The Karmelo Anthony Murder Trial is Tearing the Internet Apart

PDS Published 06/10/2026

• Karmelo Anthony Sentenced to 35 Years in Prison

  We've got to talk about what's really going on with the Karmelo Anthony murder case. It's blowing up online and has ignited a new culture war firestorm. We're going to make sense of that, break down what last night's primaries expose about Graham Plattner in Maine, and we're talking about all of that and even more on today's brand new 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.

  Karmelo Anthony has been found guilty of murder for the fatal stabbing of Austin Metcalf and sentenced to 35 years in prison — despite lawyers on both sides saying that race had nothing to do with what happened. The case continues to be thrust into the national spotlight by those who argue that this, and a handful of other cases, show that the Western world is facing an epidemic of violence against white people.

  So let's start with what happened. This goes back to April of 2025 when both Anthony and Metcalf were 17 years old. What's generally agreed on is that their high school track teams were taking part in a district-wide meet in Frisco, Texas. It started raining, and Anthony ended up in a tent that belonged to Metcalf's school. Metcalf then arrived at the tent along with his teammates, including his twin brother, and told Anthony to leave.

  A confrontation followed that ended with Anthony pulling a pocket knife out of his bag and stabbing Metcalf in the chest. Metcalf was then pronounced dead shortly after arriving at a local hospital.

  But beyond that, the details have been disputed in court. The defense said that Anthony had actually been invited to the tent, but that when Metcalf and his brother arrived — both of whom were much larger than Anthony — they told him to leave. Saying Metcalf had pushed Anthony while his brother stood nearby, for all Anthony knew ready to jump in. The defense told jurors that Metcalf had, quote, no legal right to put his hands on Karmelo, and that Anthony had to make a split-second decision about whether his life was in danger — ultimately arguing that prosecutors failed to prove Anthony did anything but defend himself.

  They also argued the stabbing had been carried out under what's known as sudden passion, telling the jury: "Decisions made in the heat of the moment are different than decisions that come after reflection." They called a few witnesses to the stand, including students and Anthony's former coach, who spoke to Anthony's character and academic success.

  The prosecution, on the other hand, called nearly two dozen witnesses, including several eyewitnesses. Several of them rejected the idea that this was self-defense, with some acknowledging that Metcalf may have pushed Anthony to get him to move after asking him several times to leave — but not in a way that justified deadly force. Some witnesses also said that Anthony already had his hand in his backpack when Metcalf approached him, and that Anthony had threatened Metcalf, with one testifying that Anthony had told Metcalf: "Touch me and find out."

  The prosecution pretty much summed up their argument in one statement: "You don't get to meet a shove with a stab, especially if you provoke the shove."

  The judge allowed the jury to consider manslaughter charges, which would have carried a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. But it took them just under three hours to agree on the first-degree murder conviction — a conviction that could have carried a maximum sentence of 99 years, but they decided on 35. While Anthony was otherwise tried as an adult, the death penalty hadn't been considered since he was a minor at the time of Metcalf's death.

  The fact that it's only prison time is something that many on the right have taken issue with. People like Congressman Randy Fine, MAGA influencer Matt Walsh, alleged human trafficker Tristan Tate, and far-right commentator Nick Fuentes were among those calling for Anthony's life — saying that it should be done by a firing squad and televised live. Fuentes backed the idea of a public execution, and said: "This young man who killed a beautiful young white person who was productive and was going to contribute to society should be made an example of by the law. We have this persistent problem of brutality from Blacks — brutal, merciless, senseless violence from adolescent black men. I think there has to be something done about it. We should deliver the death penalty in equal measure to the killer. And in order to send that message, we have to do it in public."

  Fuentes gets a ton of views saying stuff like this, but he is by no means the only one emphasizing that this was a case of a black person killing a white person. Just a couple of weeks after Metcalf's death, Jake Lang — a pardoned January 6th rioter and the leader of a group called Protect White America — organized a small demonstration at the stadium, which of course attracted counter-protesters. Metcalf's father was among those denouncing the protest.

  Connected to all of that, Anthony's family has been harassed, doxxed, and swatted, as well as falsely accused of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars raised for legal fees on a new house. You also have people like alt-right influencer Benny Johnson arguing that Anthony's parents should go to prison, as well as the judge who lowered Anthony's bond to $250,000, allowing him to go free while awaiting trial. He was also a target. Then last week, Jake Lang was back outside of the courthouse shouting that Anthony should receive the death penalty.

  On the flip side, supporters of Anthony gathered and sometimes clashed with the other groups, some shouting "Free Karmelo." It should be noted that there are those on the left who aren't so much in the "Free Karmelo" camp — this hasn't been a pure left versus right divide.

  One of the major criticisms that's come up is that none of the jurors in this case were Black. That said, a number of experts say there's no sign that was deliberate, and the jury was otherwise fairly diverse.

  You also have plenty of people pointing to research showing that public perceptions of violence can change depending on the race of the victim — and that historically in the US, whether or not race is a factor in the alleged crime, it has often been a factor in the outcome of a trial, especially if the suspect is Black and the victim is white. Some have argued that the trial and its outcome may have looked very different if the roles were reversed. To make that point, many pointed to comparisons with other high-profile cases where race became a factor — many pointing to the situation with George Zimmerman, for example, who was acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter after shooting and killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, arguing self-defense.

  Then you also have some folks on the right bringing up examples they say prove their point about this being part of a wider issue of anti-white sentiment. Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, for example, compared the Metcalf case to that of Irina Zariski, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee who was fatally stabbed in North Carolina last year. In that instance, the man who killed her was found incompetent to stand trial for now — which Greene basically argued is letting him off.

  Going back to Fuentes, he also brought up the fatal stabbing of Henry Novak in the UK, writing on Twitter: "He was clearly motivated by nothing other than pure racial hatred for white men, just like the sick killer in the Metcalf case," saying the courts need to make an example out of these cases to send a message that this evil won't be tolerated.

• Belfast Rioters Set Homes on Fire After Stabbing Attack

  The outrage around Novak's killing has contributed to the growing anger around another terrible murder in Belfast. We talked about that on yesterday's show, but since then the rage has ballooned into protests and massive riots — where you've had masked men setting cars and homes on fire as families fled for safety.

  This comes after a man was brutally stabbed on the street earlier this week, who is currently in serious condition with injuries to his face, neck, and back — and even lost a finger. Video of the attack has gone viral online, with people everywhere condemning the horrific violence. The suspect has been arrested and charged with attempted murder. There has also been a ton of focus on the fact that he came to Northern Ireland from abroad.

  With that, you've had tons of far-right voices in the UK — and really all over the world — using this tragedy to stir up anti-immigration rhetoric. And because tensions around these subjects are already heightened over there, you've had tons of leaders trying to urge people to remain calm and protest peacefully, knowing just how easy it is for things to get out of hand. Instead, many have turned up the heat. For example, the UK's far-right Restore Party wrote: "Do not make peace with evil, destroy it," saying, "with the British people's approval, a Restore Britain government will put murderous Third World savages to flight."

  You also had anti-immigrant activist Tommy Robinson accusing Prime Minister Keir Starmer of welcoming terrorists into the country, saying the government has blood on their hands for granting the suspect asylum.

  Then you also had people like Elon Musk sharing information on the protests happening there — bouncing between retweeting inflammatory posts about the crime and also telling people that only by protesting repeatedly and loudly will there be any change.

  The protests in Belfast quickly turned chaotic. Homes were set on fire as rioters — many of them masked — targeted buildings they believed immigrants lived in. Buses were set on fire as well, and some transport services in and around the city had to be shut down. It left the community frightened and shaken, with one BBC reporter noting: "We've seen police officers and firefighters having to actually rescue families from those buildings, bringing them out through the flames."

  Officials described it this way: "There has been disruption on the streets of Belfast this evening. There has been damage to some property, and in some places there is a serious risk to life. This is exactly what the authorities were worried about — exactly what they warned."

  Footage from the morning showed the aftermath: cars completely destroyed and turned to ashes, homes scorched with windows shattered. The Police Service of Northern Ireland posted that at least two arrests were made in relation to the violence. Officials condemned the violence as an act of self-harm to communities, saying: "This disorder is an insult to the victim of this assault, an insult to the members of the public who bravely stepped forward to save his life, and the officers who rushed to the scene."

  The family of the stabbing victim also spoke out against the riots, saying: "This has been a massive shock to our whole family. Right now our only priority is being at his bedside and helping him recover." They also said the unrest wasn't welcome, adding: "We have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country, including in our healthcare system and hospitality sector, and we depend on them to make our country work. We do not want this terrible tragedy to be used to divide people or fuel hostility."

  You've seen some specifically calling out social media companies for allowing incendiary rhetoric on their platforms, arguing it's contributed to the violence. Many are also calling out Elon Musk directly — not only for owning a platform where this kind of rhetoric thrives, but for adding to it himself. One MP said the government needs to "take action against tech billionaires like Musk who control divisive algorithms that incite violence." Northern Ireland's justice minister weighed in as well: "When you have people like Elon Musk actually retweeting protests without the context that we have in Northern Ireland, too often street demonstrations will spill over into violence. And without knowing the temperature we are dealing with here, it just goes to show that they're willing to exploit what was an absolutely tragic and horrific event in order to make a wider political point. I would hate to think my politics was so base that when someone almost loses their life, my first thought is, how do I exploit this for my political gain?"

  Prime Minister Keir Starmer has condemned the protesters as unacceptable, adding: "It is clear that people were targeted last night because of their backgrounds, and I will not tolerate it."

  Others have been even more direct in calling out the racism, with one MP who represents part of Northern Ireland saying: "What you're seeing is a rare pogrom. We are seeing a man going door to door asking to get the foreigners out, based exclusively on the color of their skin — not based on what they're contributing to society or what their status here is."

  Many have also argued that the racism behind the riots is highlighted by the fact that there are other serious crime trends in Northern Ireland that don't result in the same outrage — in particular, violence against women. Some reports have claimed that Northern Ireland is actually the most dangerous place to be a woman in Europe, with one of the highest femicide rates in the world. While news of terrible murders has made major headlines, they haven't led to this level of outrage. Many are arguing this just shows how people are cherry-picking the crimes that serve their political agendas.

  That said, the outrage does not appear to be going anywhere, even as leaders try to rein it in. The Belfast mayor has reportedly been facing serious death threats amid the chaos. Far-right MP Rupert Lowe named the politicians he says were responsible for the border decisions made when the stabbing suspect entered the country, writing a letter demanding they explain how he was let in — saying, "the public are rightly demanding answers."

  As for where things stand right now, police say they have an increased presence across the country in the coming days, and some events have been canceled out of fear that more riots could break out. If you are in or around the UK or Northern Ireland, I'd love to know your thoughts.

• Sponsored by Mint Mobile

  What are your thoughts here? There's more we've got to dive into in just a minute. But first, let me thank a sponsor and say — you know, I'm just going to say it — if you're not on Mint Mobile, there is a very real chance that you're getting ripped off right now. I mean, just check your phone bill. You know I'm right.

  Today's sponsor Mint Mobile is the move. They offer premium wireless plans starting at just 15 bucks a month. And at a certain point, I had to ask myself why I was paying so much for my ignore calls and send memes device.

  Mint uses the nation's largest 5G network, getting you access to 5G coverage that reaches 98% of Americans. Instead of forcing you into some bloated plan that you don't need, you pick exactly the amount of data that actually fits your life — five gigabytes, 15, 20GB, or unlimited. You can bring your own unlocked phone or get a new one through Mint. Your number comes with you, and switching is also shockingly painless. You can sign up and activate in minutes with ease and from basically anywhere. Honestly, switching felt less like changing carriers and more like escaping a financially abusive relationship — which also probably explains why 96% of Mint users rate themselves highly satisfied with customer care. Plus, every plan comes with a seven-day money-back guarantee.

  So stop letting your wireless bill break your bank. If you like your money, Mint Mobile is for you. Shop plans at MintMobile.com/DeFranco or scan that QR code. Again, that's MintMobile.com/DeFranco.

MINT MOBILE

Shop plans starting at 15 bucks a month at https://www.mintmobile.com/DEFRANCO. Thank you to Mint Mobile for partnering with us on this video!

• Platner Advances in Maine Primary While Mace Loses in South Carolina

  There are a bunch of super important primary elections from yesterday that we need to talk about. Starting off in Maine, where you have easily one of the single most talked about, closely watched, and consequential contests of the entire election cycle.

  Incumbent Republican Susan Collins ran unopposed for a sixth term. But the Democratic nominee, Graham Plattner, has been giving Democrats hope that they could actually finally flip the seat they've been after for over 30 years. There are a number of factors at play. For one thing, Collins is now the only Senate Republican to represent a state that presidential nominee Kamala Harris won. And Plattner isn't exactly a MAGA candidate — many say that actually allows him to run to the right of the Democratic base. And that's as Trump's absolutely abysmal approval ratings could possibly do her in come November.

  Many have said that Collins could be facing the strongest Democratic opponent she's had in three decades — that being Graham Plattner, a 41-year-old oyster farmer and Marine veteran. He's run an incredibly successful campaign as a Bernie Sanders-style populist with a strong anti-establishment message. He had an enormous groundswell of support, and as of late May, he'd even raised more money than any other candidate for the seat, including Collins. He was expected to win his primary easily, especially after the only other major primary opponent — current Governor Janet Mills — suspended her campaign. Her name was still on the ballot, though.

  Heading into the polls yesterday, one of the biggest questions was how big a margin Plattner would win by — especially because despite all the support, his campaign has been plagued by numerous controversies. First, old Reddit posts surfaced where Plattner had downplayed military sexual assault, used homophobic slurs, demeaned women, and made other controversial comments — all of which he apologized for. Then came pictures of a tattoo he had resembling a Nazi symbol, though he later had it covered up and claimed he didn't know the meaning. And then just in the last two weeks, reports came out that Plattner had sent sexually explicit messages to multiple women while married, and three women who dated him came forward alleging that he had been volatile and physically intimidating in their relationships.

  With that, more Democrats began questioning Plattner's ability to actually beat Collins in the general. It's another reason why political analysts were super closely watching the primary margins — to see whether people would protest vote for Mills. She did actually get a sizable chunk of the vote for someone who had suspended her campaign. With 90% of the votes in as of recording, she's hovering at just above 19%. When you combine that with the other candidates in the race, nearly a third of primary voters cast their ballots for Democrats other than Plattner.

  Places like The New York Times are saying that margin suggests some Mainers remain skeptical of him, and that it left him with the challenge of persuading voters in the general election that Collins's shortcomings are greater than his own. It looks like Plattner is already trying to do that, delivering a fiery victory speech last night where he seemed to acknowledge the need to repair his credibility, while also shifting focus to Collins and attacking her record:

  "I've made mistakes in my life — mistakes that I regret, that I live with, and that I continue to learn from. And to any of those who feel let down or disappointed or disillusioned, it is my job to earn your trust, faith, and support, and I will spend every day of this campaign — and if I have the privilege, every day in the United States Senate — doing exactly that."

  "The national pundits, the political establishment, they keep looking for that one story, that one headline, that one moment in my life that they can define the campaign by. But in trying so hard to understand me, they failed to understand that this is not about me at all. This is a movement about us. If you believe, as I do, that we can change our politics and change our country, then you must also believe that people can change."

  Plattner then went on to slam Collins's record, trying to tie her to Trump: "If you are an independent voice, why do you vote with Donald Trump 95% of the time? Susan Collins is only bipartisan when it doesn't matter."

  Plattner's chances of beating Collins are up in the air right now. One thing we do know for sure is that this is going to be a messy, heated, and expensive race where Republicans are going to try to air his dirty laundry as much as possible. In fact, they're already starting — literally within hours of the polls closing yesterday, the National Republican Senatorial Committee released a digital ad calling Collins a senator we can be proud of, while painting Plattner as a scandal-ridden candidate.

  South Carolina

  Looking away from Maine, we saw the continuation of an important trend this cycle: victories by candidates backed by or aligned with Donald Trump. In the crowded Republican primary for South Carolina's governor, the candidate Trump endorsed — current Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette — led the pack with nearly all votes in. Notably, she wasn't able to get the majority of the vote needed to avoid a runoff, so she's going to have to face off against State Attorney General Alan Wilson in a few weeks. That runoff is not guaranteed — as of recording, there's only a three-point difference between the two, and neither got more than 30%.

  In another indication of Trump's sway over the party, we saw Representative Nancy Mace not just losing, but getting destroyed in the gubernatorial race. For the last few years, she has been increasingly MAGA and fought to align herself with Donald Trump — after initially flipping her district by running as a moderate. But after aggressively pushing for the release of the Epstein files, she lost Trump's endorsement. While she still tried to run for governor as a Trump-aligned candidate, it did not work. She is currently in almost dead last, in fifth place with just 12% of the vote.

  On the note of Republicans who strongly opposed Trump but then bent the knee and became staunch allies — we of course have to talk about Senator Lindsey Graham, because he also faced a closely watched and crowded primary that included at least one serious challenger and the possibility of being forced into a runoff. Thanks at least in part to Trump's backing, he was able to easily avoid a runoff, securing nearly 57% of the vote.

  Also in North Dakota, the incumbent representative for the state's sole House seat easily beat their primary opponent with help from Trump's backing. And in Nevada, all three House candidates that Trump endorsed won their primaries.

  But as we look toward the general, it's going to be very important to see if those ties with Trump end up hurting some of those candidates. In Nevada specifically, Democrats currently hold three of the state's four House seats. While they are favored to keep them, the third district in particular is viewed as competitive, and keeping all three of those seats is absolutely imperative for Democrats if they want any hope of taking the House.

  Republicans are hoping that a decent victory for incumbent Governor Joe Lombardo at the top of the ticket will help them flip that seat — but a victory from Lombardo is not at all guaranteed. Yes, he won his primary handily without any real challenges, but Nevada is a solidly purple state. His endorsement from Trump could end up hurting him — even Fox News described him as the most at-risk GOP governor seeking another term this cycle.

  After yesterday's primaries, Lombardo is now officially going to be facing a very strong opponent in Nevada's current Attorney General Aaron Ford, who has won statewide elections for his current seat twice — proving he has mass appeal in a key swing state.

  So overall, yesterday some things in some of the most important races of the cycle really solidified. But there is still a very long road to November, and anything can happen.

• Mississippi Judge Cancels Trial After Lawyers Use AI

  A judge in Mississippi is pushing back against the AI takeover of the legal system by booting, fining, and even banning lawyers on both sides of a wild case.

  It started with an attorney by the name of Tom Withers suing the city of Aberdeen for breach of contract regarding unpaid legal fees. He had hired Kathleen Wilson and Chauncey Hunter Ridgway. The city contracted Mark McClinton and Kathryn Williams. Except the judge in the case — US District Judge Sherry Aycock — noticed something a little bit fishy in their legal citations submitted in court filings. She found citations to cases that never really happened, because as it turns out, both sides had used AI to some measure to do their legal research for them. And shocker — that backfired because the AI had hallucinations. And apparently neither side did any sort of review or verification before they submitted their filings.

  Robert Freund, a lawyer who investigates AI usage and misuse in the legal space and the first to bring attention to this case, called it "a comedy of AI errors," adding: "In other words, there were two clients who were basically paying for ChatGPT or whatever LLM to argue against each other."

  When the judge first called the attorneys out at a hearing in January, both sides admitted to not doing any sort of check and expressed regret. On one side, Kathryn Williams signed up to using an unnamed AI tool trained to produce results for her usual jurisdiction to do the research. The judge wrote: "She explained that this case is the only Mississippi case she has ever been involved in, yet she resorted to using the software, apparently knowing that it was not designed to encompass Mississippi."

  Then you had Kathleen Wilson saying she used a tool called First Draft to write the entire briefing — with Wilson taking the stance that she didn't know that AI could make something up if it wasn't true. The judge wasn't even buying that, writing: "In essence, Wilson took the position that she was unaware that AI could produce hallucinated cases and explained that she did not even know what a hallucinated case was. The court finds that explanation to be insufficient and incredulous."

  And in fact, since that hearing where she apologized for using AI, she's been caught doing it again — with other judges finding hallucinated cases in her filings as recently as this year. Judge Aycock wrote: "Her continued AI misuse demonstrates an extreme dereliction of professional responsibility on her part. This court cannot consider subsequent conduct that did not occur before it in the determination of the appropriate sanctions. But in this case, it finds that, at minimum, Wilson's apologies to this court on January 20th, 2026 were not sincere."

  As far as what ended up happening: the judge fined all four lawyers between $1,000 and $3,500, disqualified them from participating further, outright canceled the trial, and issued a stay in the case — on the grounds of a violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when they certified that the information in their filings was factual and verified. On top of that, Wilson and Williams have been barred from appearing in the US District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi for two years. The judge is also sending her order to the attorney disciplinary organizations in the states where all four lawyers are licensed, writing: "In an era of rampant unverified AI usage within the legal field, this case presents a prime example of the risk associated with serving as a rubber stamp when acting as local counsel."

  And she's right. The issue of AI in the legal field has garnered a lot of attention — especially regarding AI hallucinations in legal citations. You have some experts saying it's about time judges and the court system stop coddling these attorneys caught red-handed. We're hearing that from people including Dr. Lance Elliott, an AI scientist and consultant who wrote an article for Forbes on this case specifically: "The expectation is that lawyers are facing a learning curve and a bit more time is required before they'll be able to properly handle the use of AI. In my view, more than enough time has already passed."

  Worth noting: this isn't even Aycock's biggest punishment for AI misuse. Back in December, she reportedly left another attorney with a $20,000 fine and ordered her to take a continuing legal education course on AI hallucinations.

  You're also seeing more and more people calling for attorneys to be outright disbarred. For now, we'll have to wait and see — do attorneys figure out a way to use these tools properly, stay away from them altogether, or are we just going to see an increase in attorneys using AI and thus more situations like this?

• Sponsored by Ground News

  There's even more we've got to dive into in just a minute. But first, let me thank a sponsor.

  It actually starts with Iran — they announced the end of military operations against Israel, while warning that future strikes in Lebanon could trigger even harsher retaliation. In stories like that, why we use today's sponsor Ground News — because depending on where you read it, the framing gets very different, very fast. And it also helps us understand where people are coming from based on the news they consume. You have some outlets focusing on de-escalation, others focusing on the threat of wider war, and a few barely mentioning Lebanon at all.

  Ground News lets you compare how over 260 outlets across the political spectrum are covering the same exact story, side by side. Instead of getting trapped in one algorithm-fed perspective, you can actually see differences in framing, bias, and what details certain outlets emphasize or leave out. Ground News also shows you factuality ratings and source ownership data all in one place. One of my favorite features is the Blind Spot — which flags stories covered mostly or entirely by one side, helping you quickly spot gaps in coverage. You'd be surprised by what you might be missing out on, which also explains a decent amount of why people online feel like they're arguing from different realities half the time.

  If you care about understanding how stories are being framed instead of just reacting to headlines, subscribe — head to GroundNews.com/DiFranco or scan the QR code to get 40% off unlimited access to their Vantage plan, the one I use.

GROUND NEWS

Go to https://ground.news/defranco to see beyond the headlines and stay fully informed without feeling overwhelmed. Subscribe today through my link for 40% off unlimited access.

• Reckless Ben's GoFundMe Was Removed, Then Restored

  You've got some more news you need to know, starting with how yesterday afternoon, Reckless Ben's GoFundMe — which he made to help Brian Manziel in that ongoing fight for his dad's Legos against Bricks and Minifigs — was taken down. Up to that point, it had raised over $450,000 that would have been used to cover the man's legal fees and to recover the money they lost through this whole ordeal. We don't know exactly why that fundraiser went dark. Some speculated it was GoFundMe essentially siding with Bricks and Minifigs, and others said maybe it was a legal situation since Ben's facing a lawsuit.

  Regardless, what you ended up seeing was a lot of people laying into GoFundMe, saying things like: "For GoFundMe to have caved to pressure is disgusting and insanely disappointing. Tim Cardigan is their CEO and he should be made to answer for this. It's reprehensible." And: "Why did this happen? Doesn't this mean that GoFundMe is essentially stealing from old people?" And: "Bricks and Minifigs has officially nuked themselves for this. Nobody on earth is going to want to buy from this absolute sleaze pit of a company after this. This is corporate greed."

  You also had YouTuber Sean Fitzgerald even setting up a new donation fund on GiveSendGo for Ben's defense. But then this morning, Ben's original GoFundMe was back up again. As of right now, we don't know why it went down or even why it came back — GoFundMe hasn't said anything at this point. In the absence of that, you have many people online speculating it's because they were getting so much backlash and caved to public pressure, with some even giving Fitzgerald a nod for starting that new fund on a platform that actually has a spine when it comes to controversial causes.

  While all of that was playing out online, at the same time you had American Fork City Council basically consumed by this case. For just about everyone who took the stand, the AFPD was their target:

  "This is unacceptable conduct of the police department. When Paul took office, he said, 'I am extremely committed to ensuring our community members are proud of their police department and their officers.' I am not proud of my police department officers. In fact, seeing this conduct, I am in fear of standing here wondering if there's any retribution that they might bring on me, because that is what they did to this individual."

  "In 2024, I called the American Fork Police Department when I had a trespasser that was unwilling to leave. Two officers and a lieutenant conducted the investigation, and when the trespasser was there, one officer called me a word. The police department during this has demonstrated reckless usage of resources and responsibilities, and it has eroded faith in American Fork's ability to protect and serve."

  But I should also say — not everyone was laying flak on the police, because you also had a city councilman getting emotional as he thanked AFPD for helping his family stay safe amid all the blowback:

  "I just want to make a comment and just thank our police. I know that's maybe a challenging thing. My family ironically had a scenario in our home in the last week where our family was targeted. And I just want to publicly thank those that responded."

  So with all this, at least right now it's looking like things are going to stay under wraps for a while as the legal stuff plays out. With that, it does seem like Ben's already feeling like he's getting the short end of the stick: "I was not given a chance to share my side. The court just turned their perspective, not mine."

  For now, the great Lego scandal continues.

• US Launches Strikes on Iran in Response to Downed Helicopter

  Last but not least today, we've got to talk about some major updates out of Iran — because we are barely holding on to this ceasefire, if there really ever was a ceasefire.

  Because as soon as things seemed to cool off between Iran and Israel for a second, Iran let off a wave of attacks targeting US assets in the Middle East. This whole situation started when a US Apache helicopter was shot down near the Strait of Hormuz. US officials say the helicopter was likely hit by a drone off the coast of Oman while it was patrolling the area. The two American crew members were luckily able to escape and waited in the water for two hours before being rescued by a US drone boat in a sea operation that was the first of its kind.

  Officials said the strike wasn't actually intentional, even though Iran has been firing drones at commercial vessels coordinating with the US. Iran's foreign minister posted: "Foreign forces in proximity to our territory are at constant risk on account of their own human errors, plane accidents, or potentially being caught in crossfire."

  At first, it seemed like Trump was going to let this one go — The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump repeatedly said the incident "wasn't a big deal" in a phone call on Tuesday. But then he apparently changed his mind after a White House briefing with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine. By yesterday afternoon, Trump posted: "The United States must of necessity respond to this attack."

  And from there, Central Command reported that it struck Iranian air defense ground control stations and surveillance radar sites near the Strait, calling it a proportional response to recent attacks on US forces and international commercial ships transiting regional waters.

  Iran fired back, launching attacks on US targets in Bahrain, Jordan, and Kuwait — though officials say all those attacks were intercepted. Foreign ministers of Arab states on the Persian Gulf then made a joint statement condemning the attacks, saying: "Persistence in this aggressive approach will only lead to further isolation."

  Now Iran is saying that US strikes hit two vital water tanks. As of recording, that has not been fully confirmed. If it's true, it could leave 20,000 people without water in an area that's ranked as one of the hottest places on Earth, reaching temperatures of 122 degrees. Environmental experts are saying: "In a region already facing extreme heat, chronic water scarcity, and a rapidly warming climate, the loss of drinking water infrastructure is more than physical damage — it threatens the health, resilience, and daily survival of entire communities."

  Right now, many are saying it's looking like things are heating back up, with both sides getting more aggressive. The president is still sounding off online, saying: "Their military is defeated and their economy is lost. It's over for Iran." Many have been pointing to Trump saying similar things over the course of the last few weeks, so we'll continue to watch and report.

  And in the meantime, whether it's this or anything we talked about today, I'd love to know your thoughts in those comments down below. But that, my friend — you beautiful bastard — is the end of your Wednesday Philip DeFranco Show.

  Dive into the comments, though I do have a treat for you — just click the link. Also, I just uploaded my weekly episode of Crashing Out with myself and Alex Pearlman. It is live. It is fantastic. If you haven't taken the dip yet, it's the exact opposite of this show. It's 90% opinion. It ends up being the perfect one-two punch on a Wednesday. Got a link in the description for you.

  But hey, no matter what you do, let me just say thank you for watching. Like and subscribe. I love yo faces, and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.

  They paid off SVU for the night because there were some predators out there. Donald Trump made the Knicks lose. They booed the guy out of that man. It was, I think, mostly cheers. It is just Donald Trump denying reality publicly. Baby boy. MAGA whisperer. Hunter Biden. Somebody was talking and he was just like, "I'm not one of the elite. I smoked crack at a Super 8, not Epstein's island." If they want to believe that it was stolen, they're gonna believe it. To buy that much quartz is stupid. It's grand theft auto. Sex with content will suffer. My relationships will suffer. Crashing Out.