This is incredibly complicated: Are they talking about using a turbojet to drive magnets to spin the fan and accelerate the flow through the engine?
It's a little more complicated than that. Perhaps the best analogy is a turbojet where the shaft is replaced by the electric equivalent of a CVT. The intention is to decouple (loosely couple?) the RPM of any given compressor or turbine stage from the others by going shaftless, which dramatically frees up the design space for an engine. Assuming the electrical losses of converting and modulating power from turbine/power stages to compressor/fan stages can be overcome, hence the superconductor usage. There are examples in industrial pump/turbine systems where the equipment is linked electrically rather than physically, but usually for very different reasons, where the losses incurred are tolerated, or the increased weight is allowable. To actually pull it off on a flightweight engine is very difficult.
NASA, in it's N+3 work, seems to think a LNG fueled turboelectric airplane is possible (particularly for a distributed propulsion system) if it uses fuel cooled high temperature superconductors. The NASA designs typically are BWB's featuring two wingtip conventionally designed turboshaft engines driving superconducting generatos, feeding a long array of wing embedded superconducting electric propulsor fans. One of the participants in the studies (ES Aero) went back and looked at the numbers, and claims a N+2 class 737 sized aircraft is doable with advanced (but not superconducting) motors/generators. That design is a midwing turboshaft generator feeding an inboard boxwing array of large embedded electric fans.
Indirectly driven fans are not a new thing, as past work into compressor bleed bypass air tip turbine driven fans has a long lineage, particularly in VTOL work. In such applications, lift fan needs are grossly out of sync with forward propulsion. One solution there is to physically decouple the lift fan and send most high pressure air from a low bypass ratio turbojet's compressor stage to the lift fan via ducts. There it drives a tip turbine ring, with the lift fans blades on the inside of the ring. Variations exist, such as hot bypass, where raw combustion gases are bypassed prior to going through the main turbojet tubine, and warm bypass, where some combination of post turbojet turbine exhaust gases and bleed compressor air is used to increase mass flow and cool the gases to not melt the ductwork.
VTOL lift fans were not the only application of indirectly driven fans. There was serious research into parallel fan configurations for military jets where bleed air drove a fan or compressor that was next to the main compressor. I don't recall the main reasons why, but something about mass flow/pressure being too high after the main compressor.
With the renewed interest in electric propulsion systems, looking again at electrically driven fans shows interesting possibilities. With sufficient temporary power storage, it's possible to exceed the turbine response to propulsion demands for short durations (the oft cited spool up lag for aborted landings being why turbofans are unpopular for certain cargo missions, compared to turboprops, though turboprops cheat by having pitch control).
As for this engine design though, it's seriously pushing the limits of credibility. At the very least, until there's a test bench level demo of the cycle, people will have a hard time believing. But, precisely because of the decoupled nature of the parts of the cycle, individual stages can be tested separately for viability before doing an all up test bench demo. Such a test bench demo need not even be a complete engine, again having each stage be shown in parallel rather than series configuration but connected electrically together.