What The "AOC USAID Problem" Really Exposes & Today's News
PDS Published 02/06/2025
-
USAID has been propping up sites like Politico - giving them $8 million in taxpayer funds in just one fiscal year! []
Meaning that Politico is state-funded media stealing from the government.
Except that isn’t accurate and the truth is much less sinister.
Right, this whole debacle started when Politico was late with the payroll this week.
Thanks to what they called a “technical error” that was resolved by the end of the day so everyone got paid. []
But then with that, you had posts including screenshots from a government website tracking federal spending showing that Politico received $8 million from the government in the 2024 fiscal year. []
With former Fox News producer Kyle Becker sharing those screenshots and saying,
“Fun Fact: Politico received USAID funds.” []
Seemingly claiming that the $8 million came from USAID alone.
And then, in a follow up post, he connected Politico’s late payroll with the recent crackdowns on USAID’s spending.
Pointing to the report and then adding,
“The "technical error" was reportedly resolved. The error of sending U.S. taxpayer money to a biased, partisan, establishment publication, however, is being fixed.” []
We then saw the White House Press Secretary addressing the situation, saying:
“I was made aware of the funding from USAID to media outlets, including Politico, who I know has a seat in this room. And I can confirm that the more than 8 million taxpayer dollars that have gone to essentially subsidizing subscriptions to Politico on the American taxpayer’s dime will no longer be happening. The DOGE Team is cancelling those payments now.” (0:04-0:25)
From there, the situation exploded - with big names on the right chiming in and spreading this far and wide.
Elon Musk, for example, has been sharing posts supporting this idea that USAID is spending millions on sites like Politico and saying,
“Not an efficient use of taxpayer funds. This wasteful expenditure will be deleted.”[]
And there were others that had a stronger response like Donald Trump who said on Truth Social this morning that billions have been stolen from federal agencies like USAID and gone to, quote, “fake news media as a payoff for creating good stories about the Democrats.” []
Then adding,
“This could be the biggest scandal of them all, perhaps the biggest in history!”
You even had Dana Loesch calling for protests outside the Politico offices. [][]
But there has been a whole lot of pushback to this narrative here.
With outlets like the Washington Post pointing out that if you look deeper in the government spending website, you’ll see that USAID gave Politico only $44,000 during the fiscal years of 2023 and 2024.
And that was reportedly for subscriptions to an energy and environment publication that the company produces. []
And that $8 million is the amount the entire government has spent on Politico - most of which reportedly also came from contracts for subscriptions to their premium services.
In fact, as the Post reports, just days ago, the White House’s Office of the National Cyber Director signed a $35,000 contract for a Politico Pro Premium subscription for 15 users. []
With that service tracking, analyzing, and providing updates on the entire public policy landscape.
And journalist Isaac Saul explaining it this way: []
“Politico Pro does not = Politico the news website you guys read. Politico Pro is a collection of trade publications + also a dashboard used to track legislation, lobbying, elections, etc. It is very valuable, which is why Politico was bought for $1 billion.” []
“These subscriptions cost north of $10,000. Private sector CEOs and lobbyists pay for them. As do government workers. They are amazing tools for keeping an eye on the government.”
“Politico sells these premium trade pubs to agencies. Duh. Govt agencies (like the private sector) want to work on the best info available. They (meaning CEOs and private corporations and the govt) wouldn’t pay if Politico wasn’t providing value.”“A bunch of conservative writers who work at subscription based publications are claiming this is some conflict of interest, yet they all write articles every day about people who subscribe to their work.”
Right, and so like he mentioned, a lot of offices for members of Congress subscribe to Politico Pro.
For example, the Post reports that committees led by Republicans dropped half a million dollars on Politico subscriptions in the first nine months of last year, []
With 38 Republicans in the House reportedly spending $300,000 for subscriptions within the same time period.
And so while you had people like Lauren Boebert saying Elon’s now exposing Politico’s grift, others were quick to point out, ‘Hey, Boebert, your office literally uses this service.’[]
Right, according to government disclosures, last year, she spent $7,150 on Politico Pro.[]
And Politico’s leadership said in a memo to their staff that they have never received government funding outside of subscriptions.
Saying,
“POLITICO has never been a beneficiary of government programs or subsidies - not one cent, ever, in 18 years.” []
Adding that government agencies have subscribed to their service the same way that corporations do - saying,
“The value of this journalism is clear, as evidenced by our subscription re-enlistment rates.” []
But this isn’t limited to just Politico - as this has gotten more attention, other outlets have been drawn into the conversation.
Like the Associated Press - who said that both Republican and Democratic administrations have been subscribers to their platform.
Adding,
“It licenses AP’s nonpartisan journalism, just like thousands of news outlets and customers around the world. It’s quite common for governments to have contracts with news organizations for their content.” []
And those working with AP were also quick to come to Politico's defense - with an investigative reporter with the AP saying on X, []
“I looked at these contracts and I have my own fun fact. This is occurring because agencies (not just USAID) are buying subscriptions to Politico's Pro editorial product, not because Politico is getting grants or other federal funding.”
And then, you also have the BBC saying in a statement that its international development charity has been affected by the pause in US funding –
But noting that this charity is “completely separate from BBC News, and wholly reliant on [its] donors and supporters to carry out our work.”
Adding: “BBC Media Action supports local media around the world to deliver trusted information to people most in need.” []
But misinformation regarding where government funding is going doesn’t stop with media outlets.
Notably, Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was recently accused of getting kickbacks from USAID on X - with someone saying her net worth was around $30 million on a $174,000 salary. []
To which she responded:
“My filings are public. I loathe corruption, and your lying is disgusting.” []
And saying that her net worth is nowhere near as high as $30 million or even half a million dollars.
Which is backed up by her financial disclosure forms from last year.
Then there’s Bernie Sanders - who was recently accused by RFK Jr. of being bought and paid for by Big Pharma. []
Accusing him of, quote, “accepting millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry and protecting their interests.” []
But the numbers RFK was citing there were seriously misrepresented - in fact, Bernie actually received that money from everyday workers.
Regular people working within the pharmaceutical field - which is why it was labeled as such on the site that RFK was using as a basis for his claim. []
With Bernie noting on X after the fact,
“0 donations from pharma CEOs. 0 donations from Wall St. CEOs. 0 donations from oil company CEOs. 8 million from working people giving $27 at a time. I am very proud of that fact.” []
But the misinformation doesn’t even stop there.
Last week, you had this rumor spreading that the US was spending a truly absurd amount of money on condoms for Palestine.
With the White House Press Secretary specifically claiming during her debut press briefing that DOGE and the OMB found that, quote, “there was about to be $50 million taxpayer dollars that went out the door to fund condoms in Gaza.”[]
With Trump then repeating the claim the next day, and going even further, saying that his administration had, quote, “identified and stopped $50 million being sent to Gaza to buy condoms for Hamas.”[]
But of course, no evidence was given to back up these claims.
And as we’ve seen in these other cases, and as many were quick to point out at the time, this simply seemed to be a total misunderstanding.
With the president of Refugees International writing on X:
“USAID procures condoms for around $0.05 apiece.
$50m would be ONE BILLION condoms.
What's going is here is NOT a billion condoms for Gaza.
What's going on is that the bros at DOGE apparently can't read govt spreadsheets.”[]
And with that, right, we know that USAID was spending way less than $50 million on condoms worldwide - let alone in just one place.
Right, in 2023, it spent about about $7 million on male condoms and $1 million on female condoms, overwhelmingly to African countries.[]
With also a federal report published last year reportedly showing that USAID didn’t provide or fund any condoms in the entire Middle East in the 2021, 2022, or 2023 fiscal years.[]
And so looking closely, it seems that Trump and his team may have been referring to around 100 million dollars awarded to a group called the International Medical Corps, or IMC, to provide medical and trauma services in Gaza.[]
With those services including family planning programming which includes emergency contraception, sexual healthcare including prevention and management of STIs; and adolescent sexual and reproductive health.[]
But notably, with the Trump administration freezing that aid, you had the IMC stating that in the end, quote, “No US government funding was used to procure or distribute condoms, nor provide family-planning services.”[]
And so that is where we are - a whole bunch of misunderstandings that have blown up far beyond their original scope.
Which is why it’s so important to make sure to look into things yourself and check the actual facts before coming to any sort of conclusion - and definitely before sharing.
For now, I would love to know your thoughts about anything that we’ve talked about here - the Politico situation, the AOC and Bernie stuff, or even the condoms to Gaza bit.
Let me know in those comments down below.
-
The Trump administration is once again giving everyone whiplash after it made it seem like a deal regarding the Panama Canal was reached only for canal officials to completely contradict that.
Yesterday evening, the State Department announced on X that “U.S. government vessels can now transit the Panama Canal without charge fees, saving the U.S. government millions of dollars a year.” []
This comes just a few days after Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Panama and both sides said they were looking at whether eliminating the canal fees for American naval vessels was possible.[]
All of which is in line with Trump’s longstanding claims that the fees are “ridiculous.”
Trump supporters were stoked about this change, with many feeling it was just proof of how quick the administration is working, with takes like:
"It's the Art of the Deal in action! Promises made, promises kept!
Another "Win" for America's taxpayers thanks to President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. This is a very big deal!” []
However it didn’t take long for the Panama Canal Authority -- which runs the canal -- to quickly contradict this statement and clarify that there were no changes to tolls or fees for anyone.
It also added that it was still open to negotiating fees for US warships, indicating that negotiations haven’t even started yet. []
This led to the State Department’s original tweet getting a Community Note, which many found amusing.
The argument essentially being both sides are making contradicting claims so both should have a note.
(Counterpoint: the Panama Canal Authority controls the canal, so what they say is probably the most “correct” at the moment. It'd be kind of like if someone said “Phil is German” and you said “No, I’m Italian” and then there was a note on both?).
There’s also a lot of people pointing out giving US warships free passage might not even be feasible under the way the current treaty is written.
Right, in the treaty, it’s very clear that the canal is supposed to be 100% neutral at all times.
In accordance with that, Article II states that vessels of all nations will be treated with “equality,”
And it explicitly states that “payments and tolls and other charges for transit and ancillary services” would be one of things that needs to be treated with equality.[]
So it may not even be possible for the canal to waive fees for US warships.
That being said, some Trump critics have also found themselves spreading misinformation and writing:
“MAGA is celebrating a "win" by Donald Trump and Marco Rubio about the Navy not having to pay tolls when passing through the Panama Canal.
Funny thing though...
They didn't have to pay the tolls prior to Donald Trump's meltdown. The policy is part of the Panama Canal Treaty signed in 1977, which came into effect in 1999 when Panama took full control of the canal.
Yet another "win" for something that was in place before Donald Trump even got into office.
This is his playbook. Rinse. Recycle. Repeat.” []
I want to be very clear: the idea that US naval vessels never had to pay fees to begin with is super wrong.
Some estimates claim that the canal charged $341,000 per passage for a US warship or sub in 2023.
HOWEVER, the official numbers from the Canal authority are far, far less and show that over the past 26 years the US has only had to pay $25.4 million total for warships and subs crossing the canal.[]
(Being blunt: regardless of which number is true, both are rounding errors when compared to the rest of the US budget).
So with all that said, we’re once again left wondering what just happened and when is everything going to change again?
Do you think this is a strategy by the administration to trick supporters into thinking Trump is “winning” all the time,
Or is it just a series of miscommunications in the government that needs to be worked out and inevitable when an administration is trying to do so much in such a short amount of time?
-
There’s more we have to talk about with Trump’s proposal to take over Gaza, establish long-term US ownership, and turn it the “Riviera of the Middle East.”
Right, because while his aides have tried walking it back, he is doubling down, and Israel?
It’s already making moves to put Trump’s plan into action.
And with that, we went over exactly what Trump said in detail yesterday, so feel free to check that out.
But what you need to know, of course, is that it sparked international outrage.
With many claiming that the proposal essentially amounted to a call for ethnic cleansing.
And experts pointing to the fact that forced or coerced displacement is a violation of international humanitarian law, a war crime, and a crime against humanity.[]
And with that, when Trump revealed this plan?
We’re now learning that he shocked even senior members of his own government.
Right, with The New York Times reporting that his administration hadn’t done even the most basic planning to examine the feasibility of the idea. []
And on top of that, finding that there hadn’t been any meetings with the State Department or Defense Department about it.
You know, like you normally have before unveiling a massively consequential foreign policy proposal.
And so within hours of the announcement yesterday, you had Trump aides defending his proposal but also doing some backpedaling.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as well as the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt (Lev-it), for example, saying the relocation would be temporary.
But Trump? He implied otherwise:
"It would be my hope that we could do something really nice, really good, where they wouldn't want to return. Why would they want to return? That place has been hell –” (BYTE: 0:12-0:19)
And then, you also had Leavitt emphasizing that the president has not committed to putting boots on the ground in Gaza, which is true, but he also said this:
“As far as Gaza is concerned, we'll do what is necessary. If it's necessary, we'll do that. We're going to take over that piece and we’re gonna develop it.” (BYTE: 19:41-19:50)
And with that, I will say, you had Trump posting on social media this morning, now claiming “No soldiers by the U.S. would be needed!”
But otherwise, the he doubled down on the plan, writing:
“The Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting.”
“The Palestinians, people like Chuck Schumer, would have already been resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes, in the region. “They would actually have a chance to be happy, safe, and free.”
And finally, in true Trump fashion, claiming Gaza “would become one of the greatest and most spectacular developments of its kind on Earth.” []
And now, with all that, you obviously have a lot of people saying it’s unlikely this will play out exactly like Trump says.
But that doesn’t mean there won’t be real consequences.
Right, the former US ambassador to Israel under Obama, for example, telling the Times that a US Gaza takeover isn’t a serious proposal, but adding:
“The danger is that extremists within the Israeli government and terrorists of various stripes will take it literally and seriously, and start to act on it.”
“It could imperil the further release of hostages, put a target on the back of U.S. personnel and undercut prospects of a Saudi-Israel normalization deal.”[]
And with that, today, you actually already have the Israeli government ordering the military to prepare a plan for Palestinians to “voluntarily” leave Gaza.
Of course, given Israel’s history of occupation, displacement, and violence in the territory, along with the fact that most Palestinians seemingly don’t want to leave, you have a lot of people wondering how long it’ll be before the “voluntarily” gets dropped.
But with that, you had the announcement coming from the Israeli defense minister, with him tagging Rubio as well as defense secretary Pete Hegseth, and writing:
“I have instructed the IDF to prepare a plan that will allow any resident of Gaza who wishes to leave to do so, to any country willing to receive them.”
“The plan will include exit options via land crossings, as well as special arrangements for departure by sea and air.”
And from there, going on to say: “Countries such as Spain, Ireland, Norway, and others, which have falsely accused Israel over its actions in Gaza, are legally obligated to allow Gazans to enter their territory. Their hypocrisy will be exposed if they refuse.”
And finally, adding: “The people of Gaza should have the right to freedom of movement and migration, as is customary everywhere in the world.” []
And so, to unpack that a bit more, one question you might have, why are Spain, Norway and Ireland getting called out?
Well, notably, all three formally recognized Palestine as a state last year – a move aimed at supporting a two-state solution.
And with that, they’ve also been among the Western nations most critical of the Israeli military’s actions in Gaza.
In fact, Ireland has been called the most pro-Palestinian nation in Europe.
And then, you’ve had the Spanish defense minister, for example, at one point agreeing with the many rights groups, experts, and activists who have described Israel’s war as a genocide.
But in any case, all that? It super pissed off Israeli officials.
But the idea that those legally obligated to allow Gazans to enter, or that they’d be hypocrites for not doing so?
Well, it’s not clear what legal instrument that obligation would come from.
And of course, given their position of supporting Palestinian statehood, taking part in a plan that virtually ensures Gaza wouldn’t be part of one seems pretty consistent.
And with that, so far, as of recording, you’ve already had the Spanish foreign minister rejecting the demand, and saying:
“Gaza is the land of the people of Gaza.”
“It should be part of a future Palestinian state.”[]
But from there, there’s also the claim that the people of Gaza should have the right to freedom of movement and migration?
And that, some say, is actually hypocrisy.
Right, because Israel—along with Egypt — has maintained a land, air and sea blockade on Gaza since 2007 when Hamas took power –
Which was two years after Israel withdrew from the territory following 38 years of occupation.[]
And with that, it’s long been extremely difficult for Palestinians to travel internationally.
After October 7th? It got even harder.
And finally, last May, it became all but impossible when Israeli troops seized control of the buffer zone along the border between Gaza and Egypt.
And so as of now, it’s not clear if and when leaving Gaza would become possible, or of course, how many would go willingly.
I will say, however, the current ceasefire deal allows for medical evacuation.
And in fact, the first group of sick children left on Saturday.
Though, notably, two died before they could be taken out and others had become too sick to move.[]
And as we’ve talked about, the ceasefire is in some ways now hanging in the balance.
And we’ll have to wait and see what kind of impact all this has on that.
PDS Debt is offering a free debt analysis. It only takes thirty seconds. Get yours at PDS Debt.
-
We have a bunch of pieces of news surrounding transgender Americans that I want to hit on.
Starting with the most recent first, which is that yesterday, Trump signed an executive order effectively banning trans athletes from competing on women’s and girls’ sports teams.
And directing agencies to investigate and withhold federal funding from schools that don’t comply.
Right, and to achieve this, the order relies on a new interpretation of Title IX (Title 9), the landmark 1972 civil rights law that bans sex discrimination in schools that receive federal funds.
With that new interpretation being that Title 9 prohibits trans women and girls from participating in female sports categories.
So any school that allows that practice will be in violation of Title 9, and thus will be denied funding from the federal government.
And with this, unsurprisingly, you had anti-trans activists and conservatives applauding the move as an important step to protect cis women and girls while liberals and LGTBQ+ advocates condemned it as an act of discrimination.
But right now, it’s unclear how big the impact will actually be here.
Right, first of all, more than half of all states already have laws or regulations in place banning trans students from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity, according to Movement Advancement Project — an LGBTQ+ policy think tank.[]
What’s more, despite what conservative leaders and right-leaning media might make you think, there isn’t a huge prevalence of trans students playing on women’s and girls’ sports teams in the states that do allow it.
Right, while privacy laws make it difficult to determine exactly how many trans athletes participate in K-12 public school sports, looking at basic demographics can give us a general idea.
For example, a 2022 study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law found that just 1.4% of adolescents ages 13-17 identify as trans.
BUT not all of those people identify as women, hope to compete in women’s sports, or go to public schools.
And when you look at the collegiate level, the number is likely even lower.
Right, until now, the NCAA has followed the model set by national and international athletic governing bodies, determining eligibility sport-by-sport.
But just last month, the NCAA president said that out of the more than half a million athletes who play college sports, there are fewer than 10 in TOTAL who identify as transgender.
And again, not all of those people are trans women.
Now, that’s not to downplay the issue or say that the Trump administration’s policy won’t have an impact on the trans women and girls who do compete.
As well as discourage those who might want to participate in the future.
I mean, already, we’re seeing reports that the Education Department has launched investigations into San Jose State University, UPenn, and the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association hours after Trump signed this latest order.
But experts have said that how schools actually respond to this will depend heavily on how the administration actually follows through on its threat to cut federal money.
With some speculating that wealthier schools that don’t rely as much on federal funds might just decide not to comply at all.
But, notably here, Trump’s order does go beyond school athletics.
It also takes aim at the Olympics, directing the State Department to push the International Olympic Committee to make similar changes to its rules on trans athletes participating in women’s sports.
As well as directing the Department of Homeland Security to issue guidance preventing trans, foreign athletes who participate in women’s sports from traveling to the U.S. for competitions.
With Trump himself making it clear that this provision of the order is aimed at the 2028 Olympics, which will be held in LA:
“In Los Angeles, in 2028, my administration will not stand by and watch men beat and batter female athletes and we’re just not gonna let it happen and it’s gonna end and it’s ending right now.” 00:01 - 00:13
“And for the same reason, just to make sure, I’m also directing our Secretary of Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem…” 00:24 - 00:31
“...To deny visa applications “made by men attempting to fraudulently enter the United States while identifying themselves as women athletes trying to get into the Games, maybe.” 00:43 - 00:55
But, as far as what happens next, like so many of Trump’s orders, it is widely expected that this one too will be challenged.
And that actually brings us to our second piece of news, which is that a federal judge has now temporarily blocked ANOTHER order Trump signed that would send trans women to men’s prisons.
As well as prevent federal funds from being used for gender-affirming care for people in custody.
Right, that order had been challenged by three trans women who said they were set to be moved to men’s prisons.
With their lawyers claiming that the move would disrupt their access to hormone therapy and endanger their safety by exposing them to a high risk of physical harm, harassment, and abuse.
And arguing that violates their constitutional rights to equal protection of laws and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
And in his ruling, the judge — who notably was appointed by Ronald Reagan — said that the plaintiffs had “straightforwardly demonstrated that irreparable harm will follow” if their request for a temporary restraining order was denied.
Arguing that they had shown that they were likely to succeed in their claims that Trump’s order violated their constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment.
With the judge also noting that are only about 16 trans women housed in female prisons, so “the public interest in seeing the plaintiffs relocated immediately to male facilities is slight at best.”
Pointing out Trump claimed his order would protect women, lawyers for the Trump administration never made specific allegations that the three plaintiffs in the case posed any threat to the other women incarcerated with them.
Right, and while this ruling is just temporary while the legal case plays out, at least based on this judge’s comments, it seems likely that the order wil l ultimately get struck down in federal court.
Though, as is the case with all of Trump’s orders, there is the possibility that any lawsuits will make their way up to the Supreme Court as test cases that could challenge existing precedents.
Right, that takes us perfectly to the third piece of news on this topic, which is that a group of families and doctors have now sued to block yet two OTHER executive orders Trump signed targeting transgender Americans.
Now, as far as the executive orders being challenged here, one of them narrowly defines sex so that only “male” and “female” sexes are officially recognized — effectively refusing to recognize trans people.
And the other seeks to limit federal support for gender-affirming care for people under the age of 19 by threatening to cut Medicare and Medicaid funding to health providers that offer that care.
With lawyers for the plaintiffs arguing that Trump’s executive orders are “unlawful and unconstitutional” because they would withhold federal Medicare and Medicaid funds that have already been authorized by Congress.
And claiming they would violate parental rights as well as anti-discrimination laws because the executive order doesn’t ban federal funds from going toward the same treatments when they’re not used for gender-affirming care.
Like, for example, certain hormone therapies.
Right, and this lawsuit will be really important to watch because there is already a ton of legal messiness around Trump’s order on gender-affirming care.
On one side, you have many hospitals already complying with the order and halting those services.
But then we’ve also seen resistance from Democratic leaders, with New York’s Attorney warning hospitals against canceling gender-affirming care for people under 19, claiming that doing so could violate state law.
And arguing — like the recent lawsuit — that federal funding can’t be frozen based on the order.
But, with that said, these lawsuits and legal injunctions blocking Trump’s orders aren’t going to stop the administration from forging ahead and targeting trans Americans through various other means.
And not just with executive orders that have been heavily promoted to the public, but also through more llcover operations.
Right, for example, it’s also been reported that officials in the Trump administration have been quietly moving to cut funding off trans health and research programs despite ongoing litigation.
According to The Washington Post, the crackdown stems from one of the orders we just talked about that defines sex as only “male” and “female.”
With the outlet reporting that those impacted include the National Institutes of Health, which has been instructed to stop a large-scale study into ways to prevent HIV infections in trans youth of color.
Clinics in California have also lost funding used to provide care to hundreds of trans patients.
A federal scientific journal stopped the publication of a paper on the value of teaching transgender health.
And state health departments that use the National Violent Death Reporting System have reported that they can no longer access information to identify trans people who die violent deaths.
And again, these are just some of the things we know about — so much of this is being self-reported by those impacted as it’s happening in real-time.
But, of course, these efforts to target trans Americans aren’t new, and they also go way beyond the White House.
Which brings us to the final piece of news in this section I want to hit on today, which is a video of Rep. Nancy Mace that has gone viral.
Right, as we’ve talked about before on the show, she is widely known as also one of the most vocally anti-trans members of Congress and has become particularly famous for railing against trans — often using slurs.
Which is exactly why this clip got so much attention.
And specifically, the moment in question came from a hearing about USAID yesterday, where Mace started listing off some of the agency’s expenditures, with asking officials at the hearing this:
With her language there prompting an objection from the committee’s Democratic ranking member, Rep. Gerald Connolly, which resulted in this interaction:
5:11 - 6:05
And while it’s a pretty easy argument to say Mace is doing this all for show and to get viral clips, for the other news we talked about, I’d love to know your thoughts there.
Especially when it comes to trans athletes in sports or sending trans men to female prisons.
