The Philip DeFranco Show - Trump’s Fed War Just Got Worse, Lisa Cook “Firing” Explained, Flag Burning Ban, & Today’s News

Episode Date: August 26, 2025

Go to: http://nordprotect.com/philprotect and use code philprotect at checkout to get an extra 5% off on NordProtect plans. Go to http://zbiotics.com/DEFRANCO and use code DEFRANCO at checkout to get up to 15% off your first order. https://BeautifulBastard.com Grab your new Tees, crewnecks, and tanks rn! LISTEN TO THE SHOW iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-philip-defranco-show/id1278424954 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ESemquRbz6f8XLVywdZ2V WATCH/LISTEN TO MY NEW PODCAST w/ JB Pritzker Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2CePXwDrvdQTes844wflKp?si=55a6b6049c4841ed Youtube: https://youtube.com/acw?sub_confirmation=1 iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/in-good-faith-with-philip-defranco/id1827016835 JOIN OUR COMMUNITY 📸Instagram: https://instagram.com/PhillyDeFranco  🐦Twitter: https://twitter.com/phillyd  🎵TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@philipdefranco  Check out Joey Politano:https://x.com/josephpolitano?s=21&t=l65xQXntGinT95IUl-_SWghttps://www.apricitas.io/ TODAY’S STORIES 00:00 - Trump Could Upend the Global Economy by Removing Fed Governor Lisa Cook 07:18 - Joey Politano Breaks Down the Importance of Lisa Cook’s Firing 11:54 - Sponsored by Nord Protect 12:56 - Trump Says Many People Want a Dictator, & Some on the Right Really Do 15:41 - Man Burns American Flag After Trump Orders Flag Burning Ban 19:57 - Sponsored by ZBiotics 20:56 - Trump Threatens to Sue CA Over Redistricting Plan 25:40 - AI Is Already Taking Jobs From Entry-Level Workers 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 #DonaldTrump #LisaCook Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donald Trump, who has continually said that people are saying they want a dictator, is now officially going to war with the First Amendment. Also, this Trump-Fed war is crazier and more consequential than most people know, and Trump just tried to fire a Federal Reserve governor, which is something no president has ever done. And if he succeeds, we could be looking at a very different world. We just got a surprising twist to the U.S. gerrymandering war. 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.

Trump's war on the Federal Reserve just hit a new crazy level, and it's putting the global economy at risk. And this most recent move centers around the constitutional standout between Donald Trump and this woman, Lisa Cook. Because Trump just said, you're fired. She said, no, I'm not, and now nobody knows what's going to happen. And so for context, you should definitely know who Lisa Cook is, at least from here on out. And why many people say she's one of the few people keeping Trump from wrecking the American economy more than he already had. So in short, she's a very accomplished economist professor. And actually, since 2022, the first black woman to serve on the board of the Federal Reserve,

with Biden appointing her to a 14-year term that ends in 2038, that is, unless she is removed for cause by the president. Now, that appears to be exactly what Trump is attempting to do, though it's unclear whether he actually can. Or because the law that created the Federal Reserve in 1913 didn't specify what a legitimate cause for removing a board governor would be. The legal experts generally agree it's some kind of malfeasance or dereliction of duty, but the question has never actually been tested in court because no president in history has ever tried to do it. But of course, we're talking about Trump and he loves bulldozing norms. So what we're seeing is that the malfeasance that he is alleging is that in 2021, Cook apparently listed two different properties as their primary residence within two weeks while applying for mortgages on. Which I'll say for context, lenders generally give lower interest rates for primary residents because they're seen as less risky. So Trump's argument is that there's no legit reason she would have two primary residents at once. Therefore, this is fraud.

However, when you had CNN reviewing the mortgage documents, they listed her properties as principal residence, not primary residences. And as experts have pointed out, it's possible to have more than one principal residence. And even if it wasn't, borrowers often don't even read these specific documents. So her intent would be hard to prove. But regardless, in the past week, Trump has called on Cook to resigned and threatened to fire her and now announced. that he is actually firing her. Which notably, if his order stands, could give Trump unprecedented control over the Fed. Right, because he's already got two appointees on the board from his first term, and this month, another member resigned six months earlier than expected.

With Trump then quickly putting one of his own in her plays, and now if he replaces Cook as well, that would give him four allies on the seven-member board. Though, I will say, and this is a huge thing, to actually change interest rates, he would meet a majority on the broader 12-member committee, of which the board is a part, and that includes five presidents of the regional Fed banks. But also, in February, all the bank presidents will be up for renewal, and that has to be approved by the board. So if Trump controls the board, then he could exert pressure on the committee.

And the final nail in the coffin is that he gets to appoint a new Fed chair in May, replacing Jerome Powell, all of which could get him what he's been trying to get for months now. Very deep interest rate cuts. Because cutting interest rates speeds up the economy and it makes it easier for the government to finance its budget deficit. Which, of course, is something that Trump really needs to do after signing his so-called big, beautiful bill. But while lowering rates may be good in the short term, it's arguably not so good in the long term. And that's for a number of reasons, including if the Fed's independence from political pressure is put in doubt, then so is its credibility as a guard against runaway inflation.

And if investors think that there is a greater risk of inflation in the future, they might compensate for that by raising the interest on their own credit, making mortgages and other long-term loans more expensive for the average American. Plus, I mean, too much inflation is just bad in itself. All of which is why Trump's advisors have so far convinced him not to fire Jerome Powell, but Trump's getting antsy. Reportedly, he wants rate cuts as much as three whole percentage points. Which in case it does not sound like much to you, to be clear, that is enormous.

Right, even when the Fed cut rates by one point last year, that was considered a lot. It's been holding out on any more cuts since then. And so, in short, the stakes of firing, Cook, they're huge, which is why everyone's been freaking out about it. But this is also where things get dramatic because Cook, I mean, she's openly defying the president with her saying last week after Trump threatened to fire her, I have no intention of being bullied to step down from my position

because of some questions raised in a tweet. I do intend to take any questions about my financial history seriously as a member of the Federal Reserve, and so I am gathering the accurate information to answer any legitimate questions and provide the facts. And then this week after Trump fired her, I guess at the least told her she was fired, Cook responded, President Trump purported to fire me for cause when no cause exists under the law and

he has no authority to do so. And adding, I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022. With her attorney then announcing today that they're suing the Trump administration, saying President Trump has no authority to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. His attempt to fire her based solely on a referral letter lacks any factual or legal basis. We will be filing a lawsuit challenging this illegal action. And you've got legal expert saying that on a first glance, they've got a pretty strong case. Because not only has she not been convicted yet, she hasn't even been charged. I mean, this is all based on a criminal referral. Plus, there's the simple fact that even if the alleged fraud did happen, it took place before she

answered her current role. Which, you know, just generally speaking, you could argue fraud matters. I think that is a valid thing. But whether something completely unrelated to her duties as a board governor counts is cause for firing, that's a separate question that the courts would have to answer. But with all that said, on the other side, you had Trump's Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik making this argument on CNBC. A governor of the Federal Reserve literally signs her name and commits mortgage fraud, right? It's alleged that she's committed mortgage fraud, and she says, I'm not going anywhere. Well, the crook always says, I'm not going anywhere.

And why would anybody defend that? The real question should be, did she commit mortgage fraud? Yes or no? And if you did commit mortgage fraud, please get out of the federal government, get out of the seat of the governor of the Federal Reserve, and go away. But then, you have critics of the move, countering that anyone with two eyes and ears can see that this is nothing to do with Cook's supposed mortgage fraud. With, for example, one Fed historian telling the Washington Post, this is the escalation of a prolonged and ongoing assault on the Fed's legitimacy and the Fed's independence. It's for one purpose and one purpose alone, to bully the Fed to dramatically lower interest rates. Right, and that playing out is you at economist Paul Krugman saying on his substack, if Powell Caves or the Supreme Court acts supine again and validates Trump's illegal declaration, the implications will be profound and disastrous.

The United States will be well on its way to becoming Turkey, where an authoritarian ruler imposed his crackpot economics on the central bank, sending inflation soaring to 80%. And the damage will be felt far beyond the Fed. This will mark the destruction of professionalism and independent thinking throughout the federal government. But then this also, it goes beyond the Fed in another way, and that's the pattern of Trump using mortgage fraud allegations to persecute his political enemies. With very interestingly, is administration making the same criminal referral for Letitia James, the New York Attorney General, who sued him, and Adam Schiff, the Democratic Senator who led impeachment proceedings against him. And all three, criminal referrals against Cook, James, and Schiff, they came from the same little office in one corner of the federal government, the federal housing finance agency or FHFA. And that agency is led by a man by the name of Bill Pulte, right, an enthusiastically loyal Trump minion. And in his role, he oversees two incredibly important state-run mortgage finance companies that you may have heard of, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.

And together, they guarantee about half of the existing home loan market, which is trillions of dollars large. But back in March, Pulte overhauled their boards, made himself chairman of both, and then purged top staff. And so as a result, experts say he could have access to vast troves of personal mortgage data on millions of Americans. So perhaps it's then not a coincidence that he was the first person to accuse cook of fraud with him personally attacking her on social media for a week now and saying last night, if you commit mortgage fraud in America, we will come after you, no matter who you are, and adding, fraud will not be tolerated in President Trump's housing market. But there, as one expert explained to the post, mortgage fraud investigations are typically brought by the FHFA's inspector general, not the agency's head. Which is then why so many people see this is transparently political with that expert saying. This is like the county sheriff who has his deputies pull over his political opponents every time they drive on the parkway.

But also, because his story is so consequential and it's very easy to get lost in the weeds, I'm bringing on a guy who's way smarter than me on this to break things down, economist Joey Palatano. You might have seen him on X. He's also got a substack newsletter where he writes about economics. You should definitely check it out. But we just jumped into it. So, Joey, is there any historical precedent for what Trump's trying to do with Lisa Cook here? Very, very little. This is the first time a member of the Fed has been fired by the sitting president. And it's certainly the only time in which this has done with so little procedure beforehand. So people on the Fed have been removed before. I'll give an example of Richard Clarita, who was the former vice chair who left,

basically after an investigation into his stock picking behavior. But that's something where you had an inciting incident, years of investigation, internal to the Fed, and then not even an action by the president, but in terms of the Fed, basically pressure to resign and then replace. The idea of just like firing someone off the bat is unheard of. And the only comparison points in American history are not pretty. It's stuff like Richard Nixon pressuring the members of the Fed to lower interest rates during his presidency. It's like very early on in the history before the existence of an independent central bank.

And the comparisons to foreign countries are also really not pretty. I think the closest example you come to places aren't at the United States is Erdogan. in Turkey, replacing the head of the Turkish central bank several times because he wanted lower interest rates, even though inflation was really high. And then inflation kept getting higher and higher in Turkey because he kept replacing the head of the central bank for keeping rates higher than Erdogan wanted. Do you feel like this is, I want to get rid of this person. Let's work away back from that.

It's 100%. It's, I want to get rid of this person. Let's work our way backwards from there. And now, obviously, you would, if this was a real thing, you could get someone in court, get a grand jury indictment, go forward, blah, blah, blah. That's not what they're doing in these cases. You know, this is specifically, I'm trying to discredit someone in a position of power who opposes me, and therefore I'm going to go to this accusation because they oppose me. I think it's very rich when people are saying, like, Donald Trump really cares about ethics and mortgage lending.

You know, that is not something he genuinely cares about. And, I mean, you can point to his individual actions when he was a real estate mogul in falsifying records that was way more extreme than claiming two places as a primary residence, which is not ipso facto illegal, by the way. And then secondarily, you know, people like Eric Adams, who, in my opinion, not as a legal expert, have done things of way worse. And the Trump administration has dropped the charges on them because they seem more. willing to play political ball. So I do not think that if, you know, they discovered that one of the Trump appointees had done the exact same thing, would they have gone after them? Would they have fervor? Absolutely not. If they discovered someone who, you know, was totally unrelated to the Federal Reserve, had done the exact same thing. Absolutely not. And you'll remember

even like a few weeks ago, the accusation was, hey, Jerome Powell, he's doing these renovations of the Fed building. Is he like doing corruption in renovating the building? You had that very silly seen with Trump and Powell and hard hats at the Fed building. Like they were looking for a reason here much more than just honestly saying, okay, let's look at the ethics of the Federal Reserve system. No, thinking back to the Powell clip of let me see that paper. Love that. But the last thing I'll leave you with, or as far as the question, is, you know, economists often say that greater independence for central banks is better for national economies as a whole. What can you tell me, what does the data and research say there? It's 100% in that camp. There's a lot. There's

very few things that every single economist is going to agree on. The idea that the Federal Reserve should be insulated from short-term political pressure is one of them, one of the major ones. And so the reason why Nixon wanted more control of the Fed, you know, his strategy was much more subterfuge political pressure than the more like the obvious strategy that Trump is going. But he wanted rates lower in election years so that the economy would grow more at the cost of more inflation. The problem is if you keep doing that, eventually you just get inflation and you don't get the economic growth. And so there's no, you know, there's no economist that's going to sit there and tell you and say that the Federal Reserve decision, the interest rate decision is being made at the level of the president, which is seemingly what this administration wants, is a good idea. And there's a reason why no country does it like that. Joey, thank you for the time.

Thank you for having me on. And then there's more I'm going to dive into with you in a second. But first, let me say, you know, a buddy of mine recently got hacked and then someone applied for a credit card in his name through, let's say, a very well-known bank we all know. He calls them the second he finds. out and their responses, sorry, don't know what to tell you. And not only was the car to prove, they wouldn't tell him where it was being sent or how to stop it. I mean, talk about feeling helpless. And that's just one of the reasons I use Nord Protect. Today's sponsor and a legit all in one hub to protecting your identity. I mean, it monitors everything, the dark web, your credit, even criminal records all in one place working quietly in the background 24-7. You get real-time alerts if someone opens an account in your name, or if your info gets leaked. When I added my

details, it instantly flagged multiple breaches I didn't even know about. And if things go sideways, NordProtect includes up to a million dollars in recovery coverage, plus a dedicated case manager to walk you through cleanup. They also cover cyber scams, extortion attempts, and even malware-related damage. Set-ups quick, supports 24-7, and their flexible plans actually makes sense. Say, if you want protection that actually does something, scan the QR code or go to NordProtect.com slash PhilProtect and use code fill protect for an extra 5% off. It's NordProtect.com slash PhilProtect, protect, protect your identity before someone else uses it. But then, jumping back into the news, you know, we got to talk about the fact that even if Trump is attacking the independence of the the Fed. He isn't a dictator yet, but a lot of people want him to be. And I'm not saying

that hyperbolicly. I'm not even saying it anecdotally. Like, this is what the numbers are showing us. Right to Trump, he recently responded to criticism over his current and planned future deployment of the military in U.S. cities. And they say, we don't need them. Freedom, freedom. He's a dictator. He's a dictator. A lot of people are saying maybe we like a dictator. I don't like a dictator. I'm not a dictator. I'm a man with great common sense and the smart person. But of course, not everyone found his response all that reassuring. Because for For one, he often uses the phrasing, many or a lot of people are saying to promote controversial or false ideas that he agrees with.

Not to mention, he does in fact like a dictator, or actually several. At least based on how frequently he's expressed his admiration for authoritarian leaders, including Russia's Putin, Hungary's Orban, or El Salvador's Buckele, just to name a few. In fact, yesterday, while speaking with the South Korean president, you had him heaping praise on the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, not for the first time, but laying it on especially thick. I have a great relationship with Kim Jong-un. I understand him.

I spent a lot of free time. time with him talking about things that we probably aren't supposed to talk about. And, uh, you know, I just, I get along with him really well. I think he has a country of great potential, tremendous potential. And actually, even before that meeting, when speaking to the press in the Oval Office, he was talking about Kim Jong-un, kind of like, have you ever had, have you ever had that friend that's in a relationship with someone you're like, that is, that is not a good relationship. And they respond. I know him better than you do. I know I'm better than anybody, almost, other than a sister. With Trump then continuing and acting like he's kind of a hero for being so honest about Kim Jong-un.

You know, I'm not supposed to say I really like him a lot because if I do that, I get killed in the fake news media. But I got along with it very well. And we had no problem. You then also had Trump saying things like he'd like to rename the Department of Defense, back to what it was called before World War II, the Department of War. Though notably even there, he was thinking about doing stuff unilaterally. How do you plan to do that? It requires an act of Congress to rename the Defense Department to the Department of Court? We're just going to do it. I'm sure Congress will go along. If we need that, I don't think we even need that, but if we need that, I'm sure Congress will go along. But back to the main point, whether or not Trump actually wants to be dictator, though, it seems a certain way.

There are actually a lot of Republicans who would seemingly be more than okay with that. I mean, you have things like before the last election, more than 24% of Republicans saying that if Trump lost, you should do whatever it takes to take power. Now that he's back in office, polls consistently have shown that the views haven't changed. One, for example, 28% of Republicans said the country needed a president who was, quote, willing to break some rules and laws to set things right? And then another, 44% said that the court shouldn't even be allowed to review Trump's policies. Out there, full send, fuck a check, fuck a balance.

And these are really important polls and numbers you shouldn't forget, and you should keep in the back of your mind. But then actually, you know, speaking as something a dictator might do, we should talk about how Trump just declared war on the First Amendment as we know it. Because yesterday, Trump signed an executive order titled prosecuting burning of the American flag. Trump's order, demanding that his administration prosecute those caught desecrating the star-spangled banner. And if that move is raising some red flags to you, yeah, not only because it seems like something that would be protected by the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court already gave a ruling about burning flags more than 30 years ago. Right back in 1989, the Supreme Court issued a five to four ruling that found burning the American flag is protected by the First Amendment. And then they upheld that in 1990 when Congress tried passing a law banning the burning of flags despite the initial Supreme Court ruling. However, a specific thing that we're seeing from Trump's new order is that he's arguing that people burn the flag in order to incite riots and violence. Right, so to a different degree, kind of like someone yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. And so he's order,

attorney general Pam Bondi to investigate cases where flags were burned to see if those people can be hit with another charge like disorderly conduct, property destruction, or environmental laws. So the order doesn't outright criminalize burning flags. It is setting up yet another court battle over the issue. A battle that it seems that he's wanting to have so that it can make its way to the Supreme Court where big thing, you have a much more conservative Supreme Court than back in 1989 and they've shown they kind of don't give a shit about precedent. You know, if you've been paying attention, all of this has been a long time coming. Trump's spoken out against the desecration of the American flag for years. I mean, last year he gave an interview with Fox and Friends.

saying anyone who desecrates the flag in any way should go to prison for a year and dadding. No, people will say, oh, it's unconstitutional. Those are stupid people. Those are stupid people that say that we have to work in Congress to get a one-year jail sentence. Hell, not only was he pushing the one-year-in-jail idea back in 2016, he said on Twitter at the time, perhaps loss of citizenship or a year in jail. And one of the big things here is that general opinion seems to agree with them. A U-Gov poll from 2023, for example, showed that nearly 60% of people always disagree with burning flags at protests.

And then you see things like a U-Gov poll back in 2020 finding that, that 50% said that it should be illegal. Hell, you go back far enough, even Hillary Clinton stood against it back in 2006. She even took to the Senate floor on behalf of a bill titled the Flag Protection Act that would have made it a crime to desecrate the flag. I agree wholeheartedly that maliciously burning

or destroying an American flag is a deeply offensive and despicable act. What I do know though generally is where you and kind of pass your by stand, or because this morning in a YouTube community poll, I asked you whether or not you think burning the American flag should be illegal. But then the vast majority of y'all

given a resounding no, and really only around 11% being split between yes and unsure, which I expected, but definitely an interesting result. Especially as we're seeing Trump's new order sparking a lot of backlash from experts, people like Robert, Corn Revere, Chief Counsel, the Federation of Individual Rights and Expressions, saying, you don't have to like flag burning, you can condemn it, debate it, or hoist your own flag even higher. The beauty of free speech is that you get to express your opinions, even if others don't like what you have to say.

But it's also not just experts bothered, you're seeing regular folk as well as vets. And in fact, you had a man who identified himself as a 20-year combat veteran posting up in Lafayette Square across the street from the White House yesterday, burning an American flag and protest to Trump's executive order. No president can make a law, period. No Congress will make a law infringing on First Amendment rights. I'm burning his flag as a protest to that illegal fascist president that sits in that house. Every single one of you American citizens, we've burned this flag in protest. Right, now the fire was quickly put out by law enforcement, and the man was detained by the Secret Service before then being turned over to the U.S. Park Police,

which arrested him for violating a statute that prohibits lighting a fire in a public park. One of the things that you've seen is that the online conversation surrounding that video has been fairly mixed, right? Some people calling him disrespectful and is an idiot, while others have said things like so happy he did this. I hope they give him the mandatory one year, and he then takes his case all the way to the Supreme Court so they can rule once again that flag burning is protected under. the First Amendment, mad respect. But again, that thinking assumes that the Supreme Court will honor precedent here. This still less than a year second Trump administration sprint that we've been seeing, it's, I mean, it's all about testing the boundaries. Doing as much

before the courts stop you, then take it to the Supreme Court to see what you can do with your huge conservative majority. And so far, that's been a winning strategy for them. Whether the end result is that you actually overturn precedent, you do a lot while you can, or just kind of having a chilling effect on anyone pushing against you. But for now, I want to pass the question off and hear from you, right? What are your thoughts on this new order the guy in Lafayette Square or just burning flags in general? And then I've actually got more for you in just one minute, but first let me say, you ever feel like your liver just left your text on red after a night out? Because yeah, been there, which is why I use today's sponsor, Zbiotics pre-alcohol.

This is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic drink built by PhD scientists way smarter than me. And it's one job breaking down that unwanted byproduct of alcohol in your gut, the real culprit behind rough mornings. Because fun fact, it's not actually just the dehydration doing you dirty. It's that toxic byproduct building up. And pre-alcohol was designed to take care of it so you can enjoy tonight and still function tomorrow. And how you use it simple. Step one, pre-alcohol is your first drink of the night. Step two, drink responsibly. And then step three, actually enjoy it tomorrow. And I was definitely skeptical at first, but the first time I tried it before drinks with friends,

I woke up feeling completely normal and even kept my morning plans. And that's a sweet spot. Zbiotics isn't for overdoing it. It's for responsible people who want to have fun and still crush the next day. It's perfect for summer nights, camping, or that last vacation road trip. Say, hey, what are you waiting for? Just scan that QR code or go to Zbiotics.com slash DeFranco and use Code DeFranco for 15% off your first order. And hey, they've got a 100% money-back guarantee, so there's literally no risk.

But then, you know, diving back into the news. Free speech, it's not the only pillar of democracy that seems to be at risk of crumbling. Right, because this U.S. gerrymandering war, it's just getting bigger and bigger. With now another state redrawing its congressional map in the middle of the decade. Though this time, it's said to prevent gerrymandering,

and it's on a judge's order. Right, because in Utah, you have Judge Diana Gibson ruling against the state's Republican-led legislature and ordering new maps drawn for 2026. With the reasoning having less to do with the actual design of the old maps, but the way we ended up with them in the first place. Right, because back in 2018, Utah voters approved a ballot initiative setting up an independent redistricting commission to draw boundaries for the state's legislative and congressional districts. But then, wouldn't you know it in 2020, the lawmakers there effectively repealed the initiative by transforming the commission into an advisory board that they could just ignore if they disagreed with its recommendations. And the next year, that's exactly what you saw happen, with lawmakers rejecting every congressional map put forward by the board and just coming up with their own vision.

But now you've got Judge Gibson ruling at the state legislature. legislature unconstitutionally repealed the ballot measure in writing. Redistricting is not a mere exercise in political line drawing, it strikes at the very heart of our democracy. The way district boundaries are drawn determines whether the right to vote is meaningful, whether equal protection is honored, and whether the fundamental promises of our state and federal constitutions are upheld. How district lines are drawn can either safeguard representation and ensure accountability by elected representatives or erode public trust, silence, voices, and weaken the rule of law. But even with all that said, it's actually unclear whether Utah will really have new maps in time for the next election.

Right, because the Republicans there, they know how to play the game and they're expected to appeal. And there's a chance that they could just run out the clock and avoid adopting new maps until at least 2028. Whichever way this goes, I mean, it could be huge. I mean, it could be the game changer in terms of control of Congress. At least, you know, when you consider the razor-thin margins in the House right now. Because currently, Utah has four representatives in Congress and they're all Republican. Right. But the current map, the one not recommended by the nonpartisan commission, it splits the residents of Salt Lake County between those four districts.

In Salt Lake County, it's a Democratic stronghold that also accounts for around 36% of the state's population. So there's definitely potential for a new, more fairly drawn map to make a difference here. Though, I will say, you know, while this really, really matters, the outcome of the next election may ultimately depend on what happens with Texas, California, and whatever other states decide to get involved in the ongoing gerrymandering war. Because as we've talked about in detail, Trump asked Texas for five more Republican seats in Congress. They said, yes, daddy, of course, daddy, and the legislature approving a new map over the weekend.

Then, on the other side, in response to that, you had California Governor Gavin Newsom and State Democrats setting up a special election in November that will let people vote on whether or not California should counter Texas with a new map of its own. With California, you have Trump saying they are going to try to torpedo that. You mentioned Gavin Newsom on crime. Gavin Newscombe, yes. Is there a federal mechanism you're hoping to fight back against his redistricting constitutional amendment or is that-

Well, I think I'm going to be filing a lawsuit pretty soon, and I think we're going to be very successful in it. We're going to be filing it through the Department of Justice. That's going to happen. With then, Newsom saying in response to that, bring it. But of course, you know, it's not clear. clear yet if and when the DOJ will actually bring it or what kind of case they'll try to make or if Trump's just kind of talking out of his ass. But either way, there's already another challenge to

Newsom's plan and this coming from California Republicans filing an emergency petition asking the state Supreme Court to block the November ballot measure. With a 432 page complaint arguing that the plan violates the state constitution and certain state laws and Republican state senator Tony Strickland saying, as long as I have breath in my body, I am going to fight every step of the way. Every loophole they do, every constitutional measure they break, we're going to challenge them in court. That is, oddly Strickland, didn't have much to say in the way of criticism for Trump or Texas Republicans in their redistricting effort. It's funny how that works. It's almost like you stand for nothing except trying to get more power for you and your buddies. But the same can be said of 13 Texas residents who have now filed a lawsuit alleging that the state's redrawn districts are racially discriminatory.

Or with her complaint saying that what we've seen is an unnecessary mid-decade revision of Texas's congressional districts that intentionally dismantles a majority minority districts from the prior plan explicitly because of the racial composition of those districts. With a complaint then noting, for example, that the new map establishes only one majority Latino district in Harris County, even though the county is nearly half Latino, according to the latest U.S. census. Also, according to the census, Latinos actually make up the largest share of Texas's population, and people described as Texans of color have been responsible for as much as 95% of the state's recent population growth. But the complaint says that's not reflected in the new congressional map either. Though then, as far as the state's response, you had Governor Greg Abbott's office still defending the new map.

With the spokesperson claiming in a statement that it allows more Texans to vote for the candidate of their choice, and adding, voters, especially Hispanic Texans, are increasingly moving away from Democrats and deserve to vote for candidates who better align with their values. And while we're going to have to wait to see what happens here and in the rest of the country, one thing is clear for sure. Democrats need to do everything they legally can and show a spine here. Because many Republicans nationwide have made it clear that the goal is power by any way necessary. Rules for thee, but not for me.

And the only way back to normal is to fight where the fight has gone. But hey, that's just one idiot's thoughts, I guess. The next in other grim news about the future of America. If you're an entry-level worker, AI is already taking your jobs. And that's not just anecdotal. This is actually backed up by a first-of-its-kind study now. With that new study, which was released just today by three Stanford economists, appearing to provide hard evidence to support the stories we've been increasingly hearing for years now about AI stealing jobs.

Now, notably, I'll say the research hasn't yet been peer-reviewed, but the work, it's very thorough, and the research has accounted for other explanations that could impact employment. Where things like economic shocks that affect certain industries and firms, the impact of remote work, and outsourcing, the general slowdown in tech, hiring, and post-COVID education trends. And their findings here, they are massively consequential. I mean, specifically, the economists analyzed data from ADP, the largest payroll software provider in America, and they drew from records for millions of workers across tens of thousands of firms.

With that data, also including detailed information on workers' ages and occupations, and that's actually very significant because, as the Wall Street Journal explained, the specificity of the data means that this reporting is, quote, one of the clearest indicators yet of AI's disruptive impact and is far more comprehensive than the survey of the survey of households the Labor Department uses for its monthly employment report. And actually at first, when the economists looked at the data as a whole, it didn't appear that AI was having a major impact on jobs. That's likely because generally speaking, most industries aren't seeing sweeping gains from

AI, at least from a business perspective. Or because at least currently, most of the benefits are concentrated within a few specific occupation. And so with the researchers zooming in and looking at specific positions where AI could be used to automate many key tasks of workers. Jobs like software developers, receptionist, translators, and customer service representatives. From there, they discovered that overall, employment in those categories had softened since late 2022 when compared to other occupations. But where it actually gets really interesting is when you break the data down further by age, because economists found that when looking at the most AI exposed jobs, employment for early career workers aged 22 to 25,

those have fallen 13% overall since the widespread adoption of AI. And for some jobs, the figures are even more extreme, with, for example, employment for software developers in that age group falling nearly 20% from 2022 to 2025. This is, and this is a key thing here, the employment rate actually increased slight. over the same period for mid-career and senior software developers age 31 to 50 plus. So it's also not just software developers. The same trends are largely true for customer service representatives. But then, by comparison, when the researchers looked at overall employment for young workers, they found that it has been relatively stagnant yet steady.

And in jobs less exposed to AI, young workers have experienced comparable employment growth to older workers. And very notably here, the data indicated that employment declines are concentrated in occupations where AI is being used to replace workers, but not in jobs where AI is used to help humans. And that holds true for entry-level jobs as well. In fact, overall, employment has actually increased in jobs that use AI to help in their work. So that brings in the question of, well, what might be driving the gap between younger and older workers exposed to AI? And well, according to one of the authors, Eric Bryn Yolfson, the difference could stem from the fact that both entry-level workers and AI have more book knowledge than on-the-job experience. Where senior workers have more tacit knowledge, they learn tricks to the trade that maybe never get written down.

Those are not the things that the AI has been able to learn, at least not yet. But the implications there, they go beyond entry-level workers. For example, the Wall Street Journal is saying, this raises a potential labor market paradox. If the only way to develop that knowledge is to put in time doing work that AI has largely automated away, who will replace today's experts when they retire? And that is, Brinjolfson also says the multi-trillion dollar question is whether AI will start to impact higher-level jobs as the technology improves. That's a very real possibility given how fast AI's job impact is gone from theoretical to real, with him arguing.

This is the fastest, broadest change that I've seen. All of which I will say is why I'm very much of the mindset of if you love AI, you hate AI. Obviously, it's not just one big thing. It can be multifaceted. It feels more and more like the only way not you get crushed by AI or passed up because of AI is to learn how to use these things as tools. And of course, all of this is, you know, I always say, where we are with AI today is the worst it will ever be again. But that my friend is the end of today's show. Tap or click right here to watch your newest episode of my podcast or tap or click right here to watch the most recent Philip DeFranco show. If you've even got links in the description for you for either of those, for

YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you most enjoy getting filled in. Thank you for watching. I love yo faces and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.