UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (1/16/25): Cuba No Longer State Sponsor of Terrorism, Transgender Sports Bill, Israel and Hamas Ceasefire, SEC Sues Elon Musk, FDA Bans Red Dye No. 3, some GOOD NEWS, and More.

Episode Date: January 16, 2025

Welcome back to UNBIASED. In today's episode: President Biden Removes Cuba from List of State Sponsors of Terrorism (0:10) House Passes Transgender Sports Bill; Here's Why It'll Be Tougher to Pass in Senate (4:27) SEC Sues Elon Musk over Late Twitter Ownership Disclosure (9:05) FDA Bans Red Dye No. 3 (12:47) Senate Confirmation Hearings Kick Off; Recapping Hearings of Pete Hegseth and Pam Bondi (17:16) Multiple Lawsuits Filed After LA Wildfires (24:03) Israel and Hamas Reach Ceasefire Deal with Help of Biden and Trump Administrations (28:43) Quick Hitters: President Biden's Farewell Address, New Rule Bans Chinese and Russian Tech in Passenger Cars, DOT Sues Southwest and Frontier for Delayed Flights, Southwest Airlines Pilot Arrested on Plane for DUI, Trump Announces 'External Revenue Service,' WSJ Reports TikTok Considering Musk to Take Over US Operations, TikTok's CEO to Attend Inauguration, Supreme Court Hears First Amendment Porn Law Case, DOJ Releases Volume One of Trump Election Interference Report, Blue Origin Rocket Launches Into Orbit, Mortgage Rates Are Up (32:24) Some GOOD News (39:04) Listen/Watch this episode AD-FREE on Patreon. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Thursday, January 16th. Let's get into some news. Starting with the first story, the United States will remove Cuba from a list of state sponsors of terrorism. At least for now. On Tuesday, President Biden notified Congress that he intends to lift the U.S. designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism as part of a deal between Cuba and the Catholic Church. Before we get into the specifics of the deal, I do quickly want to talk about what it means to be a state sponsor of terrorism and specifically Cuba's history on the list. So for a country to be designated a state sponsor of terrorism, the Secretary of State has to determine that the country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. Cuba is one of the four countries with this designation.

The other three are North Korea, Iran, and Syria. Now Cuba was the first or I should say it was first designated a state sponsor of terrorism in 1982. This was during the Reagan administration. At the time, it was reported that members of the Castro regime used a narcotics ring to traffic arms to M-19 guerrillas in Colombia, and that Cuba harbored ships carrying marijuana in Cuban waters to be sent to the United States. So this was the start of Cuba's history on the list. But in 2015, the Obama administration rescinded Cuba's designation as part of a shift in Cuba policy.

This was also about seven years after Fidel Castro, the longtime communist leader of Cuba, gave up his position to his brother because of his health. But at the time, the Obama administration noted that while the United States still had significant concerns and disagreements with a wide range of Cuba's policies and actions, those policies and actions fell outside the criteria relevant to the rescission of a state sponsor of terrorism designation. However, Cuba was once again placed on the list in 2021 when Trump took office. Leading up to this decision, and specifically in 2016, many American diplomats and families

in Cuba reported hearing high-pitched noises in their homes and hotel rooms, also fatigue, dizziness, and hearing loss. Now, that phenomenon actually became so prevalent that it was given the name Havana Syndrome. Officials are unsure whether Havana Syndrome was caused by Cuba or a foreign adversary, but many speculate that it was perpetrated by those in Cuba's government through Russian relations. In addition to Havana Syndrome, though, and more recently, the Cuban government backed President Maduro of Venezuela despite Maduro's corruption and election fraud. So these issues are what prompted the Trump administration to reissue Cuba's designation.

That of course begs the question, why is the designation now being taken away by President Biden? Well, the reason is said to be the facilitation of a deal between the Catholic Church and Cuba to free political prisoners that have been detained in Cuba since 2021. Now, the Cuban Foreign Ministry did not link the two, meaning they didn't say that the release of prisoners was related to the US decision to lift the designation. However, it did inform Pope Francis of its intention to release the prisoners following the announcement by Biden. The foreign ministry did not specify who the prisoners were, but did say 553 prisoners would be gradually released

as authorities analyzed the legal and humanitarian ways to make it happen. Behind the scenes, the Catholic Church has been negotiating with the Cuban government over the release of these prisoners, most of whom were jailed following island-wide protests in July 2021, and some of whom were even facing prison sentences up to 30 years. A statement from the White House following the president's announcement to Congress reads, quote, the government of Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism during the preceding six month period, and the government of Cuba has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future. It is worth noting, though, that Trump will likely and can reverse the decision and reissue the designation once he takes office

next week. Moving on, some more Tuesday news. The House passed a bill that if signed into law will ban transgender students from playing on sports teams that don't align with their biological sex. The vote was to 18-206, with two Democrats joining all Republicans. The bill is called Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025. Now that it's passed the House, it heads to the Senate. If it passes the Senate, and it's ultimately signed into law, it will

essentially amend the Education Amendments of 1972 to say that, for purposes of determining compliance with Title IX in athletics, sex shall be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth. What this means in practice is that schools and universities that receive federal funding cannot allow transgender individuals to compete on teams that do not align with their biological sex.

If a school or university does allow the prohibited actions once this is signed into law, they risk losing their federal funding. As a reminder, Title IX is a decades old civil rights law, which was first enacted in 1972. It prohibits sex discrimination against people at public schools, colleges, educational agencies, and universities that receive federal funding.

And it doesn't just offer protection to students, but also employees. So over the years, Title IX has been modified and interpreted in various ways. As an example, under the Obama administration in 2016, the Department of Education published guidance that details how Title IX protects transgender students specifically. In 2020, under Trump's first administration, Title IX was updated to say that colleges had to hold live hearings to adjudicate sexual misconduct cases. Then more recently, President Biden updated Title IX to say that

discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on sex characteristics, pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity. So Title IX changes depending on who's in office and what their policies are. Obviously, this time, you know, the bill that just passed the House this week, Congress is trying to once again update Title IX to say that transgender individuals cannot play on sports teams that don't align with their biological sex. So let's talk a little bit about the arguments made on each side during debate on the House floor.

Republican lawmakers argued the bill is crucial to upholding the promise of Title IX and protecting equal opportunity in athletics for women and girls. With this came a focus on the physical disadvantages biological women may have against transgender athletes and the potential injury risks they face if biological males are able to compete with them. Many Democrats, on the other hand, discussed the bill as being discriminatory and dangerous. They argued the bill is targeting a small number of people, highlighting the fact that less than 10 transgender athletes are currently competing in the NCAA. they also argued that being part of a team and participating in sports is essential to students' social and emotional

development and expressed concerns about how a bill like this would be enforced, questioning if it would open doors to inspections and or harassment. And in response to that last point, Republicans did say there is no requirement for inspections and there would be no effort needed other than looking at a person's birth certificate. Finally, it's worth noting that this is not the first time a bill like this has been passed in the House. During the last congressional session, House Republicans passed a bill by a 219 to 203 vote. However, the Democratic-led Senate never took it up, and that's because it didn't pass the filibuster. So the filibuster, I've talked about it before, but it's this unique thing in the Senate where

at least 60 senators need to vote to even bring a bill to a full vote. If a bill can't pass that filibuster, it's never voted on. So this is obviously different than the House where only a simple majority is needed to pass a bill. In the Senate, a bill first needs 60 votes to get past the filibuster and to a full vote. And then once the bill gets to a full vote, a simple majority is required to actually pass it. And it's worth mentioning too that even now, even though there's a Republican majority in the Senate now, they are still going to need the help of some Democrats to pass the filibuster.

There are 52 Republican senators, so they need either the two independents and six Democrats or eight Democrats to get to that 60 number. But we'll see what happens there. Our final piece of news from Tuesday is the SEC's new lawsuit against Elon Musk. On Tuesday, the SEC filed a lawsuit against Musk, accusing him of violating securities laws by accumulating a significant amount of Twitter stock without filing the proper ownership disclosure. In early 2022, Musk started investing in Twitter. This was late January, 2022.

And by March, he owned more than 5% of the company. According to SEC rules, once you cross a 5% ownership threshold, you have to disclose your ownership within 10 calendar days of crossing that threshold. Musk allegedly crossed that threshold on March 14, 2022, which means his disclosure would have been due on March 24, 2022.

But according to the lawsuit, Musk made his disclosure on April 4, 2022, which is 11 days past the deadline. Keep in mind, by the way, this is all before Musk actually bought Twitter. He didn't buy it until October of that year. The lawsuit says that during the period in which Musk was required to disclose his Twitter ownership but failed to do so, he spent more than $500 million purchasing additional shares

of Twitter common stock. Now the issue here is that once Musk did file his disclosure, Twitter's stock price rose more than 27% from its closing price the previous day. So the SEC argues that Musk purposely didn't file his disclosure until later so he could continue buying Twitter stock at a lower price, which the SEC says didn't actually reflect the price of the stock given Musk's ownership that no one knew about. They claimed that in total Musk underpaid Twitter investors by more than $150 million

for his purchases during this period. So to provide a little bit more clarity here, maybe this is a little confusing, the idea behind the SEC's argument is that if people had known Musk was accumulating Twitter stock, the value of the stock would have increased and Musk would have had to pay a lot more than he did for the shares that he bought during this time.

And to back that up, the SEC cites to the fact that Twitter stock did increase once Musk made his disclosure. So they claim he paid less for the shares during that 11-day period than he otherwise would have had he made his disclosure when he was supposed to. And the $150 million number is what they claim Musk underpaid. It's the estimate of the difference there would have been in the stock price if Musk

had filed his disclosures in accordance with SEC rules. We got somewhat of a response to the lawsuit from Musk when another user wrote on X, quote, the SEC is suing Elon Musk for buying Twitter at artificially low prices even though he bought it for $44 billion and industry analysts said it was worth more like $30 billion. Nothing makes sense, man. Elon Musk then replied to that user's post and wrote, quote, totally broken organization, they spend their time on shit like this when there are so many actual crimes that go unpunished End quote. So we'll have to see what happens here just like everything else But another important note to make which could change the trajectory of this case

Is that the SEC will soon have new leadership when Trump takes office on Monday Its current chair will step down and Trump's pick Paul Atkins will replace him. At that point, it'll be up to the new SEC leadership to decide whether they are going to pursue this lawsuit. Alright, when we come back, we will get into some Wednesday news, including the FDA banning Red 3, a recap of a couple of the Senate confirmation hearings, we'll talk about some new lawsuits stemming from the LA wildfires, and much more. Alright, let's move on now to Wednesday news. So starting off with the FDA, the FDA banned the use of red dye number 3 in food, beverages, and ingested drugs. The ban comes more

than 30 years after red 3 was banned in cosmetics and topical products. Red dye 3 is a synthetic color additive made from petroleum and it gives products, foods, drinks, etc. that bright cherry red color. Currently, Red 3 can be found in candies like Ring Pops, Candy Corn, Peeps, Pez, some flavors of Fruit by the Foot, Entenmann's Little Bites, Hostess' Ding Dongs, and even things that you wouldn't really expect like Betty Crocker's loaded mashed potatoes, and even vivants. However, despite this list, it's also important to note that red 3 is not a very popular dye

nowadays. In the United States, red 40, yellow 5, and yellow 6 are much more prevalent, comprising over 90% of food dyes used. But let's talk about the studies behind Red 3 before we get into why this ban was implemented. And I do want to give a quick shout out to Unbiased Science, which is not related to my platform at all, but is a platform hosted by two women, one of whom is a public health expert, the other is a neurobiologist. They have a podcast and newsletter, but their platform is devoted to, and I quote, objective critical appraisal of available evidence on

health topics. So I took a lot of this information from their recent newsletter because they are great at citing their sources and providing in-depth, unbiased information. Studies show that male rats exposed to very high levels of red 3 developed thyroid tumors. However, this result happened through a hormone mechanism specific to male rats that doesn't exist in humans. And studies in other animals like female rats, mice, gerbils, and dogs showed no cancer effects. So you might ask why ban it, or some might say, I don't care what the studies show, ban it anyway. But let's talk about why.

In the United States, we have a law called the Delaney Clause. It was enacted in 1960, and it requires the FDA to ban any color additive that causes cancer in humans or animals, regardless of the relevance to human health, the extremely high doses required, the specific biological mechanism, the actual risk, and whether the effect has been seen in humans. In fact, color additives are actually held to a stricter standard under the Delaney Clause than food additives. And this is because of a 1987 case called Public Citizens vs. Young, which upheld Congress's stricter standard for color additives because of several factors.

One, colors are purely cosmetic. They don't provide any nutritional or functional benefit to food. Two, there was heightened concern about synthetic colors in the 60s due to several safety incidents. And three, the law was written during a period of public suspicion about synthetic color additives. Now, this obviously begs the question if red 3 was banned in cosmetics and topical products in 1980 due to studies that linked red III to thyroid cancer in male rats and Congress's stricter standard for dyes was upheld in 1987, why hasn't red III been banned yet? Unfortunately, I don't have the answer for you,

but what I can tell you is that in 1990, the FDA said it would take steps to ban the use of red III in foods, ingested drugs and supplements, but that never happened. I can also tell you that this new ban stems from a 2022 petition filed by the Center for Science and the Public Interest and 23 other organizations. In 2023, the FDA published their ban notice in the Federal Register, which opened it up to public comment, and then of course this week we got the final decision. Notably, in 2023, California became the first state

to ban Red 3 and there are, I believe, 10 other states that have taken similar actions. So companies and manufacturers will now have under this new ban until January, 2027 to reformulate foods and beverages and until January, 2028 to reformulate ingested drugs. And then also imported foods also must remove the additive to be sold in the United States. All right, let's talk about some Senate confirmation hearings. Pete Hegseth's

hearing kicked off the confirmation process for the incoming Trump administration. So let's start with him and then we'll do Trump's pick for Attorney General Pam Bondi. Kristi Noem, Trump's pick for DHS secretary, was also scheduled for Wednesday. Her hearing ended up getting pushed back a day to today and five others had hearings on Wednesday as well. But like I said, for time purposes, we're only going to cover Hegseth and Bondi because those were the two that you all requested to hear about the most. Let's to cover Hegseth and Bondi because those were the two that you all requested to hear about the most. Let's start with Hegseth. Hegseth was one

of Trump's more controversial picks. Those that support him really support him. Those that don't support him really don't support him. Obviously you have people that are in the middle, but the general feeling is that. So naturally his hearing was a bit contentious. Those on his side gave him a few softballs, along with some harder-hitting questions, and those that opposed him were a lot tougher. He was asked about his tattoos, his lack of experience in a governmental leadership position, the allegations of sexual assault against him, allegations of excessive drinking, and his comments about women serving in combat roles. Notably, he wasn't asked much about current conflicts, potential military adversaries, or strategic rivals. Obviously, these are things that are crucial

for the Secretary of Defense to have knowledge on, but instead, Hegseth's questioning really focused mostly on his character and competence. Hegseth focused on his desire for an emphasis on what he calls a warrior culture. He vowed to bring back the DOD's focus to the strength of America's military and described his job as warfighting, lethality, meritocracy, standards, and readiness. He criticized policies he felt harmed those things such as policies aimed at racial and gender equality. This is in line with what he has said about women's roles in combat before.

He believes the standards for fighting in combat roles should not be lowered to accommodate gender equality, but rather kept the same. And if both genders can achieve that heightened standard, then both genders can serve in combat roles. Hegseth also promised to reinstate and reimburse troops who were dismissed for refusing to get the COVID vaccine. He said that past Pentagon policies that required the vaccine were a form of religious discrimination. Notably, the DOD vaccine mandate that was in

place from August 2021 to January 2023 did provide exceptions for medical issues and religious objections. Nonetheless, nearly 8,000 troops were forced out for not getting that vaccine. At the hearing, some senators expressed concern over his lack of experience in governmental leadership. Hegseth has experience in combat and as a TV personality for Fox News, but has never led a federal department or agency. Hegseth responded by saying he is the right guy for the job, just like Trump was the right guy for the job of president in 2016,

despite having no political experience. He said that what we've been doing so far, as far as hires for this position go, has not been working and that it's time for someone to lead the department who's been in combat themselves. Another senator asked Hegseth about one of his tattoos, which some say is an extremist symbol that's been adopted by white supremacists. The tattoo is a Jerusalem cross with four smaller crosses in each corner of the bigger

cross. Hegseth said in response, quote, it's called the Jerusalem cross. It's a historic Christian symbol. In fact, interestingly, recently I attended briefly the memorial ceremony of former president Jimmy Carter on the floor of our National Cathedral. On the front page of his program was the very same Jerusalem cross. It's a Christian religious symbol." Hegseth was also asked about the 2017 sexual assault allegations against him. Notably, he was never charged by police, but he did give his accuser settlement money and had her sign an NDA.

He was asked about the allegations of excessive drinking and about the time he cheated on his wife, though many Republican lawmakers also came to his defense. Senator Mullen of Oklahoma was one of them. He said, quote, How many senators have shown up drunk to vote at night? Have any of you guys asked them to resign from their job? And don't tell me you've never seen it because I know you have. And then how many senators do you know have gotten divorced for cheating on their wives? Do you ask them to step down? End quote. Has Hegseth's hearing lasted about four hours? And it does seem as if he'll be confirmed. Remember, he needs a simple

majority in the Senate, which is 51 senators and there are currently 52 Republicans in the Senate and all of them seem on board. Okay, now let's quickly talk about Pam Bondi's hearing. It was less contentious than Hegseth's. Pam Bondi is Trump's pick for Attorney General. If confirmed, she will lead the DOJ. Heading into the hearing, Bondi received the support of 60 former state attorneys general, which included both Democrats and Republicans who said she was especially qualified for the role. In her opening statement,

she said her overriding objective, if she's confirmed, would be to return the DOJ to its core mission of keeping Americans safe and vigorously enforcing the law, which she said requires getting back to basics, which is prosecuting violent crime and gang activity, stopping child predators and drug traffickers, protecting our nation from terrorists and other foreign threats, and addressing the

overwhelming crisis at the border. She also said the DOJ needs to return to defending the foundational rights of all Americans, which includes free speech, free exercise of religion, and the right to bear arms. She also highlighted the need to fix the Bureau of Prisons, which she says has suffered from years of mismanagement, lack of funding, and low morale. During the hearing, Bondi was asked about whether under her leadership the DOJ would investigate Trump's enemies. She responded by saying there would not be an enemies list in the DOJ and that she would not use her power for political gain or to target

political adversaries. She was also asked if she would acknowledge that Trump won the 2020 election. Her response was quote, President Biden is the president of the United States. He was duly sworn in and he is the president of the United States. There was a peaceful transition of power. President Trump left office and was overwhelmingly elected in 2024." End quote. Some senators doubled down and wanted a yes or no answer from Bondi, but she would not give one. Bondi was also asked whether she would defend the right to same-sex marriage. She responded that she would respect the law. And the reason for this question is because Bondi, as attorney general of Florida in 2014, defended a state

ban on same-sex marriage that was in Florida, as I said. So day two of Bondi's hearing happened this morning, and like Hegseth, it is looking like she will be confirmed as well. Okay, let's move on to LA. In the wake and in the midst of the LA fires, residents and business owners are starting to file lawsuits. Those from Pacific Palisades have filed suit against the LA Department of Water and Power, alleging a failure to repair a nearby reservoir, and those affected by the Eaton fire

have filed multiple lawsuits against utility company Southern California Edison Alleging in part that it was its equipment that sparked the fire So let's talk about that first lawsuit first at its core the lawsuit against the LA Department of Water and Power Alleges that the city and the department were unprepared for the fire for one It alleges that the water supply system servicing areas in and around Pacific Palisades failed and that the Santa Ynez Reservoir, which is a 117 million gallon water storage complex between where the fire broke out in the Palisades and where all of the homes are located, was empty and that this left fire crews with little to no water to fight the fire. As we know and as the LA mayor

has stated, 20% of the fire hydrants in the Palisades neighborhood were empty within two days of the fire starting. Now, the reservoir at issue was taken out of service about a year ago to be repaired to meet safe drinking water regulations. The lawsuit says the reservoir should have been repaired in a timely manner, but wasn't because the LADWP wanted to cut costs, and because it wasn't, mass destruction ensued. The LADWP said in a statement before the lawsuit was filed that the reservoir hadn't been repaired yet because it was subject to the city charter's competitive bidding process, which takes time. The head of the LADWP also blamed unprecedented and extreme weather, a lack of aerial support,

and high demand, saying that 3 million gallons of water were accessible when the fire broke out, but demand was four times more than they had ever seen. So that lawsuit is seeking damages for the cost, repair, and replacement of damaged and destroyed property, plus costs for alternative living expenses and lost wages, earning capacity, and profits. In a report released earlier this week, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs estimated that this fire will cost insurers as much as $30 billion, but after accounting for non-insured damages, total costs will reach 40 billion.

Keep in mind though, the fire is still burning, it is not over, so we may see the cost increase even further. And by the way, both of those fires, the Eaton fire and Palisades fire are still burning. Now the other company getting sued is Southern California Edison. Multiple lawsuits have been filed against it,

alleging that it was its equipment that caused the Eaton fire, which as I said is still burning as of earlier today, it was 55% contained. The lawsuit alleges that Edison's equipment was the ignition source, and that specific lawsuit includes video footage and witness accounts that reportedly show flames erupting directly beneath electrical towers. Another lawsuit alleges Edison failed to comply with essential electrical and fire safety standards, including failing to maintain power lines properly and overgrown vegetation.

A third lawsuit says the Eaton fire was ignited because of Edison's failure to de-energize its overhead wires despite a red flag PDS wind warning. Edison has not commented on these lawsuits, but in a filing with the California Public Utilities Commission, Edison has said that a downed conductor was discovered near the start of the Hearst fire, which was a smaller fire that broke out the same day as the Eaton fire in LA. However, Edison also said it doesn't know whether that down conductor happened before or after the start of the fire. As for the Eaton fire, Edison filed a separate report with the Utilities Commission saying that a preliminary analysis of electrical circuit information for the energized transmission lines going through the area for 12 hours prior to the reported start time of the fire shows no interruptions or electrical or operational anomalies until more than one hour after the reported start time.

So the reality is that not only did these fires cause and are currently causing a wild amount of destruction, but these legal battles are going to go on for a long time and we will probably see many more lawsuits. There's a lot of entities involved, a lot of people involved, a lot of damage, and this is all going to take a very long time. All right, let's take our second quick break here. When we come back, we'll touch on the ceasefire deal. We'll do some quick hitters and we will end this episode with some good news. Welcome back. Now for the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, I don't usually touch on foreign affairs, but considering the Biden administration and incoming Trump administration played a big role in this,

let's talk about it. It's worth noting at the outset that as of now, Israel has not officially declared that a deal has been reached. It could happen and perhaps it may have happened since I prepped this portion of the episode earlier today. But as of now, no official declaration from Israel. However, an Israeli official did say that the cabinet was going to vote on the deal tomorrow and that does kind of insinuate

that the outstanding issues with the deal have been sorted out. Yesterday and today, Israel was saying that Hamas was throwing a last-minute wrench into the negotiations. Hamas on the other hand said that they were committed to the deal and they remain committed to the deal. So there was a little bit of he said, she said going on. What we know as of now is that per the terms of the deal, Hamas will be handing over 33 hostages, though not all of them are alive. The 33 are said to include four female civilians, five female soldiers, a mom and her two twin babies, known as the Bebas family, 10 men over the age of 50,

and 11 men who are in very bad condition health-wise. But again, not all of those people are alive, and as of now, we don't know who is alive and who is dead. Under the deal, Hamas has to notify Israel of those that are alive and those that are dead within the first week of the deal's implementation, which is supposed to be Sunday. It's supposed to be implemented on Sunday. In exchange, Israel will release 1,000 Palestinian security prisoners. And Israel has said that it is finishing the vetting process of the 1,000 prisoners to be released and that they are largely

Gazans who have been detained by Israel since the war began. Some of those Palestinian prisoners are serving life sentences for various crimes but mainly murder and Hamas has agreed that those serving life sentences will be released to a third country, not the Gaza Strip. From here, the deal still needs to be signed and then once it's signed, the Israeli cabinet will vote on it, which as I said, is supposed to happen tomorrow. The deal is supposed to go into effect on Sunday with the first of the hostages being released that day. The first hostages to be released will be the four female civilians along with the Bebas family. Then on day seven, the four female soldiers will be released. Then three

more hostages will be released each week thereafter and 14 more will be released in the last week of the six week deal. However, even after that initial six weeks, Hamas will still have 60 hostages and notably that first six weeks is considered to be phase one of the deal, but phase two and phase three are supposed to come at a later date phase two is set to be negotiated and finalized on day 16 of phase one and Once phase two is signed off on and approved Hamas is to release the rest of the hostages and Israel is to withdraw from Gaza Now there are many things that played into this deal happening and I want to highlight the fact that the Biden administration and incoming Trump administration worked together on this. This

was a joint effort. But as far as the many things that have taken place to allow this to happen, initial discussions started back in spring. Since then, the Israeli forces have taken out multiple senior Hamas leaders. And more recently, Trump has been putting a lot of pressure on both Hamas leaders and Net and Yahoo, Israel's prime minister. Also too though, this was not just done with the help of the US, right? Qatari officials and Egyptian officials played a very big role in the negotiations as well. So stay tuned, like I said, assuming Israel approves the deal, the deal is supposed to take effect on Sunday. Alrighty, let's get into some quick hitters.

We have quite a few today. President Biden gave his official farewell address last night, highlighting two major concerns he has as he leaves office. He warned of the ultra wealthy having too much power and a tech-industrial complex having too much control over our news and information. He also touched on what he was proud of, which he says is his administration getting us out of the pandemic, making investments in the economy, gun safety, climate change, and more. He spoke about the ceasefire deal and made note of working with the incoming Trump administration

to see through its implementation. And speaking of Biden, the Biden administration posted a new rule to the federal register earlier this week. The rule bans Chinese and Russian technology in passenger cars here in the United States. During the rulemaking process, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security found that certain technologies originating from China

or Russia present an undue and unacceptable risk to national security. The software bans will apply to Model 2027 cars, while the hardware ban will apply to Model 2030 cars. And again, that ban applies to passenger vehicles only. And more Biden administration news, the Department of Transportation has come after some more airlines for chronically delayed flights, this time Southwest and Frontier. Just recently the DOT filed a two million

dollar lawsuit against JetBlue for the same thing and now the DOT says Southwest owes roughly two million dollars as well and Frontier owes 650,000. A chronically delayed flight is one that's flown at least ten times a month and arrives more than 30 minutes late more than half the time. Now this next one isn't political, but since we're talking about Southwest, why not? A Southwest Airlines pilot was arrested yesterday morning at an airport in Savannah, Georgia for driving under the influence. The flight was about to take off from Savannah and head to Chicago when police boarded the plane and removed the pilot,

who allegedly smelled of alcohol and may have shown other signs of intoxication. Not many other details are available as of now, but FAA regulations prohibit pilots from using alcohol while on duty or from flying or attempting to fly an aircraft within 8 hours of consuming alcohol or if they have a blood alcohol level of.04 or greater. President-elect Trump announced earlier this week that he plans to create an external revenue service that would be in charge of collecting revenue from tariffs, duties, and all revenue from foreign sources. As we've talked about before, tariffs are taxes on imports, which in most cases are paid by the US-based importers rather than the foreign entity, and given that, it's not exactly clear how the external revenue service

would work at this point. According to the Wall Street Journal, in light of the upcoming TikTok ban, Chinese officials have internally discussed their options, including the possibility of allowing Elon Musk to invest or take over TikTok's U.S. operations. However, there are still a lot of questions about how the situation is going to unfold. On one hand, TikTok has said the app will shut down on the 19th if the ban is allowed to go into effect. That obviously contradicts the Wall Street Journal's report. TikTok says instead of being able to access the app, US users will be prompted with a link when they try to open the app that directs them to more information on the ban. At the same time, both Biden and Trump are now trying to figure out ways to delay the effective

date of the ban. And of course, we're still waiting on that Supreme Court decision which will most likely come out tomorrow morning but could also be released on Saturday. So there's still a lot to be sorted out. But speaking of TikTok, TikTok CEO Sho Chu is expected to attend Trump's inauguration on the 20th. The inaugural committee issued the invitation to Chu, it seems as if he's accepted, and he will join other tech CEOs at the inauguration like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos. And the Supreme Court heard a porn case yesterday in which they'll have to decide

whether a state can enact a law that requires proof of adulthood to access a porn site or whether that law violates the First Amendment. What this case is really going to come down to, though, is what level of review should be applied to this type of law. When determining the constitutionality of a law, the court will apply one of three standards of review. The appellate court upheld the law, finding it was constitutional under rational basis review. But the trade group for the adult entertainment industry argues that a strict scrutiny should

or a level, the level of strict scrutiny should have been applied instead, which is a tougher standard of review for laws to pass. When we do ultimately get a decision from the Supreme Court, it'll likely either be 1. The appellate court properly applied rational basis, therefore the decision stands, or 2. The appellate court should have applied strict scrutiny and were sending this case back to the appellate court for it to review the case accordingly. Continuing on, I told you we had a lot of quick hitters. Earlier this week, the DOJ released volume one of special counsel Jack Smith's investigations into Trump. Most notably,

Smith says that had Trump not won the election, he could have secured a conviction in the election interference case. What that means in short is that he thinks he could have secured a conviction in the election interference case. What that means in short is that he thinks he could have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump interfered in the 2020 election and committed conspiracy to defraud the United States. Part 2 of the report is in regard to Smith's investigations into the classified documents case and that portion of the report has not yet been released, but Judge Cannon is set to decide today or tomorrow whether volume 2 can be

made public. And I do have the full text of volume 1 linked for you in the sources section if you're interested in reading that. In some space news, Blue Origin's new Glenn rocket successfully blasted off into orbit early this morning. This is the company's first rocket powerful enough to launch satellites to space and one of the most substantial accomplishments in the company's history. The goal of the launch was twofold. One, launch into orbit, two, touch back down on the landing pad. The first goal was hit, the second wasn't. As the booster was set to reignite its engines for touchdown, the live data from the rocket cut off and it was later confirmed that the booster was lost. Touching down is not an

easy feat. SpaceX does it all the time, but when it first tried about a decade ago, it took four attempts to finally figure it out. So Blue Origin still has some work to do, but who knows, maybe it only takes them two tries. We'll have to see. And finally, in some not so good news, but don't worry, we'll finish this episode on a positive note, mortgage rates are up. Mortgage rates reached 7.04% this week, according to a survey of lenders, released Thursday by Freddie Mac. It's the fifth consecutive weekly increase, the highest level since May, and a full percentage

point higher than in September when the Fed began cutting interest rates. Economists are not expecting the housing market to improve much this year. They say mortgage rates will likely remain above 6% through 2026. Alrighty, I promised you a positive finale. So how about we do some good news? I know we all really love the good news segment. I'm working on bringing it back this season, so let's do it. Just in the last couple of weeks,

a TikToker named Spencer raised $800,000 for an elderly woman named Beth who had an overgrown lawn. And if you're wondering why someone needs $800,000 to manage an overgrown lawn. And if you're wondering why someone needs $800,000 to manage an overgrown lawn, just listen to the full story. This actually isn't the first time Spencer has raised money for a cause. Spencer's normal content is him mowing lawns for people that need it. You know, for people that are either physically not capable of doing it or don't have the time to do it themselves or can't afford landscaping services, whatever it might be. But last year Spencer found a wounded cat during one of his mows and he took

it to a cat shelter. He learned though that the cat shelter was about to shut down so he decided to use his platform for good. He started a GoFundMe for the shelter and ended up raising $190,000. This time though Spencer went to see an elderly woman named Beth who, as I said, her lawn was very overgrown and in the video Beth explained she wasn't able to find anyone to do her landscaping and that a local government body was giving her a few weeks to find someone to do it, otherwise she'd be fined $240. In the video Spencer offers to take care of the yard for free and he does. At the end of the video, once Spencer reveals the lawn to Beth, she said she was crying on and off just listening to Spencer's machines. The video goes viral, thousands of people start asking how they can donate to Beth so that she can afford

to hire full-time landscapers. Spencer of course set up the GoFundMe just like he did for the shelter, and as of January 13th, $800,000 have been raised. Some of that $800,000 will be given to Beth and,000 will be given to Beth and a portion will be donated to charity. And for those that want to watch the original video of Spencer and Beth, I do have the original Good News Network article linked for you in the sources section of this episode which can always be found on my website jordanismylawyer.com. Just scroll all the way to the bottom. That is what I have for you. Thank you so much for being here.

As always, have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.