The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 2.6 What The "AOC USAID Problem" Really Exposes & Today's News

Episode Date: February 6, 2025

https://BeautifulBastard.com 3 new tees, hoodies, and crews PLUS 50% OFF blankets, candles, & select products w/ code "GET50OFF" PDS Debt is offering a free debt analysis. It only takes thirty seconds. Get yours at https://PDSDebt.com/defranco  Subscribe for New shows every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, & Thursday @ 6pm ET/3pm PST & watch more here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8BZ4-kB4B8&list=PLHcsGizlfLMWpSg7i0b9wnUyEZWI-25N3&index=1&t=3s  – ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ – 00:00 - Outlets like Politico Accused of Receiving Millions in Funding from USAID 09:14 - State Dept. Falsely Announces U.S. Ships Get Free Passage Across Panama Canal  12:00 - Sponsored by PDS Debt 12:59 - Trump Doubles Down on “Taking Over” Gaza  18:16 - Trump Administration Transgender News Roundup 24:45 - 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 #DonaldTrump #Politico ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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 3.0L 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. Why do fintechs like Float choose Visa?

As a more trusted, more secure payments network, Visa provides scale, expertise, and innovative payment solutions. Learn more at Visa.ca slash fintech. Truth now appears to be dead as lies, misleading statements, and or weaponized misunderstandings go viral left and right, including today's stories around AOC, Bernie Sanders, Politico, and USAID. And this is Donald Trump has now doubled down on taking over Gaza with a seeing big updates out of Israel about what comes next. We're talking about 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. Tell me if you've heard this one. USAID has been propping up sites like Politico, giving them $8 million in taxpayer funds in just one fiscal year. Meaning that Politico is state-funded media stealing from you, the taxpayer. Except that isn't really accurate. And the truth, it turns out, is much less sinister. So let's walk through it. This whole debacle had started when Politico was late

with the payroll this week. And that, thanks to what they said, was a technical error that was resolved by the end of the day, so everyone got paid. But then what we saw is that with that, you had posts including screenshots from a government website tracking federal spending showing that Politico received $8 million

from the government in the 2024 fiscal year. With former Fox News producer Kyle Becker sharing these screenshots and saying, fun fact, Politico received USAID funds. Seemingly claiming that the $8 million came from USAID alone. And then in a follow-up post, he connected Politico's late payroll

with the recent crackdowns on USAID's spending. By pointing to the report and then adding, the technical error was reportedly resolved. The error of sending US taxpayer money to a biased partisan establishment publication, however, is being fixed. And about half an hour later, another pose went viral with this one

coming from conservative commentator, Benny Johnson, who claimed Politico was being massively funded by USAID. It was then even saying the White House press secretary addressing the situation. I was made aware of the funding from USAID to media outlets, including Politico, who I know has a seat in this room. And I can confirm that the more than eight million taxpayer dollars that have gone to essentially subsidizing subscriptions to Politico on the American taxpayers dime will no longer be

happening. The Doge team is working on canceling those payments now. From there, the situation just exploded with big names on the right chiming in and spreading this far and wide. For example, Elon Musk sharing posts supporting the idea that USAID is spending millions on sites like Politico and saying, not an efficient use of taxpayer funds, this wasteful expenditure will be deleted. And even had Trump on Truth Social this morning saying that billions have been stolen from federal agencies

like USAID and gone to quote, fake news media as a payroll for creating good stories about the Democrats and then adding, this could be the biggest scandal of them all, perhaps the biggest in history. Even had Dana Lash calling for protests outside the Politico offices. But then with all this, there's been a whole lot of pushback against this scenario.

For example, the Washington Post pointing out that if you look deeper into the government spending website, you'll see that USAID gave Politico only 44,000 during the fiscal years of 2023 and 2024. And that was reportedly for subscriptions to an energy and environment publication that the company produces. And then that $8 million,

the amount the entire government spent on Politico last year, most of that reportedly came from contracts from subscriptions to their premium service. In fact, you had the post reporting that just days ago, the White House's Office of the National Cyber Director signed a $35,000 contract for a Politico Pro premium subscription for 15 users. With that service, tracking, analyzing,

and providing updates on the entire public policy landscape. With journalist Isaac Saul explaining it this way, Politico Pro does not equal Politico, the news website you guys read. Politico Pro is a collection of trade publications and also a dashboard used to track legislation, lobbying, elections, et cetera. It is very valuable,

which is why Politico was bought for $1 billion. Saying these subscriptions cost north of $10,000. Private sector CEOs and lobbyists pay for them, as do government workers. They are amazing tools for keeping an eye on the government. In writing, Politico sells these premium trade pubs to agencies. Duh, government agencies like the private sector want to work on the best info available. They, meaning CEOs and private corporations and the government, wouldn't pay if Politico wasn't providing value. And even adding, a bunch of conservative writers who work at subscription-based publications are claiming this is some conflict of interest, yet they all write articles every day about people who subscribe to their work. And so like he mentioned, a lot of offices for members of Congress subscribe to Politico Pro. I mean, for example, the Post reports

that committees led by Republicans dropped half a million dollars on Politico subscriptions in the first nine months of last year, with 38 Republicans in the House reportedly spending $300,000 for subscriptions within the same time period. And so you had people like Lauren Boebert saying, Elon's now exposing Politico's grift. Others were quick to point out, hey, Boebert, your office literally uses this service.

In fact, according to government disclosures, last year, she spent $7,150 on Politico Pro. And this is Politico's leadership said in a memo to their staff that they have never received government funding outside of subscriptions, saying, Politico has never been a beneficiary of government programs or subsidies, not one cent ever in 18 years.

Later saying the same thing in a note to readers and adding, government agencies that subscribe do so through standard public procurement processes, just like any other tool they buy to work smarter and be more efficient. This is not funding, it is a transaction. Just as the government buys research, equipment, software, and industry reports. And going on to say some online voices are deliberately spreading falsehoods. Let's be clear, Politico has no financial dependence on the government and no hidden agenda. We cover politics and policy, that's our job. But also a very big thing is that this isn't just limited to Politico. As this has gotten more attention, other outlets have been drawn into the conversation. Or you had the Associated Press,

who said that both Republican and Democratic administrations have been subscribers to their platform, and adding, "'It licenses AP's nonpartisan journalism, "'just like thousands of news outlets "'and customers around the world.'" And adding, "'It's quite common for governments "'to have contracts with news organizations

"'for their content.'" And those working with AP were quick to come to Politico's defense, with an investigative reporter with the AP saying on X, "'I looked at these contracts and I have my own fun fact. This is occurring because agencies, not just USAID, are buying subscriptions to Politico's pro-editorial product, not because Politico is getting grants

or other federal funding.'" And then separately, you had the BBC saying in a statement that its international development charity had been affected by the pause in US funding. But noting there that this charity is completely separate from BBC News and wholly reliant on its donors and supporters to carry out our work. With them adding, "'BBC Media Action supports local media around the world that this charity is completely separate from BBC News and wholly reliant on its donors and supporters

to carry out our work. With them adding, BBC Media Action supports local media around the world to deliver trusted information to people most in need. But also misinformation regarding where government funding is going, it doesn't stop with media outlets. With the seeing, for example,

notably representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently being accused of getting kickbacks from USAID on X. With some people saying that her net worth was around $30 million on a $174,000 salary, which she then responded, my filings are public. I loathe corruption and your lying is disgusting.

And saying that her net worth is nowhere near as high as $30 million or even half a million dollars, which yes, is in fact backed up by her financial disclosure forms from last year. And then, you know, you have things like Bernie Sanders. He was recently accused by RFK Jr. of being bought and paid for by Big Pharma, or with him accusing him of quote,

"'Accepting millions of dollars "'from the pharmaceutical industry "'and protecting their interests.'" But the numbers that RFK Jr. was citing there were seriously misrepresented. In fact, Bernie actually received that money from everyday workers. This wasn't corporate lobbyist money.

This was money from regular people working within the pharmaceutical field, which is why it was labeled as such on the site that RFK Jr. was using as a basis for his claim. With Bernie having to note on X, after the fact, zero donations from pharma CEOs, zero donations from Wall Street CEOs, zero donations from oil company CEOs. 8 million from working people giving $27 at a time. I am very proud of that fact. And unfortunately, there is no shortage of constant spewing of misinformation out there. I mean, last week, for example,

you had the rumor spreading that the US was spending a truly absurd amount of money on condoms for Palestine, with even the White House press secretary specifically claiming during her debut press briefing that Doge and the OMB found that, quote, "'There was about to be 50 million taxpayer dollars "'that went out the door to fund condoms in Gaza.'" Then Trump repeating that claim the next day

and going even further saying that his administration had, quote, identified and stopped $50 million being sent to Gaza to buy condoms for Hamas. But of course, no evidence was given to back up those claims. And as we've seen in so many of these cases and as many are trying to quickly point out, but nothing can really move at the speed of lies or misrepresentations, this simply appears to be

at the very least a misunderstanding. With the seeing the president of Refugees International writing on X, USAID procures condoms for around 5 cents a piece. 50 million would be 1 billion condoms. What's going on here is not a billion condoms for Gaza. What's going on is that the bros at Doge apparently can't read government spreadsheets.

And with that, we know that USAID was spending way less than $50 million on condoms worldwide, let alone in just one place. Right, in 2023, for example, it spent around $7 million on male condoms and 1 million on condoms worldwide, let alone in just one place. In 2023, for example, it spent around $7 million on male condoms and $1 million on female condoms overwhelmingly to African countries. With us also seeing reporting that a federal report published last year showed that USAID did not provide or fund any condoms in the entire Middle East in 2021, 2022, or 2023 fiscal years. And so in looking closely, it seems that Trump and his team may have been referring to

around $100 million awarded to a group called the International Medical Corps, IMC, to provide medical and trauma services in Gaza. With those services including family planning programming, which includes emergency contraception, sexual healthcare, including prevention and management of STIs, and adolescent sexual and reproductive health. But also notably with the Trump administration

freezing that aid, you had the IMC stating that in the end, "'No US government funding was used to procure or distribute condoms, nor provide family planning services. And overall here, right, the problem is that in a time where everything appears to be happening all at once, so many lies, misleading statements, whether it be knowingly or unknowingly, or just misunderstandings are being spread.

And it is to such a degree, the stuff we covered today is just the tip of the iceberg, that it feels like we are going even further out to sea, that we are miles and miles further away from altogether being at least connected to a base core reality. Yeah, that's the story, a little bit of my opinion. And of course, I'll pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts here? But then switching gears, we should talk about Panama saying that the United States is just making shit up right now. Right in that, because last night, the State Department announced on X

that US government vessels can now transit the Panama Canal without charge fees, saving the US government millions of dollars a year. And that, coming just a few days after Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, visited Panama, and both sides said that they were looking at whether eliminating the canal fees for American naval vessels was possible,

all of which is in line with Trump's longstanding claims that the fees are ridiculous. So what we saw is that Trump supporters were excited about this change with many feeling that it was just proof of how quick the administration is working with takes like, "'It's the art of the deal in action. "'Promises made, promises kept.'" And another win for America's taxpayers,

thanks to President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. This is a very big deal. However, it didn't take too long for the Panama Canal Authority, which runs the canal, to quickly contradict that statement and clarify that there were no changes to tolls or fees for anyone.

With them also adding that it was still open to negotiating fees for US warships, seemingly indicating that the negotiations hadn't even started yet. Which then led to the fucking state department's original tweet getting a community note, which many found amusing. But this also, as others wondered why the note

was in both ways, right? The argument essentially being that both sides are making contradicting claims So both should have a note. Though the counterpoint to that is that the Panama Canal Authority controls the canal So what they say is probably the most correct at this moment It's kind of like if someone said Phil is Russian and then I said no I'm Italian and then there was a note on both claims But also going back to the canal There are a lot of people pointing out that giving US warships free passage might not even be feasible under the way the current treaty is written. Because in the treaty, it's very clear

that the canal is supposed to be 100% neutral at all times. And in accordance with that, article two states that vessels of all nations will be treated with equality. And it explicitly states that payments and tolls and other charges for transit and ancillary services would be one of the things that needed to be treated with equality. So it may not even be possible for the canal

to waive fees for US warships. So with all that said, right, some Trump critics have also found themselves spreading misinformation, writing things like, "'MAGA' is celebrating a win by Donald Trump and Marco Rubio about the Navy not having to pay tolls when passing through the Panama Canal. Funny thing though, they didn't have to pay the tolls

prior to Donald Trump's meltdown." Saying, "'The policy is part of the Panama Canal Treaty signed in 1977, which came into effect in 1999 when Panama took full control of the canal. Yet another quote win for something that was in place before Donald Trump even got into office. This is his playbook, rinse, recycle, repeat. And with that, again, to be very clear,

the idea that US Naval vessels never had to pay fees to begin with is very wrong. The same sum estimates claiming that the canal charged $341,000 per passage for a US warship or sub in 2023. Based on that and the average number of crossings per year, the canal could be estimated to have collected $12.9 million in tolls recently.

However, the official numbers from the canal authority are far, far less and show that over the past 26 years, the US has only had to pay $25.4 million total for warships and subs crossing the canal. Though I will say, regardless of which number is accurate there, both would be rounding errors when compared to the rest of the US budget. And then we'll get to more news in just a moment.

But first, when it comes to your monthly bills, does it feel like your money is working harder for your lenders than for you? Well, if it does, it doesn't have to be that way thanks to today's sponsor, PDS Debt. And here's the best part. There's no minimum credit score required. Whether your credit is bad or fair,

they're here to help you save more, pay off your debt faster, and start putting money back where it belongs, in your savings account. Our PDS debt understands that everyone's financial situation is unique. Whether you're grappling with high interest credit cards, personal loans, unexpected medical bills, they're equipped to help. And their customized programs are designed for anyone carrying $10,000 or more in eligible debt. Because let's be honest, we've all faced financial struggles at some point.

In debt, it can feel like quicksand pulling you deeper despite your best efforts to stay afloat. But with this, getting started is easy. So go to pdsdebt.com slash DeFranco or scan the QR code to complete your free debt assessment to see what options are available to you. And remember, every day you wait, it's costing you money. You can get started now with your free debt analysis in just 30 seconds at pdsdebt.com slash DeFranco. It's pdsdebt.com slash DeFranco. Take back your control today. 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 over-deliver. And from that, we got to talk about big updates around Trump's proposal to take over Gaza, establish long-term US ownership, and turn it

into the Riviera of the Middle East. Because while his aides have dry-dwogging it back, he is doubling down now. And Israel, they're already making moves to put Trump's plan into action. And of course, all of this, as it has sparked international outrage. With many saying that this proposal essentially amounts to a call for ethnic cleansing.

With experts pointing to the fact that forced or coerced displacement is a violation of international humanitarian law, a war crime, and a crime against humanity. To which you could almost hear Jared Kushner saying, but think of the beachfront property. And this is we're now learning that he shot even senior members of his own government. With the New York Times reporting that his administration hadn't done even the most basic planning to examine the feasibility of the idea.

And then on top of that, finding that there hadn't been any meetings with the State Department or Defense Department about it. Right, the things that you normally have before unveiling a massively consequential foreign policy proposal. And so also with that, the Pentagon reportedly had no estimates of the troop numbers required or cost estimates or even an outline of how it might all work. And so that's why within hours of the announcement yesterday, you had Trump aides defending his proposal,

but then also doing some backpedaling. Or with Secretary of State Marco Rubio as well as the White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt saying the relocation would be temporary. But Trump, I mean, he seemed to imply otherwise. It would be my hope that we could do something really nice, really good, where they wouldn't want to return. Why would they want to return?

The place has been hell. Then you also had Levitt emphasizing the president has not committed to putting boots on the ground in Gaza, which is true, but he also said. As far as Gaza is concerned, we'll do what is necessary. If it's necessary, we'll do that. We're gonna take over that piece and we're gonna develop it. If it's necessary, we'll do that. We're going to take over that piece and we're going to develop it. But with all that, you did have Trump posting

on social media this morning claiming no soldiers by the US would be needed. But still, other than that one aspect, he doubled down on the plan writing. The Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting. The Palestinians, people like Chuck Schumer, would have already been resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities with new and modern homes in the region, saying they would actually have a chance to be happy, safe, and free. And then finally, in true Trump salesman fashion, claiming Gaza would become one of the greatest and most spectacular developments of its kind on Earth. Now, with all that said, obviously, you have a lot of people saying it is unlikely that it will play out exactly like Trump says. But that also doesn't mean there won't be real consequences. With the seeing, for example, the former US ambassador to Israel under Obama

telling the Times that a US-Gaza takeover isn't a serious proposal, but added, the danger is that extremists within the Israeli government and terrorists of various stripes will take it literally and seriously and start to act on it. Saying it could imperil the further release of hostages, put a target on the back of US personnel and undercut prospects of a Saudi-Israel normalization deal.

And with that, today we're already seeing the Israeli government ordering the military to prepare a plan for Palestinians to voluntarily leave Gaza. Though of course, given Israel's history of occupation, displacement, and violence in the territory, along with the fact that most Palestinians seemingly do not wanna leave,

you have a lot of people wondering how long it'll be before the voluntarily gets dropped. But for now, what we're seeing is you have this announcement coming from the Israeli defense minister with him tagging Rubio as well as defense secretary Pete Hegseth and writing, I've instructed the IDF to prepare a plan that will allow any resident of Gaza

who wishes to leave to do so to any country willing to receive them. The plan will include exit options via land crossings as well as special arrangements for departure by sea and air. With the men ramping things up and going on to say, countries such as Spain, Ireland, Norway, and others which have falsely accused Israel over its actions in Gaza are legally obligated to allow Gazans to enter their territory. Their hypocrisy will be exposed if they refuse and finally adding, the people of Gaza should have the right to freedom of movement

and migration as is customary everywhere in the world. Now to unpack that a little bit more, one question you might have is why are Spain, Norway and Ireland getting called out? And well, notably, all three formerly recognized Palestine as a state last year, which is a move that was aimed at supporting a two-state solution. And that, as they've also been among the Western nations most critical of the Israeli military's actions in Gaza. In fact, Ireland's been called

the most pro-Palestinian nation in Europe. And then you've also had the Spanish defense minister, for example, at one point agreeing with many rights groups, experts and activists who have described Israel's war as a genocide. But in any case, right, all of that, it has super pissed off Israeli officials. But the idea about these countries being legally obligated or they're gonna be hypocrites, I mean, one,

it's not clear what legal instrument they could possibly use there. And two, given their position of supporting Palestinian statehood, taking part in a plan that virtually ensures that Gaza wouldn't be a part of one, it doesn't seem to make sense. Which is why it wasn't shocking to learn

that as I was recording today's show, you had the Spanish foreign minister rejecting the demand and saying, "'Gaza is the land of the people of Gaza. "'It should be part of a future Palestinian state.'" Also, just to go back to the Israeli defense minister, he made a claim that the people of Gaza should have the right to freedom of movement and migration.

And while there, some might argue that is actually hypocrisy. Or because Israel, along with Egypt, has maintained a land, air, and sea blockade on Gaza since 2007 when Hamas took power, which was two years after Israel withdrew from the territory following 38 years of occupation. And with that, it's long been extremely difficult

for Palestinians to travel internationally. Of course, after October 7th, it got even harder. And then finally, last May, it became all but impossible when Israeli troops seized control of the buffer zone along the border between Gaza and Egypt. And so as of now, it's not clear if and when leaving Gaza would become possible, or of course, the big thing, how many would go willingly.

And we'll say though, you know, the current ceasefire deal does allow for medical evacuation. And in fact, the first group of sick children left on Saturday. Though there, notably, two died before they could be taken out and others had become too sick to move. And all of this, as we've talked about before,

the ceasefire is in some ways now hanging in the balance. But for now, we'll have to wait to see how this continues to develop. And in the meantime, of course, I'd love to know your thoughts in those comments down below. But then from that, let's talk about all this trans news we're seeing in America right now.

Starting with yesterday, Trump signing an executive order, effectively banning trans athletes from competing on women's and girls' sports teams. And with that, directing agencies to investigate and withhold federal funding from schools that do not comply. And to achieve this, the order relies on a new interpretation of Title IX,

the landmark 1972 civil rights law that bans sex discrimination in schools that receive federal funds. With this new interpretation being that Title IX prohibits trans women and girls from participating in female sports categories. It's any school that allows the practice will be in violation of Title IX

and thus will be denied funding from the federal government. And with that, you know, generally speaking, you had anti-trans activists and conservatives applauding the move as an important step to protect cis women and girls, while liberals and LGBTQ plus advocates condemned it as an act of discrimination. The wall of this is right now it's unclear exactly how big the impact will actually be. Because first thing here is that more than half of all states already have laws or regulations in place banning trans students from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity. This is despite how much attention this topic gets, there's not actually a huge prevalence

of trans students playing on women's and girls sports teams in the states that do allow it. Because while privacy laws, they make it difficult to determine exactly how many trans athletes participate in K to 12 public school sports, looking at basic demographics can give us a general idea. And so for example, a 2022 study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law found that just 1.4%

of adolescents to age 13 to 17 identify as trans. But notably, not all of those people identify as women, hope to compete in women's sports or go to public schools. And then when you get to the college level, the number is likely even lower. Until now, the NCAA has followed the model set by national and international athletic governing bodies determining eligibility sport by sport.

And just last month, the NCAA president said that out of the more than half a million athletes who play college sports, there are fewer than 10 in total who publicly identify as transgender. And again there, not all of those people are trans women. And with that, right, that's not to downplay the issue or say that the Trump administration's policy

will not have an impact on the trans women and girls who do compete as well as discourage those who might wanna participate in the future. And there, I mean, already we're seeing reports that the education department has launched investigations into San Jose State University, UPenn, and the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association hours after Trump signed this order.

But experts have said how schools actually respond to this will depend heavily on how the administration actually follows through on its threat to cut federal money. With some here speculating that wealthier schools that don't rely as much on federal funds might just decide to not comply at all. Though notably here, Trump's order does go beyond school athletics. It also takes aim at the Olympics, directing the State Department to push the International Olympic Committee to make similar changes to its rules on trans athletes

participating in women's sports, as well as directing the Department of Homeland Security to issue guidance preventing trans foreign athletes who participate in women's sports from traveling to the U.S. for competitions. And with that, Trump himself made it clear that this provision of the order is aimed at the 2028 Olympics, which will be held in LA. In Los Angeles in 2028, my administration will not stand by and watch men beat and batter female athletes.

And we're just not gonna let it happen. And it's gonna end and it's ending right now. I'm also directing our secretary of homeland security to deny any and all visa applications made by men attempting to fraudulently enter the United States while identifying themselves as women athletes to try and get into the games, maybe. But as far as what happens from here, like so many of Trump's orders, it's widely expected that this is going to be legally challenged. And that actually brings us to our second piece of news here, which is that a federal judge has now temporarily blocked

another order that Trump signed that would send trans women to men's prison as well as prevent federal funds from being used for gender affirming care for people in custody. And that because the order had been challenged by three trans women who said that they were set to be moved to men's prisons. With their lawyers claiming that the move would disrupt their access to hormone therapy and endanger their safety by exposing them to a high risk of physical harm, harassment, and abuse. Arguing the order violates their constitutional rights to equal protection of laws and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

And in his ruling, the judge, who notably was appointed by Ronald Reagan, said that the plaintiffs had straightforwardly demonstrated that irreparable harm will follow if their request for a temporary restraining order was denied. And arguing they had shown that they were likely to succeed in their claims that Trump's order

violated their constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. With the judge then also noting that there are only about 16 trans women housed in women's prison, so the public interest in seeing the plaintiffs relocated immediately to male facilities is slight at best. Reign pointing out that even though Trump claimed

his order would protect women, lawyers for the Trump administration never made specific allegations that the three plaintiffs in the case posed any threat to the other women incarcerated with them. And while this ruling is just temporary, while the legal case plays out, at the very least, based on this judge's comments,

it does seem like the order will ultimately get struck down in federal court. Though, again, as is the case with so many of Trump's orders and we hit on this a lot, a lot of what we're seeing now is meant to go and play through the system and possibly all the way up to the Supreme Court. Right, and that takes us perfectly

to the third piece of news on this topic, which is that a group of families and doctors have now sued to block yet two other executive orders Trump signed targeting transgender Americans. With one of them defining sex so that only male and female sexes are officially recognized, effectively refusing to recognize trans people.

And the other, seeking to limit federal support for gender-affirming care for people under the age of 19 by threatening to cut Medicare and Medicaid funding to health providers that offer that care. And so you have the lawyers for the plaintiffs arguing that Trump's executive orders are unlawful and unconstitutional because they would withhold

federal Medicare and Medicaid funds that have already been authorized by Congress. And claiming the orders would also violate parental rights as well as anti-discrimination laws because they do not ban federal funds from going towards the same treatments when they're not used for gender affirming care. So like for example, certain hormone therapies.

Right, and this lawsuit's gonna be very important to watch because there's already a ton of legal messiness around Trump's order for gender affirming care. So like for example, certain hormone therapies. And this lawsuit is gonna be very important to watch because there's already a ton of legal messiness around Trump's order on gender affirming care. On one side, you have many hospitals already complying with the order and halting those services. But then we've also seen resistance from democratic leaders with New York's attorney general warning hospitals against canceling gender affirming care

for people under 19, claiming that doing so would violate state law and arguing like the recent lawsuit that federal funding can't be frozen based on the order. But with that said, right, these lawsuits and legal injunctions blocking Trump's orders, they're not gonna stop the administration from forging ahead and targeting trans Americans

through various other means. You know, not just with executive orders that have been heavily promoted to the public, but also through more covert operations. Because for example, it's also been reported that officials in the Trump administration have been quietly moving to cut funding off for trans health and research programs

despite ongoing litigation. According to the Washington Post, the crackdown stems from one of the orders we just talked about that defines sex as only male and female, with the outlet reporting that those impacted include the National Institutes of Health, which has been instructed to stop a large-scale study into ways to prevent HIV infections in trans youth of color. Clinics in California have also lost funding used to provide care to hundreds of trans patients. A federal scientific journal stopped the publication of a paper on the value of teaching transgender health, and we've seen state health departments that use the National Violent Death Reporting System have reported that they can no longer access information to identify trans people who die violent deaths. And again, these are just

some of the things that we know about, right? So much of this is being self-reported by those impacted as it's happening in real time. But then, finally today, let's talk about yesterday in some comment commentary brought to you by BeautifulBastard.com, where not only you can scoop up any of our fantastic new releases, including I'm Just Built Different, Poorly Clearly, Thriving, God Is Testing Me, There's Been Too Much Stuff Happening Lately, To Be Honest, and A Silly Goose in This Economy, as well as treat yourself with, I'm calling it the good news, bad news sale. Because you see, my team, they bought like 12 billion candles and 40 kajillion blankets instead of our usual amounts. And so I'm currently sitting on the GDP

of a small island nation of amazingly good smells and comfy, cozy wearables. But I will say, our blankets feel like dupes of like 200, $250 blankets. But the main thing is I need to get rid of them. And I am fine breaking even or even losing money to do so. So let's say from now until Monday at midnight, if you use code GET50OFF at beautifulbastard.com,

you can get 50% off our blankets, candles, even water bottles, notebooks, hacks, sticker packs, and key chains. Let our idiocy be your game at beautifulbastard.com. But like I said, let's talk about yesterday in some comment commentary. And understandably in those comments, there were a lot of conversations being had

around Donald Trump, Israel, and Gaza. Starting with the fact that Trump and Netanyahu were together, and Jay Shua saying, It's crazy how he's saying, I've seen pictures, and it's destroyed, like he isn't standing next to the person responsible for the destruction. With Ben adding, Netanyahu is looking around and smiling like, wow, I can't believe this is actually happening. Same here, but I'm sure not smiling. And there were definitely a lot of comments about Netanyahu and his body language and his smirks and smiling He also had some adding saying this plan will bring security peace and prosperity to this region is giving the same energy as anakin skywalker Going I have brought peace freedom justice and security to my new empire others adding that the news in general is affecting them more

Saying things like i'm not a person who really has physiological reactions to the news But trump wanting to ethnic cleanse gaza and make it a hotel property genuinely gave me a stomach ache and made me feel like I'm gonna throw up. We also saw a number of conversations pop up regarding Gaza and people that were anti-Harris. Or with people sharing things like, "'I have friends that say they couldn't in good conscience "'vote for Harris because she didn't express support

"'for Gaza,' and adding, "'I told them Trump will make a parking lot out of Gaza "'and build a resort. "'They said I was being dramatic, hyperbolic, "'and irrational.'" With some responding there, "'I didn't think either would improve the situation, Trump will make a parking lot out of Gaza and build a resort. They said I was being dramatic, hyperbolic, and irrational. With some responding there, I didn't think either would improve the situation, but I'd never have imagined this solution.

But with all that, I would say, I don't think that Harris lost, like, just because of the never-Harris pro-Gaza vote. I mean, even just on the Israel-Gaza issue, I feel like Dems were getting eaten from both sides. Something I think got talked about way less is I knew a bunch of never Trumpers that ended up voting for Trump because they felt that the Dems

weren't supporting Israel enough. And of course that was in addition to swing voters that were moved by Trump on immigration, the cost of things, stuff like that. But with that, it will be interesting in future election cycles to see if like the people that were a part of like protest votes or abstaining, it changes their viewpoint or if they're steadfast in it.

Because like I know for me while I was in California, and that's no way a swing state, in 2016 when I voted third party and then we got the result that we did, I was like, oh, okay, well, if the system is two choices, yeah, you vote for what you wanna see, but you also vote for what you don't wanna see. But you know that, that's my personal experience.

That's my personal journey. And that's not gonna be everyone's norm. Yeah, I guess guess should it be. With that said, you know what? Let's end on a more positive comment with Andrea Mom sharing, here's some good news for anyone who needs some. Officials in the Czech Republic spent over seven years

planning a $1.2 million dam project to restore a wetland. But then adding, while they were still discussing and planning, a group of beavers built dams there in two days and did a better job than the $1.2 million could have done. No cost to the taxpayers and no more planning and red tape. Done deal. Nature got tired of waiting and took care of the problem in two days and did a better job than the $1.2 million could have done. No cost to the taxpayers and no more planning and red tape. Done deal. Nature got tired of waiting and took care of the problem in two days. Which on that note, in unrelated news, there is about a 2% chance Earth is going to be hit by an asteroid in 2032. So yeah, I guess we'll see what nature has in

store for all of us. And that, my friends, is somehow the end of your Thursday evening, Friday morning dive into the news. Of course, remember, I've got a brand new show for you every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday at 6 p.m. Eastern, 3 p.m. Pacific. Thank you for watching. I love your faces, and I'll see you right back here on Monday.