The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 4.29 The Taylor Swift Problem Is Bigger Than You Think, Trump Blasts Bezos Back In Line, Carney Libs Win

Episode Date: April 29, 2025

Go to https://ground.news/defranco and subscribe for 40% off unlimited access & see beyond the headlines. Get an exclusive NordVPN deal at https://nordvpn.com/phil  Risk free with Nord's 30-day money back guarantee!   Subscribe for New shows every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, & Thursday @ 6pm ET/3pm PT & watch more here: https://youtu.be/fTQ9CkG_w1I?si=fDQ_7PJQ4gmEoqUihttps://youtu.be/fTQ9CkG_w1I?si=fDQ_7PJQ4gmEoqUi https://BeautifulBastard.com Get yourself some of our new shirts, crews, and hoodies! Go to https://ground.news/defranco to see beyond the headlines and stay fully informed without feeling overwhelmed. Subscribe today through my link for 40% off unlimited access.  – ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ – 00:00 - Canadian Elections See Big Win for Liberals 05:56 - Congress Passes Take It Down Act 10:11 - Sponsored by Ground News 11:29 - China Denies Trump’s Claim That he’s Spoken to Xi Jinping About Tariffs 16:22 - White House Fires Scientists Involved in the National Climate Assessment 19:23 - Sponsored by NordVPN 20:30 - Trump Executive Orders Target Sanctuary Cities, Bolster Law Enforcement 23:32 - Study Finds Immunotherapy Drug Can Eliminate Tumors in Some Early Cancers ——————————   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 #CanadaElection #TaylorSwift ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show, you daily dive into the news. My name is Philip DeFranco, and there is a lot to talk about today, starting with this. Donald Trump just delivered one of the most shocking victories I have ever seen. Though the problem for Trump is that it is a victory

for those who stand against him. But a real snatch defeat from the jaws of victory situation. And that because the liberals in Canada last night won big and they maintained their position in power, which just three months ago was something that I would have thought was unthinkable. What we see when looking at the numbers is about two thirds of eligible Canadians

turned out to vote. And with 99% of the votes counted, it looks like the Liberals got 11% more of the national vote than in 2021, while Conservatives gained 8%. With these differences largely coming at the cost of Canada's smaller parties, with the People's Party and the New Democratic Party both getting particularly clobbered. And those shifts that we saw could

be a sign that a lot of Canadians felt too much was at stake in this particular election to vote for a party that didn't have a chance at actually winning a majority in Parliament. And really, I think you can just look at a map of the 2020 election to see what I mean. You know, in 2021, parties like the NDP, they won big and secured 25 seats, but this time they only got seven, and now there's almost no orange on the map because their votes almost all went to the Liberals. Also for my primarily American audience, if you're confused by the coloring, keep in mind that the center-left Liberal Party uses red and the center-right Conservatives, they use blue. So that's why all the cities are red in the 2025 map. I just didn't want you to get confused. Additionally, we saw areas like Quebec seeing some shifts.

Normally, Bloc Quebecois has free wins in the French-speaking area, but this time the Liberals managed to siphon off some seats. So I will say it wasn't all wins for the liberals. In areas like Toronto, conservatives actually managed to make some ground in the suburbs surrounding it, although they lost a single seat right in the middle of the city in return. Also, one of the most wild things we saw in this election is that Pierre Polyev, the leader of the conservatives,

actually lost his own seat to liberal candidate Bruce Fangio. And a similar thing happening to the NDP leader, though for Polyev, I gotta say, what a wild three months. Pretty much everyone thought he was gonna be the next prime minister of Canada, then oh, oh, the liberals are kind of gaining. Now he lost his seat,

but taking all the election results into account, I mean, what does this actually mean for the political landscape now? Well, there the liberals probably would have loved to do a little bit better, but they're very happy, right? They got 169 seats, which is notably shy of the 172 you need to have an outright majority in the House of Commons. And this is the conservatives secured 144 seats,

making them the biggest opposition party. Though also, I'll say that split doesn't really show how close the election actually was. Because when you actually look at the percentage of the popular vote, the two parties were neck and neck and just about 2% from each other. Now, as far as what happens next, I do wanna know that as I'm recording this,

there are ballots still being counted. And, you know, there are a handful of cases that have yet to be called. But if things play out the way that it looks like it will, the liberals are gonna have to form a minority government, which means that they'd likely have to work with the other parties, Bloc Quebecois and or the NDP, by needing them to pass legislation

as well as survive no confidence votes, which depending on how that plays out, it could make passing legislation extremely difficult. Also, it could possibly lead to more elections. And then also I'll say, as you probably expected, we've seen a lot of different takes about the results. For his part, Polyev pretty much just said this morning that his party

didn't quite get over the finish line, which you know is one way to put it. Lost his own seat. The conservatives didn't win the majority. They were expected to win just a few months ago, but they did gain seats and they got the biggest percentage of the vote than they've gotten in decades. But ultimately the end result for them

is they get to just serve as the kind of opposition party now. And from that, moving on to Carney, he was obviously excited and he had a big speech at a victory rally last night where he asked. Who's ready? Who's ready to stand up for Canada with me? And who's ready?

Who's ready to build Canada strong? With Carney then going on to make it clear that he means an independent Canada. We are once again at one of those hinge moments of history. Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration is over. You know, unsurprisingly, the actions of America, it was a huge part of the speech. We are over the shock of the American betrayal, but we should never forget the lessons. But you're going to take this forward. We have to look out for ourselves. And above all, we have to take care of each other. Right. And Carney, he's probably not

going to be popular with Trump because he made it clear that future talks about trade or defense will be made as two sovereign nations. And he warned that Canada has, quote, many, many other options other than the United States to build prosperity for all Canadians. Also, as far as international reactions, those seem pretty positive, with, for example, a spokesperson for China's foreign ministry saying China stands ready to grow its relations with Canada on the basis of mutual respect, equality, and mutual benefit. And this is the top EU official wrote on X, I look forward to working closely together, both bilaterally and within the G7. And adding, we'll defend our shared democratic values, promote multilateralism, and champion free and fair trade. And Australia's

prime minister adding that in a time of global uncertainty "'I look forward to continuing to work with you "'to build on the enduring friendship between our nations "'and the shared interests of all our citizens.'" Which I will say, just to interject a little opinion here, it feels like a weird and wild time that the congratulations of someone winning from friends and foe alike feel like jabs to the United States.

It's not surprising, but it is notable. Also an interesting thing is as of recording, it doesn't seem that senior US officials have reacted to the news at all. Trump's only statement about the election being what we covered yesterday, where he was essentially like, vote for me, Canada. And generally today, he's just kind of been stroking his own ego, listing off what he said was a long list of accomplishments that his administration has done in the first hundred days. So instead, what we've been seeing is kind of just a lot of MAGA accounts are more right-leaning lamenting Pauliev's loss

and saying dramatic things like horrible news out of Canada, no other way to spin it, as well as Canadians, did you actually vote to self-euthanize despite Trump, seriously? You know, ultimately with that, I'm an American, I'm an outsider looking in, speaking about Canada. And so I'll pass the question off to, of course, everyone. You know, what are your thoughts

about the results of the election? What do you think is gonna happen next? But also I especially pass that question off to of course everyone. You know, what are your thoughts about the results of the election? What do you think is gonna happen next? But also I especially pass that question off to the Canadians who watch. And I'll also add to the question, did you vote the way that you did because of Trump or were the more domestic issues actually what mattered to you more?

But then next up today, absolutely massive news. Congress actually did a thing and it's objectively a good thing because the house voted almost unanimously to pass a bill aimed at cracking down on revenge porn and deepfake nudes. It's called the Take It Down Act, and it would make it a federal crime

to publish intimate visual depictions of people that are real or AI-generated without their consent. In any violations, they are punishable by prison time, a fine, or bolt. Additionally, the legislation also requires public-facing online forums to set up some kind of system where the subjects of these images can request

that they be removed. And once someone reports the images, the platforms are required to remove it within 48 hours. Right, and this proposal is super significant because according to reports, if enacted, this would mark the first law in the US that explicitly takes aim at non-consensual intimate imagery or NCII.

And it's really just a matter of when, not if, this is gonna go into effect because the Senate already passed the measure back in February. And President Trump, he's indicated that he plans to sign the bill, which has been championed by his wife as part of her Be Best campaign against cyberbullying. And Melania's support actually appears to have made a difference, because lawmakers, they've been working

for years to address deepfake pornography. Because the bipartisan Take It Down Act was actually introduced last year and it was passed by the Senate before dying in the GOP-led House, with then only seemingly gaining momentum when it was reintroduced this year and gained the support of the First Lady. Also, another reason that this legislation was successful

is that unlike several previous attempts to crack down on NCII, this particular measure received the backing of some major tech companies like Meta, Google, and Snap. And so with the House passing this, we saw many people cheering on the move. This, including lawmakers, advocates, or survivors of revenge porn and sextortion scams,

and the First Lady herself who issued a statement saying, "'Today's bipartisan passage of the Take It Down Act "'is a powerful statement that we stand united "'in protecting the dignity, privacy, "'and safety of our children.'" The wall of this is, I will say, on the other side, you have some free speech advocates raising concerns about censorship and privacy.

With Becca Branham, for example, the director of the Free Expression Project for the Center for Democracy and Technology arguing, "'The best of intentions can't make up "'for the bill's dangerous implications "'for constitutional speech and privacy online.'" And adding that this act was a recipe for weaponized enforcement that risks durable progress

in the fight against image-based sexual abuse. But there, you also had legal experts pushing back on that, arguing that the bill was carefully designed to survive challenges on First Amendment grounds. And this is others have said that any potential downfalls are vastly outweighed by the benefits of the legislation. Many folks noting that this is a problem that's been ongoing for years,

but recently it has gotten so much worse with the rapid proliferation of AI technology. Which on that note, according to the Washington Post, there are now hundreds of AI undress apps that let users make fake images of real people in a matter of seconds. And some of those apps, they're even advertised on major social networks like Instagram,

despite the fact that they violate the platform's rules. But it's usually seeing female celebrities being the most common targets, with many pointing to how last year, Taylor Swift and Bobby Altaf were both subjects of explicit deepfakes that went viral on X. And then beyond that, a recent report by ExpressPR.org found that there was a 550% increase

in deepfakes since 2019. And of those deepfakes, they said that 96 involved women and female celebrities were mainly impacted. With us then also seeing Final Round AI conducting a study that analyzed search volume data from September of 2023 to 2024 to identify the celebrities most at risk of deepfake scams. And there, unsurprisingly, Taylor Swift

was at the top of the list with a study finding that she was involved in 249,840 deepfake scams. And there, unsurprisingly, Taylor Swift was at the top of the list with a study finding that she was involved in 249,840 deepfake-related searches from September of 2023 to September of 2024 globally. With that being more than double the number of the second most at-risk star, which was Jenna Ortega, who was involved in over 111,000 deepfake-related searches worldwide during the same period.

With an internet creator, Pokimane, coming in at third with just under 77,000 searches. And all of this is you had Forbes reporting that celebrity deepfake incidents have already hit a record high just four months into 2025. With the outlet reporting that there have already been 179 incidents recorded, which is more than the 150 that were logged in all of 2024.

So there, I think it's important to know that Forbes looked into all forms of deepfakes, not just sexually explicit ones. Which then helps explain why the outlet found that Taylor Swift was the second most fake celebrity when you account for other forms of fakes, not just sexually explicit ones. Which then helps explain why the outlet found that Taylor Swift was the second most fake celebrity when you account for other forms of fakes, including audio recordings. And there you had Elon Musk, who was involved

in a quarter of all deep fakes recorded by Forbes, taking the top slot. And actually touching on that, the outlet also found that despite the fact that the election's over, political deep fakes are still going strong. With incidents involving politicians already reaching 40 this year, which is nearly as many as the 50 during the 2024 election year.

You know, for now, we'll have to wait to see when Trump signs a bill, assuming he does, though it's very likely he will, and if it can actually dramatically change the deep fake landscape. And then I've got more news for you in just a minute, but first, you know, thank you to all you beautiful bastards for trusting us to wade through the chaos

of the daily news cycle. And as you know, we strive to break through the echo chambers to bring you the story beyond the headlines. And one of the critical tools that we use to see the bigger picture is Ground News, a fantastic sponsor of today's show. And that's because unlike other news sites, Ground News delivers multiple perspectives on each story

to hedge against reporting biases. And you can see for yourself at ground.news.deFranco. With one recent example being recently billionaire GOP donor Ken Griffin criticized Trump's trade wars, claiming that the US has become 20% poorer. And what we saw is that the dividing line between right and left leaning coverage has been their interpretations of the economic impact, with the right seemingly focusing heavily on potential protectionist benefits,

while the left seemingly detailed the potential long-term negative consequences. And that's one of the reasons I like ground news, where I can quickly synthesize left, right, and center perspectives, avoiding blind spots. Which, speaking of blind spots, they've actually got a blind spot feed, which highlights stories ignored by either side. And you know, hitting that, the story of the GOP donor breaking ranks, it was covered primarily over 95% by centrist and progressive outlets.

And notably, this isn't just politics with market and economic volatility tied to the political shifts. I mean, we're seeing the full picture matters more than ever, which is also, it's no wonder that Ground News has over 10,000 five-star reviews. So hey, scan the QR code

or head to ground.news.deFranco today to get 40% off unlimited access to the Vantage plan, which is the same plan I use. But then next up from that, we have to talk about the news that the US and China seemingly not only can't make a deal to cut back on tariffs, they can't even agree on whether the talks

to reach an agreement are actually happening. Right in this is you're seeing major Chinese retailers trying to make it crystal clear who is paying for Trump's trade war. And that is you, the consumer. But to start, I'll is you're seeing major Chinese retailers trying to make it crystal clear who is paying for Trump's trade war. And that is you, the consumer. But to start, I'll give you a quick reminder about the current status quo between the two, right? Trump has imposed 145% tariffs on Chinese goods

with exemptions for electronics, including smartphones and computers. Then in response, Beijing raising tariffs on US imports to 125%. And similarly, there were some exceptions. In this case, were a few types of American-made semiconductors. Then last week, after all of its tough talk,

the Trump administration seemingly softened its tone. The seeing Treasury Secretary Scott Besson suggesting there would be a de-escalation of the trade war in the very near future. And in fact, the very next day, you had Trump himself indicating that tariffs on Chinese goods would come down substantially, his words.

And since then, Trump, as well as members of his administration, they have repeatedly claimed to be in talks with the Chinese government over a potential trade deal to only then have Chinese officials deny again and again that any talks are actually taking place. With a general line from Beijing being that if the US wants to negotiate,

it first needs to get rid of all the tariffs on China. With, for example, last week, the Chinese foreign ministry accusing the Trump administration of misleading the public about trade talks. With then Time Magazine only a few hours later publishing an interview with Trump in which he not only claimed that there had been talks,

but that he himself had personally spoken to Chinese president Xi Jinping on the phone. With Trump even telling a CNN reporter that same day that the two leaders had spoken to each other many times. And so with that, this week, we've again had Beijing clapping back with a spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs saying that as far as he knows,

there has been no recent phone call between the two heads of state. With him then going on to say, "'I want to reiterate that China and the United States "'are not engaged in consultations or negotiations "'on the tariff issue. "'If the US wants to solve the problem "'through dialogue and negotiation,

"'it should stop threatening and blackmailing China. "'But also as we wait to find out "'which side is actually telling the truth, "'you have businesses having to adjust "'to the new reality of the world. So with that on the Chinese side, you're seeing things like Chinese online retailer, Xi'an, raising its prices by an average of 51%,

and in some cases, as much as 377%. And then what we're seeing with Tmoo is they're starting to add import charges to customers' orders that range between 130 and 150%, which is about as clear as they can make it that the cost of tariffs are being passed on to the consumers. Also, I'll say on that note

It's been reported that Amazon's actually planning to do something similar Essentially breaking down how much the tariffs are adding to the price of each product listed on its website Which then notably is something that White House press secretary Caroline Leavitt described today as a hostile and political act though notably there I'll say Amazon has now responded and said that this was only something being talked about for the company's ultra low-cost Amazon haul store with their statement also saying this was never a consideration for the main Amazon site and nothing has been implemented on any Amazon properties. Then finally, one piece of news that I want to talk about in connection to the tariffs is the 25% tariffs in place on vehicles imported to the US. And that because the Trump administration is now reportedly

announcing new measures to mitigate their impact and give automakers more time to relocate production to the US. So the 25% tariffs, they will technically remain in place, but they'll be modified to make sure that they're not stacked with other existing tariffs like ones on steel and aluminum. This is automakers may be reimbursed for some portion of the tariffs that they pay on imported auto parts, reportedly up to 3.75% of the value of a new car in the first year and up to 2.5% in the second year. Which, you know, we've seen some celebrating, others saying it's just messy and convoluted and just the otherwise just general chaos. You know, for now we're gonna have to wait to see

how a number of these things play out, but to go from just the news to, now this part is just my opinion. Regarding Amazon possibly doing what we've seen Timu and a select others doing where they're like, "'Hey, this is how much the tariffs are costing you.' I really don't see them doing that." Jeff Bezos has really bent over backwards

to get close to the administration. In a way, as someone that has just started Pilates, is almost aspirational just from a technical standpoint. Though some would argue that that is not flexibility, that's just lack of a spine. But also that could technically be one of many things we see if Donald Trump's polling gets any lower than where it is right now.

Because he's at historic lows for a hundred days in. But we're not in everyone jumping ship territory. We're really just starting to scratch like more moderate Republicans in the house who have upcoming elections going like, oh, how am I gonna manage this? But still technically that's kind of a ways away. And also at least regarding the economy,

Trump is the person that put America in this situation and through kind of the general world's in chaos. Right, well in these first hundred days, the Trump administration is really like alienated allies and gotten enemies to team up with one another around a common enemy, us. Trump has the power to undo pretty much everything that he's done to destabilize things.

He could probably claw back a decent chunk of his approval rating just by saying that we got concessions that maybe we don't even get. Especially as like we talked about yesterday, there are a number of things that he campaigned on that are popular, but one of the big key reasons that there's been a massive negative reaction is the how he's going about it. But hey, like I said, this specific portion, it's just my opinion. That's why I try and separate it from the actual news portion. I could be right. I could be wrong.

And in the meantime, we all just got to live through it. And of course, I'd love to know your thoughts on the situation now and also how you think things are going to play out, whether you agree or disagree with me. But then from that next step today, we've got to talk about Donald Trump continuing his assault on science this week. With Trump on Monday killing a landmark climate report that nobody's interrupted since 1990. Because that is when George H.W. Bush signed the Global Change Research Act. And one of the things that it did was mandate that starting in 2000, every five years or so, the federal government would publish the National Climate Assessment. This comprehensive peer-reviewed report detailing how climate change affects the United States.

With the point being to inform Congress and federal agencies, as well as state and local governments and anyone else who cares about how to prepare for climate change and design climate policy. And it is big, right? Which makes sense since climate change impacts everything. It covers health, food, agriculture, air and water, energy, transportation, insurance markets, the weather, the economy. I could keep going. Main point being though, it's very valuable, but even during his first term, Trump opposed it. Right back when the fourth report wrapped up in 2018,

Trump's administration released it on Black Friday, which many interpreted as him trying to slide it under the rug. With then the fifth one being in 2023 and the sixth one set to finish in 2028, or at least it was supposed to, but second term Trump is acting much more aggressively to smother it before it's even born. With a saying that after scientists submitted a detailed

outline of the report back in February, the White House put the usual review of it on hold and postponed the comment period, which then fast forward to this last Monday, and you had the administration dismissing literally everybody who is working on the report all at once. We're talking nearly 400 scientists, experts, and contributors who were suddenly taken off this project that they'd been working on for the benefit of everyone else. And as far as the explanation, the email they received simply stated, At this time, the scope of the NCA-6 is being evaluated in accordance with the Global Change Research Act of 1990. And this notably comes after the White House also canceled its contract with the firm that hires most of the staff for the Global Change Research Program,

which is the agency that oversees the reports earlier this month. Something that already hamstrung the process since that program coordinated input from 14 federal agencies and hundreds of external scientists. But now it appears there's just nobody working on the report at all, coordination or not. And so with that, you had a co-author on the last climate assessment telling the New York Times, this is as close as it gets

to a termination of the assessment. If you get rid of all the people involved, nothing's moving forward. Now I will say it's doubtful whether this will stand in the court since the report is legally mandated by Congress, and even the White House itself suggested some form of it may resume later with the same email concluding, as plans develop for the assessment, there may be future opportunities to contribute or engage. Thank you for your service. But still, many scientists fear that

whatever report does come out in 2028, it won't be the report that they were preparing. Or because Russell Vogt, Trump's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote before the election that the next president should reshape the global change research program. With him arguing that the agency's scientific reports on climate change were often used as the basis for environmental lawsuits that constrain federal government actions.

This is of course, Trump himself has a long history of saying that climate change is a hoax. So you have many concerned that Trump's people are gonna write their own report from scratch, contradicting the well-established science showing that human of saying that climate change is a hoax. So you have many concerned that Trump's people are gonna write their own report from scratch, contradicting the well-established science showing that human-caused climate change is a real and dire threat. And of course, all of this is, you know,

if you watch the show, it's just a small piece of the puzzle or just a small piece of Trump's war on science. We've seen drastic cuts, chaos and censorship at NOAA, the EPA, the CDC, the NIH, and many other agencies that produce valuable government research. And then I've got more news for you in just a minute. But first, you know, I'm not usually one for scare tactics, but I am genuinely freaked out by how creative and real scams have become. Because to be blunt, like if you've got Wi-Fi and a pulse, you're fair game. And it's not just

about protecting yourself anymore. It's protecting everyone in your circle, your kids, parents, grandparents. I mean, you get it. And that, it's why I use our sponsor, NordVPN. It's no longer just about privacy. It's about access, protection, and not accidentally handing your data over to some rando in a basement. I use NordVPN to keep my digital life secure. The family also loves using it to access streaming content from all around the world. But increasingly, I'm grateful to Nord for providing the best shot at maintaining access to information. You know, Nord, it keeps me anonymous online. They mask your IP address, keeping you anonymous, and encrypt your data so it doesn't end up in the wrong hands, whether it's

hackers, shady governments, or your ISP being nosy. With thousands of servers worldwide, you can access anything, stream your favorite shows and enjoy fast, secure P2P sharing. Simply put, staying safe online, it shouldn't be complicated. So let me make it easy. Just head to nordvpn.com slash phil and grab a huge discount on a two-year plan plus an extra four months. That's nordvpn.com slash fill and grab a huge discount on a two-year plan plus an extra four months. That's nordvpn.com slash fill or scan the QR code and it's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee. But then next up today, we've got to talk about the news that Donald Trump's now gearing up to go after state and local officials who defy him and maybe use the military to do it. Or at least that's one way of looking at two executive orders that he just

signed. So the first order, it directs AG Pam Bondi and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to publish a list of state and local jurisdictions that the Trump administration considers sanctuary jurisdictions. You know, which are cities and states that limit or refuse to help Trump with his mass deportation effort. With the seeing the administration lately growing more upset that these places won't hold immigrants in jail beyond their release dates to make it easier for federal officials to detain them. And then with that list, the head of each executive department or agency is supposed to help identify what they call appropriate federal funds, including grants and contracts that can be suspended or terminated. Though notably, this is also happening less than a week since a federal judge in San Francisco temporarily blocked the government from enforcing part of another executive order that would withhold funds from cities that don't want to work with Trump on his immigration plan. Which of course means we're going to have to wait to

see where the case ends up, what happens from there. But then with that, this week's order, it also aims to make sure that unauthorized immigrants do not get federal benefits from private entities, which could mean, for example, nonprofits running federally funded housing, food, or employment programs. With the order also possibly hindering

unauthorized immigrants from getting more affordable tuition for higher education. But then finally, on top of all that, for cities and states that remain defiant, Bondi and Noem are supposed to, quote, "'Pursue all necessary legal remedies "'and enforcement measures to end these violations "'and bring such jurisdictions into compliance

"'with the laws of the United States.'" And on that note, we've already started to see what this might look like. Because in the past week, for example, you had the Trump administration suing the city of Rochester, New York, for allegedly illegally impeding immigration enforcement, along with the news that they arrested

and brought charges against a Milwaukee judge for obstruction after she allegedly helped an undocumented immigrant avoid arrest. Which then actually brings us to the second executive order, which broadly directs the AG to use enforcement measures against state and local officials, quote, unlawfully prohibiting law enforcement officers from carrying out duties, or who, quote, unlawfully engage in discrimination or civil rights violations under the guise of DEI. And with that, you know, the second executive order, it's all about law enforcement. So you have some saying that its potential implications

are worrying at the very least and downright terrifying at most. Because for one, the order instructs the AG to provide legal resources to police officers accused of wrongdoing. And that after suggesting that police officers are often wrongly accused and abused by state or local officials who impose legal and political handcuffs

on law enforcement that make aggressively enforcing the law impossible. And then with that, the order also directs the AG to review and modify existing restraints on law enforcement, such as federal consent decrees, which are essentially legally binding reform plans that often end up in place after investigations find a specific police department

has patterns of unconstitutional policing. Right, so you have many saying just that by itself, that's pretty alarming, but it's potentially this next part that has the most people freaking out. And that because it's the part talking about increasing the provision of excess military and national security assets and local jurisdictions

to assist state and local law enforcement. With it saying that the Secretary of Defense should be consulted to determine how these assets as well as training and personnel can most effectively be utilized for event crime. And so with all that, we're seeing a lot of conversation about this actually just being an order meant

to pave the way for Trump to deploy the military domestically. With some talking about martial law and the possibility of living in what they've referred to as an actual fascist police state or military state. But then to shift gears from that, we've got to talk about this new cancer treatment that doctors have called stunning,

amazing and groundbreaking. And where I'll start is by saying this is relevant for a particular type of cancer. One with a genetic mutation known as mismatch repair deficiency, which basically means that the tumor can't repair damaged DNA, which causes abnormal proteins to build up inside of them. Now for doctors, that's actually convenient because it means that the tumor carries a natural biomarker that the body's immune system can target. Thing is though, that mutation also gives the tumor a kind of shield against the immune system, allowing it to grow. But that is exactly where distarlamab

comes in. Because this drug, it breaks down that shield, unleashing the body's immune system on the tumor. At least in theory. And if it works, it'll be a game changer. Because currently this type of cancer, it's treated with a combination of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, or in other words, a fucking nightmare.

And depending on where the tumor is, those procedures can leave lasting damage. With there being a whole range, whether it be removal of the stomach or bladder or a permanent colostomy bag or infertility and problems with bowel, bladder and sexual functions. Which is why for this clinical trial, you had just over a hundred patients

filing into the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York and rolling the dice. With nearly half suffering from rectal cancer and the rest having it everywhere from the stomach, esophagus and liver to the endometria, urinary tract and prostate. But all of them, they had solid tumors with the mutation and they were in stages one, two, or three.

And so what you had is that each of them received the immunotherapy, which consisted of periodic injections, and the results were shocking. 92% of patients had no detectable cancer at all after two years, with that number rising to 100% for the 49 who had rectal cancer, and lowering to 65% for the rest, which is still huge. But then also, even for the five patients

whose cancer occurred, four of them wiped out their tumors too, either by undergoing another round of immunotherapy or removing a lymph node. And the fifth still shrank their tumor with more immunotherapy. So with that, you're the studies lead author telling Time Magazine,

the bottom line is that everyone did benefit. No one was harmed. It takes home the message that therapy like this can lead to significant clinical complete responses, tumor downstaging, and significant improvement in the quality of life of patients. And I will say, it's especially startling when you realize how quickly it works. The treatment, it only takes six months, but some tumors disappeared in as little as half that time, which is why you had an oncologist at Johns

Hopkins telling the New York Times, 20 or 30 years ago, the idea that you could take large tumors of many different organs and treat them without doing surgery would seem like science fiction. Now, to be fair, there are a couple of caveats that make this breakthrough a little less exciting. Right, first of all, this particular mutation is only present in two to 3% of early stage solid tumors. And secondly, the drug costs about $11,000 per dose and there are nine doses.

So there are concerns that, you know, many people, they probably won't be eligible and it'll be very expensive for those who are. But let me also give you a caveat to the caveat, which is if the drug gets included in clinical guidelines, it could be very expensive for those who are. But let me also give you a caveat to the caveat, which is if the drug gets included in clinical guidelines, it could be covered by insurance. And thanks to an earlier smaller study, it's already been put in the guidelines for rectal cancer

and it's approved for uterine cancers as well. So now the next step is to expand those guidelines to include other cancers and to further develop the drug with a cocktail of other treatments, which is also why I wanna add this. The story isn't just about the Starlamab. It's also about how fucking amazing and surprising the field of cancer research is right now.

And that's in addition to the strides we've made over the past few decades, right? I mean, the American Cancer Society just published data showing that the overall cancer mortality rate in the US from 1991 to 2022 declined by 34%. That translates to approximately four and a half million people whose lives were saved. And this is where I'll add a little opinion to the news.

I think we can get those numbers up if yes, we not only continue to fund research like this, but also ensure that our K to 12 schools are properly funded, opportunities are given, not only for higher education, but also trade schools, everything. As long as we have upward mobility in this country, a lot of things would be better.

Then also regarding higher education, making sure that pipeline's not only intact, but wider than ever. But that, my friends, you beautiful bastards, is where your Tuesday evening, Wednesday morning dive into the news is gonna end. But I will see you soon, because of course I 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 yo faces, and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.