The Philip DeFranco Show - South Park Humiliated Trump, Kristi Noem, & ICE

Episode Date: August 7, 2025

Listen to this after today’s show: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5kyhSDaqirqr6wG3qwPI8H?si=cke6GdFsS1iygu3HjQCXJQ  Kickstart your passion project with a free trial today: https://www.Squarespace.com/Phil  & enter offer code “Phil” to get 10% off your first purchase! NEW https://BeautifulBastard.com DROP IS LIVE! Get 25%OFF w/ code “TY25” ASK ME A QUESTION Got a question? Serious, silly, personal, or newsy — bring the good stuff. Send yours here: https://www.speakpipe.com/PDS  LISTEN TO THE SHOW iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-philip-defranco-show/id1278424954  Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ESemquRbz6f8XLVywdZ2V  JOIN OUR COMMUNITY 📸Instagram: https://instagram.com/PhillyDeFranco  🐦Twitter: https://twitter.com/phillyd  🎵TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@philipdefranco  TODAY’S STORIES 00:00 - South Park Skewers Trump, Vance, Kristi Noem and Charlie Kirk 03:00 - ICE Agents Jump Out of Rental Truck & Ambush People at Home Depot 09:19 - Sponsored by Squarespace 10:27 - FBI Will Hunt Down Missing Texas Democrats 11:41 - Apple Bends the Knee to Trump with $100 Billion Investment 14:46 - UK Considers Letting 16 Year Olds Vote THE TEAM Produced by: Cory Ray Edited by: James Girardier, Maxwell Enright, Julie Goldberg, Christian Meeks, Matthew Henry Art Department: William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Brian Espinoza, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Chris Tolve, Star Pralle, Jared Paolino   ———————————— #DeFranco  #SouthPark #DonaldTrump Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, we know you probably hit play to escape your business banking, not think about it. But what if we told you there was a way to skip over the pressures of banking? By matching with the TD Small Business Account Manager, you can get the proactive business banking advice and support your business needs. Ready to press play? Get up to $2,700 when you open select Small Business Banking products. Yep, that's $2,700 to turn up your business. Visit TD.com slash Small Business Match to learn more.

Conditions apply. South Park humiliated Trump, Christy Noam, and ice, but the reaction this time just exposed a lot. Are the Trump ice raids including these new ones getting caught on camera or getting worse with the craziest yet to come? And the big push to let 16-year-olds vote in elections has everyone divided. We're talking about all of that and even more. On today's brand-new Philip DeFranco show, you daily dive into the news, starting with this. South Park just humiliated the Trump administration again. Though this time it was less about Trump himself and more people in his orbit.

But also, it even started before the episode aired last night, or because the Department of Homeland Security tried to use South Park as a way to promote itself. Posting a still of the episode's teaser where Ice agents descended upon South Park with a caption, join.ice.gov. Within South Park, ratioing the government commenting, wait, so we are relevant? Hashtag eat a bag of dicks. With that, of course, referencing the White House last month responding to the first episode where they said, the show hasn't been relevant for over 20 years and is hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas and a desperate attempt for attention. But really whatever you think about South Park, they have people's attention.

And they got it again last night on an episode that focused on the the elementary school counselor, Mr. Mackey, where he loses his job because what the Trump administration is doing to schools, and because he needs money, he joins ICE for its large salary. And as they're mocking the low quality of people being allowed in to ICE, we are introduced to Trump's DHS secretary, Christy Noem. And over the course of the episode, they really lean into mocking aspects of why she's been called Ice Barbie, where everything seems to be for a photo shoot or a video. People are having to constantly put on makeup and inject stuff, just keep her face from falling off, which literally it does fall off. But in addition to that, they really lean in

to the dog controversy with Christie Nome, which in case you forgot. She once told and then defended a story about how she shot and killed her own dog because it was untrainable. And over the course of the episode, she just shoots dog after dog in the face. She even snipes crypto, and as the credits run, she shoots up a dog store. And then, as far as their critique of ice, you have the new recruits loaded into trucks for the first ice raid. You have an agent advising them, keep your hands and feet inside the vehicle at all times, like at the Disneyland ride. The raid Adora the Explorer Live show. Ice even later raids heaven,

with Noam reminding her agents if it's brown, it goes down. And then separate from that, they included J.D. Vance this week as a pint-sized baby-faced sycophan whom Trump calls annoying and stupid. With Trump, even kicking Vance off screen at one point like he's a football, but the VP loyally returning to his side as if nothing happened.

And then separate from the administration itself, South Park made fun of Charlie Kirk and Charlie Kirk types. Right, rage bait, influencer debate bros. With Carbon at one point, who's taken on this role, saying, these young college girls are totally unprepared so I can just destroy them and also edit out the ones that actually argue back well. It just feels so good. And then, notably, as far as the reactions to this,

this week, we saw some of the people portrayed in South Park trying to roll with it. Charlie Kirk saying, the whole thing's awesome. He found it hilarious. JD Vance also seemingly taking that angle saying, well, I finally made it. Which, you know, seems to be a drastically different reaction than from the first episode. Where you had the White House going, they're not even relevant, and reports coming out that the real president was reportedly seething. And of course, all of this, it's playing out as South Park has now 48 more episodes to go with their

new contract, with them seemingly set up to be a fixture of political discourse for a while. And then next up in the news today, we've got to talk about ICE's latest controversial and likely illegal raid, the agency's massive recruitment campaign, a key new court battle in the White House's war on non-citizen students, and the president's most recent effort to gain more seats in Congress by any means necessary. Starting with that raid, which involved masked, heavily armed ICE agents, jumping out of a rental truck and ambushing people at an LA Home Depot. Because if you've ever been to a Home Depot, immigrant day laborers gather outside looking for work, which is why they've become such a big target of Trump.

immigration enforcement. Here, you had a worker saying that a rental truck pulled up to the parking lot at around 6.45 in the morning, the driver telling people in Spanish that he had work to offer. But then someone rolls up the back of the truck and ice pours out, chasing and arresting anyone they can. And you actually had a box news correspondent publishing footage from inside the truck. With that, reposted by a Border Patrol commander in California who called it Operation Trojan Horse. If he seems familiar to you, that's because he's been previously accused of misleading the public. Saying of an immigration sweep that his agents had a predetermined list of targets, many with criminal records. Then records later showed that 77 out of of 78 people detained had no prior record with the agency. With there being frequent reports of people just being targeted by eyes based on their appearance and whether they spoke Spanish Which is why you end up having Latino US citizens getting swept up in rates It also led to a federal judge ordering the Trump administration to halt indiscriminate immigration Stops and arrests in seven California counties including Los Angeles last month with a judge writing With a judge writing in her order that there was a mountain of evidence that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution And in fact last week an appeals court upheld her ruling and so the big question with this Home Depot raid is whether it violated the original order

Now there you have DHS claiming that the agents arrested 16 undocumented people from Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, and Nicaragua. But notably, they didn't answer questions about their tactics or whether agents have been looking for specific people. So in response, you had a spokesperson for one California-based rights group saying, it is deeply disturbing that the federal government will stoop to these levels to continue their campaign of terror against working Angelinos. Saying, these are Angelinos looking for an honest day's living.

What we see in the video looks like an assault on people's liberties, an assault on individuals that were standing there looking for a job and a targeted operation that was, in fact, lawless. And all of this is, it's not a random one-off. You've got the head of another Southern California nonprofit claiming that Border Patrol agents seem to be making the same rounds again, saying they're hitting the same places that they hit in the past, but with new tactics, including pretending to be employers to lure people in. And you even had the rental truck company Penske chiming it, saying they're aware of what happened,

and Penske strictly prohibits the transportation of people in the cargo areas of its vehicles under any circumstance. Saying the company was not made aware that its trucks would be used in today's operation and did not authorize this. And finally, saying, they'd reach out to DHS to reinforce its policy to avoid improper use of its vehicles in the future. But that then brings us to the second thing here, and that is that if you are over 40 and you're interested in potentially breaking the law terrorizing local communities? I've got great news for you. DHS is now waiving age limits on joining ice. With that being just one part of a new campaign to massively expand their ranks. Campaign, remember, that's coming after Trump's mega bill funneled an unprecedented $170 billion towards immigration enforcement. And they're claiming that more than 80,000 Americans

applied to join in just one week since it launched the new recruitment drive. With people being drawn in with an offer of up to a $50,000 signing bonus, student loan repayment assistance, and other benefits. And as far as the age requirements, it used to be that candidates to be criminal investigators with limited exceptions couldn't be older than 37 years old and deportation officers couldn't be over 40. But now they don't care assuming that you meet the other limited requirements. With DHS actually announcing it by posting this saying we're taking father son bonding to a whole new level. To which you saw certain things play out like someone responding saying drop the degree requirement and let the good old boys in. I think I can handle a little

discomfort and taken down illegals don't need a degree for that. To which DHS proudly responded no college degree required to be a deportation officer. Actually that brings us to the third thing that I want to talk about, and that is that some people in the process of getting their degrees are now suing the Trump administration, right? It's about free speech and censorship. With Stanford University's student newspaper, the Stanford Daily, saying in their lawsuit that several of the newspapers' writers have been forced to self-censor or quit the paper out of fear that the government would retaliate for what it publishes, claiming that it's received a number of requests from lawfully present non-citizens to have their names, quotes, or photos removed from articles that

many international students have stopped speaking to the papers journalists altogether. Notably, this new lawsuit is somewhat similar to a case that just went to trial in Boston last. And there you had people, including the American Association of University professors, suing the Trump administration over what they called its ideological deportation policy. Policy that's led to several students fleeing the country or going into hiding to avoid arrest. Several students and academics testifying about how they'd scrubbed their social media profiles, censored their speech and turned down opportunities out of fear. Even had members of the Trump administration testifying, including a Homeland Security agent belonged to the unit normally tasked with tackling drug, financial, and other crimes. With him explaining how he was told by the State Department to prioritize the arrest of Rumaesa Aztor. He was a Tufts university student from Turkey with no criminal record who once wrote an op-ed critical of Israel.

And he said that he was explicitly told not to inform her that her visa had been revoked. But I'll add while a ruling there is expected this month, the Stanford case is also a little bit different. It goes further than others that have targeted the student arrests. We're taking aim at the constitutionality of the underlying legal argument that the Trump administration has relied on to arrest and try to deport foreign students. It revolves around two key provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The first allows the Secretary of State to deport non-citizens of the Secretary personally determines at the alien's admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interests, and the second gives the Secretary of the power to revoke a visa or documentation at his or her discretion.

The lawsuit says that invoking the power in response to speech is a clear violation of the First Amendment. With the complaint saying, Marco Rubio and the Trump administration are trying to turn the inalienable human right of free speech into a privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat, triggering deportation proceedings against non-citizens residing lawfully in this country for their protected political speech regarding American and Israeli foreign policy. But as far as the government's response to it as spokesperson for DHS, calling the law, lawsuit baseless, saying there is no room in the United States for the rest of the world's terrorist sympathizers and we are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here.

But then all of that, it brings us to the final thing that I want to talk about in this section, and that is that Trump is trying to keep undocumented immigrants off the U.S. census. With imposing that a new and highly accurate census will be based on modern-day facts and figures and, importantly, using the results and information gained from the presidential election of 2024, and adding, people who are in our country illegally will not be counted in the census. And notably, this is not the first time that Trump has tried this. his first term, he moved to add a citizenship question to the census. But a federal appeals court ruled the move was illegal and the Supreme Court ultimately blocked it. But a key thing there is that

the Supreme Court declined to explicitly rule on whether people without legal status can be excluded by the president from counts. And that is Article 1 of the Constitution has required a census every 10 years to determine the number and distribution of seats in the House of Representatives. And the 14th Amendment separately requires the whole number of persons in each state to be included in the census. The key word being persons, not citizens, so it's going to be interesting to see what sort of legal argument they try to use in this case. And then I've got more news for you in just a minute, but okay, honest question, how many brilliant ideas are just rotten away in your notes app right now?

Because somewhere in that dusty graveyard of someday ideas lies your side hustle or maybe your next new thing. So why not make today the day that you commit to take that first step in taking on that opportunity or that passion project and taking it to the next level? You know, for me, it was my on again, off again book club. I had put it off forever. And I kid you not, like the DeFranco Book Club went from someday launched in under an hour with today's sponsor's Squarespace.

They make it crazy easy to build a site to start selling content, courses, physical or digital products or really do almost anything that you have in mind. You know, whether you want to just showcase something or you want to charge a one-time fee or offer a subscription. And they've got stunning templates that look like you hired a designer and their fluid engine editor. It lets you drag, drop, customize, no coding, no stress, no excuses. Even my team uses Squarespace where our Daily Dip newsletter

where tens of thousands of you guys get your PDS fix in your inbox every day. New polls, giveaways, PDS, show notes. It's all run through Squarespace. And like Clockwork, a Daily Dip issue went out today. and your project could be next. Say, hey, take that first step today with a free trial at Squarespace.com slash fill or scan that QR code.

Right, make today launch day. Just make sure that when it's ready to go, use code fill to get 10% off and let them know we sent you. And then, the FBI is now gonna hunt down the Texas Democrats who fled the state to stop the Republicans from rigging the election. And so the biggest questions here are on what grounds, with what authority and what crime is the FBI investigator.

If it was illegal to leave Texas, Ted Cruz would be on death row by now. The FBI can't just use its vast surveillance powers to spy on and locate random citizens. Texas issued a civil warrant, not a criminal one. The feds have no role here. So you've got people asking, is the FBI going to violate the sovereignty of Illinois and the rights of Texas Democrats because the president told them to? Though with that, you had Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker is saying that he will not allow the FBI to take the Texas Democrats. But I'm saying of the Trump administration.

They're grandstanding. There literally is no federal law applicable to this situation. None. FBI agents might show up, whether it's federal agents coming to Illinois or state. Rangers from Texas, if you haven't broken federal law, you're, you know, you're basically unwelcome. And there's no way that they can be, uh, that our state legislators here, the Texas state legislators can be arrested. And while J.B. Pritzker is correct there, you also have people saying, you know, this is an administration that is in total violation of the Constitution at all times. So for now, we're going to have to continue to have eyes on this and see how it plays out. And then next step in the news, we should talk about how Apple's Tim Cook has emerged as a very

interesting person to watch amidst Trump's tariff chaos. Because if he didn't see, Apple's investing another $100 billion to expand operations in the United States as Trump is threatening 100% tariffs on semiconductors for tech companies who don't follow suit. You had Trump and Tim Cook making the announcement in the Oval Office yesterday where Cook gifted Trump with this weird glass and 24-carat gold trophy. With that, just being the latest effort from Apple to appease Trump and shift some small specific parts of the manufacturing process stateside in order to avoid Trump's threat of tariffs on iPhones. Because earlier this year, Apple said that it planned to spend $500 billion in the United States over the next four years in order to hire

20,000 people as well as open a factory in Texas. Though notably with that, one, only about $39 billion of the $500 billion previously announced in February was new. The rest was actually just in line with the company's average annual increase in U.S. investment to support its growth since 2017. And two, the company made similar smaller pledges during the Biden administration and Trump's first term and has yet to actually follow through on some of them. And that is even with it, there's no sign that it would actually ever meet Trump's demand to make iPhones in the States. I mean, it's possible, but it would be extremely expensive. With one analysis, finding that developing the workforce in the United States needed to move

the supply chain here, it would force the company to more than double the iPhone price. We're talking at least $2,000. But still, I mean, what we're seeing is that Apple and Tim Cook, they seem to be kind of threatened the needle perfectly here. You know, in addition to Cook, given Trump a little trophy, they also, they complimented each other yesterday, though in different ways. Mr. President, thank you very much for having me here today. you've been a great advocate

for American innovation and manufacturing and I'm grateful for your leadership and your commitment. I want to thank Tim Cook. He's a great, great man, a visionary, a businessman just about every quality he can have other than athleticism. I don't know. In Trump, he's setting Apple up as

an example of what he expects from everyone else. Trump, threatening to impose a 100% tariff on foreign semiconductors for other tech companies unless they also commit to increase manufacturing in the states. So they're a big key thing is that it seems like a lot of the biggest companies already would be exempt. We're the world's largest maker of chips, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company.

They announced plans to invest to $100 billion in U.S. manufacturing in March. You also had an official and a parliamentary briefing in Taipei saying that the company would be exempt. Also, South Korea's top trade envoy said similar things about Samsung and another major company saying they wouldn't be subject to the tariff. And then finally, you know, Invidia, which is one of the largest chipmakers in the U.S., it would also likely be exempt from the tariff because the company is manufacturing facilities in the U.S. But I will say a chipmaker that Donald Trump is not a fan of right now. is Intel. Though that seems less to do with manufacturing and more to do with who's running things. With Trump today writing on Truth Social, the CEO of Intel is highly conflicted and must resign

immediately. Right in there, the CEO is LeButan, and with that you had outlets like some before noting his post came a day after Republican Senator Tom Cotton sent an open letter to Intel's board raising questions about Tahn's connections to semiconductor firms that are allegedly linked to the Chinese government and military. But all in all, I'll say regarding manufacturing and with tariffs, this could be a very interesting thing to watch in the coming months and years, especially as his global tariffs kick today and he's been making threats here and there, including with India. Then, last up today, let's talk about some news that actually one of you beautiful bastards was asking about.

So I heard the UK is thinking about lowering the voting age 16 and it got me thinking, wasn't our country founded on the idea of no taxation without representation? Aren't 16-year-olds encouraged even to go out and work jobs and pay those taxes? So if you pay taxes, I think you should vote. I will say that's probably one of the strongest arguments I've heard made for it, though I'm not sold. For those who don't know anything about this, the UK has recently lowered its voting age in general elections from 18 to 16. And that actually came as part of a larger package of changes that were meant to strengthen the British democracy and help restore trust in politics. Because last year, the UK saw its lowest turnout in the national election in two decades.

And this new change, I mean, it's the biggest shift to the UK electorate since the voting age was dropped from 21 to 18 back in 1969. And it brings England and Northern Ireland in line with Scotland and Wales, where 16-year-olds can already vote in the local council elections as well as for Scottish Parliament. Right now, as you'd expect, there are people that are for and against this. For the argument in support, you have people echoing Prime Minister Kirstarmer who said, they're old enough to go out to work, they're old enough to pay taxes. If you pay in, you should have the opportunity to say what you want your money spent on, which way the government should go.

But then you have those against it, arguing at the very least, it's inconsistent. Saying that 16-year-olds, they're not allowed to drink, buy a lottery ticket, get married, or go to war. But then a more general argument is that they just don't have enough lived experience. But then also, in addition to that debate, you have people wondering, will this end actually change anything. Redoubting that actually giving them the ability to vote is going to mean that 16 and 17 year old show up at the polls. And so you've got some experts suggesting things like beefing up the citizenship curriculum

or expanding the provision of volunteering programs and schools. Now with this, I do need to know that it still needs parliamentary approval, but considering that this was a big part of Starmer's election campaign, I mean, it gives them a very large majority. And as far as us actually seeing the impact, it's probably not going to be until maybe 2029, but that's when the next general election is expected. And you know, as far as the reaction to this, as far as like, what does the polling say? Very interestingly, at a recent ITV news poll of 516 and 17-year-olds in the U.K.

Finding that 49% of them didn't think that they should be able to vote while 51% did. And then there's the general polling which saw a much wider difference with 57% of respondents saying 16 and 17-year-old shouldn't vote and 32% saying they should. But then the remaining 11% remaining neutral or saying they didn't know. And then actually, you know, extending this beyond the UK, you have them now joining a shore but growing list of countries allowing teenagers to vote, including Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Greece, and Indonesia. You know, bringing your question back around, Brandon, about whether this is going to be coming to the U.S. I don't know. I don't think so, at least not soon. You know, roughly a third of the states in the U.S. actually allow 17-year-olds to vote in primaries

if they're going to be 18 by the time that general elections roll around. And about a dozen cities allow people as young as 16 to vote in school board elections or just, you know, in local elections. But as far as, like, on the national level, I don't think that it's there. There have actually been Democratic lawmakers who have introduced legislation to lower the voting age, but there's been no success there. We even saw a Hill Harris ex-pole asked this question back in 2019 with 75% of registered voters at the time saying no to 17-year-olds voting and whopping 84% saying no to 16-year-olds. And having not thought about it a ton, I'm not quick to jump at it. But I do think your point of if you're being taxed, there's an argument to be had of you should have a say, I think that there's something there. But then the counterpoint of that, and it is completely anecdotal.

I am going to stress that. I just think back to how fucking stupid I was when I was 16 and I'm like, I don't know if I want that guy voting. But there have been studies that show that the younger we allow citizens to vote, the more likely they are to retain that habit of voting. So for the time being, I don't want to cop out here. I want to give you an answer. For the time being, my answer is I think I'm against it, but I am open for my mind to be changed on it. Which is then why I'm going to pass the question off to y'all. What do you think about dropping the voting age to 16? Are you for it? Are you against it? Why? Why not? I'd love to hear from you.

But then, my friends, is the end of today's show. But this weekend, actually on Saturday morning, I got a video for you. I'm thinking around with a few things as far as Friday, Saturday, Sunday stuff. So definitely look out for that, but no matter what, I'll see you right back here on Monday. Stay safe out there, stay sane out there, and I'll see you soon.