The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 1.16 Elon Musk’s Leaked DMs Situation is Pathetic, Biden's TikTok Ban Fumble, & Transnational Adoption

Episode Date: January 16, 2025

Go to https://sundaysfordogs.com/phil to get 50% off your first order of Sundays for Dogs!  Go to https://saily.com/Phil and use the code Phil to get an exclusive 15% discount on Saily data plans! ��� Our New Special Mini Drop is Here https://BeautifulBastard.com !  Subscribe for New shows every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, & Thursday @ 6pm ET/3pm PST & watch more here: https://youtu.be/Cg7T-IaAdYM?feature=shared&list=PLHcsGizlfLMWpSg7i0b9wnUyEZWI-25N3  – ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ – 00:00 - Elon Musk Leaks Asmongold’s DMs Amid Gaming Controversy  03:15 - Pakistan Airline Ad Shows Plane Barrelling Toward Eiffel Tower 04:59 - Reports Say Trump Could Try to Fight TikTok Ban 08:33 - Sponsored by Sundays 09:32 - SCOTUS Likely to Uphold Texas Age Verification Law on Adult Sites 15:45 - Netanyahu Delays Ceasefire Vote 19:29 - Sponsored by Saily 20:43 - The Ugly Truth Around Transnational Adoption Exposed 30:52 - Comment Commentary ——————————   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  Associate Producer on Transnational Adoption: Chris Tolve ———————————— For more Philip DeFranco: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-philip-defranco-show/id1278424954 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ESemquRbz6f8XLVywdZ2V Twitter:   https://x.com/PhillyD Instagram:   https://instagram.com/PhillyDeFranco Newsletter: https://www.dailydip.co TikTok:   https://www.tiktok.com/@philipdefranco?lang=en ———————————— #DeFranco #ElonMusk #Asmongold ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Elon Musk is now leaking DMs, which is against his own terms of service over the controversy and scandal we talked about yesterday. Because for months, Musk had claimed to be a top-ranked player in games like Diablo 4 and Path of Exile 2. But then, top POE content creators and players alike accused Musk of being boosted, right? Releasing evidence that someone else had leveled

and geared the characters on his account. But also, since then, we've seen people like Screamheart, who's played high-end Diablo 4 content with Musk, coming to his defense and saying that it's not hard to believe that Musk is a nerd. Right, and in that short video, we've seen people like Screamheart, who's played high-end Diablo 4 content with Musk, coming to his defense and saying that it's not hard to believe that Musk is a nerd. Right, and in that short video, it included a small clip of Asmongold saying,

there's no way he played that account. Like, I'm sorry. I think he bought the account or somebody played it for him 100% which then resulted in Musk actually replying to that short segment of the video saying, Asmongold behaves like a maverick independent, but in reality has to ask his boss for permission

before he can do anything. He is not his own man.'" With the men actually going on to leak DMs that he had with Asmongold. Though really, like if you look at the DMs, all it appears that it exposes is that Elon Musk doesn't understand how part of the creator community works. Because in the DMs, it looks like they're talking

about making an account for something to which Asman says, "'I'm gonna see if my editors might wanna make a second account for it even. With Musk then asking who the editors are and Asmund replying saying that two people essentially run his YouTube channel and that quote, basically any content I post is edited or uploaded by them and they just get a cut of the ad rep.

With him saying it's a super good system, to be honest, almost everyone on YouTube does it. So it just sounds like he's describing the relationship of a producer editor that handles an account so that a streamer can just stream. But anyway, Musk then also bashed Asman directly saying, I'm on hundreds of streams on YouTube slash Twitch playing live with the world's best players. Nor the way to say this, but while Asman is good at caustic commentary and making fun of people, he is not good at video games. Twitch

Asman actually jokingly replied to this and said, leaking my DMs is one thing, but this is absolutely uncalled for. Though it also appears that's only part of the retaliation that happened against Asmongold, because people then noticed that Asmongold didn't have a blue check mark anymore and assumed that Musk had removed it, with Asmongold's own YouTube account saying as much when replying to a comment.

And so generally with everything here, you had people both that like and dislike Asmongold saying that Elon Musk really hasn't fully addressed the allegations and just kind of looking bad right now. Because again, I don't think most people are saying that he's never played these games or he doesn't play these games, it's that he's getting boosted.

People are accusing him of being a lying weirdo saying, you know, he's a top 20 player in this game, even though, you know, someone's helping build that account. So when he posts a clip of him clearing high-end Diablo 4 content with other players, that doesn't address the accusations. But I don't know, that's the situation.

And as far as my opinion, this is just so weird. Everything's weird and lame about this. Like, you know, there are a few things up in the accusations. But I don't know, that's the situation. And as far as my opinion, this is just so weird. Everything's weird and lame about this. Like, you know, there are a few things up in the air. It appears that Asmongold has his blue check mark again, though it's entirely possibly just paid for it again. You know, no one's really said anything. And for me, I just think it's a very bad look for Musk to be leaking DMs and also completely, in my eyes,

missing what was happening in those DMs. But you know, that's just my take. And whether you agree or disagree, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this or anything else that stands out to you in those DMs. But you know, that's just my take and whether you agree or disagree, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this or anything else that stands out to you in those comments down below. And while you maybe leave that comment or you're just digesting the weird lameness

of that first story, let me say, sup you beautiful bastards. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show. You daily dive into the news, how it's being covered and how people are reacting to it. This of course is your last show of the week cause I got a brand new show for you every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday at 6 p.m. Eastern,

3 p.m. Pacific. And today, like seemingly every day of 2025 so far, we have a lot we need to talk about today. So let's just continue with this. Have you ever looked at an ad and you were like, what were they thinking? Well, in today's episode of Advertising Got Wrong, we have Pakistan International Airlines.

And that is because they're currently in hot water with their government after they decided to announce that their airline is resuming flights to Paris. Which is something that you would think to yourself, well how the hell are they going to land in hot water? That's nothing. Well here is the ad they put out into the world to make the announcement. A passenger jet that could be seen as barreling towards the Eiffel Tower with the caption, Paris, we're coming today. With many people immediately saying,

this feels uncomfortably close to imagery "'from the 9-11 attacks.'" With the post just blowing up, right? People calling for it to be taken down, others saying that the airline needs a new marketing team entirely. Some asking or joking, is this a threat? But this also has some out there who are saying, you know,

"'Any publicity is good publicity.'" But with some arguing that the airline has gotten a lot of views with this post and everyone's now aware that they have flights to Paris. So among the fans for this ad was not the Pakistani finance minister who called the ad stupid and confirmed that the prime minister had ordered an investigation

into how exactly this ad got greenlit. Now with all this, we haven't gotten a statement or any sort of response from the airline itself regarding the situation, but when we look into it, what we actually do know is that this is the latest problem they've had to deal with as the government's been trying desperately to privatize the airline. But back in November, that whole movement stalled

because the only bidder offered less than 12% of the asking price of $300 million. And that's without mentioning the controversy they found themselves in back in 2017 when ground crew members sacrificed a goat on the tarmac for good luck. And then, you know, there's also the questions about safety standards with the whole reason

this announcement is coming is because the EU's aviation safety agency lifted their ban on the airline, with them in fact still banned from flying to the US or Britain. But you know, with this news, I gotta ask, what do you think, like what in your memory, what is etched in your memory as the worst ad you have ever seen? Because there are definitely some contenders out there for the crown. But then to switch to really, really big social media news, both the Biden administration and Donald Trump are now reportedly considering stopping the TikTok ban. Which I would say to the Biden administration, you're the ones who wanted this.

And you for some reason waited till there was 30 seconds till the final buzzer? Did it take y'all till now to try to figure out a plan because you were so busy trying to find your fucking clown shoes? Ah, I apologize. The opinion section is supposed to be after the story. So let's walk through this.

The ban is supposed to take effect on Sunday, but on Monday, Donald Trump will be the president. And sources told the Washington Post that he's considering an executive order that would suspend enforcement of the ban for two to three months in an effort to negotiate a sale of the platform. But with that, I'll say it's pretty unclear if an executive order like this would actually work. And understand I say all of this as the Supreme Court has not yet issued its ruling regarding the ban, though it does look like it's on track to uphold the ban reportedly. And regarding Trump and this potential executive order, you had the Washington Post explaining, the strategy of using an executive order has fueled doubts among some legal observers

who argue the president's word can't entirely overcome a law that Congress approved with overwhelming bipartisan support. But people close to Trump still seem adamant that they'll try something with Mike Waltz, Trump's incoming national security advisor, telling Fox News yesterday, TikTok itself is a fantastic platform.

The algorithm is amazing. We're going to find a way to preserve it, but protect people's data. And that's the deal that will be in front of us. And it is a kind of a funny plot twist that Trump of all people is in position to potentially save the app. Because even though in recent months,

he has been pro TikTok, you might remember a few seasons ago, he was pushing for a ban during his first term. But like I mentioned at the beginning of this story, he's not the only one considering this. There are also reports that the Biden administration is trying to find a way to step in. And that's again, even though Biden himself signed the ban just last year with an administration official telling NBC News here, Americans shouldn't expect to see TikTok suddenly banned on Sunday and saying that officials are

exploring options. And again, this feels like clownish last second behavior. The guy literally gave his farewell address last night. But also with this, I will say of places like NBC reporting that even if the Biden administration does come up with a last minute plan, they're still essentially punting the problem to Trump. But with also some reports saying that Trump could opt to just not enforce the ban point blank.

Though, as we've talked about in the past with the companies that could be penalized for not complying, they probably want more than a wink, wink, thumbs up that you know they're not gonna get in trouble. So it's expected that as long as there is a ban on the books, they'd probably pull it from the app stores. Now also notably here earlier this week, we saw Senator Ed Markey saying that he'd be introducing a bill that would extend the deadline to ban TikTok by another 270 days. So you know that is something to look out for. But in the meantime, you have people looking

for alternatives. And like we talked about earlier this week, there's been this great migration to a Chinese app known as Red Note. And that migration has only gotten bigger with reports saying that RedNote has gotten over 700,000 new users in just two days. But also, just today you had CBS News doing a report noting that it's not free from banned concerns either, with a US official telling them that it could face an ultimatum to divest or get the boot and adding, this appears to be the kind of app that the statute would apply to and could face the same restrictions as TikTok if it's not divested. With also one cybersecurity expert saying,

Red Note was never meant for outside of the China market. Saying all of the data sharing and all the servers to which the data is being shared is in China. It means that they are exempt from all these data protections and outside of the view of the American government. Noting its terms and conditions are in Mandarin, leaving non-Chinese speaking users unclear

about what data is collected and how it's used. So a big key thing I will say here is that the TikTok users that have moved over are making it very clear. They do not give a flying fuck about giving their data to China. With some even saying they'll give it to Xi Jinping personally. But for now, you know, who knows what the hell's going to happen. By the next time you see my face, it might be fucking Mr. Beast talk for all I know. And if you can't tell just the handling and the backtracking and just the sheer stupidity that's been on display with this whole story, it makes me very much feel like

there aren't adults in the room. And maybe there are never adults in the room. And then we'll get back to the news in just a moment. But you know, for many of us, the new year's means making changes and health seems to be the top of the list for a lot of people. But let's also not forget our four legged family members

and the importance of their health. Cause I mean, some real talk. As our dogs get older, they deal with the same stuff we do. Slower metabolism, less energy, the works. What I love about today's sponsor, Sundays, is their ingredients. Think human grade ingredients. We're talking real meat, organs, and superfoods.

Zero artificial junk. And what's really cool is it's air dried, like beef jerky. So you can store it easily without taking up fridge space, which I definitely know my wife appreciates. And a fun fact is this was created by a vet who knew that kibble just wasn't cutting it, but didn't have time for home cooking. Cause I mean, who actually does these days?

You know, I started my dogs on it early and they still love it. I mean, it's not too late to start a healthy food plan for your dog, no matter what age. Plus, I mean, the home delivery is just clutch for my life. And so if you're ready to upgrade your dog's diet, just head to sundaysfordogs.com slash feel to get 50% off your first order of Sundays. to get 50% off your first order of sundaes.

That's 50% off your first order of dog food with human grade ingredients. Remember, sundaysfordogs.com slash phil. Your dog will be happy you did. But then next up, we got to talk about an unlikely duo, the Supreme Court and porn, right? And that because during oral arguments in a case yesterday, the high court justices signaled

that they are likely to uphold a Texas law requiring age verification for porn sites. A move that many say would roll back not only first amendment protections for porn, but potentially even open the door to broad restrictions on online speech. Because specifically the law in question requires people

to verify their identity and prove that they are over 18 in order to access any website where more than a third of the content is deemed what they call sexual material harmful to minors. With that law then also mandating the sites post a warning that porn is potentially biologically addictive and proven to harm brain development, which is also a claim that's been widely disputed

by experts. Now also, notably here, Texas is just one of the nearly 20 states that have imposed these kinds of age-gating laws. And as we've talked about before on the show a handful of times, those laws have then resulted in Pornhub suspending service in almost all those states, which has essentially made one of the world's most popular and well-known adult sites unavailable

across a wide chunk of the South. But in Texas, Pornhub and other adult industry groups sued, claiming that the law violated the First Amendment and the identity verification requirements raise very serious security and privacy concerns, with them arguing that users identifying information could be hacked, sold, or otherwise misused, thus opening them up to identity theft or possible extortion. And this is the adult content groups noted that the law has a major loophole that would prevent it from being effective, saying it doesn't restrict access to porn on social media or other sites where less than a third of the content is sexual material. And saying at the same time, the law leaves this, we'll call it a gaping hole, because it also restricts access to other sites

that are mostly devoted to content that isn't sexual. And initially, what we saw is that a federal court in Texas agreed with those arguments, striking the law down. But the state then appealed and the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, allowing the law to go into effect. Though there, it did strike down the warning label requirements. And in their decision, the appeals court justices cited a 1968 Supreme Court ruling that upheld a law making a crime to sell pornographic magazines to minors. But then, of course, the adult industry groups appealed to the Supreme Court. And in oral arguments yesterday, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued

that the appeals court had erred in its decision, noting that there was a much more recent, much more applicable Supreme Court ruling that could be applied. Because back in 2004, the high court struck down a similar federal law that aimed to protect children from online porn, ruling then that states can restrict minors' access to sexual content,

but any laws that might limit adults' rights to free speech need to undergo the most rigorous legal standard called strict scrutiny. Which I will say to not get too deep into legal jargon, all you really need to know is that the strict scrutiny standard, it basically says that the government needs to have a very, very good reason for passing a law

that may infringe on a constitutional right. Like for example, the protection of public health and safety. And even then, the law also must be designed to advance that public interest in the least restrictive way possible. And if that sounds like an almost impossibly high bar, it's because it is. Most laws do not pass the strict scrutiny test. And so in the 2004 Supreme Court ruling, the justices applied that standard and said that the federal law violated the First Amendment, arguing that there was a less restrictive way to limit minors' access to porn. With them writing at the time, instead of requiring

every porn website to verify the age of every user, the government could have just promoted content blocking or filtering software. But that was a major departure from the 1968 ruling, which used the most lax legal standard, Rational Basis Review, which just says that a law needs to have a legitimate purpose.

So, like, almost all laws. Or, as the Washington Post explained, In other words, Texas is claiming that the situation today more closely resembles that of 1968, when it was assumed that human shopkeepers could distinguish kids from grownups at a glance. So in their arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday, lawyers for Pornhub argued that the 2004 decision

and the strict scrutiny legal standard it relied on should be applied in this case as well. With them saying like in that case, there is a less restrictive alternative to age gating all porn websites specifically, than pointing to the same alternative that justices flagged back then, teaching parents to protect their children by using content filtering software. But that then drew objections from several justices, including Amy Coney Barrett, who referenced her own seven children. Kids can get online porn through gaming

systems, tablets, phones, computers. Let me just say that content filtering for all those different devices, I can say from personal experience, is difficult to keep up with. You also then had Samuel Alito chiming in. Do you know a lot of parents who are more tech savvy than their 15-year-old children? There's a huge volume of evidence that filtering doesn't work. Though here, I will say my favorite thing that came from Alito was him asking about the content on Pornhub. What percentage of the material on that is not obscene as to children?

Well, Your Honors, if we're talking about the youngest minors, I would agree that most of it is. And that is how we read the whole thing. Is it like the old Playboy magazine? You have essays there by the modern day equivalent of Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr. Not in that sense, but in the sense you have sexual wellness posts about women recovering from hysterectomies and how they can enjoy sex. That's on their discussions of age verification proposals and where the industry lines up as far as what they think should be legislated and what should not. But then beyond all that, we saw a number of justices seemingly favoring a point made by lawyers representing Texas

who argued that so much has changed since 2004 that has made porn so much more accessible and prolific, thus requiring more government intervention. With several justices making it clear that they believe that the rules that govern online porn must be flexible enough to allow some laws that try to block children. And there, I will say,

it wasn't just conservative justices who made that point. We also saw that echoed by Justice Kagan. It's just- Truck month is on at Chevrolet. Get 0% financing for up to 72 months on a 2025 Silverado 1500 Custom Blackout or Custom Trail Boss. With Custom Trail Bosses available, class-exclusive Duramax 3-liter diesel engine

and Z71 off-road package with a 2-inch factory suspension lift, you get both on-road confidence and off-road capability. Dirt road ahead? Let's go! Truck month is awesome! Ask your Chevrolet dealer for details. It won't take long to tell you Neutral's ingredients. Vodka, soda, natural flavors. So, what should we talk about? No sugar added?

Neutral. Refreshingly simple. Gotta be the case that states can do some regulation in this area. Right, and so then with all this, the question isn't whether or not the Supreme Court is going to block this law, but rather how broad their ruling is going to be when they decide to uphold the law. And the crux of this question is going to come down to what the justices decide regarding which legal standard to apply when regulating online porn. Will they go with the strict scrutiny standard they used in the 2004 case, or will they go with a more lax standard like the Fifth Circuit did in its ruling? And a big thing there is you have experts saying that if they do use that more

lax standard, it could have a sweeping impact that goes way beyond just porn and undermines free speech across the internet. But there's also seeing free speech advocates here saying that this is just a part of the conservative attempt to crack down on free speech and could pave the way for restrictions on content related to gender identity and reproductive health. Or as one expert wrote in Vox, another question is if the court permits age gating, what sort of content will the court allow the government to place a gate around?

Could the state of Florida forbid children from reading a transgender author's memoir of their transition? Or could it similarly prevent gay teenagers from accessing online forums where queer people discuss their sexuality? But for now, we're gonna have to wait to see what the court decides.

But then shift into absolutely massive international news, the Israel Hamas agreement, right? What was supposed to be a ceasefire that started this weekend, it's already hit its first roadblock. But you know, when the three phase ceasefire and the hostage release deal was announced, I was like, oh, that could happen.

But this is like a land speed record. Right, and to recap, the first phase would reportedly involve the release of 33 hostages and hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, the daily entry of 600 trucks of humanitarian aid into the territory, the partial withdrawal of Israeli troops, and the return of Gazans to the northern part of the Strip. But then the hope being that during the first phase, the second phase would be negotiated, which would involve both sides declaring what they called permanent cessation

of hostilities, Israeli forces withdrawing from Gaza, and the remaining living hostages being traded for more Palestinian prisoners. And then, hypothetically, phase three, that would involve the return of the remaining bodies and the start of Gaza's reconstruction. But also, like we talked about even after the announcement, there were reportedly a few details that still needed to be ironed out.

And so with that, Israel's acceptance of the deal, it won't be official until it's approved by the country's security cabinet and government. And that cabinet vote, it was meant to take place today. But then, all of a sudden, you had Israeli PM, Bibi Netanyahu, saying it wasn't gonna happen. With him accusing Hamas of creating what he called a last minute crisis

and reneging on parts of the agreement reached with the mediators. And saying with that, that the cabinet would not proceed until the mediators notify Israel that all elements of the agreement have been accepted. And specifically, according to Netanyahu's spokesperson, Hamas was demanding the release of, quote, "'Certain terrorists unacceptable to Israel.

With him then also claiming that there were last-minute disagreements about how Israeli forces would be deployed along Gaza's border with Egypt during phase one. But on the flip side of this, you had one senior Hamas official reportedly asserting that there is no basis to Netanyahu's claims. With a member of Hamas's political wing saying in a statement that Hamas remains committed to the ceasefire agreement announced by the mediators. And also, notably, as Netanyahu accused Hamas of holding things up,

the Israeli military continued its attacks on Gaza, with reportedly those airstrikes killing at least 77 people just since the announcement of the deal last night. And reports claiming that those dead include at least 20 children and 25 women. Now with all that, right, you have some skeptical of the claim that Hamas was the reason,

or at least the only reason for the delay, with people pointing out, for example, that Netanyahu is under pressure from his far-right allies. Because going back, when Netanyahu regained power for a second time back in 2022, he did so by forming an alliance with Itzamar Ben-Gavir and his Jewish power party, as well as B'Tselel Smokrich and his religious Zionism party. With now Ben-Gavir the minister of national security, and Smokrich, he's the minister of finance. And a key thing is that both of them have long opposed any kind of deal with Hamas. And in fact, they and other members of their parties

have repeatedly threatened to abandon the coalition if a deal was finalized, which is a move that could potentially bring down Netanyahu's government, which is also a situation that some critics have said would give him less of a chance of finding a way out of the corruption charges that he's facing. And with all that, today you had Smote Rich's party saying

in a statement that its condition for remaining in Netanyahu's coalition would be a return to fighting at the end of the first phase. With Ben-Gavir also announcing that his party would resign from the coalition if the ceasefire deal is approved and saying that it would only rejoin the government if and when the war was continued.

But notably there, you then had the leader of the opposition firing back saying he would block any attempt to take Netanyahu down to save the deal, saying in a statement, "'This is more important than all the differences "'of opinion there have ever been between us.'" So with that, the ceasefire is still expected to be approved at some point

with an Axios correspondent claiming that the remaining disputes have been sorted out and that the Israeli cabinet will now convene to approve the deal tomorrow. So on the US side, you've had John Kirby, for example, the National Security Council spokesperson, claiming that the deal was not breaking down and saying that the administration is confident

that the deal will be implemented as planned on Sunday. But honestly, here's what I'll say, right? Nothing is done until the ink is dry. Even then, if it is approved tomorrow with everything that we talked about, there's obviously a concern about if and how long that's gonna hold. Inconsistency and the unexpected have been

the only consistent expected things in regards to this whole situation. And all of this is of course for the hostages and most of their families and for the people at Gaza, the implementation of this deal, it cannot come soon enough. But then we'll get right back to the news in just a moment, but let's talk about travel nightmares. With one of them being you land in a new country

and bam, your carrier hits you with a $10 a day international plan that crawls slower than a snail. And two gigs of data, I mean, I burned through that before I even get my luggage. But luckily we have our sponsor, Saley, the ultimate game changer for travelers. But forget hunting down SIM cards

or dealing with terrible airport wifi. This app, it lets you set up high speed internet for all your devices before you even leave your home. I'm using it on my upcoming trips because anything to eliminate travel drama. One of my priorities in life is just having one fewer thing to worry about. Whether you're just going to one place

or you're planning a multiple country visit, Saley's got you covered. You can get a global or regional plan and travel with the same eSIM. No need to swap SIMs every time you cross a border. We're talking coverage in over 180 countries in eight regions with plans that actually make sense. And as far as more reasons why Saley's a traveler's best friend, setup takes seconds. It works on multiple devices and comes with 24-7 customer support.

It's also dual SIM compatible, eSIM friendly, and they'll even refund you if your phone doesn't work with their system. And it's easy. You just download the Saley app now and use code fill at checkout for 15% off. Or use the QR code on screen now and apply code fill at checkout for 15% off.

Just remember Saley, code fill it, check out and say goodbye to travel headaches and hello to hassle-free connectivity. But then for this next story that I wanna go to, I actually recorded it while we were on break for the holidays, but honestly, I just haven't been able to get it out of my head since. It's weird, messy, heartwarming, and heartbreaking all at the same time. So here you go. Today, I want to go a little deeper with you on a little piece of news from back in September that slipped under most people's radar, but it actually rocked an entire global industry. It's really interesting.

It's going to change a lot. Namely, what I'm talking about here is that China's foreign ministry held a press conference where they announced that foreigners can no longer adopt any Chinese babies. Because you see, since 1992, when the country's international adoption program began, some 160,000 children have gotten adopted to parents in other countries.

With the big thing being that more than half of those went to the United States. And one of the biggest reasons they had so many babies to give away, and specifically so many girls was the infamous one child policy. Over three and a half decades, Chinese parents favored boys over girls for several different reasons.

Mainly, you know, just classic straight up sexism, but to be more specific, to make sure that one child could carry on the family name, inherit their property and take care of them in old age. So China ended up becoming a bit demographically lopsided, not only in favor of men, but old people as well, since birth rates have declined. Which is why in 2015, the government loosened the policy

to let married couples have two kids and then three kids in 2021. But despite those drastic changes in the other direction, birth rates still haven't recovered, which is one reason that many speculate that the government has ended transnational adoption. Though at least officially speaking, there was no reason given.

By the way, this has left hundreds of aspiring parents with pending applications in the lurch. With them arguing not only was their opportunity to become parents ripped away, but so is the chance for many of these abandoned kids to live better lives in a good home. And generally speaking, I mean, it seems like there are good homes. I mean, every single Chinese adoptee that NPR interviewed about this news said that they had supportive parents and most said they had good childhoods. With them also acknowledging there that they might have faced a tough, uncertain life if they hadn't been adopted, and adding that they worry about orphans left in China. Which is why with all that, it may shock you to learn

that many of them actually support China's decision to terminate the program. For example, one woman who was found on a street corner in China, who was adopted and raised in Texas, telling the outlet, "'Two truths can be held at the same time. "'I can be grateful and I can have a great, "'great relationship with my parents,

"'but I can also still be critical of the systems "'that caused my adoption.'" When you actually dig into it, it turns out that transnational adoption isn't always the fairytale happy ending that advocates pitch it as. First of all, studies show that adoptees suffer higher rates of depression and mental anxiety

than non-adoptees, with those rates then going up even further for transnational and transracial adoptees. And not only do many of them have no connection to their birth parents, but like regular adoptees, they also lack a connection to their birth country and culture, which can end up just being really confusing for a kid who grows up with white parents in a practically all-white school in a predominantly white community, but

gets treated as a foreigner. Yet they also then describe not feeling like they belong in Asian communities either because they're only adoptees. With then names like Twinkie and Banana getting thrown around implying that they're yellow on the outside, white on the inside. And so adoptive parents are often faced with the dilemma, right, they can either try their best to assimilate their kid with the culture and forget where they came from, which is one adoptee explained is like naively hoping that your love can just cover up all the racism

they'll experience, or they can try their best to expose them to the culture that they came from, whether through videos, books, classes, or support groups with other adoptees. But however sincerely they try to be sensitive, adoptive parents too often just don't know how to provide the kind of support a non-white kid needs. There being some speculation here, right?

Maybe they simply don't understand how racism works or they tell the kid just shake it off or they pretend it's not a big issue. None of which I will say is to say that transracial adoption is necessarily bad or that plenty of adoptive parents don't build loving, caring relationships with their kids. The point is just that the story is much more complicated

than adoptive parents saving non-white children from a life of squalor. But then also keep in mind so far, we've only talked about what happens when the kids get there, right? We still haven't looked at where they actually come from. When you actually start to dig into that question, you pull up a lot of really ugly history.

I mean, let's go back to China's one child policy for a moment, because you'll remember, I mentioned how Chinese parents would give up girls for adoption so they could have a boy instead. Well, sometimes they actually kept their babies in secret, which of course was against the law. So in the late 2000s, reports trickled out detailing how government officials and Hunan province had taken

advantage of the policy to seize babies and sell them into what was called a lucrative black market in children. Family planning officials would actually prowl around villages looking for a diaper on a clothesline, listening for the cry of a newborn. But then on the other side, parents also watching out for these officials and scrambling to hide their babies when the bureaucrats came by in a dystopian game of cat and mouse. But then on the other side, parents also watching out for these officials and scrambling to hide their babies when the bureaucrats came by

in a dystopian game of cat and mouse. But then inevitably someone would get caught. The officials would demand a huge fine on the spot. The parents couldn't pay it. And they were left sobbing as their child got driven away in a government van, never to be seen again. With just story after story following a similar pattern and mothers saying things like,

"'They grabbed the baby and dragged me out of the house. "'I was screaming. "'I thought they were going to knock me over.' "'Or, "'Our children were exported abroad "'like they were factory products.'" And they may as well have been products to the officials involved in this scheme because they raked in thousands of dollars

in adoption fees for each baby. And remember, this is rural China that we're talking about. American dollars are worth a lot more than they are in the States. Now, with all that, back when the scandal first blew up, you had the Chinese government insisting that this abuse was actually rare and it was limited to a handful of local officials

who had been fired. But the reality is we really have no idea how many children were kidnapped. And in many cases, it's impossible to verify the baby's origins because the paperwork was fake. And so that way the American adoptive parents get a document saying their child was simply found on a doorstep or something innocent like that,

not ripped from the arms of a screaming mother. And so with that, we see things like one adoptive mother from Canada back in 2009 telling the LA Times, when we adopted in 2006, we were fed the same stories that there were millions of unwanted girls in China that they would be left on the street to die if we didn't help. I love my daughter, but if I had any idea my money would cause her to be taken away from another mother who loved her, I never would have adopted. But then also at the same time, you have some like this adoptive mother in Philadelphia saying that even if she could find the birth parents, she could never return her daughter.

A daughter who reportedly at the time she was interviewed was a thoroughly Americanized six-year-old obsessed with SpongeBob and hating the Chinese culture classes that she was enrolled in. And oftentimes what we see is that the birth parents feel the same way with one mother telling the times, "'We'd never make her come back "'because a girl raised in the West

"'wouldn't wanna live in a poor village like this. "'But we'd like to know where she is. "'We'd like to see a picture "' and we'd like her to know that we miss her and that we didn't throw her away. Also, with as shocking as all this is, I really do want to make a point that this is not a just surface level black and white trying to paint China as an evil culprit sort of situation. Well, obviously there has been a focus here. This is a problem with the global adoption industry itself and it spans many other countries. Like for example, you can look at South Korea, which has adopted out some 200,000 babies

to the rest of the world, though, mostly to the United States. With for decades, their adoption pipeline alternatively described as baby diplomacy, baby wholesaling and baby factories. With also a recent investigation by the Associated Press and Frontline PBS revealing how it all got started after the Korean War in the 1950s.

Because he had American soldiers stationed there impregnating thousands of Korean women, giving birth to mixed race babies who weren't accepted at the time. And this also as Korea was impoverished and devastated by war, so the Southern government at the time seeing transnational adoption as a way to bring in foreign currency while also saving money it would have spent

on child welfare programs. And this is at the same time in the West, birth control and abortion created a shortage of adoptable babies. So you had demand meeting supply. Western couples desperately wanted babies and South Korea desperately wanted to rid itself of mouths to feed. But eventually the country ran out of adoptable babies. So you had demand meeting supply. Western couples desperately wanted babies and South Korea desperately wanted to rid itself of mouths to feed.

But eventually the country ran out of mixed race babies and it needed more supply. So they then turned instead to fully Korean children of poor families and unwed mothers. With the government also turbocharging this process by allowing foreigners to adopt children without ever even visiting Korea. Or they just go pick up their new Korean baby

at an American airport where the kids were shipped by the plane load. With the Swiss organization even writing in 1966 that it suspected that the Korean government assess agencies not by child welfare standards, but by the money that they brought in. With them adding in the same document, there is quite a bit of rivalry and competition

among the different agencies, and it is not beyond agencies to bribe or pressure mothers for the release of these children, and not beyond agencies to try to compete with each other for the same child. And the methods they use weren't much different from those in China, with agencies claiming that lost children were,

oh, actually abandoned children, making no effort to verify the origins of alleged orphans and disguising others as having been born from unwed mothers to make them adoptable. Or sometimes people involved in the system just lied to parents' faces. Like for example, this one father who told the AP that in 1986, the Red Cross Hospital told him

that his newborn son had serious lung and heart problems. Something that would require a high risk, very expensive surgery that could leave the baby dead or severely disabled and he couldn't afford it. So under the hospital's advice, the father gave up his son to an adoption agency, which would then pay for the surgery and find a home that could handle the disability if he survived. With then hospital staff telling this dad and his wife that their son had died with him saying, "'It felt like the sky was falling. "'I felt like my heart was being ripped apart.'" But the thing is that boy didn't die.

Instead, what had happened was documents were drafted describing him as a normal, healthy baby born to an unwed mother. And just like that, he was shipped to the United States. With it not being until 2019 that this boy, now a 34 year old man named Robert, got a call from the Korean government agency telling him that they had found his father.

So in 2020, this guy actually then flew to Seoul and his long lost father was so excited to meet him that he ignored the quarantine and went straight to the apartment where he was staying. With Robert throwing open the window and shouting, "'Dad!' To which his biological father shouted back, "'My son!'

And so now Robert visits his birth country often and talks to his dad on the phone every few days. With him telling the AP, "'You're constantly in flux between two worlds, the one you could have and should have been in and the one where you are. You know, like with China, we'll never really know exactly how many Korean children were stolen from the rightful parents like that. Though you do have one Korean scholar telling outlets that from 1980 to 1987, records show that more than 90% of the Korean children sent to the West almost certainly had known relatives. And then adding there that the number of children

sent to adoption was often more than 10 times higher than the police count for abandoned children, close to 9,000 in 1985. And so as all of these adoptees from China, South Korea, and other countries became adults, they started looking for their parents and scrutinizing origin stories that they just believed. And so we've seen the fruits of all that

in the past several years as governments tighten up their transnational adoption programs. For example, South Korea creating a fact-finding commission to which hundreds of adoptees have submitted their cases for review, which could absolutely be huge because depending on what the commission turns up, adoptees could then use it to take legal actions against agencies or the government.

And this is recently we've seen European countries investigating, restricting, or altogether shutting down their transnational adoption programs. From the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden to Norway, Switzerland, and France. And although the United States hasn't taken any action recently, its regulations since 2008 have gotten much more strict. And so the number of inter-country adoptions to the US

have plummeted from 20,000 in 2004 to less than 2,000 today, which is where this dive into the news, if not the problems that we've talked about, ends. With that, of course, while I'd love to know anyone's thoughts here, if you're an adoptee or an adoptive parent or you work in the system, or you just have, once again, any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear from's thoughts here. If you're an adoptee or an adoptive parent, or you work in the system, or you just have, once again, any thoughts on this,

I'd love to hear from you in those comments down below. Yes, this is a new show, but I also like it to be kind of a one-on-one, but also a group conversation. But then finally today from that, let's talk about yesterday and some comment commentary. Right, and diving into the comments on yesterday's video, a lot of them had to do

with the Elon Musk accusations and scandal. With many of y'all appearing to believe the accusations that gamers out there have made against Elon Musk and saying things like, it blows my mind that Elon Musk simultaneously wants us to believe that he is actively working as CEO of multiple companies, raising 10 plus kids, and grinding multiple video games to the max rank. There's 24 hours in a day, bro. Along with saying things like, I like how Elon has lied about his degrees, stock values, taxes, Hyperloop company goals, company worth, his PhD offer at Stanford, cryptocurrency, Twitter, the election, COVID, et cetera,

but being a fraudulent gamer somehow surprised people. And some of y'all describing the situation as imagine if Musk was claiming to be one of the greatest grandmasters in chess of all time. And then when he tries to show off his skills, he looks confused about how you're supposed to move your pawns. That's basically what he's doing.

And while obviously people can believe or not believe accusations that have been levied against Elon or really anyone, more kind of just general and more universal is, I like this comment from Blair that read, I once remember a businessman saying, and I'm paraphrasing, but something like, I like to play golf with someone because if they cheat, it shows that if they're willing to lie about something that small, who knows what else they're lying about. Though we also saw Banquet saying, either I cheat or we're going to be there all night. And yeah, honestly, as long as we're not playing for money, drop the ball. Yeah, you hit it there. I believe you. I'd rather that than you search for the thing for 10 to 15 minutes. Then separate from the news,

I've been seeing these comments popping up. Someone saying, I enjoy the new Phil talking in the corner of the screen format, which I'll say, I'm glad you like me and the new Lil Phils. That's what we call them or rather communicate that specific cut internally. But then to go back to your comments about the actual news, there were comments about Trump and Biden and Israel and Hamas. For example, Lee Miller is saying, I'm sorry, but quote, the incoming US president is so unhinged,

both Hamas and Netanyahu agree they'd rather deal with each other is not the flex people think it is. I'm glad there's a ceasefire, but to give Trump any credit for being anything other than insane and unpredictable is insulting to everyone involved. But also here's what I'll say, and this is an opinion section. Once again, we should not get too far ahead of ourselves. We need to see how the hell this is going to even play out just this weekend, let alone if this thing can get to the phase two portion of what's been talked about. You know,

that country's leader, his unpredictable thing, has been a big part of international politics since forever, especially when that leader has access to weapons and or the largest military in the world. I'm not saying it should be the preferred method, but I mean, North Korea wouldn't be North Korea if they didn't have a perception of a crazy person having a nuke. So I think if there's anyone out there that's denying that Trump could have anything to do with it, I'm not going to say it was like the main mover or anything. I would personally think that's short-sighted thinking. And in this particular situation, once again, we have to see how it plays out. I think Netanyahu was inclined to try to give Trump some sort of win.

And then also with this, I understand why there would be a concern about how this will play out in every single matter. Whereas something else responded, let's see how long being unhinged and unpredictable gives positive results. Right, and you know, I think that's a valid concern in a number of avenues.

With our enemies regarding escalation, with our allies or even those on the fence regarding alienation. With our allies, or even those on the fence, regarding alienation. Because it's not a secret that on the world stage, America and China are fighting for influence. I mean, you constantly see the jockeying with countries like India. I mean, you see all of the negotiations and the infrastructure in Africa. Yeah, you know, time will tell how all this is going to play out. But on that absolutely cheery note, that is gonna be where your Thursday evening, Friday morning dive into the news is gonna end.

And unfortunately, we will not see each other for three whole days, because remember, you'll get a new episode every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday at 6 p.m. Eastern, 3 p.m. Pacific. Though I am playing with the idea of in two weeks starting to go from Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, we'll feel it out. With that said, thank you for watching.

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