The Trump Betrayal No One Saw Coming
PDS Published 06/29/2026
-
Today we're going to break down what a lot of people get wrong, as the Supreme Court apparently just betrayed Donald Trump and saved mail-in voting, but also just gave him huge expanded powers.
The civil war in the Democratic Party just got worse, and a no-kill shelter was just found to have a mass animal grave. We're talking about all of that and even more on today's brand new Philip DeFranco Show.
Your daily dive into the news, starting with the Supreme Court just dropping a bunch of absolutely massive decisions today, with one even being so big that you had Trump panic posting about it and calling it a tremendous loss.
And actually, let's start with that one.
It's about absentee voting and mail-in ballots because, in a 5-4 ruling, they just dealt a major blow to Trump, saying that mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day can still be counted.
The case in question centered around a Mississippi law that said there is a grace period for mail-in ballots, allowing them to arrive five days after an election, as long as they were postmarked by Election Day, with the RNC, the state's Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party in Mississippi all filing lawsuits against the policy.
Something, of course, the Trump administration backed.
And they argued that it's illegal to count absentee ballots that arrive after polls close because elections are set for a specific day under federal law. And in oral arguments, their lawyers pushed false claims that Trump himself has repeatedly touted, claiming that allowing mail-in ballots to be counted after Election Day could increase fraud and undermine trust in elections, especially if the candidate who ultimately won the election was not ahead when polls closed.
Of course, it's totally bogus.
Honestly, the main reason that people distrust elections is because Trump and his lackeys have spread misinformation about mail-in ballots creating fraud. That's as even Trump himself has continued to vote by mail.
And at that point, you had Mississippi's Solicitor General hitting back, arguing that federal law only requires voters to fill out their ballots by Election Day.
Ultimately, you had a majority of the court agreeing, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett — though in instances like this Maggie likes to call her Amy "Comey" Barrett — joining the three liberals in support of the Mississippi law.
In fact, Coney Barrett was the one who authored the majority opinion, writing that federal election laws just require votes to be cast by Election Day, but then adding, "Election Day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before Election Day yet received afterward."
On the other side, you had Justice Samuel Alito echoing some of Trump's common talking points, writing in his dissent, "The majority's holding spawns a slurry of troubling election law questions and risks further undermining Americans' confidence in election integrity."
But then also, I gotta note that this ruling goes way beyond Mississippi.
Because there are 18 states and territories that have mail-in ballot grace periods and about a dozen others have grace periods for ballots that were cast by voters overseas, including military members.
Right.
And this affects just a lot of people.
Right.
Just in 2024 alone, according to NBC, there were hundreds of thousands of people who cast mail-in ballots that were postmarked by Election Day but arrived afterward.
So if this ruling had gone the other way, I mean, we would have seen absolute chaos breaking out, and roughly half of the country would have totally upended election systems just months before the midterms.
But instead, even this overwhelmingly Republican Supreme Court affirmed the power of states to have their own election laws here, at least for now. Put that asterisk on it.
A huge loss for Trump.
There's still a lot of people on this, actually, including myself, saying that it's insane that this decision was so close.
Like, while the Supreme Court handed Trump major losses, there's no denying that there's probably going to be more to come in the future.
But just over the last ten years, it feels like we just keep narrowly avoiding, by just the skin of our teeth, a full-blown autocracy and just the killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of votes.
To put it another way, you had one person writing, "A dark reminder that SCOTUS remains tempted to assert national power over elections despite the plain language of the Constitution."
Then also, in different corners of the internet, you had MAGA absolutely going off on Roberts and Barrett for siding with the liberals in this case.
You had them calling Roberts corrupt, saying he and Barrett have defiled the Constitution, though definitely, I'd say between the two, people were really honing in on Barrett, saying things like she's the worst mistake of Trump's first term and that she betrayed them with this decision.
But while some of the conservative justices did buck Trump on mail-in voting, they gave him a major win in another case.
Because you had the court ruling 6-3 along ideological lines that the president can fire heads of independent agencies without cause, just throwing out nearly a century of precedent aimed at protecting certain entities from political influence and dramatically expanding Donald Trump's longstanding efforts to concentrate power and control over the executive branch.
And here, the case in question centered around Rebecca Slaughter.
She's a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission that Trump fired without cause in March of 2025 as part of his broader attempts to purge liberal leaders from independent agencies and install loyalists in their positions.
And you had Trump firing Slaughter over an email where he said that keeping her in the position would be inconsistent with the administration's priorities.
You had Slaughter suing, arguing that under federal law the president can only fire FTC commissioners for, quote, "inefficiency, neglect of duty, and malfeasance in office," and claiming that her own removal was purely for political reasons.
You then had a federal judge ruling in her favor and reinstating her job, citing a 91-year-old precedent known as Humphrey's Executor.
Under that precedent, the Supreme Court gave Congress the power to require that the president must have a good reason if they want to fire the leaders of around two dozen different agencies.
And the idea there was that these agencies were designed by Congress to be independent.
And so, in order to ensure that independence, their leaders needed to be insulated from partisan politics in order to function properly without undue pressure or influence from the president.
And while you then had an appeals court upholding Slaughter's reinstatement under the precedent, the Trump administration then took it to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court should overturn Humphrey's Executor altogether.
And today, Donald Trump got his wish.
You had the six conservatives ruling that the protections for independent agencies were unconstitutional.
And while this decision really focuses on a very technical matter, I cannot emphasize enough how important this is.
Right.
Because the court overturned Humphrey's Executor as a whole.
This decision was not limited to Slaughter or the FTC. It impacts every independent agency that was previously covered by the precedent.
You have places like The Washington Post explaining this decision will usher in one of the largest changes to the operation of the federal government in decades, fulfills a major goal of the Trump administration and many conservatives, who have long argued the president should exercise unfettered authority over the executive branch.
And so you then even had Trump himself cheering the move as a big win and describing it as a historic and unprecedented ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to presidential powers.
Though apparently his abilities are not completely unlimited.
Because the Supreme Court also handed down another decision today to preserve the independence of the Federal Reserve.
There you had a case centered around a similar situation, which is Trump's decision to fire Lisa Cook, who's a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
Now, this case is a little different because Trump has used unproven claims that Cook committed mortgage fraud as an explanation for his efforts to oust her.
You had Cook, for her part, denying the allegations, arguing that they're bogus and saying that Trump only fired her because she refused his demands to lower interest rates, accusing Trump of trying to take control so that he can force it to carry out his own agenda.
So she sued over her termination, claiming that she was fired without cause and that Trump did not give her due process to defend herself against the fraud claims.
This morning, the Supreme Court agreed, ruling that Trump, quote, "failed to afford Cook the procedural protections to which she was entitled under federal law," allowing Cook to stay at her job while the case is litigated by the lower courts, a process that experts say could take months or even years to resolve.
And so, with all of this, very notably, the decision also affirmed the central bank's unique independence from the president, as well as the limits on his ability to fire its leaders, seemingly marking a very significant carveout to the court's parallel ruling in the Slaughter case.
But then the fourth Supreme Court ruling that we saw today is that the justices rejected Trump's push to throw out a $5 million judgment that was against him after a jury decided in 2023 that he sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll in the mid-'90s.
They were looking to overturn the ruling, with his lawyers arguing that the allegations were implausible and politically motivated.
They also claimed that the judge overseeing the case had prejudiced the jury by improperly allowing evidence from two women who claimed Trump had also assaulted them.
The Supreme Court declined to even take up the case, announcing the decision with no explanation and no noted dissent.
Of course, Trump chimed in on Truth Social, saying that the move was a surprise to him and claiming that the case was fake, adding, "This case is really against the United States of America and all it stands for and should never be allowed to happen to another president or candidate."
With him then also going on to say he will continue the fight against this weaponization and lawfare case against me, including the ridiculous claim of defamation, with all of my power.
And apparently, regarding that last point, you had Trump's lawyers planning to ask SCOTUS to review another verdict by a different jury in a second defamation trial that awarded Carroll $83.3 million.
And then finally, another blow to Trump, albeit a very minor one.
You had the Supreme Court restricting the use of geofence warrants that let law enforcement access location data from tech giants in order to see who is near a crime.
And there you had the justices ruling 6-3 that the practice amounts to a search as outlined under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and thus is subject to privacy protections afforded by the Constitution.
You had the court rejecting the arguments from the Trump administration, which defended the technique, and kicked the specifics of the case back down to an appeals court.
Clearly, a lot of the cases today were very, very consequential, especially for Donald Trump.
But also, we're going to have to keep our eyes and ears open because we've got a couple more biggies that are coming down.
Because the Supreme Court is set to wrap up its term this week, and there are still a few outstanding decisions.
And easily one of the most anticipated is the ruling on birthright citizenship.
The Supreme Court is going to decide on the legality of Trump's sweeping executive order that prevents babies born in America from being granted U.S. citizenship if both of the parents are illegal immigrants.
Then beyond that, you have the court expected to issue a ruling on a pair of cases from West Virginia and Idaho, with those challenging laws that prohibit trans girls and women from playing on public school and college sports teams that align with their gender identity.
While those cases stem from two specific states, it's been reported that a ruling in their favor would uphold similar bans in others.
For now, we're going to have to wait to see what those decisions are.
And then also, what do we see following all these?
How is it all going to play?
Because, for example, Trump's loss on the mail-in voting front, he's already using it as a reason to really push the SAVE Act.
Then there's more we gotta dive into in just a minute.
-
But first, let me thank a sponsor and say, you know, I'll be honest, I was a little embarrassed because within 30 seconds of using today's sponsor, Rocket Money, it immediately showed me all the stuff that I was actively being charged for that I had completely forgotten about.
A subscription, a free trial I never canceled, and an app that I genuinely do not remember downloading.
And that's not only a money thing, it's an attention thing. You know, it seems like no one has enough of that right now to catch stuff like this.
And Rocket Money, they're 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, consolidating your accounts and showing your bills, due dates, and pay dates without needing a degree in spreadsheets.
It builds budgets around real life, not the fantasy version of you that meal preps, never impulse buys, and always remembers the bills.
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 the phone.
Rocket Money users, they're saving a ton, and millions of people are using it to get their financial lives together.
Hey, let Rocket Money help you reach your financial goals faster.
Join at Rocket Money or scan the QR code.
That's Rocket Money.
ROCKET MONEY
Go to https://www.rocketmoney.com/pds to cancel your unwanted subscriptions.
-
But then diving right back into the news.
The Democratic Party, it seems poised right now for some sort of civil war.
Part of the reason you're seeing this pop up right now is because last Tuesday, you had those three candidates backed by Zohran Mamdani, including two Democratic Socialists, winning their primaries. And that sparked this whole renewed conversation over whether socialism is taking over the Democratic Party.
And these wins also came off as especially provocative because two of them went against sitting Democrats, and a third beat the chosen successor to a retiring Democrat.
And so, as far as reactions, you had things like when a reporter asked House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries whether Mamdani's endorsements were a "fuck you" to the party, he gave this not-so-friendly answer:
"Listen, the mayor and I agree to strongly disagree about some of his endorsements, and he's got work to do in terms of the conversations that he's going to have with members of Congress moving forward."
That response was also pretty tame compared to the response from Representative Josh Gottheimer.
Because he said, quote:
"Many of us believe, as I do, that if you're a socialist, you're not a Democrat."
And then you had 15 moderate Democrats signing this manifesto declaring:
"Politics forces false choices between extremes on the right and left. We reject that. We believe in a growing, fair, and competitive economy that rewards hard work, innovation, entrepreneurship... We are proud, not ashamed of America. We are mainstream, not extreme. We are capitalist, not socialist."
Which then, of course, begs the question:
What is Mamdani's reaction to the reactions?
And yesterday, during an interview with ABC's Jonathan Karl, Mamdani addressed all the criticism from his fellow party members.
Jonathan Karl:
"They put out a manifesto today. I don't know if you've seen this thing. Sounds pretty socialist to me."Zohran Mamdani:
"It's not a Communist Manifesto."Jonathan Karl:
"It's a moderate manifesto."Zohran Mamdani:
"I mean, you know, that's great. But what's a party if not its voters? And I'm proud to sit in front of you as the mayor of our city, having received more than a million votes a little less than a year ago.For a lot of people who ask themselves, 'What does democratic socialism mean?' we've seen a city with democratic socialist principles at the heart of it within our administration.
And what we've delivered has been record lows when it comes to murders and shootings.
I'm not interested in writing a manifesto, or frankly in reading one. I'm interested in delivering. And that's exactly what we've been showing."
And really quick, opinion time.
If I was those moderate Democrats, I'd be pissed.
Mamdani seemingly came out of nowhere and just kind of exposed himself as a generational talent that can communicate to the masses.
Though I will say it does feel like there is at least somewhat of a ceiling on the people that he can reach, at least whether it be independents or conservatives.
And that's because Republicans have really effectively, for a certain chunk of the base, made socialism like the boogeyman.
As soon as you start saying "Democratic Socialist," you're going to have people run the opposite direction.
I've talked to people that are like, "Oh, I agree with that policy, but I know I'm against socialism."
And I'm like, that's a socialist policy.
This is just an 18th-century pitch.
I'm going to start a new party.
It's going to be called the New American Populists.
And my slogan is that America needs a nap.
This world has been crazy.
This country has been crazy.
We all need to take a little nap and then get back to it.
There, then going back to those moderate Democrats.
They did probably like at least one thing he said, and that was him addressing the question of 2028.
Whether he would like to run for president or even be able to run for president because, as Karl pointed out, he cannot do so legally because the Constitution bars immigrants from becoming president.
Jonathan Karl:
"Do you think that's something we should change?"Zohran Mamdani:
"No. No. I think the Constitution looks good the way it is."Jonathan Karl:
"Just the way it is?"Zohran Mamdani:
"Just the way it is."Though even as inoffensive as that answer was, you still had the New York Post finding a way to spin that into a scary headline, writing:
"Mamdani weighs in on changing the Constitution so he can run for president."
Though I will say, to the Post's credit, they have at least been consistent in how much they hate Mamdani.
There's been a lot of switch-ups happening on the left and the right.
But the New York Post?
You can count on them.
They have been absolutely rabid in their coverage of Mamdani since day one.
Like, even with the most innocuous stories.
My favorite might have actually come from the weekend because you had headlines like:
"Zohran Mamdani jumps into New York City pool to kick off summer tradition while violating dress code rules."
As well as:
"Mamdani quietly attends Knicks games, sitting in section where tickets cost around $700 or more."
And:
"Ex-mayors join Hochul, Tish, and thousands at New York City's Israel parade while no-show Mamdani bizarrely rides bike around town in business suit."
Now, since Tuesday's primaries, that panic on the right has just dialed up to an eleven.
With, for example, Ben definitely-not-biting-his-viewers Shapiro going:
"The communist, America-hating revolution isn't coming. It's here. They want limitless taxation, transition the kids as a matter of course, limitless immigration, no limits on immigration, taxpayer-funded abortion..."
He then continued:
"Let's say that there's an economic downturn. Let's say a bunch of corruption stories about the Trump administration break between now and 2028, which, by the way, is quite likely. Let's say that from here Democrats do well in November, and the entire media apparatus attributes that to the increasing radicalism of the Democratic Party. Do you really believe that the Democratic immunity to full-scale third-world communism is going to be strong enough to reject something like an AOC candidacy? Let's be very clear. Zohran Mamdani's worldview was built by Barack Obama. Barack Obama was step one. He was much better at hiding his politics. Now you don't have to hide your politics anymore because of Barack Obama."
But then when it comes to these kinds of attacks, Mamdani's response has always been the same:
Judge me by my deeds, not by whatever boogeyman you have in your head.
Republicans are going to make you the poster child for the Democratic Party.
"Let them."
"We don't have to ask ourselves what life looks like if a socialist wins."
"We've delivered free child care for two-year-olds for the first time in New York City history."
"We've delivered tens of millions of dollars back to tenants who were taken advantage of by bad landlords."
"We've delivered 165,000 potholes being paved."
You know, if you look at the polls, it looks like Mamdani's approval rating has gone up in New York State.
And actually, when you narrow it down to just New York City, 58% approve and just 26% disapprove.
Though of course, that's New York City.
When you're thinking about all the different places you've got to win, not everywhere is New York.
And in the meantime, it is going to be interesting to watch this play out.
Right?
Does the DSA have growing influence in the Democratic Party?
Is there a growing civil war?
Also, are the Republicans' efforts to make them the face of the Democratic brand going to hurt Democrats, or give them maybe energy that they needed really badly?
I mean, Mike Johnson recently did a thing where he was warning Republicans about what the DSA wants.
And a lot of it sounded like he was doing promo for them.
He was like:
"These monsters at the DSA want to expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation, abolish the Electoral College, end all military and economic aid to Israel, prosecute U.S. and Israeli leaders responsible for the genocide in Gaza..."
Among other things, they also want ranked-choice voting.
And I was like...
Did Mamdani pay Mike Johnson to say this?
Because this very much felt like Mike Johnson believing in Democratic politicians more than the Democratic base believes in Democratic politicians.
And again, this part is my opinion.
I think a lot of people just get scared by the word "socialism."
It's a boogeyman word for them.
But the truth of the matter is, a lot of what these people—whether they're called Democratic Socialists or whatever, kind of the new upstarts that we've been seeing—a lot of the stuff that they're saying and promoting is stuff that FDR would've advocated for.
I think he's like the sixth most popular president in U.S. history.
And two, for that bloc of Democratic politicians that are trying to frame what's happening as capitalism versus socialism, what I would say to them is that only ends up being a winning argument if capitalism starts working better for even more people.
And right now, for the vast majority of Americans, it's not working fantastically.
It's the failure of systems, and the people that promote those systems, that open the door for alternatives.
And it feels like a lot of the politicians that are complaining really didn't learn the lesson that "Orange Man Bad" was a losing strategy in 2024.
People want to hear what their politicians are going to do to make their lives better.
A lot of these new faces and voices that we're seeing, they're doing just that.
But hey, we'll see how everything plays out.
And of course, with all of this, I'd really love to know your thoughts, opinions, and reactions in those comments down below.
And then for our final block today, let's do some more news you need to know, starting with...
-
Just a little reminder: if you're thinking about committing a crime in Mexico, think twice.
Because you might end up taped to a lamppost waiting for the police to come find you while Batman runs off into the night.
And no, it won't be the real Batman.
There is a vigilante in Lagos de Moreno who's apparently just like him.
He's become known for taping alleged motorbike thieves to lampposts.
And he's even leaving sort of a calling card, drawing mustaches and cat whiskers, along with the Spanish word for "thief" on their faces once they're taped up.
And with that, he's also left big signs above some of the people he's captured saying what crimes they allegedly committed.
He's been propping up the bikes that they allegedly stole right in front of the alleged thieves to show off their crimes.
And so far, at least five men have been discovered like that in the last ten days.
Now, the big thing is the police.
They're treating these men as the victims because, well, many people are going to find this funny, but we don't actually know if these men are guilty of any crimes.
It's still unclear if any of them are even under investigation for stealing the motorcycles.
As far as what we do know is that Batman has caused some injuries.
One person was even left bloodied and bruised after their encounter with him.
But police say it's not clear how close they are to finding this person.
They haven't made any arrests, and they've identified two vehicles that could be connected to the incidents.
But that's kind of where we are right now.
-
But then also, much more serious news.
And it's an update.
This morning, you had people in Venezuela waking up to the ground shaking under them.
It turns out it was an aftershock from the twin earthquakes they had last week, though thankfully there haven't been any reports of any additional damage.
But of course, you can just imagine how scary all that is, given that their whole world was turned upside down.
Since those earthquakes, you've got analysts estimating over 58,000 buildings have been damaged or destroyed.
The death toll, at least as of this recording, is at 1,450.
Though tens of thousands of people are still unaccounted for.
That's on top of the thousands who have been injured and just so many who have been displaced.
You had their National Assembly president, Jorge Rodríguez, saying:
"We are in critical hours and crucial hours to continue rescuing lives and to build camps where those people who have lost their homes, or who cannot return for whatever reason to their residences, can stay."
All while you've had rescue teams with shovels, ropes, and even using their bare hands digging through the concrete to save people.
You've got countries like the U.S., Brazil, India, Mexico, France—the list really goes on and on—also sending aid teams.
And with that, you had Venezuela's interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, saying that their search-and-rescue operations found 33 people over the weekend.
You're also seeing some incredible stories pop up, like a dad and his teenage son being saved after days under the rubble.
There was also a mom who was rescued with her 18-month-old baby.
Then also, with this, you're seeing a lot of people complaining about the response from the government.
It just hasn't been enough.
Some have complained that officials should have had a better response plan in place, or something like that.
Also claiming that they wasted time early on, which they say could have cost people their lives.
Because the first 48 to 72 hours after a natural disaster are just so crucial.
And that's as you're seeing reports of government rescue workers taking selfies in front of flattened buildings.
Then you also have some people saying that ruling party officials are politicizing the disaster, saying they're snapping pictures to shape the optics around who's helping and who's not.
With that, you've had some civilian rescue workers saying:
"They came to eat and take pictures to make it look like they were helping. They didn't even get their uniforms dirty like we have. We've been here for three days."
And then also, I'll add here that there have been some from the ruling party who have said the same about other groups as well.
But what I will say is, while you're seeing all that play out, there's a lot of finger-pointing.
And it does seem like the rescues that are happening—whether from government teams or civilian groups—are giving people hope.
For example, one civilian rescue worker said:
"Who's been looking for loved ones? Anyone else you can find. Doesn't matter who it is. Whether it's family or somebody else, if there is anyone alive, let's get them."
But then, in general...
What the fuck?
-
A no-kill animal shelter was just found to have had a mass grave.
Investigators in Northern California just found the remains of 117 dogs, with many appearing to have gunshot wounds, at Miranda's Rescue Animal Sanctuary.
You actually had Miranda's Rescue coming under scrutiny after animal rights activist Jennifer Raymond decided to look into it after hearing rumors about cruelty at the facility for years.
She tried to get documents and local authorities to intervene, but they ignored her.
And so she actually bought a neighboring property to watch the rescue.
Then one day, she noticed a massive pile of dirt.
That's when she said:
"I decided that either I was going to give up on this project or I would have to break the law, and I decided to break the law."
As a result, she and another activist trespassed onto the property and dug up the remains of eight dogs with what appeared to be bullet wounds to their heads.
And so she took them to the police, who then decided to open an investigation for fraud, animal cruelty, and the disappearance of about 730 animals.
With investigators using ground-penetrating radar, locating burial sites, and excavating 117 intact canine remains.
They also found 21 canine skulls, hundreds of additional bones, six loose microchips, and more than 600 dog collars.
Investigators say they found an area inside a barn where they believe many of the dogs may have been killed.
Meanwhile, the shelter described itself as a no-kill rescue and had accepted hundreds of dogs from both private owners and other shelters over the years.
Most of the time, it involved a surrender fee of $500 to thousands of dollars, which isn't uncommon in the industry and is meant to cover the cost of sheltering the pets.
The founder of the shelter, Shannon Miranda, has publicly denied wrongdoing.
He claims that he reported every euthanasia case and that it only occurred in rare situations involving terminal illness or dangerous behavior.
So, like if there was a dog that killed other dogs or attacked people.
And actually, despite the name, no-kill shelters do euthanize on occasions where situations like this arise—they just don't do it to free up space.
Authorities are asking the public not to rush to judgment while the investigation continues.
And ultimately, we're going to have to see what happens from here because so far there are no criminal charges that have been filed.
And authorities say that identifying the dogs and reviewing the evidence could take considerable time.
-
And then finally today, we've got the news that prices in the tech world are just continuing to go up.
Now, one of the most recent examples being that Apple just raised its prices on some of their most popular products by $500.
And so, you're seeing increases on their MacBook Neo, the Air, the Pro, and their other higher-end devices.
In fact, now you have tech analysts saying that the newest iPhones that are set to come out later this year are probably going to be more expensive.
As far as the reason, it's largely tied to memory.
Apple, along with pretty much everyone else, is having to deal with the increased cost of memory chips, which have gone up with the AI boom.
That's why things like AirPods, where memory storage really isn't a factor, are not impacted by this.
But you know, with prices going up, one of the questions out there is: Is this going to affect sales?
And so you're seeing some tech analysts saying that if consumers are psychologically prepared for higher prices, it won't have much impact.
Adding that an earlier announcement means the story at the fall launch is no longer the price hike, but the added value of the new devices.
You've also got other tech analysts saying psychologically this is probably going to be a bigger shock to consumers than the rising price of eggs, for example.
Because sometimes eggs go up in price, whereas technology historically has been deflationary.
Saying it gets cheaper over time.
You know, with all this, while "shocked" is a fantastic word for a YouTube title, one of the main reactions has been less shock and more people being pissed.
You got people like Bernie Sanders calling Apple out, saying that the price hikes are unacceptable.
You have others saying Apple is screwing us over because it's addicted to greed.
And along those lines, you had AOC also chiming in:
"We need to break up a lot of these companies that are far, far too big. And we also need to be instituting consumer protections for people."
As we've seen that reaction playing out, you then had Apple responding, saying:
"We've never seen a component price increase this much. This is not welcome news, and we are working tirelessly to find solutions."
But that, my friend, you beautiful bastard, is the end of your Monday show.
Though I actually do have to do one last thing.
I want to award maybe our first-ever Viewer of the Day, our Beautiful Bastard Award, which will be represented by this Luigi's Real Italian Ice that I'm about to consume.
That goes to the best comment on the last Philip DeFranco Show, which is not decided by upvotes, but by my passing judgment.
And so this goes to Emperor for the comment:
"Poison-resistant rats in DC? It's okay, Phil. You can just say Stephen Miller."
Which, yes, is slightly offensive to poison-resistant rats, but I'll allow it.
But hey, thank you for watching.
Thank you for hitting that Like button.
Of course, I'll see you right back here tomorrow.
