The Candace Owens Charlie Kirk Leaks Spark MAGA Meltdown & TPUSA Accusations

Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show. You daily dive into the news. It's Tuesday and there's a lot to talk about, starting with this. This Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk, MAGA divide situation is crazy.

Especially as you've got Candace Owens dropping alleged Charlie Kirk text screenshots. Because if you haven't seen, ever since Charlie Kirk was assassinated, you've had Candace Owens out there questioning the federal investigation,

discussing it frequently on our podcast and putting out some of her own theories or possibilities as to why or how he was killed. And with all that, she's often claimed that Charlie, who had long been pro-Israel, was starting to change his mind and had become more critical.

And she got a ton of attention when she claimed that MAGA and pro-Israel billionaire Bill Ackman had privately cornered Charlie at an event in the Hamptons not long before his death and made quote, threats after Charlie questioned the way that Israel was handling the war. Now, Ackman denied that and you had Charlie's producer and spokesperson claiming that Charlie had a cordial relationship with Bill.

But apparently at this Hamptons meeting, people were questioning whether or not Charlie should host Tucker Carlson, who he's been very critical of Israel at an upcoming event and Kirk allegedly claimed, honestly, people telling me not to have Tucker

makes me want to have Tucker. And all this ties to some of the latest claims that Candace has made saying yesterday on her show that Charlie was quote, done with Israel bullying him and then sharing screenshots of messages that she claims came from a group chat that Charlie was in with his pastor and seven other people where he said.

So Charlie writes in this group chat, just lost another huge Jewish donor, 2 million a year because we won't cancel Tucker. I'm thinking of inviting Candace." Somebody writes, Oh, Charlie writes,

Jewish donors play into all of the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this, leaving me no choice, but to leave the pro Israel cause. And somebody writes, Dona writes, please do not invite Candace.

That might feel good short term, but it's not good longterm. This is 48 hours before Charlie was assassinated. He was very clear and he was very explicit and he did not back down, not in that Hamptons meeting,

which they're all lying about, nor in this text thread.

Now with this, it seems like Candace wasn't part of this alleged group chat. doesn't make it a hundred percent clear how she got these apparent messages, which I also will say have not been independently verified by any major news outlets, at least as of recording. Right, but this comes as she was also alleging that higher-ups at Turning Point USA are trying to stop her and others

from investigating Charlie's death and promoting their own conspiracies about what happened.

What we do know definitively is that the feds are lying to us. That is obvious. It is obvious, it is abundant. If you're able to think thoughts, you recognize that something is very wrong with the story that has been presented to the public. And I think that what the public doesn't understand,

and I count myself among the public, is why it seems as though Turning Point USA executives, and I'll say seems, are not even remotely interested in challenging that official narrative. Who are they protecting exactly? You'll see oftentimes they and other influencers

will invoke Erica as the reason that it's not appropriate to ask questions. It's just not appropriate while Erica is still mourning for you guys to ask any questions. And I'm just gonna come back at you with some common sense. What sort of widow wouldn't want people

to investigate the assassination of their husband?

You also had Candace claiming that Charlie had been discussing his increased interest in Catholicism with her, even sharing a screenshot where it appears that he said it was looking better and better. And while she also said that he wasn't

in the process of converting, she suggested that he was toying with the idea. But also apparently people at TPUSA were denying that he had a major interest in converting to Catholicism and this upset Candace Owens as she felt that that was not being fully honest. Right, and she was overall just upset that she believes that Turning Point execs

are telling small lies here and there about Charlie and questioning why they would be doing this. With the then, tying it back to the comments that Charlie allegedly made about the donors withholding money and adding. You got people that are hosting a show.

Have they in like one honorable thing come out and said, like, you know what, F a couple of these donors who made his life a living hell in the last couple of weeks. That registers to me as very suspicious. I'm gonna frankly say that it's suspicious to me.

It makes me think that in the way, in the same way that Charlie was being pressured by money, that you might be now run by that same money.

With Candace also claiming that Turning Point has made tens of millions of dollars since Charlie died and saying that from the organization's perspective.

So how are we supposed to honor Charlie, right? You honor Charlie, of course, by donating to Turning Point USA and shutting up and trusting the feds. Don't question anything.

Right, and so you've had tons of people seeing Candace share this, especially the screenshots discussing donors and thinking she's dropping a major bombshell here. Right, and then with all that, you had Andrew Colvitt, a spokesperson for TPUSA

and a producer of the Charlie Kirk show saying today that yes, the texts are real and that he was in the group chat and he was the one who took the screenshots. Then he added that he never shared them with the public because they were private messages and he'd only given them to the government amid the initial investigation to Charlie's death.

But they somehow made their way out to the world and then adding.

In those first moments, we wanted no nothing unturned. So I shared it with a few people. One of the reasons, Blake, that I'm glad to have this now public, it was not mine to share publicly, but one of the criticisms we've received is that we don't care, we're not investigating every lead, we're not looking under every stone.

When I say that we want justice for Charlie more than anybody else, I really mean it, and no stone unturned.

With that, another guy on the show saying that the reason some of the organization aren't talking about it is because they don't wanna interfere with the ongoing investigation. And Andrew adding that he doesn't begrudge anyone publicly asking questions,

but also adding that he believes that Charlie's views towards Israel were totally transparent.

What is the truth about the way Charlie felt about Israel? Well, it's complicated and it's nuanced and it was a wrestle that was going on for months. I looked at that moment as like, he's just blown off steam, he's frustrated, he's venting, right? And I just wanna say, like, you know, he made that very clear under any circumstances

that he was not going to be cowed or bullied into deplatforming Tucker, for example.

With him suggesting that Charlie was ultimately pro-Israel, even if he did have some criticisms and questions. Then also you had some noting that Candace's comments about Charlie point to a larger discussion about how different factions of the right are trying to jump on Charlie's death for different reasons. Right, because while it appeared that, you know, she's trying to suggest that TPUSA

is trying to use Charlie's death in a way that best serves the organization, you then also had some turning the tables and saying that the same could be said for Candace. You know, with all this, you even had the Guardian publishing a piece a few weeks ago saying, what is notable about the way the right is responding to Kirk's death is the opportunism.

And going on to say, in a moment when Israel's genocide in Gaza is leading to more open public criticism of Zionism, Owens is capitalizing. She continually refers to Zionists controlling the media in Kirk's speech while he was alive. And then with that, they also spoke to Derek Barris, the co-host of the Conspiratuality podcast, who's an expert in conspiracies and media literacy.

And what you saw is that he noted that it's totally fair for the public to not have faith in Trump and Kash Patel's FBI to question what they're putting out there. But then he also added, quote, "'One thing about Candace is that she's an opportunist There's no consistency. It's about whatever is going to get eyeballs on me. We then also added that this is true for tons of different people,

and that many are vultures trying to use his death to serve themselves. You know, with all that said, as we're watching this play out, I gotta ask you, what are your thoughts, opinions, and reactions to everything we're seeing here?

Because yes, while the Philip DeFranco show, it's a daily news show, really seen just so much movement on this front and divides that weren't there before. And then there's more we've got to dive into, but first let me take a second to say, you know, have you ever wished that break in a bad habit, it came with an easy mode button? Because turns out it does,

and it costs less than a night out at Taco Bell. I mean, today's sponsor, Fume Zero, the grab and go flavored air device but somehow it costs only $24.99. And it's not a vape, it's not a diffuser, it's not a pipe, it's flavored air. Zero nicotine, zero vapor, zero batteries. Which makes it clean, simple,

and way less complicated than anything else you've probably tried. But this thing's sleek, triangular, and fidget-friendly with a subtle click that keeps your hands busy. The tip, it's chewable, which is weird at first, fixation loop that we all know too well. The airflow is adjustable, so you want a stronger draw, twist it, want it lighter, twist again, easy. And the flavors, you get six bold ones,

from crisp mint to peach blush to raspberry, and each lasts up to 10 days. No charging, no refills, no setup, just open and go. It is designed to replace the ritual, not just the habit, the hand-to-amp to a good habit. So take zero chances with Fume Zero today.

Just head to tryfume.com and grab yours today for $24.99. But then next up in the news, one week into this US government shutdown and things are quickly going to shit. Right from chaos with airports across the US to reports that the Trump administration furloughed workers out of back pay. I mean, things are getting messy. Right, and starting with the workers, as soon as the government shut down on October 1st,

pretty much all non-essential staff, about 750,000 people, were furloughed and not being paid. Kind of. And I say kind of because normally, they're entitled to back pay for that time off. But even with that, like it's rare for a government shutdown

to extend past a payday, and missing one paycheck in the short term, it can be catastrophic for most Americans. Which is then, why it was pretty damn shocking to find that the Trump administration is considering not even giving back pay to furloughed workers. And you had that coming from a memo seen by Axios and it's believed that by putting the possibility of no back pay on the table,

that the Trump administration is hoping to force Senate Democrats into a deal. But I will say there's also an even bigger wrinkle to all this, and that is that the plan, it flies in the face of how US law is currently understood. Right, I mean, back in 2019, Trump signed a law that was generally understood to guarantee back pay.

But now you've got officials in the Office of Management and Budget shifting their stance. With one senior White House official, for example, speaking to Axios and saying, does this law cover all these furloughed employees

automatically? is yes, it does. Our view is no, it doesn't. Right, and what they're calling this new interpretation of a law by the Office of Management and Budget, it not only contradicts nearly six years of precedent and understanding, but also recent memos from other Trump agencies. Just this month, the Council of Economic Advisors released a guide about the shutdown,

and they explicitly touched on this when talking about how this would affect contractors, saying unlike federal employees, federal contractors are not entitled to back pay after the conclusion of a shutdown. And that followed a memo from the Office of Personnel Management from last month where it had an FAQ.

And one of the questions was, will employees who are furloughed get paid? And just to keep it short, they said, yes. So as far as how Trump and his administration are trying to justify this, well, shortly after that law was passed in 2019,

it was amended. And in that amendment, the law said that workers would get paid, quote, subject to the enactment of appropriations acts, ending the lapse. That language, it makes it sound like an automatic thing. But Trump, he's arguing that, no, the 2019 law mentions explicitly that year's shutdown, so it's the only one that automatically qualifies.

So according to this train of thought, all future shutdowns would need to have that money specifically set aside by Congress. So I will say it is very hard to find someone outside of Trump's inner circle who supports this interpretation. But also it still could be enough of a threat

to try to pressure Senate Democrats, right? Especially considering the timing, right? October 15th, that's the next government paycheck. And now there's a possible legal battle about whether they're ever gonna get paid. Well, right now, at least according to the polling, more people blame the Republicans and the Democrats for this shutdown. One of the big questions that pops up here,

in addition to, oh my God, how is this going to affect so many hundreds of thousands of Americans, is will this messaging work? Can they muddy the waters, not only for this fight, but maybe even the upcoming midterm? Now with all this, if you're thinking, you know,

this isn't that big of a deal because, you know, how can the shutdown affect you? Well, I do have some bad news for you. One, if you or anyone you know is a contractor for the federal government, they're not entitled to automatic back pay. And in total, the White House itself says that the reduced spending due to federal employees and contractors not getting paid

could mean $30 billion less in the economy. And then two, there are also the potentially deadly impacts around transportation and particularly airports as air traffic controllers and other personnel don't go to work. Though that's not because they're furloughed, actually the opposite. By law, air traffic controllers are not allowed

to leave work to protest or because they're not getting paid. However, a workaround that many ATC use is to just call out sick with the feds pointing out that worker absenteeism among ATCs triples to 10% during government shutdowns. We're actually seeing this play out in real time. You've got airports like Burbank, literally having no one manning air traffic control

yesterday afternoon and evening. With then ATCs in San Diego having to take over and there were also major flight delays. Right, and while in the grand scheme of things, Burbank, it's not the most major airport. It is, one, in SoCal and shares airspace

with major airports like LAX and San Diego, not to mention other regionals like John Wayne and Ontario. But also too, Burbank is hardly alone in dealing with delays and even airports that still have ATCs dealing with massive headaches. Right, Newark, Jacksonville, Chicago, and DC, they've all had less air traffic controllers than usual leading up to multiple hour delays.

And that's not only because the flights get fucked, but also because staff like TSA actually call out more often during shutdowns as well. And then of course, there are just the increased safety concerns that come with fewer air traffic controllers. Which is an occupation that was already heavily short-staffed and facing tons of scrutiny

over recent aviation disasters earlier this year. And so with all this, you've had administration officials like Transportation Secretary, Sean Duffy, recognizing the absences, spiking, and saying in a conference yesterday. And so now what they think about as their control in our airspace is how am I going to pay my mortgage? How do I make my car payment? Do I think they're more stressed

right now in our towers? Yes. Is our airspace unsafe? No.

Right. And then with all that, you had Trump speaking about the situation saying, Oh, sure.

I mean, it's they're all Democrat delays. There are delays at the airport. That's standard. And again, this is something that we've, every day we put forth a bill. Just a continuation. It's a very simple thing to sign and very simple to do. And I really think that these are people that, I think they have nothing to lose. They have a party that's out of control.

They have no leader. Nobody knows who the leader is.

With Trump then going on to say that many Dems have quote, very low IQs and called somehow by names such as Jasmine Crockett. Which is really quick, just to say this, like if you do not know anything about Jasmine Crockett other than passing by stuff, that is a genuinely funny metric because she's actually a pretty accomplished and smart woman.

He just disagrees with her politically, but I guess that's the state of things. You know, with all that said, we're gonna have to continue to watch It's a bit of a high stakes game of chicken right now. And while we wait to see, I gotta ask you, what are your thoughts, opinions, and reactions here, especially if you're someone that's affected? And that could be you or someone you know

working for the government, or even the impacts there changing your plans. Like, are you maybe not gonna fly somewhere because you have kind of concerns? But then next up in the news, if you keep blocking my hostile takeover efforts, even harder. That is essentially what Trump is saying in response to judges and officials,

holding up his efforts to deploy troops into US cities. Because you know, we talked a bit yesterday about the situation in Portland with small protests in the city being characterized as just much worse than reality to justify deploying troops there.

You've got Trump describing Portland as war ravaged and saying that ICE facilities were under attack by Antifa and other domestic terrorists. And then you seem to have federal agents doing everything they could to make reality match that characterization. Which is then when a judge stepped in

temporarily blocking the administration from sending in the National Guard. With the judge pointing to quote, substantial evidence that the protests at the Portland ICE facility were not significantly violent or disruptive in the days or even weeks

leading up to the president's directive. Then we saw Illinois and Chicago filing similar lawsuits yesterday, gunning for a ruling just like the one in Portland after the announcement that the troops would be heading to Chicago next. Trump, though more likely Stephen Miller,

but Trump isn't about to let something trivial like a judge's ruling stop him, which is why he's floating using the 1807 Insurrection Act if judges keep blocking his efforts like this. And if you don't know, is a federal law that allows the president to nationally deploy the US military or federalized state national guard troops to stomp out what the president considers

an insurrection against the US. We're talking about a law that hasn't been used in decades, with the last time being back in 1992 when George H.W. Bush was president. In that case, it was actually requested by then California governor, Pete Wilson,

who asked for help addressing riots in Los Angeles. But also we have seen it used against the wishes of local governors, both Dwight Eisenhower and JFK. They did this in order to facilitate school integration after the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling. But now we're looking at a wildly different situation and Trump's been very open about his fascination

with the Insurrection Act. I mean, part of the reason people even became aware that this was a law back from the 1800s was on the campaign trail, he was promising to use it to suppress unrest. And then earlier this year, he came close to actually using it in LA during the protests against ICE. And then all of that bringing us to yesterday

when he once again told reporters.

We have an insurrection act for a reason. If I had to enact it, I'd do that. If people were being killed and courts were holding us up

or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I'd do that. And we've seen Trump's underlings laying the groundwork to justify the Insurrection Act should he decide to use it. With White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, for example, saying that the administration is facing a legal insurrection and that these rulings against them amount to quote, an insurrection against the laws and constitution

of the United States. And adding, we need to have district courts in this country that see themselves as being under the laws and constitution and not being able to take for themselves powers that are reserved solely for the president. And also with this, I'll say, it's not just the courts pushing back. We've also got local officials and representatives taking serious issue with these deployments.

And one of the things we saw there was Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois grilling Pam Bondi today about the deployments in his state during a Senate hearing.

Why do you want to keep this secret? the American people don't know the rationale behind the deployment of National Guard troops in my state.

Yeah, Chairman, as you shut down the government, you voted to shut down the government, and you're sitting here, our law enforcement officers aren't being paid. They're out there working to protect you. I wish you loved Chicago as much as you hate President Trump. And currently, the National Guard are on the way to Chicago. If you're not going to protect your citizens, President Trump will.

I've been on this committee for more than 20 years. That's the kind of testimony you expect from this administration. A simple question as to whether or not they had a legal rationale for deploying National Guard troops becomes grounds for a personal attack.

And then in addition to that, you have Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson taking a stand against the deployments by signing an executive order banning federal immigration officials from using city property in their operations. Right, and specifically the order prevents ICE agents

from using city-owned, vacant, or designated parking lots for anything related to their operations, including staging and processing. With Johnson saying, we will not tolerate ICE agents violating our residences' constitutional rights,

nor will we allow the federal government to disregard our local authority?" And that, as you'd expect, was not taken well by Team Trump. Or with Tricia McLaughlin, for example, Assistant Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, slamming Johnson in a statement, saying, "'His reckless policies not only endanger

our law enforcement, but public safety,' and claiming, while he continues to release pedophiles, rapists, gang members, and murderers onto Chicago streets, our brave law enforcement will continue to risk their lives without pay to arrest these heinous criminals and make Chicago safe again." Right, and that is the White House calling Johnson's order, quote, a disgusting betrayal of every law abiding citizen

and adding, shielding the most depraved, violent, criminal, illegal aliens from justice is not only an insult to every Chicagoan, it's also a dangerous intensification of Democrats' lunatic sanctuary agenda where criminal illegals come before American citizens.

Which has long been Team Trump's narrative in their crusade against sanctuary cities, that they harbor dangerous criminals and must be stopped at all costs, et cetera. And I mean, since taking office, he's sued 14 jurisdictions,

threatened criminal charges against local officials who don't comply with federal demands, and conducted large-scale immigration operations on top of deploying the National Guard troops. But those attacks have led to some serious pushback, including from the San Francisco city attorney who said in an interview, the Trump administration is trying to use

its enforcement authority in ways they know are not legal or constitutional to get their way and we've been forced to defend our rights. And that defense, along with pushback against Trump and Chicago and Portland has served as evidence for some that Democrats are finally willing to fight back. But ultimately, that's where we are right now. We're gonna have to wait to see how things continue to play out.

And I mean that both regarding Chicago and Portland, as well as, you know, the impact of these cases nationwide. And then we've got more news in just a minute. But first let me say, have you ever checked your card, Steven, and you feel like someone else is living their best life with your money? But today's sponsor, Rocket Money, saves your butt. It's the app that puts your entire financial life into one clean dashboard.

Rocket Money hunts down subscriptions that you forgot about or didn't even know you had. Now I'm talking about that free trial from 2021 that's been charging you like a clingy ex. And they also track your spending across categories like food, shopping, or late night, I deserve it binges.

If you've got bills that mysteriously creep up, those down, meaning they'll deal with customer service so you don't have to. It even helps you set financial goals, analyzing your accounts and figuring out the best time to stash cash each month. Basically, it's like having a personal finance tool in your pocket minus the judgmental looks. And the receipts don't lie. Over 5 million members have saved a combined $500 million

using Rocket Money, with some people saving up to $740 a year. cheers you on when you're doing well, because hey, positive reinforcement works on humans too. So reach your financial goals, level up your money game, and cancel your unwanted subscriptions at rocketmoney.com slash PDS, or scan the QR code today. That's rocketmoney.com slash PDS, rocketmoney.com slash PDS. The next step today, let's talk about our douchebag of the day, I mean, in addition to the usual suspects.

Right, because this French influencer just got sent to jail for a prank where he faked syringe attacks on strangers. And so you have this guy who goes by the name Amin Mojito going viral for filming and posting video clips where he could be seen sneaking up on people on the street and then pretending to inject them with an empty syringe. Right, and specifically we saw those videos

starting to gain a lot of traction ahead of the World Music Day celebration back in June. A time which, if you don't remember, was where France was gripped by panic over rumors of needle attacks at festivals and student parties. And so with all that, you had prosecutors bringing charges against him and alleging that he had contributed to

and incited real fears, even if the syringes were empty. Right, and also with that, they argued that he was a repeat offender, noting that he had been accused of assault and harassing others in the past. So for his part, he argued that he was quote, in his own world and unaware of everything. And he told the court, quote, I had the very bad idea of doing these pranks

by imitating what I saw on the internet in Spain and Portugal. I didn't think it could hurt people. That was my mistake. I didn't think about others. I thought about myself.

But ultimately the Paris criminal court convicted Mojito of violence with a weapon, not resulting in working capacity. that they sentenced him to 12 months in jail, six of which it will be suspended. And the court also fined him 1500 euros and they banned him from possessing or carrying a gun for three years. But I guess all of that brings us to that classic advice,

but it's necessary on the daily. Don't be stupid, stupid. And honestly, I think more so-called pranksters that are really just harassing people out in public, they need to face penalties so that it can be a lesson for others. The world already over rewards assholes. So the next step today,

let's talk about some quick political news. Starting with the fact that Trump is now openly discussing the possibility of pardoning two high profile convicted sex criminals, right, Ghislaine Maxwell and Diddy. Because yesterday the Supreme Court

rejected Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal to overturn her conviction for facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. And that, it came just a few days after Diddy was sentenced for four years for prostitution-related charges. And when asked by reporters yesterday about whether he would consider granting Maxwell clemency, Trump responded.

Well, I'll take a look at it. I'll speak to it. I will speak to the DOJ. I wouldn't consider it or not consider it. I don't know anything about it, so but I'll speak.

I will speak to the DOJ. I'll look at it. I'll, I have a lot of people who've asked me for pardons. I call them Puff Daddy has asked me for a pardon.

But she was convicted of child sex trafficking.

Yeah, I mean, I'm gonna have to take a look at it.

With that just being an absolutely wild response to that last question. And while it would obviously be absolutely massive if he pardoned Maxwell, or even Diddy for that matter. He could also kind of just be saying this with no intention of following through. Right, especially with at least Maxwell, you'd think that'd be pretty insane for Trump to pardon her while he's still getting so much heat

over the Epstein files debacle. You'd have to imagine there'd be some sort of just drop off in support and political capital and will. But also maybe not, maybe I in the head of a man when asked, why would a convicted child sex trafficker be a good candidate for a pardon? Trump responded, I don't know,

I'll have my people look into it. Like where is, huh? What? That's also not where the political news ends. And that's because you have Supreme Court related news with the justices now kicking off their new term

by hearing an incredibly consequential case that could affect laws that protect minors from conversion therapy in nearly 30 states. Right, and specifically the legal challenge being heard today was brought by a Christian therapist named Kaylee Childs. Right, and Childs is suing Colorado over its ban on treatment and tended to change

the sexual orientation or gender identity of kids under 18. And with that, she's arguing that the law violates her right to free speech and talk therapy because it prevents her from talking about her own viewpoints. But Colorado's attorney general is hit back by noting that the state law only applies to minors and still allows people of any age

to seek conversion therapy counseling from religious organizations, just not from therapists who are licensed by the state. In arguing that states have the right to require licensed therapists and medical professionals to obey established standards of care

and that the ban on conversion therapy is meant to protect minors from substandard care. And as the lawyers in Colorado have noted in court, there's a mountain of evidence showing that conversion therapy is not only ineffective, but actively harmful. In fact, every major medical organization from the American Medical Association

to the American Psychological Association has rebuked the practice. Reporting to research showing that conversion therapy doesn't work and actually causes a deep depression and suicidal thoughts in people under the age of 18. So as a result, we saw a wave of states enacting laws banning conversion therapy back in the 2010s

with that of course, including Colorado. And so now, because so many states have similar laws, the way the Supreme Court ultimately rules in this Colorado case, it'll have massive implications that go beyond just one state.

Right, if the Supreme Court rules that Colorado's law does infringe on free speech, you could either send it back down to a lower court for additional consideration or declare that it's unconstitutional and just strike it down. And if the justices choose that second option, that would likely invalidate similar bans on conversion therapy in nearly 30 other states that have implemented laws meant to protect

their own residents from a practice that is widely considered to be dangerous. But as far as what happens next, we're gonna have to watch for the ruling though. Very notably, we did see the court's conservative majority seemingly signaling that they would be ruling against Colorado during oral arguments today. Then as far as political quickie news, this is the closest thing to a positive piece of news today.

And that is if you live in California and you stream content, here's some good news. Gavin Newsom just signed a law that banned streaming services from cranking up the volume on commercials to make them louder than the content being streamed. And this is actually a pretty significant move

because while federal law already requires TV and radio to do this, those laws, they don't apply to streaming services as anyone who's ever gotten a sonic blast from a mid-roll ad on YouTube can confirm. But now, starting in July under California's new law, major streaming platforms like Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video, and YouTube, they're gonna have to start complying

with federal regulations on the volume that traditional broadcasters are bound by. And this is also standout news because of the timing. This is going down as many streaming sites are now introducing tiered subscription models in the last few years that require people to pay more if they don't want to hear ads. And so, one, it'll be interesting to see if other states follow California's lead,

or two, the platforms just make kind of universal or nationwide changes because they think that other states are gonna follow suit. And with that, it brings us to the end of this video, you've got even more click away if you haven't seen already. You've got the most recent episode of my brand new podcast and the newest Philip DeFranco show that you might not have seen yet.

I've also got links in the description for both, whether you wanna get filled in on YouTube, Apple podcasts or Spotify. Whatever you do, let me just say, thank you for watching. thank you for watching.

I love your faces