AOC Just Exposed Trump’s Real Motive Behind Shutdown Hurting MAGA, Epstein Updates, & Venezuela
PDS Published 10/16/2025
-
A federal judge has blocked Trump from firing thousands of federal workers during the shutdown — at least for now.
Right, on the first day of the shutdown, labor unions representing more than 800,000 federal workers sued the Trump administration over its plan to use the shutdown to conduct mass-firings of government employees.
With them arguing that Trump’s actions were illegal and exceeded his authority as president.
Claiming that a lapse in government funding does not affect the work of federal agencies, so Trump has no power to make these staffing cuts without authorization from Congress.
So, with this, the unions asked the judge to temporarily block the layoffs that have already been announced AND to stop Trump from making any future layoffs while the case plays out in court.
And yesterday, the judge granted that request, saying she believed that the unions were likely to win their argument that Trump acted illegally and exceeded his authority in making these cuts.
Right, and in her ruling, the judge issued a very sharp rebuke of Trump’s actions, claiming at one point that his administration has, quote:
“taken advantage of the lapse in government spending and government functioning to assume that all bets are off, that the laws don’t apply to them anymore and they can impose the structures that they like.”
With the judge also explicitly pointing to the fact that Trump has repeatedly said the federal layoffs will target Democrats, arguing that his threats indicate that his actions are just driven by politics.
But, of course, the big question with all of this is: will Trump actually obey this court order?
Jesus Christ… I mean a year ago, it would be unthinkable that a president would just ignore the rule of fucking law, but now that sentence is something we say every time a judge issues any kind of decision against Trump…
But, unfortunately, that is just the simple reality here — like the Trump administration has already indicated that they’re just going to violate the court order.
Right, literally just after that ruling came down, you had OMB director Russell Vought going on the Charlie Kirk Show and saying that the administration could lay off around 10,000 workers in total during a shutdown.
That’s WAY more than the roughly 4,000 employees the White House announced it was firing late last week.
But, meanwhile, as far as the shutdown itself, nothing has really changed in Congress — Republicans and Democrats are still locked in a fierce stalemate, and both parties are still locked in a fierce battle to pin the blame on each other.
Right, and to that point, last night, we saw Bernie Sanders and AOC holding a CNN town hall about the shutdown, where they took questions from the audience and continued to point fingers at Republicans.
With both progressives accusing Republican leadership of refusing to even get on the phone and have negotiations with Democrats.
Right, and at one point, we saw this interaction between Bernie and a Republican college student who had been selected to ask a question:
STUDENT: “How do you think this shutdown reflects on Chuck Schumer's leadership?”
BERNIE: “Well, I think it reflects more on Mike Johnson‘s leadership and President Trump‘s leadership. This is a leadership that said it‘s okay to give a — well, how do you feel? You tell me. You think it‘s a good idea to give $1 trillion in tax breaks to the richest people in the country and then make massive cuts to healthcare for working-class people?"
STUDENT: “I think Chuck Schumer has voted for continuing resolutions 13 times in the last four years, and he has the opportunity to vote for one again, but he's refusing to come to the table.”
BERNIE: “Well, I think — look, as I have said, there are 53 Republicans in the Senate, correct? They need 60. What does that mean? It means you have to talk to the other side. Mike Johnson is not talking. John Thune is not talking. President Trump is not talking. That is the problem.” 44:54 - 45:50
And then right after that, you had the town hall host, CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins, tossing another Schumer-related question over to AOC:
COLLINS: “Can I ask you, Representative Ocasio-Cortez, on that because we actually heard from House Speaker Mike Johnson today on Chuck Schumer. He said he's supporting the shutdown to prevent a primary challenge from his left wing. Do you think that's what's driving Senator Schumer here?”
AOC: “No, absolutely not. That is — it is so — it’s such an insane suggestion and, in fact, it speaks to how desperate they are. This claim has been — Mike Johnson's been saying this, John Thune’s been saying this. They are saying this because they are refusing to do their job. They're grasping for straws. They're trying to make this about political tabloids, and political intrigue, and horse races — exactly the kinds of things that people are sick of in this country.” 46:15 - 47:02
But VERY notably here, when Collins asked AOC if she planned to primary Schumer, she didn’t directly answer the question, and Bernie jumped in the mix REAL quick to move the conversation along:
COLLINS: “But are you saying that Senator Schumer should not be worried about a primary challenge from you?”
AOC: “I mean, no, I don’t think this is about —”
BERNIE: “Alright, let me jump in on this one. Let me — this is —”
AOC: “This is what we're talking about!”
BERNIE: “That's exactly what we're talking!”
AOC: “This is what we're talking about!”
BERNIE: “We have a country that is falling apart. We had a house — housing crisis, a healthcare crisis, an education crisis, massive income and wealth inequality, a corrupt campaign finances. And the media says, ‘Oh, you going to run? What are you going to run for?’ Nobody cares. She'll run more —”
AOC: “Nobody cares!”
COLLINS: “To be fair, it's the House Speaker and President Trump and the vice president saying it.”
BERNIE: “Right, well, of course, they're saying it to deflect attention away from the real issues.” 47:41 - 48:17
With Bernie going on to list his greatest hits of all the issues America has, then concluding:
“Let's talk about that issue, not her own political future. She'll decide that.” 48:49 - 48:53
Right, so with that, you had a lot of people seizing on that moment, saying that AOC isn’t ruling out a run against Schumer.
And meanwhile, as the town hall was taking place, you had the White House’s rapid response account live-tweeting the whole thing in a major posting spree.
With the account slamming and mocking both AOC and Bernie, while also pushing the same GOP talking points we’ve seen over and over again blaming the Democrats for the shutdown.
But, really, all of this honestly feels like more of the same from both sides, and I think I speak for a lot of Americans when I say we’re ready to start seeing some action.
-
Jeffrey Epstein’s inner circle knew about his crimes and didn’t care.
That is one of the biggest claims we just got from Virginia Giuffre's memoir, which comes out next week.
Right, she was one of the most prominent Epstein victims, but her family announced she died by suicide in April.
And an excerpt from this new memoir was just published in the Guardian, and there, she discusses how she got a job at Mar-a-Lago, where her father worked, when she was 16.
And that is where she says she met Ghislaine Maxwell, who apparently saw her from the car then got out to follow her, with Virginia describing her as “an apex predator closing in.”
Maxwell invited Virginia to Epstein’s home to see if she wanted to work for him, too.
And according to the excerpt, when she arrived, Maxwell brought her to a bedroom where Epstein was fully nude and instructed her on how to massage him, and then forced her to engage in sex acts with them.
From there, she claims Epstein eventually asked her to quit her job at Mar-a-lago to work with him full time.
And as for why she, and the many other young girls he is accused of trafficking, said yes, Virginia claimed two things:
One: Epstein was “good at spotting girls whose wounds made them vulnerable,” with her claiming many had been abused as children, and they felt that he was throwing a “lifeline” to them as they were drowning.
Then, in Virginia’s case, she claims he showed her a photo taken of her brother at a distance and said, “We know where your brother goes to school…You must never tell a soul what goes on in this house…And I own the Palm Beach police department, so they won’t do anything about it.”
From there, Virginia says she was trafficked to an unnamed billionaire, academics, a gubernatorial candidate, former U.S. Senator, and Prince Andrew.
And of Andrew, she specifically called him:
“entitled – as if he believed having sex with me was his birthright.”
And the excerpt of the book closes with Virginia calling for more to be done to address Epstein’s crimes, claiming:
“Some people still think Epstein was an anomaly, an outlier. And those people are wrong. While the sheer number of victims Epstein preyed upon may put him in a class by himself, he was no outlier. The way he viewed women and girls – as playthings to be used and discarded – is not uncommon among certain powerful men who believe they are above the law. And many of those men are still going about their daily lives, enjoying the benefits of their power.
Don’t be fooled by those in Epstein’s circle who say they didn’t know what he was doing. Epstein not only didn’t hide what was happening, he took a certain glee in making people watch. And people did watch…They watched and they didn’t care.”
The book is titled “Nobody’s Girl,” and it was reportedly completed before Virginia died. []
And it is making a lot of headlines, those who have read advanced copies calling it utterly devastating.
And it obviously comes as Epstein and the push to release the files has just been all over the headlines.
And there are some updates on that effort today, specifically regarding House Speaker Mike Johnson and Arizona’s Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva (Add-uh-lee-tuh Gree-hall-vuh).
We have previously talked about how she was elected in September, and once sworn in, will be the final signature needed to force a vote on whether or not to demand the Epstein files be released. []
But Johnson has yet to swear her in, and Gree-hall-vuh believes he is intentionally putting this off because he wants to avoid this vote.
For his part, Johnson is claiming he cannot seat her while Congress is not in session, but there is no rule mandating that and he actually previously swore in two Republicans who won special elections during a recess.
So this week, there has been a ton of heat from Democrats on Johnson to finally swear her in.
With Arizona’s Attorney General even threatening legal action, sending a letter to Johnson saying:
“You and your staff have provided ever-shifting, unsatisfactory, and sometimes absurd stories as to why Ms. Grijalva has not been sworn in.”[]
“We thus demand that Ms. Grijalva be immediately sworn into office and admitted to her rightful seat… Should you fail to provide such assurance, we will be forced to seek judicial relief to protect Arizona and the residents of its Seventh Congressional District.”
You also had Senator Ruben Gallego slamming Johnson and saying:
“Let’s cut to it. Speaker Johnson is protecting pedophiles. That’s what this is all about. The only reason Adelita Grijalva is not being sworn in right now is because he wants to protect whatever is in those files, all the pedophiles that would be revealed.” (0:00-0:15)
Rep. Robert Garcia, a ranking member of the oversight committee, also released a statement accusing Johnson of:
“holding the American people hostage so Adelita is blocked from being the 218th signature on the discharge petition to release the Epstein files. House Republicans must end this White House cover-up.”[]
And this comes as there are also pushes for accountability outside of the government.
Just yesterday, Bank of America and Bank of New York Mellon were sued for allegedly enabling Epstein’s trafficking schemes.
According to the Wall Street Journal, both are class action suits from Epstein accusers who claim the banks gave Epstein and his associates special treatment and did not report suspicious activity until after his death.
So it is a topic that is not leaving the news, it is not going away, and I would love to hear your thoughts on any and all of this.
-
Donald Trump has now given the CIA the green light to conduct covert action in Venezuela.
Right, because when has the CIA meddling in Latin America not been a good thing?
Now, that said, it’s not known whether the agency is planning any specific operations in Venezuela []
And the Washington Post reported that “people familiar with the matter” had said CIA personnel were sent to the region to collect intelligence – not conduct armed operations. []
With one source claiming that a lack of solid intelligence during Trump’s first term contributed to the failure of a number of indirect attempts to foment military rebellion or cause Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to step down. []
You also had the man in charge of Venezuela policy at the State Department during Trump’s first term – who also happened to be involved in a failed 2002 coup against former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez – noting:
“To say that there might be something covert is not to say that it has to involve shooting.”
And with that, he suggested that the agency might attempt to infiltrate the Venezuelan military or launch psychological operations that might cause Maduro to flee into exile. []
Although, of course, we also know that the use of force is absolutely on the table.
Right, thousands of troops, navy warships, and a submarine are all now stationed in the region.[]
And the military has already launched at least five strikes against boats the administration claimed were carrying drugs to the US – killing at least 27 (BROLL: 0:05-0:10)
With the latest of these actually taking place earlier this week – with Trump announcing the action on Truth Social and saying that the strike “was conducted in International Waters, and six male narcoterrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the strike” – adding:
“Intelligence confirmed the vessel was trafficking narcotics, was associated with illicit narcoterrorist networks, and was transiting along a known [drug trafficking organization] route.”
But of course, the question is…what intelligence? What narcotics? What networks? And ultimately, what evidence?
And even if he provided all that, can he still just go around killing people without a trial?
The answer, according to legal scholars and human rights groups, is absolutely not.
In fact, last month, UN experts condemned Trump’s actions in the Caribbean – writing:
“International law does not allow governments to simply murder alleged drug traffickers.”
“Criminal activities should be disrupted, investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the rule of law, including through international cooperation.” []
But according to Trump, drug smuggling isn’t just a criminal activity.
It’s an act of war – and these were enemy soldiers.
At least, that’s basically the argument he’s been making.
Right, at first, when the military killed 11 people in its initial strike on September 2nd, Trump signed a letter to Congress telling lawmakers that the action had been taken in self-defense.
But then later in the month – after another two strikes killed several more people – his administration sent a different kind of notice to Congress.
Which stated that Trump had “determined” that the US was now in a “non international armed conflict” with various Latin American cartels and gangs his team had designated “terrorists.”
And saying suspected drug smugglers for these organizations could be lawfully targeted as “unlawful combatants.” []
And despite that, with this latest strike, you had Trump simply claiming he had ordered the strike under his “Standing Authorities as Commander-in-Chief.”
And to date, the administration hasn’t actually released any sort of detailed legal analysis to support its thin arguments – possibly because logic, the law, and basic facts don’t seem to be on Trump’s side.
Right, besides the legal criticism, you have experts saying blowing up Venezuelan boats won’t actually stop the flow of drugs into the US.
And that’s because…
And notably, with that, we’ve already seen reports that drug smugglers are adapting to the changing situation – finding new ways to move product.
And you even have some saying that these strikes may ultimately make it harder to limit the movement of drugs in the region.
With a former U.S. ambassador who served during Trump’s first term and under Joe Biden telling The Associated Press that upsetting the US’s longtime allies in the region might “hurt our ability to gather intelligence” []
And you had him pointing to Colombia as one example, whose president said last week that a boat recently bombed by the US was "Colombian with Colombian citizens inside.”
But of course, right now, no one is more pissed off than the Venezuelan government.
And in response to Trump confirming the CIA authorization, you had Maduro’s government saying it’d raise the issue at the U.N. Security Council today – blasting Trump’s words as “a grave violation of the U.N. charter.”
And accusing him of seeking “to legitimize regime change with the ultimate goal of appropriating Venezuela’s petroleum resources.” []
And with that, I will say, the Trump administration actually reportedly turned down an offer from Maduro for a dominant stake in Venezuela’s oil and other mineral wealth.
But that may just mean they think there’s more to gain from someone else being in power – because several American officials have reportedly been very clear in private that their end goal is in fact driving Maduro from power.
This primarily includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio – but also CIA director John Ratcliffe, who notably said during his confirmation hearing that he would make the agency less risk-averse and more willing to conduct covert action when ordered by the president.
Now, all that said, it’s been reported that Trump has made no final decision on using force to overthrow Maduro.
But in addition to confirming the authorization granted to the CIA yesterday, you had him acknowledging again that he’s considering strikes on Venezuelan soil:
“We are certainly looking at land now, because we’ve got the sea very well under control.” (BROLL: 0:13-0:16)
So we’ll ultimately have to wait and see what our “no wars” president does next – but the situation is definitely seeming more and more of a powder keg.
Go to ZBiotics and use code DEFRANCO at checkout to get up to 15% off your first order.
-
Thousands of truckers are being pulled off the road - and now Republicans are doubling down and cutting cash to states that won’t play along.
Specifically, we’re talking about drivers being sidelined for failing English proficiency exams.
Right, according to a Washington Post analysis of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration data, there have been 6,000 truckers pulled off the road since June 1st for failing to demonstrate enough understanding of the English language. []
Which put them in violation of rules laid out earlier this year by Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy.
Who was, in turn, responding to an executive order from Trump saying truckers who aren’t able to read, understand, and converse in English to a certain standard should be declared unfit for service.
Meaning they won’t be able to drive a commercial truck again until the problem is addressed.
With Duffy saying at the time,
Now, English proficiency requirements for truckers have been around for years.
But in the Obama-era of 2016, the penalty for failing to meet those requirements was relaxed a bit - giving drivers who fail roadside English exams a ticket instead of yanking them off the job entirely. []
Then Team Trump swooped in - hiking that penalty back up in the name of safety.
But it’s important to note here that experts and analysts say there is no data showing a connection between English-proficiency and accidents involving commercial truck drivers.
In fact, according to the FMCSA, most commercial crashes are caused by drivers falling asleep or some other impairment.
There’s also the fact that "proficiency" is totally subjective - with Brandon Wiseman, president of Trucksafe Consulting, saying,
“What one officer might think is proficient, another officer down the road might think is not proficient. That makes it tough.”
To make it even harder, we don’t know exactly what questions are included in the roadside exam that’s administered by the state police.
With industry experts saying it’s probably questions like “where are you going,” and “what was your starting point?”
On top of all that, there is serious concern about the way yanking truckers off the job will impact the industry and, if too many get pulled, the wider US supply chain.
With advocates concerned that Latino drivers - who make up more than 15% of truckers - will be unfairly targeted by those administering the test.
On top of the fact that the test is handled differently in every state - making it very hard for truckers to appropriately prepare.
With one advocate saying,
“A truck driver who does speak English sufficiently to comply with federal standards but maybe they speak with an accent, or maybe they use a different vocabulary that the inspector isn’t used to hearing: Is that person then going to be subject to an English language violation?” []
But, of course, those concerns haven’t stopped the current administration from pushing the issue.
In fact, Republican senator Cynthia Lummis (Luh-miss) from Wyoming is looking to hike the requirements for English proficiency up even higher.
With a bill she introduced adding several standards - including that truck drivers can converse with the public, understand highway traffic signs, respond to official inquiries, and make entries on reports and records. []
And her bill has a companion version in the House, introduced by Representative Harriet Haggeman.
And that bill reportedly has 16 Republican cosponsors.
So that’s something we’re going to have to keep our eyes on when the system returns to business as usual.
But maybe the biggest double-down came from Sean Duffy himself - with an announcement from the DOT yesterday saying that it’s withholding more than $40 million from California in federal transportation funding.
And the reason? You guessed it - for failing to comply with trucking English proficiency requirements.
With Duffy saying,
“I put states on notice this summer: enforce the Trump Administration’s English language requirements or the checks stop coming. California is the only state in the nation that refuses to ensure big rig drivers can read our road signs and communicate with law enforcement.” []
And this isn’t coming from nowhere - Duffy threatened to cut off these funds from California and a couple other states back in August if they didn’t come up with “corrective plans” that complied with federal law within 30 days.
But a spokesman for Governor Gavin Newsom’s office argued that the state’s laws are either identical to or had the same effect as federal safety requirements. []
Saying that the same standards are met through the state’s licensing program.
Right, because in order to get a Commercial Driver’s License, or CDL, in California drivers must pass a test assessing, quote, “ability to read and understand simple English used in highway traffic and directional signs.” []
But the DOT is still insisting that California adopt their regulations and make sure inspectors are testing truckers’ English skills during roadside inspections and pulling anyone that fails off the road in order to get that funding reinstated. []
So we’re just going to have to wait and see how this plays out from here.
In the meantime, I’d love to know your thoughts about this whole thing - the English proficiency standard, the proposed law, the DOT’s crackdown on California.
Let me know in those comments down below.
-
From moving forward. But then from that, finally today, I want to end with a little self-promotion. One more thing.
So for the self promo, people have been asking if we're going to do anything for Halloween.
We are doing a beautiful baster drop for Halloween, and in fact, it launched just today and I know a good number of y'all are going to be excited because we are relaunching the ghouls.
Just want to have fun gear emotionally Gothic are one days will all be skeletons.
Skelly and I call it. My body hurts and I hate the government.
Can we cuddle and watch spooky movies?
With a number of these being bigger, fuller brands and new colorways?
Definitely grab everything you want over at Beautiful bastard.com right now.
Especially because even though we're launching this now, we're going to be resetting the site somewhat soon.
That's going to include a reset of a lot of our graphic here.
But then finally today, I want to include a little bit of my conversation with Ben Rhodes, of course.
Link to the full podcast, The Good Faith podcast.
In the description, there was something that it felt like it made sense to share here.
Well, when I left, government, you know, I was not in the best terms.
You know what the Israeli government, was after the whole Rand Paul fight.
And it was about a year and change later, the that the Guardian had this report that, a group called
Black Cube, which is a collection of former Mossad agents, had been contracted to kind of dig up dirt spy on me, right now.
Black cube was also the same private intelligence outfit that had done this to like, Harvey Weinstein's accusers, like they've been around the block.
And actually, I could go back and see that they had contacted my wife.
And what was interesting is they contacted my wife and said that they were movie producers from a group called Shell Productions, which is kind of aptly named.
And they wanted to talk to her about the private lives of people that had negotiated nuclear deals and, you know, normalization of relations with an adversary.
So it was suspicious on its face.
And then I talked to some journalist who had seen this file, and they had like pictures of my car.
They had my parents phone number and things like this.
Now, what I found interesting about this whole thing when it happened is,
First of all, they weren't exactly trying to cover their tracks that much.
So I actually think in kind of looking at this question of private intelligence and how it harasses people, that the intimidation was as much the point.
But that, my friend, is the end of this video.
But of course, there's more.
Just a click away or you've got my brand new podcast from today with Ben Rhodes.
We dove into a lot to highly recommend you watch it. Subscribe.
All the good stuff. Andor.
You've got the newest Philip DeFranco show that you might not have seen yet, and I've got links to that, and even more that I do if you want to consume it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube in the links below.
With that said, thank you for watching.
I love yo faces and I'll see you right back here on Monday.
But for now, I got a big drive ahead of me and wish me luck.
