Taylor Swift VS Donald Trump, Gavin Newsom Threatens To "END THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY”, & Today’s News
PDS Published 08/13/2025
-
I'm trying to make sure today's show is out in time because it's Taylor Swift night.
I know where people's eyes and ears are ahead of tonight, when the biggest artist in the world is making her podcast debut.
The internet in general is abuzz.
And oh my God, her army of dancing, friendship bracelets, swapping, conspiracy theories.
Very excited.
It's really just a question of how big of a podcast it's going to be,
With many debating and some even betting that her podcast is going to do as much, if not more, than Donald Trump on Joe Rogan at least the first 24 hours.
But as far as what it's actually going to pull, I have no idea.
And I guess we'll see what we'll say.
Just this moment from the teaser has me interested in what this podcast is going to be.
I think we all know that if there's one thing that male sports fans want to see in their spaces and on their screens, it's more of me.
Taylor making light of last year, the NFL constantly just featuring her on camera during random points in Chiefs games, with it even getting to a point where people are getting angry at her like she was the one making the decision.
With all that said, what are your thoughts, reactions, and even predictions?
Well, you leave or don't leave that comment.
-
One piece at a time, Donald Trump is using his power to transform American culture in his own image.
And there’s a few ways he’s done that this week, starting with the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. [Image]
Right, every year, the Center honors five individuals or groups for their lifelong contributions to the arts.
It’s a huge, multiday event, tons of people watch it on CBS, and it normally features dozens of fellow artists who commemorate the honorees with speeches and performances.
With a committee of previous honorees and prominent members of the arts community traditionally picking the honorees.
But this year, the Center appears to have broken with that tradition and gone with another process: letting Donald Trump decide.
Because today a reporter asked him how involved he was in selecting the honorees, and he answered: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 47:11 - 47:18, 47:21 - 47:28] Caption: “I would say I was about 98% involved. No, they all went through me. … I turned down plenty. They were too woke. I had a couple of wokesters.”
This after he said at a Kennedy Center board meeting in March: “We’ll go slightly more conservative, if you don’t mind, with some of the people. … In the past, I mean, these are radical left lunatics that have been chosen. I didn’t like it. I couldn’t watch it. And the host was always terrible.” [Image and Quote]
And notably Trump didn’t attend the honors during his first term; in fact, he was the only president in the Center’s 45-year existence not to go.
This because in 2017, Norman Lear skipped the ceremony that takes place at the White House to protest Trump. [Quote, find “Lear”]
But this time around, Trump’s making sure that the event goes his way.
With him in February firing Biden’s trustees and replacing them with his own, appointing a new director, and making himself chairman.
Then yesterday posting on Truth Social that he would reveal “GREAT Nominees for the TRUMP/KENNEDY CENTER, whoops, I mean, KENNEDY CENTER, AWARDS.” [Quote]
And that may sound like a joke, but it really isn’t.
Because last month, the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee voted to approve an amendment that calls to rename the Kennedy Center opera house after Melania Trump. [Quote, find “July 22”]
Then the next day, Representative Bob Onder introduced a bill to rename the entire arts center “the Donald J. Trump Center for Performing Arts.” [Quote same link]
So today, Trump held a press conference where he revealed the honorees, and he tried to play it off like he accepted the burden of hosting begrudgingly. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 08:37 - 08:54, 09:06 - 09:11] Caption: “I’ve been asked to host. I said I’m the president of the United States. Are you fools asking me to do that? ‘Sir, you’ll get much higher ratings.’ I said I don’t care. I’m president of the United States. I won’t do it. They said please. … And I didn’t want to do it, okay? They’re gonna say, ‘he insisted.’ I did not insist.”
Then, he announced the honorees, starting with the country music legend George Strait …
[Clip, 10:54 - 11:00] Caption: “A good looking guy. I hope he still looks like that.” *Laughter*
… The English actor Michael Crawford …
[Clip, 11:08 - 11:13] Caption: “One of my favorite talents. I think he’s one of the greatest talents I’ve ever actually seen.”
Sylvester Stallone …
[Clip, 13:10 - 13:17] Caption: “Three-time Oscar nominee, Golden Globe Award winner and action movie icon, and a friend of mine.”
… the singer Gloria Gaynor …
[Clip, 19:10 - 19:15] Caption: “‘I Will Survive’ is an unbelievable song.”
… And the classic rock band Kiss …
[Clip, 20:19 - 20:26] Caption: “It’s an honor to present Chris, Kiss, thank you very much.”
… None of whom are necessarily Trump supporters, but apparently the president considered them unwoke enough to be honored. [Image]
And at one point, he even suggested that someday he might honor himself. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 09:30 - 09:35, 09:39 - 09:48] Caption: “I wanted one. I was never able to get one. This year- it’s true, actually. … I said the hell with it, I’ll become chairman. I’ll give myself an honor. Maybe I’m gonna honor- next year we’ll honor Trump, okay?”
Now again, while he sounds like he’s joking, he did actually suggest at the March board meeting that the honors should be expanded to include executives, athletes and politicians. [Quote, find “politicians”]
But for now, Trump is only hosting this December’s event, and if it’s anything like today’s big reveal, it’ll be half-fancy gala, half-political rally.
Because he just couldn’t resist going off on tangents about the Democrats, D.C. crime, tariffs and similar topics before catching himself like this: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 24:47 - 25:00] Caption: “But I shouldn’t make this political because they made the Academy Awards political and they went down the tubes. So they’ll say, Trump made it political,’ but I think if we make it our kind of political, we’ll go up, okay? Let’s see if I’m right about that.”.
But this is only one way Trump is reforming American cultural institutions in his image.
Because the White House just announced that it will be conducting a “comprehensive internal review” of the Smithsonian to bring it in line with an executive order from March titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” [Headline and Image]
An order which accused the Smithsonian of coming “under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology” and promoting “narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive” as well as the view that “race is not a biological reality but a social construct.” [Quote]
So the White House says this review “aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions.” [Quote]
And then adding, “Within 120 days, museums should begin implementing content corrections where necessary, replacing divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions.” [Quote same link]
And to make sure this gets done, Trump’s people are gonna be sticking their noses in everything.
Right, they’ll be looking at all public-facing materials, including placards, wall didactics, digital displays, social media content, pretty much anything that says anything. [Image]
They’re also requesting everything from grant-related documentation, budgets and schedules to inventories of permanent holdings, staff manuals and organizational charts. [Quote, show “materials request” bullet points]
Finally, they’ll conduct on-site observations and interview curators and senior staff to “better understand” how they decide what to exhibit. [Quote, find “interviews”]
Now according to the White House, all of this is just phase one, covering eight of the Smithsonian’s 21 museums.
With those being the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of Natural History, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Museum of the American Indian, the National Air and Space Museum, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, the National Portrait Gallery and the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. [Image]
So later on, phase two will expand the review to other museums as well.
Now the Trump administration’s barnstorming may give the impression that it actually has authority over the Smithsonian, but it doesn’t, at least not officially.
Right, the institute’s day-to-day operations are run by a secretary, who’s appointed by an independent Board of Regents that broadly governs policy.
And in June, the board said it's committed to ensuring that it remains “free from political or partisan influence.” [Quote]
But not only did Trump’s March executive order tie future federal funding to compliance, it said Vice President JD Vance, who sits on the Smithsonian’s board, would work with Congress to appoint board members who were broadly in agreement with the order. [Quote, find “broadly”]
Then, weird shit started happening.
Like in May, Trump announced on Truth Social that he was firing the director of the National Portrait Gallery, saying: [Headline]
“She is a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI, which is totally inappropriate for her position.” [Quote]
But of course, Trump didn’t actually have the authority to fire her, though it didn’t matter in the end, because she resigned.
Then, in July, the artist Amy Sherald canceled her upcoming exhibition at the same gallery after a “dispute” over one particular painting of a trans woman with pink hair and a blue gown, holding a torch, Statue of Liberty-style. [Headline, image, image]
With her stating, “While no single person is to blame, it's clear that institutional fear shaped by a broader climate of political hostility toward trans lives played a role.” [Quote same link]
And then most recently, we found out that the National Museum of American History removed references to Trump's first-term impeachments following a review. [Headline and image]
Now, the latest review also directs the Smithsonian to submit its plans to commemorate the country's 250th anniversary within the next 30 days.
With that event scheduled for next Fourth of July, and we’re already beginning to see how Trump’s making his mark on it.
Because it’s now been confirmed that the White House will host a UFC cage fight to mark the occasion. [Headline]
Now it’s a little unclear where this will happen, since these fights usually take place in huge arenas with an octagon.
But Trump has previously suggested building a cage on the White House grounds and inviting as many as 25,000 attendees. [Quote same link, find “25,000”]
Regardless, it’s likely going to be a very Trumpian show.
Not just because fighting and wrestling have become two of the more right-wing-coded sports, but also because Trump’s been friends with UFC boss Dana White for over 20 years. [Image]
And then, in addition to the 250th anniversary, next year will see the United States host the Olympics and the World Cup too.
So if the pattern continues, we can expect Trump to turn those into his own personalized events as well.
-
People online are threatening to boycott Elf cosmetics after the company featured comedian Matt Rife in its newest ad campaign.
“Hey girl, has overpriced beauty hurt your wallet? Elf that! Elfino and Schmarnes have gone to Elf court for millions of clients, helping them to access beauty products they deserve at prices that won’t injure their livelihoods.” (0:01-0:13)
“I know a thing or two about red flags, and pricey makeup, you deserve better than that.” (0:16-0:20)
Right, he co-stars in the ad with drag queen Heidi N’ Closet, they are doing a whole legal parody, but many Elf customers were not amused.
Because, as you may remember, there was a ton of controversy back in 2023 after Matt opened a standup special with a joke about domestic violence.
Right, he said he went to a restaurant where the hostess had a black eye, and at first he said maybe they should put her back in the kitchen so she doesn't have to display her injury to everyone, but:
“if she could cook, she wouldn't have that black eye.”
And he faced a ton of heat for this remark, but he only ended up doubling down on it by telling anyone offended to buy a special needs helmet.
So after Elf posted that ad with him, their comments were just filled with people upset with the brand, with some writing things like:
“You didn’t have the budget for a comedian who doesn’t joke about abuse?”[]
“I thought you guys were cruelty free?!”
“I think Andrew tates available for the next ad?”
“The guy who jokes about DV? In an ad targeted to women? That’s, um. A choice.”
Right, and the idea that Elf’s customers are largely for women was a big talking point in all this backlash, because while Matt was previously very popular among women, that DV joke turned a lot of people off.
And he himself also kind of distanced himself from his female fans in an interview promoting that special, telling Variety:
“I don’t pander my career to women. I would argue this special is way more for guys.”
Right, so many argued this just made Elf’s choice to have him as a brand spokesperson even stranger.
That along with the fact that he is not even known for using beauty products.
So there was even more backlash over on TikTok, where you had beauty creators like Nikki Tutorials writing:[]
“aaaaaaandddd you lost me... Matt Rife out of ALL people? 😟 so disappointed.”
Some people posting videos of them tossing out their Elf products or saying things like:
“Women do not like Matt Rife. We are off the Matt Rife train.”(0:17-0:21)
“For a campaign of this size, it would have had to pass through so many hands. The amount of checks and balances and approvals that would have had to happen for this campaign to go live. Can you honestly sit here and tell me that nobody at the top stood back and said, ‘hey guys, I don’t think this is a good idea, I don’t think that as a multibillion dollar business in the beauty industry with a customer base that is 90% women, we should have the face of a campaign be a man who openly jokes about violence against women.” (1:12-1:38)
Some also calling out the brand for pairing him with Heidi, like featuring a drag queen would make up for this, writing:[]
“ELF IMMA HOLD UR HAND WHEN I SAY THIS…just cuz u got a drag QUEEN in the mix DOES NOT MEAN ITS A GREEN LIGHT FOR MATT RIFEEE.”
“Somebody said we have to have someone from the conservative spectrum and someone from the gay spectrum so that way we appeal to everyone.”(0:12-0:17)
Right, people saying that if anything, the ad could have been Heidi alone.[]
So you have tons of people saying they will no longer be buying Elf and are going to switch to other products. []
But of course, Matt Rife is not without his supporters, if you go to the comments on his Instagram post of the ad, there are tons of people praising it. []
So far, Elf has not publicly said anything on its social media pages about the controversy.
But I would love to know your thoughts here, on Elf’s choice to work with Matt Rife, on the backlash and criticisms, anything at all.
Go to Rocket Money to cancel your unwanted subscriptions.
-
The Texas State Senate just approved new congressional maps that would give Trump his wish and carve out five more Republican seats in the House.
But this is just the first step, and there are still a bunch of things that need to happen before the new gerrymandered lines can be finalized.
Right, so yesterday, the State Senate passed the measure 19-2 with only Republicans voting in favor.
And this after nine of the 11 Democrats walked out of the chambers in protest, calling the process “corrupt” and claiming in a statement:
“This mid-decade redistricting isn’t about fair representation—it’s about politicians picking their voters instead of voters choosing their leaders.”
And, notably here, while the two Democrats who remained in the chamber voted no, by not walking out, they still gave their Republican colleagues a quorum — meaning they had enough members present to hold a vote on the maps.
With the two Democratic State Senators issuing a statement defending their choice to stay, saying:
“We learned that quorum breaks can delay but not defeat this effort. Legislators cannot stay away forever, and the Governor will call as many special sessions as needed to prevail. Our greatest hope is at the courthouse, and the sooner we get there, the better.”
Right, and those remarks are super significant because they come as Democrats in the State House have fled the state entirely to deny a quorum in the lower chamber after Gov. Greg Abbott called a 30-day special session to redraw the maps.
As well as approve a number of other legislative issues, including relief for the deadly floods that killed 135 people.
And yesterday, GOP leaders in the State House and Senate said that if Democrats don’t return by Friday and give them a quorum, they would end the special session several days early, paving the way for Abbott to start a whole new one.
With Abbott issuing a statement saying that he would start a second special session “immediately” after the first one ends.
Claiming that Special Session 2: Election Steal-a-roo will have “the exact same agenda, with the potential to add more items critical to Texans,” and adding:
“There will be no reprieve for the derelict Democrats who fled the state and abandoned their duty to the people who elected them. I will continue to call special session after special session until we get this Texas first agenda passed.”
And that last part echoes comments he made to Fox News over the weekend:
“This could literally last years, because in Texas, I'm authorized to call a special session every 30 days, it lasts 30 days. And as soon as this one is over, I'm going to call another one, then another one, then another one, then another one. If they show back up in the state of Texas, they will be arrested and taken to the capital. If they want to evade that arrest, they're going to have to stay outside of the state of Texas for literally years.” 00:47 - 1:11
Right, so essentially, by restarting a new session, Republicans are effectively pressuring the missing Dems to return in the next few days or decide if they want to stay out of the state for another four weeks.
But Republicans have made it abundantly clear that if the Democrats do decide to remain out of state, the cycle will just continue.
Not only blocking votes on the new maps, but also holding up other important legislative items like flood relief — a fact that Republicans have eagerly weaponized, accusing Dems of withholding aid to victims.
Though you have Democrats hitting back, saying it was the Republicans who politicized the aid in the first place by tying it to the redistricting plans and forcing the legislature to vote on the maps before considering the relief package.
But, regardless, by remaining out of the state, the Democrats are essentially just postponing the inevitable.
Which is why we’re now seeing reports that the Democrats are now weighing whether to return to the state.
With ABC News and one of its local affiliates even reporting that the missing members have already decided to return to Texas.
This according to “multiple sources” who said the leaders feel accomplished in their mission of ending the first special session and raising national awareness about the power grab.
And there, you had one source saying that Democrats are tentatively planning to return this weekend, but noting that the plans could change.
With a spokesperson for Texas House Democratic Caucus telling the outlet that its plans are fluid and members haven’t made a decision on travel yet.
And going on to imply that plans to return are still very much up in the air, saying:
“Members are still assessing their strategies going forward and are in a private meeting to make decisions about future plans currently.”
Adding, “If and when Texas House Democrats breaking quorum decide to go home is squarely dependent on the actions the Governor, Speaker, and Texas Republicans in charge make with regard to prioritizing flood victims over redistricting that hurts Texans.”
So for now, we’ll have to wait and see how that plays out.
But with all this, you have Democratic leaders around the country renewing their threats to redraw their congressional maps to add blue seats if Texas goes forward with its plan.
This including California Gov. Gavin Newsom — who has been one of the most vocal leaders here.
With his press office mocking Trump in an all-caps post yesterday, where he wrote:
“FINAL WARNING DONALD TRUMP — MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT WARNING IN HISTORY! STOP CHEATING OR CALIFORNIA WILL REDRAW THE MAPS. AND GUESS WHO WILL ANNOUNCE IT THIS WEEK? GAVIN NEWSOM (MANY SAY THE MOST LOVED & HANDSOME GOVERNOR) AND A VERY POWERFUL TEAM. DON’T MAKE US DO IT!!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.”[]
And then, a few hours later, he made another post in the same style saying:
“DONALD ‘TACO’ TRUMP, AS MANY CALL HIM, ‘MISSED’ THE DEADLINE!!! CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE ‘BEAUTIFUL MAPS,’ THEY WILL BE HISTORIC AS THEY WILL END THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY (DEMS TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!).”[]
And adding that there will be a press conference later this week “THAT WILL BE DEVASTATING FOR ‘MAGA.’”
Now, as of recording, Newsom hasn’t provided any specific details here.
But for a few weeks now, the governor has been pushing California state lawmakers to approve a bill that would ultimately allow Democrats to pass a map that benefits them.
And specifically, the legislation sets up a special election on November 4th for voters to consider a ballot measure that would let Dems bypass the state’s independent redistricting commission and enact their own maps ahead of the midterms.
Though, notably, Newsom also called on state lawmakers to set up a “trigger” mechanism that would make it so the new maps only take effect if Texas or other GOP-controlled states move forward with their own redistricting power-grabs.
With him also writing a letter to Trump on Monday where he said he would only move forward with the redistricting effort if Trump refused to back down, writing:
“if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same. And American democracy will be better for it.”
So right now, it’s unclear if Newsom has made any changes to that initial plan, like removing “trigger” mechanism and making it so the redistricting effort would take effect with voter approval regardless of what Texas does.
Or if he intends to stick with the original plan, and he’s just kind of joking around and being dramatic about Trump missing “the deadline.”
Though, based on his tweets about a pending press conference, we will likely have some more information soon.
But for now, we’ll just have to wait and see how all this continues to unravel in Texas, California, and beyond.
-
Gallup Polls just released a crazy new stat: just 54% of Americans drink: the lowest number since they began tracking in 1939.[]
The last time it was almost this low was in 1958, when 55% of Americans didn’t drink.
Gallup also found that there are shifting attitudes towards alcohol in general.
Right, 53% of Americans think that even moderate drinking is bad for health, which is a drastic rise from 45% last year.[]
That could be partially fueled by recent reversals in the medical world, where various studies pointed to possible health benefits associated with VERY LIGHT drinking.
But now it’s becoming more clear that even small amounts of booze are linked to at least seven types of cancer. [2]
It’s not just people quitting booze entirely; even the amount of booze drinkers drink has gone down.
Only 24% of people said they had a drink within the last day and another 40% said it’s been over a week.
What’s interesting is that this comes just a few years after drinking ballooned during the pandemic when 62 to 67% of Americans reported to drink.
You know, because people were stuck inside and just bored.
It can’t just all be blamed on people slowing down after drinking hard for a few years.
There are also economic factors, such as inflation and high interest rates drastically cutting how much the average Americans have to spend.
(to be clear, this is a multi-year thing spanning as far back as the first Trump administration, with recent data actually showing this might be slowing down and we MIGHT see interest rates cut.
But either way, wages haven’t kept up so effective spending power is still way down).
Which means that how much alcohol people are drinking is almost a useful metric for how much money people actually have to waste.
Right, households making less than $40k a year have radically reduced their drinking alongside those making $100k or more a year.
(My non-scientific reason is that you’re either too poor to afford booze or make enough to be happy without it while those in the middle are sad about being stuck in a spot where it’s almost enough money to live comfortably but not quite).[]
So with all that, it’s not surprising to see a decrease in drinking has meant a radical drop in alcohol sales.
There are also interesting trends among voters, where Democrats have almost not changed their drinking habits at all while there’s been an almost-20-point dip in the amount of Republicans drinking.[]
A decrease in alcohol consumption is likely to continue, as the amount of young people who drink continues to fall and now sits at like 50% -- outpacing the drop seen in other age groups.
With this decrease in drinking you’re probably thinking that Americans need to find happiness some other way.
And with about one-half of the states allowing Marijuana, that seems like the perfect substitute.
But that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Like yeah, Marijuana use has gone up… but it’s been at a consistent rate.
So what about you?
Are you drinking less, swore off drinking?
If so, was it for personal reasons, health reasons, or just it’s too damn expensive?
-
“There were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses” in El Salvador last year.
That’s according to the US government – but notably, pretty much every reputable human rights organization on the planet would disagree.
And that’s not the only reason.
Right, because the State Department just released its annual report on human rights around the world, and it’s been scaled back significantly under Trump.
With softer words for the countries he likes and the harshest criticism for those that have pissed him off.
And so to break it all down, let’s talk about 1) what the deal is with these reports anyways, 2) what changes the White House made this year, and 3) what those changes actually look like with some examples.
But starting with number one, what you should know is that the U.S. has compiled these reports on every country in the world since the 1970s.
And of course, the US? It doesn’t exactly have a stellar human rights record itself.
And it doesn’t always act on it even when it does call out another country for violations.
But nonetheless, these reports? In general, they have a reputation for being reliable and comprehensive.
And they’re relied upon by journalists, activists, diplomats, and lawyers all around the world.
Not to mention Congress uses them to shape decisions on foreign aid and weapons sales.
And with that, typically, you would have the Secretary of State presenting the reports in a public briefing and to Congress.
But this year, Marco Rubio has decided against scheduling a dedicated event.
Which is even more notable when you consider how vocal of a supporter he used to be of this whole process.
Right, in 2013, for example, you had him issuing a statement saying:
“The State Department’s annual human rights report sheds light on foreign governments’ failure to respect their citizens’ fundamental rights.”
And arguing “the world has been a better place because America has strived to defend these fundamental human rights both at home and abroad.” []
And then, in 2016, you actually had him criticizing Trump’s then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson for not presenting that year’s reports to Congress in person, writing on Twitter at the time:
“I hope they reconsider.” []
And so with all that, you have the likes of Senator Chris Van Hollen, who voted to confirm Rubio as Secretary, saying he regrets that decision – and adding:
"When he was a member of the Senate, he used to stand up and support an American foreign policy based on promoting democracy and human rights. But ever since he was confirmed, he seems to have forgotten all that." []
And to that point, before all this, you had Rubio tearing apart the office overseeing human rights and democracy issues and firing many of the people who worked there.
That even as many would say Trump is tearing apart democracy in the US
Which is why you have people like Van Hollen also saying:
"If the Trump administration's going to be undermining human rights here, they don't want to have to report on what's happening in other countries." []
But with that, to move on to the specifics of what’s different with this year's report, a lot of it goes back to an internal State Department memo from earlier.
Which reportedly instructed employees to remove whole categories of violations not "explicitly required by statute.” []
With the result being that basic rights widely seen as fundamental under international law – including, for example, the right to a fair public trial – have been dropped.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Right, also according to the memo, employees were directed to remove discussion of diversity, equity, and inclusion; sexual violence against children; and interference with privacy.
And they were further told to get rid of references to restrictions on political participation and government corruption, violence against minorities and LGBTQ people, and harassment of human rights organizations.[]
With NPR providing a detailed look at every section and subsection that has been cut from the outline for the previous year’s report. []
Though, notably there, the cuts? They go beyond just crossing out entire categories.
Right, for the ones that are required by law, that memo I mentioned?
IT reportedly directed employees to reduce the number of examples of each violation to just one "illustrative incident" no matter how widespread the abuses were.[]
With the national director of government relations and advocacy at Amnesty International USA explaining that that’s an issue because:
“If you strip it down to one case, it makes it easier for governments — and particularly authoritarian governments — to say that, you know, this is just one case." []
And of course, the question kind of is whether that’s on purpose.
With something connected to that being that this memo ordered that reports on 20 specific countries be flagged for special review by a guy by the name of Samuel Samson.
Right, Samson? He’s a political appointee in the office of the democracy and human rights office that Rubio overhauled.
He graduated from the University of Texas in 2021.
And his resume includes working at conservative organization whose mission according to the CEO is placing right-wing activists in "well-paying jobs where they will have influence." []
And that partisan background may be key because those countries were sent to him for review? Many of them have some special interest to Trump.
Right, El Savaldor? That’s where hundreds of migrants detained in the US are now imprisoned – with some having claimed to be victims of physical and psychological torture.
But in this year’s report, there’s almost no mention of prison conditions.
And as I said at the beginning, it actually says that “There were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses” in the country at all. []
Though, notably, the Biden administration’s report on El Salvador last year - which was about four times longer than the Trump administration’s – it said differently.
Right, saying “Significant human rights issues included credible reports of:”
“...unlawful or arbitrary killings; enforced disappearance; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions…”[]
And the list actually just keeps going, but I think you get the point, and so I’ll move on to Hungary, where we see something similar.
Right, like Salvador President Nayib Bukele (Nah-yeeb Boo-keh-leh), Trump is a fan of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban – who most observers agree has overseen a crackdown on civil society, the press, and the LGTBQ community.
But according to the State Department, there were also no credible reports of significant human rights abuses in the country. []
Now with that, I will say, countries including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE didn’t get that written about them, but their reports were still significantly scaled back.
To focus on Israel, the Biden administration, of course, didn’t really call out Netanyahu or take any action.
But its report did fairly extensively document allegations against the country–
As well as say clearly in the executive summary that its actions in Gaza had resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, “displaced the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza, and resulted in a severe humanitarian crisis.” []
The Trump administration’s, however, is way way less detailed;
it doesn’t mention the death toll or displacement,
it ignores or downplays many serious allegations,
and it makes no mention of the Israeli government’s restrictions on humanitarian aid contributing to widespread hunger and starvation.
That said, it’s not like these reports didn’t criticize anyone.
Right, in the UK – as well as France, Germany and some other European countries – the Trump administration concluded that the human rights situation “worsened during the year.”
With the reasoning there generally being rising antisemitism and restrictions on freedom of expression.
And notably there, with a specific emphasis on right-wing or conservative expression.
Right, just to zero in on the UK, you had the report highlighting “safe access zones” meant to protect people accessing abortion services from harassment.
With it saying these and other restrictions “could include prohibitions on efforts to influence others… even through prayer or silent protests”. []
But then, perhaps, most notably, you had the report claiming government officials “repeatedly intervened to chill speech” online after the 2024 Southport stabbings. []
Referring to efforts to control hate speech and misinformation in connection to that attack that helped spur huge riots across the country.
With the report also claiming there’s a “two-tier” system with the “censorship of ordinary Britons” becoming “increasingly routine” []
There, sounding kind of like from right-wing leaders such as Nigel Farage who have called British Prime Minister Keir Starmer “two-tier Keir.” []
But moving on, according to the Trump administration, the human rights situation also deteriorated in Brazil last year.
Right, there, Trump has imposed massive tariffs and sanctioned a Supreme Court justice in response to the government’s efforts to tackle online misinformation and its case against ex-president Jair Bolsonaro
Who’s accused of plotting to assassinate his rivals to stay in power after losing an election in 2022.
And you have this “human rights report” hitting the same notes – even alluding to the country’s short-lived ban on X over Elon Musk’s refusal to comply with court orders.
And specifically accusing the government of “disproportionately suppressing the speech of supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro as well as journalists and elected politicians…” []
And finally, the state department found the human rights situation had “significantly worsened” in South Africa.
That’s another country Trump has repeatedly criticized since he returned to office, while also making baseless claims tied to the myth of a “white genocide.”
With these falsehoods being the basis for his welcoming dozens of Afrikanner “refugees” to the United States.
And with that, you have the country’s report claiming:
“The government did not take credible steps to investigate, prosecute, and punish officials who committed human rights abuses including inflammatory racial rhetoric against Afrikaners and other racial minorities, or violence against racial minorities.” []
Right, which is a very interesting argument to make about this generally privileged group when violence against minorities has been de-emphasized in most other reports.
Of course, the Trump administration has claimed this is about streamlining, making the reports more “readable” – also saying they’re just sticking to what the law explicitly requires.
But you can be the judge of that, and I’d love to hear what you have to say in response to all this in the comments.
-
Jr, the HHS, and doctor Mike, because yesterday I talked to Mike for a little under two hours for my podcast In Good Faith, and it was really just so enlightening.
It's been one of our best received podcasts over on Spotify.
Well, there's like 50 important things I could point to in the podcast,
Especially with how much we're seeing RFK Jr and his decisions around the HHS popping up in the news.
I want to share this bit.
In what ways are we screwed?
Do you think the biggest way and the way that people probably don't feel yet is we're screwed on our innovation front, especially health care innovation, because with this administration,
They have come in raising all of these flags on issues that are important, that have been discussed,
That have not been neglected, but they're complex issues that require time to solve, like the chronic health issues that face America,
The obesity epidemic that faces America.
But instead of actually solving those problems, they just talk about them
And then actually cut all the research funding and the labs that are evaluating the problem and trying to find unique solutions for those problems.
They talk about cancer rates going up, and then they cut a half $1 billion worth of research for mRNA vaccines, which can potentially be used to prevent cancer.
So all the innovation that we could be having as a country, in order to prolong our lives, improve the quality of our lives, in order
To give us the competitive edge in this very tough landscape against other countries that are trying to create their own innovation.
We're losing that battle big time.
So the fear for me is when your viewers and listeners are going to come to their doctor ten, 15, 20 years from now hoping that there's a solution to their problem.
There isn't one.
We can all look back at this moment and understand why.
That's the thing that I always wonder is will people actually look back?
Right.
Because there's a number of times where people will, you know, they'll get a lot of likes or like retweets,
And it'll be like looking at a problem that we're seeing today and going like, oh, it's so crazy that this started with Reagan.
Like it's like, but it's so far down the road and the impact it's going to be felt.
But also then I guess one of my questions is why do you think that they're canceling medical and scientific research.
Like what is the point?
I know that when Trump went in, he was like, I'm gonna let RFK junior just fucking run wild.
But like, what do you why do you think they're doing it?
I think that's a better question for a psychic rather than a physician like myself, simply because I can't even begin to understand what is the value of doing these things.
I try and put myself in the shoes of other people. Quite often. I try to exhibit charitable thinking. I think that's beneficial for the world and my own mental health.
But in this scenario, there is no form of charitable thinking that I can imagine someone coming in and canceling these contracts,
Canceling the ability to do research, harming actual preventive things that our health care system does well, instead of actually focusing on the problems of our health care system.
Even in a recent, jubilee debate that I had where I was surrounded by people who were either vaccine hesitant or full on anti-vax,
They agreed that our health care system is too reactive, not proactive.
I'm like, great.
They agree that we need to do more prevention rather than focusing on cures.
Great. I'm on board, but vaccines check all those boxes and yet they're anti the thing that can accomplish those goals.
So for all the issues that our health care system has, which there are many and I'm excited to discuss them with you.
Vaccines are not the problem.
They're the solution.
And they've been doing great things.
Go to Ziprecruiter to try ZipRecruiter for free.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(749x0:751x2)/elf-Cosmetics-Campaign-Starring-Matt-Rife-and-Heidi-N-Closet-081125-1-733a0f84714f4498b8643ab543bbc29f.jpg){kind=link}
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(749x0:751x2)/elf-Cosmetics-Campaign-Starring-Matt-Rife-and-Heidi-N-Closet-081125-3-c3db6df2c0694dbc9d4d18b8454d83d2.jpg){kind=link}
