RFK Accidentally Slams Trump in Crazy Senate Hearing, Sydney Sweeney American Eagle Scandal Update &
PDS Published 09/04/2025
-
Y’all grab your popcorn for this one, because RFK Jr. just endured a two-hour-long cage match with a bunch of very angry Democrats on live television.
Right, today he went before the Senate Finance Committee to answer questions about everything he’s done and is doing as secretary of Health and Human Services. [B roll, 17:35]
Which is notable because the last time he went before that committee was January, for his confirmation hearings. [B roll]
And he was just barely able to clinch enough votes to get through after assuaging the concerns of some skeptical Republicans that he would threaten vaccines. [B roll]
With him repeatedly saying in written answers to their questions: [Same B roll]
“If confirmed, I will do nothing as HHS secretary that makes it difficult or discourages people from taking vaccines.” [Quote]
Well since then, although he would dispute this, critics say he’s unequivocally broken that promise. [Image]
Right, it would take too long to go through everything he’s done, but to name just a few, he fired every member of a key vaccine advisory panel and replaced them with anti-vaxxers. [Headline]
He pulled FDA authorization for the COVID vaccines for anyone who’s not unhealthy or a senior. [Headline]
He cut 500 million dollars in grants for MRNA vaccine research. [Headline]
Under his watch, roughly a quarter of the entire health department, or some 20,000 people, either accepted offers to leave or were fired. [Quote, find “20,000”]
He fired the CDC director after she refused to step down, prompting three more top officials to resign in protest. [Headline]
And now, not only have nine former CDC directors signed an open letter accusing RFK of endangering public health, [Headline]
Yesterday over a thousand current and former HHS staff said the same thing, calling on Trump to fire him. [Headline]
So when this Senate committee hearing kicked off today, Kennedy had quite a lot to answer for. [Lead B roll into clip]
And right off the bat in his opening statement, he claimed to have overseen “the busiest, most proactive administration in HHS history.” [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 43:59 - 44:35] Caption: [rFK Jr.:] “In just half a year, we’ve taken on food dyes, baby formula contamination, the grass loophole, fluoride in our drinking water, gas station heroine, electronic cigarettes, drug prices, prior authorization, information blocking …” [Protester:] *inaudible* “It takes over three months and you …” *Inaudible* “Senator Kennedy …” *Inaudible* “You’re killing millions of people!”
But once the lawmakers took their turns, they weren’t much friendlier than that protester.
Starting with Ron Wyden, who read from a Wall Street Journal op-ed written earlier that morning by the now fired CDC director, who said:
“I was told to preapprove the recommendations of a vaccine advisory panel newly filled with people who have publicly expressed antivaccine rhetoric. … It is imperative that the panel’s recommendations aren’t rubber-stamped but instead are rigorously and scientifically reviewed before being accepted or rejected.” [Quote]
So Wyden asked him about this, and whereas usually people in these hearings just go ‘oh, I haven’t read that article, let me get back to you,’ RFK just straight up called her a liar on the spot.
[Same clip, 57:05 - 57:22] Caption: [RFK Jr.:] “No, I did not say that. I never had a private meeting with her. So there are witnesses to every meeting that we have, and all of those witnesses will say I never said that.” [Ron Wyden:] “So she’s lying today to the American people in The Wall Street Journal?” [RFK Jr.:] “Yes sir.”
Then, Wyden asked him about his purge of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel known as ACIP [A-sip].
[Same clip, 59:03 - 59:22, 59:38 - 59:55] Caption: [RFK Jr.:] “Senator, I didn’t politicize ACIP. I depoliticized it. Congress has been investigating ACIP …” [Ron Wyden:] “All over the country mr secretary, scientists and doctors are saying otherwise. They’re all wrong too. They’re all lying, according to you.” [RFK Jr.:] “Scientists and doctors are supporting me all over the country.” … [Ron Wyden:] “I don’t get any letters from people saying that this is gonna make a big difference forever.” [RFK Jr.:] “Maybe you’re listening to a selective group of people.” [Ron Wyden:] “You get me some of …” [RFK Jr.:] “I will tell you what, senator. I will put my mailbag against your mailbag any day of the week.”
But before they could schedule a time for some hot mailbag-on-mailbag action, Senator Michael Bennet took the mound, and for a minute they seemed confused about who was pitching and who was batting.
[Same clip, 01:19:11 - 01:20:01] Caption: [RFK Jr.:] “Are you saying that the MRNA vaccine has never been associated with myocarditis or pericarditis in teenagers? Is that what you’re trying to tell us?” [Michael Bennet:] “I am simply trying to say that the people that you have put on that panel after firing the entire …” [RFK Jr.:] “You’re evading the question.” [Michael Bennet:] “No I’m asking the questions here.” [RFK Jr.:] “You’re evading that question.” [Michael Bennet:] “I’m asking the questions.” [RFK Jr.:] “Well I asked you a question.” [Michael Bennet:] “I’m asking the questions. Mr Kennedy, on behalf of parents and schools and teachers all over the United States of America who deserve so much better than your leadership. That’s what this conversation is about, mr chairman.” [RFK Jr.:] “Senator, they deserve the truth, and that’s what we’re gonna give them for the first time in the history of that agency.”
Next, Mark Warner took a different approach and just tried to establish what he called “basic facts.”
[Same clip, 01:31:22 - 01:31:41, 01:31:53 - 01:32:12] Caption: [Mark Warner:] “Do you accept the fact that a million Americans died from COVID?” [RFK Jr.:] “I don’t know how many died.” [Mark Warner:] “You’re the secretary of Health and Human Services. You don’t have any idea how many Americans died from COVID?” [RFK Jr.:] “I don’t think anybody knows that because there was so much data chaos …” [Mark Warner:] “Do you think the vaccine did anything to prevent additional deaths?” [RFK Jr.:] “Again, I would like to see the data and talk about the data. I’m not gonna …” [Mark Warner:] “You have had this job for eight months, and you don’t know the data about whether the vaccine saved lives?” [RFK Jr.:] “That’s the problem is that they didn’t have the data.”
Then you had Elizabeth Warren grilling him about whether he’s made it harder for people to get vaccinated, which, by the way, experts generally seem to agree is true.
Right, just limiting the FDA’s approval for the COVID shot alone is expected to disrupt insurance coverage, discourage doctors from prescribing it and make it harder to find it at pharmacies.
Which is why we’re already seeing reports that some people are struggling to get appointments for vaccination this fall.
So Warren sparred with him over this, and eventually called in reinforcements from Bernie Sanders.
[Same clip, 02:27:26 - 02:27:46, 02:35:15 - 02:35:36, 02:36:16 - 02:36:34] Caption: [RFK Jr.:] “Most Americans will be able to get it from their pharmacy for free.” [Elizabeth Warren:] “No, the question is everyone who wants it. That was your promise, mr Kennedy, not mine.” [RFK Jr.:] “I never promised that I was gonna reccomend products with which there is no indication. And I know you’ve taken $855,000 from pharmaceutical companies, senator.” … [Bernie Sanders:] “Every single Republican, and I don’t mean to be political here mr chairman, has received PAC money from the pharmaceutical industry. Are they all corrupt as well?” [RFK Jr.:] “I’m telling you the American Heart Association has been co-opted by the food industry.” [Bernie Sanders:] “Everybody but you, senator. But you know what? When you ran for president, you know we have a corrupt campaign finance system. Maybe you will agree with me on that. … I’m saying the pharmaceutical industry is a greedy institution which is charging us the highest prices in the world. They are pervasive. But to suggest that every institution, the AMA, the pediatrics people, is corrupt because they disagree with you is an insult to the American people.” [RFK Jr.:] “Listen, people disagree with me all the time.”
And finally, we should talk about Kennedy’s reception from the Republicans.
Because most of them just threw him softballs, asking him open-ended questions like “what are you doing to make America healthy again?”
But one in particular was clearly unhappy with what he’s seen from HHS so far, and that’s Bill Cassidy.
Right, not only is he on the finance committee, he’s also on the committee that oversees HHS, he’s a licensed physician, and he’s a supporter of vaccines.
So when RFK was being confirmed back in February, Cassidy was the most visible holdout, and he only agreed to vote for Kennedy after getting several promises from him.
Namely that he would work within current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems, accept reccomendations from the vaccine advisory panel, and work closely with Cassidy himself on health policy. [Quote, find “parallel”]
Well whether he’s followed the letter of those promises is up for debate, but critics say he’s certainly not followed their spirit.
So when Cassidy stepped up for his turn, he made his dissatisfaction clear.
[Clip, 00:42 - 01:03, 01:38 - 01:54, 03:29 - 03:36, 04:09 - 04:23, 04:37 - 04:43, 05:58 - 06:03] Caption: [Bill Cassidy:] “Mr secretary, do you agree with me that the president deserves a Nobel prize for Operation Warp Speed?” [RFK Jr.:] “Absolutely senator, that was a phenomenal …” [Bill Cassidy:] “So let me ask you, but you just told Senator Bennet that the COVID vaccine killed more people than COVID.” [RFK Jr.:] “I did not say that.” … [Bill Cassidy:] “It also surprises me because you’ve cancelled, or HHS did but apparently under your direction, $500 million in contracts using the MRNA vaccine platform that was critical to Operation Warp Speed. … You’ve called for, and rightly so, that we should restrict participation in agencies for those with conflicts of interest. … What I am concerned about is that many of those whom you’ve nominated for ACIP have received revenue serving as expert witnesses for plaintiffs attorneys suing vaccine makers. … That actually seems like a conflict of interest. Real quickly, do you agree with that?” [RFK Jr.:] “No I don’t.” … [Bill Cassidy:] “I would say effectively we’re denying people vaccines.” [RFK Jr.:] “You’re wrong.”
So yeah, that was the hearing; it’s unclear if anything productive came out of all that, but at the very least it was entertaining.
And meanwhile, RFK’s department continues to systematically dismantle the public health system as we know it.
With the FDA announcing that it no longer considers taking multiple vaccines for respiratory viruses at the same time safe and effective. [Headline]
So if pharmaceutical companies want to claim that, they’ll have to conduct new clinical trials proving it, even though virtually no credible expert doubts it.
Now to be clear, pharmacies can still legally give you the COVID shot and the flu shot at the same time this fall, like they always have.
But the extra regulatory hurdle and climate of fear and uncertainty mean that some may be hesitant to.
And experts say that could push down overall vaccination rates, because many people just won’t stomach the inconvenience of having to schedule two consecutive appointments instead of one. [Quote same link, find “inconvenien”]
But with the federal government going totally rogue, states and private organizations are forming their own parallel systems to keep people safe.
With California, Washington and Oregon forming a “West Coast Health Alliance” yesterday that’ll give its own vaccine reccomendations. [Headline]
And in the Northeast, eight states have discussed launching a similar coalition for several months. [Quote, find “Northeast”]
But at the same time, red states are following the White House’s lead, with for example Florida announcing that it would become the first state in the nation to end all school vaccine mandates, likening them to slavery. [Headline]
And I don’t need to remind y’all what happened to this country the last time it fractured over the issue of slavery, but …
-
The Supreme Court is undermining the entire judiciary system and they’re doing it all for Daddy Trump!
Right, Trump is asking the Supreme Court to overturn last week’s 7 to 4 appeals court ruling that determined he does not, in fact, have the authority to implement most of the tariffs he’s placed on foreign imports recently. []
The appeals court, however, did give Trump some wiggle room to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on the matter before this ruling takes effect.
Which is exactly what he’s doing - with both Trump and his Justice Department framing the appeals court ruling as catastrophic for the country.
With Solicitor General John Sauer saying in a written filing to the High Court,
"The stakes in this case could not be higher.”
"The President and his cabinet officials have determined that the tariffs are promoting peace and unprecedented economic prosperity, and that the denial of tariff authority would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe.” []
And Trump is asking the Supreme Court to expedite their ruling in order to prevent that “economic catastrophe.” []
Specifically, he’s requesting the court decide whether to take up the case by September 10th and then hear arguments in November.
Which puts rocket boosters on the normal system - especially considering that the High Court’s new term doesn’t even begin until October 6th. []
Now, that ruling is definitely one we’re going to have to keep an eye out for.
But we should also zoom out a bit and talk about how this is just another example of Trump using emergency rulings from the Supreme Court to essentially rubber stamp his agenda.
With lower court judges saying that by allowing Trump to do so, the Supreme Court is potentially undermining the entire judiciary system.
Right, in an incredibly rare interview, a dozen federal judges - notably both Republican and Democratic appointees – sat down with NBC.
All 12 spoke on the condition of anonymity out of concern about retaliation and threats - which, of course, has become a very real problem in recent years.
But these judges all pointed to a pattern that has been emerging - they are handed a contentious case relating to the Trump administration, they painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings, and, when they rule against Trump, deal with intense criticism and harsh words.
Then the case is appealed to the Supreme Court - where an emergency ruling rejects the lower court judge’s finding with little to no explanation.
And all of that leads to lower courts looking shoddy and biased against Trump - which opens them up to a whole new level of criticism from big names in the MAGA world and even occasionally Trump himself.
Hell, at one point, Trump even threatened the job of a judge who ruled against him in a high profile immigration case.
With one of the judges telling NBC that the Supreme Court is essentially helping the Trump administration undermine the lower courts and is throwing those judges under the bus.
And another added,
“It is inexcusable. They don’t have our backs.”
With that judge saying major reform must happen or, quote, “somebody is going to die.”
And one of the big changes they’re calling for here is for Chief Justice John Roberts to step up and do more to protect them.
With four of the judges saying that Roberts, as Chief Justice, could push back against Team Trump’s hostilities against lower courts if and when they rule against Trump’s agenda.
And while NBC does note that there have been a couple moments that Roberts has verbally defended the judiciary, the judges argue that his actions are what really matter.
Saying the High Court’s unexplained rulings in Trump’s favor say more than any statement.
Right, words are words and actions are actions.
Now, it’s important to note here that this isn’t just about the Supreme Court leaning right with their rulings.
Right, the High Court has leaned one direction or the other at several points in US history.
It’s more about the role of emergency cases.
Right, emergency rulings aren’t a new thing - back in 2015, a University of Chicago Law School professor coined the term “shadow docket” for cases that are fast-tracked around the usual months-long appeal process.
Before Trump, this was usually things like death row inmates’ attempts to block their executions at the eleventh hour.
But Trump has prompted the shadow docket to explode with hot-button nationwide dispute cases - starting back in his first administration with his travel ban on people entering the United States from mostly Muslim-majority countries.
In his second time around, he’s already asked the Supreme Court to block lower court rulings on an emergency basis 23 times.
With the High Court agreeing 17 times and of the remaining cases, they’ve only said no twice - with one still pending and the other three being resolved without decisions.
For comparison - according to a Georgetown Law professor, throughout the entire 4-year Biden administration, they filed applications for emergency rulings only 19 times.
With the court giving the thumbs up 10 times.
But going back to Trump, of the 17 cases that the Supreme Court okayed for his administration this year, 5 of those reportedly offered no explanation for their ruling and 7 of them reportedly had less than 3 pages of reasoning.
Which isn’t a complaint exclusive to Trump - of the 10 wins the Supreme Court gave the Biden administration, 8 of them had no explanation.
And that is a problem because, as one of our 10 judges explained to NBC, the Supreme Court has a responsibility to explain their rulings in a way that the public can understand.
And the lack of those explanations has resulted in serious problems for lower court judges - they’re required to follow the Supreme Court’s lead.
But the lack of explanation means that they aren’t sure what they’re being asked to do or how to proceed in related cases.
Especially in cases where the Supreme Court undermines established precedent without overturning it entirely.
There’s also the unspoken message the High Court is sending by churning out emergency rulings in favor of Trump’s agenda.
With one of the judges telling NBC that the Supreme Court is effectively endorsing Team Trump’s stance that the lower courts are biased against them - adding,
“It’s almost like the Supreme Court is saying it is a ‘judicial coup.’”
And with that, I will pass the question off to you - what are your thoughts here?
Let me know in those comments down below.
-
Donald Trump wants to pick New York City's next mayor.
And to do that, his advisors are reportedly thinking about offering current mayor Eric Adams a job in his administration – with the idea being that Adams would then drop out of the race and give Andrew Cuomo a better chance of defeating Zohran Mamdani.
Right, and for the same reason, Trump’s people have also reportedly talked about finding a place for Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa (Slee-wuh) at the White House.
And in response to all these allegations, you’ve actually had Mamadani speaking out and saying he’s not worried about losing either way, but that this is about more than that:
“Today we have learned what New Yorkers have long suspected. That Andrew Cuomo is Donald Trump's choice to be the next mayor of this City.”
"We feel just as confident as we did yesterday that we will win this race in November. This is, however, about an affront to our democracy—an affront to what makes so many of us proud to be Americans. That we choose our own leaders. Not that they get to pick themselves. Not that they get to be picked by the president of the United States.”
“That is what this news has revealed to us today, and that is what this campaign is fighting. Not simply any other candidate that will be on the ballot, but the notion that New York City is for sale.”
“...the reason that so many New Yorkers are fed up with politics as they know it is because of news like this—backroom deals, corrupt agreements—all of which serve to increase the sense of disaffection and despair as it pertains to how people feel about politics across this country." (BYTE: 0:00-0:11, 0:25-0:52, 1:23-1:33, 1:53-2:11)
Now, with all that, of course, both Adams and Slee-wuh have denied speaking with the president or receiving a job offer.
With Adams himself claiming he has no plans to exit the race – but also saying he wouldn’t discuss any “private conversations” he might have had.
Although, notably, reporting from the New York Times simply suggests that “intermediaries” for Trump have been in touch with "associates" of Adams.
With one source saying the administration has been looking into making Adams an ambassador.
And someone else telling Politico that he has actually already been offered a position at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
But notably, even if all that isn’t true, you have people saying Mamdani’s point about backroom deals and corrupt agreements? It still stands.
Right, Adams? He became mayor in 2022.
And last September, after a yearslong investigation, prosecutors charged him with conspiracy, bribery and other crimes, saying that he had:
1) accepted more than $100,000 in flight upgrades and airline tickets;
2) pressured the city’s Fire Department to sign off on the opening of a new high-rise Turkish consulate building despite safety concerns;
And 3) fraudulently obtained millions of dollars in public funds for his campaign.
And after that – you know, for some reason – you had Adams refusing to criticize Trump, telling his top aides to do the same, also changing his stance on immigration, and ultimately just doing whatever he could to curry Trump’s favor.
And when Trump got back into office, Adams' lawyers formally asked for a pardon.
One week later, Adams’s lawyer got a call from one of Trump’s top political appointees at the DOJ saying he wanted to talk about potentially dismissing the case against him.
And after some back and forth, that’s exactly what happened.
And you even had the judge who ultimately granted the motion to dismiss the charges saying it looked like the department had offered the mayor a quid pro quo – with prosecutors who had worked the case saying the same.
And notably, since switching to running as an independent, there’s only been more allegations swirling around Adams.
Right, last month, one of his former advisors was indicted on charges of corruption and bribery – while another faced similar allegations after handing a reporter a potato chip bag stuffed with cash.
And then, of course, there’s Cuomo.
Right, he’s the former governor of New York, and he’s running as a third-party candidate after getting whooped by Mamdani in the Democratic primary.
And notably, he resigned as governor after facing sexual harassment allegations;
He's been investigated for lying about the underreporting of nursing home deaths in the state during the pandemic.
And he may be more willing to accept help from Trump then he lets on.
Right, it’s actually been reported that he spoke to Trump on the phone about the race – though both men denied it afterward.
And more recently, in private, Cuomo has told business leaders that he doesn’t want a combative relationship with Trump –
And he has told wealthy Hamptonites at a fundraiser that he actually expected Trump would ultimately help him win the race.
He has since denied that, of course, saying in an interview yesterday that it would actually make more sense for Trump to support Mamdani, saying:
“It would be a political gift to the Republican Party, which would then use him to characterize the Democrats across the country going into the midterms.”
And to be fair, that does seem to be the prevailing view among many Republicans who do in fact think they could use Mamdani as a sort of socialist boogeyman to shape elections across the country.
But Trump? He’s not one of them.
Right, in July, after baseless claiming Mamdani immigrated to the US illegally and even threatening to arrest him if he interfered with immigration enforcement in the city – you actually had him saying:
“I’m not going to let this Communist Lunatic destroy New York.”
With there then being reports that he was thinking about getting involved and trying to figure out which other candidate would have the best chance of defeating Mamdani.
And beyond that, New York real estate moguls, developers, and billionaires have all teamed up to whatever they can to stop Mamdani.
And backing Cuomo? It does seem to be their best bet.
Right, Mamdani has generally been leading the polls with anywhere from around 30 to 40 percent of the vote.
Cuomo’s support has been hovering in the low- to mid-20s; Slee-wuh has been in the teens; and Adams has been in the single digits.
But of course, it’s still not clear that them dropping out would change anything.
Right, if they did, they actually might not be able to remove their names from the ballot at this point in the race.
And either way, there’s no guarantee that their supporters would vote for Cuomo.
But for now, we’ll just have to see what the situation is when the election happens in November, and then what happens from there.
Go to Brain.fm to get 30 days of free access to science-backed music that really works.
-
Donald Trump broke the law by freezing more than 2 billion dollars in research funding for Harvard University.
That’s what a federal judge is now ruling – saying the White House violated Harvard’s first amendment rights.
And also telling the Trump administration that it can’t block any more of the school’s federal research funding, quote:
“...in retaliation for the exercise of its First Amendment rights, or on any purported grounds of discrimination without compliance with the terms of Title Six” – []
Right, which is the law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. []
And that’s relevant because Trump's justification for pulling Harvard’s funding included the claim that there was rampant antisemitism and discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students on campus.
And back in April, his administration sent the school a letter telling that if it wanted to keep its funding it had to deal with that.
Also demanding that it change its admissions and hiring policies and end DEI programs, among other things.
But of course, Harvard refused, and within hours, the White House announced it would begin cutting off funding.
So the school sued a week later – accusing the government of violating the First Amendment.
And since then, the lawsuit? It’s just been one part of a bigger battle.
With Trump trying to bar international students from attending; threatening the university’s accreditation and tax exempt status; and even cutting off more funding to the school.
This as other Ivy League universities – including Columbia, Penn, and Brown – have made deals with the White House to avoid punishment.
And now, Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court in Boston has said that while Harvard has had serious issues with antisemitism, Trump’s funding freeze was illegal, writing:
“...a review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.” []
Also saying: “We must fight against antisemitism, but we equally need to protect our rights, including our right to free speech, and neither goal should nor needs to be sacrificed on the altar of the other.”
“Now it is the job of the courts to similarly step up, to act to safeguard academic freedom and freedom of speech as required by the Constitution, and to ensure that important research is not improperly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally infirm grant terminations, even if doing so risks the wrath of a government committed to its agenda no matter the cost.”[]
The White House, of course, condemned the decision – with a spokesperson saying:
So, of course, as with pretty much any case we talk about that hasn’t been decided by the Supreme Court, there’s a good chance this isn’t over yet.
-
The girls are fighting!
And by girls, I mean right-wing news channels, and by fighting, I mean filing lawsuits.
Because Newsmax just filed an antitrust lawsuit against Fox News, claiming that the network has engaged in:
“an exclusionary scheme to increase and maintain its dominance in the market for U.S. right-leaning pay TV news, resulting in suppression of competition in that market that harms consumers, competition, and Newsmax.”[]
Right, or in other words, they are essentially arguing that Fox News has been illegally hogging the conservative news market.
And Newsmax claims that Fox does this in a number of ways, including by intimidating cable, satellite, and TV providers into exclusionary contracts, with the suit saying:
“Fox leverages this market power to coerce distributors into not carrying or into marginalizing other right-leaning news channels, including Newsmax.”
Alleging that Fox will force distributors into unfair terms and impose financial penalties on them if they carry Newsmax and others in their standard cable packages.
The suit was filed in Florida, and it claims that Fox’s misconduct goes beyond just these contracts.
With Newsmax saying that ever since its cable channel began, it has faced threats and smear tactics from Fox News, including Fox hiring private detective firms to investigate Newsmax execs.
The suit also claimed that Fox would pressure its guests to stop appearing on Newsmax, and if those guests did not listen, producers were told to avoid booking them altogether.
And allegedly:
“When Newsmax confronted Fox regarding this anticompetitive conduct, Fox News responded, ‘Welcome to the big leagues.’”
For some context, Fox News is the most-watched cable news channel in the country, and Newsmax’s ratings don’t compare to what Fox is pulling.[]
In the past, The New York Times even called Newsmax the “David to Fox News’s Goliath.”[]
But in recent years, Newsmax has seen some moments of growth, right, including when Tucker Carlson left Fox in 2023, that created a timeslot for Newsmax to grow.
According to the lawsuit, it also saw a boost during Trump vs Biden, with the lawsuit claiming that the 2020 election highlighted the “Consumer demand for a right-leaning pay TV news alternative to Fox’s establishment platform.”[]
And adding:
“Before and after the election, Newsmax’s rating grew because it offered viewers fresh and different right-leaning news, complete with new talent and new opinions.”
And Newsmax alleges that at this time, Fox News actively saw Newsmax as a threat, pointing to texts and other messages executives and talent allegedly sent one another.
Some execs apparently calling Newsmax’s surge “troubling” and saying “we are on war footing,” others claiming that they were more worried about competition from Newsmax than giants like CNN and MSNBC.
And the lawsuit said that to address these concerns, Fox:
“pursued a coordinated, behind-the-scenes campaign to suppress Newsmax (and other emerging right-leaning competitors, such as OAN).”
So, no surprise, Newsmax claims it has taken many hits as a result, saying that:
“Fox’s campaign to stunt Newsmax’s business has delayed, for almost a decade, Newsmax’s growth in pay TV distribution…and has resulted in significant damages to Newsmax, including in the form of lost business, missed advertising and marketing revenues, and lower cable license fees, all while increasing overall company costs.”
Newsmax is seeking monetary damages, as well as for the court to prevent Fox from entering these alleged exclusionary contracts and conducting other monopolistic acts.[]
But Fox has slammed the lawsuit, saying in a statement that:
“Newsmax cannot sue their way out of their own competitive failures in the marketplace to chase headlines simply because they can’t attract viewers.”
The network of course though is still standing its ground, with Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy saying:
"Fox may have profited from exclusionary contracts and intimidation tactics for years, but those days are over. This lawsuit is about restoring fairness to the market and ensuring that Americans have real choice in the news they watch.”
And this comes at an interesting time in the media landscape, right, Fox News has been doing incredibly well under Trump Admin 2.0.[]
But you had CNN saying:
“The lawsuit between two far-right, pro-Trump outlets marks a notable fracture in the once-cohesive world of MAGA Media.”
And on top of that, it also “pits two conservative media moguls against one another as they vie for President Donald Trump’s attention.”
So I would love to know your thoughts on this one.
-
Texas is about to dramatically expand its abortion ban.
It already has one of the strictest laws on the book, banning abortion as early as six weeks and allowing private citizens to sue doctors or anyone who helps facilitate an abortion.
But this new proposal — which was passed by the State Senate yesterday and is expected to be signed by Gov. Greg Abbott soon — it goes way beyond that.
Specifically, the bill would make it so private citizens can sue any individual OR company that manufactures, distributes, transports, delivers, or mails abortion pills to or from Texas.
And that’s REGARDLESS of whether a woman actually even takes an abortion pill.
According to reports, pharmaceutical companies that make the drug could be held liable, as could delivery services like FedEx and UPS.[][]
And, during debate in the Texas House, the Republican who wrote the bill even said that a parent of a pregnant minor could be sued for obtaining the pill for their child or even just calling a clinic outside of Texas to ASK about mail-order pills.
Now, notably here, like Texas’ current law, women who end their pregnancies can’t be sued, nor can doctors who perform abortions in emergency situations.
But even if they can't sue the woman, ANYONE can still bring a lawsuit against "facilitators" regardless of whether they have any connection to her.
And if they’re successful, the defendants would be required to pay as much as $100,000 in damages.
But only the pregnant woman herself, the man who impregnated her, and direct relatives of the fetus would be able to get the full $100,000.
Anyone else would be able to pocket $10,000, with the remaining $90,000 going to charity.
Though there are limited exceptions — a man who impregnated a woman through sexual assault wouldn’t be eligible for damages, but it's also unclear how that would be enforced.
-
Sydney Sweeney’s controversial “good jeans” campaign has been insanely good for American Eagle.
And now the company says it's going to do more work with the actress later this year, even after the ads received widespread backlash for promoting eugenics and Nazi propaganda because… well… this:
“Genes are passed down from parent to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color. My jeans are blue. Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.” (0:00-0:14)
But clearly, any publicity is good publicity, because American Eagle’s stock soared 30% as of this morning after the brand released a strong earnings report and claimed that Sweeney’s campaign was largely to thank.
With American Eagle’s CEO saying during an earnings call that, because of the ads, the company experienced “record-breaking new customer acquisition and brand awareness.”
But it wasn’t just Sweeney — the clothes maker also said the boost in customer awareness, engagement, and comparable sales was also driven by a new collab with Travis Kelce and the lifestyle brand Tru Kolors.
A project that, very notably, was launched just one day after the news of his engagement to Taylor Swift was made public.
With American Eagle reporting that its customer count was up more than 700,000 since the launch of the campaigns, which together have generated 40 BILLION impressions.
And executives forecast that the viral campaigns will just continue to drive up sales and boost earnings, with the Chief Marketing Officer telling investors:
“‘Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans’ is not going anywhere. Sydney will be part of our team as we get into the back half of the year, and we'll be introducing new elements of the campaign as we continue forward.”
Go to HelloFresh to Get 10 Free Meals + a Free Item for Life!
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/69373940/031521_sliwa_5.0.jpg){kind=link}
