The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 2.11 “ALL HELL IS GOING TO BREAK OUT!” What Trump’s New Gaza Threat Means & Elon Musk Sam Altman Problem

Episode Date: February 11, 2025

Go to https://buyraycon.com/defranco to get up to 20% off sitewide! Brought to you by Raycon. Go to http://hellofresh.com/defranco10fm to get up to 10 free meals and a free high protein item for life. https://BeautifulBastard.com 3 new tees, hoodies, and crews PLUS 50% OFF blankets, candles, & select products w/ code "GET50OFF" ‘Subscribe for New shows every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, & Thursday @ 6pm ET/3pm PST & watch more here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDtmCkX6JqQ&list=PLHcsGizlfLMWpSg7i0b9wnUyEZWI-25N3&index=1 – ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ – 00:00 - Trump Says “All Hell Will Break Loose” if Hamas Does Not Return Hostages 05:38 - Andrew Tate Faces First Lawsuit in U.S. 08:08 - Elon Musk Leads $97 Billion Bid for OpenAI 11:54 - Sponsored by Raycon 12:57 - Rep. Nancy Mace Accuses Ex-Fiancé and Associates of Assault 18:50 - Trump Says Ukraine “May or May Not” Be Russian Someday 21:00 - DOJ Tells Prosecutors to Drop Charges Against Eric Adams 24:39 - Sponsored by Hello Fresh 25:48 - Judge Blocks Trump‘s Effort to Cut NIH Funding to Universities 31:13 - 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  ———————————— 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 #AndrewTate #DonaldTrump ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Wendy's most important deal of the day has a fresh lineup. Pick any two breakfast items for $5. New four-piece French toast sticks, bacon or sausage wrap, English muffin sandwiches, value iced coffee, and more. Limited time only at participating Wendy's Taxes Extra. Donald Trump's now saying all bets are off and hell will break out if all the hostages aren't returned by Saturday. Elon Musk, Sam Altman, OpenAI situations only getting worse, bigger, and pettier. We've got

big updates around Andrew Tate's legal battles. We're talking about all that and much more on today's brand new Philip DeFranco show. You daily dive into the news, how it's being covered, and how people are reacting to it. Starting with this. All hell's gonna break out if Hamas does not free every single hostage by Saturday at noon. That's what Donald Trump is saying right now. And notably, that's just one of the comments that he's made this week that has the whole situation feeling like even more of a powder keg than usual. And with all that, of course, the Israel Hamas ceasefire, it's hanging on by a fucking thread.

Right there are reportedly 73 hostages remaining in Gaza, of whom Israel has declared 34 to be dead. And notably, an exchange slated for Saturday was set to see three more hostages released. But then you had Hamas yesterday saying it would be indefinitely postponing the next hostage prisoner swap, with the group there accusing Israel of not living up to its end of the deal claiming that the military

was continuing to shoot at Palestinians keeping them from moving back to the northern part of Gaza and delaying the entry of medical supplies and shelters. Though notably Hamas also claimed that it affirmed its commitment to the terms of the agreement saying, issuing this statement five full days ahead of the scheduled prisoner handover gives time for Israel to comply and leaves the door open for the exchange to proceed as planned. But then with that, you had Trump coming out swinging. If all of the hostages aren't returned by Saturday at 12 o'clock, I think it's an appropriate time.

I would say cancel it and all bets are off and let hell break out. You say all hell is going to break loose. Are you speaking about retaliation from Israel? You'll find out and they'll break out. You say all hell is going to break loose. Are you speaking about retaliation from Israel? You'll find out and they'll find out too. Hamas will find out what I mean. Though as far as what he means, far right Israeli politicians

think they have a pretty clear idea. With the seeing, for example, the former minister of national security who resigned last month to protest the ceasefire writing on X, Trump is right and adding that it was time to go back to Gaza and destroy. And this after he responded to Hamas postponing the hostage release

by calling for a full-scale assault on Gaza, writing, Hamas's announcement should have one real-life response, a massive assault on Gaza from the air and land, alongside a complete halt to humanitarian aid to the Strip, including electricity, fuel, and water, and including the bombing of aid packages that have already been brought in and are in the hands of Hamas,

saying we must return to war and destroy. And also with that, you had the Israeli defense minister reportedly instructing the IDF to prepare at the highest level of alert for any possible scenario in Gaza. Them also calling Hamas' statement a complete violation of the ceasefire agreement. And now we're reportedly seeing Israeli troops

moving to the border with Gaza to quote, "'enhance the readiness for various scenarios in the region.'" Though with all this, it is very important to also note that many hostage families are desperate for the ceasefire to stay in place with one mother, for example, saying, "'President Trump, I am asking you with all my heart, do everything in your power to ensure

that this deal continues.'" So of course, even before this, the fate of the ceasefire, it was questionable. It talks on the details of phase two were meant to be underway last week, but Israel reportedly dispatched officials without a mandate to negotiate that part of the deal. Plus, he also said Netanyahu suggesting

that he won't even pursue the second phase if it means the war will end. And of course, all of this also affected by Trump's repeated statements that he wants to permanently remove Palestinians from Gaza so that the US can take it over and develop it. Right in there, as we've talked about, many have said that Trump's plan may be considered

a call for ethnic cleansing, and experts widely agree that it would violate international law. And specifically, you have them saying that it would be a war crime and a crime against humanity. And all of this, of course, is the US has staunchly supported Israel while it has been accused of war crimes,

crimes against humanity and genocide in the course of its war that has directly killed nearly 50,000 people in Gaza, possibly though many more. You know, with all that, Trump has not backtracked. He's really only stepped up the rhetoric. With him, for example, in a newly released interview with Fox News' Bret Baier saying unambiguously that Palestinians

would not have the right to return to the land. Now it's essentially a demolition site. There's practically no building that's livable in the whole thing, in the whole Gaza Strip. I say, we go in, we knock them all down, we just create something. No more Hamas. There's no Hamas there. There's nobody there. We move them into beautiful areas of the Middle East. I'd like to go to Egypt. They have a lot of land. I'd like to go to Jordan. I'd like to go to others. And we'll build beautiful communities for the 1.9 million people. We'll build beautiful communities, safe communities. Could be five, six, could be two. But we'll build safe communities a little bit away from where they are, where all of this danger is.

In the meantime, I would own this. Think of it as a real estate development for the future. It would be a beautiful piece of land. Would the Palestinians have the right to return? No, they wouldn't because they're going gonna have much better housing, much better. In other words, I'm talking about building a permanent place for them because if they have to return now, it'll be years before you could ever, it's not habitable. And with that, you've also had Trump now suggesting that he would cut aid to Jordan and Egypt if they refused his demand to take in most Palestinians from Gaza.

And in fact, Trump actually met with Jordan's king today at the White House and again insisted that Palestinians would be resettled there. But of course, this is Jordan as well as Egypt have repeatedly rejected the idea with some saying the proposal puts them in an impossible position. But I mean, in Jordan's case, notably more than half the population is estimated to be Palestinian

and this is already a major source of tension. With the seeing, for example, the executive director of the Arab Center, Washington, DC, telling the New York Times, what Mr. Trump has done is put the future of the kingdom of Jordan on the line. Saying the strongest political movement in Jordan does not accept the idea that Jordan is Palestine.

And then you even had Trump's former Syria envoy saying, "'Obviously the king cannot take those people.' This is an existential issue for him," and saying, "'This would be a regime killer.'" Now with that, the king has now reportedly agreed to take in 2000 Palestinian children from Gaza who are very sick or have cancer, but he also quote, reiterated Jordan's steadfast position

against the displacement of Palestinians. For now, that is where we are, and we'll have to wait to see whether or not Trump keeps on insisting on sticking to this plan, and if he does, what the consequences would be. But then switching gears to news we haven't updated on in a while, Andrew Tate's legal problems

have now reached the United States. And that because a woman just filed a lawsuit in Florida accusing both Andrew and his brother Tristan of luring her to Romania for sex work. With this reportedly being the first suit that's been filed against them here in the States. But it also of course comes as they've been having cases ongoing in Romania and the UK.

Now, as far as the woman in the US case, she's only been identified as Jane Doe. And in her suit, she claims that she first met Tristan Tate online at the age of 20 in 2021. And she met up with him in Miami. She then alleges that they became romantically involved and he asked her to join him in Romania. But then she alleges that after arriving in the country,

things felt off, right? She was told she couldn't have friends outside of ones Tristan introduced her to. She was living with several other women, including ones who were working long OnlyFans hours, and she, quote, became concerned she was lured to Romania on false pretenses. The suit then also points to another woman

identified as Mary Doe, claiming that she moved to Romania because she believed she was in a relationship with Andrew, but he restricted her movements, coerced her into group sex, and referred to her as a slave. And on top of Jane Doe accusing the brothers of coercing her into sex,

she also claims they defamed her after she gave testimony to Romanian authorities. Because as you had the New York Times explaining, her suit appears to include details about the allegations that led to both Andrew and Tristan being arrested. And they actually sued Jane Doe for defamation back in 2023, claiming that she and another woman conspired to falsely imprison them with fabricated evidence. And at the time, you had the brothers calling Jane Doe

a professional con artist and accusing her of pursuing a relationship with Tristan in order to move to Romania and defraud both brothers. But with the Tate's saying that she was free to come and go from their estate and that they had security video to prove it, with the sued adding, "'She was not restrained in her movement, "'never confined, never controlled by any person,

nor was she threatened in any manner and always had free will. But now, Jane Doe says that the defamation lawsuit the brothers filed against her was part of an effort to bully her into recanting her testimony in Romania. With the suit then further claiming that the Taits have sought to overwhelm her

with harassment, court cases, invasions of privacy, defamation, and by including her family in court cases without merit. And with all that, alleging that they brought this effort public by attacking her on social media and suggesting she could go to prison. With Doe also telling the New York Times, "'I look forward to my day in court where evidence

"'and facts, not narratives, will decide the outcome.'" But with that, you also had a lawyer representing the Tate shooting back, telling the outlet that, quote, "'The fact that these people are now doubling "'and tripling down on what is nothing more "'than an abject lie is absolutely hilarious. Saying there is no chance in hell

that they're going to win. But for now, we'll have to wait to see where this goes, especially because it comes not too long after the Tates actually got their biggest win so far in this whole case frenzy. That first criminal case against them in Romania, it failed back in December when a court sent it back to prosecutors.

So notably, there's still another investigation into them there, as well as the UK case, and now this US lawsuit. But then, moving on from that, I wanna talk about Elon Musk, because Elon Musk has been in the news for a number of reasons, right? He's waging wars left and right,

but I wanna talk about what's specifically happening with the one on AI. And that, because we're now seeing this news that a group of investors led by Elon Musk just made a bid to control OpenAI for the price of $97.4 billion. And they reportedly made this completely unsolicited offer to OpenAI's board of directors

through Musk's attorney yesterday with a statement from Musk also reading, "'It's time for OpenAI to return "'to the open source safety focus force for good "'it once was. "'We will make sure that happens.'" And with that, the bid was very promptly shot down by OpenAI's CEO, Sam Altman,

who reportedly didn't even look at it before saying on X, "'No, thank you, but we will buy Twitter "'for 9.74 billion if you want.'" To which Musk responded by calling Altman a swindler. Which also, I'll say, it is worth noting that this is just the latest move in a long-running battle between Musk and Altman. With Altman even referencing the history

in an interview with Bloomberg Television. I mean, look, OpenAI is not for sale. The OpenAI mission is not for sale. Elon tries all sorts of things for a long time. This is the late, you know, this week's episode. Also here, there's been some speculation that Elon's bid here is somehow tied to the fact that he owns a direct competitor to OpenAI called XAI.

And actually with that, we saw Bloomberg Television even directly asking Altman what he thought about Elon's motives here and their connection to XAI. Do you think Musk's approach then is from a position of insecurity about XAI? Probably his whole life is from a position of insecurity. I feel for the guy. You feel for him? I do, actually. I don't think he's like a happy person. I do feel for him.

Oh, this is, this is, this is Kendrick Lamar and Drake for a bunch of nerds. But even with that outright rejection and roast, you have many outlets saying that Musk's bid, it actually makes things a lot more complicated for Altman and OpenAI's plans to transition into a fully for-profit corporation. Because when Musk and Altman, along with several other entrepreneurs, first started OpenAI, it was a nonprofit. With then Elon jumping ship in 2019, after reportedly he couldn't get control. And then you had Sam Altman attaching OpenAI

to a for-profit company, so he could raise the absurd amounts of money that people say is needed to further AI technology. But that nonprofit board, it maintained control over OpenAI, which then takes you to, you might remember this, late 2023, when over the course of five days, Sam Altman was ousted and then brought back into the fold.

And when he came back, he and his allies reportedly started looking for ways to sever the control of the nonprofit board and make OpenAI a fully for-profit thing, with them reportedly promising to complete the transition by late 2026. But in order to make that happen, Altman reportedly has to compensate the board,

whether that be a one-time payment or giving them a minority stake in the company. So what it appears that Elon has done with his bid though, is place a dollar amount on the value of the nonprofit assets, which reportedly had not been done before. So that could mean that Altman might have to fork over a lot more cash to the nonprofit arm than he planned to do

in order to get OpenAI's independence. With the seeing, for example, Ellen April, a senior scholar studying nonprofit law at UCLA, who has written extensively about OpenAI saying that Musk setting the bar this high, it creates quote, an enormous complication for the current plan. Right, because if the nonprofit takes a lower offer who has written extensively about OpenAI saying that Musk setting the bar this high, it creates quote, an enormous complication for the current plan. Because if the nonprofit takes a lower offer

from OpenAI's for-profit arm, they'll likely have to explain to state charity regulators why they turned down the higher bid. Or in other words, to get approval, any offer from Altman now, it's reportedly gonna have to either be as good or better than Musk's offer. With Musk's attorney even saying in a statement

to the New York Times, if Sam Altman and the present OpenAI board of directors "'are intent on becoming a fully for-profit corporation, "'it is vital that the charity be fairly compensated "'for what its leadership is taking away from it, "'control over the most transformative technology "'of our time.'" However, with that, there are also still some options

for Altman here, right? Notably, they can argue that Musk's bid is not legitimate, or they could call into question whether Musk has the funds, considering that most of his wealth is tied up in Tesla stock. And there you saw the Times pointing to Musk previously trying to walk away from his offer to buy Twitter,

seemingly implying that Altman could use that in their argument. With all this, I'll say, you know, Musk's bid, it's not the only hurdle that OpenAI and Altman have seen in their for-profit plans. I mean, back in December, Meta sent a letter to the California AG urging him to block the conversion.

That's on top of the fact that OpenAI is reportedly currently locked in negotiations with Microsoft and other stakeholders over how much equity they'd get in the new company. So a lot at play, a lot still up in the air, but we are seeing cards getting played. And then we'll get to more news in just a moment,

but you know, February, it's traditionally the season of love. And you know, I think there is a universal love language that we can all get behind, and that is the love of sound. And that is where today's sponsor Raycon comes in with their everyday earbuds, which deliver top-notch sound. And as a podcast junkie myself, whether I'm on a run or I'm just chilling at home,

these earbuds are my constant companion. The 32-hour battery life, it means I never have to worry about running dry mid-episode. And what really sold me was the active noise cancellation. It's a must-have for traveling or just tuning out distractions. Plus, the multipoint connectivity,

it lets me pair them with two devices at once. So when a work call comes through, I'm not missing anything and the audio is still crystal clear. And I'm only shocked to find with these features that Raycons are half the price of other premium brands. You know, available in multiple colors, these earbuds are engineered for comfort. No more ear pain or drop buds. My sleek silver marbled case, it not only looks great with my black earbuds, but it also enables wireless charging, delivering 90 minutes of playback from just a 10 minute charge. And the best part? You can try them risk-free with their 30-day happiness guarantee. So head to buyraycon.com slash defranco to get up to 20% off site-wide.

And yes, that includes all headphones too. But then from that, we should talk about how... When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecue's lit, but there's nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that, actually, they will stay for dinner. Instacart has all your groceries covered this summer. So download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus, enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart. Groceries that groceries that over deliver. Last night, the House of

Representatives had what's been described as one of the most unusual speeches ever there after Representative Nancy Mace accused her ex-fiance and three other men of assault and added that South Carolina's Attorney General dropped the ball. And the House floor is generally not used to air out allegations like this, which appears to be why some outlets have suggested that Mace might have practical and political motivations for doing it there. But that said, let's talk about it, right? She started the nearly hour-long speech with- Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call out the cowards who think they can prey on women and get away with it. Today, I'm going scorched earth. So let the bridges I burn this evening light our way forward. With Mace then going on to say that on the night of October 30th, 2023,

she got a text message that claimed that her then-fiancé, Patrick Bryant, was active on a dating app. And she said she initially thought it was a political move until he decided to lock his phone in a safe. Though she then said he went on to give her access and... The night that I was given legal access to his phone, I opened it for the first time. And what I discovered shocked me to my core.

One of the first videos I saw was of a woman. She was incapacitated and she was being raped. With Mace then going on to claim that she also found photos of what appeared to be young teenage girls in underwear. There were also allegedly secret nude recordings of Mace herself and in an emotional statement she said, "- This monster stole my body.

It felt like I had been raped." And this incident allegedly occurred at a property owned by one of the men pictured and was done with a hidden camera with her then holding up a security camera on the floor. And in total, she said that she found thousands of photos and videos of not only herself, but other women as well, who had no idea they were being recorded while nude or undressing.

And that's on top of a lot of creepy photos of underage girls. With Mace then also making clear that- None of this is conjecture. These are not allegations. These are facts. It is documented. Sometimes with metadata. I knew how to get that too. These are facts. It is documented.

Sometimes with metadata. I knew how to get that too. This is what I found. This is what I saw. And this is what I accidentally discovered. Mace also claimed to have personally identified over a dozen victims and then went on to say on the night of November 12th, Bryant assaulted her. With that leading her to flee her home and go into hiding where she moved four times over a year. And by the end of her speech,

Mace had given examples of alleged assaults and rapes that each of the four men allegedly did. With Mace then going on to say that during all this, she found out how hard it actually was for victims to get justice and that she was also a victim of the weaponization of government. During the last year,

I turned everything over to law enforcement and then some. I was told I as a victim would be investigated. Investigated for what? I am a victim here. I am turning in all of this evidence to you and now you say victims. You're a victim of rape. You're a victim of being drugged. You're a victim of a peeping Tom and voyeurism. Yet we're going to investigate you. That is what the state told me. And according to Mace, her attempts to report all of this to South Carolina authorities led to threats of arrest,

which is something she claims other victims of sexual assaults and similar crimes face as well. Mace claiming that the face of the problem is South Carolina Attorney General, Alan Wilson. They're accusing him of threatening victims with arrest as well as delaying investigations into Mace's allegations. From there, Mace wrapped up her speech by highlighting her record supporting legislation

that at least, according to her, would protect women. Though there, you have some noting that some of those bills are controversial, such as bills meant to remove trans people from women's bathrooms. But with all that said, following what just happened, there were a lot of responses to this from the accused. Frank Bryant denied the allegations

while the other men made it seem like they were considering legal actions against Mace. Although with that, you have people saying that's probably dead in the water, even if it was all untrue. And we're not saying that that's the case. Because a key thing here, let's say any Congress person lies on the House floor.

That person could normally be held liable for knowingly spreading lies with the intention to hurt others. If they do so on the House floor, they would be protected by the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause, which states that speech from Congress people made during sessions are immune from prosecution.

With that, a press release for Mace actually touched on that last night and added that, quote, "'Her statements tonight are not conjecture, "'they are not allegations, they are facts, "'based on information she uncovered "'and documents she accidentally discovered.'" With the same time, you had Attorney General Wilson critical of Mace in saying,

"'Ms. Mace either does not understand "'or is purposefully mischaracterizing "'the role of the Attorney General.'" And adding, "'At this time, "'our office has not received any reports "'or requests for assistance from any law enforcement "'or prosecution agencies regarding these matters.'" And adding, "'Additionally, the Attorney General

"'and members of his office have had no role "'and no knowledge of these allegations "'until their public statements.'" But it's also saying his office add that both Wilson and Mace have attended multiple events with each other over the last six months. In addition to Mace having his cell phone numbers and quote, not once has she approached or reached out to him regarding any of her concerns. However, it appears at least some elements of

South Carolina's law enforcement knew about the allegations because the South Carolina law enforcement division did confirm that there was an investigation into Bryant stemming from December of 2023. And they added, since that date, SLED has conducted multiple interviews, served multiple search warrants, "'and has a well-documented case file "'that will be available for release "'upon the conclusion of the case.'" Whatever the case may be, whatever actually happened,

right now we're seeing multiple outlets pointing out that calling out Wilson might actually have a political benefit for Mace's, both are considering running for governor in 2026. There was some arguing that it also helps bolster Mace's image as an advocate against rape and assault while hurting Wilson's reputation at the same time as a do- nothing attorney general.

And then as far as online, mixed reactions depending on where you're looking. In some places, she's gotten a lot of praise for coming out with these allegations, many calling her brave. But at the same time, you have a lot of critics and skeptics. With some suggesting they were skeptical

because she did this in a place where she couldn't be sued for defamation, while others doubted her sincerity to protecting sexual assault victims, saying things like, Rep. Nancy Mace, the government should not do business with rapists, sex traffickers, or peeping Toms. Oh, she just wants to elect them and appoint them in the government. You know, with all that said, as we're seeing these different reactions, as we wait to see how this plays out,

I'd love to know your thoughts in those comments down below. But then, we should talk about Donald Trump, Russia, and Ukraine. Because in the months before inauguration, he signaled that one of his primary concerns would be to bring the Russia-Ukraine war to an immediate end. With him even promising back in July that he could end the war in 24 hours, something which, you know, three weeks into his term now, obviously didn't happen. And so, you know, Ukraine supporters,

they feared that he would prioritize ending the war quickly over ending the war justly, with the country's sovereignty intact and Russian troops expelled from Ukrainian soil. And on Monday in Trump's interview with Fox, he seemed to suggest that a peace deal could go either way, but what he's concerned about is American access to rare earth minerals.

I wanna have our money secured because we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars. And you know, they may make a deal, they may not make a deal, they may be Russian someday, or they may not be Russian someday, but we're gonna have all this money in there, and I say, I want it back. And I told them that I want the equivalent,

like $500 billion worth of rare earth. And they've essentially agreed to do that. So at least we don't feel stupid. Otherwise we're stupid. And so you had some reading that as him expressing indifference to Ukraine's fate and demanding minerals in exchange for aid. Though they're not even necessarily future aid, right?

He seemed to say that minerals would be compensation for past aid. Also, I feel like I future aid, right? He seemed to say that minerals would be compensation for past aid. Also, I feel like I have to say, because he was just throwing out numbers, we have not sent hundreds of billions of dollars to Ukraine. What we have done though, is allocate some $66 billion, and most of that's not even financial aid,

it's loans or old equipment and munitions stockpiles. Though notably, regarding the situation, you had President Zelensky in his usual conciliatory fashion suggesting to Reuters that Ukraine might be open to some kind of partnership with the US to get rare earth minerals. The Americans helped the most, and therefore the Americans should earn the most. And in rebuilding Ukraine, they should have this priority, and they will. I would also like to talk about this with President Trump.

With him adding, however, that some of those mineral reserves are now in Russian-occupied territory and Putin could use them to provide resources to North Korea or Iran. Which I will say, if that did happen, would be very significant because many rare earth minerals are crucial for batteries and military technologies. For now, this is something to keep eyes on because we should be getting at least a vibe or more information soon because on the Ukraine front,

JD Vance is supposed to meet with President Zelensky at a security summit in Germany on Friday. And that, as Trump has said, that his special envoy for Russia and Ukraine will be sent to Ukraine in the near future. Then, shifting gears to different news, we start with a question, and that is, is getting on Donald Trump's, who, by the way,

is very attractive and very smart and the size of that guy's hands, if you get on his good side, is that the equivalent of getting a get-out-of-jail-free card? Because while it was widely expected that he was gonna pardon those roughly 1,500 criminal defendants charged on January 6th, one of the new things that we're seeing now

is that the Trump DOJ has officially directed prosecutors to drop their corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Notably, Adams is a Democrat, but also he is a Democrat who has sharply shifted in Trump's direction over the past couple of years, especially on the issue of immigration, and especially since his indictment last September.

And I mention immigration there because you actually have the DOJ now specifically highlighting the immigration issue as a reason for dismissing the charges. Now with that, to go back, right, with Adams, he's accused of taking more than $100,000 worth of free plane tickets and luxury hotel stays from wealthy Turkish citizens and at least one government official in a nearly decade-long corruption scheme. And in exchange, he allegedly handed out favors such as speeding up the approval process for a new 36-story Turkish consulate despite safety concerns. With him then on top of that allegedly accepting campaign contributions from foreign wealthy business people who weren't legally allowed to give to his campaign. With that said to help him fraudulently obtain millions of dollars in public matching funds. Now in response you had Adams pleading not guilty and claiming

without providing evidence that he was being prosecuted because he had criticized Biden's immigration policies. And according to some over the past few months he's been doing his best to curry favor with Trump. And Trump for for his part, has actually defended Adams, claiming that both were being persecuted. In fact, by the time that Trump won, you had people speculating that his victory might bring an end to Adams' legal troubles. And in December, Trump actually said

that he would consider pardoning Adams. With Adams even meeting Trump in Florida last month, and then he attended the inauguration a few days later. And since then, we've seen Adams decline to criticize Trump, and this week, also urging New York City officials to refrain from publicly criticizing the president over concerns that it could jeopardize the city's federal funding. So in taking all that together, you now have critics saying that it appears that Adams is

getting what he was going for. With us now seeing the acting deputy attorney general, who worked as Trump's defense lawyer, issuing a memo for the dismissal without prejudice of the prosecution. With them also rehashing the idea that Adams was being persecuted, writing, it cannot be ignored that Mayor Adams criticized the prior administration's immigration policies before the charges were filed. With the men also claiming that the Biden DOJ reached this conclusion without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories

on which the case is based. And finally here, justifying the decision by asserting that the indictment had restricted Adams' ability to address illegal immigration and violent crime in the city. But with all that, I should say that Adams isn't completely out of the woods. But according to the memo, his case will be reviewed again

after the November, 2025 mayoral election. So with that, you have people like one NYU legal historian, who also is a former state prosecutor, arguing that the directive leaves the impression that Adams will have to help Trump carry out his immigration policies to fully earn his freedom. With the ratting there, essentially what he's doing

is extorting New York City. They're holding over his head the possibility that he'll be re-indicted. With that, I will say, of course, Trump officials have denied that there is some sort of quid pro quo happening here. And there's even a footnote in the memo clarifying that, quote, the government is not offering to exchange dismissal of a criminal case for Adams' assistance on immigration enforcement. But either way, this has been seen as pretty unprecedented. With the seeing the Associated Press, for example, explaining, the intervention and reasoning that a powerful defendant could be too occupied "'with official duties to face accountability

"'for alleged crimes marked an extraordinary deviation "'from longstanding Justice Department norms.'" Now with all of that, I will say as of recording, prosecutors haven't yet said whether they intend to drop the cases requested. You know, any decision to do so will need to be formally submitted to the court and approved by a judge.

So while there is still a chance that the charges could stick it is worth noting that we've seen what happens to prosecutors that Trump doesn't like. For instance, he reportedly personally ordered firings of special counsel prosecutors who worked that the charges could stick. It is worth noting that we've seen what happens to prosecutors that Trump doesn't like. For instance, he reportedly personally ordered firings of special counsel prosecutors who worked on the cases against him. And that's in addition to firing dozens of prosecutors who handled January 6th cases.

So we're gonna have to wait to see how all this plays out. Though, I will say on the topic of corruption, you currently have outlets like the BBC tying all this to the news today that Trump has also ordered the DOJ to stop enforcing a law that bars US companies from bribing foreign governments to get business. And then we'll get some more news in just a moment, but you wanna know the secret

to never hearing what's for dinner again? Today's sponsor, HelloFresh. They make this possible by transforming how we think about cooking. HelloFresh gets farm fresh pre-portioned ingredients and seasonal recipes delivered right to your door. And their lineup of prep and bake meals, they come together with minimal mess

and only five minutes of prep, so your oven does most of the work, not you. It's just great. I mean, we had a dinner party last week and I made garlic butter shrimp scampi. My two people were like, "'This is from a restaurant, isn't it?' And I was like, no.

And thanks to HelloFresh Market, I can add over a hundred items to my weekly box, from breakfast options to snacks, cutting our grocery store trips in half. I mean, the other day I tossed in some protein bars and cold brew coffee for my work day. It's just so convenient having everything delivered together. Oh, and their ready-made meals.

They're perfect for busy days when we're all running around, but we still need to feed the kids. No prep, no mess, just real food, real fast in three minutes. So you want to try America's number one meal kit? Well, get up to 10 free meals and a free high-protein item for life at HelloFresh.com slash DeFranco10FM. It's one item per box with active subscription. Free meals applied as discount on first box, new subscribers only, varies by plan. That's up to 10 free HelloFresh meals.

So just go to HelloFresh.com slash DeFranco 10 FM or scan the QR code. But then we should also talk about how Trump, Musk and the Doge team have lurched from USAID to the treasury, to the CFPB with their giant chainsaw. And now they're coming for the NIH. We're seeing the US National Institutes of Health announcing on Friday that it was immediately cutting

some $4 billion a year in funding for biomedical research, which I will say is something that came as an absolute shock to the scientific community. Because the federal government is the largest funder of basic research and development that may not seem useful at first, but can lead to some of the most groundbreaking discoveries in scientific research.

So immediately you had scientists ringing the alarm bell, warning that life-saving medical research, it could be jeopardized. But there, you had the Trump administration responding that the cut wouldn't actually affect funding for medical research itself, but rather the funding for indirect costs supposedly related to that research. So expenses for things like libraries, electricity, heating, personnel, administration, maintenance, buildings, equipment, data processing, and regulatory compliance. The NIH stating that of the roughly $35 billion spent on research in 2023, 9 billion went to these indirect costs.

So going forward, it declared that the standard indirect cost rate for universities and research institutions receiving NIH grants would be 15%, which to put that in perspective is very low for the NIH. But according to its own figures, the average rate is around 27 to 28%, though some organizations charge as much as 50 to 60%.

So the White House claims that the new 15% rate, it brings the NIH in line with private foundations. So there we've seen critics say that's an apples to oranges comparison because they classify indirect costs differently. But with this, you had Elon Musk exclaiming on X, "'Can you believe that universities "'with tens of billions in endowments

"'were siphoning off 60% of research award money "'for overhead? "'What a ripoff. Except the thing there is that if we're being gracious, the thing that he appears to be completely misunderstanding is what that number means. But to be clear, a 60% rate doesn't mean 60% of the grant money is being spent on indirect costs. It actually means that the grant only spends as much on indirect costs as whatever 60% of the value of the direct costs are. So let's say you have a $150 million grant, for example, and we say there's a 50% rate. $100 million would go towards direct costs

and 50 million or half of that to indirect costs. And with that, you know, if you're still as confused as Elon appears to be here, the point is, is that the share of grant money going towards these costs that they're trying to cut, it's already way lower than it might seem on the surface. But regardless, separate from the specifics of the percentages and the dollar amounts,

there is an argument that big universities do not need federal funds because they're so rich and Trump claimed as much in a press conference. You could also say, why are we giving money to Harvard when it's got a $50 billion endowment, 50 billion. But there we've seen experts saying the picture is actually a bit more complicated than Trump has suggested. And that because first of all,

reportedly those endowments have limitations that make it difficult for schools to radically draw them down and portions can be restricted to uses that donors stipulate. Then secondly, large wealthy universities aren't the only ones who receive NIH funds. But there are actually a bunch of smaller private or public universities and colleges as well

as standalone research institutes that do not have diverse funding streams or income from teaching students or endowments. And as an economist at the MIT Sloan School of Management explained to the Washington Post, "'Those smaller entities are most likely "'to be hit hardest by the cut.'" But then separate from that, there's still an argument

that a 15% rate will actually help those institutions not hurt them. But they're seeing a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services telling the outlet, "'Our administration wants to help America "'have the best research in the world, "'and we believe that by ensuring that more cents "'on every dollar go directly to science

"'and not to administrative overhead, "'we can take another step in that direction.'" And to be sure, even people who are opposed to the NIH decision, they admit that the current system is fraught with inefficiency in ways. And I mean, researchers are chief among them, right? You often hear complaints that it seems like so much grant money just gets eaten up by overhead.

With Nature even quoting Joel Norris, a climatologist at UC San Diego back in 2014, saying, sometimes faculty feel like they're at the end of the Colorado River and all the water's been diverted before it gets to them. But also that same paper in Nature analyzed NIH grant data and concluded that overall, the actual recovery of indirect costs often falls well below the initial negotiated rates, with reportedly the average negotiated rate at the time reaching

53% and the average reimbursed rate clocking in at 34%. Also, I'll say many experts today warn that even if the system needs reform, dramatically cutting off funds overnight, it's not the way to do it. Especially because those indirect costs, they're not irrelevant to the research. In fact, they say they're absolutely crucial. And this is countless other researchers have been speaking out on social media and telling reporters essentially the same thing, as well as the former head of the National Cancer Institute adding, many people will lose jobs, clinical trials will halt, and this will slow down progress towards cures for cancer and effective prevention of illness. Or as one Johns Hopkins professor told CNN,

"'Frankly, this means that the lives of my children "'and grandchildren and maybe yours "'will be shorter and sicker.'" But also, public health here wouldn't be the only casualty, with others arguing that cutting off funds would threaten the premier position on the cutting edge of biomedicine that the United States has built for itself

over the past 80 years of government-funded research. But then also, as this panic and uproar was unleashed over the weekend, you had a White House spokesperson responding saying, contrary to the hysteria, redirecting billions of allocated NIH spending away from administrative bloat means there will be more money and resources available for legitimate scientific research, not less.

But with that said, as with the Doge teams assaults and other parts of the government, this one is being fiercely challenged in the courts. In fact, you had 22 democratic attorneys general suing the Trump administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the NIH on Monday. But then later in the day,

a judge issuing a temporary restraining order blocking the funding cut, though only in those 22 states. And that's also not where it ended, because that same day, a long list of universities from across the country, they filed their own lawsuit. With then, late last night, the judge there also ordering the White House

to temporarily halt the funding cut, except this time it was nationwide. But of course with that, we're gonna have to wait to see, one, how those cases play out, and two, whether Trump even listens to the judge. Right in that, because as we talked about yesterday, officials like Musk and Vance have suggested they don't have to obey the judicial branch,

and there's even evidence as of recording that the White House still hasn't unfrozen many funds despite court orders to do so. And so for now, we're gonna have to wait to see what happens next. But then, finally today, let's talk about yesterday in some common commentary brought to you by beautifulbastard.com, where right now you can snag some of our newest releases like our

graphic tees, hoodies, and crews. It's a fantastic and comfortable way to wear your feelings and support the show. Again, all at beautifulbastard.com. But that said, diving into the comments yesterday, one of the top comments, it kind of hit on several stories. And that was, man, we have like seven Lex Luthors running around and not a single Superman. Though there, we did see some pushback though, maybe not the kind you'd expect, with Jessica saying, nah, Lex Luthor was actually smart. I like that Jessica was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa,

say what you want about Lex's ambitions, but I seen the man's SAT scores. Has Lex made choices I don't agree with? Sure, but you don't become Superman's arch nemesis by being a dummy. But then more specifically around the administration's efforts to just kind of slash and close federal agencies. We saw Amanda saying,

there's a very wise saying that states do not tear down a fence until you know why it was built. And right now they are tearing down all the fences. We are living in the dumbest version of America. I will say, I very much agree with this statement. You know, in the last three weeks of coverage, something that I've tried to hit on constantly is like, we are not saying that there is not a reason

to criticize agencies or let's say, look into and slash certain things. But that is a very different conversation and situation than just fucking burning things down. It's just one thing, but looking into USAID, there are examples of lots of money being spent and it just not really panning out. But then there are also well-documented things

of just so many lives being saved, the money being effective, not only in just, you know, us helping other people, but in the amount of soft power that it gave America. You'll also notice that when we're talking about stuff like this, I'll cover the pragmatic things about the situation. You know, depending on how much of this is full bridge burning, how much gets rebuilt, what programs stay, don't stay. This is, I feel like this is a gift in large how much gets rebuilt, what what programs stay don't stay. This is I feel like this is a gift in large part to China, you know, especially when we're talking about international things. I'll try to talk about it in a very pragmatic way. Sometimes, you know, just a pure economic way, because I do understand for like your everyday person who is, you know, just struggling to survive. They're like, well, why the fuck are my tax dollars going

to fucking South Africa, which seemingly connects to more people rather than, you know, we just want to save humans that we can save is that we want to foster relationships, build up people. They become big trade partners. They're a net benefit for our country. And if you want to get more specific there without fully doing a deep dive, you know, it really gets into the transactional nature of all things. The U.S. counts on South Africa for things like manganese, platinum, and chromium, among other things.

But there's a big mineral play mining rights situation in South Africa. You know, right now, whether it be USAID, the Department of Education, so many things. We're going to have to see what Trump does, but then also what happens as it makes its way through the courts, through all the lawsuits. Though on that note, we saw comments like Steinhagen, who said, I love how the vast majority of safeguards our government has in place seem to be thwarted simply by saying, nuh-uh, and ignoring the checks and balances entirely. Though there, we had some replying, it is enabled by the Republican-controlled House and Senate. What little pushback there is is from representatives that don't like the idea of losing power. But there, I would also add that this has

been the game plan. Test what you can do and try to see what happens if things make their way to the Supreme Court. But then finally, there was plenty of conversation around Kendrick Lamar and the halftime show. With Melo saying, people say this is the worst halftime show in history every year. People will never be satisfied. There will always be critics. Also, Kamali saying, calling Kendrick Lamar's performance DEI really just shows it's their new word for black. Others adding, Matt Gaetz talking about the regime like his party doesn't control the White House, both chambers of Congress and the Supreme Court. Whose regime, sir? Though others just said, hey, if you're gonna talk shit about Kendrick, be careful. With Minotaur writing, the fact that people are trying to pick a fight with Kendrick Lamar is crazy. Like, piss him off and all you're doing is giving him material for his next album. But that, my friends, is the end of today's news, coverage, and conversation.

Of course, remember, I got a brand new big show for you every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday right here at 6 p.m. Eastern, 3 p.m. Pacific. Thank you for watching. I love yo faces, and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.