Supergirl's Fallout Is Bigger Than You Think
PDS Published 06/30/2026
-
Supergirl. Fallout is bigger than you think, and we’ve got to talk about what it really exposes.
The Supreme Court just humiliated Trump on birthright citizenship, but gave him a huge advantage in the midterms by lifting spending limits. We go inside the crazy North Carolina inmate revolt.
And if you've bought a PC, an iPad, or even a smartphone recently, you might actually be the victim of a massive corporate conspiracy.
We're talking about all of that and even more on today's brand-new Philip DeFranco Show—your daily dive into the news.
Trump Loses Major Birthright Citizenship Case
Starting with this: Trump just got hit with a devastating decision from the Supreme Court.
In one of its most anticipated rulings this term, the Supreme Court voted to uphold birthright citizenship.
So you had them striking down the executive order signed on the first day of Trump's second term, which declared that babies born in the U.S. cannot be granted citizenship if their parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.
It's also important that we get into the details for a number of reasons, starting with the fact that if you were looking at the headlines—or even going into the body of these news pieces—you might have seen some conflicting information about whether the justices ruled 5–4 or 6–3.
And the truth there is that it was genuinely confusing.
So we should break it down.
On one side, you had Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett joining the Court's liberals in the majority, ruling that Trump's order violated both federal law and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which explicitly states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Then, on the other side, you had Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito.
It's Brett Kavanaugh where things start to get a little confusing because you had him agreeing with the majority that Trump's order violated federal law, specifically the Nationality Act of 1940, which codified birthright citizenship into federal law.
But Kavanaugh also partially dissented, rejecting the Court's finding that Trump's order violated the 14th Amendment.
Which is why you had some outlets saying the Court ruled 6–3 that the order violated federal law, and 5–4 that it violated the Constitution.
But that discrepancy aside, I cannot understate how massive of a decision this is.
This would have changed how we defined citizenship in the U.S. in the most fundamental way since the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to formerly enslaved people shortly after the Civil War.
Also, the interpretation that birthright citizenship applies to the children of undocumented immigrants actually has roots going back about 130 years, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a man by the name of Wong Kim Ark.
You had this guy who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, and the Court ruled that he was considered a U.S. citizen, establishing the long-held principle that the 14th Amendment automatically grants citizenship to any baby born in the U.S.
There are a few limited exceptions, like the children of foreign diplomats, and you've had that precedent set in stone ever since.
But then you had Solicitor General John Sauer, arguing for the Trump administration, claiming that birthright citizenship had created a birth tourism industry.
He claimed that "uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States."
Sauer also argued that the phrasing of the 14th Amendment invokes a certain political allegiance that is required to be a U.S. citizen, saying that the Constitution did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or undocumented immigrants who have no such allegiance.
Then, on the other side, you had the attorney for the ACLU, which sued to block Trump's order, hitting back and saying that the phrasing Sauer referred to has long been interpreted to apply to the children of foreign diplomats and others—not children born on U.S. soil to parents here illegally or temporarily.
Arguing that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended a universal rule of citizenship, subject only to narrow exceptions.
Also beyond that, you had dozens of professors filing briefs supporting the legal challenge and arguing that Trump's order would be completely disastrous.
According to those experts, around a quarter of a million children would have been born without citizenship in the U.S. each year under Trump's order.
You're talking about roughly five million by 2045.
Many of them, they said, would probably be left without a nationality entirely because their parents would either be unwilling or unable to obtain citizenship for their U.S.-born children in their home countries.
That's on top of what professors argued would be enormous economic consequences.
In fact, that was echoed in another brief by over 140 scholars, which said that immigrants and their citizen children are essential to balancing the aging U.S. workforce, increasing the national GDP, and overall providing net positive fiscal contributions.
They argued that Trump's order would likely cause mass deportations that could result in labor shortages and increased economic strain.
Reactions to the Decision
As for the Supreme Court justices themselves, you had Roberts, who of course is a conservative, writing in the majority opinion:
"Citizenship then and now was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to every free-born person in this nation."
Saying, "We keep that promise."
Then, with the dissenting justices, you had them echoing the Trump administration's talking points, with Alito writing:
"This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court. In my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake."
Adding that the ruling will seriously affect the country's future.
As far as Trump's response, this is one of the times where I don't get to say Trump had a total meltdown.
At least publicly, he's not as pissed off as you might expect—at least as of the time I'm recording.
That is definitely subject to change because this order was obviously a massive deal to Trump.
He cared about this case so much that he literally went to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court.
You might remember it marked the first time ever in U.S. history that a sitting president had done that.
That's largely because of the separation of powers. You usually don't want the president there because it might seem like he's trying to intimidate the Supreme Court into voting a certain way.
But, you know, this is Trump.
Different rules.
One reason he might be more subdued is because he's getting used to losing.
Or two, because he is getting some other wins that we'll get to.
Just another example of his reaction: remember when the Supreme Court struck down one of his other most important policies?
He went ballistic.
He called them unpatriotic, disloyal to our Constitution, and a disgrace to our nation, among other things.
Today, as of recording, he did send out a number of posts.
They were unusually subdued for Trump.
You had him writing things like:
"The Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, which is too bad for our country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through legislation."
Arguing that a new constitutional amendment isn't necessary and calling on Congress to act.
Though there's a huge thing I have to hit on here.
Numerous legal experts have said that changing birthright citizenship would, in fact, require a constitutional amendment.
Which probably makes sense because it was literally established in the Constitution.
You also had Trump seemingly implying that this was all some kind of Chinese psy-op or that there's going to be a Chinese takeover, writing:
"I would like to congratulate President Xi and the great country of China on their massive birthright citizenship victory."
So maybe Trump was a little more subdued because he knew others would take it from there.
If that's the case, they definitely did.
You had people saying:
"I predicted the Court would rule against Trump because the globalists want the borders open. They want replacement migration. They want white genocide."
You also had Stephen Miller calling it:
"One of the most destructive and outrageous decisions in the long history of the Supreme Court."
Adding that:
"American citizenship belongs only and solely to Americans."
Which I will say is a pretty crazy take from someone whose family literally immigrated to the United States to flee Jewish persecution in Russia in the early 1900s.
Like, my man...
I know you love revisionist history.
But when you say they're flooding our borders...
Counterpoint: if we had closed borders, we wouldn't have Stephen Miller.
Stephen Miller being in power is actually one of the best arguments for closed borders.
Right? Against any immigration or asylum?
I'll have to think about it some more.
But back on topic.
You also had some people slamming the conservative justices who sided with the majority, saying that they were traitors who betrayed the movement.
While they all took hits, they really homed in on Amy Coney Barrett.
Hell, you even had Representative Nancy Mace literally calling for Barrett to be removed from the Court.
Supreme Court Upholds Trans Sports Bans
Though they didn't have a problem with her or the other conservatives in some of the other rulings today.
Because you also had the Supreme Court ruling 6–3 along ideological lines to uphold laws banning transgender athletes from playing on girls' and women's sports teams.
The case focused on a high school athlete in West Virginia and a college athlete in Idaho who challenged laws in their respective states requiring students to play on teams based on biological sex—AKA their sex at birth.
Even though the ruling was just on those two state laws, the implications are nationwide.
Around 25 other states have their own laws restricting or barring transgender athletes.
Title IX was at the center of many of the arguments.
In the end, Justice Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion:
"Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the states may maintain women's and girls' sports for biological females."
Saying:
"The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women's and girls' sports throughout America."
He also expressed sympathy for transgender athletes, noting that most people impacted by this debate are either teenagers or in their early twenties.
"Those student-athletes want to play sports. Their desire to compete warrants respect."
And saying:
"No student-athlete on either side of the issue—whether biological female or transgender—deserves to be ostracized or vilified."
As far as reactions, people who support bans on transgender athletes celebrated this as a major win.
You had the president of Alliance Defending Freedom saying:
"Blue states with boys on girls' podiums—you're next."
Then, in response, LGBTQ rights advocates emphasized that this ruling doesn't actually affect protections that still exist in states like California.
Though they still condemned the decision overall.
The president of the Human Rights Campaign called the ruling heartbreaking, adding:
"When politicians convince the public that any girl could be the wrong kind of girl, they invite harassment, intimidation, invasive questioning, or even an inspection of their body by a total stranger."
And on that last note, you had The New York Times pointing out some pretty tricky questions raised by this ruling.
Things like how sports officials will determine whether competitors are girls and women, as defined by the opinion.
While gender verification testing—a long-vilified and intrusive practice—has resumed at the Olympic level, how will grade schools, middle schools, and high schools conduct those tests?
Will everyone be tested, or just the athletes who draw suspicion?
Or, to put it another way, what happens if someone simply makes a false allegation against some random child?
Do they get barred from the sport?
Do they have to undergo some sort of medical examination by a stranger?
Ultimately, we're going to have to see what happens there.
The debate is, of course, far from over.
Supreme Court Lifts Political Party Spending Limits
That also brings us to the last ruling handed down by the Supreme Court today, which is being seen as a huge win for Republicans, especially heading into the midterms.
The Supreme Court lifted rules restricting how much national political parties can spend on advertising in coordination with candidates.
In another 6–3 ruling, they decided that these limitations violated free speech.
At least right now, Republicans stand to benefit the most.
The Washington Post, for example, reported that top Republican committees ended last month with over $250 million in the bank and no debt.
Compare that to top Democratic committees, which have just $127 million plus $18 million in debt.
This decision now allows these committees to use as much of those funds as they want in coordination with candidates and their campaigns.
Meaning they can get the lower TV advertising rates that campaigns are entitled to, while outside groups still have to pay higher advertising rates.
J.D. Vance was among the first candidates to challenge those rules back in 2022, joined by major Republican committees.
You had Democrats pushing back, arguing that this opens the door for political parties to pay far too many campaign expenses.
In her dissent, Justice Kagan wrote that the ruling:
"Enables a party to serve as an alternative checking account for a campaign."
Adding that:
"A donor will be able to give a party as much as half a million dollars, compared to the $7,000 you can give directly to a candidate."
But on the other side, Kavanaugh argued that the ruling allows both parties—Democrat and Republican—to participate more freely, compete more fully in the political process, and coordinate more closely with their candidates.
So yeah, overall, just a very big day out of the Supreme Court.
While they've now officially closed out their term, it feels like a lot of things have been set up for the midterms.
We're going to be seeing post-decision maneuvering and butterfly effects.
There's a lot to watch.
In the meantime, I'd really love to know your thoughts, opinions, and reactions to today's decisions.
And then there's more we get to dive into in just a minute.
-
But first, let me thank today's sponsor.
Because recently, you've probably seen—if you watch this show—that the Supreme Court handed down a major ruling on President Trump's authority to remove officials from independent agencies.
Depending on the headline you saw, you might have thought that the Court either blocked Trump, expanded his power, or did something in between.
To understand not just what happened, but how different outlets are telling that same story, I used today's sponsor, Ground News.
Sometimes it's about just seeing what the outlets are focusing on.
Some focused on the Court protecting the Federal Reserve, while others highlighted the broader expansion of presidential authority over other agencies.
So sometimes it's the same ruling, but with a very different emphasis.
That's exactly what Ground News lets you do.
It compares how hundreds of news outlets across the political spectrum are covering the exact same story, side by side.
It also shows factuality ratings and who owns each publication, giving you more context behind the coverage.
Though, as always, my favorite feature is the Blindspot Feed, which highlights stories that one side is covering heavily while the other side is barely talking about.
It honestly ends up being one of the fastest ways to find gaps in your news.
And hey, if you want help understanding the news instead of just reacting to the headlines, Ground News is absolutely worth checking out.
Head to ground.news/DeFranco or scan the QR code to get 40% off unlimited access to the Vantage Plan, which is 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.
-
But then we're right back into the news.
Let's talk about this whole Supergirl situation.
Because, well, a lot of people have tried to paint the situation as one thing or another.
It does, at the very least, seem like both conservative culture warriors and even normie movie critics—not the biggest fans—are generally united in their hatred for what's probably going to be one of the biggest flops of the summer.
"A cringeworthy, clichéd, tedious mess of dull, lifeless action scenes that we've seen a million times before. It's just... and then, and then, and then until we get to the ending."
I really liked the quotable lines from the villains such as, "Who?" and "He?"
And when he looks surprised, it looks like he's doing a bad Robert De Niro impersonation.
Jeremy Jahns—the last guy—his thumbnails always let me know exactly what he thinks of the movies. I still watch, but yeah.
The movie's generally been seen as kind of a failure regarding both the reviews and the box office.
It currently has a 54% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes, along with a semi-decent 76% audience score.
Though that audience score may also be impacted by the relatively small number of people actually watching it.
Opening weekend, the movie brought in just $37 million domestically and $68 million globally.
Which would be great if this were a movie with the budget of Obsession, but Warner Bros. spent $170 million on production alone.
That's not even counting the millions and millions of dollars spent on marketing and advertising.
According to Deadline, industry sources are estimating a $125 million loss.
So then, with that, you've got people looking for someone to blame.
A lot of fingers are being pointed toward James Gunn and Peter Safran, the guys hired a few years ago to make DC the new Marvel.
They're trying to rebuild an entire cinematic universe.
Their first swing, of course, was last year's Superman reboot.
That was generally seen as a huge win—it got good reviews and earned $619 million.
In fact, the sequel is scheduled to release next summer, with Supergirl meant to be the in-between film.
Many people said they didn't like Supergirl because of this thing or that—maybe the writing, the acting, the camerawork.
Others said they didn't like it for a very different reason.
"The American people, for the love of all that is holy, do not want woke."
Now, of course, almost any superhero film with a female lead is inevitably going to get hit by a bunch of guys going rogue.
But also, in this case, it looked like they were taking issue with the particular decision to cast Milly Alcock as Supergirl.
That appeared to be for a number of reasons, including disapproval of the way she looked.
"At least Wonder Woman kind of looked like she was in shape. This girl doesn't look super at all."
These are memes in my timeline.
Then, going past her looks, a lot of people got really mad about things she said while promoting the film.
First up, you had Milly telling Vanity Fair that her experience on House of the Dragon made her aware that:
"Simply existing as a woman in that space is something that people comment on."
Adding:
"We have become very comfortable having this weird ownership of women's bodies. I can't really stop them. I can only be myself."
You ended up seeing a number of conservatives getting upset over what they viewed as the feminist sentiment there.
You also had people hurling abuse at her on social media, which led to her telling Variety:
"I didn't even say men. I said people, and they got so angry. I was like, you're proving my point."
Then adding:
"I guess women know that this is just how it's always been, unfortunately."
She continued:
"It's from a lot of people whose profiles have no photo, who are burner accounts, someone's name, and then 'Dad for Christ' or 'Christian Dad,' which is hilarious to me."
Adding:
"Whose opinion do you really care about? If you're pissing the right kind of people off, you're doing okay."
That comment seemed to take what was a relatively small but meaningful fire and turn it into an inferno.
"So the right kind of people to you are Christian dads? The millennial dads—the men who grew up on Marvel and DC—who are most likely your franchise's most loyal fan base and target audience? Those are the right fans to piss off? It's just dumb."
Without Alcock's original quote, it got twisted into this giant game of telephone until it became:
"She hates white Christian fathers."
Which is clearly not what she meant.
Especially the white part.
She never even mentioned race.
Really quick, just to throw out my opinion and also share my personal experience:
I don't have a problem with religious people.
I'm friends with many.
Some of the best people I know are religious folks.
If you are a creator—whether you're the smallest person online or the biggest star in the world—you are very familiar with the type of internet account she is talking about.
Some of the most disgusting things—the slurs, the threats—that have ever been thrown my way have come from accounts that love to include Bible quotes.
That can be factually true while also not turning into "all religious people are bad," and certainly not into "all white Christian fathers are bad."
Then, of course, you had the outrage machine finding another thing to latch onto.
A reporter asked her on the red carpet whether Supergirl is queer.
She responded:
"I don't know. I think what makes this film so beautiful is that it's not centered around a man. It's centered around love. If anything... we'll see. I don't really know. I don't know. I don't know. It should probably go both ways."
That clip, I imagine, made Jesse Watters over at Fox News do a fist pump during the pre-production meeting.
"Guys, don't get into that. Maybe that's cool when you're 18, but when a girl's bisexual, we don't trust her."
"Yeah, we don't trust her."
"The ones I've met are super weird. So saying you're bisexual—it's not a turn-on."
"Do you think they're just trying to turn you off?"
"I hadn't considered that."
Then, yeah, the movie actually hit theaters.
When the reviews started rolling in, you had a lot of people on the right feeling completely vindicated.
"We're over the forced-upon-us girlboss era. It's not authentic. It's not organic. We're no longer buying it."
"It's not that women can't be empowered and fierce and all the great things. It's just don't force it on us in the form of Supergirl."
"If she's five-one, it's a miracle. She's very weirdly small, and they want us to believe she's this fierce superhero."
You generally had commentators and pundits throwing Supergirl into the same wastebasket as the live-action Snow White and the all-female Ghostbusters.
Others pushed back, pointing out that female-led superhero films have seen tremendous success before.
They pointed to Wonder Woman in 2017 and Captain Marvel in 2019.
Plus, you've also had a long list of male-led superhero movies disappoint over the past several years.
Think Black Adam, Morbius, and The Flash.
So some argued that Supergirl's failure has less to do with being "woke" and more to do with it simply being a bad movie.
Though you also had outlets like The New York Times suggesting it literally might be because she's a woman.
The paper reported:
"Box office analysts on Sunday noted an uncomfortable truth: Female-led superhero movies have been rejected almost uniformly over the past five years or so, perhaps reflecting a resurgent misogyny among the core fan base, which is largely male."
The report also said Warner Bros. executives believed the culture had evolved past that and were surprised by both the ferocity of the backlash and its reach.
Whatever the case, at least publicly, you have DC Studios saying they're moving forward.
Their chief executive said:
"While Supergirl didn't meet our box office expectations, it's just one component of a broader long-term strategy at DC Studios that we remain confident in."
So for now, we'll see how things move forward.
Though, just to quickly add my opinion:
I watched the movie over the weekend with my two boys.
It was okay.
I can 100% see why it bombed.
I don't think this lands on Milly Alcock or any one specific thing.
Also, I'm just going to move forward with my day.
I'm still interested to see what happens in the DC Universe—or whatever the hell is coming out next.
It's not going to become my whole personality to hate this film or try to turn myself into some victim of "woke Hollywood."
But with that said, this is actually one of the fantastic things about having a show like this.
I'd love to know your thoughts.
If you watched the movie, what did you think?
But also, if you didn't watch the movie, why?
For me personally, that's probably going to be the most interesting part of the story—hearing from you on it.
But then, to jump from that to some really, really serious news...
-
We should talk about this North Carolina hostage situation.
Because you had it going down at the Bertie-Martin Regional Jail in Windsor, a roughly 90-bed facility that holds pretrial detainees and short-term inmates from both Bertie and Martin counties.
Very early yesterday morning, you had 88 inmates taking control of the facility from the three guards on duty, with local law enforcement immediately responding.
The whole thing lasted nearly 10 hours.
As far as the full timeline, at around 5:00 in the morning yesterday, the inmates at Bertie-Martin started the revolt.
They pinned down the guards and took them hostage, though one of the guards managed to escape.
Within a matter of minutes, you had 20 deputies flooding the scene, along with agents from the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation and the FBI.
All of that kicked off one of the longest mornings the small town has ever seen.
You had negotiators desperately trying to figure out a way to talk the inmates down and keep them from hurting either the guards or each other.
Then, about four and a half hours later, they managed to convince the inmates to release both hostages.
We're not exactly sure what the deal was, but along with the hostages, 18 inmates also walked out.
Then, 20 minutes later, another 62 inmates surrendered, leaving only eight inmates inside.
Those guys stayed holed up until nearly 2:00 in the afternoon, when the final group was taken into custody.
The North Carolina SBI then announced that the facility was secure.
As far as the guards, we don't know exactly what condition they're in, but we do know they were treated for injuries.
As for the inmates, they've all been transferred to other facilities.
That includes everyone from low-level offenders all the way up to those charged with violent crimes.
As for the facility itself, it's essentially shut down right now while investigators work to determine exactly what sparked the inmate uprising.
You also had the local sheriff making it very clear that this jail is not under his authority.
He noted that it's operated by an independent agency chosen by the jail commission rather than either of the two counties that use it.
With that, he also noted that questions about staffing and the circumstances leading up to yesterday's events will have to be answered through the investigation.
But he did promise to release information to the public as soon as possible.
Community Reaction
Another thing you've seen is that this whole situation left the community shaken, especially the family members of inmates inside the facility.
"My son's safety was initially my first thought, just to make sure that he was okay. He did give me a call and let me know that he was okay and what was going on inside. He said it was just a mess. So I was concerned about his safety and his well-being."
Those concerns were made even worse by scammers trying to take advantage of inmates' friends and family.
The Martin County Sheriff's Office warned people that they had received reports of messages promising to release loved ones if family members sent electronic payments.
They explained on Facebook:
"This is a scam. At this time, neither the Martin County Sheriff's Office nor the Bertie County Sheriff's Office is placing inmates on electronic monitoring for release."
They asked anyone who received one of those calls or text messages to report it to law enforcement.
You also had others saying that what happened was a direct result of the jail mistreating inmates.
"A lot of stuff's been going on down at that jail. They're not feeding them, not letting them take baths, not doing things. Y'all feel like a riot just broke out for no reason? Those folks down there are going through stuff, and they're just like everybody else—they've got feelings."
Bertie County Sheriff Tyrone Ruffin pushed back on those claims, calling the rumors misinformation and saying he would address those concerns once the situation was fully under control.
But really, for now, we're going to have to wait, along with the community, to get real answers about what happened.
And then there's more we get to dive into in just a minute.
-
But first, let me thank today's sponsor.
If you've looked into healthier dog food before, you've probably had the same reaction I did:
"This looks great, but I'm not thawing frozen food every single day."
That's exactly why today's sponsor, Sundays for Dogs, first caught my attention.
This is real dog food made with human-grade ingredients—real meat, organs, and superfoods.
My dogs love this stuff.
It was created by a veterinarian who wanted dog food that was healthier than traditional kibble without making feeding your dog feel like a second job.
Because it's air-dried, you get the convenience of kibble with the nutrition of fresh food.
No freezer. No fridge. No thawing.
Just scoop and serve.
And honestly, my favorite part is how excited my dogs get the second the bag comes out, acting like I've suddenly become a five-star chef.
Because it's made with high-quality ingredients, it can support healthier digestion, shinier coats, fresher breath, and better overall health.
If you've been meaning to upgrade your dog's food, this is one of the easiest ways to do it.
Just scan the QR code or go to Sundays for Dogs to get 50% off your first order.
That's Sundays for Dogs for 50% off your first order.
SUNDAY FOR DOGS
Go to https://sundaysfordogs.com/phil to get 50% off your first order of Sundays for Dogs!
-
Your dog will thank you.
And then, diving right back into the news. In fact, your final block of the show today—it's more news you need to know.
Alabama Man Dies While Allegedly Disposing of Girlfriend's Body
First up, we have a story of maybe cosmic justice, you could say.
Because in Alabama, you had a man who recently died from a heart attack while trying to hide the body of his girlfriend.
The man was Daniel Robbins, and his girlfriend was Jessica Foulds.
Officials said that, based on the investigation, the female victim was strangled, and it appears the male was attempting to dispose of her body in a remote area.
Authorities reportedly found both of them on June 10 in a wooded area near the town of Carlton.
They also found a truck nearby that was still running.
The tailgate was down, and there were drag marks in the dirt leading toward the woods where the bodies were located.
When officials sent the bodies away for autopsies, they began piecing together what they believe happened.
Investigators believe everything unfolded during a domestic violence dispute the night before they were discovered.
While, yes, this may be a case of crazy karma, at the end of the day, it is still horrifying.
One, for Jessica Foulds.
And two, for her friends and family, who are never really going to get answers or the legal justice that likely would have come from a trial.
She leaves behind three adult sons and other loved ones who are never going to have that closure.
Even so, you're seeing them choose to remember her for the impact she made in their lives, saying:
"She touched the lives of many with her heart of gold, deep love for everyone, and a beautiful smile."
-
Then also in the news today, four men in Connecticut allegedly figured out how to make ATMs spit out cash like they were hitting a Vegas jackpot.
They reportedly stole over half a million dollars.
Unfortunately for them, the FBI was watching, and now they've been hit with a long list of charges.
Of course, I should say all of this comes with a big, fat allegedly.
But what authorities say they did is called a jackpotting scheme.
They allegedly targeted ATMs all across Connecticut.
Despite the name making it sound like there's luck involved, it's actually a specialized cybercrime where criminals physically access an ATM, connect hardware loaded with malware, and trick the machine into dispensing cash on command.
According to prosecutors, the group worked as a coordinated crew targeting ATMs over a 10-day period in August 2025.
You'd have one person open the ATM, another install the device, one acting as a lookout, and another collecting the cash.
A little Ocean's Eleven.
Authorities say they also tried to avoid detection by changing clothes between visits, wearing disguises, and using rental vehicles as they traveled from location to location.
Their biggest alleged payout came from a single ATM, where investigators say they walked away with roughly $136,000.
Ultimately, the FBI, Connecticut State Police, and local law enforcement caught up with them.
The four men are now facing federal charges, including conspiracy and interstate transportation of stolen property.
If convicted on the most serious counts, they could face up to 15 years in federal prison.
But then also in the news, if you've bought a PC, an iPad, or even a smartphone recently and thought, "Why is this so insanely expensive?"
-
Turns out, you might actually be the victim of a massive corporate conspiracy.
Because a massive new antitrust class action lawsuit was just filed in California targeting the big three computer memory manufacturers: Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron.
Together, these three giants control about 90% of the entire global DRAM market.
They've also been posting record profits ever since the AI boom dramatically increased demand for their products.
According to 17 plaintiffs—including everyday consumers and small tech repair businesses—the companies allegedly conspired to break the free market and drive the price of standard consumer RAM up by a staggering 700% over the last four years.
The lawsuit argues they got away with it by using the massive artificial intelligence boom as a convenient cover because tech companies have been paying enormous prices for DRAM to power AI data centers.
According to the complaint, the big three coordinated a massive, simultaneous pullback on standard DDR3 and DDR4 memory—the kind that goes into your phone and laptop.
The allegation is that they artificially manufactured a shortage so they could gouge consumers without fear of being undercut.
This also isn't the first time they've allegedly done something like this.
Back in the mid-2000s, Samsung and SK Hynix literally pleaded guilty to criminal DRAM price-fixing and paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines.
At least for now, though, Micron is denying the allegations.
Experts also note that it will be incredibly difficult to prove the claims.
Part of that is because companies are actually restarting DDR4 production since the newer DDR5 memory is being prioritized for AI applications.
Not to mention, investigators would have to find evidence that the companies actually colluded behind closed doors rather than simply making independent business decisions to chase the AI boom.
And then, not to sound too jaded or too cynical, but even if this class action lawsuit is successful, I don't actually know if it would be enough to change their behavior.
If anything, we've seen with similar situations and allegations that companies often treat these kinds of penalties as simply the cost of doing business.
Meanwhile, all the stuff we want to buy stays super expensive.
It ends up becoming a vicious cycle because every time we buy products at those inflated prices, it reinforces the market, even if the actual cost to manufacture them eventually goes down.
But that, my friend...
You beautiful bastard!
...is the end of your Tuesday's show.
Thank you for watching, being a part of the conversation in those comments down below, hitting that Like button to keep us in your algorithm, and all the good stuff.
I love your faces, and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.
