The Philip DeFranco Show - Charlie Kirk “Cancel Culture” Firings Just Got Bigger, Epstein Trump Panic, & Luigi Mangione Updates

Episode Date: September 25, 2025

Go to http://proprdental.com/defranco, use code DEFRANCO to treat your gums to 20% off today!   LISTEN TO THE SHOW iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-philip-defranco-show/id1278424954 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ESemquRbz6f8XLVywdZ2V WATCH/LISTEN TO MY NEW PODCAST w/ Gov. Josh Shapiro Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2CePXwDrvdQTes844wflKp?si=55a6b6049c4841ed Youtube: https://youtube.com/acw?sub_confirmation=1 iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/in-good-faith-with-philip-defranco/id1827016835 JOIN OUR COMMUNITY 📸Instagram: https://instagram.com/PhillyDeFranco  🐦Twitter: https://twitter.com/phillyd  🎵TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@philipdefranco  TODAY’S STORIES 00:00 - GOP Leaders Threaten Lawmakers Over Epstein Petition 04:10 - White House Plans for Mass Firings if Government Shuts Down 10:16 - Sponsored by ProprDental 11:29 - Educators Fired Over Charlie Kirk Comments Sue for Free Speech Violations 16:11 - DOJ Officials’ Comments About Luigi Mangione May Have Invalidated His Trial 19:03 - Italy and Spain Deploy Ships to Assist Gaza Aid Flotilla Targeted by Drones 21:44 - Treasury Secretary Says U.S. Is Ready to Give Argentina's Milei $20 Bailout THE TEAM Produced by: Cory Ray Edited by: James Girardier, Maxwell Enright, Julie Goldberg, Christian Meeks, Matthew Henry Art Department: William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Brian Espinoza, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Chris Tolve, Star Pralle, Jared Paolino   ———————————— #DeFranco #CharlieKirk #JeffreyEpstein Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show you daily dive into the news. It is Thursday, and we have a lot to talk about today, starting with this. Republican leaders are apparently so scared that the Epstein files are going to get out now that they're threatening their colleagues. Right, and this is apparently Trump's afraid that files might implicate his friend. And all of this, you know, it started with a bipartisan effort launched by Republican Thomas Massey and Democrat Roe Conner. Because they've just been working and working towards gathering enough signatures on a discharge petition that would force the House to vote on a bill requiring the DOJ to release the files. And now we've been waiting for this. A Democrat in Arizona just went a house seat in a special election this week.

It seems like they've secured enough support to get the ball rolling. Right, and that Democrat, Adelita, Grijalva, she's already committed to signing the petition once she gets sworn in. And the big thing is she's going to be the 218 person to back it. And 218 has been the magic number here. And so with that, you had Bro Kana saying we're one step closer to releasing the full Epstein files injustice for the survivors. But that doesn't mean that it's guaranteed. Because you have Thomas Massey telling Semaphore that leaders in the Republican Party are trying to get some representatives to now walk back their support.

Massey claiming that House Speaker Mike Johnson and, quote, some of the powers that be in D.C. are in full panic right now and dadding. They came back and tried to get the four of us to take our names off the petition. They asked some of my colleagues who are co-signers and they actually threaten them politically, not physically. And that's huge because Massey, right, he's one of four Republicans who signed the petition alongside Nancy Mace, Lauren Bobert, and Marjorie Taylor Green. Yesterday, you had similar reports coming out with sources telling CNN that GOP members were privately being pressured to withdraw from the petition. It was with that you had CNN speaking to Bobert who said that she hadn't faced pressure and will be keeping her name on board.

But still, like, if you go online or you go on Twitter, you can see that there are clear tensions and divisions among the right wing and MAGA regarding bringing the Epstein files forward. Right, just yesterday, you had Representative Clay Higgins slamming Massey for this petition, arguing. It's a shame what my friend Thomas has done, attempting to injure the Republican Party and ignore privacy rights of hundreds of innocent Americans who may have their life turned upside down because of his weird petition. Notably, that's a part of a talking point that Mike Johnson has been using over and over, claiming it the legislation. It doesn't go far enough to protect the victims whose information could be in the files. But Massey, he's not only defended himself against that claim, but said that Republicans, they need to just essentially get over it and brace for a vote. They're going to have a vote. I think they're coming to terms with that. I'm going to bet the speaker is probably going to hand out Hall passes to some congressmen because this is an 80-20 issue.

You know, with all this, I think it is worth noting that it's not going to force the Epstein files to be released overnight. This petition, it won't actually see any official forward motion until Congress reconvenes and after it officially lands 218 signatures and they have to wait seven legislative days to actually vote on it. And that is you have places like the New York Times during that Mike Johnson's going to like, like, they have a few paths to try to put the vote off on his end. So there, you had Massey arguing that if Johnson does try to evade the vote, there's enough notoriety on the issue that people will know that he's sweeping this under the rug. And so you have Massey arguing it would be a very bad look.

But also, of course, there's the question of, you know, what is the Senate going to do if the ball lands in their court? Well, with that, I think it's important to keep in mind that the Wall Street Journal, they just did a piece about the White House's effort to rein in the Epstein discourse. And it basically explained how the Trump administration is trying to handle it from January until right now. And TLDR, it sounds like no one at any point has ever been on the same page even a minute. Some of the standout moments from the article include the journal saying,

Trump has told AIDS, he was worried some of his friends might be mentioned in the files and has complained that people should be talking about the administration's wins, not about Epstein, according to people familiar with the comments. Adding it other times, he worried aloud that the files might have been doctored to hurt him. And then on top of that, you had sources reportedly telling them that Trump, told AIDS, he couldn't understand why people were so obsessed with the deceased financier and sex offender, people don't understand that Palm Beach in the 90s was a different time. He groused. But also, as politicians aren't giving up the Epstein fight, Neither is the public.

And I mean that in several ways, I mean, you might have seen a statue of Trump and Epstein holding hands being put up in the National Mall this week. It had a little plaque saying the statue was in honor of Friendship Month, as Epstein previously said, Trump was his closest friend.

Though there, I'll say after being up for around a day, it's been removed. And that notably, even though, according to reports, the National Park Service did issue a permit for the statue, allowing it to be up until Sunday. But also, you had a spokesperson to the Department of Interior

saying that the statue was taken down, quote, because it was not compliant with the permit issued. Though there you now have the group who orchestrated the whole thing with a statue accusing the Trump, administration of yet again cracking down on free speech, critical of the president. Arguing that this is just another domino falling after the Jimmy Kimmel scandal. But ultimately, for now, we're going to have to wait to see how this continues forward both

with the fight that we're seeing publicly as well as the fight we're seeing in Congress. But then next up in the news, you know, Elon Musk, he may be gone, but it looks like Doge is about to kick into another gear soon. Because with the government shutdown, looking more and more inevitable, you've got the White House threatening another round of mass layoffs. And some important context here is what usually happens during shutdowns is that many federal workers get furloughed, meaning they go on temporary unpaid leave and receive back pay when the shutdown ends. But instead of doing that, you had the White House sending out a memo to its

agencies last night, telling them to prepare to lay off workers permanently if the shutdown occurs. So that's led many to ask if you wouldn't fire them without a shutdown and you could just furlough them without pay. If there was a shutdown, then why would you take the extra step of firing them completely? Well, there's a couple possible answers to that. The first being that Trump just doesn't really care about these workers anyway, something that the memo itself seemed to suggest by singling out positions that it deems, quote, are not consistent with the president's political agenda. In fact, it even states that government functions that Republicans like, such as defense and immigration enforcement will continue uninterrupted because they're funded by the big,

beautiful bill. Thereby, implying of the stuff the Democrats like, which covers, you know, most of the government, it would be affected. Also, the second possible explanation for this memo is that Trump's trying to force Democrats to pass a funding bill next week. For some, describing it essentially as a hostage situation threatening the federal workforce if the Democrats don't hand over the cash. And that's also essentially how the president of the government workers union put it in their reaction to the news. Writing federal employees are not bargaining chips. They are veterans, caregivers, law enforcement officers, and neighbors who serve their country

and fellow Americans every day. They deserve stability and respect, not pink slips and political games. But from the White House's perspective, or at least it's the narrative they're trying to push out there, it's actually the Democrats who are threatening a shutdown in the first place. Right, because last week, you had Republicans putting forward a short-term funding bill that they called clean, meaning it didn't contain any partisan politics. It just kept the status quo going, but then you had Senate Democrats blocking it, proposing an alternative bill that contains more than a trillion dollars to reverse cuts to Medicaid and other health programs and extend the Obamacare subsidies.

But then, you had Republicans blocking that too, leaving one more chance to break the deadlock. In Trump, he was supposed to have a meeting with Chuck Schumer and Akeem Jeffries, but already over the weekend, he seemed pessimistic. We'll continue to talk to the Democrats, but I think you could very well end up with a closed country for a period of time. And then on Monday night, Republican leaders in Congress reportedly called Trump, urging him to not talk to the Democrats, claiming that their bill. is too expensive and it would fund health care for illegal immigrants. So in Tuesday, you saw Trump backing out of the meeting with him saying on Trude Social. After reviewing the details of the unsurious and ridiculous demands being made by the minority radical left Democrats in return for their votes to keep our thriving country open,

I have decided that no meeting with their congressional leaders could possibly be productive. With Trump, claiming they want to essentially create transgender operations for everybody and finishing, I look forward to meeting with you when you become realistic about the things that our country stands for. Then you had Schumer firing back on PBS. To prevent the average American who was on ACA's health care bill from going up $5,000 a year is not radical. To try to keep so many rural hospitals which are in danger of closing is not radical. He is derelict in his duty as president. He should be sitting down with us.

And now, even after the threat to fireworkers in mass again, Schumer still is not backing down with him writing. This is an attempt at intimidation. Donald Trump has been firing federal workers since day one, not to govern but to scare. These unnecessary firings will either be overturned in court or, the administration will end up hiring the workers back, just like they did as recently as today. So now you've got many saying this is a huge move for Schumer, who just six months ago angered a lot of the Democratic base by refusing to block a Republican funding bill and cause a shutdown. But also, it should be noted that a lot has changed since then. You've even got people like Ezra Klein now arguing that the conditions that made the shutdown a bad idea in March no longer exist.

We're saying first, shutting down the government might have shut down the courts, which at the time were blocking many of Trump's most aggressive actions. Second, shutting it down would have given Trump more authority to allocate the remaining funds, which could have empowered Doge to fire more people. faster. And third, shutting it down could give Republicans a scapegoat for the economic crisis that Trump was creating with his tariffs. But arguably, all three of those things don't apply anymore. Right first, the courts, especially the Supreme Court, they've given Trump much of what he wants. Second, Doge's assault has simmered down. Elon Musk is left and Trump appointees have taken over. And third, Trump's already taken the political hit for his tariffs and the markets have settled into this new normal. Plus, even with this week's threat to fire more workers,

you have many arguing that Trump will do it anyways with or without a shutdown. And as evidence of that, you have a lot of people pointing to the fact that he's gotten away with pretty much all of his firings thus far, especially thanks to the Supreme Court. Earlier this month, for example, a federal judge ruled that the mass firings of probationary workers was illegal, but they declined to order that they be reinstated. Saying not only had too much time pass, right, the workers had already moved on with their lives and found new jobs, but also the Supreme Court would almost certainly just overrule his reinstatement order anyway. And then yesterday, you had another federal judge ruling that the firings of eight inspectors general were obviously illegal, but they also

declined to order them reinstated. Saying it probably wouldn't matter because Trump would just fire them again anyway, being sure to jump through a couple of procedural hoops that would make it legal. And so with all this, I mean, even a couple of weeks ago, you had Klein already concluding. We are no longer in the muzzle velocity stage of this presidency, where Donald Trump is trying things and seeing what sticks. We are in the authoritarian consolidation stage. You could still, under mafia rule, get the trash picked up by cement. But the point of those industries had become the preservation and expansion of the mafia's power and wealth. This is what Donald Trump is doing to the government. This is what Democrats cannot fund. But that, it's the political argument

for a shutdown. Many, on the other side of the debate, argue that it's a bad idea for economic reasons. So, for example, you've got people like the chief economist at Moody's analytics saying, the economy is quite vulnerable. In a more resilient time, I think even a prolonged shutdown wouldn't derail the economy. But in the current economy, it could very well be the thing that pushes us under. And that, because it could cut off loans to small businesses, to press, consumer spending, and create general chaos and uncertainty. Which, I will say, is what we've seen historically. Generally speaking, every week the government shut down, they can shave about one-tenth of a percentage point from the GDP that quarter. And the longer that continues, the worse things get

and the harder it's going to be for the economy to recover. And with this specific time, you have many believing that if a shutdown happens, it could last especially long. Because both sides are dug in. Politics is more polarized than ever. And the president has shown himself to be someone that's willing to endure the longest shutdown in American history during his first term. But hey, like always, we're going to have to wait to see what happened. So we should know soon. We've still gotten until midnight on September 30th, and who knows, anything can happen. Which I will say, as those words come out of my mouth, uh, is both a good and bad thing, as many of you have seen. And then I've got more news for you in just a minute, but first let me say, you know, my wife, my kids and I, we

all switched to the same toothbrush brand. And to be clear, I'm saying brand, not the, the family is sharing one toothbrush. Right. And it's called proper dental. And it's the first brush that we've all actually agreed on and it happens to be a sponsor today's show. Because traditional toothbrushes, they're basically like tiny sandpaper sticks pretending to help you slowly reckon gums and enamel over time. But proper flips that on. its head with super soft scrubbers that feel gentle, but annihilate plaque. Like, it's clinically proven to clean better than those bristle brushes that market themselves is soft, which that's a lie. Also, proper resist, bacteria and food crud buildup, or because who wants to

brush with last week's microscopic leftovers? And I don't know what it is. My kids, they do not fight brushing their teeth anymore. And my wife, she's definitely obsessed. And me, I mean, I'm already annoying. I always talk about gum help. And actually, there's research showing consistent use can help encourage gum regrowth. I mean, yeah, your gums can bounce back like a marvel reboot. But the main point is, you don't need to keep torturing your mouth with normal toothbrushes, especially because proper dental is giving you 20% off when you use Code DeFranco at checkout. Just scan that QR code on the screen or go to properdental.com slash defranco.

Hey, it's a limited time offer, so treat yourself and your gums better. That's P-R-O-P-R-D-E-N-T-A-L.com slash DeFranco, Code DeFranco. But then next up, in the news, you probably saw that dozens of educators all over the country. They bust their jobs or comments that they made on social media after Charlie Kirk's death. But now, you got a lot of them suing for free speech violation. Right, and there are a ton of different examples that we've seen popping up. Right, one of the most notable cases has been Lauren Vaughn, a former teacher aide in Spartanburg County, South Carolina. And Laurence, who in the school district that she worked at for firing her because she shared a quote that Kirk himself said and then argued that all gun violence is a tragedy.

Right, and the quote that she shared is one that circulated a lot since his death where he said that it was worth it to have a cost of some gun deaths every single year in order to have the Second Amendment rights. Recalling the exchange of lives or the right to bear arms a prudent deal that is rational. And you had Vaughn sharing that quote and then writing thoughts and prayers and then later making it very clear in the comments that she wasn't celebrating Kirk's death writing. The whole point here is that any time someone is killed, it's a tragedy. Even someone I may not like, even someone I disagree with, but instead of accepting it, why don't we do something about it? Also commenting that while she disagreed with Kirk, she was sorry that he was shot and adding no satisfaction here, just heartbreak for anyone and everyone affected by gun violence. And while Vaughn, she ended up deleting her post later that same night, the school allegedly fired her for violating their social media guidelines,

which say that employees, quote, must be respectful and professional. in all communications. And so now she's accusing the district of violating her rights to free speech and asking that the court declared that both her termination and the social media guidelines are illegal under the U.S. and South Carolina constitutions. Right, and requesting she'd be reinstated, paid, or given other compensatory payments. Also another case that's gotten a lot of attention is that of Matthew Cargall. Right, Matt, he's a high school teacher in Iowa who claims he was fired for protected speech after he posted one Nazi down on his personal Facebook account following Kirk's death. And with that he argued that his post did not threaten any person,

did not incite imminent unlawful action and was not directed at any member of the school community. And with that, claiming that the termination was politically motivated. Then on the other side, you had the school alleging that the post was disruptive and they said that they received over a thousand calls about it and the day after he made that post, just under 10% of students were absent. Right, but then beyond that,

we've also seen a number of lawsuits from educators who were fired at the university level. And that included people like Michael Hook, a tenured art professor at the University of South Dakota who was fired for a Facebook post where he wrote, where was all this concern when the politicians in Minnesota were shot in the school shootings and Capitol Police I have no thoughts or prayers for this hate-spreading Nazi.

A shrug, maybe. And while he deleted that post a few hours later and apologize, you had top Republican leaders in the state, including the governor and the state house speaker, criticizing Hook and applauding his termination. But then you fast forward yesterday, and you have a federal court temporarily reinstating Hook while his case alleging free speech violations plays out.

Right on this run, you also saw things like the ACLU of Indiana filing a lawsuit on behalf of the former director of health promotion and advocacy at Ball State University. Right in there, alleging that the school violated her First Amendment rights by firing her for a post where she wrote that she wrote that she couldn't be friends with people who thought that Kirk was a wonderful person, but added, his death is a tragedy, and I can and do feel for his wife and children. And saying that she will pray for his soul and continuing, Charlie Kirk's death is a reflection

of the violence, fear, and hatred he sowed. It does not excuse his death, and it's a sad truth. But like the other cases that we've seen, you had the university claiming she was fired for causing a disruption. But a very big thing there is that you had the ACLU arguing that it was actually the people who politicized her message online, who amplified the disruption, including the state's attorney general who shared the post. And again, a big thing is, these are just some of the main examples that we've been seeing in news coverage. There are likely already other educators who have filed lawsuits, and there will almost certainly be more in the near future.

I mean, it feels like every day there's a few news stories coming out about teachers and administrators being fired over comments that they make. And it seems like that may be connected to Republican politicians and public figures continually pressuring schools to fire employees who post anything they deem inappropriate about Kirk or openly praising those who follow through. I mean, you even had a conservative pack launching a campaign to expose teachers who made posts that they said celebrated Kirk's death online and encouraged people to report them through an online portal. So with all this, you have experts saying that these fur suits that we're talking about,

they're very likely going to be the key test cases for something that's going to be a much longer and bigger battle. But also I'll say, well, you know, we're focusing on education today. That's not where it's been limited. Right, we've also seen people all across the private sector losing their jobs after making comments about Kirk Online. And again, that's something that Republican leaders and major conservative voices have pushed for and cheered on. But a big thing there is that you have experts saying it's not a direct one-to-one. It's different in the public education sector because they're public employees. And so their employers, they have to meet a higher bar to fire them for a speech and someone who works at a private company. They have to show that a staff

members post created a disruption like interfering with classes or the operation of a school. But with that, you've got people like Adam Goldstein, who's the vice president of strategic initiatives at the foundation for individual rights and expression, saying that generating controversy or complaints, it's usually not enough to warrant a firing. With that, arguing that in many of these cases, the teacher's punishment is not proportionate to their alleged offense, especially because there are other disciplinary actions that can be taken without going as far as a full-blown termination. Explaining, it's very weird to live in a world where Charlie's wife can forgive the shooter, but we can't forgive a teacher who quoted him.

But again, even just today, we're talking about a wide range of posts here. And so as we wait to see what happens and a number of those, I got to pass the question up to you. What are your thoughts, opinions, and reactions to the whole situation or any of these specific cases? But the next up in the news today, this is crazy. Trump's Justice Department has made it impossible for Luigi Mangione to have a fair trial. Or at least, that's what his lawyers are arguing, and now a federal judge is demanding an explanation.

Because back in April, U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett explicitly warned DOJ officials to avoid speaking publicly about the case to make sure that there was a fair trial. But then especially in the wake of Charlie Kirk's killing, we've seen the Trump administration testing that order. Reporting to Mangione allegedly killing United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson is just one example of radical left violence threatening America. Except, they've had a tendency to forget about that word allegedly.

Right, last week, Trump said on Fox News at Mangione... Shot someone in the back. As clear as you're looking at me, he looked like a pure assassin. He shot him right in the middle of the back, instantly dead and now he's like I'm watching the girls are going crazy for this is a sickness this is you know this really has to be studied and investigated you then had a white house related account posting that clip the deputy director of the DOJ's public affairs and shared that post and added potis is absolutely right and the chief of staff to the deputy attorney general then

shared that post so that's also not where it ended because on monday you had white house press secretary caroline levitt referring to banjione as a left-wing assassin and then the next day you had Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller saying that Thompson was brutally gunned down by another self-described so-called anti-fascist. And so with all that, you've had Mangione's lawyers arguing that the administration had indelibly prejudiced Mr. Mangione by baselessly linking him to unrelated violent events and left-wing extremist groups despite there being no connection or affiliation. And then adding, the attempts to connect Mr. Mangione with these incidents and paint him as a left-wing violent extremist are false, prejudicial, and part of a greater political

narrative that has no place in any criminal case, especially one where the death penalty is at stake. And in response, you had the judge agreeing that it at least appeared that the administration had violated her earlier warning. And so with that, she ordered that the government submit a sworn declaration by the end of the week explaining how these violations occurred and what steps have been taken to ensure none occur in the future. And she also warned that any additional violations could result in sanctions, including financial penalties, contempt of court findings, or what she called relief specific to the prosecution of this matter. And actually notably with that, she was just talking about those Justice Department officials reposting Trump.

She also said she would consider Trump himself as well as the comments made by Levitt and Miller, when she considered a motion filed over the weekend challenging the DOJ's decision to seek the death penalty. Right, and with that, you had Mangione's lawyers arguing it. The DOJ, they violated his constitutional rights and they prejudiced the case against him, including by turning that whole arrest into a spectacle with that highly choreographed perp walk that his lawyers argued was done solely to prejudice him and without the slightest legitimate law enforcement objective. And so we're going to have to wait to see what happens, but I mean, this, it's happening fresh off the heels of another legal victory for Mangioni. Because as we talked about earlier this month, a New York state judge dismissed terrorism charges against him,

though, of course, leaving the murder charges in place, which of course is also separate from the federal case where he's potentially facing the death penalty. But still, it's going to be very interesting to see how all this legal wrangling plays out and what happens when we get to a trial. But then next up from that and other crazy news, though, this time, international, the Gaza aid mission with Greta Toonberger board has said that it is under attack by Israeli drones, and now Italy and Spain, they're deploying naval vessels to help keep them safe.

Because the global Samud Flotella or the GSF, it's trying to get aid into Gaza through ships setting sail from ports across the Mediterranean. And it's reportedly the fourth and largest challenge to, Israel's naval blockade, right? A blockade that, notably, it's been in place long before what's been currently happening in Gaza. Right, you got Israel arguing that it's needed to keep Hamas from importing arms, while critics have called it a form of collective punishment that helped turn Gaza into an open-air prison. But in any case, right, the GSF, it's reportedly made up of over 50 small vessels from 44 countries with over 500 crew, including Greta Toonberg. Right,

and she was part of the so-called Freedom Flotilla, which was intercepted by Israeli forces back in July. Though notably, that was also after activists on board said that they had been targeted by an Israeli drone in international waters off the coast of Malta. And there, the IDF didn't deny involvement, and an Israeli Air Force cargo plane was picked up on flight trackers circling waters near Malta for an extended period of time before the attack. And now, in the case of the GSF, activists have reported several attacks since they set sale at the start of September. And the latest appeared to come this week with GSF saying in a press release that at least

13 explosions were heard and claiming that these attacks were part of a sustained Israeli campaign of intimidation. With all it said, you had the Italian defense minister condemning what it called an attack carried out by, quote, currently unidentified perpetrators. You also had the prime minister, speaking of her total condemnation of the drone strike on Tuesday night, and adding that Italy is conducting its own investigation to determine who's responsible. But also a big thing here is she also criticized the flotilla as dangerous and irresponsible in arguing that it was aimed at creating problems for her government.

But still, the government's reportedly dispatched two naval vessels to assist Italian citizens on board. And you also had the Spanish prime minister saying it's sending a ship to assist the flotilla, quote, in the event of any difficulties and for a potential rescue operation. And as for Israel, at least as of recording, it really has an address the drone attack allegations instead, arguing that the flotilla is organized by Hamas and is intended to serve Hamas. Now with that, they also claim that they would be willing to transfer the aid from the flotilla to Gaza, the report in Israel. But there appears to maybe be a lack of trust and they reportedly refused. And so yet, the foreign minister responding by

accusing the organizers of pursuing a violent course of action and adding, if the flotilla continues to reject Israel's peaceful proposal, Israel will take the necessary measures to prevent its entry into the combat zone and to stop any violation of a lawful naval blockade while making every possible effort to ensure the safety of its passengers. And so we're going to have to wait to see what happens here, where this ends, hopefully not with anyone getting hurt. So, of course, with that said, that's not the case inside of Gaza, where the Israeli military has just ramped up its ground offensive into Gaza City.

And with that, you're seeing reports that they've killed nearly 100 people throughout the territory yesterday, including 55 people in Gaza City alone. Right, and all of this, it's playing out after last week an independent United Nations inquiry concluded for the first time that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. But the next step, from that, we've got to talk about how Donald Trump is ready to offer Argentina a multi-billion dollar bailout to help his friend Javier Malay stay in power. But to start things off, an important thing to know is that Argentina's economy, it has faced crises for decades. When Javier Millet inherited that economy, he started implementing radical

pro-market reforms and harsh austerity measures that have reduced inflation. But that's also involved major cuts to wages, pensions, education, culture, and public infrastructure. With that, you've seen his policies sparking mass protest. And lawmakers even recently voted to overturn his vetoes to restore funding for public health and education. And all of that, while also his popularity has been helped by the fact that his administration has been racked by corruption scandals. And so what he ended up saying is Malay's party losing a key provincial election by a landslide earlier this month. With that then also resulting in investors pulling their money out of the country worried that he's no longer going to have the support that he needs to keep up his

business-friendly agenda. But despite all that, Malay who campaigned on making Argentina great again and his lavish praise on Donald Trump, he's had one good thing going for him. Trump loves this guy. And when you had the two meeting at the UN this week, you had Trump announcing that Malay had his complete and total endorsement for re-election as president. And while that election, it's not actually happening for a couple of years, congressional elections there are happening next month. Right, and so it's a pivotal election, and what we've seen with this whole situation is the White House serious about helping Malay. You've got Treasury Secretary Scott Besson writing on X that his department is ready to purchase Argentina's USDA bonds and will do so as conditions warrant, as prepared to deliver

significant standby credit via the exchange stabilization fund, and is currently in negotiations with Argentina officials for a $20 billion swap line with the central bank. Or you've got Besson, even saying at the U.S. stands ready to purchase secondary and primary government debt. And so as far as what exactly does that mean, it's all technical and it's kind of besides the point. What's really notable here is that Besson has made it very clear that this is aimed at helping Malay ahead of next month's election. He's even described the aid as a bridge to the next election, all of which at least one expert saying it doesn't make any sense from a realist strategic perspective, saying this kind of stuff only really makes sense within an ideological framework.

And so with all that, you've had the likes of Elizabeth Warren arguing that this is a far cry from Trump's promise to put America first. Donald Trump wants to lend $20 billion of our money to bail out a political ally and his global investors before an election. And adding, oh, and Argentina just struck a major deal with China that crushes American soybean farmers already suffering from Trump's tariffs. And actually, you also had the American Soybean Association criticizing the Trump administration for the very reason Warren said. But then beyond that, you've had experts saying that this whole situation, it's just another example of Trump's approach to foreign policy being largely based on whether he likes the person in power. You've got a former senior U.S. State Department official and expert on Latin America explaining. You see a stark contrast between how the US treats leaders who are perceived as friendly versus those it perceives as unfriendly.

But adding the definition of friendly is what has changed. It is not as much a state-to-state relationship as we might have seen in the past. It's more about personalities and individuals. But largely, with all this, it's going to be a waiting game to see what happens in next month's elections in Argentina. Does this actually affect it? What does it look like in the months and maybe next two years? Regardless of which way it goes, it feels like something big is brewing. And that, well, it brings us to the end of this video, though, you've got even more just to click a website. Or you've got a brand new minisota, my podcast, In Good Faith.

We had Josh Piro on today. And or you can just click or tap right here to watch the newest Philip DeFranco show you haven't seen you. For better and worse, there's always a lot more to learn about. Hey, I've got links to both of those in the description down below, whether you want to listen on Spotify, Apple, Podcasts, YouTube, or wherever else you prefer to get filled in. But as always, thank you for watching.

I love yo faces, and I'll see you right back here on Monday.