Trump’s Government SHUTDOWN Plan is Worse Than You Think...
PDS Published 10/01/2025
-
It happened: the government has officially shut down.
Right, that became a reality yesterday after Senate Democrats successfully blocked a GOP bill to keep the government funded at current levels for a few more weeks until a long-term spending deal could be reached.
With the Senate failing to break the 60-vote filibuster, rejecting the bill 55-45.
Though, notably, you did have three Democrats joining Republicans to vote in favor of the legislation, while one Republican voted against.
But, as we talked about yesterday, even before that vote, it really seemed like a shutdown was inevitable, because both sides would not budge on their demands.
Right, while Democrats said they wouldn't back any legislation that didn’t roll back Medcaid cuts and extend key Obamacare subsidies, you also had Republicans refusing to negotiate or make concessions.
And now that the shutdown has happened, we’ve seen both sides continuing to point fingers at each other.
Now, of course, it’s common for Republicans and Democrats to try and blame each other when the government shuts down.
But this time is different, because experts say we are witnessing the Trump administration do things they have NEVER seen before.
Right, we’ve seen numerous agencies and their leaders joining in the blame game — and using official channels funded by taxpayer dollars to do so.
With one of the most notable examples here being the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which currently has a massive banner on the homepage of their official government website that reads:
“The Radical Left in Congress shut down the government. HUD will use available resources to help Americans in need.”
That was also echoed in public statements from other agencies, with the Department of Veterans Affairs also issuing a partisan statement ahead of the shutdown, saying:
“Radical liberals in Congress are trying to shut down the government to achieve their crazy fantasy of open borders, 'transgender' for everybody and men competing in women's sports.”
You also had several department heads pointing the finger at Democrats as well, including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, who wrote:
“The Democrats will be forcing over 150,000 officers and nearly 50,000 members of the military—our frontline of defense—to continue protecting our nation without pay.”
And we also saw it being widely reported that employees across numerous departments received various iterations of an email from the White House Office of Management and Budget saying that a shutdown would be the fault of Congressional Democrats.
And the OMB itself posted a copy of a memo on X with a nearly identical message.[]
Right, and this is actually super significant because executive agencies and their leaders usually do not share these kinds of partisan messages.
Beyond that, others have also argued that both the public statements and the internal communications appear to violate federal laws.
With many ethics experts specifically saying that the tax-payer funded emails to employees violate U/S lobbying laws and even go against the Hatch Act.
A federal statute that limits the political activities of federal employees and bans civil servants in the executive branch from engaging in most political activity while on duty.
With one expert explaining that the email appeared to blame Democrats “for a government shutdown and resulting furloughs of agency employees,” adding:
“In other words, this email has a partisan political goal. This email is both a violation of the Hatch Act and an abuse of government power.”
You also had another ethics scholar saying the email “suggests there’s a concerted lobbying effort across the government” using federal email and website systems that are funded by taxpayers, which would be a violation of U.S. lobbying laws.
And plenty of other experts have also said the public statements we’ve seen from officials and agencies also seem to violate the Hatch Act.
In fact, we’ve already seen at least one ethics group filing a complaint against the banner on the HUD website, alleging that it is a blatant violation of the Hatch Act that seeks to campaign against Democrats while valorizing Trump.
Though, with that, you had HUD officials denying those allegations.
Telling reporters that the message was carefully worded to avoid violating the law, arguing that the “radical left” was an ideology and not a politician or political party.
But several experts have pushed back on that claim, saying it’s still clearly partisan language.
Right, so that’s obviously it’s whole own messy battle.
But as far as how Trump himself has responded, the president has been unusually quiet, at least as of recording.
And by unusually quiet, I mean he hasn’t really given any kind of public comment, or even made one of his classic all-caps posts on Truth Social.
But, of course, there are plenty of others doing the job for him.
With the official White House X account going absolutely balls to the walls.
You also had JD Vance going on the offensive and echoing those narratives in an interview with Fox and Friends this morning:
“But let's step back for a second because I think it's important for the American people to realize that the far-left faction of Senate Democrats shut down the government because we wouldn't give them hundreds of billions of dollars for healthcare benefits for illegal aliens. It's actually not even all Senate Democrats.” 00:31 - 00:44
“This is basically Chuck Schumer. Chuck Schumer, he's worried he's going to get a primary challenge from AOC. And so he's shutting down the people's government to to give in to sort of the left-wing coalition in their party. And it's craziness and people are going to suffer because of it.” 00:52 - 1:05
Now, of course, as we talked about yesterday, his claim there about Democrats wanting to give billions in healthcare to illegal immigrants is simply untrue.
Right, illegal immigrants are ineligible for federal healthcare programs and Obamacare subsidies, and Democrats aren’t trying to change that.[]
Instead they are just trying or restore a subsidy for certain “lawfully present” immigrants that Republicans cut in their tax bill.
But, beyond that, you also had AOC herself hitting back at GOP attempts to somehow blame her for the shutdown:
“And I saw some Republican members of Congressing saying ‘oh, well if we have this shutdown, it’s because of AOC.’ Well, if that’s the case, my office is open and you are free to negotiate with me directly. What I'm not going to do is tolerate 4 million uninsured Americans because Trump decided one day to make sure kids are dying because they don't have insurance. That’s what’s not gonna happen. And so if those Senators think that we’re having a shutdown because of me, they’re free to enter my office and negotiate, because what we’re not going to do is allow all of — millions of people in this country to not be able to afford their insulin or chemotherapy.” 00:01 - 00:41
We’ve also seen Schumer defending his decision to lead his party into this shutdown, arguing that this is about the fight for healthcare.
With him also trying to flip the script on the Republican claim that Democrats are to blame for the shutdown because they wouldn’t agree to a clean bill to keep the government open and hold negotiations on healthcare afterwards.
Calling it “Donald Trump’s government shutdown” and arguing that Republicans are actually the ones responsible for the shutdown “because they refused to protect Americans healthcare.”[]
And then writing in another post:
“Healthcare premiums across the country are DOUBLING. AND REPUBLICANS SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT INSTEAD OF FIXING IT.” []
And that’s a point we’ve seen many other Democrats making as well.
Right, arguing that they don’t trust that Republicans will actually negotiate with them in good faith if they agreed to the stopgap bill, so they needed to make their all or nothing stand now.
And claiming that this is evidenced by the fact that Republicans refused to even negotiate with them before trying to pass this bill, and because of that, Republicans are the ones responsible for this shutdown.
But, of course, all the finger pointing on both sides — it's just words.
And while politicians might care about who gets the blame, at the end of the day, what really matters is what happens from here.
But right now, it remains unclear how lawmakers intend to get out of the hole and end this shutdown.
Right, today, we saw Republican leaders in the Senate forcing another vote on the SAME exact stopgap measure that failed to pass yesterday.
But, unsurprisingly, they got identical votes this time around because nothing in it was changed.
So we really have no idea how things will move forward from here, and meanwhile, we’re just starting to see the beginning of how this shutdown will impact federal agencies, their workers, and the services they provide.
Though, of course, this is a very fluid situation, and one that will change as the shutdown drags on.
-
Are drug prices about to get a lot lower for Americans?!
That’s what President Trump promised yesterday in an announcement with the head of Pfizer and saying:
"A major reason is that the American consumers have been subsidizing research and development for the entire planet. They put all of that on us, and yet they were the beneficiaries too. So it's been changed as of today." (0:54-1:06)
And then Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla added:
"I think today we are turning the tide, and we are reversing an unfair situation.” (0:03-0:09)
While this will affect Medicaid pricing, the news that really grabbed people’s attention was the government-run pharmacy TrumpRx.gov.
[Don’t go running over there just yet, as the website doesn’t lead anywhere and it’s not expected to until 2026].
Trump claimed that direct-to-consumer pharmacy for those without insurance would lead to reductions of “14, 15, 1600%.”
To be clear, that won’t be happening because it would mean the government is paying YOU a ton of money when you get pharmaceuticals.
Instead it was clarified that this could be upwards of a 50% discount.[]
On the surface that all sounds great, but the devil is in the details.
And we know almost none as of right now other than this would only be for people without insurance currently.
Which is obviously great news for them, but it’s not a widespread win and for those with insurance.
That’s because one official has anonymously told outlets that in the end those with insurance won’t have their prices affected and will still be paying less.[]
Not to mention that Medicaid already has relatively low pricing so it’s unclear how much this will actually affect them.[]
None of this is a total surprise though, as the Trump administration was not shy about making threats to the pharmaceutical world.
Right, earlier this year it sent a letter to drug makers and warned them they had 60 days to lower their prices or face tariffs.
Pfizer is the first to bend the knee and in return is getting a three-year grace period from any tariffs.
Online the reaction to all this has generally been positive -- despite the move possibly not doing much in the grand scheme.
Right, even Mark Cuban -- who has been extremely critical of Trump and runs his own low-cost pharmacy -- said this on Twitter:
“To the admin's credit, they have some great people working on this project. Chris Klomp knows his stuff. Cold. So does his staff. They put people first.
So I give the program, and what we know, as of today, a grade of B.
Why not an A ? The stock prices of [Pharmaceutical Benefit Managers] didn't get crushed. Which means, so far, no one expects much change for them.” []
There were also a lot of people kinda mocking Trump about the whole thing because… you know… a government-run business is more in-line with progressive policies than right-wing ones.
However as many pointed out, it’s not so black-and-white and in many cases right-wing governments have embraced government control of business as a means of control.
Not to mention that Trump is a populist and a populist will say and do anything if they think it’ll be popular.
All that being said we’ll have to wait until 2026 to see how this really plays out,
But it’s generally hard to argue with the broad idea that Americans should be getting life-saving pharmaceuticals for cheaper.
Go to Raycon to get 30% off the Essential Open Earbuds.
-
The war between Donald Trump and Harvard University just entered the ‘you’re totally full of shit’ stage.
And just to recap how we got here, this all started in April, when the White House accused Harvard of allowing anti-Semitism to flourish on campus, and issued a list of demands including enforcing “viewpoint diversity.” [Image]
Then Harvard refused, so the White House froze over two billion dollars in research grant funding, tried to ban all international students from attending, and threatened Harvard's accreditation status. [Image]
And all of this has been getting sorted out in the courts for months, but now it’s been reported that Harvard wrote a 28-page letter basically calling Trump out on his bullshit.
Right, because at the center of this is an investigation by the Health Department’s Office of Civil Rights, which has been used as the justification for everything the administration’s done.
But according to this letter, the evidence in that probe is paper-thin, and it ignores all the other evidence that points in the other direction.
So for example, the “evidence” reportedly includes anonymous posts on the third-party app Sidechat, which Harvard isn’t even affiliated with. [Quote, find “Sidechat”]
As well as a survey of one-half of 1 percent of the student body, which the letter says HHS drew sweeping conclusions from. [Quote, find “sweeping”]
In fact, it claims the only specific incident that, if true, would show antisemitism disrupted a student’s access to education wasn’t a firsthand account. [Quote, find “firsthand”]
Right, supposedly it was an anonymous account from a single student, who alleged that “other students stopped going to a class because those other students did not feel safe.” [Quote]
And what’s more, that incident didn’t even come from the Health Department’s investigation; it came from Harvard’s own probe into itself.
Now HHS did cite another incident of apparent anti-Semitism, but it too is less simple than it appears.
Right, the claim is that an Orthodox Jewish student reported her mezuza [Pronounce 00:07] had gone missing from her dorm door. [Quote, find “mezuza”]
But Harvard notes that it was found in the hallway three doors down, suggesting it fell off the door because the adhesive tape gave way. [Same quote]
Hell, even the student herself, though she believed this was an act of anti-Semitism, penned an op-ed for U.S. News & World Report saying her experience should not be used to justify defunding the university. [Headline]
Writing, “no one from the administration ever contacted me to discuss what happened. No one from Washington asked what would make me feel safer at school or what policies might help Jewish students on campus.” [Quote]
Now whether Harvard’s policies around anti-Semitism could be improved — that’s not really in dispute.
Right, the university admits it isn’t perfect, but it argues that imperfection isn’t the same as illegal.
And specifically, for a Title VI [six] violation, which is what the White House is alleging, five things would have to be proven in court:
The harassment of members of a protected class was severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive. [Quote, find “five things”]
(2) that harassment denied students access to education. [Same quote]
(3) Harvard had “actual knowledge” of it. [Same quote]
(4) It happened within the University’s programs or activities. [Same quote]
And (5) Harvard’s response was clearly unreasonable. [Same quote]
But in its letter, Harvard argues that zero of those conditions were met.
With it pointing out that even for the pro-Palestine encampment on campus last year? [B roll, 01:42]
[Clip, 02:35 - 02:39]
That was temporary, mitigated without concessions to the activists, and did not block students’ access to education. [Continue B roll and Quote, find “mitigated”]
Moreover, the university cites its active reporting systems, sanctions against pro-Palestine student groups, and the termination of employees involved in allegedly antisemitic conduct as evidence of a good-faith response. [Quote, find “sanctions”]
Right, if anything, the university paints the government as acting in bad faith, noting how it chided Harvard for failing to hand over documents that it never actually requested.
As well as pointing out the apparent contradiction in using Harvard’s own investigation into itself as evidence that Harvard’s not taking anti-Semitism seriously enough. [Image]
And then, according to Harvard, the Health Department referred it to the Justice Department before even giving Harvard guidelines to come into compliance. [Quote, find “premature”]
And apparently, one federal judge agrees, because earlier this month she ruled that the funding freeze was illegal and rebuked the White House for ignoring Harvard’s concrete actions to comply with federal law.
But even despite that, on Monday HHS referred Harvard to the federal suspension and debarment process.
Which, to put that in context, if you get debarred, you’re basically blacklisted; you can’t get any more funding or contracts from any federal agencies.
And that would be an enormous hit for the university, which got 11% of its operating budget from federal research dollars last year. [Quote, find “11 percent”]
But just one day after HHS took that step, Trump said his administration is close to striking a deal with Harvard. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:21 - 00:39] Caption: “We’re in the process of getting very close, and Linda’s finishing up the final details, and they’d be paying about $500 million, and they’ll be operating trade schools. They’re gonna be teaching people how to do AI and lots of other things, engines, lots of things. You know, we need people in trade schools.”
So we’re getting contradictory signals about where things stand between Harvard and the White House, but that’s only one facet of Trump’s war on higher education.
On another front, we just got news from a federal court yesterday, where a Reagan-appointed judge ruled that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio violated the First Amendment by targeting pro-Palestinian students for deportation. [Quote, find “Rubio violated”]
With the judge also calling out Trump, writing, “The president's palpable misunderstanding that the government simply cannot seek retribution for speech he disdains poses a great threat to Americans' freedom of speech.” [Quote same link]
And in a chilling sign of the times, he attached a threat that he’d received via postcard to the very top of the ruling, with it reading:
“Trump has pardons and tanks … what do you have?” [Quote same link]
To which the judge responded, “Alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, We the People of the United States — you and me — have our magnificent Constitution.” [Same quote]
-
And then, we need to talk about the abortion pill.
Because a new study shows it might be more important to reproductive healthcare than ever, but it also might be under attack.
So, you may have seen headlines over the last day or so saying that for the first time since the Supreme Court overturned Roe V. Wade, abortions in the U.S. declined.
And that information comes from the Guttmacher (goot-mock-er) Institute, which just published research finding that nearly 519,000 clinician-provided abortions occurred in the first six months of 2025 in states without total abortion bans, which is a 5% decrease compared to the same time last year.
And on top of that, travel for abortions to states without total bans declined by 8% over this time as well.
And that might lead you to believe that this must mean abortions are going down nationwide, but it’s not so simple.
Because Guttmacher only collected data from providers who can give in-person and online care in states without bans.[]
So this means that self-managed abortions were not counted, neither were those who got abortion pills from community networks or other online means, and most importantly, it does not count abortion pills that clinicians in shield law states mailed to patients in abortion ban states. []
And shield laws are one of the most crucial access points for abortion care right now.
And if you’re unfamiliar, abortion providers are allowed to remotely prescribe abortion pills to patients in all 50 states, and some blue states passed shield laws that explicitly allow them to mail pills no matter where the patient lives, and then be protected from out-of-state prosecution.[]
So that means that a doctor in a shield law state, like California or New York, can prescribe the pill to someone in a state where abortion is totally banned, and that patient does not have to leave their state to get care, they can do that all from home.
These laws started popping up in 2023, following Roe’s reversal, and they have really changed how abortions can work in this country.
And so you had Isabel DoCampo, a senior research associate at Guttmacher, telling Time Magazine that this study does not necessarily reflect abortion rates nationwide, but instead:[]
“highlight[s] that shield laws, I think, are a critical option that people are making use of.”
But it is also worth noting that different states had different stories.
Florida used to be crucial for abortion care in the South, accounting for one out of every three abortions in the area, but the state enacted a six-week ban in May of last year. []
And so now, there was a 27% drop in clinician-provided abortions in the first half of this year compared to last.
And that drop accounted for more than 40% of the national abortion decrease.
Florida’s ban also likely contributed to an increase in travel to New York for abortions, which clashed with the national trend of travel doing down.[]
With the study even noting that the decline in out-of-state travel for abortions significantly contributed to the overall state-level declines in abortions.[]
And noting that, again, shield laws are allowing people to get care without traveling, and some estimate the amount of abortions provided via these laws increased between the beginning and end of 2024.
So you had DoCampo further adding:
“This is an innovation of the last couple years that I think has been incredibly important, and it’s important that policymakers and advocates continue to protect and expand these provisions because it’s clear that they’ve been incredibly important to the abortion access landscape in the U.S.”[]
But of course, shield laws can’t work without the pill, which is the most common method of abortion.
So you have some arguing this just underlines the importance of the pill and laws that protect its use.
But the pill is facing some questioning from RFK Jr., who just last week announced that the FDA is launching a safety review of mifepristone (MIFF-uh-PRIS-tone), which is one of the two drugs commonly taken for medication abortions.
Now, there are already over 100 studies that have concluded that the drug is both safe and effective.
But he is still pushing forward with a review, due to a non-peer reviewed report from a conservative policy center that has gotten a lot of attention from Republican lawmakers. []
And there, you had Axios noting that if the FDA enacts new restrictions to the pill, those could potentially include in-person prescriptions, which would then prevent those in abortion ban states from getting the drug via telehealth and shield laws. []
Now, some think there is a chance nothing comes of this review, that RFK Jr. is simply doing this to buy time to appease conservative AGs across the country who have been pressuring him about the pill.
But you had one advocate still arguing that:
"This is political interference designed to rip away our freedoms."
Some fearing it could get the Tylenol treatment.
And you also had California’s Attorney General calling the review “unnecessary and baseless.”[]
But of course, I would love to know your thoughts on any of this here, whether it be about the pill itself, shield laws, anything at all.
Get an exclusive NordVPN deal at Nord Risk free with Nord's 30-day money back guarantee!
-
Europe’s largest nuclear power plant is on the brink of a meltdown.
Or, maybe not, but the situation? It is serious – and it’s one reason we need to talk about Ukraine, Russia, and the war.
Right, because the power plant in question? It’s the Zaporizhzhia (AUDIO) Nuclear Power Plant in Russia-occupied Ukraine.
And it’s been disconnected from the power grid for the past week – making it the longest and most alarming of several outages that have taken place since Russia seized the facility in the first weeks of its 2022 invasion.
Right, because even though the plant isn’t producing any electricity at the moment, it needs power to keep the fuel in the reactors cool and stop a meltdown from happening.
And without external power, this is being done with the help of diesel generators.
WIth Ukrainian president Zelensky claiming yesterday that “The generators and the plant were not designed for this” – explaining they “have never operated in this mode for long, and we already have information that one generator has failed.”
With him going on to say that “It is Russian shelling that prevents repair of the power lines to the plant and the restoration of basic safety” – and adding:
“This is a threat to everyone – no terrorist in the world has ever dared to do to a nuclear plant what Russia is doing. And it is right that the world does not stay silent.”
And along with that, you’ve also had the head of Ukraine’s State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate saying in a statement that the current situation “poses great threats to nuclear and radiation security” and that “all of this could well lead to the worst-case scenario.”
But of course, all that's not to say we have another Chernobyl on our hands.
With the International Atomic Energy Agency reporting that the plant is operating eight diesel generators, with nine units in standby mode and three in maintenance – and also noting that the site still has fuel reserves for more than 10 days of operation []
With the head of the agency also explaining that “there is no immediate danger as long as [the generators] keep working” – but adding:
“...it is clearly not a sustainable situation in terms of nuclear safety. Neither side would benefit from a nuclear accident.”
And with that, you’ve also had him saying the IAEA is working with both sides to restore the external power – and that both sides have pointed to military activity as an obstacle to making the necessary repairs.
Although, notably, Ukraine has reportedly repeatedly offered to repair a backup power line that was disconnected in early May – but Russia has declined to take them up on it []
And with that, the plant’s Russian-installed communications director has said “the situation … remains under complete control.”
With a spokesperson for the Kremlin pointing the finger at Ukraine, claiming:
“The station and nearby facilities are subjected to constant attacks by the Kyiv regime. It would be, to say the least, absurd to accuse the Russian side of shelling a station that it itself controls.”
You’ve also had that same spokesperson slamming EU plans to build a so-called drone-wall along its borders with Russia.
Right, which is a plan that you had EU leaders gathering in Denmark today to discuss.
With them seeing this conversation as being increasingly urgent in light of the fact that they keep seeing more and more unidentified drones flying all over the place.
Right, speaking of Denmark, several airports were closed there last week due to unexplained drone sightings – with some even sighted over the country’s largest military base.
And you actually had the Danish military announcing today that there will be “an increased presence of foreign troops and equipment” in the country.”
With ten allied nations – including the US – reportedly providing some form of anti-drone and surveillance support. []
But of course, it’s not just Denmark.
There have also been unidentified drones seen over Sweden, Finland, Lithuania, and northern Germany.
And while there’s no clear evidence of Russian involvement – European leaders fear that this is all part of Russia ramping up its “hybrid war” on the continent.
With this all also being linked to recent Russian incursions into NATO airspace, including over Poland and Estonia.
And so with all that, this “drone wall”?
It wouldn’t be an actual physical wall.
It’d be a network of sensors, signal jammers, and other technologies aimed at detecting, tracking, and intercepting drones.
And notably, we’re seeing Ukraine actually offering up the expertise it’s gained over the past few years here.
Though, with all that, it’s still not clear what exactly this drone wall would look like, how much it would cost, or when it would be completed.
But to keep moving, the meeting in Denmark today? It was also the first opportunity for EU leaders to debate a proposal to use frozen Russian assets to fund a major loan to Ukraine – an idea the Kremlin has condemned as "pure theft."
And Russia has also hit back at the news that the US is actually considering Ukraine's request to sell them Tomahawk cruise missiles which would allow Ukraine to strike as far as 1,500 miles into Russia – easily far enough to hit Moscow.
So there’s a whole lot to keep an eye on the moment in terms of events inside of Ukraine but also the conversations happening outside, and we’ll just just have to wait and see how it all plays out.
-
And that last thing today is a little piece,
a little tease of my new podcast,
Crashing Out with Philip DeFranco and Alex Pearlman.
The links now for YouTube, Spotify and Apple
all work there in the description and top comment.
I think it gives you a little taste of, confused and panicking.
Phil oh, we got, you know, a new Epstein guy before Grand Theft Auto six.
We didn't even cover the new Epstein guy.
The new Epstein guy. Okay, what do you know about.
The New York financier with the sex dungeon?
The. No.
Nobody talk.
There's a new Epstein guy.
Phil, what are you talking about? What do you mean, what am I?
Are you saying out there? Is.
Is there another guy named Steve?
No, no, no, his name is not Epstein.
I don't remember what his name is, but.
He's involved in the Epstein.
He is not in at all.
He is not involved with Epstein.
He is a New York financier whose assistant would collect women that he brought
to New York, where he would electrically tortured them in a soundproof dungeon.
And he has been arrested and he has ties to George Soros.
So it's like it's got a little bit of everything for everybody.
I feel like you're making.
I'm not, I'm not.
That's what's wild is I'm not.
There's another Epstein guy.
And that it brings us to the end of this video, though
there's even more click away.
You got my brand new podcast
Crashing Out with myself and Alex Pearlman the first episodes up.
I think you're going to love it. It's a it's a great time.
And maybe it's because of or in spite of it
going off the rails at times.
And or you've got my newest Philip DeFranco Show
that you haven't seen right here.
I've even got links
to both in the description, whether you want
to get filled in on Spotify, Apple Podcasts or YouTube or wherever.
But no matter what, let me say thank you for watching.
I love yo faces and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.
Use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “DEFRANCO” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes! Seatgeek
