The Mamdani AIPAC Situation is Crazy & Going Inside The Prediction Markets Fake Bets Trap
PDS Published 06/22/2026
-
This crazy Tulsi Gabbard cult scandal has people scrambling. The Polymarket allegations about using fake winning bets to fuel viral growth are worse than you think, the AIPAC controversy really exploded, and Keir Starmer is now out in the UK. We're talking about all of that and more on today's brand-new Philip DeFranco Show.
Your daily dive into the news starts with: Is Polymarket secretly paying a bunch of college-age creators to lie about winning big on the platform?
It's also paying an army of clippers to help that content go viral. And it's paying Adin Ross to show just how easy insider trading is on the platform.
So, in Adin's defense, it's not really clear he has any idea what's going on regarding maybe anything.
And all of this is according to a brand-new investigation from The Wall Street Journal, which is just the latest piece of reporting raising serious concerns about how the prediction market industry is operating.
This Journal investigation looked at Polymarket specifically, which is one of the two main prediction market platforms in the U.S. Along with Kalshi, they made dozens of mostly college-age creators film themselves making fake trades and sometimes scoring fake wins.
In January, for example, a young guy by the name of George Makihara posted a video showing him betting $1,000 that Trump would say the word "McDonald's," a bet that according to the video won $100,000.
The deal is unusual. But here's the thing: they have the data. More than 50 accounts made that same bet in January, and all of them lost.
George himself posted videos of himself appearing to bet almost $410,000 on more than 140 other plays, but none of those bets were real.
In fact, the Journal ultimately found more than 1,000 videos of various creators making $1.9 million worth of fake bets, with around 10% showing creators reacting to outdated footage or fake headlines suggesting that they'd won.
Overall, the alleged winnings added up to almost $900,000. But in reality, the bets they pretended to place would have lost more than $166,000.
As far as how this allegedly worked, Polymarket built near-perfect copies of its website.
I will say, "near-perfect" is the key phrase because the Journal identified more than a dozen discrepancies between the real website and the simulated versions.
A few videos accidentally revealed URLs suggesting the sites were test environments for Polymarket engineers.
At least one video showed a version in which the "L" in Polymarket had been replaced with an "I," which would have been impossible to tell if the "I" had been capitalized.
From there, Polymarket allegedly paid creators to make fake trades on these dummy sites.
Creators who spoke to the Journal said the pay often added up to $2,000 to $3,000 a month.
The company reportedly sent them bullet-point guidance on what to say, including telling them to use phrases suggesting their winnings were essentially free money.
A huge thing here is that they were reportedly told to hide the fact that they were paid, which is a major issue because federal law generally requires companies to be honest about advertising, and people promoting products are supposed to disclose those relationships.
After the Journal began asking questions, creators reportedly started adding "Polymarket Partner" to their bios.
The campaign went beyond the people making the videos.
Polymarket contracted a marketing firm called Virality to pay so-called clippers — people the report found were often teens in Asia — to repost cut-down versions of the original content until it finally spread.
A version of a video that might only earn around 150 views in a month eventually racked up 2.4 million views.
The overall clipping campaign earned more than 140 million views across TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram according to an analytics provider.
Virality reportedly also told clippers to hide the fact that they were advertisers, telling them their posts needed to be "personal and organic."
In another message:
"Guys, if you have it in your account name, please rename them and remove it as soon as possible. Continuing to use it will violate our guidelines and may lead to submission rejection. Not even Poly is allowed to change it."
The company also told clippers to specifically target U.S. users, reportedly only paying them if at least 60% of their audience was American.
That stands out because Polymarket has been banned from offering its primary crypto platform in the U.S. since 2022.
While many of the creators were relatively small, the campaign was not limited to them.
Polymarket reportedly has a multi-million-dollar marketing deal with controversial streamer Adin Ross.
Ross reportedly spends around 30 minutes every week on his livestream scrolling through the platform and commenting on potential bets. That content then turns into dozens of posts from Virality's army of clippers.
At least five clips featured Adin suggesting that he had insider information he could use to win bets, or claiming he knew things like when Drake was going to release his next project.
"Yo, I literally know. Exactly. Oh my God."
Polymarket reportedly paid clippers to promote at least 19 videos discussing opportunities to use insider information or other tactics to manipulate the market.
Internal materials reportedly show that this was not an accident.
Polymarket responded by claiming in a statement that it is committed to maintaining accurate, fair, and transparent markets.
They added:
"We are part of a rapidly growing industry and are constantly evaluating ways to improve how we're engaging and earning the trust of our audience."
The company also said it plans to conduct a comprehensive audit of active promotional campaigns.
But many people aren't expecting much to happen.
There's very little trust in companies actively policing themselves. And it's not like the Trump administration appears especially interested in regulating platforms like Polymarket.
If anything, it seems like the opposite.
Under Trump — whose son is an investor in Polymarket and a paid advisor to Kalshi — the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has filed multiple lawsuits to stop states from regulating and taxing prediction markets.
Trump also recently said in a social media post that it is critically important that the commission have exclusive authority over the industry, even calling politicians who want states to regulate it "scum."
-
But then also, in the news, while you have Trump being criticized for being too soft on crypto and prediction markets, another story that's starting to pop off is New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani being accused of going too hard against AIPAC, with some saying that he's demonizing and promoting violence against Jews in the process.
As far as what's happening, it appears to stem from a campaign rally last week for Democratic Socialist congressional candidates.
With the Democratic primaries in New York slated for tomorrow, Mamdani was there to back candidates for the U.S. House, like New York City Comptroller Brad Lander and State Assembly Member Claire Valdez, among others.
You had both Mamdani and Bernie Sanders talking about the Democratic Party of the past and saying that something has to change.
They pointed to wins by progressive and socialist candidates across the country, really trying to rally New York into keeping that trend going as well.
Mamdani very notably pointed the finger at the super-rich while highlighting the struggles of everyday Americans.
"A movement to turn the page on the politics of big money and small ideas. A movement to usher in a new era for our city. A movement to make government work for every single New Yorker, not just the wealthy and the well-connected."
Bernie Sanders added:
"The working class of America understands that our current economic system is rigged. That it is designed to benefit the wealthy and the powerful. And while the very richest people in this country become richer, it leaves working families behind, struggling to put food on the table."
But one of the biggest moments from that rally was this:
"And we need that. Because, as Gramsci once wrote, the old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters."
"These monsters take many forms in AIPAC, for whom the only thing more frightening than democracy being allowed to run its course is an end to genocide."
"Netanyahu's wars. They move millions in dark money to accomplish a single goal: to preserve their power so that they can turn us against one another instead of our leaders turning toward the moral change we all know to be necessary."
If you don't know what AIPAC is, it's the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
It's a major lobbying organization that has historically been a powerful force for politicians on both sides of the aisle. They funnel millions and millions of dollars into U.S. elections through super PACs supporting pro-Israel candidates.
In fact, after the 2022 midterms, AIPAC proudly declared that more than 95% of AIPAC-backed candidates won their elections, saying that being pro-Israel is good policy and good politics.
But in recent years they've faced increasing opposition, with some politicians dropping their support altogether as public opinion has shifted away from Israel and especially from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
That has sparked a lot of discourse that we've even covered on the show regarding the line between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism.
A number of people argued that Mamdani's comments crossed that line.
That's where Rabbi Steinmetz comes in.
He's the senior rabbi at a synagogue on the Upper East Side of New York.
Steinmetz said Mamdani's comments could inspire violence against Jewish people, specifically naming Elias Rodriguez, who was charged with killing two Israeli embassy staff members in Washington, D.C.
Writing:
"Mayor Mamdani, you are speaking about millions of New Yorkers who support the very policies AIPAC advocates. You are demonizing them, and you are the one who is turning New Yorkers against each other in order to grab power."
He added:
"New York already has an anti-Semitism problem. Right now you are pouring fuel on the fire. I shudder to think what happens next. But you will be responsible for it."
Steinmetz wasn't alone.
Mamdani faced a wave of criticism, including from Jim Berk, a prominent Jewish advocate and head of a Jewish human rights organization.
Berk accused him of regurgitating old anti-Semitic rhetoric.
He argued that the suggestion that Jewish political participation is inherently suspect, illegitimate, or secretly manipulative is abhorrent.
Saying:
"This is the same old story retold in a new form."
Even the Anti-Defamation League issued a scathing response demanding that Mamdani apologize.
The ADL wrote on Twitter:
"Referring to members of the Jewish community who advocate for causes they care about as monsters wielding dark money is shockingly offensive and unacceptable for a mayor who claims to represent all New Yorkers."
The group added:
"This is not about political disagreement. It's about crossing a dangerous line by invoking dehumanizing and conspiratorial rhetoric with a long and troubling history in anti-Semitism."
Some also noted the timing, with a Florida grand jury recently indicting a man for allegedly plotting a mass shooting targeting AIPAC employees.
But it wasn't entirely one-sided.
There was also a healthy amount of pushback to that line of thinking.
Many argued that criticism of AIPAC is not the same thing as anti-Semitism, and that conflating the two could have disastrous consequences.
That included The Voice of Rabbis, a Jewish organization dedicated to distinguishing between Zionism and Judaism.
The group pushed back strongly, saying:
"Accusing Mayor Mamdani, who leads the city with the largest Jewish community in the U.S., of hostility to Jews simply because he criticized AIPAC is deliberate."
"It's done for one reason: to burn the soil under our feet and fuel anti-Semitism."
"Mayor Mamdani referred to AIPAC, a lobby organization that has nothing to do with American Jews."
They also responded directly to the ADL, writing:
"The ADL knows the difference between criticizing an Israeli lobbying organization and attacking Jewish people. Yet it continues to blur that line."
"It is deliberate, dangerous, and disgraceful."
That was something echoed by many people online, who argued that Mamdani's words were being twisted to fan the flames of anti-Semitism even when he was offering legitimate criticism.
Comments included things like:
"Zohran did not attack his Jewish constituents. He criticized AIPAC, which self-identifies as a pro-Israel group and not as a Jewish organization."
"The ADL is putting words in his mouth in order to fabricate an anti-Semitism charge and censor speech critical of AIPAC."
Mamdani himself pushed back when reporters asked him about his language.
"I want to be very clear. We're talking about a status quo where children are being killed on a daily basis."
"More than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military since the so-called ceasefire."
"When I am speaking about AIPAC, I'm speaking about an organization that has been supportive of the status quo, that has fought any attempt to actually deliver safety to people not just in Palestine, but frankly through much of the region."
"When it comes to the way in which they defend the status quo, oftentimes they defend it through direct contributions."
"Oftentimes they also support the status quo through dark money, by funneling money that would have previously been directly from AIPAC through other shell organizations whose contributors are only revealed after an election."
"I think it is important that when we ask ourselves how much death and destruction is happening overseas, we also name those who allow it to take place."
And of course, with this, I'd love to know your thoughts.
Just to share my opinion and take: I've said it here before, I've said it on my podcast Crashing Out, but it remains true that people conflate being critical of Netanyahu, the Israeli government, and AIPAC with anti-Semitism.
You're just opening the door for actual anti-Semitism to thrive.
You've got people out there calling Ms. Rachel an anti-Semite, a Nazi, because she's saying kids in Gaza shouldn't get blown up.
And it trains people not to take claims of anti-Semitism seriously, which is a huge problem because there is also a rise in genuine anti-Semitism happening elsewhere.
A number of people don't end up paying attention to that because they feel like someone is constantly crying wolf.
Then a lot of those same groups act shocked when polling shows they're losing favorability.
But hey, that's just this idiot's opinion.
So whether you agree or disagree with me, I'd love to hear from you in the comments down below because generally it is still kind of a free country.
Though, especially with this administration, maybe be on an alt account and a VPN.
-
Then there's more that we get to dive into in just a minute.
But first, let me thank a sponsor and say, you know, this is an embarrassing one.
I signed up for today's sponsor, Rocket Money, and within like 30 seconds it showed me stuff that I was actively being charged for that I had completely forgotten about.
Subscriptions. A free trial that I never canceled. An app that I genuinely do not remember downloading.
And that's not only a money thing.
It's an attention thing.
And it feels like no one has enough attention right now to actually catch all this.
Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings.
Their dashboard lays out your finances clearly, consolidating your accounts and showing your bills, due dates, and paydays without needing a degree in spreadsheets.
It builds budgets around real life, not the fantasy version of you who meal preps, never impulse buys, and always remembers coupons.
It also sends alerts when prices increase, bills hit, or spending spikes so nothing sneaks up on you.
And it even helps negotiate bills for you, like internet or cable, saving you money without you wasting time on hold.
Rocket Money users are saving a ton, and millions of people are using it to get their financial lives together.
Let Rocket Money help you reach your financial goals faster.
Join at Rocket Money or just scan the QR code.
Again, that's Rocket Money. Rocket Money.
ROCKET MONEY
Go to https://www.rocketmoney.com/pds to cancel your unwanted subscriptions.
-
But then diving right back into the news, we've got to talk about Tulsi Gabbard.
Because you've got people asking:
Was Trump's former intelligence director, the woman who coordinated all of his intelligence agencies, secretly controlled by a religious cult?
That's a very real and serious question that's been raised by The Washington Post with its bombshell investigation into Tulsi Gabbard.
A lot of people are already somewhat familiar with Tulsi.
She rose to fame as a socially conservative Democratic representative from Hawaii.
She also ran for president as what we'll call a quirky progressive, then defected to the MAGA movement and joined the Trump administration.
But you probably haven't heard of this so-called cult, the Science of Identity Foundation, or CIF for short.
Never mind its leader, Chris Butler.
They're a breakaway sect of the Hare Krishna movement, which is a branch of Hinduism that stresses devotion to a single deity, Krishna.
And Butler attracted followers with the belief that he was in direct communication with Krishna himself.
"This world is a place of suffering. Why is it a place of suffering? It is a place of suffering because it is meant to be temporary. This world is not meant to be eternal."
He's been called a cult leader for a lot of reasons.
Including accusations that his disciples were isolated from the outside world, that he controlled their major life decisions, that he demanded total obedience, and that the whole thing was wrapped in secrecy.
In fact, in 1972, devotees told the Honolulu Advertiser that they would do anything Butler asked, including take their own lives.
And not only is he still alive at 78, Gabbard once described him as her guru.
Which becomes very notable given his political views.
He's attacked Muslims, homosexuality, gun control, and public schools, while also promoting environmentalism and anti-capitalism.
Now, he has claimed that he didn't tell Gabbard how to vote in Congress.
And Gabbard has claimed he's just a spiritual adviser.
"Has he been a mentor politically, or is it just—"
"No, no, not at all."
But you've got Rebecca Saltzberg, who worked on digital strategy for several of Gabbard's congressional campaigns, telling The Washington Post that's a flat-out lie.
According to her, Butler instructed Tulsi Gabbard on what to say and do as a politician, sometimes directly over the phone and sometimes through memos passed on by his disciples.
To prove that, she gave more than 25,000 pages of documents to the Post, including hundreds of these memos that might genuinely leave you speechless.
Before we get to those, though, I do need to address one point of contention here: the credibility of Saltzberg and these documents.
Because CIF claims that she is simply making all of this up to extort a quarter of a million dollars from the organization.
But Saltzberg denies that.
She says instead that she threatened to sue them unless they paid her for damages she suffered after getting arrested for harboring a teenage runaway who she claims was abused by the organization.
The group also did not dispute the authenticity of the documents themselves.
Instead, they dispute the claim that the memos were authored by Butler, arguing they were actually written by a mix of advisers, including Gabbard's father.
It's hard to know who's telling the truth because the memos aren't attributed to anyone specific.
But the Post reporter found numerous pieces of evidence suggesting that Butler was behind them.
That includes biographical details that point to Butler and passages where Butler appears to speak in the first person.
Moreover, Gabbard's father and the senior disciple who claimed to author many of the memos were open about their involvement in her campaigns.
Which led the Post reporter to ask:
Why would they, in other moments, shield their private advice behind anonymity and encrypted documents?
The argument is that the more logical explanation is the one Saltzberg provided: the memos were anonymous in order to mask Butler's identity if they ever became public.
With that setup, let's get into the documents because they are juicy.
The first thing worth pointing out is the way many of them appear to be written as if the authors had control over what Gabbard did.
One memo about a plan to partition Iraq into three states, for example, said it was:
"Time for TWG to come up with this idea."
Other memos appear to address Gabbard directly.
Like one criticizing her planned statement about an address Obama gave to Congress in 2015.
It said:
"In the first place, nobody gives a shit what you think about his State of the Union speech unless you're going to say something of interest."
Adding:
"You're not even trying."
"You've become really intellectually lazy."
There's also a 173-page document from 2014 titled TWG Issues that compiles advice for Gabbard on dozens of political topics.
It contains directives like:
"Start introducing bills."
"Need to get on it."
"Hit hard."
"Stop being weak."
The Post compared those memos to Gabbard's actual congressional record.
And what do you know?
There was a clear correlation.
For example, a 2014 memo pushed her to propose a bill penalizing countries whose citizens fought for ISIS.
It stated:
"Get it started in the morning. You need to be the leader in this regard. Don't dick around."
The very next day Gabbard released a statement.
The following week she proposed a bill.
The memos also appear to have orchestrated her media appearances.
In 2015, one adviser prepared her for an interview with Wolf Blitzer.
The memo literally gave her the line:
"It's not a boo-hoo, I don't get to go to the party situation, Wolf."
And what did she say on CNN later that day?
"That's really the issue here. The issue here is not about me saying, boo-hoo, I'm going to miss the party."
In fact, the memos supplied preparation for at least 32 TV interviews between 2014 and 2016.
Gabbard reportedly quoted them almost verbatim 24 times.
The other eight times she used different wording while promoting the same ideas.
The irony is that one memo criticized Gabbard for sounding insincere.
It said:
"It's like she's trying to express something artificially. I don't feel anything from her."
"It's more like kind of remembering talking points."
Which, yeah, my guy, it seems like you're the one feeding her those talking points.
At least that's what it looks like.
Might as well have your hand up her ass flapping her mouth and then criticizing her for being a puppet.
The memos also appeared to dictate what Gabbard posted on social media.
In 2014, a senior disciple emailed her with the subject line:
"Important to do. Must tweet around 9 a.m."
The email included a pre-written tweet telling Obama to bomb ISIS fighters attacking a Kurdish city in Syria.
The message noted:
"Every word of the tweet language is approved."
And what do you know?
Bing bada boom.
Gabbard tweeted it out verbatim that same day and emailed back:
"Sent tweet."
She even made follow-up posts tagging senior administration officials exactly as the email instructed.
She even made follow-up posts tagging senior administration officials exactly as the email instructed, noting that he'd like them to see the video without naming who "he" was.Though, you know, we can guess.
Then after Tulsi Gabbard posted stuff like that online, the group reportedly had dozens of fake social media accounts boosting her engagement.
They even defended her vigorously in the comment sections of articles written about her.
Gabbard's personal Skype account reportedly flagged specific articles and social media posts as warranting replies.
Her Skype sometimes told them what the comments should say and even scolded the group if it failed to defend her.
Apparently, feedback and comments came from senior leadership, with one anonymous email warning that since regular internet users speak stupidly, the group would need to dumb down approved posts to make them sound authentic.
Explaining:
"I'm too smart, so it looks like it's the same guy, a smart guy, writing something here."
"Want to make some of the comments stupid or like idiot talk rather than all thoughtful."
Now, everything we've talked about so far comes from 2017 or earlier.
That's really the only period these documents shed light on.
Because of that, The Washington Post couldn't confirm whether Gabbard continued getting directions from the group through the rest of her congressional career or during her time in the Trump administration.
But there are some clues.
For example, in 2014, a senior disciple advised Gabbard to say that she made every decision through the prism of:
"The safety, security, and freedom of the American people."
And still, more than a decade later, we've seen Gabbard use that exact phrase over and over again in her memoir, hearings, and speeches.
"Ensuring the safety, security, and freedom of the American people."
"And focus on ensuring the safety, security, and freedom of the American people."
"And to ensure the safety, security, and freedom of the American people."
So yeah, people are looking at this and asking questions.
Because if any and all of this is true — if she has secretly been taking orders from an alleged cult while overseeing the nation's intelligence agencies — that's more than a little concerning.
Especially because the so-called cult leader, the guy allegedly behind all the memos, the guy Gabbard called her guru, is, frankly, pretty wild.
Among other things, and I'm not exactly all-trusting of intelligence agencies myself, Butler reportedly warned in one lecture that intelligence agencies were filled with demonic, power-hungry madmen who wanted to use psychic powers to control people.
Now, with all that said, apart from simply denying the claims made in the Post investigation, the group has also argued that the accusations are expressions of anti-Hindu bigotry.
Basically, they argue that Gabbard's association with the group only seems sinister because it's Hindu, and that other religious groups wouldn't be treated the same way.
But the counterargument from many people is that this isn't an ordinary religious group like the Catholic Church.
It's a cult.
And more than that, it's arguably far from transparent about its relationship with Gabbard, which becomes a major issue if she's serving as intelligence director.
Also, on that note, the announcement last month that she would be stepping down came just days after the Post reporter notified her about the imminent publication of his investigation.
Whether that's just a coincidence or something else, I'll let you decide.
Whatever your thoughts on this are, let me know in those comments down below.
-
But then also, from that, we've got to talk about how that's not even the biggest resignation in the news.
Because Keir Starmer has just stepped down as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
While we knew this might be coming, it's still huge.
Starmer has been facing calls to resign for a whole laundry list of reasons for months now.
And this morning he delivered a speech touting the successes of his two years in office before saying:
"The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to lead us into the next general election."
"I have heard the answer of my parliamentary party to that question, and I accept that answer with good grace."
"That is why I will resign as leader of the Labour Party."
One of the many stressors Starmer faced involved elections.
In May, Labour suffered huge losses in local elections while the far-right Reform Party made substantial gains.
Even though the next national election isn't scheduled until 2029, people within Starmer's cabinet feared Reform could gain even more momentum by then.
And many did not believe Starmer was the leader capable of stopping that trend.
So throughout the spring there were increasing calls for him to resign.
But those calls actually started before that because of the Epstein controversy.
Even though Starmer himself wasn't tied to Jeffrey Epstein, the man he appointed to be ambassador to the United States, Peter Mandelson, appeared multiple times in Epstein-related files.
Mandelson reportedly stayed in touch with Epstein after his conviction and even stayed in Epstein's home while he was in prison.
Starmer eventually fired him.
But unlike here in the U.S., where politicians can appear in Epstein-related stories and seemingly nothing happens, many people wanted Starmer out simply for associating with an Epstein-linked figure.
Especially because an inquiry later found that Starmer had reportedly been warned about Mandelson's Epstein connections before appointing him.
On top of that, Starmer was generally unpopular.
His polling numbers were weak, and many voters were dissatisfied with both the economy and international policy under his leadership.
All that frustration reached a boiling point when Labour's Andy Burnham won a seat in Parliament through a special election, putting him in position to challenge Starmer.
Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, defeated a Reform candidate in a closely watched race.
Many people saw that victory as proof that he could improve Labour's chances in the next national election.
Some outlets, including The New York Times, even described him as a potential savior against the rise of Reform UK.
In his victory speech, Burnham hinted that he was willing to take this momentum all the way to Downing Street.
"Everyone knows that politics isn't working."
"Everyone can feel that the country isn't where it should be."
"Tonight could just be the turning point."
"I do say to my own party, this is a final chance to change."
"We must act upon it, and we must get it right."
"There will be no second chance."
"But it is a chance now, from this result tonight, to build a new politics based on unity and hope."
"Turning away from the path that takes us to a divided, dark politics of the kind we see in the United States."
From the start, it was clear Labour was ready to rally behind Burnham as its new leader.
Cabinet ministers reportedly told Starmer they would force him out if he did not provide a timetable for his departure.
In fact, as Starmer was resigning, Burnham was being sworn in and is now on track to potentially lead the party.
The timeline for when a new prime minister will officially take office remains unclear.
Others could still enter the race.
In the meantime, Starmer will remain in office until a successor is chosen.
He has asked Labour's executive committee to open nominations on July 1.
From there, Burnham needs enough backing to officially become a candidate, though he's expected to receive it.
If he ends up being the only candidate, the process could move very quickly.
If someone challenges him, however, it could take longer.
So far, while many people on the political right seem happy to see Starmer leave, they don't appear thrilled about the prospect of another Labour leader taking over.
For example, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has demanded that Britain hold a national election, arguing that the country's politics have become too chaotic.
Whoever follows Starmer will become the sixth prime minister in seven years.
So far, reports indicate that no national election is expected to be called, with most observers suggesting Burnham has a fairly clear path forward.
Burnham himself wrote that Starmer's resignation marks the beginning of a transition and that it is important the process be conducted in an orderly and responsible manner.
-
And that is what it will.
And then for your final block today, we've got some more news you need to know quickly, starting with the tech giant Nvidia announcing — and claiming — that it has found a way to significantly reduce the billions of gallons of water that AI data centers use.
Just last year alone, concerns about water consumption by AI infrastructure exploded into public debate.
If Nvidia is actually onto something here, it could help reduce AI companies' impact on the environment, which has also landed many of them in lawsuit after lawsuit recently.
Nvidia announced the development at London Climate Action Week, saying that the next generation of AI infrastructure will use a liquid coolant similar to the antifreeze used in your car.
Because this new coolant can operate at higher temperatures, companies like Nvidia could rely on it instead of the enormous amounts of water currently required by data centers.
To many people, that sounds like a major breakthrough.
Tech giants such as Google and Amazon have spent years defending just how much water their data centers consume.
With this announcement, Nvidia's Chief Sustainability Officer, Josh Parker, claimed that:
"The water consumption challenge for data centers is largely solved."
Though I also have to point out that AI companies won't be completely off the hook.
Water is only one part of the environmental concerns surrounding AI infrastructure.
You also have to consider how much energy data centers consume, as well as the resulting air pollution and other environmental impacts.
There are a lot of moving pieces here.
Still, many tech leaders say this would be a huge development if AI companies broadly adopted the new coolant technology.
That said, this would not be an overnight fix.
Even if AI companies fully embrace the technology, it would likely take years before it spreads throughout the industry.
The average data center operating today was designed around existing water-based cooling systems.
While the move could ultimately save operators money through more efficient and sustainable systems, companies would first need to absorb the costs of redesigning and upgrading their facilities.
That means there would still be plenty of data centers using older cooling technologies — and the associated water consumption — for years to come.
And while Parker acknowledged that AI workloads are not getting lighter, the industry's ultimate goal remains expansion.
As AI companies build more and more data centers to meet growing demand, they could end up using just as much water overall as they do now, even with more efficient cooling systems.
So for now, there are still a lot of unanswered questions.
-
Also in the news, the White House appears to have a water problem of its own.
Because among other things, five people have been arrested and accused of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, including three-time Olympian David Hearn.
Additionally, another five people have reportedly received federal citations in connection with similar incidents.
Now you've got Trump saying:
"Work will begin immediately on fixing the seriously vandalized Reflecting Pool."
Adding:
"I just inspected it and could only say to myself and those gathered around me, wow, who would do such a thing? Sick, deranged people."
Because if you have a job, you might not know that the Reflecting Pool has been in the news ever since Trump decided to paint the bottom of it American-flag blue back in April.
Those renovations reportedly cost more than $14 million.
And it may be one of the most expensive botched makeovers on record.
Because almost immediately after the project was completed, the pool turned acid green from algae growth.
Then large chunks of the blue coating began peeling away.
And since then, the entire thing has become its own ongoing soap opera.
Trump has repeatedly accused unnamed people of pouring chemicals into the pool and even claimed that someone cut a 250-foot gash into the beautiful facade of what took so much work to complete.
He also publicly called out ABC reporter Jonathan Karl, accusing him of trying to damage the paint job.
As Karl reported:
"Look at that American-flag blue in the paint."
"It's actually starting to peel."
"It's coming off."
Which honestly doesn't seem too far removed from what David Hearn described doing before he was arrested.
Hearn said he stopped by the pool during a bike ride because he wanted to examine the new coating.
According to him:
"I'm a curious citizen."
He said he reached down to feel the surface and let go shortly afterward when a park employee instructed him to stop.
Despite that, he was arrested by Park Police and charged with misdemeanor destruction of government property.
He's scheduled to appear in court on July 9.
Though, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think touching paint that's already peeling off is the same thing as causing damage.
Also, the public hasn't really seen any concrete evidence supporting many of the allegations Trump has made online.
As a result, a lot of people think this has become a blame game.
Many argue that pointing fingers is simply a way for the administration to deflect attention from the quality of the work itself.
Especially because the no-bid contract for the renovation was awarded to a company tied to a longtime Trump donor.
A company that reportedly had only one other federal contract on its record.
That's why you've got people online saying things like:
"Trump's cheap ass got what he paid for."
"Shoddy work by questionable contractors."
You've also got people like Stephen King writing:
"Nobody is vandalizing the Reflecting Pool. And Trump knows it."
Adding:
"This is a visible example of his corruption: a no-bid contract to some crony, followed by sky-high cost overruns and shoddy construction to boot. Classic Trump."
"I didn't fuck up. It was my enemies."
Though for now, we're just going to have to wait and see what happens with Hearn and the others, as well as what ultimately becomes of this $14-million-plus disaster.
That, my friend, brings us to the end of your Monday Philip DeFranco Show.
You also have two options moving forward on screen and linked below.
I put out another little bonus episode on the secret-not-secret story, which I think is the perfect palate cleanser after another day of news.
And as requested, I also did a big minute-by-minute livestream breakdown of winning that million dollars that we're going to be giving away.
But no matter what you click, tap, or where you're headed next, let me just say:
Thank you for watching.
I love your faces.
And I'll see you right back here tomorrow.
