The Andrew Tate Situation Just Got WORSE, Elon Musk Criticizes Trump’s BBB, & Today's News
PDS Published 05/28/2025
-
Prosecutors in the U.K. just confirmed that they have authorized 21 charges against Andrew and Tristan Tate.
With BBC News reporting that Andrew faces 10 charges stemming from three alleged victims, including rape, actual bodily harm, human trafficking, and controlling prostitution for gain.[]
Meanwhile, Tristan faces 11 charges from one alleged victim, again including rape, actual bodily harm, and human trafficking.
And while this is the first time that the Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed or given details on criminal charges, they were actually authorized last year back when we learned that arrest warrants had been issued against the brothers. []
With the brothers notably already facing extradition to the U.K.
And with today’s news, the Crown Prosecution Service did release a statement to Sky News explaining:[]
"These charging decisions followed receipt of a file of evidence from Bedfordshire Police. A European Arrest Warrant was issued in England in 2024, and as a result the Romanian courts ordered the extradition to the UK of Andrew and Tristan Tate. However, the domestic criminal matters in Romania must be settled first.”
And if you need a refresher on the many legal battles the Tates are facing, well, in the U.S., they are facing two lawsuits: one alleging that Andrew assaulted his ex-girlfriend in California, and another from Florida accusing both brothers of coercing a woman into sex work.
They are also under criminal investigation in Florida.
Then in Romania, there are two cases: one where they are accused of trafficking minors, intercourse with a minor, and money laundering, and then a separate human trafficking case that is facing setbacks after being sent back to prosecutors.[]
Which brings us to the U.K., where we not only have the charges we just discussed, but also a lawsuit that was filed against Andrew by four women over allegations the Crown Prosecution Service decided to not prosecute back in 2019.
And the brothers have repeatedly denied any allegations of wrongdoing, and this morning Andrew wrote that:
“So Romania failed now england tries. The matrix is angry. They do this to ANY man who fights against them. Never give up men.Never give in. Do not be scared. Strength and honor.”[]
As far as other responses, the lawyer representing the alleged victims suing him in the U.K. addressed the news, saying:[]
"We welcome the clarity from the Crown Prosecution Service that our authorities are working to ensure the Tates face justice here in the UK – they cannot be allowed to escape extradition.”
"At the same time, we ask once more that CPS admit its mistake in failing to prosecute Tate when he lived in the UK and finally charge him for the rape and assault of the other three women, our clients, who originally filed criminal complaints against him as long ago as 2014 but were failed by the system.
"They deserve justice, too."
And like I said, this story is still breaking, but I would love to know your thoughts on it still.
-
Secretary of State Marco Rubio just took two major actions on foreign visas that will have massive implications.
Right, yesterday, Rubio directed U.S. embassies and consulates to temporarily stop
scheduling new appointments for foreign student visa applications while the State Department prepares to expand social media screening.
With that move being outlined in a State Department cable that was first reported by POLITICO and has since been obtained and verified by other outlets.
And specifically, the cable states that, effective immediately, all consular sections must stop scheduling new appointments and remove all unclaimed appointments for student and exchange visas in order to prepare for the social media vetting expansion.
Though, according to The New York Times: “Foreign citizens with existing interview appointments for student or exchange visas should in theory still be able to attend those.”
Now, very notably here, it is unclear exactly what those new guidelines will entail.
The cable only says that the State Department “is conducting a review of existing operations and processes for screening and vetting” student and exchange visas and “plans to issue guidance on expanded social media vetting for all such applicants.”
But we did see POLITICO reporting that the document “alludes to executive orders that are aimed at keeping out terrorists and battling antisemitism.”
Which also tracks given the fact that Rubio has repeatedly spoken about canceling student visas, revoking permanent residency status, and studying the social media history of foreign visitors.
With this largely in relation to the Israel/Gaza war.
And when asked about the cable in a press briefing, State Department Spokeswoman Tammy Bruce responded with this:
“If you’re discussing that, that’s something that has not been discussed publicly. It would have to be leaked material, if it exists. What I can remind everyone of, which we’ve discussed for months here, is that we use every tool in our tool chest to vet anyone coming in who wants to come into this country.” 20:15 - 20:22
“Every sovereign country has a right to know who’s trying to come in, why they want to come in, who they are, what they’ve been doing and, at least hopefully, within that framework, determine what they will be doing while they’re here. So that’s nothing new.” 20:29 - 20:44
But she also refused to say what the current process is for vetting applicants’ social media or how it might change.
And in a statement to The Times, the Department just reiterated her remarks about using “all available information.”
And while the agency noted that visa applicants have been asked to provide social media account information since 2019, it also did not specify what could cause an applicant to be flagged for rejection under a new social media policy.
And, to that point, it’s kind of just unclear how any changes would significantly alter recent policies that have already been implemented.
Right, back in March, Rubio sent another cable to consular officers directing them to study the social media content of certain applicants for various visas — including student visas and exchange visas.
And last month, the Department Homeland Security announced that it would start screening noncitizens’ social media accounts for antisemitic content as reason to deny visa and green-card applications, including those of foreign students.
Now, that said, one possibility is that the new State Department policy is just meant to provide more explicit guidance to consular staff on what kind of social media content should raise red flags.
Right, according to POLITICO, State Department officials have been privately complaining for months that past guidance has been vague, with the outlet explaining:
“It’s unclear, for example, whether posting photos of a Palestinian flag on an X account could force a student to undergo additional scrutiny.”
But, regardless of the exact details of how this policy will be implemented, you had many immigration law and first amendment experts condemning the move.
Arguing this is just yet another attempt to crack down on free speech and censor pro-Palestine speech on campuses.
Right, as we’ve talked about many times before, the administration has launched a sweeping effort to revoke the legal status of thousands of international students in the U.S. who have expressed pro-Palestine sentiments.
But some experts say this latest step goes even further.
According to Stuart Anderson, the executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, this new move indicates that the administration is trying to prevent student visa applicants who disagree with their views from studying in America period.
Right, and that’s much easier than trying to remove people who are already here — with Anderson explaining that the administration’s attempts to deport existing foreign students, quote:
“makes what the State Department has been doing legally questionable for students inside the country.”
But, “By focusing more attention on people before they get to the U.S., they would cut off legal avenues that people would have once they’re in the U.S.”
Right, and on the note of other policies, that brings us to the second piece of visa news I want to hit.
Which is that, today, we saw Rubio announcing even MORE new visa restrictions on foreign nationals — though these appear to be very different from the ones we just talked about.
With Rubio writing in a post on X:
“For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights. Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans. Free speech is essential to the American way of life – a birthright over which foreign governments have no authority.”[]
And in a press release outlining the move, Rubio explained the move further, saying:
“In some instances, foreign officials have taken flagrant censorship actions against U.S. tech companies and U.S. citizens and residents when they have no authority to do so.”
And dding: “It is unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on U.S. soil.”
Then seemingly hitting at the crux of what this move will really do, stating:
“It is similarly unacceptable for foreign officials to demand that American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reaches beyond their authority and into the United States.”
And it’s that last part seems to be the real meat and potatoes here.
Right, Trump and many others in the Republican party have long complained of anti-conservative censorship — particularly on social media — both at home and abroad.
This despite the fact that numerous studies have shown very little evidence of that claim.
Finding instead that the content that has been removed is actually just misinformation or hate speech.
But as tech companies have started to unwind policies moderating that kind of content in the U.S., leaders in other parts of the world have responded by imposing new regulations.
But that has pissed off many conservatives — including Vice President JD Vance — who argue that foreign leaders are censoring American companies and suppressing dissenting views by labeling them as disinformation or hate speech.
Though, notably, EU leaders have hit back by arguing that the rules are necessary to compel tech giants to remove content that they deem ilelgal, like hate speech and child sexual abuse material.
And while Rubio did not name any specific countries or foreign leaders in his post or statement, this move comes as Vance and others in the Trump administration have been particularly vocal about their opposition to European moderation laws.
Which they argue are hostile to free splheech.
Beyond that, this also comes amid a high-profile battle between Elon Musk and a Brazilian Supreme Court Judge who ordered him to take down accounts and posts on X that were accused of spreading misinformation.
But experts say it would be a major escalation to start restricting foreign officials from visiting the U.S. — including on official business — just because they are enforcing policies that comply with their own laws.
With one State Department official telling POLITICO:
“If there’s an American Nazi posting stuff in France and France is like, banning pro-Nazi stuff, is Rubio going to say that the owners of that French platform doing content moderation are barred from entry to the United States?”
Right, and that’s why you have some saying it is hypocritical for the U.S. to try to force other countries to regulate speech as they see fit in the name of preventing American censorship.[]
With many also arguing that this move is especially hypocritical given the fact that Rubio and others in the administration are cracking down on pro-Palestine speech so intensely.[][][]
Saying it’s absurd that he’s revoking visas for people who speak out about Palestine while simultaneously revoking visas for foreigners who he claims are censoring hate speech and misinformation.
But, of course, on the other side, you have many conservatives applauding the move, arguing it is an important step to combat censorship.[]
But that’s where I’m gonna leave this one for now, and with all that, I’d love to know your thoughts — on both or either of these recent policies.
-
Elon Musk hasn’t even left the White House yet, and he’s already breaking from Trump’s line.
With him criticizing the president’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” the budget that passed the House last week. [Image then lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 01:18 - 01:22] Caption: “The bill is passed.” *Cheers and applause*
And for a while now, it’s been causing a split within the GOP between those who think tax cuts should be the top priority and those who think closing the deficit should be.
Because while the bill would do a lot of things Republicans generally like, such as cut taxes by trillions of dollars, increase defense and border spending, impose Medicaid work requirements, cut food stamps and roll back clean energy,
It would do all of that for the price of raising the deficit by nearly four trillion dollars over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. [Quote, find “3.8”]
As well as raising the debt ceiling by four trillion dollars just to fund the government through the next couple of years.
But when Trump was asked about it last week, he attacked GOP lawmaker Thomas Massie for voting against it, praised Speaker Mike Johnson for unifying the party, and defended his bill against the deficit hawks. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 04:39 - 04:49] Caption: [Donald Trump:] “I’m a bigger fiscal hawk. There’s nobody like me as a fiscal hawk.” [Reporter:] “Thomas Massie said this adds more deficit than Biden did, and this bill …” [Donald Trump:] “Because we have to fix the country!”
But not everyone’s convinced, with a handful of Senate Republicans criticizing the House bill, including Rick Scott. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:15 - 00:27, 00:50 - 00:52, 01:17 - 01:19] Caption: “I support President Trump’s agenda — secure the border, build up the military, make the tax cuts permanent — I think we’ve got to do all these things. But let’s live in reality for a second. … We’ve gotta go through every line in the budget. … That’s what DOGE is doing.”
And speaking of DOGE, Elon Musk just echoed that same point on CBS, arguing that the bill contradicts his team’s mission.
[Clip, 00:01 - 00:14, 00:22 - 00:30] Caption: “I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing. … I think it both can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don’t know if it can be both. My personal opinion.”
But when it comes to shrinking the deficit, Musk has taken some flak himself for not living up to his promises either.
Right, because he initially said DOGE would cut government spending by at least two trillion dollars, later revising that down to just one trillion, but as of April, DOGE itself only claims to have cut around 170 billion. [Image and image]
And even that number is dubious, with the BBC finding that many of the largest savings claims are either lacking in evidence, highly speculative or vastly overstated. [Headline]
Now when he was confronted about this during an interview in Qatar last week, Elon defended himself.
Though he seemed on the one hand to blame the government for DOGE’s lack of success, and on the other hand to claim that it’s been very successful given the constraints. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 27:08 - 27:19, 27:45 - 27:58] Caption: “The ability of DOGE to operate is a function of whether the government, and this includes Congress, is willing to take our advice… We are not the dictators. We are the advisors. But thus far, for advisors, the DOGE team, to their credit, has made incredible progress.”
And then, he seemed to suggest that he would be pulling back not just from DOGE, but from politics in general. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 34:47 - 34:57] Caption: [Elon Musk:] “In terms of political spending, I’m going to do a lot less in the future.” [Interviewer:] “And why is that?” {Elon Musk:] “I think I’ve done enough.”
And if he’s trying to devote more attention to his various companies, he’s got a lot of work cut out for him.
Right, with Tesla, there’s the fallout from his involvement in the White House, including protests, vandalism, boycotts, declining sales, a very turbulent stock price and a tarnished brand.
Then, with SpaceX, he’s hoping to launch the first fully reusable Starship rocket by the end of this year. [B roll, 00:11]
But as it descended back to Earth during its ninth TestFlight this morning, the rocket spun out of control and broke apart, apparently thanks to a leak in the fuel tank. [B roll, 00:45]
And that after it failed to deploy eight dummy satellites when a side hatch jammed. [B roll, 00:26]
So clearly both Musk and Trump have a lot on their plates this year, but it’ll be interesting to see whether their disagreement over this big beautiful bill deepens into a real political conflict, or if they repress it for the sake of unity.
Click here Seed and use code DEFRANCO25 to get 25% off your 1st month’s supply of Seed’s DS-01®️ Daily Synbiotic + Free shipping!
-
Israel’s launched a new round of strikes across Yemen and Gaza, killing dozens including children.
That’s all coming as Israel claims it’s killed the leader of Hamas, which could actually put a peace deal even more out of reach.
But let’s start with this tense humanitarian situation in Gaza at an aid distribution site.
Since March, Israel has blocked off aid to Gaza, but then on Tuesday it allowed the group Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to roll out new aid centers.
While there were multiple locations, the one in Tel al-Sultan, near the southern city of Rafah, was the site of absolute chaos for a while.
As you can imagine, there was a massive crowd waiting to score anything and they quickly got out of control.
Footage shows the group breaking barriers and rushing the aid.
Nearby Israeli forces didn’t help things when they fired “warning shots,” which led the crowd to stampede as it fled the area.
(Initially it was thought this was fire conducted by a plane or helicopter, but the IDF denied this and said it was just ground troops).
However, at the site itself, the staff and armed contractors had an actual plan to avoid bloodshed.
The group Gaza Humanitarian Foundation says that as soon as it was clear things were going to be a shit show, they fled.[]
Local Palestinian staff then formed a cordon around the crowd to try and somewhat contain things, which worked because things eventually calmed down and no shots had to be fired.
The good news is that this seems to be an isolated incident and the other sites had no real issues.
Also this isn’t a small amount of aid either and is mostly in the form of long-lasting food items.
So things like flour, pasta, rice, beans… and when taken together, they feed “5.5 people for 3.5 days, totaling 462,000 meals.”[]
A number that’s expected to rise as more and more aid centers are opened up.
And all that coming as we got the absolutely massive news that Israel has allegedly killed Hamas leader Mohammed Sinwar.
He’s the brother of Hamas’ former leader before taking over the position following his death in Southern Gaza.
In a speech to lawmakers, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhau bragged that: [read]
“We changed the face of the Middle East, we pushed the terrorists from our territories, we entered the Gaza Strip with force, we eliminated tens of thousands of terrorists, we eliminated (Mohammad) Deif, (Ismail) Haniyeh, Yahya Sinwar and Mohammed Sinwar.”
Notably, Sinwar seems to have actually been killed almost two weeks ago, but the group refused to acknowledge his death at the time.[]
Additionally, it’s not like the Israeli government was rushing to release the news.
For many Israelis, Sinwar’s death is probably a symbolic victory - but for the government it might be a catch-22.
That’s because as they continue to assassinate Hamas leadership, it becomes increasingly unclear who actually leads the group.[]
That makes it harder to actually negotiate a peace deal.
Speaking of which, there’s a ton of confusion about whether a deal is actually on the table right now.
Reports started coming out over the past few days that Hamas was agreeing to a 60-day truce proposed by American special envoy Steve Witkoff.
That deal would also include exchanging 10 of the still-living Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners.
However, Israel and the US denied the claims that any ceasefire was going to happen, with a US official even saying that what Witkoff saw from Hamas was “disappointing and completely unacceptable.”
Which kinda paints the picture that he's not exactly close to making a ceasefire happen.
Speaking of deals that kinda involve Hamas: Trump continues to try and secure some kind of Iran nuclear deal.
(I swear that’s not a crazy connection since Iran has long funded and supported Hamas, and American leadership has long wanted for that to stop).
Trump’s negotiations haven’t seemed to move much, with Iran’s Foreign Minister swearing last week that “I have said it before, and I repeat it again: uranium enrichment in Iran will continue — with or without an agreement.”
And for the American side that’s a big red flag, because while most negotiations seem to allow some enrichment, there’s a push to stop it before getting to a point that could make weapons.
Netanyahu isn’t helping things though, because he’s out there saying that Israel is going to strike Iranian nuclear facilities without any American involvement.
Now, to be clear, Israel isn’t involved in the negotiations directly, but these statements from a US ally in the region complicate things.
Not to mention that Israel may not be bluffing.
Speaking of Israeli strikes, can’t forget about the one they just carried out against Yemen.
The strikes hit Yemen’s Sah-nah airport and came just a few days after the Houthi group launched their own missiles into Israel.
The group also claims that this strike destroyed the last civilian planes Yemen-ee-ya Airways operates from that airport.
It doesn’t seem like anyone was on that plane, but it was scheduled to take Muslim pilgrims on the Hajj -- which is a pretty big deal for Muslims.[]
Israeli sources paint a different picture and claim that the planes are used by the Houthis.
Following the attack, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz warned that:
“This is a clear message and a continuation of our policy: Whoever fires at the State of Israel will pay a heavy price.”
This strike also means that the Sah-nah airport was only back in service for like a week following strikes by the US.
There’s some debate about how effective targeting the airport actually is.
Right, it’s mostly used for Yemen-ee-ya airways flights and UN planes.
Stepping back a bit it’s easy to see how Israel views this all as a part of a greater conflict with Iran.
Right, Netanyahu went out and said: [read]
“But, as I have said more than once, the Houthis are only the symptom. The main driving force behind them is Iran, which is responsible for the aggression emanating from Yemen.”
And in the past he’s made similar statements about Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are funded and armed by Iran.
So we’ll have to continue to keep an eye on all of this, but things could go really off the rails if Iran and Israel decide to openly fight each other.
-
RFK Jr. is walking back recommendations for the COVID-19 vaccine.
With him announcing yesterday that the shot has been removed from the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and healthy pregnant women.[]
He delivered the news alongside the director of the National Institutes of Health and the commissioner for the FDA, with them saying in a video:
“Last year, the Biden administration urged healthy children to get yet another COVID shot despite the lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children. That ends today. It’s common sense. And it’s good science.” (0:26-0:42)
But not everyone in the medical community actually thinks this decision is based on good science.
Right, because the CDC previously recommended that everyone six months and older get vaccinated against COVID, []
With the group specifically saying that it is especially important for those who are pregnant.
Also recently, federal health officials cited pregnancy as a risk factor for developing more severe cases of COVID, but taking the shot off the schedule for “healthy” pregnant women clashes with that. []
And so you had the president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist releasing a statement condemning this move, saying:[]
“As ob-gyns who treat patients every day, we have seen firsthand how dangerous COVID-19 infection can be during pregnancy and for newborns who depend on maternal antibodies from the vaccine for protection. We also understand that despite the change in recommendations from HHS, the science has not changed. It is very clear that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability, and it can cause devastating consequences for families. The COVID-19 vaccine is safe during pregnancy, and vaccination can protect our patients and their infants after birth.”
And this comes as we already learned that the FDA is planning to limit future booster shots to only those above 65 or with high-risk conditions.
But still, RFK’s announcement did surprise some, with the Washington Post reporting that CDC officials were not informed of his decision in advance. []
With some reports also claiming the decision was made without input from independent, outside advisors. []
So you had Dr. Richard Besser, a former acting director of the CDC, condemning the move while speaking to NBC News, saying:][
“One of the things that I relied on as a pediatrician was an assurance that the recommendations that came to me were based on the best available science and evidence, and came from the work of the expert advisors to the CDC. This is clearly not coming from that direction, and that’s greatly concerning.”
And many concerned because, essentially, this move makes it so that insurance companies will no longer be required to pay for vaccines for these groups. []
So that out-of-pocket price tag could price people out of getting them.
The decision will also impact the newborn children of pregnant women, because vaccinating pregnant women protects their newborns who are too young to get these shots.
And even though kids tend to not get seriously sick from COVID, it can still happen, especially for really young kids.
And so you had Dr. Sean O'Leary, who chairs the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Infectious Diseases, telling NPR:
"It's really concerning. I think it's going to be confusing not only for parents but also for public health professionals and medical professionals as well. This takes away choice."
With this all coming as a new variant is making a ton of headlines, too.
That variant is surging in China but has been detected in a handful of states.
It is a relative of Omicron, and even though it does not appear to be any more severe than previous variants, it is more transmissible. []
So that’s just another thing to add to the pile of things.
But I would love to know your thoughts on any of this, especially if RFK’s latest decision here stands to impact you or someone in your family.
Go to Vessi for 15% off your first order.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(749x0:751x2)/andrew-tate-tristan-tate-02-052825-aa85a63f777c48dead9793dbcaffd23f.jpg){kind=link}
