The Trump Supreme Court Situation Is Crazier Than You Think, MrBeast Mexico Scandal, & Today’s News
PDS Published 05/15/2025
-
The president of Mexico just addressed questions and controversies surrounding MrBeast’s latest video.
That video is titled “I Explored 2000 Year Old Ancient Temples,” and in it, MrBeast explores historical sites in Mexico, including El Castillo in Chichén Itzá (Chee-chen Eat-za), which is one of the wonders of the world.
He travels through these sites with guides who take them to temples and caves, and explains the historical and spiritual context of what they are looking at.
The guide also lays down the law of what you can and cannot do in these sites:
“There’s some ceramic pot shards….whoa, this is so cool, can I take one home?...well, you would go to jail…I would go to jail? Alright, I won’t take one home.” (10:03-10:13)
At other points, it also looks like they helicopter around to get to the temples, and a guide also lets MrBeast hold what he says is an ancient and historically significant mask.
With this all leading up to their trip the El Castillo, which they only stand outside of as people are not allowed in the temple up top, but MrBeast kind of finds a workaround:
“Out of respect for the culture, and the people who hold it very sacred, we are not going to touch the temple, instead, we are going to send this drone up and see what is in that secret room, you cool with this?..Yeah, that’s cool.” (14:52-15:02)
With MrBeast then sending the drone up and showing footage of what the drone saw inside.
But there was a lot of criticism over his video because some of the places MrBeast went are generally closed off to the public. []
Which is something MrBeast even acknowledges himself, saying:
“I can’t believe the government is letting us do this. It really is crazy. Not even archaeologists are allowed to go back here.” (1:24-1:29)
So some watching were wondering why and how MrBeast was granted access to these sites which are considered sacred.[]
And yesterday, the president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum (cloud-ia shane-bomb), addressed this during a press conference.
And there, she said that permits were granted for his trip and video, but also noted a review is needed to see if the permissions granted were violated, and what sanctions would follow if that was the case. []
With this coming as the National Institute of Anthropology and History in Mexico addressed MrBeast’s video in a press release earlier this week, writing that his visit was:
“carried out in accordance with formal requests made by the federal Ministry of Tourism and [local] governments.”[]
“The tours were conducted in publicly accessible areas without disrupting visitor access.”
Then also noting that yes, in some cases, the locations were not permanently accessible to the general public, but they can be visited with prior scheduling and authorization.
Though, their statement did dispute some of what MrBeast’s video claimed, specifically regarding El Castillo, which is one of the more restricted areas in the video.
According to the Institute, MrBeast did not actually fly a drone inside of the temple, it only went outside of the structure.
And adding that there were other elements of the video that appeared to be potentially exaggerated, saying:
“It should be noted that the video evidently involves extensive audiovisual post-production work and alludes to events that never occurred. For example, the producers never descended from a helicopter, spent the night inside the archaeological site, or possessed a pre-Hispanic mask, as the one presented is clearly a contemporary reproduction. All of these are false assertions that reflect the theatricality of the YouTuber in question.”
With the Institute emphasizing that personnel was monitoring at all times during recording, and claiming that even though MrBeast might have “distorted” some of what was presented, they believe that overall, this kind of content can get young people interested in this part of history.
So we will have to see what comes from a review of MrBeast and the permits.
But I would love to know your thoughts on this one, on the fact that this video made it way all the way up to the president of the country, and what you think the pros and cons are to granting this kind of access, where you think the line should be when it comes to these kinds of historical and sacred sites.
-
This could be the most high-profile Supreme Court case of the entire year.
Today, for the first time since Trump took office again, the high court is hearing oral arguments related to one of his many policies that have faced legal challenges.
And, very notably, it is the last scheduled argument for the court’s term — which was actually supposed to end two weeks ago.
Right, they added a whole special session to their calendar just to hear this high-stakes case, because it is that important.
And specifically, the case in question centers around Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship — sort of — let me explain.
Right, and this case is very unique and unusual for a few reasons, so to understand what’s going on here, we need to back up a little.
Okay, so as we’ve talked about on the show numerous times, one of the first actions Trump took after assuming office was issuing an executive order that ended automatic citizenship for people born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or foreign visitors.
With Trump arguing that the Constitution doesn’t actually guarantee birthright citizenship.
But that is a radical, fringe interpretation that the vast majority of legal experts disagree with.
Right, for more than a century, Supreme Court precedent has established that the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil with very limited exceptions, like the children of diplomats.
What’s more, Congress even passed a law codifying that right back in 1940.
So it wasn’t surprising at all when the order was challenged immediately by immigrant groups alongside 22 states and D.C.
And since then, three separate federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions, arguing the policy is unconstitutional and temporarily blocking it from taking effect while litigation plays out.
And those decisions were also upheld by three separate appeals courts, which refused to unblock Trump’s order as the cases progress through the legal system.
So the Trump administration appealed those injunctions to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis — and this is where things start to get a little sticky.
Right, the lawyers for the Trump administration ARE NOT asking the high court to determine if Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship is constitutional — at least not yet.
Instead, they are arguing that the federal judges who blocked the policy from taking effect lacked the power to issue nationwide injunctions — also known as “universal” injunctions.
And specifically, the administration claims that federal judges don’t have the power to issue broad rulings that affect people other than those immediately involved in the case they are hearing.
So, when a federal judge issues an injunction based on their belief that the policy they are blocking is unconstitutional or causes immediate harm, that decision should only apply to the plaintiffs who sued over the policy.
And, in this case, the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to limit the scope of the lower-court orders on birthright citizenship so that they ONLY apply to the groups and states that filed the suits, not the whole country.
But the plaintiffs argue that such a ruling would cause total chaos until each case can be resolved — which likely will require separate trips to the Supreme Court to debate the actual merits of the cases.
Right, if the Supreme Court were to agree with the Trump administration and say “okay, these injunctions only apply to the groups and states that sued,” it would mean that Trump’s birthright citizenship order would go into effect for about half the country.
But the remaining half — the states that sued — they wouldn’t have to implement it.
So, we’d be looking at a situation where children born to undocumented immigrants would be considered citizens in a state like New Jersey, which is among the plaintiffs, but not Pennsylvania, which isn’t.
And so lawyers representing the state’s suing say that this could create a huge fucking mess, with New Jersey’s Attorney General’s explaining:
“We have parents in South Jersey whose kids are born in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania is not in the suit. Are those kids really not American because their parents went to the hospital that’s closest to their house, which happens to be in Pennsylvania? That makes no sense. It’s, frankly, absurd.”
You also had the solicitor general for Washington State claiming that families could just simply relocate in order to be under a totally different set of immigration laws, arguing that, quote:
“Under their theory, a child born in Philadelphia would not become a citizen, but of course, that child could easily move across the border to New Jersey or another state. And that would just be a logistical nightmare.”
And beyond that, the lawyers also say that a ruling in favor of the administration would cost the plaintiff states millions of dollars in health and other benefits available to American children —
As well as force them to do a massive, complex overhaul of identification systems, because birth certificates would no longer be considered proof of citizenship.
So, as a result, the plaintiffs argue that injunctions that apply nationwide are necessary for situations like this, where there are so many complexities and fundamental rights are in question.
But it’s not just birthright citizenship at stake — depending on the scope of the justice’s ruling, their decision here could apply to ALL universal injunctions.
A move that would 1) significantly limit the power of federal judges to limit presidential policies.
And 2) roll back injunctions that have halted or significantly limited numerous policies Trump has enacted since taking office.
This including other immigration-related orders, cuts to the federal workforce, efforts to ban DEI, and many other actions that would now be allowed to take effect — at least partially and temporarily, while litigation plays out.
Now, as far as how the Supreme Court might rule here, as of right now, it’s pretty unclear.
Right, during oral arguments today, the court appeared very divided on the issue.
As The New York Times explained, several justices seemed torn on whether single federal judges should have the power to freeze executive actions.
But, at the same time, “they also seemed troubled by the legality — and consequences — of the executive order underlying the case.”
Beyond that, some of the more conservative members also reportedly appeared to indicate that they would limit the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions.
Though some of those justices also questioned the practical implications of doing so and how it would impact the ability of the legal system to counter unconstitutional policies.
And while you had the court’s liberals making it clear that they believe Trump’s birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will vote in favor of allowing federal judges to grant universal injunctions.
With The Times also reporting that the justices appeared to signal that they might try to find some kind of middle ground:
“perhaps by issuing guidance that would allow such temporary blocks only for some kinds of cases, or by requesting more briefing on the merits of the underlying executive order.”
And this seems especially likely given the fact that justices across the political spectrum — including liberals — have criticized the practice in the past.
Right, this is not a new debate — legal experts, members of Congress, and presidents in both parties have long condemned the practice of universal injunctions, especially as they have become increasingly more common in recent years.
Right, before the 1960s, nationwide injunctions were almost never used.
But in recent years, they have risen substantially as Congress has become more and more deadlocked, forcing presidents have rely more on executive orders to enact new policies.
And that has been especially true of Trump, who is very fond of unilateral action.
Right, according to the Harvard Law Review, just in his first term alone, federal judges issued 64 injunctions against his policies.
That’s WAY more than any of the other presidencies of the last few decades: Bush had 6, Obama had 12, and Biden had 14.
And just a few months into Trump Part 2: Electric Trumpaloo, federal judges have already filed almost 40 injunctions against Trump’s policies — that’s nearly three times more than ANY of his predecessors had for their entire terms.
But, still, you have plenty of people across the political spectrum who think universal injunctions exceed the constitutional powers of federal judges.
But, on the other side, you have proponents arguing that nationwide injunctions are imperative to counter bad policies and executive overreach.
Arguing the reason we’re seeing an increase in injunctions is simply because presidents — and particularly Trump — have been testing the bounds of their power with policies that go against legal precedent.
And beyond that, other legal experts also contend that universal injunctions are necessary to ensure that policies that impact the entire nation are enforced consistently nationwide.
Something that is especially important when it comes to matters that affect constitutional rights.
But, as far as what happens next, we’ll just have to wait and see what the court decides here — which is expected by late June or early July.
-
AI is about to get out of control and States won’t be able to do shit about it for ten years.[]
That’s what a lot of experts fear if this change to the House’s Reconciliation Budget gets approved.
Before you ask, a Reconciliation Bill is a procedure that can be used up to three times a year -- depending on circumstances -- in order to more easily pass a budget.[]
Most importantly it only needs a simple majority in the Senate to pass alongside being able to dodge the filibuster.
But like all budgets, it still involved the House, and that’s where Republican lawmakers added a section that would fundamentally change how AI is handled in the US literally minutes before it was due on Tuesday.
The provision says that:
“No State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10- year period beginning.” []
In even simpler terms: no AI regulation unless it’s done by the US Congress.
The only exceptions to this would be laws that “facilitate the deployment or operation” of AI and also any that “streamline licensing, permitting, routing, zoning, procurement, or reporting procedures.”
And all those revisions were approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday.[]
The change has a pretty expansive definition for what qualifies as “AI” and includes everything from generative models to facial recognition software.[]
But anyone paying attention to this space shouldn’t be shocked by this.
The Trump administration has been pushing to deregulate the space, with Vance even telling the industry back in February that:
“We believe that excessive regulation of the AI sector could kill a transformative industry just as it’s taking off.”
But there’s a big fear that such deregulation will lead to AI companies running wild and ignoring states that have already made efforts to put some guardrails into place.
That’s not a small number either, with state legislatures looking at 700 bills last year and passing 113. []
Republicans argue that this makes a patchwork of laws that are impossible to navigate and stifle a new industry, but there is definitely evidence that some kind of guardrails are probably needed.
Right, because AI in its current state can do a lot of amazing things… but also can be super wrong or even dangerous -- all of which we’ve seen in headlines from just this week.
In a relatively benign case, Elon Musk’s Grok has gone off the rails talking about the “White Genocide” in South Africa.
Before, it generally avoided the topic, but now it brings up the issue ALL. THE. TIME.
For example: one user was just trying to figure out what comic a character was from, to which Grok replied:
“This image shows a protest with numerous white crosses, likely symbolizing victims of farm attacks in South Africa. It appears to be a demonstration against the violence faced by farmers, often linked to the “Kill the Boer” chant, which some view as a racially charged call to violence against White Afrikaners.”
Which, to be clear, Mark from Invincible has nothing to do with any of that.
In another, someone was talking about Max Scherzer’s salary in the MLB and Grok was asked “is this accurate.”
And it once again went off about “white genocide” in South Africa.
Obviously people were confused and when Grok tried to clarify, it seemed to have gotten itself into a loop because it was like:
“I apologize for the confusion. The discussion was about Max Scherzer’s baseball earnings, not white genocide… Regarding white genocide in South Africa it’s a polarizing claim…” and then going back into the “Kill the Boer” talking points.
Now to its credit, the AI does try to present “both sides” to some extent… although it admits it has a bias and has said:
“I’m skeptical of mainstream denials but also lack clear proof of systematic targeting.”
But the fact that it’s so obsessed with bringing up South Africa has led many to claim that this is a pet project by Musk to boost the issue with takes like:
“It looks like Musk finally sat down with Grok and demanded it tow the rightwing line on South Africa.” []
And, “More and more evidence that Grok is being manipulated in real time to suit Musk’s personal political agenda. Here it is giving bizarre responses about white genocide in South Africa in response to completely unrelated queries.” []
But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Another place where AI is making waves is the legal field.
This has popped up in the news a few times but the most recent example is from former LA County District Attorney Jackie Lacey.
Thankfully her case doesn’t have to do with her former job as a prosecutor but instead a civil case against State Farm where her legal team decided to rely on AI to find precedents and legal citations.[]
The problem is that it just "hallucinated" things and made stuff up.
That’s bad enough, but it ALMOST got worse when the judge admitted he almost fell for it, writing:
“I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions to learn more about them—only to find that they didn't exist. That's scary. It almost led to the scarier outcome (from my perspective) of including those bogus materials in a judicial order. Strong deterrence is needed to make sure that attorneys don't succumb to this easy shortcut."[]
He then fined the lawyers $31,100 and the judge added that the lawyers "collectively acted in a manner that was tantamount to bad faith.”[][]
To be clear, this wasn’t a small legal team either.
Right, they have upwards of 1,700 people at their firms and can do this research by hand to make sure they actually have things right.
At this rate it almost feels like we’re eventually going to hear about a case where a judge made a ruling based on a bogus AI citation.
Grok going crazy and AI in court are just examples of how AI can affect what information we’re given, but it can do so much more damage if left unchecked.
One big concern is generative AI, which is being used to make things like Deepfakes.
This ten-year ban on regulations would undo work in states like Utah -- which have passed extremely strict laws that punish making revenge porn and sexualized images of children.[]
And in total at least 16 states have similar legislation
Other states have extremely comprehensive bills which show how many industries are potentially affected by AI.
Such as in Colorado, where they passed a law that regulated “high-risk” AIs.
This means anything that “makes, or is a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision” that has “a material, legal, or similarly significant effect” in just about every industry you can think of.
Finance, employment, government, health care, insurance, legal, and housing would all be affected.
This is such a big concern that groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation warned that “Stopping States From Passing AI Laws for the Next Decade is a Terrible Idea”
In that piece, they wrote that:
“Given how different the AI industry looks now from how it looked just three years ago, it’s hard to even conceptualize how different it may look in ten years. State lawmakers must be able to react to emerging issues.”
The group also pointed out that it’s not opposed to AI as a whole and even opposes some regulation, but for them this addition to the budget “...puts a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of companies.”
So their stance is the stance a lot of people have: AI has the potential to completely change our lives for both good and bad.
It just needs to be kept in check.
Also it should be pointed out that not every state wants to heavily regulate AI.
Even California -- which generally has a ton of regulation -- is struggling to reign in the industry because Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed bills he felt were too expansive.
Going back to the reconciliation budget: we still have a few steps to go to see if this AI addition will actually survive until the end.
It doesn’t seem like any lawmakers have publicly commented on it, but considering the general backlash it’s getting I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw some cold feet.
But what do you think?
Is barring regulation a smart idea -- even if 10 years is maybe too long?
like what about a 2 year moratorium?
Or should Republicans let the states handle the issues however they see fit, which would be in line with like DECADES of political rhetoric from them.
Get a free cold brew maker with your Trade cold brew subscription, at Trade Coffee.
-
Vladimir Putin has turned down Zelensky’s challenge for an in-person meeting in Turkey – and it’s been widely seen as another example of Russia just not being serious about ending the war in Ukraine.
Right, going back to the weekend, you had several leaders (1, 2, 3, 4) from the UK, France, Germany and Poland meeting with Zelensky in Kyiv –
With them demanding that Putin accept a 30-day unconditional ceasefire as a first step to full peace talks aimed at a long-lasting peace, and threatening to step up sanctions if he refused.
They thought they had the White House’s backing as well, but then, Putin suggested Russia and Ukraine resume direct talks that broke off in 2022 without a ceasefire or any other preconditions.
And Trump globbed right on to that idea, writing on social media: “Ukraine should agree to this, IMMEDIATELY.” []
And so you had Zelensky quickly responding, reiterating his call for a ceasefire but also adding:
“...I will be waiting for Putin in Türkiye on Thursday. Personally. I hope that this time the Russians will not look for excuses.” []
With this being seen by many as Zelensky calling Putin’s bluff.
And yesterday, when the EU also agreed on its 17th sanctions package against Russia since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin announced the delegation that would be attending talks in Turkey.
And surprise surprise, Putin wasn’t on the list.
And notably, neither were his foreign minister or another top foreign policy aide who are at least seen as having some real weight in the Kremlin.
With Zelensky describing the Russian delegation as “decorative” “phony” and “theatrical.”
And then one Ukrainian diplomatic official telling Politico:
“The Russian chair in Turkey is de facto empty. Because it makes little difference whether Mr. Nobody, sent by Putin, and his insignificant colleagues sit in their chairs or not.”
“They are not the ones making decisions. And the person who does — Putin — is either afraid to come or does not take the U.S.-led peace effort seriously.” []
But with that, you had Zelensky saying he’d still be sending a delegation to meet with Moscow’s B-team out of respect for Trump as well as the Turkish president — who he met with earlier in the day.
As well as to be a clear demonstration of Ukraine’s willingness to put an end to Russia’s war against Ukraine. []
And with that, also emphasizing that while he himself wouldn’t be attending without Putin, he was still sending his A-team.
WIth the Ukrainian delegation led by the country’s defense minister and including several other high-ranking officials as well.
Now with that, the Russian side has pushed back, with the head negotiator in Istanbul saying his delegation does have the power to make decisions. []
And besides that, several top US officials are also in Turkey – including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and envoys Keith Kellogg and Steve Witkoff
With Rubio saying today that Trump is open to "virtually any mechanism" to reach a lasting end to the war in Ukraine.
And as far as Trump himself? You have him basically excusing Putin’s absence and saying there’s no point to any of this until meets with the Russian president personally.
With him claiming “nothing's going to happen” until he and Putin get together, and saying:
““No, I didn’t anticipate (Putin would go). I actually said, ‘Why would he go if I’m not going?’ Because I wasn’t going to go. I wasn’t planning to. I would go, but I wasn’t planning to go. And I said, ‘I don’t think he’s going to go if I don’t go.’ And that turned out to be right.” []
So that’s ultimately where we’re at, but we’ll see if we get a Trump-Putin meeting anytime soon, and if that actually leads to any real progress.
-
A Russian scientist working at Harvard has now been charged with smuggling – not drugs, weapons, or people – but frog embryos.
That and other scientific samples she had in her luggage when she landed in Boston on February 16th.
Right, her name is Kseniia Petrova (Kuh-SEN-yuh Peh-TRO-vuh) and these samples?
She reportedly hoped they would aid her research aimed at slowing aging, fighting diseases like Alzheimer’s and cancer, and ultimately helping people live longer, healthier lives.
Her boss, the one who actually asked her to pick up the samples from colleagues in Paris?
You’ve had him saying she was “spectacular: the best [he’d] ever seen in 20 years at Harvard.” []
But as she has admitted, she failed to properly declare the samples to customs when returning to the US.
Though, notably, this type of violation? It’s reportedly considered pretty minor normally – punishable with a fine of up to $500.
But instead, the customs official canceled her visa on the spot and began deportation proceedings.
With her then telling the official that she had fled Russia after protesting the invasion of Ukraine and that she feared being arrested or killed if she went back. []
And so instead of being sent off, she was shipped off to a detention center in Louisiana while the government figured out what to do with her.
Right, and that’s where she’s been for the past three months.
Notably, without ever being charged with any crime.
That is – until now.
Right, this week, you had her lawyers pleading her case in the United States District Court in Vermont.
With Chief Judge Christina Reiss (Rice) telling the court that she had reviewed the statute laying out the grounds for customs officers to find someone inadmissible to the country and that she didn’t “see anything about customs violations.” []
And then asking the government’s lawyers:
“Where is that authority?”
“Where does a customs and border patrol officer have the authority on his or her own to revoke a visa?”
“It’s got to be somewhere. Because there is no way that person has kind of an unlimited determination.” []
In response, an attorney representing the Department of Justice said “it’s the secretary of state’s authority” to cancel a visa, and that the secretary has delegated that authority to customs officials. []
With the attorney also arguing that the court in Vermont had no jurisdiction over Kuh-SEN-yah’s detention, claiming she could challenge it, but only in an immigration court in Louisiana, where ICE was holding her. []
With the judge replying:
“But she is only detained there because you moved her.” []
And lastly, notably, the attorney confirmed that the administration intends to send her back to Russia despite the dangers she might face there. []
And with all that, Judge Rice scheduled a bail hearing for Kuh-SEN-yah later this month, apparently setting the stage for her release.[]
With her lawyer claiming the hearing established that she was detained unlawfully.[]
But then, he said, “Almost immediately after the hearing, [they] were blindsided by the unsealing of a meritless criminal complaint.”
With this complaint alleging that Kuh-SEN-yah “fraudulently and knowingly” imported undeclared biological specimens, including samples on slides and “frog embryos in microcentrifuges.”[]
With it pointing to text messages between her and her colleagues in which she allegedly said she has “no plan” for carrying the samples through customs.
And also noting that before she left Russia, she worked for a genetic research center with ties to the Russian government.[]
And with all that, if she is convicted, she could face up to 20 years in prison, or a fine of up to $250,000. []
With her lawyer saying that the “The timing of Kuh-SEN-yah’s transfer out of ICE custody into criminal custody is especially suspect because it happened right after the judge set a bail hearing for her release.”[]
And with that, arguing that the smuggling charge “filed three months after the alleged customs violation, is clearly intended to make Kuh-SEN-yah look like a criminal to justify their efforts to deport her.”[]
And with that, you have many people noting that Kuh-SEN-yah is just one of several non-citizen academics who have been arrested or threatened with deportation.
And notably, in more than one case, it’s been federal judges in Vermont handing out rulings to piss off the Trump administration.
On April 30, for example, Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi (Mah-sen Mod-ow-ee - LISTEN HERE), who was detained by immigration authorities during an interview for his naturalization, was released from detention.
And on May 9, Tufts doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk (Roo-may-suh Oz-turk), who was grabbed off the streets in Summer-ville, Mass? (BROLL: 1:25-1:30)
Of course, with that, unlike them and many others, Kuh-SEN-yah’s case stands out because she hasn’t been accused of publicly protesting against Israel’s killing of civilians in Gaza.
But you still have people like the attorney general of Massachusetts saying it’s part of the same pattern –
With her writing in an amicus brief that these detentions represented the “reckless and cruel misuse of power to punish and terrorize noncitizen members of the academic community.” []
Also with all that, it’s also notable that this particular research is employed at Harvard.
Right, because that’s the school Trump has clashed with more than any other.
And to that point, just this week, you had the administration cancelling an additional $450 million in grants for Harvard University –
Accusing the school of not resolving the “pervasive race discrimination and antisemitic harassment” they described as “plaguing” the campus. []
With this being on top of the $2.2 billion the administration had already frozen after Harvard rejected a list of the government’s demands.
WIth Trump also piling on the pressure by repeatedly threatening to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status.
But of course, Harvard hasn’t backed down, suing the administration over the funding freeze – calling its actions an unconstitutional attempt to curb academic freedom and speech.
And notably, now adding on to that lawsuit in light of the latest cuts,
With the amended complaint claiming the government had “doubled down” on its tactics as it “ratcheted up funding cuts, investigations, and threats that will hurt students from every state in the country and around the world.” []
Also, with that, Harvard is making moves to get by without federal money, announcing today that it’s setting aside $250 million of its own funds to support “critical research” impacted by the Trump administration’s freeze.
And on top of that, Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, is taking a 25 percent pay cut for the fiscal year beginning in July.
WIth also ninety tenured professors pleading to take 10 percent pay cuts to help the university withstand the Trump administration’s attacks. []
And if the university is really looking for some extra cash, they may have actually just found some.
Right, you may have seen, a copy of the Magna Carta the school bought after World War II for $27.50?
It turned out to be an original 1300 version that could be worth millions.
I mean, it’s not like they go on the market very often, but a 710-year-old version of Magna Carta sold in 2007 went for $21.3 million to be exact. []
And the one Harvard has has just been sitting in the library labelled as an unofficial copy.
But it’s actually one of only seven originals that still exist from 1300, though, notably, there are 24 copies existing from between the years 1215 and 1300. []
Right, with 1215 being the year it was originally issued in England, and since having been one of the most influential and important documents of all time – heavily influencing the US constitution for example .
And with that, those words seem poetically applicable today, one famous passage, for instance, saying:
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” []
And so you actually have experts like Nicholas Vincent, a professor of medieval history at a in England, tying it to Trump’s attacks on Harvard, saying:
“In this particular instance we are dealing with an institution that is under direct attack from the state itself, so it’s almost providential it has turned up where it has at this particular time.” []
But with that, I gotta pass the question off to you,what are your thoughts on and all of what we talked about here ?
-
When someone’s child is planning to commit a mass shooting, sometimes the parent just doesn’t see the signs, sometimes they see the signs but ignore them, but never have I seen a case where they actively encourage and help the kid do what he’s planning.
However that is what 33-year-old Ashley Pardo is accused of, and she’s only the first of three absolutely horrible parents in the news right now. [Image]
Right, so her story begins in January, when her son allegedly drew a map of his middle school in San Antonio, Texas, labeled it “suicide route,” and wrote its name beside a rifle. [Quote]
Which naturally caught the attention of local officials, who reportedly spoke to him and said he expressed a “fascination with past mass shooters.” [Quote same link]
You know, just minor red flags.
And then in April, he was allegedly caught researching a 2019 mass shooting in New Zealand on a school-issued computer. [Quote same link, find “2019”]
So this time the school suspended him, and that same day he reportedly tried to take his own life.
With him then attending a different school until last week, which is when those tiny, probably trivial red flags unfurled into humongous fucking banners.
Because reportedly the boy’s grandmother found him “hitting a live bullet with a hammer.” [Quote same link]
And when she asked where it came from, allegedly he was like, oh, mom gave it to me. [Quote same link, find “received”]
And not only that — there’s way more!
Right, according to the grandma, Pardo had been taking her son, a middle schooler, to a local surplus store and buying him gun magazines, a tactical black vest, a matching helmet and various army clothing. [Quote same link, find “surplus”]
With an affidavit claiming that she got him that stuff in exchange for babysitting his younger siblings. [Quote same link, find “siblings”]
Then, on Monday, the boy told his grandma he was "going to be famous" before being picked up by his mom and taken to school. [Quote same link]
So, you know, on a hunch, the grandma checked his bedroom, and there she discovered not only the magazines loaded with live bullets, [Quote same link, find “bedroom”]
But also a mortar-style firework wrapped in duct tape, what police called an “improvised explosive device,” with Nazi insignia and words referencing the mass shooter in New Zealand. [Quote same link, find “SS”]
Now according to the cops, Pardo was down with all of this.
Right, allegedly she expressed to the school her support of his “violent expressions and drawings,” and said she did not feel concerned for his behavior. [Quote same link]
So when the boy reportedly showed up to school the day he promised to become famous wearing a mask, camouflage and tactical pants, he was detained and charged with terrorism.
And Pardo’s also been charged with aiding in commission of terrorism, but y’all, believe it or not, she’s arguably not the worst parent we’ve gotta talk about today.
Because two very close competitors are Branndon Mosley and Brenda Spencer. [Image]
Right, this late-thirties.early-forties couple in New Jersey took Spencer’s daughter out of school just before seventh grade and began homeschooling her in 2018. [B roll, 01:08 - 01:17]
Except when I say “homeschooling,” what I really mean is they allegedly kept her inside of a dog crate for a whole year and only let her out periodically. [Same B roll and Quote, find “dog crate”]
Then, they allegedly upgraded her to a padlocked bathroom, chaining her up and only letting her out when family visited. [Same quote and B roll, 00:53 - 01:01]
And lastly, she was allegedly put in a room with only a bucket for a toilet and rigged with an alarm system that would go off if she tried to leave. [Same B roll and Quote same link, find “bucket”]
Meanwhile, according to police, Mosley sexually abused her and beat her with a belt.
With authorities adding that she, as well as her younger sister, lived in”squalid filth” with numerous animals, including dogs and chinchillas. [Quote same link, find “dogs”]
But last week, after seven years of this “homeschooling” and now an 18-year-old woman, reportedly she somehow escaped.
With her reportedly running to the home of a neighbor who tells ABC he hadn’t seen her in 11 years, but that she looked bad.
[Clip, 01:58 - 02:06, 02:14 - 02:21] Caption: “She definitely had scars on her wrists from I think being chained up. … She had her head shaved, and she said that for her punishment her mother would shave her head.”
So now both parents have been charged with kidnapping, aggravated assault, and endangering the welfare of a child, and Mosley was hit with additional sexual assault charges. [Image]
With the Camden County prosecutor calling their actions horrific, but also heaping some of the blame on the state of New Jersey.
[Clip, 01:49 - 02:06] Caption: “For homeschooling in New Jersey, parents are only required to notify the school district of their intent to homeschool. There is no requirement by the New Jersey Department of Education to to follow up or to confirm attendance records, minimum instructional time, subjects or testing.”
And then, the last couple of parents making headlines are Kenneth Michael Key and Tina Marie Key, both 60 years old in Southern California. [B roll, 00:14 - 00:26]
But according to police, instead of abusing their adult 23-year-old daughter Katlynn, they enlisted her in their abuse of six other foster children. [Same B roll]
Right, reportedly those kids are between the ages of 4 and 16, and they were allegedly subjected to physical, mental and emotional abuse for years. [Quote, find “16”]
With the district attorney saying in a statement:
“The abuse included daily beatings, strangulation to the point of unconsciousness, and punishments of withholding food and water from the children for a period of days.” [Quote same link]
Now authorities still haven’t explained how all this went on for years without San Bernardino foster care officials noticing.
But a neighbor who told Fox he was friends with the family says the parents warned him early on that the kids would make up stories to get them in trouble. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 01:26 - 01:33] Caption: “I heard stories from them that it could be lies just so they could move out the house.”
Anyway, authorities reportedly got a tip from a child abuse hotline back in February, and apparently they just found enough evidence to prosecute. [Quote, find “Feb”]
Because now the parents and their adult daughter are being charged with torture and child abuse.
Use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “PDS” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes! SeatGeek
