The Candace Owens Ben Shapiro Situation Is SO BAD For Trump
PDS Published 11/04/2025
-
Can MAGA pause the ongoing civil war it is facing?
That’s the question some are asking as conservative and right-wing figures are continuing to go at one another, with people like CandaceOwens now fully entering the fight.
Right, we talked about it yesterday, the main issue kicking it off was Tucker Carlson interviewing white nationalist Groyper leader Nick Fuentes,
Because while some defended Tucker’s choice,
Others, including Ben Shapiro argued that by platforming Nick Fuentes, Tucker was not only platforming anti-semitism and other hateful ideologies, but engaging in those conversations himself.
Ben also brought up the fact that Tucker previously interviewed Candace Owens, who also platformed Nick and has been criticized for spreading antisemitism and other conspiracies.
And now, Candace is responding, not just because Ben Shapiro brought up her name, but because he also brought up Charlie Kirk’s.
And since Charlie’s death, Candace has spent a ton of time discussing the investigation, suggesting there are “truths” to uncover that we don’t know about, and also alleging that he was facing threats over his changing views on Israel.[]
Many involved have denied this, but she talks about this all the time on her podcast, still.
For Ben Shapiro’s part, he mentioned Charlie because Charlie and Nick Fuentes were very much at odds with one another, so Ben argued that Tucker betrayed Charlie and his legacy by having Nick Fuentes on his show:
“Now, Tucker Carlson has seen fit to launder Nick Fuentes, the person who hated Charlie most and who wished him destruction. That is not an act of friendship, it is an act of sick evil.” (35:36-35:45)
But Candace was not happy with Ben for saying this:
“They decided posthumously that Tucker Carlson was a bad friend to Charlie Kirk, and you know who can debunk that pretty easily? I got you guys. And it’s a little bit of common sense. Before Charlie died, just before he died in July, I interviewed Nick Fuentes. Charlie and I discussed the interview, and never once did he tell me not to speak to Nick Fuentes. Never once did he consider it an act of betrayal.” (8:08-8:36)
“Never at any point did Charlie say don’t do that because that’s ridiculous, that’s not who he was.” (8:57-9:02)
“What I will not allow is this absolute inversion of reality where Ben Shapiro becomes any sort of voice on who and who is not betraying their friendship with Charlie.” (19:33-19:40)
So her comments just brought further attention to this whole debacle.
Which is now getting a ton of coverage in many mainstream news outlets.
MSNBC put out a piece declaring that Nick Fuentes is winning this MAGA civil war.
And over the weekend, the Atlantic wrote that:
“Fuentes said he wants to drag the Republican Party ‘kicking and screaming into the future, into the right wing, into a truly reactionary party.’ His vision is coming true.”
“The gap between Fuentes and the rest of the right is narrower than it has ever been.”
With the New York Times even going so far as to declare him Charlie Kirk’s successor, saying that:
“Plenty of conservatives, especially Jewish ones, abhor Fuentes’s growing clout. But by cheering on Donald Trump as he promoted conspiracy theories and systematically destroyed bulwarks against nativism and bigotry in the Republican Party, they helped make Fuentes’s rise possible.”
But even though some outlets think Fuentes is “winning” by getting this airtime, by weaseling himself into more mainstream MAGA spaces, that does not mean he isn’t still fully toxic and radioactive.
And tons of Republicans are trying to distance themselves now not just from him, but Tucker Carlson, too, to denounce antisemitism.
Then, some think while MAGA maybe does need to have this civil war out here, they are looking at the calendar and hoping to just put a pin in it, with prominent voices writing things like:
“To all of my Republican friends with large followings, can we please refrain from infighting for just two days? Let's do all we can to win on Tuesday, then you can all go back to fighting each other.”[]
“Why are so many conservative pundits focused on in-fighting and e-drama instead of key elections? Really makes you think!”[]
Though, for her part, Candace Owens wrote that she is:
“Not voting until we [learn] the truth about who killed Charlie….Not lifting one finger.”[]
But, this whole mess does bring us to one of the biggest stories today because, around the country it is election day!
-
But with that, it’s not just MAGA freaking out – right, all eyes are on the New York City Mayor’s race.
With 34-year-old state assemblyman Zohran Mamdani looking likely to become the city's first Muslim leader, its youngest in more than 100 years, and one who has openly described himself as a democratic socialist.
Though, notably, all of that? It has also fueled the backlash against him – including Islamaphobic attacks, a billionaire spending spree, and threats from the president of the United States who has falsely labeled Mamdani a communist.
And with that, Donald Trump has now publicly endorsed Mamdani’s opponent Andrew Cuomo in the eleventh hour, and repeated his warning that the city will suffer if Mamdani wins.
Of course, it’s been no secret that Trump would prefer Cuomo – and you had him making that clear as ever in an interview with 60 Minutes that aired on Sunday:
"It's gonna be hard for me as the president to give a lot of money to New York. "Because if you have a communist running New York, all you're doing is wasting the money you're sending there. So, I don’t know that he’s won, and I'm not a fan of Cuomo one way or the other, but if it's gonna be between a bad Democrat and a communist, I'm gonna pick the bad Democrat all the time, to be honest with you.” (14:57-15:21)
But then last night you had him making it official – writing on social media that if Mamdani wins he would cut the city’s federal funding to the “very minimum as required”
Saying the city would have “ZERO chance of success, or even survival!” with Mamdani at the helm.
Then claiming that a “vote for [Republican candidate] Curtis Sliwa (who looks much better without the beret) is a vote for Mamdani “– and adding:
“Whether you personally like Andrew Cuomo or not, you really have no choice. You must vote for him, and hope he does a fantastic job. He is capable of it, Mamdani is not!”
Of course, Mamdani? He’s pushed back.
He first responded to Trump's comments on 60 Minutes with a post stating “Trump endorses Cuomo!” and a caption that read:
“Congratulations, Andrew Cuomo. I know how hard you worked for this.”
And you then had him hitting back at a campaign event in Queens – saying:
“In these final days, what was rumored, what was feared, has become naked and unabashed. The MAGA movement’s embrace of Andrew Cuomo is reflective of Donald Trump’s understanding that this would be the best mayor for him — not the best mayor for New York City, not the best mayor for New Yorkers, but the best mayor for Donald Trump and his administration.” (11:48-12:13)
As far as Cuomo? In a radio interview about half an hour after Trump published his post, you had him saying:
“The president is right.”
“A vote for Sliwa is a vote for Mamdani…That’s why this election is up to the Republicans.”
But with that, you later had him denying that Trump’s words amounted to an endorsement, claiming:
"He's not endorsing me. He's opposing Mamdani."
But with all that, you still had him claiming he was the right person to stand up to Trump:
“We heard Donald Trump yesterday. He said if Mani wins, he's going to cut off funding to New York. He calls him a communist. He'll send the National Guard. We need a mayor who can stand up to Donald Trump, who can get the funding that New York deserves, who can make sure the National Guard does not come to New York because we don't need the National Guard. And I can stand up to Trump. Trump will go through Mandani like a hot knife through butter. And we can't have that. Mandami cannot handle Trump. That's clear. And the next mayor has to be able to handle Donald Trump.” (0:00-0:45)
But with that, as I mentioned, most money is on Mamdani.
Right, most polls have shown him leading by double digits.
And now, while voting is still underway, the race has already broken early voting records – with more than 735,000 ballots cast ahead of election day according to the board of elections.
That’s reportedly more than four times the number of ballots cast during early voting in the 2021 mayoral race.
Which is notable because increased turnout benefited Mamdani in the Democratic primary.
But with that, polls are set to close at 9pm today, and it shouldn’t be long after that before we know – so we’ll have to wait and see what happens.
And whatever the outcome is? The impact may go far beyond New York.
Right, you have many progressives around the country hoping that a Mamdani victory will send a message to Democrats to move in his direction and take issues like housing affordability more seriously.
But in the event that Cuomo somehow comes out on top, it might convince national Democratic leaders that the best plan is to stick to the center – even as polls show the party is deeply unpopular nationwide.
SeatGeek: Seatgeek use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first order. “DEFRANCO” for $10 on returning buyers.
-
But even though all eyes are on New York right now, it's not the only important election happening today.
Right, of course, another one of the most closely watched is Prop 50 in California, where voters will decide whether to temporarily redraw the state’s congressional map to give Democrats five more seats.
With that measure aimed at countering Trump’s unprecedented campaign to push red states to gerrymander their maps to gain more Republican seats.
And right now, polling seems to indicate that the measure will pass, with around 60% of voters consistently saying that they will support the referendum.
Then we also have a pair of VERY important gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey — both of which are viewed as key referendums on Trump, who has repeatedly weighed into the contests.
Right, in New Jersey, you have Republican and former state assemblymember Jack Ciattarelli (Chit-Uh-Relly) facing off against Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill (said like “Cheryl”).
And while the state’s outgoing governor is a Democrat, Trump made major gains in the state last year.
So this election will be an important test to determine if those gains were an actual sign of growing conservatism in the state or just a one-time thing driven solely by Trump himself.
And, very notably here, as voting got underway today, bomb threats temporarily shut down or disrupted several polling places.
But officials have since said the threats were a hoax, and the polling sites have either been reopened or relocated.
Then, looking to Virginia, the governor’s race there is viewed not only as a key test for Trump, but as a thermometer to gauge the political temperature of the entire country.
And this state-wide governor’s race is probably one of the best places to watch this cycle to get a glimpse of what next year’s elections might look like.
Right, it’s a purple state that has a Democrat-controlled legislature, but it also shifted to the right in 2024, and the current governor, Glenn Youngkin, is a Republican who won a major upset four years ago.
And this race will also be an important insight into how voters in purple states feel about the policies enacted by Republican leaders.
Especially because the GOP candidate is Youngkin’s lieutenant governor, Winsome Earle-Sears, who has largely centered her campaign as a continuation of his administration, focusing on many of the key issues that got him elected four years ago.
But, at least right now, the Democratic candidate, former U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger, is polling way ahead of her opponent.
And this even despite being impacted by a political scandal that has engulfed her fellow Democrat, Jay Jones, who is running for the state’s attorney general.
With Jones falling in the polls after texts surfaced where he encouraged violence against political opponents.
But, regardless, Virginia’s gubernatorial race is also incredibly historic because, no matter who wins, the state will have its first female governor.
Right, and it’ll be super important to pay attention to what goes down in both the New Jersey and Virginia governors' races, because Democrats widely view them as dry runs for the party to get its footing and test its messaging ahead of the midterms.
Which is also notable because both Democratic candidates in those elections have been running very moderate campaigns and distancing themselves from more progressive policies.
And if both Cheryl and Spanberger win, it will likely boost party leaders who a moderate approach is the key to winning the midterms, even as Mamdani’s more progressive route has drawn mass appeal.
Okay, so those are the most-talked-about elections going down today, but there are a few others I also want to flag for you.
Like a special election in Texas to fill a seat in Congress previously held by a Democrat who died back in March.
And while there are more than a dozen candidates vying to fill the seat, Democrats are leading in the polls, and a blue win there would just further narrow the Republicans’ slim margins in the House.
Meanwhile, voters in Pennsylvania are deciding whether to retain three Democratic judges on the state’s 7-member Supreme Court.
And while normally these retention elections don’t get a lot of attention, this year is different because the stakes are incredibly high.
Right, currently, the Democrats have a 5-2 majority on the state’s high court, which has played an incredibly important role in national politics over the last few years, weighing in on key matters concerning voting and redistricting.
And the role of the court will likely become even MORE consequential in the next few years, with PBS explaining that the outcome, quote:
“may have implications for key cases involving redistricting and balloting for midterm elections and the 2028 presidential race.”[]
And then the final race I want to highlight is another one that normally doesn’t get a lot of attention but is INSANELY important.
And specifically, I’m talking about a special election for two members of Georgia’s Public Service Commission.
Right, we did a big deep dive on this a few weeks ago, and I’ll make sure to link to that in the description.
But basically, the TLDR is that this might seem like a boring, bureaucratic election, but that’s exactly what Republicans are banking on.
And if people sit out this election and let the GOP win, big energy companies will keep setting the rules, overbuild to pad their own pockets, and continue jacking up prices that could be locked in for decades.
Right, so there’s a ton at stake here, and, of course, those are just some of the elections taking place today — we can’t mention every single one.
So please, make sure to check if there are any elections you can vote in today, and if there are, get out there and make your voice heard.
And for everyone, make sure to check back in tomorrow for a breakdown of the key results.
-
You know, earlier I mentioned the 60 Minutes interview Donald Trump just gave, and we’ve gotta go back to that because there’s a lot more to talk about there. [B roll]
But really it boils down to two things: Trump’s alleged lies of commission, and CBS’ alleged lies of omission.
So first, Trump’s lies, and as you might expect, there were a lot of them.
Right, CNN counted at least 18 inaccurate assertions, and that’s probably being charitable. [Headline]
With those including points he’s repeated before, such as that the 2020 election was rigged, or that he’s single-handedly ended eight wars. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 17:30 - 17:37]
But if you dig into it, some of those clearly aren’t wars, some are just days-long skirmishes, others arguably ended regardless of Trump’s involvement, and yet more haven’t actually ended at all. [Continue B roll]
He also claimed that more than 17 trillion dollars is being invested in the U.S. “right now,” but that’s nearly double the White House’s own estimate, which itself is, as CNN put it, “wildly inflated.” [Quote]
He claimed that each alleged drug boat the military has struck would have killed 25,000 Americans, but if that was true, it would mean he’s prevented some 400,000 overdose deaths just by blowing up 16 boats that may or may not have even been carrying drugs, which is patently absurd. [B roll, 00:32]
He claimed that Biden gave 350 billion dollars in aid to Ukraine, but the real number is closer to 135 billion. [Image and Quote, find “135”]
Then he also claimed that Biden let in 25 million migrants, but even granting that Biden deliberately “let them in,” the real number’s probably in the single-digit millions at most. [Image]
He claimed there is “no inflation,” but in fact it’s now up to 3%, and he claimed that grocery prices are down, when they are in fact up. [Quote, find “3%” and “grocery”]
And that’s just a sample; he said wrong thing after wrong thing after wrong thing on almost every topic.
But just as much attention’s being focused on what 60 Minutes did show as on what it didn’t show.
Because despite the program’s name, the interview lasted nearly 90 minutes, and much of that was cut from the 28-minute show aired on television and the extended 73-minute version put up on YouTube. [B roll]
Now CBS notes that the interview was “condensed for clarity,” but some suspect it was condensed for other reasons as well.
With for example Democracy Docket’s Marc Elias writing that Norah O’Donnell asked Trump “a series of softball questions with little follow-up,” and arguing that the edits “seemed calculated to make an incoherent old man appear clearer and more reasonable.” [Quotes]
But what’s more, Trump himself sometimes appeared to tell CBS which parts he thought they should cut.
So for example, in one portion that was included in the extended version but cut from the TV broadcast, he went back and forth with O’Donnell, trying and failing to get her to admit that she’s personally noticed a drop in crime in D.C. [Lead B roll into clip]
But after calling her answer that she’s been too busy with work to notice “unfair,” he seemed to suggest that CBS can cut that part of the interview. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 50:09 - 50:13] Caption: [Donald Trump:] “You don’t have to use that one. Don’t worry, don’t worry, I don’t want to embarrass her.”
Then, in another portion that was also cut from the broadcast, he made the same suggestion before talking about Kamala Harris’ 60 Minutes interview last year, saying:
“You don’t have to put this on, because I don’t wanna embarrass you, and I’m sure you’re not. But 60 Minutes was forced to pay me a lot of money because they took her answer out that was so bad, it was election-changing, two nights before the election. And they put a new answer in. And they paid me a lot of money for that. You can’t have fake news. You’ve gotta have legit news. And I think that it’s happening.” [Quote]
With Trump going on to praise what sounded like CBS’ new center-right editor in chief, Bari [Barry] Weiss, in all but name, saying:
“I think you have a great new leader, frankly, who’s the young woman that’s leading your whole enterprise.” [Quote same link]
Then also heaping praise on David and Larry Ellison, the new owners of CBS News’s parent company Paramount through their company Skydance Media, whose merger got approved just days after Paramount’s 16-million-dollar settlement with Trump.
With Trump saying, “I think one of the best things to happen is this show and new ownership, CBS and new ownership. I think it’s the greatest thing that’s happened in a long time to a free and open and good press.” [Quote same link]
And finally, after seemingly finishing the interview, O’Donnell asked Trump if she could ask him two more questions.
But then, according to the transcript because this part was cut from both versions of the footage, Trump seemed to agree on the condition that CBS cover him more favorably.
Saying, “That means they'll treat me more fairly if I do-- I want to get-- It's very nice, yeah. Now is good. Okay. Uh, oh. These might be the ones I didn't want. I don't know. Okay, go ahead.” [Quote]
Then, in the part of the exchange that wasn’t cut, O’Donnell asked him why he pardoned a crypto billionaire known as CZ who pled guilty to money laundering.
With the government at the time saying he had caused “significant harm to U.S. national security” essentially by allowing terrorist groups like Hamas to move millions of dollars around. [Quote same link]
But Trump’s response was that he pardoned him without even knowing who he was.
[Clip, 59:12 - 59:19] Caption: “I don't know who he is. I know he got a four-month sentence or something like that. And I heard it was a Biden witch hunt.”
With him adding in a portion that was cut, “I said, "Eh, it may look bad if I do it. I have to do the right thing." I don't know the man at all. I don't think I ever met him. Maybe I did. Or, you know, somebody shook my hand or something. But I don't think I ever met him. I have no idea who he is. I was told that he was a victim, just like I was and just like many other people, of a vicious, horrible group of people in the Biden administration.” [Quote]
Next, O’Donnell pointed out that CZ’s crypto exchange helped facilitate a 2 billion dollar purchase of World Liberty Financial's stablecoin, which Trump owns, before the pardon.
But when she asked how he avoids the perception of corruption, he seemed to dance around it, rambling about his family, how important crypto is and how corrupt Biden was.
So she repeated her question, but in another clip that was cut, Trump said:
“I can't say, because — I can't say — I'm not concerned. I don't — I'd rather not have you ask the question. But I let you ask it. You just came to me and you said, ‘Can I ask another question?’ And I said, yeah. This is the question —” [Quote same link]
With O’DONNELl saying, “And you answered,” then Trump continuing:
“I don't mind. Did I let you do it? I coulda walked away. I didn't have to answer this question. I'm proud to answer the question.” [Quote same link]
But rather than answer the question, he rambled more about Biden and how the U.S. is now number one in crypto, and that was it. The interview ended.
So after comparing the full transcript with the two videos, many people criticized CBS’ edits, with for example Chuck Schumer posting:
“Maybe I should file a complaint with the FCC against the Trump White House for editing his unhinged 60 Minutes interview. It will use the exact same language Trump lodged against Vice President Harris.” [Post]
As well as a spokesperson for the only Democratic commissioner at the FCC adding:
“According to the standard set by the Trump FCC, this could qualify as news distortion and deserves an investigation.” [Post]
With that referring to FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s assertion earlier this year that Comcast was guilty of “news distortion,” and his threat to pull its license. [Post]
Speaking of which, Carr himself responded to Schumer’s post, and keep in mind, this is a government employee, an agency chair:
“Due to the Schumer Shutdown, even your frivolous filing could not be processed by the FCC. But seriously, you should end the Schumer Shutdown-which is imposing real pain on American families-rather than nonsense posting. You should open the government, rather than using Americans' pain to pander to your far left flank.” [Post]
Go to Ziprecruiter to try ZipRecruiter for free.
-
Is Trump taking corporate bribes for his White House ballroom project??
That is the question some people are asking after this government watchdog report dropped some major news.
Right, in case you’ve missed it, Trump announced over the summer that he’s adding a ballroom to the White House.
Promising not to interfere with the existing building - which was a lie - and saying it would cost some $200 million and hold 650 guests.
But late last month, he hiked the projected cost to $300 million and promised it would hold nearly 1,000 people. []
And you may be wondering where the cash for this is coming from - you know, while the immediate future of SNAP benefits is unclear, government employees aren’t getting paychecks, and a million other uncertainties plague the American public.
The answer to that question is billionaires and corporations!
Right, last month, a list of donors to the ballroom project was released - including 24 corporations and roughly a dozen individuals.
But the reason we’re talking about this today is because the nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen just released a report detailing that the majority of those donors have some serious business with his administration.
Including billions of dollars worth of government contracts as well as federal investigations into their companies.
Starting with the contracts - two thirds of the revealed corporate donors have received a combined $43 billion in federal contracts in the last year. []
And if we zoom out to the last five years, that number goes up to $279 billion.
Just to clarify - the revealed list has 24 corporate donors so we’re talking about just 16 companies receiving tens of BILLIONS of dollars in government contracts over a few short years.
Then on top of that - which is concerning enough - there’s also the finding that the majority of those donors have faced federal enforcement action just during Trump’s second term.
Right, including things like major antitrust cases involving Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft; labor rights cases involving Google and Lockheed Martin; and even issues with the SEC for companies like Ripple and Coinbase. []
Now, the report from Public Citizen calls all of this a major red flag - with the organization’s Co-President Robert Weissman saying in a statement,
“These giant corporations aren’t funding the Trump ballroom debacle out of a sense of civic pride.” []
“They have massive interests before the federal government and they hope to undoubtedly curry favor with, and receive favorable treatment from the Trump administration. Millions to fund Trump’s architectural whims are nothing compared to the billions at stake in procurement, regulatory and enforcement decisions.” []
But the White House certainly doesn’t see it that way - arguing that these donations ease the burden of this project for taxpayers.
With White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt saying in a statement,
“The same critics who are wrongly claiming there are conflicts of interests, would complain if taxpayers were footing the bill. The donors for the White House ballroom project represent a wide array of great American companies and generous individuals, all of whom are contributing to make the People’s House better for generations to come.” []
But to that point, Weissman pushed back hard - saying public buildings should be funded with public money so that American voters have some say through their representatives on what gets built when and how.
Saying,
“If the White House is ‘the People’s House,’ then construction should be paid for by the people, not by private corporate and billionaire donors who have something to gain from making a donation to the president’s pet project.” []
And of course, all this is happening just days after Democrats started demanding full disclosure on how exactly Trump’s “pet project" is being funded.
Right, last month’s donor list was absolutely not a complete one - in fact, Trump reportedly gave donors the option of staying anonymous.
And several corporate donors that weren’t on the original list have since been uncovered by journalists -
Including health care companies Vantive and Extremity Care, which are trying to shape Medicare reimbursement rates for their products, and the also the Wall Street giant BlackRock. []
Obviously, their desire to remain anonymous drew some questions - especially from those on the left.
With Senator Richard Blumenthal specifically sending a letter to each of the donors asking why they made the decision not to disclose their donation - saying it raises the question, quote, “what promises may have been or may yet be made in exchange for what presumably will be substantial contributions.” []
And those letters were followed up by another - except this one was from a bunch of Senate Democrats to the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles.
Saying they were concerned that Team Trump’s approach here, quote, “raises troubling questions about the potential for influence peddling and other forms of corruption.” []
Adding,
“To assess possible conflicts of interest and violations of law and ethics obligations, Congress and the American public deserve meaningful transparency. We, therefore, request a complete accounting of all donations to the White House ballroom construction project, including the conditions under which contributions were made.”
Specifically, they’re asking for a detailed breakdown of the donations - including amounts and dates and whether donors have ties to federal contracts, regulatory approvals, or litigation involving the government.
And they also want to know whether or not Team Trump sought any sort of ethical advice before accepting these donations.
And they specifically pointed to what was uncovered by Private Citizen’s report - the millions in revenue these donors are getting from government contracts.
Saying,
“These circumstances risk blatant corruption as these companies and their stakeholders seek to position themselves in the government’s good graces.”
Though Trump has been brushing off any concerns about transparency on this project - telling reporters in the Oval Office last month that he’s, quote, “shown this to everybody that would listen.” []
So this is definitely something we’re going to have to keep our eyes on.
In the meantime, I would love to know your thoughts about this in those comments down below.
-
A 150-year-old law targeting the KKK was just used to get rid of a scholarship for Black students.
Right, and specifically, we’re talking about students at the University of California San Diego.
Where Black students make up only about 3 percent of the undergraduate student population.
Although, notably, most of the students are from California – a state where Black people make up just above 5 percent of the population. []
And with that, a private nonprofit by the name of the San Diego Foundation has for decades administered the Black Alumni Scholarship Fund – which was meant to, quote:
But in July, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit against both UC San Diego and the San Diego Foundation –
Representing a right-wing group called the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation as well as a fourth-year student who said he was denied access to the scholarship because he isn’t Black.
And for the first time, it cited the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 – which was signed into law to stop conspiracies between government officials and private groups aimed at denying Black Americans equal protection under the law.
But you had the Pacific Legal Foundation arguing in its complaint that the university and the San Diego Foundation’s collaboration amounted to a conspiracy that restricted all students’ right to equal protection.
With the group’s attorney saying the law is “supposed to protect everyone, regardless of race” – adding:
“We’re simply trying to ensure that promise of equal protection is granted to everyone.”
But notably, it’s unclear whether the use of the KKK act in the lawsuit would have held up in court.
Right, because UC San Diego and the San Diego Foundation settled before a judge even considered the case.
With the Foundation announcing that it would rename the scholarship and make it available to all students.
And however you feel about that, what’s clear is that this is just the latest domino to fall in terms of efforts aimed at diversity, equity, and inclusion – not just in California but also nationwide.
Right, in 2023, of course,, the Supreme Court effectively overturned affirmative action
And since then some elite universities across the country have reported record lows in enrollment from Black students.
And then, since Trump got back into office, he’s launched investigations over DEI programs and withheld millions in federal grants that support minority students, calling the programs discriminatory.
And we've seen universities shuttering their diversity programs and closing cultural centers in response.
So we’ll have to see where things go from here but the current trajectory is definitely clear.
-
But then finally today I want to talk about Kat Abu Ali.
And if you're unfamiliar, she's running for Congress in Illinois's ninth congressional district. And last week, she got indicted by the federal government
for conspiracy to impede law enforcement during the ongoing Broadview Ice protests. She says that the indictment is politically motivated,
and she's currently facing up to seven years in prison. And, well, today I talked to her for my In Good Faith podcast. Links to that down below. It's about an hour.
You know, we talk about it a lot, but I wanted to share where, you know, she talked about the indictment, what they were protesting.
You know, why they were there. So, Kat, you're the you're the first person I've had on who who is actively facing a federal indictment after the DOJ
unsealed it last Wednesday charging you and five others with with federal conspiracy for protesting outside of Broadview Ice process processing in Illinois right now.
I know you can't go into the specifics of the alleged incident, but can you talk about, why you were there, why you were protesting?
Yeah, absolutely. You know, Chicago has been under a terror campaign by Ice
and you might have seen a video a couple of weeks ago of an Ice agent throwing a little blond woman to the ground.
That small blond woman was me. I say small because I'm five feet tall, and that was something that people pointed out over and over again.
And it really resonated with people because, well, they're not supposed to attack white or white passing folks.
And while it hurt a lot, that was the third time an agent has done it. And what I really wanted to stress to people is no matter what we were
going through out there, getting thrown, getting gassed, shot with pepper balls, dragged whatever Ice agents were doing to protesters.
The reason we were protesting that facility, it's so much worse in there. This is what they were willing to do to people on camera.
What are they doing behind the boarded up windows? Because ice has literally boarded up the Broadview Processing Center
windows with plywood. We have heard months ago we heard about people being denied,
beds, people sleeping on concrete, grandmothers and pregnant women, dozens of men in a single cell.
No access to hygienic facilities, no hot meals being held for days or weeks at a time. Despite.
Because it's a processing center only being supposed to be held for, 12 hours at a time. And now it's apparently gotten worse.
The people who have been willing to speak out, which I don't blame anyone who is not willing to, they are risking their own and their family's safety to do so.
Have described scenes of horror, people being denied water, going into cardiac arrest and carried out on stretchers, being given
fake translators so they'll sign their own self deportation notices. That is the reason we are protesting.
That is the reason that despite how Ice treats protesters, we keep coming back.
And that is the reason that Chicago, not just at Broadview, across the city, across the suburbs,
Chicago has stood strong in a way that Ice and Trump did not expect. And how long have you been hearing about what's been happening at this facility,
like who's who, who are your or not? Who are your sources? But where are you hearing about these things, where the stories coming from? The Tribune did a really great investigation
into this facility earlier this year, and there's been a vigil at the Broadview Processing Center for almost 20 years, every Friday morning.
I believe it was in late August when a group of protesters, I think about six, joined that vigil and were arrested by Broadview PD.
One of them was a woman named Rachel Cohen. And I saw her Instagram video of that arrest.
And the week after, I and many others joined the vigil and the protest.
And then it just became a weekly ritual of going to the center, ice escalating week after week.
But there are things that are more important than getting sleep on a Thursday night. There are things that are more important than,
your physical comfort and that's why we were out there. And what we are hearing
lately is coming from people who are talking to their lawyers. I had someone in this district actually tell me about a family member
who was abducted by Ice and put in this facility, a family member that was older, that doesn't like to worry people.
So they talk a lot about the conditions. But when they were sent to a facility across the country,
they did express relief and said that that was the first time they had slept on a bed in over a week.
But that, my friends, is where this video is going to end. So again, you got more just a click away. You can continue on with Cat and I.
We've got a full hour right here for my new podcast, in Good Faith. With her is also, of course, the newest DeFranco news that you might not have seen yet.
And you can get all of it wherever you go, because I got links to the YouTube, Spotify, and Apple podcasts of everything in the description.
But no matter what you do, thank you for watching. I love you faces and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.
