The Epstein Files Are More Evil Than We Were Told
PDS Published 02/18/2026
-
The Epstein files suggest the existence of a “global criminal enterprise” that carried out acts meeting the legal threshold for crimes against humanity.
That’s according to an independent panel of UN human rights experts.
Right, despite the Trump administration's claims that there’s nothing to see here, these experts?
They say the files do in fact contain credible evidence of the systematic and large-scale sexual abuse, trafficking, and exploitation of women and girls.
With them going so far as to say that they’re “suggestive of the existence of a global criminal enterprise” – and adding:
“So grave is the scale, nature, systematic character, and transnational reach of these atrocities against women and girls, that a number of them may reasonably meet the legal threshold of crimes against humanity.” []
And, of course, it’s clear to most of us that Epstein was an inhuman monster.
But this is notable because we’re talking about something with very specific criteria under international criminal law.
Crimes against humanity are acts — including sexual slavery, rape, enforced prostitution, trafficking, or murder — knowingly committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population.
And you have these experts suggesting this criteria may have been because of course the nature of the crimes committed, as well as the scale of them, but also because they were, quote:
“....committed against a backdrop of supremacist beliefs, racism, corruption, extreme misogyny, and the commodification and dehumanisation of women and girls from different parts of the world.” []
And the point here is that Epstein’s crimes, and those of whoever else may have been involved? They weren't random.
They may have been organized and they have been part of a sort of ideologically driven attack on women and girls – by people who saw them as less than human.
Right, in her her memoir, Virginia Giuffre, who later committed suicide? She wrote that Epstein “liked to tell friends that women were merely ‘a life-support system for a vagina.’” []
And we see this kind of attitude again and again in the files that have been released.
Right, they show Epstein had been screening young women from all over the world, ranking them based on their sexual attractiveness or other attributes, and ultimately bringing them into his service.
It was reportedly common knowledge that he often traveled with an entourage of “girls” who he also described in his correspondence as “assistants” or “students.” []
A group Billionaire Richard Branson referred to in one email as Epstein’s “harem.”
With so much of this happening long after law enforcement first began investigating Epstein for child sexual abuse back in 2005.
I mean, I don’t know if you’re aware, but way back then, federal officials eventually identified 36 POTENTIAL VICTIMS – some as young as 14 years old.
And his method had apparently been to recruit girls as young as 14 to his home and persuade them to undress and massage him.
He would then force them to have sex and pay them cash. []
But he avoided any real punishment by striking a deal and pleading guilty to lesser state-level charges including soliciting prostitution from a minor.
And he served only 13 months in custody – getting special treatment including work release privileges not given to other sex offenders.
And in the years that followed, as well as all know, he maintained and acquired close ties to prominent people in politics, finance, academia and business.
He spoke to many of them about “massages” and at least some seemed to know for damn sure what he meant.
In 2010, for example, he sent an email to Boris Nikolic (Knee-koh-leech), then the science adviser to the Gates Foundation, saying that he was finishing up a massage.
Nikolic responded: “With happy ending I hope.”
And Epstein replied: “I’m too impatient, happy beginning.”
In one email chain between Epstein and the Emirati businessman Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem they not only discussed a “torture video” but shared details of a “personal masseuse.”
And later, Kathryn Ruemmler, former White House counsel under President Obama?
She seemingly acknowledged she knew the difference between a massage and Epstein’s kind of massage.
And with that, the emails also show that Epstein organized “massages” for friends and connected them with women or girls as favors or gifts.
In 2017, for example, Deepak Chopra complained to Epstein about a “crazy” day, and Epstein replied:
“I’m in Florida, but would like to send two girls.”
There also were dozens of messages that Epstein sent to billionaire Leon Black.
And in them you can see that Epstein repeatedly asked for large sums of money and claimed to have help Black make payments to a woman who accused him of sexual assault.
With the latest documents further showing that Epstein encouraged Black to hire an investigator to track the woman’s movements AND that he was receiving updates on other women to whom Black had made payments. []
And with that, the files also show that Epstein often sent cryptic messages to his contacts suggesting he had some kind of dirt on them or that they shared some kind of secrets.
This is the case with yet another billionaire, Les Wexner, who was actually reportedly the source of hundreds of millions of dollars of Epstein’s wealth – much of which Epstein allegedly stole from him.
And so that led to a falling out but Epstein later sent a message implying that he knew things Wexner wouldn’t want getting out.
And all that’s even more notable when you consider that Virginia Giuffre once claimed she had been trafficked to Wexner by Epstein;
A newly released FBI memo from 2019 listed Mr. Wexner was one of Epstein’s possible co-conspirators (although it also said that “there [was] limited evidence regarding his involvement.”) []
And, as recently as last year, the DOJ included Wexner on a list of “prominent names” of interest in the Epstein investigation.
And with all that, Wexner actually testified about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein before the House oversight committee today, denying any wrongdoing as he’s done before, and blasting Epstein as a “world-class con man.”
But ultimately, what you have people like these UN experts arguing is that bringing a few of the most high-profile figures in the files to testify before Congress isn’t gonna cut it.
With them saying in their statement that there should be “independent, thorough, and impartial” investigations into the allegations contained in the files, as well as inquiries "to determine how such crimes could have taken place for so long” – adding:
“Any suggestion that it is time to move on from the ‘Epstein files’ is unacceptable. It represents a failure of responsibility towards victims.”
And on that note, while it’s easy to get sidetracked by the files, it’s important to remember that some of the most damning evidence we have is from survivors.
Right, Virginia Giuffre? She claimed in her memoir that she was “lent out” to “scores of wealthy, powerful people”
She said she was “habitually used and humiliated — and in some instances, choked, beaten and bloodied.”
And she even described being trafficked to a man described as “a well-known prime minister” – who she said abused her so badly that “for days, it hurt to breathe and to swallow.” []
And just this weekend, you had another survivor, Juliette Bryant, telkling CBS about how she had been offered a modeling opportunity through Epstein.
But he organized her travel to the US from Australia only for her to have her passport taken before being sexually assaulted and then trafficked for years.
And when we ask ourselves how this type of stuff could’ve happened, I mean, the man who is president today?
He was first elected even after audio emerged showing that he once claimed he could get away with grabbing” women “by the pussy” because he was famous.
And he was elected AGAIN even after being found civilly liable for sexual abuse.
And you have people like Nick Fuentes and have massive followings and say shit like this on a regular basis:
“.....” (BYTE: 0:12-0:30, 1:12-1:25)
And with that, beyond the Epstein files, there are obviously other examples of the rich and powerful getting away with abuse.
With the latest example of that possibly coming from Crystal Hefner, the widow of Playboy founder Hugh Hefner.
Right, because she alleged that her dead husband’s foundation may be in possession of a decades-old collection of sexually explicit images of young women and possibly underage girls that were taken without consent.
With her further claiming she was fired as the foundation’s chief executive after raising concerns about the collection. []
And so she’s filed complaints with California and Illinois attorney general’s offices in an attempt to prevent any potential distribution of the images.
Right, and specifically, she has said the foundation is in possession of “3,000 personal scrapbooks containing thousands of nude images of women and Hefner’s diary…
“....which contains highly personal information regarding his sexual exploits including names of women he slept with, notes describing the sex acts that they performed ... and in some instances even information tracking women’s menstrual cycles.” []
With Crystal saying she’s concerned about possible plans to digitize the collection – and adding:
“I am deeply worried about these images getting out ... a single security failure could devastate thousands of lives.”
“This is a civil rights issue. Women’s bodies are not property. Are not history. Are not collectibles.” []
Now, that said, we haven’t heard from the Hefner foundation, so we’ll have to wait and see what they say all about this.
But with all that, while you can decide for yourself what to believe, Stephen Colbert is telling you very clearly: don't believe CBS
Go to MeUndies and enter promo code philipdefranco for deals up to 50% off.
-
Because Colbert just slammed his network on air for the second night in a row after CBS would not let him air his interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico.
Right, we talked about this yesterday, Talarico is running in the Democratic primaries right now.
CBS claimed they intervened because of the FCC’s equal time rule, which states that if a broadcast network gives air time to one candidate, they have to offer time to their opponents.
But because talk shows are historically exempt from this rule, many saw this as corporate censorship, as CBS pledging blind loyalty to Trump by silencing Colbert and a Democratic candidate.
So Colbert put the interview on YouTube instead of broadcast, but of course, CBS is defending itself, saying in a statement that:
“The Late Show was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview with Rep. James Talarico. The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled. The Late Show decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal time options."
And this statement was at the center of Colbert’s show last night, because he literally equated this response to dogshit and said that CBS:
“Told me unilaterally that I had to abide by the equal time rules, something that I had never been asked to do for an interview in the 21 years of this job.” (1:52-2:02)
“I’m not a lawyer and I don’t want to tell them how to do their jobs, but since they seem intent on telling me how to do mine, here we go. Fellas, fellas, I am well aware that we can book other guests. I didn’t need to be presented with that option. I have had Jasmine Crockett on my show twice.” (3:43-4:09)
Right, Jasmine Crockett is one of the people Talarico is facing in the primaries, her most recent appearance on Colbert’s show was nine months ago.
And even though that was before she launched her Senate bid, it shows he clearly is open to her being a guest and has the contacts to make it happen if the equal tie rule was really applicable here.
But you even have a commissioner at the FCC releasing a statement saying this has nothing to do with real FCC rules and was just censorship, arguing:
“This is yet another troubling example of corporate capitulation in the face of this administration’s broader campaign to censor and control speech. The FCC has no lawful authority to pressure broadcasters for political purposes or to create a climate that chills free expression. CBS is fully protected under the first amendment to determine what interviews it airs, which makes its decision to yield to political pressure all the more disappointing.”
And while this whole situation is overall a bad sign for the state of Democracy, it actually has been good for Talarico’s campaign.
Because this morning, he announced that his campaign raised $2.5 million since his Colbert interview was blocked. []
And even though that is an impressive fundraising stat, Talarico is not publicly celebrating by any means, saying on MS Now that:
“It should be troubling to all of us, regardless of our political affiliations or political beliefs, that the most powerful people in the country, the most powerful politicians and most powerful corporate executives are working together to sell out the First Amendment. To sell out our freedom of speech in order to protect their own power and their own wealth.” (0;00-0:23)
You also had his opponent Jasmine Crockett going on MS Now to share her side of the story, saying she got a call claiming that CBS was told they could move forward with the Talarico interview if they offered her equal time, but:
“I did not get a request from The Colbert Show to go on. As you know, I've been on Colbert multiple times. And frankly, and you know, if we would have gotten an offer, that would have been great. But we're in the middle of early voting. So I'm kind of focused on being in Texas at this moment. So I don’t know what to believe, that is for sure.” (3:09-3:30)
She also said that she would have had no issue if the interview had just aired on the traditional broadcast, and acknowledged that this whole controversy only gave Talarico a lift in the race.
“I think it gave my opponent the boost he was looking for, so I think it is probably better that he didn’t get on and went straight to streaming. Because we know that when we resist and when we know that it seems like they're trying to change the rules and bend to the knee of or bend the need to this president that it backfires in a historic fashion.” (4:41-5:06)
Right, Google searches are up for Talarico, too, and this comes as early voting in the state is just starting.
So the timing of this boost is major, and we are just going to have to see what kind of impact it has when voting is done, if this potentially gave Talarico the edge and visibility he needs.
-
But then, jumping back into the news, Zohran Mamdani is now locked in a game of chicken with Kathy Hochul.
[Intro option 2] But then, jumping back into the news, Zohran Mamdani just fired the opening shot in what looks like a class war between Democratic socialists and New York’s super-rich.
It’s dramatic, it’s intense, and whatever the outcome, one thing’s certain: someone’s gonna win and someone’s gonna lose.
But first, to understand how we got here, let’s rewind the clock a couple of weeks to the moment Mamdani dropped this bomb on his city. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:29 - 00:41, 00:44 - 00:48, 00:52 - 00:56] Caption: “I will be blunt. New York City is facing a serious fiscal crisis. There is a massive fiscal deficit in our city’s budget to the tune of at least twelve billion dollars. … This crisis has a name and a chief architect. … This is the Adams budget crisis.”
Now for context, let me explain real quick how all this works.
As mayor, you’re required by law to balance the budget, which means making sure revenue and expenses equal out.
Thing is, you don’t actually know exactly how much your expenses will end up totalling until you get the bill, so you just have to guess how much they’ll cost.
Which introduces a certain degree of honesty New Yorkers have to count on from their mayor about the future, and Eric Adams? He wasn’t exactly famous for his honesty. [B roll]
[Pause on Adams’ face and fill screen with headline, headline, headline, headline, headline, headline, headline]
So Mamdani claims that Adams intentionally, dramatically, and systematically underbudgeted city services, or in other words, their projected actual cost was far higher than the numbers he used.
Meaning he could technically meet the legal requirement to balance the budget, and it would only turn out to be unbalanced later on.
By which time it would be the next administration’s mess to clean up, and here we are, with one very big mess.
[Clip, 03:42 - 03:48] Caption: “For reference, the budget gaps we are facing today are higher than they were at the height of the Great Recession.”
But Mamdani says Adams isn’t the only one to blame, because Andrew Cuomo also dug this hole during his decade as governor. [B roll]
Right, alleging he extracted city resources to shore up state-level finances while withholding revenue from the city, so that as a result … [Same B roll]
Anyway, regardless of who’s to blame, Mamdani says he’s widdled that 12 billion dollar deficit down substantially.
Explaining that by finding savings in the budget, updating revenue estimates, and drawing down in-year reserves, he got it down to just seven billion.
And then, Governor Kathy Hochul pitched in another 1.5 billion dollars in aid from the state, putting the final deficit at around 5.4 billion dollars. [B roll]
So that bomb’s way smaller than the one he initially dropped, but it’s still gonna make a big boom.
Now the way Mamdani presents it, there are two paths forward.
Either Hochul and the state legislature in Albany raise income taxes by 2% on New York’s 33,000 wealthiest residents who make over a million dollars a year, raise corporate taxes as well, and stop the drain of city resources to the state,
Or, if they refuse, then he’ll have no other choice but to raise taxes himself, except it won’t be income taxes that go up; it’ll be property taxes.
And Mamdani was straight up: that won’t just hit the richest of the rich.
[Clip, 12:46 - 12:53] Caption: “This would effectively be a tax on working- and middle-class New Yorkers who have a median income of 122,000 dollars.”
So that’s a 9.5% tax hike on over three million single-family homes, co-ops and condos, as well as over 100,000 commercial buildings. [Quote, find “9.5”]
With the Citizens Budget Commission estimating that would amount to some 700 extra dollars a year in taxes for the typical owner of a one-, two- or three-family home. [Quote same link, find “700”]
And in addition to that, the city would dip into its cash reserves and pull out nearly a billion dollars for the next fiscal year alone.
So Mamdani says the first path (the income tax path) will provide long-term stability, while the second path (the property tax path) is a “last resort” that he “deeply hopes to avoid” because it will cause “significant pain.”
But since the first path is totally out of his hands — right, the state has to approve it — he’s proposing a budget in the meantime that’s based on the second path.
One which would spend 122 billion dollars for fiscal year 2026 and 127 billion for 2027.
[Clip, 14:14 - 14:23, 14:45 - 14:54] Caption: “This preliminary budget increases city expenses by over fourteen billion dollars, expenses that we have to fund because the Adams administration failed to. … Of fourteen billion dollars, only 576 million dollars is going to deliver new programmatic spending.”
Now you may have noticed from the clips I’ve shown you that he’s opted for a governing style of complete and total transparency.
Right, whether or not you think he’s actually being transparent, he presents himself that way, like ‘hey, I Ain’t gonna sugar coat it, here are the problems we’re facing, here’s what we can do about them, and here are the best and worst case scenarios.
Still, one reporter asked him what he’d say to supporters who might feel betrayed, since he ran on an uncompromising platform of making the city more affordable for working people.
And in his defense, Mamdani’s like, look, I’m doing everything I possibly can using the tools at my disposal within the bounds of the law.
And that includes going on a pressure campaign against the state government to force it down the first path so that he doesn’t have to take the second.
Speaking of which, there’s a “tax the rich” rally happening next week in Albany, though Mamdani has reportedly told allies he doesn’t plan to attend. [Quote, find “skip”]
Meanwhile, Kathy Hochul is up for reelection this year, so she’s facing political pressure from multiple directions to make the right calculation.
But Mamdani has already endorsed her, and he’s so far avoided antagonizing her, with him frequently thanking her for her cooperation.
He’ll also have to negotiate with the city council, whose Democratic speaker, Julie Menin [men-in], said: [B roll]
“At a time when New Yorkers are already grappling with an affordability crisis, dipping into rainy day reserves and proposing significant property tax increases should not be on the table whatsoever. The Council believes there are additional areas of savings and revenue that deserve careful scrutiny before increasing the burden on small property owners and neighborhood small businesses.” [Quote and same B roll]
Meanwhile, other critics argue that Mamdani’s “two paths” are a false choice, saying there’s a third option: cut expenses from the budget.
And in response to that, Mamdani says they’ve already come up with an aggressive savings plan, but if they cut any further, it’ll severely impact city services.
Anyway, they have until June 30 to agree on a budget, and it’s possible that other options surface in that time, for example if Wall Street gains push projected revenues up even further than expected.
But if nothing budges and Mamdani goes with the second path, many property owners could find themselves squeezed at both ends.
Because not only would they have to pay more in property taxes, they might also make less in revenue thanks to the partial rent freeze Mamdani wants.
And it looks like that might become a reality soon, because The Gothamist reports that Mamdani’s about to appoint five new members to the nine-member Rent Guidelines Board, including the board chair, and reappoint one, giving him a majority. [Headline]
So when they hold their annual vote on how much rent-stabilized apartment owners can legally raise their rents, the answer may be a simple zero.
Something that’s happened before, three times in fact, under former Mayor Bill de Blasio.
But it’s still hotly debated, with one side warning that landlords need to raise rents to keep up with rising costs, and the other side countering that the data shows most affected landlords are doing just fine, and the people who really need help are poor tenants. [Quote same link, find “distressed”]
Actually, Eric Adams tried to just short circuit that debate by stocking the board with his own picks right before leaving office to hamstring Mamdani. [Headline]
But fortunately for the new mayor, two of his appointees withdrew.
So now, if Mamdani’s appointees pull through, we could see the four consecutive rent freezes he promised for his first term, knocking out yet another one of his core campaign pledges.
Right, he already got Hochul on board with a nearly one-and-a-half billion dollar childcare expansion last month, though it’s only for two years so he’ll have to figure out how to make it permanent after that. [Headline]
Which leaves just a few big boxes to check off: free buses, city-run grocery stores, 200,000 new affordable homes …
But if he was gonna have to raise taxes to do all that before, he’s certainly gonna have to now with this fiscal crisis bearing down on him, and so far Hochul has resisted.
Use code “PHIL10” for 10% OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “DEFRANCO” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes! SeatGeek
-
Trump is moving closer to a major war with Iran — and it could come in a matter of weeks, maybe even days.
That, at least, is what sources told Axios in this absolutely wild report.
Right, according to the outlet, the military operation sources described “would likely be a massive, weeks-long campaign that would look more like full-fledged war than last month's pinpoint operation in Venezuela.”
And adding that the military operation will likely be a joint campaign between the U.S. and Israel that would be “much broader in scope — and more existential for the regime” than the 12-day war last June, when the U.S. and Israel launched deadly strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, ballistic missile sites, and personnel.
But the latest developments here come after weeks of mounting tensions.
Right, back in January, Trump came close to launching strikes on Iran amid the regime's brutal, deadly crackdown on widespread protests across the country.[]
But Trump eventually backed down after Iranian authorities said they canceled hundreds of executions, with Israel and several Arab nations also asking him to hold off.
And instead, Trump took a two-pronged approach: engage in nuclear talks with Iran while also building up a massive military presence in the region and repeatedly threatening Iran with military action if negotiations fail.
Right, since last month, Trump has been amassing what he has called “a massive armada,” which has reportedly grown to include two aircraft carriers, a dozen warships, hundreds of fighter jets, and multiple air defense systems.[]
And the U.S. has steadily been increasing its firepower in the region even as nuclear talks continue.
Right, on February 6th, the U.S. and Iran held indirect negotiations in Oman, and both sides left saying that things had gone well and that more talks would be scheduled soon.
Hell, even Trump himself said the conversations were “very good,” though he also warned Iran, once again, that there would be “steep” consequences if they failed to make a deal.
But ahead of another round of indirect talks scheduled this week in Switzerland, we saw both sides ramping up their military posturing and rhetoric.
Right, for a while, there was just one aircraft carrier in the region, but on Friday, Trump confirmed he was sending a second one.
Then this past Monday — one day before the second round of talks was set to start — Iran held live military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz (Hore-Mooz).
With experts arguing that the move was a show of power intended to warn the U.S. that if they escalate to a full-blown war, Iran is prepared to disrupt a crucial shipping lane for oil and gas, which could totally upend energy markets globally.
It’s also been reported that satellite images show that Iran has been repairing and fortifying sensitive military sites that Israel and the U.S. have reportedly struck in the past.
This including missile bases, uranium enrichment sites, and one complex where experts say Iran appears to be building what could be a high-explosive containment vessel, which is critical to the development of nuclear weapons.
And direct military posturing has continued from both sides even as negotiations were getting underway yesterday.
With the U.S. reportedly sending another 50 fighter jets to the Middle East, while Iran fired missiles toward the Straight of Hore-Mooz and the Ayatollah publicly threatened to sink American warships.
But, as for the talks themselves, it seems like the U.S. and Iran both left with slightly different understandings of how things went down.
Right, on one side, you had Iran’s Foreign Minister telling state television that “good progress” has been made and that the countries “now have a clear path ahead,” adding:
“Ultimately, we were able to reach broad agreement on a set of guiding principles, based on which we will move forward and begin working on the text of a potential agreement.”
But, meanwhile, you had the U.S. presenting a more toned-down version of events.
With Vice President Vance telling Fox:
“In some ways, it went well. They agreed to meet afterwards. But in other ways, it was very clear that the president has set some red lines that the Iranians are not yet willing to actually acknowledge and work through. So we’re going to keep on working it, but, of course, the president reserves the ability to say when he thinks that diplomacy has reached its natural end. We hope we don’t get to that point, but if we do, that’ll be the president’s call.” 00:56 - 1:18
But both experts and people close to Trump have raised concerns that he’s not negotiating in good faith and fully intends to launch a major military operation — and there are a number of reasons to think that.
I mean, first and foremost, this is literally something we’ve seen Trump do before: say he wants diplomacy and then turn right around and launch strikes.
Right, when Israel initially launched major strikes against Iran this summer, Trump said that he was “committed to a diplomatic resolution on the Iran Nuclear Issue.”[]
But less than ten days later, he authorized strikes on three Iranian facilities.
But beyond that, there’s also reason to believe that Trump is using the negotiations as a smokescreen to stall for time so the U.S. can enhance its capabilities in the region.
Right, many have speculated that one of the main reasons Trump backed down from his initial threats to strike Iran last month was because the U.S. didn’t have firepower in the region to launch a large-scale attack while still protecting American forces and allies.
But now that the U.S. has been sending military capabilities to the region, we could be looking at a situation that goes beyond just the initial threat of strikes — right, as Axios explains:
“By delaying and bringing so much force to bear, Trump has raised expectations for what an operation will look like if a deal can't be reached.”
With the outlet also going on to argue that, between Trump’s military build-up and his repeated threats against Iran if talks fail, it will be hard for him to back down without some serious concession from Iran on its nuclear program.
But it seems almost impossible that Trump would get concessions that he believes are big enough.
I mean, for one, we’re talking about the same man who literally withdrew from the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal during his first term because he thought it wasn’t good enough.
And if Axios is to be believed, this full-blown military operation could come VERY soon, with an unnamed Trump advisor telling the outlet:
“The boss is getting fed up. Some people around him warn him against going to war with Iran, but I think there is 90% chance we see kinetic action in the next few weeks.”
And that was also echoed by Sen. Lindsey Graham, who said that strikes could be weeks away.
But some sources have speculated that it could be even sooner, with two Israeli officials telling Axios that the Israeli government is preparing for a scenario of war within a matter of days.
And I really can’t emphasize how enormous this would be — we’re talking about a situation that Axios described as “the most consequential U.S. military intervention in the Middle East in at least a decade.”
And it’s also incredibly significant because this is all coming from the man who literally won re-election by campaigning as an anti-war president who was going to stop foreign wars:
[ADDING MONTAGE OF CLIPS OF TRUMP SAYING ANTI WAR SHIT TO END ON]
“They said he will start a war. I'm not gonna start a war. I'm going to stop wars.” 00:22 - 00:26
-
And for our last story of the day, a major Trump administration mouthpiece is stepping down amid the latest wave of DHS turmoil and it’s got many people wondering what the agency is going to look like on the other side of this shutdown.
Right, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin (Mick-loff-lin) is officially resigning as Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs after just over a year serving under Secretary Kristi Noem.
Mick-loff-lin has been a major voice for the Trump administration’s hard-line immigration agenda and one of its most passionate defenders.
In fact, she spent much of her time at DHS sparring with critics on social media and making appearances on cable news - like Fox News, CNN, CBS, and NPR. []
With her describing her work as hostile to her hometown paper last month - saying,
“Media is so much of the battle, so to speak, on the immigration issue. So much of the debate is a [public relations] debate. It’s a PR war.” []
But it seems she’s been looking to get out for a while now - she was reportedly preparing to leave her position back in December but stayed on after the fallout from the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. []
But it’s not exactly like that smoothed anything over.
A lot of her statements turned out to be skewed at best and outright false at worst. []
Including her claims that Renee Good committed “an act of domestic terrorism” before she was shot and killed by an ICE agent.
And while her unquestioning support of Trump and his immigration crackdown earned her a lot of allies, she also made a ton of enemies.
Right, last month, we saw Trump shower her with praise on Truth Social after she made an appearance on Fox - saying,
“Great job by wonderful TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN, DHS Assistant Secretary, on the Sean Hannity Show. Many Illegals from around our Nation charged with serious crimes this week. Tricia really knows her ‘STUFF!’’
And in her statement confirming Mick-loff-lin’s resignation, Kristi Noem said,
“Tricia McLaughlin has served with exceptional dedication, tenacity, and professionalism … She has played an instrumental role in advancing our mission to secure the homeland and keep Americans safe.” []
But Democrats and immigrant advocates are celebrating Mick-loff-lin stepping down.
With House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries saying,
“Another MAGA extremist forced out of DHS. Noem next.” []
And we saw an attorney who has previously gone toe-to-toe with Mick-loff-lin saying,
“We are pleased with this resignation. Unless Pinocchio is applying for the position, we believe her replacement will be a great improvement and hopefully work to start repairing the credibility of DHS.” []
Which brings us to the big question - who is going to fill the role when Mick-loff-lin walks away next week?
And the answer to that question is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Media Relations Lauren Bis.
While you probably don’t recognize the name, you may recognize her from the Department’s “fact check” videos on social media regarding ICE and law enforcement operations - where she’s said things like,
[“Allegations that ICE engages is racial profiling are disgusting, reckless, and categorically false.” 0:32-0:39,]
[“CNN should stop running cover for violent felons and start focusing on American victims of illegal alien crime.” 0:38-0:46]
[“DHS will not cower to disgusting lies and smears from radical journalist hacks and sanctuary politicians." 1:48-1:54]
[“Secretary Noem’s message to rioters is clear: ‘You will not stop us or slow us down. ICE and our federal law enforcement partners will not apologize for enforcing this nation’s laws.” 2:47-3:00]
Based on that, it seems unlikely things in the PR department of DHS are likely to change much.
But the timing of this shake-up is worth noting - DHS is facing yet another wave of turmoil with their lapse in funding thanks to the partial shutdown.
And while Republicans and Democrats try to find some sort of solution regarding potential reforms for ICE and Customs and Border Protection.
So at this point, we’re just going to have to wait and see what DHS is going to look like in the coming months and for the remainder of the Trump administration 2.0.
But I would love to know your thoughts about this whole thing in those comments down below.
