The Joe Rogan Drugs Situation Is Bigger Than You Think & What Kash Patel's Meltdown Just Exposed

May 13

Written By Guest User

PDS Published 05/13/2026

Hey, we've got to talk about the real reason that Trump's South Carolina push failed after a Republican senator broke rank on the gerrymandering one Joe Rogan podcast sparked a surge in unproven cancer drugs. Why Trump's Beijing moment has everyone losing it what got exposed in Kash Patel's Senate hearing. We're talking about all of that on today's brand new, Extra Large Philip DeFranco show. Your daily dive into the news.
So buckle up, hit that like button, and let's just jump into it, starting with this. Every time one of Trump's goons testifies in front of Congress, whether it's Pete Hegseth:
"Your hatred for President Trump blinds you."
Pam Bondi:
"The Dow is over 50,000. I don't know why you're laughing. You're a great stock trader."
RFK:
"If that's not in fact, which are crocodile tears."
Congresswoman—
It always seems to be a complete and utter clown, and so we really can't be surprised when Trump's FBI director, Kash Patel, went before the Senate Appropriations Committee that the results were the now officially.
He was there to answer questions about the $12.5 billion budget that his agency is asking for. But that's really not where things focused. Instead, what you had was the committee's top Democrat, Chris Van Hollen, taking the opportunity to grill him about recent reporting that he is frequently drunk, passed out, inexplicably absent, or impossible to reach.
"So there have been no occasions when your security detail had difficulty waking or locating you. Is that right?"
"Now, if it's a total farce, I don't even know where you get this stuff, but it doesn't make it credible because you say so."
"I'm not saying that, Director Patel. It's been written and documented."
"And you are literally saying it."
"No, I'm saying that these are reports."
"Director Patel, unlike your baseless reports, the only person that was slinging margaritas in Salvador on the taxpayer dollars with a convicted gang-banging rapist was you."
Now, for some much-needed context I think a number of people will need here, the so-called "gang-banging rapist" that he is referring to there is Kilmar Abrego Garcia, that Maryland father who was mistakenly deported to a Salvadoran mega prison early last year.
I know it's been a while, but if you don't remember, first you had the Trump administration refusing to bring him back. Then they brought him back, but they charged him with human smuggling, and now they're trying to deport him again.
Last year, after Van Hollen visited him at prison, you had two different photos of the meeting circulating. One that was put out by Van Hollen showing the pair sitting at a table, really nothing out of the ordinary. And then another put out by El Salvador's right-wing president showing them sitting there, glasses on the table, claiming that they were sipping margaritas in the tropical paradise of El Salvador.
The key thing: Van Hollen says that those glasses were put there by Salvadoran officials and that neither he nor Garcia touched them. He even added that Abrego Garcia's glass was deliberately made less full so it looked like he had been drinking from it, with Van Hollen firing back on Twitter saying:
"Glasses were placed in front of us but we did not drink. I know that may be a confusing concept for Director Patel."
But back to the hearing.
"You know, the only person that ran up a $7,000 bar tab in Washington D.C., this lobbyist, was you."
Okay, a little more context for what he's referring to there. There was an event for over 50 Van Hollen staff where the catering bill totaled around $7,000. And actually after this hearing, Patel posted a Federal Election Commission filing to back it up. You had Van Hollen respond:
"You got me. I catered a holiday reception for my staff with campaign, not taxpayer dollars. Now let's see your receipts."
So many seeing that as a false equivalency deflection attempt from Patel.
But then getting back to Patel and Van Hollen:
"I will not be tarnished by baseless allegations from media statements. So let me ask you this. Are you willing to take the test that's called the AUDIT test that members of our active duty military and others take to determine whether they have a drinking problem?"
"I'll take any test you're willing to take. I will take it."
"Director Patel, I'll take it. You ready to take it? Let's go. Yes or no?"
"Let's go."
And yeah, Van Hollen was serious because he apparently took the test and later posted his results. It's only ten questions. Asked stuff like: How much do you drink? Have you ever felt unable to stop drinking? Have you ever felt guilt or remorse after drinking?
Van Hollen said that he had 2 to 3 drinks a week but answered "never" to all the other questions, with him then adding:
"Given all the lies he told yesterday, I imagine he'll fudge the numbers here. But let's see yours, Director Patel."
But with that said, back to the hearing we go. Because Van Hollen also pressed Patel on reports that he fired a group of Iran experts shortly before Trump went to war with Iran.
"The group fired did include people who are Iran experts?"
"No, they did include people who were involved in counter-espionage activities with respect to Iran. I don't have the list in front of me."
"So you don't know whether or not you fired people with counter-espionage experience with respect to Iran? You don't know the answer to that question?"
"I terminated anyone and everyone that weaponized law enforcement."
Then at another point, you had Senator Patty Murray forcing him to answer for reports that the FBI's investigating the Atlantic journalist who wrote the article about his alleged excessive drinking.
"This FBI is targeting no journalists."
"The Obama and Biden administration has targeted dozens of journalists, sent out 1200 interviews—"
"I didn't ask you about the Biden administration. I asked if you can commit to this committee that no agent hours have been pulled from other work."
"We have not done so."
Then finally at the end of this thing, after Patel made all these claims and denials, Van Hollen hit him with one last question that sparked yet another exchange.
"My final question to you, Mr. Director, is do you know that it is a crime to lie to Congress? Do you know that?"
"That's my last question."
"I have not lied to Congress."
"I didn't ask if you lied to Congress yet."
"And I'm not testifying here, sir. And I don't want to be."
"The next time you run up a $7,000 bar tab we can talk about—"
"You are a disgrace, Mr. Director."
And so yeah, while we wait to see if there's any sort of fallout from this, let me know your thoughts. And or two, you can rank Patel's performance at this hearing. How many "Kash Patel death stares" out of five do you rank it?
Also while you have Congress questioning the decisions and health of our FBI director, we've got people asking questions about the headlines that we're seeing about health disinformation.
Because according to a new major study, prescriptions for ivermectin soared after Joe Rogan and Mel Gibson touted it as an effective cancer treatment. So you've got people saying that it shows how easy it is for influential voices to spread serious medical misinformation to vulnerable people.
As far as the specifics, the study was just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and centered on prescriptions for ivermectin and fenbendazole between January and July of 2025.
Because in early January of last year, you had Mel Gibson and Joe Rogan having this conversation:
"I'll tell you a good story, okay? I have three friends. All three of them had stage four cancer. All three of them don't have cancer right now at all. And they had some serious stuff going on."
"And what did they take?"
"Jesus. They took some—"
"What, you've heard they've taken ivermectin, fenbendazole?"
"Yeah. That's—yeah, I'm hearing that a lot."
"They drink hydrochloride something or other."
"There's studies on that now where people have proven that they've drinking methylene blue and stuff. This stuff works."
That episode of Joe Rogan just on YouTube has over 13 million views. It's also, of course, on other platforms. It was shared on Twitter and Instagram even more.
Actually, this clip even prompted the state of Florida to spend some of its cancer research funding on ivermectin.
And while Rogan and Gibson mentioned a number of interventions, they both and the public in general focused on the two things that we're talking about, with overall prescription rates doubling over the seven months after the episode aired compared to the same time period the year prior.
Increases were also more pronounced among white patients and those in the South, and among cancer patients prescription rates were over two and a half times higher.
But one of the things is there's currently not a lot of actual evidence suggesting that ivermectin is beneficial as a cancer treatment.
Now animal studies on both drugs have shown that they could inhibit tumor growth. And the National Cancer Institute is looking into ivermectin's ability specifically to treat cancer. But there haven't actually been any clinical trials showing that they're safe or effective in humans.
So with that in mind, you had one doctor telling The New York Times that tons of medications might look promising in a preclinical phase, but then we put those drugs in human clinical trials and the vast majority of the time, greater than 90% of the time, these medications don't seem to either benefit patients or don't seem to be safe for patients.
"So at least right now, we do not have concrete information suggesting that they should be widely used for cancer."
In fact, many saying that these drugs could potentially be harmful, with that doctor, for example, further explaining that even though they might work in mice at high doses, it could be toxic to humans or even interfere with already proven cancer treatments.
So until studies show that it actually works, they said:
"I don't prescribe it, and I don't recommend physicians prescribe it."
And you had this study saying that it is especially concerning if cancer patients are delaying or forgoing traditional treatments in favor of these drugs, as they're losing vital time and potentially allowing their illness to get worse.
Then you had another doctor adding:
"I always tell my patients we are not mice, and anecdotal data of 1 or 2 patients is not science."
Now with that said, I want to be fair. It is worth noting here that this study did have limitations because it was observational, a cause and effect link cannot be definitively made.
The researchers cannot say with any certainty that Joe Rogan and Mel Gibson directly or solely caused these prescriptions to increase. And even though the rates of use substantially increased, its use among the general population was still very low.
But researchers did note that it still gives some insight into the impacts of celebrity endorsements and the ways in which medical misinformation can spread.
Because the timing of this prescription spike came after a single podcast episode. And also ivermectin especially has been the center of tons of misinformation.
Now, as you've likely seen, it's kind of been treated as a cure-all wonder drug in many right-wing and MAGA circles. It is approved to be used as an anti-parasitic. It's pretty cheap to get. But also you had people using it during Covid despite a lack of evidence, and in recent weeks you have people like Marjorie Taylor Greene pushing it for hantavirus.
With cancer patients, you had one oncologist saying that group specifically is especially vulnerable to misinformation, saying:
"There's this perfect storm of fear, urgency, uncertainty, information overload, and then this desperate need for somebody. If somebody is offering you a magic cure for something and they give you anecdotal examples, it can feel very compelling."
We're also at a time primed for people to trust the wrong sources. Even the study itself notes that the influence of celebrities, podcasters, and more gains traction when institutional trust declines.
And that institutional trust has been damaged for reasons, rightly and wrongly. And given that a lot of the top voices are kind of just professional contrarians, that can get dangerous pretty quickly.
Especially as time and time again, we see a lot of these sources being prone to misinformation with very real consequences. There's previous research showing that cancer patients who use alternative medicine are at an increased risk of death compared to those who get standard medical treatment.
And understand that a lot of what I'm talking about is not to just take everything from official sources at face value 100% of the time in every aspect of your life. But it is more: if you are going to be skeptical, be skeptical of everything, at least at a semi-equal level.
And with Joe Rogan specifically, even though we only get these quotes out of him usually when he realizes he said something super fucked up, he has literally said, quote:
"I'm not a doctor. I'm a fucking moron."
As well as:
"I'm not a respected source of information, even for me."
If you're going to listen to Joe Rogan, listen to all of Joe Rogan. And that also goes for everyone, not just Joe Rogan.
And then there's more we're going to dive into in just a minute.
But first, let me thank a sponsor and say, you know, I think most people don't need more motivation. They need direction. Because you can work incredibly hard and still be running in the wrong direction.
And the thing that nobody tells you is that the most successful people in the world, they don't figure it out alone. They've got mentors, coaches, people in their corner providing guidance, a sounding board.
That's what today's sponsor, Strawberry.me, is doing for thousands of people every day.
Lots of us wake up every day knowing that we're capable of more, but have no idea how to get there. I was skeptical about career coaching. But having someone cut through the noise and focus on your situation? Huge for me.
It definitely starts with clarity. Figuring out what you actually want and not what you think you're supposed to want. Then you identify the real obstacles and the blind spots you can't see on your own. And finally you build a clear plan instead of waiting for the right moment to magically show up.
Whether you want a new job, a promotion, or a full career pivot, there's a roadmap and you've got a dedicated coach supporting you the whole way.
Hey, scan the QR code on the screen or go to Strawberry.me/DeFranco to get 50% off your first month. That's Strawberry.me/DeFranco. I think you'll love it.

But then diving right back into the news, the number of the day today, at least for this second block, is 10,000.
Because that is the number of times federal judges have ruled against detentions carried out by ICE under the second Trump administration. That's what this new analysis by Politico found.
These cases include things like a nursing mom who was detained despite active refugee status. But it also includes a case of another mom separated from her one-year-old child and released only after her son ended up in the hospital. And they include situations like parents of American service members, victims of human trafficking, and a five-year-old boy who was taken into custody on his way home from school.
And overall, these more than 10,000 rulings against Trump reportedly amount to around 90% of the rulings involving ICE detention since the administration upended longstanding practice with the policy shift last year.
Because, you see, federal law technically requires the detention of people who are seeking admission to the country, but previous administrations interpreted that as applying for the most part to people apprehended at the border.
But last year, acting ICE director Todd Lyons said in an agency-wide memo that anyone who had entered the country illegally would be seen as seeking admission. And that meant that millions of immigrants, including some who have lived in the United States for years, became subject to mandatory detention without the opportunity for bond hearings.
That's apparently been the driving force behind a flood of lawsuits that's been overwhelming both federal judges and lawyers in the administration, especially as ICE has either defied or tried to get around a lot of rulings against the agency, including by moving detainees to a new state, which just leads to even more lawsuits.
With the volume of cases and the consistency of rulings against the White House, it really stands out. It's why you have Politico describing the trend as:
"A staggering rejection of a core piece of Trump's immigration agenda."
And Trump's unprecedented detention policy, which is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, infuriated lower courts in ways no other modern issue has.
Many of these judges have not held back in their opinions. One bluntly describing the administration's approach as:
"Beyond the reach of ordinary legal description."
And as:
"An assault on the constitutional order."
Meanwhile, others have voiced concern about the specific tactics employed by ICE in their pursuit of mass detention and deportation. Tactics including arresting people dropping off their kids at school, detaining people in courthouses after immigration hearings and ICE offices after routine check-ins, and executing after-the-fact warrants to try and justify arrests that may have otherwise been unlawful.
You had one judge noting that despite hundreds of similar rulings in this and other courts resoundingly in favor of the ICE detainee petitioners:
"ICE continues to act contrary to the law, to spend taxpayer money needlessly, and to waste the scarce resources of the judiciary."
And some judges, including one that ruled against the administration 90 times, actually compared their work to the Greek myths of Heracles having to slay the Hydra or Sisyphus having to push a boulder uphill for eternity.
So just to be clear, it is not a few judges that are handling a bulk of these cases. Because while it's true some have heard more cases than others, more than 425 judges in total have ruled against the administration at least once.
And a huge key thing is that includes even a majority of judges appointed by Donald Trump himself.
One of those Trump appointees actually wrote in his ruling:
"This isn't how things are supposed to work in America. Unquestionably, the laws of human decency condemn such conduct."
But despite all that, including losses from Trump judges, you had Trump officials blaming the administration's losses on the left and their activist proxies on the judiciary. And with that, also predicting that the administration will win at the Supreme Court.
Though notably there, in dozens of cases, the department's actually admitted that it had no defense for the administration's actions.
Even still, and this just speaks to how fucked things are right now, it is true that the Supreme Court could eventually end up on the side of the White House.
In fact, two federal appeals courts, the Fifth Circuit and Eighth Circuit, have already ruled in favor of the administration's interpretation. Notably, three others — the Second Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Sixth Circuit — have ruled against them.
So we're kind of just stuck having to wait to see where these cases go.
But also in the meantime, this is just one way that the agency's actions have been questioned or may be on the wrong side of the law. Because there are also concerns about the legality of ICE's tactics and use of force against protesters and immigrants, including during operations and in detention facilities.
And on the subject of detention, the agency has faced numerous allegations about overcrowding, unsanitary, and generally inadequate conditions at its facilities, which may also be connected to the fact that ICE recently reported its 18th detainee death in four months, putting the agency on track for a new record.
Then while that's going on, the agency has been throwing up roadblocks in front of members of Congress hoping to inspect facilities.
Just this last Friday, you had an appeals court actually denying the administration's request to revive its policy requiring members of Congress to give seven days notice before visiting ICE detention centers, which had been struck down in court.
But now it's implementing new rules demanding that lawmakers identify specific detainees that they want to speak with by name at least two business days in advance and produce a signed consent form from each individual.
So you actually had California Representative Mike Levin saying that he and his colleague Sarah Jacobs learned about this new policy when they made a surprise visit to a facility in San Diego and they weren't allowed to speak with detainees.
Them also posting a photo of an ICE memo signed by Lyons and dated the same day as the visit, which claimed that the number of ICE visits from Congress had skyrocketed under Trump, and these visits are disruptive and resource intensive because they pull staff away from law enforcement duties and security within facilities.
Levin responding:
"The volume Lyons is citing is a direct consequence of his own department dismantling all the alternatives, gutted the internal oversight, and then complained that the external oversight is too active. Then issued a memo to restrict it. That only makes sense if the goal is no oversight."
And ultimately, we had to talk about this today because while ICE seems to be in the spotlight a lot less because of all the other chaos, that may also be part of the reason the other shit is happening.
And it definitely doesn't mean that the horrible stuff that so many judges have taken issue with has stopped happening.
And then while we're seeing his immigration strategy play out, Trump is also in the middle of a major international trip and just arrived in China.
Like him walking down a red carpet to a weirdly choreographed welcome by local students, flanked by as many manservants as possible, including Elon Musk and his ward Eric.
And while there's talk about lucrative trade deals possibly there, you have critics accusing him of bailing out yet another campaign promise and working to secure deals with billionaires that got him elected.
Because when Trump ran for president again in 2024, he promised the American people a massive economic crackdown on China that would hit the country harder than any other trade war in history.
But then those ambitions completely backfired after China responded to Trump's tariffs by cutting off the supply of rare earth minerals that American companies rely on for basically everything from electronics and cars to weapons.
And so then, rather than tanking the US economy for how he was leading things and starting an even bigger trade war, Trump reached a tentative truce with Xi last month where he agreed to back down from his highest tariffs and in exchange China agreed to continue exporting rare earth elements to the US.
So instead of taking a hard line on China like he promised, Trump's goal during his current visit is to just keep the relationship stable after starting a war with one of China's closest trading partners in the Middle East, all while soaking up the majesty of an authoritarian state visit hosted by a strongman.
As far as the specifics of what's on the table in this summit, the number one issue by far is trade.
But also analysts say that expectations for any major outcomes are pretty low.
The tariffs will certainly be one of the biggest discussion points, with both sides hoping to extend the shaky trade truce that they reached this past month.
China will also likely push to loosen export controls on US technology, including advanced semiconductors.
Meanwhile, you have the US hoping to secure Chinese investment in certain US products, with a lot of the talk there being around the purchase of additional soybeans, beef, Boeing airplanes, and potentially other farm products.
US officials have said that the president plans to discuss the possibility of creating a, quote, "US-China Board of Trade" that would oversee agreed purchases and manage the bilateral trade relationship.
Some also speculating that they might agree to create a council to have further conversations about AI.
But then also beyond trade and economic issues, the two leaders are expected to discuss some incredibly important geopolitical issues.
It's been widely reported that Xi is going to press Trump on Taiwan. It's a self-governing territory, but of course China has long claimed it as its own, which of course has been one of the biggest single points of contention in US-China relations.
The US sends Taiwan tons of weapons and considers it a crucial ally that's absolutely essential to US security interests in the Pacific.
But more recently Trump's floated the possibility that the US will stop selling arms to Taiwan, an idea that China obviously would fucking love.
The timing here is very significant because Trump's war has diverted key military assets from Asia while also depleting US munitions. That's raised doubts among Chinese analysts about America's ability to defend Taiwan.
Then of course Iran is likely going to be a big discussion because like I mentioned earlier, Iran is one of China's closest trade partners in the Middle East and, like the rest of Asia, has been heavily impacted by the global energy crisis that resulted from Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
It's also widely believed that China is selling weapons to Iran, which is an assessment that is reportedly backed up by US intelligence.
Then at the same time, China is also credited with helping to push Iran to accept Trump's initial ceasefire, the same one that he now says is on life support.
You've got some analysts predicting that Trump is going to ask China to help pressure Iran to reopen the strait and reach a deal to end the conflict there.
Though I'll say it's unclear if that would be successful because China has offered limited help in a war that it sees as Trump's own making.
Then actually on the note of all of us being stuck in a war of Trump's own making, here's what our dear president had to say to the American people who are suffering because of this conflict with Iran:
"Mr. President, to what extent are Americans' financial situation motivating you to make a deal?"
"Not even a little bit. The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran, they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody."
Democratic campaign strategists are sending edible arrangements to the White House for the ability to be able to use that line in an election ad.
But going back to Trump in China, we then also have to talk about the tech-bro element of it.
As I mentioned, Trump arrived in China alongside some of the biggest tech and finance billionaires, including Elon Musk, Tim Cook of Apple, the CEO of Nvidia, as well as over a dozen other top leaders from the defense and banking sectors.
Then of course Eric was also there.
As far as why they showed up, it was for a few reasons. Some of them, like Musk and Cook, have economic ties in China and good relationships there, the idea being that they can provide a key diplomatic bridge for Trump.
But also there's potentially something big in it for them: securing major business advantages.
And Trump himself has made it clear that that is at least part of the aim here, writing in a post on Truth Social:
"I will be asking President Xi, a leader of extraordinary distinction, to open up China so that these brilliant people can work their magic and help bring the People's Republic to an even higher level."
So he's saying that he wants to create a path for these billionaires to do business in China, which I'm sure is going to be incredibly profitable for all of them and ingratiate them to Trump even more.
Also what we've seen with this trip is that it's created backlash from both sides. You have Republicans and Democrats in the House writing letters warning Trump against any deal that would give China a bigger manufacturing foothold in the United States.
Also saw a lot of people from all over the political spectrum criticizing Trump for bringing his billionaire boyfriends to get rich in China while also openly saying that he doesn't think about how his war is hurting average Americans.
With, for example, former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene accusing Trump of going to China with "the oligarchy, corporate elites to sell out America," while also slamming him for getting the US drawn into an expensive foreign war.
But as far as how the visit goes, do we see trade deals? Are there big statements? Will they braid each other's hair and eat pizza? We'll have to wait and see.
And then we've got even more that we got to dive into today.
But first let me take a minute to thank a sponsor and say, you know, adulting is realizing that some things just do not get easier when you ignore them. They just get more expensive.
If you have kids or just people depending on you, one of the big ones is definitely life insurance. Not fun or exciting. It is extremely important.
You know, I'm starting to get at the age where I have the very real question of: if I'm not here, is my family taken care of?
That's why today's sponsor Fabric by Gerber Life is worth paying attention to.
Fabric is term life insurance that you can get online, made for busy parents like a lot of you all. Online, on your schedule, right from your phone. You can be covered in under ten minutes with no health exam.
Because the reality is life feels stable until it doesn't. Though often it doesn't feel stable most days.
Again, if you've got kids or people that depend on you, the "I'll get to it later" thing, it's not cutting it.
Having kids, especially if you are young and healthy, now is the best time to lock in lower life insurance rates for long-term coverage. It can genuinely take a huge thing off your plate without turning it into some giant stressful process.
And there's no gotcha feeling either. They offer a 30-day money-back guarantee and you can cancel anytime.
Hey, join the thousands of parents who trust Fabric to help protect their family. You can apply today in just minutes. Just scan the QR code or go to meetfabric.com/DeFranco. That's meetfabric.com/DeFranco.

**FABRIC**

Go to: https://meetfabric.com/defranco and apply today, risk-free.

And then for the final story of the day, we got to talk about why a Republican state senator just stood on the floor of the South Carolina Senate for 45 minutes and killed Donald Trump's plan to redraw the state's congressional map.
Because he is not a moderate. He's definitely not a Democrat. He actually helped Republicans gerrymander South Carolina in 2021.
And as it turns out, his stated reasons for blocking Trump is that the new map would have driven up Black turnout.
And so it's one of the weirdest moments in the redistricting war so far.
Some broader context here: Republicans, by almost every measure, have won the redistricting war of the last six years. Virginia's redistricting referendum was killed in court. The Supreme Court gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
We just covered earlier this week SCOTUS clearing Alabama to revert to a previously discriminatory map seven days before its primary.
Tennessee just split Memphis into three pieces, and Florida and Missouri are running similar plays.
So South Carolina was the next target on Trump's list. And the goal was to redraw the state's seven congressional districts to take out the only Democratic seat currently held by 17-term incumbent James Clyburn.
When Clyburn was first elected in 1993, he was the first Black member of Congress from South Carolina since Reconstruction.
And one of the big things we saw is that Trump leaned into all of this personally. He posted on social that he was counting on South Carolina's elected leaders to "level the playing field." Those were his words, not the reality. He also told them to be "bold and courageous."
He personally called Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey to make sure that the vote went through.
And then in front of the Senate, Massey spoke for over 45 minutes on the floor of the South Carolina Senate.
The speech is unusual not just for what it killed, but for what it openly admitted.
"And remember, you're gonna have to wait till the end to take everything in as a whole. Too many people in power just want to do whatever it takes to stay in power. They'll do whatever it takes to keep power. I ask, to what end? What do you do with it when you've attained power?"
So that appears to be a Republican Senate majority leader in the middle of his own party's national redistricting push asking the question out loud about his own party.
"I cannot in good conscience surrender this authority that has been preserved to, for, and by the states and merely take orders from those who are not in South Carolina."
He also talked about federalism and the separation of state legislative power from federal power.
He also reportedly went so far as to compare his current stand to South Carolina's history of state resistance, including what was described as awkwardly invoking Civil War rhetoric.
South Carolina was actually the first state to secede from the Union. So when Massey says he has too much Southern blood and too much resistance in his heritage to give in, he's making a comparison that many South Carolinians will read one way and many others on the outside are going to read very differently.
But then Massey's biggest argument against redrawing the map had kind of three parts.
The first is what's called the "dummymander" problem. The idea that when you spread out one party's voters too thin to flip an extra district, you might actually flip other safer districts that are at least safe right now.
South Carolina Republicans currently hold 6 of 7 House seats.
"If we start tinkering with this, my concern is that we can make this a whole lot worse."
Second is constituency, with Massey arguing that breaking up Clyburn's district, which covers a wide swath of majority-Black communities in South Carolina, would split up the federal policy coalition that the state has historically relied on.
"Black voters in his district, they've spent decades organizing around federal policy priorities together. Splitting them up, it dilutes their effectiveness."
Including, he argued, for South Carolina as a whole.
But then that brings us to the third leg, with Massey saying on the record in his own words:
"I also think that one of the side effects of this is very candidly, you're going to motivate Black turnout. And there will be repercussions for that. There will be down-ballot repercussions."
Which is definitely something I expected him to say in backrooms, but not openly on the Senate floor.
He is openly telling his colleagues that one of the reasons he opposes this map is that it's going to energize Black people to vote and show up, and that would hurt Republican prospects down ballot.
Not because he cares about his constituents who are Black people, but because it would lead to more Black people voting.
And it is so important that we highlight that because you can't give Massey credit for the federalism part without naming the explicit voter suppression logic in the same speech.
Because I understand when you take Massey on as a whole, he is not a hero of voting rights. He helped Republicans redraw South Carolina's map in 2021 to give the GOP an advantage.
And so all the other stuff that he's talking about, it's just window dressing for what's really naked partisan calculation.
And again, this is nowhere near the end of what this whole mess becomes.
For one, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster's already gearing up to announce a special session on the new maps this summer.
I mean, even today as I was recording this story, it was reported that Georgia Governor Kemp called a special session to redraw 2028 maps.
So that's another important aspect of this. We have to think about what's happening with 2026 and 2028. Both matter, but at different levels.
But that, my friends, you beautiful bastards, is the end of today's show.
Unless you want to dive into the deep end with us because we did something a little bit different with today's brand new episode of Crashing Out, which is live over on that channel. Links in the description and on YouTube. You're going to be able to even click or tap the screen if you want to select something.
But we did a tier list that made me very uncomfortable, which for some reason is something that you guys love to watch.
But really, whatever you do, let me just say thank you for watching. I love yo faces, and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.
"Oh God, this is the episode where Alex is like, I think I'm fine taking on ops."
"I create a tier list. All right? That's what I did. I created a tier list."
"This Rachel's going, like, subscribe, comment. I am gonna put John Fetterman under blocking mutual."
"I was like, what's your news diet?"
"And he's like, you know, I just like people that I trust. Ben Shapiro. Tim Pool."
"I was like, oh my God."
"It's a dumb question. If we are comparing MTG and AOC, if you're on stage with Marjorie Taylor Greene, congratulations, you're a bigot."
"Too much? Did I go too hard? I might cancel today's show."
New episodes every Wednesday.