South Park Humiliated Trump, Kristi Noem, & ICE
PDS Published 08/07/2025
-
South Park’s second episode of the new season aired last night, and I think it’s safe to say Trey Parker and Matt Stone are going to war with the Trump administration.
Right, and actually, they got into a brief spat with the White House earlier in the week Tuesday, when the Department of Homeland Security used the show to promote itself.
With the DHS X account posting a still from the episode’s teaser showing ICE agents descending on South Park with the caption: “JOIN.ICE.GOV.” [Post]
But the official South Park account clapped back, commenting, “Wait, so we ARE relevant?” along with the hashtag “eat a bag of dicks.” [Post]
With that referring to a statement the White House made after the show’s first episode last month, saying, “This show hasn’t been relevant for over 20 years and is hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention.” [Quote]
Well whatever you think about it, last night’s episode definitely grabbed some attention, because it skewered not just Trump, but several of his closest allies.
With it focusing on the fictional elementary school counselor Mr Mackey, who, after losing his job, joins ICE for its large salary. [Pull stills from 00:06 - 00:30]
And on his first day, he sits next to other new hires for their orientation, with an introductory video from Trump’s DHS secretary, Kristi Noem. [Pull stills from 00:53 - 01:06]
Who, you may remember, was once criticized for telling a story about how she shot and killed her own dog because it was “untrainable,” and South Park milked that for all it was worth.
With Noem’s character saying, [Read quote with this voice 00:59] “A few years ago, I had to put my puppy down by shooting it in the face, because sometimes doing what’s important means doing what’s hard.” [Same stills]
With her then shooting another dog as a demonstration, and adding: [Same clip, pull stills from 01:06 - 01:11]
“Now we’ll ask the same determination of you, because detaining and questioning people is never easy.” [Same stills]
At which point she shoots several more dogs, promising that as the “face” of Homeland Security, she’ll be leading the way. [Same clip pull stills 01:19 - 01:22, 01:26 - 01:29]
But then, as the heavy botox starts sliding off her face, staffers surround her and fix it as pit crew sound effects play. [Same clip pull stills 01:30 - 01:35]
Next, all the new recruits load into trucks for their first ICE raid. [Same clip pull stills 01:58 - 02:06]
With an agent advising them, “keep your hands and feet inside the vehicle at all times,” as if it’s a Disneyland ride. [Same stills]
And then they raid a “Dora the Explorer” live show, and Noem immediately shoots a service dog in the crowd. [Quote, find “service dog”]
With ICE later raiding heaven, its agents arresting several angels as Noem reminds them, “if it’s Brown, it goes down.” [QUote]
Then, for his good work, Trump invites Mr Mackey to Mar-a-Lago and offers to make him the “new face of Homeland Security” because Noem's face freaks him out. [Quote]
And we meet JD Vance as a pint-sized, baby-faced sycophant whom Trump calls annoying and “stupid.” [Image]
With the president at one point kicking Vance off-screen like a football, but the VP loyally returns to his side like nothing happened. [Quote, find “football”]
And finally, while Trump’s in bed with Satan, Vance offers: “Would you like me to apply the baby oil to Satan’s asshole, boss?” [Quote]
Also, another person who gets relentlessly mocked throughout the episode is conservative commentator Charlie Kirk.
With Cartman and another fourth grader competing to become the best “master debater” in a parody of Kirk’s viral debates on college campuses. [Image]
And in one scene, Cartman’s mom repeatedly catches him “master-debating” in his bedroom when he should be sleeping. [Pull stills 18:32]
With him complaining, [Read in this voice 18:22] “Mom, I finally got sponsored by a protein powder, so I gotta master-debate for a couple more hours! I have my arguments down rock solid. These young college girls are totally unprepared, so I can just destroy them and also edit out all the ones that actually argue back well. It just feels so good.” [Same stills]
And after she closes the door, you clearly hear him pleasuring himself as he mutters anti-abortion arguments to himself. [Same stills]
Then, in another scene, Cartman’s rival is given the “Charlie Kirk award for young master debaters.” [Pull stills 25:54]
With him saying in his acceptance speech: [Read in this voice 25:44] “The Civil Rights Act was a huge mistake, and uh, I don’t know, lesbians are an abomination of God.” [Same stills]
And then, at the end of the episode, Matt and Trey give Noem one more beating as the botox melts off her face again and she says to Trump:
With her face then coming completely off and crawling around the floors of Mar-a-Lago. [Quote, find “crawling”]
And as the credits roll, we see her massacring dogs in a pet store. [Quote, find “pet store”]
Now since last night, we’ve seen a ton of reactions online.
With many praising it as a biting, no-punches-pulled lampooning of Trump’s White House, some on the right criticizing the show for being too political and not targeting Democrats too.
But we also got to hear from some of the people portrayed in the episode, starting with Charlie Kirk. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 04:10 - 04:24; Clip, 02:10 - 02:20; Clip, 26:08 - 26:16] Caption: “Wait, so a campus thing I’ve been doing for 13 years to debate random college kids has now been so important that it gets prominent primetime placement on Comedy Central? The whole thing is just awesome. … I personally, I think a lot of it was hilarious towards me. I think a lot of it *inaudible* I got to be honest. Some of it was very funny, and I don’t think we should have too thick of skin. … And credit to the writers, they know my stuff. I’ve kind of been known for saying the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, and they just push it a little bit more.”
And he wasn’t alone in that reaction, with JD Vance also seeming to take the satire pretty lightly, writing:
“Well, I’ve finally made it.” [Post]
And former Trump campaign staffer Matt Mowers assuring him that being featured on South Park is “A key life milestone appreciated by any millennial.” [Post]
Though former Biden staffer Megan Bates-Apper sarcastically added, “Vance is definitely not mad and totally in on the joke.” [Post]
So as of this recording, neither the White House nor Trump himself appear to have said anything.
But after the first episode, in which Trump is portrayed as a Saddam Hussein-esque figure with a tiny penis in bed with Satan, the real president was reportedly “seething.” [Image and headline]
And we’ve still got 48 more episodes to go, so if the last two are any signal, South Park’s gonna be a fixture in our political discourse for a while.
Plus by all appearances, these episodes aren’t prescripted far in advance; they’re written pretty soon before they’re released.
Right, because the first episode references the cancellation of Steven Colbert’s late night show, and that was announced just several days before the episode went out.
So presumably we can expect to get virtually realtime satirical commentary on current events for the next five years, which covers the rest of the second Trump term.
-
We got a lot to talk about with Donald Trump and immigration –
Including ICE’s latest controversial and likely illegal raid, the agency’s massive recruitment campaign, a key new court battle in the White House’s war on noncitizen students, and the president’s most recent effort to gain more seats in Congress by any means necessary.
And so to take each story one at a time, let’s start with that raid I mentioned – which involved masked, heavily armed ICE agents jumping out of a rental truck and ambushing people at an LA Home Depot.
Right, as you may know, immigrant day laborers often gather outside Home Depot stores looking for work – which is why they’ve become a target of immigration enforcement.
And in this case, you had one worker telling the LA Times that the rental truck pulled up to the parking lot around 6.45am – with the driver telling people in Spanish that he had work to offer []
But then someone rolled up the back of the truck, immigrant agents poured out, chasing and arresting anyone they could (BROLL: 1:58-2:05).
And you actually had a Fox News correspondent publishing footage from inside the truck (BROLL).
With this footage then getting reposted by a border patrol commander in California who called it “Operation Trojan Horse.”
Right, and notably, this commander? He’s previously been accused of misleading the public.
With him saying about one immigration sweep that his agents had a “predetermined list of targets” – many with criminal records.
But then records later showed that 77 out of 78 people detained had no prior record with the agency. []
And connected to that, there have been frequent reports of people being targeted by ICE based on their appearance and whether they spoke Spanish.
And we’ve even had some Latino US citizens getting swept up in raids.
Which led to last month – when a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to halt indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in seven California counties, including Los Angeles.
Writing in her order that there was a “mountain of evidence” that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. []
And with that, last week, an appeals court upheld her ruling – basically asking why the government needed to challenge an order stopping it from doing something it already claimed it wasn’t doing.
And so the big question with this Home Depot raid is whether it violated the original order.
Right, so far, you’ve just had DHS claiming that agents arrested 16 undocumented people from Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras and Nicaragua –
But not answering questions about its tactics or whether agents had been looking for specific people. []
And in response, you have a spokesperson for one California-based rights group saying:
“It is deeply disturbing that the federal government will stoop to these levels to continue their campaign of terror against working Angelenos.”
“These are Angelenos looking for an honest day’s living … What we see in the video looks like an assault on people’s liberties, an assault on individuals that were standing there looking for a job, and a targeted operation that was in fact lawless.” []
And notably, with that, you have some saying this isn’t the only example.
With the head of another Southern California nonprofit claiming Border Patrol agents “seem to be making the same rounds again” –
Saying they’re hitting the same places they hit in the past but with new tactics, including pretending to be employers to lure people in. []
Also, notably, the rental truck company, Penske? They’re not happy either, releasing a statement saying it’s aware of what happened, and adding:
“Penske strictly prohibits the transportation of people in the cargo area of its vehicles under any circumstances.”
“The company was not made aware that its trucks would be used in today’s operation and did not authorize this.”
And finally, saying it would reach out to DHS to “reinforce its policy to avoid improper use of its vehicles in the future.”
But with that, we gotta move on to the second piece of news in this mash-up.
And if you're over 40 and interested in breaking the law, terrorizing local communities, and putting your racism to good use – it’s good news.
Right, because DHS is now waiving age limits on joining ICE – with this being just one part of a new campaign to massively expand its ranks.
A campaign that’s coming after Trump’s megabill funneled an unprecedented $170 billion toward immigration enforcement.
Right, until now, he’s gotten some help by working with states and local law enforcement, as well as diverting thousands of agents working in nonessential areas – you know, like drug trafficking, terrorism, and child abuse.
But now he’s got the money to hire thousands more ICE agents – though, notably, he’s still reassigning dozens of FEMA employees to help vet and process new hires.
And the department is claiming that more than 80,000 Americans had applied to join in just the one week since it launched the new recruitment drive. []
With people being drawn in by an offer of up to a $50,000 signing bonus, student loan repayment assistance and other benefits. []
Right, as far as the age requirements, it used to be that candidates to be criminal investigators, with limited exceptions, couldn’t be older than 37 and deportation officers couldn’t be over 40. []
But now you can join no matter how old you are – assuming you meet the other limited requirements – with DHS actually announcing the new policy on X and writing:
“We’re taking father/son bonding to a whole new level.” []
And to that you had someone responding:
“Drop the Degree requirement and let the Gold Ole Boys in.
…think I can handle a little discomfort and taking down illegals. Don’t need a degree for that.” []
To which DHS proudly responded:
“No college degree required to be a deportation officer!” []
Right, because understanding and enforcing the law isn’t complicated at all.
And that actually brings us to the third part of this whole thing – which is about how some people in the process of getting their degrees are now suing the Trump administration.
And I’m talking about Stanford’ University’s student newspaper: The Stanford Daily.
With them saying in their lawsuit that several of the newspaper’s writers have been forced to self-censor or quit the paper out of fear that the government could retaliate for what it publishes.
Also claiming it has received a number of requests from lawfully present noncitizens to have their names, quotes or photos removed from articles.
And that many international students have stopped speaking to the paper’s journalists altogether. []
And with that, the new lawsuit is somewhat similar to a case that just went to trial in Boston last month.
Right, there, the American Association of University Professors and others sued the Trump administration over what they called its “ideological-deportation policy.”
A policy that has led several students to flee the country or go into hiding to avoid arrest.[]
With several students and academics testifying about how they had scrubbed their social media profiles, censored their speech, and turned down opportunities out of fear.
And even members of the Trump administration testified – including a homeland security agent belonging to the unit normally tasked with tackling drug, financial and other crimes.
With him explaining how he was told by the State Department to prioritize the arrest of Rümeysa Öztürk (Roo-may-suh Oz-turk) – a Tufts University student from Turkey with no criminal record who once wrote an op-ed critical of Israel.
With him also claiming he was explicitly told not to inform her that her visa had been revoked.
But in any case, while a ruling there is expected this month, the Stanford case is also a little bit different.
It goes further than others that have targeted the student arrests – taking aim at the constitutionality of the underlying legal argument the Trump administration has relied on to arrest and try to deport foreign students.
Right, which revolves around two key provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The first allows the secretary of state to deport noncitizens if the secretary “personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.”
The second gives the secretary the power to revoke a visa or documentation at his or her discretion. []
But you have the paper saying that invoking that power in response to speech is a clear violation of the first amendment.
With the complaint saying:
“Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration are trying to turn the inalienable human right of free speech into a privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat…
….triggering deportation proceedings against noncitizens residing lawfully in this country for their protected political speech regarding American and Israeli foreign policy.” []
Now, that said, as far as the government’s response?
You’ve had spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security calling the lawsuit “baseless” – saying:
“There is no room in the United States for the rest of the world’s terrorist sympathizers, and we are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here.” []
So we’ll have to see how it plays out.
And in the meantime, the last immigration-related story I wanna talk about today is this: Trump is trying to keep undocumented immigrants off the US Census.
With him writing on social media that a “new and highly accurate CENSUS” will be “based on modern day facts and figures and, importantly, using the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024” – and adding:
“People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS.” []
Now, with that, it’s not the first time Trump has tried this.
During his first term, he moved to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
But a federal appeals court ruled the move illegal – and the Supreme Court ultimately blocked it.
But notably, it declined to explicitly rule on whether people without legal status can be excluded by the president from apportionment counts. []
Right, Article 1 of the Constitution has required a census every 10 years to determine the number and distribution of seats in the House of Representatives. []
And the 14th Amendment separately requires the "whole number of persons in each state" to be included in the census. []
So he may try some sort of out there legal argument that we’ve seen in other cases.
And with that, this news is being seen as kind of connected to what’s happening with Texas – where Trump has pushed Republicans to try and redraw their congressional map to boost their prospects in the 2026 midterm elections –
Even though the next census isn’t for another five years.
So we’ll have to see exactly how he tries to implement it and even if he does somehow it’s not exactly clear what the impact would be on Congress, but it’s definitely something to keep an eye on.
-
This situation in Texas is going off the rails.
Because Texas Republicans just chased their Democrats into Illinois, and now they’re threatening to put them in prison.
With all this starting last month when Donald Trump urged the Texas legislature to redraw its congressional map mid-cycle to give him more seats in the U.S. House.
[Clip, 00:08 - 00:17] Caption: “I think we get five. And I think there could be some other states. We’re gonna get another three or four or five in addition. Texas would be the biggest one.”
Which is a very unusual move, because typically maps are drawn once a decade in time with the census.
But it’s only been four years since Texas last redrew its map, so Governor Greg Abbott called a special session to give Trump what he asked for. [Image]
And last week, they unveiled a proposed map that would likely add five new Republican seats, bumping their majority from 25 to 30 out of 38. [Image]
Then on Saturday a committee approved the map, and the committee’s chairman, Cody Vasut [Pronounce 00:37], didn’t even try to pretend this was anything other than a partisan power grab.
With him telling NBC, “This map was politically based, and that’s totally legal, totally allowed and totally fair. You got states like California and New York and Illinois that have these really large margins between the percentage of seats they have and the percentage of votes that they’re getting, and Texas is underperforming in that. And so it’s totally prudent, totally right, for Texas to be able to respond and improve the political performance of its map.” [Quote]
So the state House was supposed to vote on the map tomorrow, but now that ain’t happening. [Image]
Because yesterday, Democratic state lawmakers filed into buses and booked it out of there, fleeing the state. [B roll, 00:15]
Effectively breaking the quorum Republicans need to pass their map. [Same B roll]
And if you’re like, a what? A quorum is the minimum number of legislators that have to be present for the chamber to vote on anything.
Which, in Texas, means two-thirds of the House.
So only 51 Democrats need to be absent to break the quorum, and according to their own count, they’ve gotten 57 out of there. [Quote, find “57”]
With some reportedly going to Boston and New York, but most went to Chicago, where they held a press conference explaining their decision. [Lead B roll into clip]
With Gene Wu [Woo], leader of the Democrats in the Texas state House, saying: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 03:03 - 03:26; Clip, 07:32 - 07:43] Caption: “We are not here to have fun. We are not here because this is easy. And we did not make the decision to come here today, we did not make that decision lightly. But we come here today with absolute moral clarity. … Enough of your games. Enough of your lies. Today, the corruption of Donald Trump and Greg Abbott ends.”
Then Representative Trey Martinez Fischer: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 08:43 - 08:52, 09:02 - 09:05] Caption: “In America, we need to wake up. Republicans are stealing our democracy right before our very eyes. … Not on our watch.”
And Representative Chris Turner: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 12:24 - 12:38] Caption: “They are engaged in an illegal act of intentional discrimination by tearing apart majority-minority congressional districts across our state, and we are not gonna stand for it.”
And finally Illinois’ Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 22:53 - 23:09] Caption: “All bets are off when the cult leader and would-be dictator of the United States tells Texas to mid-stream change the game, when they know that they’re gonna lose in 2026. All bets are off.”
But in response to this open act of defiance, Greg Abbott is threatening the nuclear option. [Image]
With him writing, “Democrats hatched a deliberate plan not to show up for work, for the specific purpose of abdicating the duties of their office and thwarting the chamber’s business.” [Quote]
“That amounts to an abandonment or forfeiture of an elected state office.” [Quote same link]
“This truancy ends now. The derelict Democrat House members must return to Texas and be in attendance when the House reconvenes at 3:00 PM on Monday.” [Quote same link]
And then warning that any Democrats who refuse to do so will be removed from membership in the state House. [Quote same link, find “remove”]
And finishing with: “That empowers me to swiftly fill vacancies under Article III, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution.” [Quote same link]
So in other words, he’s gonna kick ‘em out and put new people in their place.
With this coming after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton already threatened to arrest anyone who breaks quorum last month. [Post]
Even offering to assist local, state, and notably federal authorities in “hunting down and compelling the attendance of anyone who abandons their office and their constituents for cheap political theater.” [Same post].
A threat that’s now been reinforced by State Representative Brian Harrison, who demanded of the House speaker:
[Clip, 02:37 - 02:53] Caption: “Immediately move for what’s called a call of the house. The call of the house would authorize law enforcement to immediately be dispatched to arrest, detain and bring back to the capital for the purposes of establishing a quorum these Democrats.”
Now it’s unclear whether and how Texas Republicans could force the Democrats to come back.
Right, there is legal precedent for state authorities compelling lawmakers to return to the chamber, but that’s if they’re actually in the state.
Right, these Democrats have crossed state borders, so technically they should be outside their jurisdiction.
Alternatively, Abbott could seek their extradition from the states where they’re hiding, and in fact, he just threatened to do that, alleging the lawmakers may be committing felony bribery.
And to understand where that allegation comes from, you’ve gotta know that for every day that they’re gone, each absent lawmaker racks up a 500-dollar fine. [Quote, find “500”]
Which would only take two weeks to surpass their 7,200-dollar salary. [Same quote]
So Abbott writes that “many absentee Democrats are soliciting funds to evade the fines they will incur under House rules. Any Democrat who ‘solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept’ such funds to assist in the violation of legislative duties or for purposes of skipping a vote may have violated bribery laws.” [Quote]
But the Democratic leader said they’re using legal ways to defray their costs without going into detail.
Though you had one political scientist telling the Texas Tribune:
“Under Texas ethics laws, it's quite easy for some group to effectively just simply pay these legislators money as a form of compensation that then they can use to pay these fines. Let’s say Mark Cuban wants to pay all these House Democrats $1,000 a day as consultants — they can do that.” [Quote]
Also, the lawmakers can challenge the fines in court, as some have suggested they would, claiming civil rights violations.
Which is why some say the threats from Abbott, Paxton and crew are just scare tactics to pressure the Democrats into folding.
So for now, the lawmakers said they’re committed to staying away for at least two weeks, which would run out the clock on the 30-day special session. [Quote, find “two weeks”]
But after that, Abbott could just keep calling special sessions until the Democrats come back, and it’s unclear how long they’re willing to play this game of chicken.
Right, experts explain that they’d have to last until November, which is when the GOP has to pass its new map before filing opens for next year’s midterms. [Quote, find “opening of filing”]
But even then, experts say Republicans could just hold a second round of primaries if they miss the deadline. [Quote same link, find “second round”]
And if you look at history, the track record for what the Democrats are attempting isn’t very inspiring.
Right, the first quorum break happened in 1870, when lawmakers blocked a bill giving the governor wartime powers, but they were arrested and the bill ultimately passed. [Quote, first line]
Then, the next one came in 1979, when Democrats blocked a bill that would’ve shifted the timing of a primary in favor of one candidate. [Quote same link, find “garage”]
And after a weeks-long game of hide and seek between Texas rangers and lawmakers in Austin, this one actually worked, with Republicans pulling the bill. [Same quote]
But the next time, in 2002, Democrats tried to block another mid-decade redistricting effort, and after a weeks-long standoff some of them finally caved. [Quote same link, find “2002”]
And lastly, in 2021, Democrats tried to block a bill that overhauled election laws, but after six weeks they gave up. [Headline]
So many think it’s likely that this fifth quorum break will follow a familiar pattern.
The initial thrill of defiance wears off, the media stops paying much attention, and the social, legal and financial pressure reaches critical mass.
Because remember, these lawmakers are sacrificing their day jobs, their homes, and time with their families to make this stand.
And if they think they’ll inevitably lose anyway, they might figure it’s better to just get it over with sooner rather than later.
But even if that happens, it doesn’t mean the fight is over.
Because Democratic leaders in New York, California and Illinois have said they’re looking at ways they can redraw their own maps to favor Democrats.
And today, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee called on Democratic state lawmakers from around the country to prepare for carving up their states. [Quote, find “carving”]
Though depending on the state, they might have unique rules that prevent them from jerrymandering as aggressively as the Texas GOP is.
Right, in New York, for example, although the legislature gets to approve its maps, they’re actually drawn by a special commission. [Quote, find “amend”]
And if Democrats there want to amend the state constitution, they’ll have to pass it in two consecutive sessions followed by a referendum, meaning they can’t do it in time for the 2026 midterms.
And of course, it’s not just Texas; blue states are gonna have to battle other red states planning to redraw their maps like Ohio and Florida.
So yeah, we’ve got a long fight ahead of us, and if you believe those on either side, democracy itself is at stake.
Kickstart your passion project with a free trial today: Squarespace & enter offer code “Phil” to get 10% off your first purchase!
-
Apple is investing another $100 billion to expand operations in the US and Trump is threatening 100% tariffs on semiconductors for tech companies who don’t follow suit.
Right, you had Trump and Apple CEO Tim Cook making the announcement in the Oval Office yesterday – where Cook gifted Trump with this weird glass and 24-karat gold trophy.
With this just being the company’s latest effort to shift some small, specific parts of the manufacturing process stateside in order to avoid Trump’s threat of tariffs on iPhones.
Right, earlier this year, Apple said earlier this year that it planned to spend $500 billion in the US over the next four years in order to hire 20,000 people as well as open a factory in Texas.
Though, notably, one: only about 39 billion of the $500 billion previously announced in February was new, with the rest being in line with the company’s average annual increase in U.S. investment to support its growth since 2017. []
And two, the company made similar, smaller pledges during the Biden administration and Trump’s first term and has yet to follow through on some of them. []
And even with all this there’s no sign that it would ever meet Trump’s demand of actually making iPhones in the US.
Right, it’d be posse, but extremely expensive.
With one analysis finding that developing the work force in the US needed to move the supply chain here would force the company to more than double iPhone prices to at least $2,000. []
But still Apple seems to be threading the needle perfectly between giving Trump what he wants without completely overhauling its operation.
And Trump? He’s setting the company up as an example of what he expects from everyone else.
Right, with him threatening to impose a 100 percent tariff on foreign semiconductors for other tech companies unless they also commit to increasing manufacturing in America.
Although, notably, it seems that a lot of the biggest companies already would be exempt.
Right, the world’s largest contract maker of chips, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, also announced plans to invest $100 billion in US manufacturing in March.
And now an official told a parliamentary briefing in Taipei that the company would be exempt.
With South Korea’s top trade envoy similarly saying Samsung and another major company wouldn’t be subject to the tariff. []
And finally, Nvidia, which is one of the largest chipmakers in the US?
They would likely be exempt from the tariff as well because the company has manufacturing facilities in the US. []
So as with all of Trump’s tariff threats, we’ll see what sticks, what doesn’t, and we’ll see what the impacts are in the weeks, months, and years ahead.
-
“So I heard the UK is thinking about lowering the voting age to 16 and it got me thinking - wasn’t our country founded on the idea of no taxation without representation? Aren’t 16 year olds encouraged, even, to go out and work jobs and pay those taxes? So if you pay taxes, I think you should vote.”
Thank you for the submission, Brandon, and that’s absolutely something we should talk about.
For those that don’t know anything about this, the UK has recently lowered its voting age in general elections from 18 to 16.
Which came as a part of a larger package of changes meant to strengthen British democracy and help restore trust in politics.
Right, because last year the UK just saw its lowest turnout at the last national election in two decades. []
Now, this is the biggest shift to the UK electorate since the voting age was dropped from 21 to 18 in 1969.
And it brings England and Northern Ireland in line with Scotland and Wales - where 16 year olds can already vote in local council elections as well as those for Scottish Parliament. []
Of course, you’ve got those for and against it - with the argument in support echoing the logic of Prime Minister Keir Starmer who said,
"They're old enough to go out to work, they're old enough to pay taxes. If you pay in, you should have the opportunity to say what you want your money spent on, which way the government should go." []
While those against it argue that it’s inconsistent - saying that 16 year olds aren’t allowed to drink, buy a lottery ticket, get married, or go to war. []
And there’s also doubt about whether simply giving them the ability to vote will actually make 16 and 17 year olds show up at the polls.
With experts suggesting that there are more effective ways of improving youth turnout - like beefing up the citizenship curriculum or expanding the provision of volunteering programs in schools. []
Of course, it still needs parliamentary approval but considering that this was a big part of Starmer’s election campaign - giving him a large majority.
And there’s still plenty of time - the next general election isn’t expected until 2029
As for the public’s perception of this move, it’s split pretty much down the middle - a recent ITV News poll of 500 UK 16 and 17 year olds found that 49% didn’t think they should be able to vote while 51% do.
Now, with this move, the UK joins a short but growing list of countries allowing teenagers to vote - including Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Greece, and Indonesia. []
But your question, Brandon, was about whether this is coming to the US.
In a way, maybe?
Roughly a third of the states in the US allow 17 year olds to vote in primaries if they are going to be 18 by the time the general election rolls around. []
And about a dozen cities allow people as young as 16 to vote in school board elections or just in all local elections.
As for the national level, it’s not likely to happen anytime soon.
And we’re seeing similar pro and con arguments here as in the UK.
With supporters making similar arguments as you, Brnadon - they pay in, they should have a say.
While others argue that 16 year olds just aren’t mature enough to participate.
But there have also been studies showing that the younger we allow citizens to vote, the more likely they are to retain the habit of voting - bumping up participation. []
As for my thoughts on the whole thing…
:quality(75)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/63d87e718249c21de813387cf715aec2/0611%20Abbott%20Ibogaine%20Presser%20RB%20TT%2012.jpg){kind=link}
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-2228842017-71924ec134cd4abda073a41eaa21c2f1.jpg){kind=link}
