But on the other hand, you have the idea that if a more integrated community setting is appropriate and available, the state has to provide that setting, and the memo rejects that idea as a general legal mandate. So the DOJ is basically now saying that neither the ADA nor the Rehabilitation act impose this integration mandate that DOJ and HHS have relied on since Olmstead. The memo says that over the past two decades, DOJ's Civil Rights Division relied on this integration mandate, and Olmstead to pressure states into discharging people from mental health institutions. So based on this memo, the executive branch appears to be moving away from the theory that the DOJ has used to to pressure states into deinstitutionalization and community based treatment agreements. Now what might this look like in real life? Okay, so let's kind of play it out. Imagine there's a, there's an adult that has a developmental disability who lives in a state run institution. Under the broader Olmstead integration mandate approach, if professionals determine that this person could appropriately live in a community based setting, a group home, a supported apartment, some other supervised living arrangement, the state might be more vulnerable to legal action by the government if it keeps that person institutionalized anyway. That could mean a lawsuit, it could mean a DOJ enforcement action, it could mean something else that's, that's essentially requiring the state to move that person toward a more integrated setting. However, under this new DOJ memos view, the state might actually have more room to argue that continued institutional care is not discrimination if it can point to a non discriminatory reason for that placement. So maybe the state says that the person requires a higher level of supervision, maybe the state cites safety concerns, maybe the state says community placements aren't currently available, things like that. Under the memo's reasoning, those are the kinds of factors that, that could support institutional care without automatically making it disability discrimination. So under the older broader approach, the DOJ could use the ADA to push states to create more community placements, to reduce unnecessary institutionalization, to enter agreements requiring discharge planning for certain individuals. But under this new members approach, the DOJ seems to be saying that the ADA and Rehabilitation act don't automatically require that kind of maximal integration. Now states cannot institutionalize someone for no reason. Okay, but the federal government may now be less likely to challenge states on that basis. OLC's argument here is that the ADA and Rehabilitation act prohibit disability discrimination. But discrimination means treating similarly situated people differently because of a disability without enough justification. So OLC says institutional care can be discriminatory if it's unjustified, but it's not automatically discriminatory just because a more integrated setting exists. Disability advocates though are saying okay, but if the federal government moves away from the integration mandate, states might have more room to keep people in institutions instead of investing in community based care. And the fear there is that the federal government is starting to back away from an interpretation of the ADA that has helped support community based care and limit unnecessary institutionalization for more than 20 years now. As for the real world effects. Does this mean the DOJ and HHS are going to stop enforcing disability discrimination laws altogether? No, because that would, that would just simply go too far. However, it is fair to say that this memoir could change what kind of enforcement they pursue, right? Because for years the DOJ and HHS relied on the integration mandate to push states toward community based care. But this memo says the DOJ now believes that that mandate wasn't actually imposed by the ADA or Rehabilitation act and that the DOJ and HHS didn't have authority to create it through regulation. So the practical effect, like I talked about it, might be that the DOJ and HDS are just less likely to bring enforcement actions to based solely on the idea that a state failed to provide the most integrated setting possible. Instead, the focus might shift to whether the institutionalization is unjustified or discriminatory. And under the memo's reasoning, states might now have more room to defend institutional care by pointing to those non discriminatory reasons that we talked about. But again, just to be clear, this does not mean that states can now institutionalize people for no reason. It doesn't mean people no longer have the ability to bring claims of discrimination in court. It means the DOJ and HHS are most likely less likely to bring enforcement actions solely on the idea that a state failed to provide the most integrated setting possible. Some of you asked whether this opinion is something that can be challenged in court. The answer is not really, because an OLC opinion is an internal executive branch legal opinion. It it tells, you know, agencies within the executive branch how to act, how to enforce. However, if the DOJ or HHS takes action based on this memo so rescinds regulations, withdraws guidance, changes enforcement practices in some definitive way, denies a claim based on this new interpretation that agency action could be challenged in court. And the memo itself says that any final agency action adopting OLC's view in this memo could face litigation under federal law. In fact, the memo acknowledges that its view here is not aligned with how federal courts have understood the Olmstead case. The memo says the vast majority of federal appeals courts have treated Olmstead as requiring community based treatment when three things are true when professionals say community placement is appropriate, when the person doesn't oppose community placement, and when the state can reasonably make community placement work. So hopefully that gives you a better understanding of what this memo actually is. And it's always my goal to answer all of your questions and I can only hope that I did that. Now let's move on to quick hitters. We do have quite a few today, starting with President Trump's new Air Force One plane. So President Trump took his first flight aboard the new Boeing 747 8i that will serve as Air Force One when he's on board. That was a plane that was donated by Qatar, refurbished for presidential use, and is expected to temporarily fill the role while the long delayed replacement Air Force One planes are still being completed. Trump flew to North Dakota for the opening of the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library. And speaking of President Trump, he announced that Republicans will hold their first ever national midterm convention in Dallas this September. The event is scheduled for September 9th and 10th at the American Airlines center, and it's meant to help energize Republican voters ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. California just became the first state to ban consumer facing sell by labels on most packaged foods. Starting July 1, food sold in the state generally has to use clearer labels like best if used by or used by and food manufacturers can choose to use either label or both. The goal is to reduce confusion because sell by dates are usually meant for stores, not consumers, and it can lead people to throw away food that might still be safe to to eat. There are exceptions under this law for things like eggs, beer and baby formula, which is regulated separately under federal law. Chinese tech and e commerce company Alibaba Group has agreed to pay $600 million to resolve DOJ allegations that it failed to prevent the illegal sales of pharmaceuticals, controlled substances, listed chemicals and pill presses into the United States through Alibaba.com and AliExpress, DOJ says Alibaba admitted that from 2016 to 2024 merchants used its platform platforms for about 80,000 sales involving illegal imports with a combined value of more than $200 million. As part of this non prosecution agreement, Alibaba and its payment processor accepted responsibility, agreed to pay penalties and forfeitures and and promised to strengthen their compliance programs. And former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton agreed to plead guilty to illegally retaining classified national defense information. Bolton was originally charged with 18 counts related to classified materials, including diary style notes that he shared with relatives while writing a memoir. But he pleaded guilty to one count and as part of a deal with the DOJ. The agreement includes a $2.25 million fine, forfeiting his federal retirement pay, a debriefing with intelligence officials and up to 100 hours of community service. Bolton is scheduled to be sentenced on October 28th, and while this plea deal could help him avoid prison time, the judge will ultimately decide his sentence. Former CIA Director John Brennan is suing the DOJ and several Trump administration officials, asking a federal judge to order the government to preserve records and tied to reported criminal investigations involving him. Brennan has not yet been charged with a crime, but his lawyers say that if charges are eventually brought, those records could be important to arguing the case was politically motivated, vindictive or selective. The DOJ is not confirming whether an investigation exists, as is normal practice, but a DOJ spokesperson pushed back on Brennan's claims, saying it's quote unquote certainly rich that Brennan is accusing anyone of a retribution campaign. OpenAI is reportedly in early talks about giving the US government a 5% ownership stake in the company, which would be worth about 40 $42.6 billion based on a funding round in March that valued the company at $852 billion, according to a reporting from the Financial Times. The idea is part of a broader proposal that could also involve other major USAI companies, giving the government similar stakes. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has argued that the arrangement would allow the public to share in the financial upside of AI, and last month President Trump did tell reporters that he he was planning to meet with top AI executives to discuss giving the public a stake in their companies and Hiring slowed in June, with the US economy adding 57,000 jobs, down from 172,000 jobs in May. That came in below economists expectations, though the unemployment rate still ticked down slightly from 4.3% to 4.2%. The biggest job gains came from professional and business services which added 36,000 jobs, and healthcare, though healthcare hiring also slowed. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back we will finish Quick Hitters because believe it or not, we still have more Quick Hitters to do. And then we'll do Rumor has it, Good news, Critical Thinking and at the very end I will leave you with some fun fourth of July facts. Summer always makes me rethink what I'm wearing every day. It is just so hot outside. You have to be smart. And this is especially difficult for me because as I've talked about before, I have psoriasis. It makes me want to cover up every affected area of my body, which right now is pretty much all over. But what I love about Quint is that they offer lighter fabrics and better materials and and pieces that actually feel good when you put them on but still look really effortless for me. I always feel insecure about wearing long sleeves in the summer, but Quint makes me feel better about it because at least I feel chic and the material is breathable. Now for you who can most likely wear short sleeves, tank top, shorts, etc without even thinking about it, this is even better. Quint has so many good everyday pieces. Linen pants, dresses, tops starting at $32. They have really soft denim. They have organic cotton sweaters that are perfect, perfect for when the temperature gets a bit cooler at night. Now right now I'm loving the linen pants. The 100% European linen pants are phenomenal and they're only $42. The prices are amazing. Everything is 50 to 80% less than similar brands because Quint actually works directly with factories and cuts out the middlemen. So you're paying for the quality, not the label. They also have way more than clothes, home, kitchen, bedding, all of it. It's, it's kind of one of those places where you can find really nice basics for almost every part of your life. So make your summer wardrobe feel easier. Go to quince.comunbiased for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.comunbiased for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comunbiased unbiased hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile.

C

Now I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment

A

of $45 for 3 months, $90 for 6 months or $180 for 12 month Plan required $15 per month equivalent to taxes and fees. Extra initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes. Me slow when network is busy.

D

See terms.

A

Welcome back. Continuing on with some quick hitters, the Trump administration will not extend the U.S. mexico, Canada Agreement in its current form. The trade deal, which Trump negotiated during his first term to replace nafta, will remain in effect for now, but the decision starts a longer review process and creates some uncertainty over its future. It U.S. officials say they want changes aimed at reducing trade deficits and bringing more manufacturing back to the United States. Canada and Mexico have both signaled they are open to continue negotiations, but businesses and industry groups are warning that a prolonged fight over the deal could create problems for North American supply chains. The two climbers who scaled the Empire State building yesterday are expected to appear in court today. The pair were taken into custody Wednesday after spending several minutes at the top of the spire where the man actually appeared to propose to the woman. Both are facing multiple charges, including burglary, reckless endangerment, criminal trespass and disorderly conduct. Trump Accounts will officially Launch on the 4th of July, which means eligible Americans can start contributing this weekend. As we've talked about in past episodes, Trump accounts are tax deferred investment accounts for kids under 18. Children born between January 1, 2025 and December 31, 2028 who open an account are eligible for a $1,000 Treasury Department contribution. Families and other contributors can generally put in up to $5,000 per child per year, though the money usually can't be withdrawn until the child turns 18, and you can apply for an account if you're interested@TrumpAccounts.gov okay, it's time for Rumor has It, my weekly segment where I do my best to either confirm, dispel or add context to to recent rumors submitted by all of you. First, one President Trump made over $1 billion in crypto last year. This is true as it pertains to his crypto related income reported through his businesses. So here is what we know. According to President Trump's 2025 financial disclosure, which was released by the U.S. office of Government Ethics, Trump reported more than $1 billion in income or proceeds tied to crypto related ventures. The filing itself lists roughly $635 million in royalties through CIC Digital's license fees for NFTs and meme coins. It lists roughly 197 million in net proceeds tied to stablecoin Holdco. It also lists multiple World Liberty Financial related entries, including roughly $65 million from an equity sale and roughly $236 million from token sales and roughly 290 million in other token sale proceeds. Adding these numbers together, you get more than $1 billion. A big chunk of this money obviously came from two places. The roughly $635 million in royalties through CIC Digital LLC, which the disclosure describes as involving license fees for NFTs and meme coins. And then second, the roughly $236 million from token sales related to World Liberty Financial, which is a crypto venture linked to Trump and his sons. It lists Trump as a co founder emeritus, basically an honorary founder title, and then it lists his sons as co founders. Now, a few A few of you have asked what kind of conflict of interest this presents and whether this is legal. The answer is it's complicated as with anything in the law. So the biggest conflict of interest concern here is that Trump is obviously in a position to influence federal crypto policy. While he and his family have major financial interests in crypto related ventures, his administration obviously oversees agencies like the sec, cftc, treasury, the, the Justice Department. All of which can affect the crypto industry through regulation, enforcement, banking decisions, stablecoin rules, sanctions, investigations, et cetera. So there's an obvious conflict of interest concern if a crypto related policy also benefits the businesses connect connected to the president or his family. As far as the legality of it, though, it's not automatically legal. Presidents are generally exempt from the main federal criminal conflict of interest statute that applies to most executive branch officials. So the fact that a president has a financial interest affected by federal policy doesn't by itself violate that specific conflict of interest law. At the same time, that doesn't mean there are no legal limits at all, right? Bribery laws still apply. Financial disclosure rules still apply. Securities and fraud laws could apply, depending on the facts. If money or benefits are coming from foreign governments or foreign government linked entities, that can raise questions under the Constitution's Emoluments clause. Those though those questions would also be pretty legally complicated. So yes, these crypto ventures do raise conflict of interest concerns, but whether any part of it is actually illegal would depend on much more specific evidence. A quid pro quo, a disclosure violation for fraud, a constitutionally prohibited foreign benefit, Something like that. But to answer the initial rumor, yes, Trump's 2025 financial disclosure shows more than $1 billion in crypto related income and proceeds connected to his businesses. Next one Birthright citizenship could be overturned with legislation. This is false. Now, after the Supreme Court struck down Trump's birthright citizenship order, Trump posted on Truth Social quote, the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, which is too bad for our country. But we can easily make it up in Congress through legislation with the support of the President. That has now been determined. During this process, no long and unwieldy constitutional amendment is necessary. Congress should start today to work on ending expensive and unfair to our country birthright citizenship. They will have my complete and total support, end quote. The thing is though, this would need a constitutional amendment, Congress could not do this alone. Congress cannot overturn a constitutional right with only a bill. Now that the Supreme Court has weighed in on what the Constitution says regarding who's entitled to birthright citizenship, to actually change a constitutional rule, there would either need to be a constitutional amendment or a future Supreme Court decision interpreting the 14th Amendment differently. Now, Congress could try to pass a bill limiting birthright citizenship to certain babies born in the United States, but that would almost certainly 99.9999% certainly trigger another court fight. It would most likely be struck down in light of Trump v. Barbara. The other avenue Congress could take is passing laws dealing with related issues so visa fraud, birthright or birth tourism as they call it. And even then, those would also trigger another court fight. But no, Congress can't overturn birthright citizenship with a bill. Last one the Trump administration is considering 250 pardons for the 250th anniversary. This one needs context. The Atlantic reported that the White House is reportedly discussing a plan for Trump to issue up to 250 pardons to mark America's 250th anniversary. But the report also said that this is a push from aides and interns within the White House, not the president himself, and that this proposal hadn't been presented to the president yet. So it's unclear if the president even knows about this potential proposal. In some Good news, the U.S. men's soccer team is moving on in the World Cup. After beating Bosnia and Herzegovina, the U.S. won 2 to 0. It was the team's first first World cup knockout stage win since 2002. But what makes this win even more impressive, and I guess this is kind of bad news, but it's that the United States had to play a pretty big chunk of the second half, down one player after its leading goal scorer was shown a red card. I don't know. I watched the game. I really didn't agree with that call, but who am I to say so the United States will play Belgium in the next round on Monday. I have no doubt that the men's team will show up and show out in some more good news, A dad who gave up his dream car decades ago to support his growing family just got the best surprise from his youngest son. So after returning home from Vietnam, Daniel Ellen bought his dream car. It was a white 1969 Mustang Mach 1. Allen told the story of how he used to drive it on dates with his future wife. He even proposed to her in the car. But after they had seen six sons, the two door Mustang didn't make much sense anymore. So he sold it to make room for a family car. Well, his youngest son, Shane, never forgot all of the stories that his dad told him. And this year, he secretly tracked down a nearly identical Mustang. He traded in one of his own classic cars just to get it. He restored it to look just like his dad's original and then he surprised to d his dad with it for Father's Day. Shane said the gift wasn't really about the car. It was about thanking his parents for everything they sacrificed while raising six boys. Next one Michigan is on its way to passing a law to protect lemonade stands. Last summer, three brothers were told they'd have to pay nearly $400 in permits and licensing fees just to keep running their lemonade stand. But instead of giving up, they met with their state representative. They testified before lawmakers. They explained why the rules just didn't make sense for kids who were trying to earn a little spending money, and the lawmakers listened. The Michigan House unanimously passed a bill that would exempt kids from those permit requirements for smaller lemonade stands and similar businesses as long as they're selling simple drinks and making less than $5,000 a year. The bill does still have to pass the Senate, but it's a big step in the right direction. And finally, in the midst of all of the devastating news out of Venezuela after last week's earthquakes, a man was pulled out alive from the rubble of a collapsed shopping center. In eight days after the earthquakes hit. He had been trapped in the basement and rescue crews from several countries worked for days to get to him. They they were able to get to him through tubing, so they were able to line tubing down and get him water while they dug down. They eventually reached him and they carried him out on a stretcher. Obviously, the situation in Venezuela is absolutely heartbreaking, but this is undoubtedly good news in the midst of sadness. Now for today's critical Thinking segment, I want to go back to the story about Trump and his crypto related income. Here's the first question. Should presidents be allowed to keep ownership in private businesses while in office if they publicly disclose their financial interests? Or should they be required to sell, divest or place those assets in a truly independent blind trust? And then my follow up question is, if you were writing the rule, what would it be? Would you require presidents to sell off only certain assets before taking office? Would you only require divestment from industries directly affected by federal policy? Would you allow family members to keep running the businesses? Would a blind trust be enough? Or is full transparency and letting voters decide the better solution? So think about what your rule would be. I also want you to think about how practical your rule is and whether it would actually work. By the way, if you love these critical thinking segments, I do this thing on Instagram and Facebook where I post a critical thinking question of the day at the end of, I post it in the morning, and at the end of each day, I share some of the responses to that day's question. My followers have been absolutely loving it. Which tracks because the Critical Thinking segment on the podcast is a hit, too. So if you want to challenge yourself on a daily basis, go ahead and follow Unbiased Jordan on Instagram or. Or Unbiased Politics on Facebook. That's Unbiased Jordan on Instagram or Unbiased Politics on Facebook. Okay, now, before I let you go, since Saturday is the 4th of July, and not just any 4th of July, it is the 250th anniversary of America's independence, I want to leave you with a little bit of history. You know, I love to do it. I am a nerd for these kinds of things. So, first, most people think that America became independent on July 4, 1776. But technically, we became independent 250 years ago today, July 2. The Continental Congress actually voted for American independence on July 2, 1776. Two days later, on July 4, it officially adopted the Declaration of Independence, which is, of course, the document that explains why the colonies were separating from Great Britain. But that date is the one that stuck.

D

And.

A

And July 4th officially became a federal holiday in 1870. It became a paid holiday for federal employees in 1938. So not too long ago, relatively. And then this is one of my favorite fun facts. John Adams was convinced that Americans would celebrate July 2nd forever. In a July 3rd letter to his wife, Abigail, he wrote, quote, the second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. And, end quote, he then went on to describe how he thought future generations would celebrate. And he wrote, quote, it ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shoes, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward, forever more, end quote. So Adams, you know, he got the celebration right. Parades, fireworks, festivities, but he was off by two days. Whether you are spending this weekend with family, you're watching fireworks, you might be traveling, maybe you're just enjoying a day off. I hope you have a safe and happy 4th of July. As always, thank you for being here and I will talk to you again on Monday.

D

Insurance isn't one size fits all. That's why customers have enjoyed Progressive's Name youe Price Tool for years now. With the Name youe Price Tool, you tell them what you want to pay and they'll show you options that fit your budget. So whether you're picking out your first policy or just looking for something that works better for you and your family, they make it easy to see your options. Visit progressive.com, find a rate that works for you with a name. Your price tool Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and Coverage Match limited by state law.