The Youtube Censorship Problem is Getting Worse

PDS Published 07/06/2026

• The U.K. Is About to Kill YouTube for Everyone

  This new law is threatening to kill our channel and others like it. As the UK government wants to force-feed takeover your YouTube algorithm. Is Mitch McConnell actually Trump's red card? World Cup scandals have now divided the internet in ways we haven't seen. Why you have Xbox now laying off thousands and what it means moving forward. We're talking about all that and even more on today's brand new Philip DeFranco Show.

  The British Are Coming... for YouTube

  Your daily dive into the news, starting with y'all.

  The British are coming. And this time, they're coming for YouTube.

  And 250 years after they got their asses kicked in the name of liberty, equality, and the right to one day make a hit musical about the guy that did stuff with the money...

  They are trying to suppress this very show that you're watching or listening to right now.

  This is pure authoritarianism. They're trying to rig algorithms now.

  You would basically just be asked to mouth the UK government, aka "Praise freaking Panda."

  And it's absolute bollocks.

  You've now got people on the left, the right, all over, sounding the alarm, and we should talk about what's actually happening, right? Because it's a very big deal.

  The UK Government's Proposal

  Where we should start is with the last month, right?

  Because you had the UK's culture department announcing that it would be considering proposals to restore the health of the country's media environment.

  One of those proposals?

  For social media companies like YouTube, Facebook, and TikTok to artificially promote so-called trusted broadcasters like the BBC, ITV, and Channel 4.

  Now, to be clear, this is just the public consultation period, meaning that the public is invited to give their input until September.

  So this technically is not actually a law yet, but you had the UK's media minister coming out and basically threatening platforms if they do not comply.

  Saying that, well, he hopes that they work with the government to reform the algorithm voluntarily. Legislation could be used if it's needed.

  And adding, "The ball is in their court."

  YouTube Pushes Back

  So one of the things you have right now is that YouTube has put out an alert to creators, warning them about what's happening, urging people to protest.

  You have them criticizing what it calls a "prominence regime."

  Since the proposal calls for rules to give public service broadcasters more prominence in feeds and search results.

  With YouTube pointing out that boosting some sources necessarily means suppressing others, which would severely limit the ability of independent creators to grow.

  So you've got them trying to organize a resistance movement under the hashtag #KeepYouTubeYours.

  Public Reaction

  So right now you've got a number of different reactions out there.

  Also, I'll say when you go online that the vast majority, whether it be kind of from normies to conservatives, they seem to be very much in harmony.

  The heart of YouTube, and any media for that matter, is the viewer. It's always been about what the viewer wants to watch.

  They simply don't want to watch your stuff.

  Their propaganda machines are losing, and they're losing so badly that the only way they can stop it is by making it mandatory to show the propaganda, right?

  Many people have thrown that propaganda word around, with many suspecting that this is less about making sure that people have access to credible news and more about imposing one state-sanctioned viewpoint.

  Among those who have already taken up that position, you have the British right wing with, for example, Reform leader Nigel Farage accusing the Labour government of trying to seize control of YouTube's algorithm to suffocate independent journalists.

  Saying the BBC has been biased to pro-mass migration, open borders, and net-zero views these past few decades. It's part of the reason we're in a mess.

  People have moved to X and YouTube in part as a response to that.

  Reform will scrap this heavy-handed lunacy.

  Meanwhile, you have others saying they're appalled at just how it all looks and sounds.

  "Prominence regime."

  It is something you hear out of RoboCop from the villains. That is actually terminology bad guys use in the movies.

  And here it is, just laid bare before you.

  But ass naked. "Prominence regime." "Prominence."

  What is this? What is this, North Korea? Right?

  Impact on Independent Creators

  Then also what you're seeing is that there are others who are less concerned with the politics of it all and more about their own ability to make a living.

  Because even if you're an independent news channel like this one, and you're doing your best to cover things factually, fairly, and responsibly—as I try to every single day—you're going to get hurt by this.

  People are going to be less likely to see your content.

  And if they do not realize that there is a thumb on the scale, they might not go the extra mile to seek it.

  And that's on top of the drastic YouTube algorithm changes that have happened in just even the last two months that have drastically suppressed a number of creators as well.

  Arguments in Favor of the Proposal

  So at the same time, right on the other side of the situation, you have some defending this proposal.

  Pointing out that misinformation online is a huge problem.

  A lot of people literally get their news from TikTok, from random people on TikTok talking about something, and they take that seriously.

  That is a problem.

  And I think it's good that they're doing something to combat misinformation.

  If it's mainly news, YouTube just has a news section.

  So if it's news, I don't... who cares?

  You know, news? I think that's good.

  Make it just be the main broadcasters or the main reputable sources.

  And while this is something that's going to affect everyone, it's definitely going to affect a lot of young people because, at least in the UK, social media has become now a major source of news for a majority of adults and around three-quarters of youth aged 16 to 24.

  Well, clearly you've got a lot of people saying, "Hey, something has to change," right?

  Joe Rogan or whoever spouting anti-vax bullshit or just stuff that everyone knows is factually untrue—that's rising to the top ahead of a number of things that are actually true.

  Then also getting buried under AI. It's just a mess.

  And again, you have people saying, you know, something's got to change.

  But the question is: should the government get involved?

  And if so, is this the right way?

  Phil's Take

  And for a good number of people out there right now, the answer is no.

  Misinformation has existed since humans learned how to fucking speak, lads.

  The question isn't whether misinformation exists.

  The question is whether it's government-backed.

  All that will mean is that people are going to seek out the other more because now it feels nefarious and evil if you're trying to force it upon them.

  With how important this whole situation is, I didn't want to just hear from, like, the professionals.

  I wanted to hear from you all.

  So we put out a poll.

  And the results were:

  • Just over half answered, "Government should never decide."

  • Then almost a third disagreed, saying it depends entirely on who defines "trustworthy."

  • Another 11% saying it doesn't matter—the algorithm was never neutral.

  • Then only 7% saying it's honestly good because feeds are drowning in misinformation.

  With one comment expanding on that position, writing:

  "It's in the right direction. Western countries with state media are generally well trusted. Think BBC and ABC and SBS. And while they're not perfectly free of bias, they're miles ahead of any American news. A better system would be significant regulation on private news corporations like Fox, CBS, etc., to ensure news they cover has checks and balances. Media trust is a tough nut to crack, but it feels the US barely tries, and you can see where that's gotten us."

  Then you had others agreeing that boosting trustworthy sources isn't a bad idea in itself.

  But they disagree that we can trust any single institution to decide who is and isn't trustworthy.

  For me, with all this, a lot of it does come down to nuance.

  And I am equally torn as a number of y'all.

  There are a lot of mainstream news sources that I do generally trust.

  I'm also aware that the rise of misinformation we've seen has kind of just hit a crazy level since, really, I'd say the pandemic.

  It's been horrifying and really hard to combat.

  A lie spreads just so much faster.

  But I am generally at a loss because I just don't fucking trust anybody.

  Whether it be corporations or independent media, it is just so necessary at a time where billionaires are buying entire news organizations or the public square and shaping narratives, and often pushing falsehoods.

  So personally, I'm against this proposal.

  But hey, where I'm going to kind of leave this is:

  If you feel very strongly about this, you can tell the British government what you think.

  I'll put the link in the description for you so you can click and get to it.

  But for now, we're going to kind of have to wait and see who blinks first in this game of chicken between YouTube and the United Kingdom.

  Some are placing their bets on every company having to fold to the government.

  Because the government has guns.

  YouTube doesn't have any guns.

  They're going to try to resist this.

  But at the end of the day, if the UK government tells them to jump, they're going to be saying, "How high?"

  They can just literally shut and block off access to YouTube in that country.

  Also, others doubt the UK would actually be willing to go that far.

  And I bet it probably wouldn't get to that point because while that would obviously affect YouTube, the UK would be far more affected by YouTube just all of a sudden not being there.

  The data that I've seen in terms of YouTube consumption in the UK—it's very high.

  But also you see big vocal creators like MoistCr1TiKaL putting his chips on YouTube having a spine made of steel.

  And if the UK government tries to big-dog them, I think there's a really good chance YouTube just grovels.

  Like, "Oh my goodness, we're so sorry. We didn't mean to be so rude. We'll boost them. We'll turbo boost all of your trusted sources. Oh my goodness."

  Hey, two things.

  One: What are your thoughts, reactions, opinions, predictions—all that good stuff? Let me know in those comments down below.

  And two: If you want to make sure you do not ever miss an episode of The Philip DeFranco Show, I highly recommend you go subscribe at Philip DeFranco.

  It's a Substack. It's an email list.

  But most importantly, it cannot be suppressed.

  If you're in North America, you can also join the text line at (813) 213-4423.

  I really only use that when YouTube is suppressing me even more than they've been doing.

  For now, we're going to have to wait to see how this truly pivotal moment plays out.

  Then also, speaking of governments that are trying to strong-arm organizations.

• Trump Admits to Asking FIFA to Reverse Balogun’s Red Card

  I'm so interested to see how this story is going to play out.

  You might be seeing one of the biggest scandals in World Cup history playing out right now.

  And you have Donald Trump to thank for it.

  Because if you've been living under a rock, you might not know that the World Cup is both as exciting and momentous as it is allegedly corrupt.

  The FIFA organization—which is to say, in many people's eyes.

  And at the center of this controversy, you have the suspension of Team USA star forward Folarin Balogun.

  Or, I guess rather, this is about the suspension of his suspension.

  The Red Card Controversy

  Because last week, you had the U.S. Men's National Team going against Bosnia when there was a little, let's call it, whoopsie.

  Balogun appears to have ended up stomping on the ankle of a player on the other team.

  And at first, the main referee didn't make a call.

  But after video review, a penalty was given, and they ended up giving Balogun a red card.

  So not only was he kicked from the game, his team had to play a man down.

  He was also suspended from the next game as well.

  And to be very clear here, the red card was pretty controversial.

  You saw a lot of people out there calling it overly harsh, saying that it was obvious that he didn't do it intentionally, and that there had been much worse play in the World Cup tournament.

  Trump Gets Involved

  And apparently, among those people who were against the ruling included Trump himself and members of his administration.

  Because shortly after the red card was shown, senior Trump officials, including Howard Lutnick and Andrew Giuliani, enlisted lawyers to help the U.S. Soccer Federation appeal.

  FIFA doesn't typically allow for appeals on straight red card rulings.

  The U.S. soccer officials argued that it was an improper red card because referees used slow-motion footage to determine the call.

  Though to be clear there, that is not a new practice.

  Video replay is actually very common, and players have absolutely been ejected that way before.

  But without Balogun, it was widely seen that the U.S. would be in kind of a rough spot against Belgium.

  So then Trump himself stepped in, making a phone call to the FIFA president, asking questions about the red card and requesting an exception.

  One of the things worth mentioning there is these two are pretty close.

  You've had Gianni Infantino spending years trying to suck up to Trump.

  He even, of course, famously gave him the FIFA Peace Prize when Trump was trying—and failing—to get the Nobel.

  As far as Trump, he's called Infantino "the king of soccer" and has invited him to the Oval Office several times and to events like the UFC fight at the White House.

  FIFA Reverses Course

  So you have Trump making this call.

  And then, wouldn't you know it, yesterday the FIFA Disciplinary Committee announced that it would delay the one-game suspension in favor of a one-year probationary period.

  So technically what's happening here is that if Balogun commits a similar violation within a year, the probation ends and he'll have to serve the one-game suspension.

  And while FIFA didn't provide an explanation for their decision, they did cite Article 27 of their disciplinary code, which says they may decide to fully or partially suspend the implementation of a disciplinary sanction.

  Reactions to the Decision

  The reaction to this news has been so interesting, both in and out of the United States.

  With this, you had Trump applauding the result on Truth Social, saying thank you to FIFA for doing what was right and reversing a great injustice.

  But then also, when he was asked by reporters about the situation today, he admitted that he didn't even know how the game or penalty system worked.

  "So I saw the play. And I'm a person that loves sports and was a good athlete, and I understand sports really well, really well. And that wasn't a foul. That wasn't even an infraction. That was two guys running full speed that happened to crash into each other. And he gave him a red card. I didn't know what that meant. I didn't think it meant much. Then I started hearing that that means he can't play in the next game. At least in this, it's one thing to penalize somebody for the game, but how do you penalize them for a game that hasn't been played yet? It's very unfair. You can't do that. So yes, I asked for a review."

  Why This Is Such a Big Deal

  Now, before we get into the reactions to that and the reversal itself—and trust me, there are a lot—we should talk about how unique this whole situation really is.

  Because like I said, FIFA doesn't allow appeals on straight red cards.

  This is actually the first time since 1962 that a red card during the World Cup hasn't resulted in a player serving their suspension.

  The last time you had it was when the Brazilian government intervened and asked FIFA to allow their star player to compete in the final against Czechoslovakia despite the fact that he'd been sent off during the semifinals.

  So this whole thing does have a certain déjà vu feeling about it.

  And it's sparked a lot of concern about political influence on the World Cup.

  You've got the coach of Norway's team asking about the precedent that this sets.

  Saying:

  "What about the next red card? What happens then? Is there going to be some committee somewhere that is going to take that card and say it's a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad decision?"

  Adding:

  "I feel also sorry for the United States because if they win, that will always hang over them."

  Online Reaction

  Then online, you've got people saying things like:

  "Trump getting Folarin Balogun unsuspended from the World Cup just shows you that everything he touches is corrupt now. If the U.S. wins the World Cup, it will be questioned."

  Others saying:

  "The president admits he doesn't know what a red card means, calls the referee suspect, and confirms he personally asked FIFA to overturn it because it hit our best player."

  "Corruption confessed on camera."

  "A dysfunctional country hosting a tournament it doesn't understand and can't win without political intervention."

  Belgium Responds

  Definitely no one's more outraged than Belgium.

  They're set to play the U.S. tonight.

  And they only had 24 hours' notice that Balogun would be reinstated.

  Their manager saying:

  "This is something you'd see on April Fool's Day."

  And the Belgian federation:

  "The Belgian federation does not defend itself. It does not protect the national team. It defends football in general. It defends its integrity, its ethics."

  You also had a statement from the Royal Belgian Football Association saying FIFA broke its own rules and left itself open to legal action.

  Adding:

  "In order to safeguard the legitimate rights of all participating teams and to protect the fundamental principles of fair play in our sport, both at this World Cup and at future editions of the tournament, the Belgian FA is investigating all potential options."

  Supporters Defend the Decision

  Then, in response to Belgium, you had a lot of people sounding off.

  Including the likes of Dave Portnoy saying:

  "When you declare neutrality in every single world war like Belgium has done, and rely on the United States to save your ass, you lose your right to complain about an overturned red card."

  You then also had other fans saying things like:

  "No one in this country is actually upset that the nonsense red card against Balogun was overturned."

  Saying it wasn't a red card to begin with.

  The people feigning anger are mad that Trump did the right thing and fought for our country.

  Saying these people are insufferable.

  Balogun's Response

  And as far as the head coach for Team USA, he applauded FIFA's move and said, in his mind, Balogun never even got the red card, and playing one man down during last week's game was punishment enough.

  And while he didn't say whether he thought it was right for Trump to step in, he did say that he wasn't surprised.

  Adding:

  "In the end, it's not that we're victims, but we're not the bad guys."

  And then, as far as Balogun himself, he hasn't had much to say about all this.

  He didn't react poorly when he was given the red card during last week's game.

  He even shook the referee's hand and talked to reporters afterward.

  You had him saying that while he didn't intentionally step on the other player, he was willing to respect the decision and never wanted to react out of anger.

  Adding:

  "There are still lots of people. We're inspiring little kids, boys and girls, who have to show the correct way to handle things, even when you think it's unjust."

  He also said that a yellow card rather than a red card probably would have been fair.

  And at least as I'm recording, he hasn't released a statement regarding the red card getting overturned and how that came to be.

  He did post a picture of himself on Instagram in front of a crowd of U.S. fans over Michael Jackson's "Bad."

  So you can dissect that as you will.

  And then there's more we gotta dive into in just a minute.

• Sponsored by Zocdoc

  But first, let me thank a sponsor and say:

  You know, have you ever finally decided, "Okay, I'm actually going to make this doctor's appointment," but then you just end up spending the next 20 minutes on hold, wondering if your symptoms might just kind of sort themselves out?

  But thankfully, I don't really have to deal with that anymore thanks to today's sponsor, Zocdoc.

  Find the Right Doctor Faster

  Zocdoc is a free app and website that lets you search and compare local, in-network doctors all in one place.

  Whether you need a primary care doctor, a dermatologist, a dentist, or someone more specialized, there are over 150,000 providers to choose from.

  One thing I really like is being able to read real patient reviews and detailed doctor profiles before I book, instead of just crossing my fingers and hoping for the best.

  You can also see actual appointment openings and book instantly without waiting for someone to call you back.

  Most appointments happen within 24 to 72 hours, and sometimes you can even find same-day availability.

  Phil's Experience

  And honestly, the biggest change for me is that I don't procrastinate nearly as much anymore.

  Zocdoc turns what used to be an annoying process into something that you can knock out in just a few minutes.

  Your health matters, and taking care of yourself shouldn't be complicated.

  Find and book the right doctor with ease.

  Just head to Zocdoc.com/DeFranco to get started and check your appointment off your to-do list.

  That's Zocdoc.com/DeFranco.

ZOCDOC

Go to https://zocdoc.com/PHIL Taking care of your health just got easier with Zocdoc

• Conspiracies Swirl About Mitch McConnell Being Brain Dead

  And then diving right back into the news.

  Is Mitch McConnell dead? Is he on life support? Did his wife leave the country to avoid pulling the plug? Or are Republicans scheming to avoid some sort of special election?

  What the hell is happening?

  Those are just some of the questions that are swirling around the internet because the senator's team has refused to provide any meaningful information about why he's been hospitalized for the last several weeks.

  McConnell's Mysterious Hospitalization

  On June 14, you had a spokesperson for McConnell saying the Kentucky senator had been admitted to the hospital but failed to give any additional details.

  And then about a week later, you had another spokesperson saying that McConnell wouldn't be voting in the Senate that week but claimed that he was still working closely with staff on Senate business and Kentucky matters as he continues his recovery.

  But again, there was no mention of his condition or why he was even hospitalized in the first place.

  And then last week, you had multiple outlets obtaining emergency dispatch audio from an incident on June 14.

  Their responders can be heard providing CPR for an unconscious person who had undergone cardiac arrest at McConnell's D.C. residence.

  But McConnell's team refused to confirm those reports and just updated their statement to say that he was still in the hospital and that he continues to improve.

  Then today, when asked by a HuffPost reporter if the senator was still conscious, his office refused to say, instead just providing the same statement as before.

  Which then prompted the headline:

  "Mitch McConnell's Office Won't Confirm if He's Conscious."

  Rumors Spread Online

  And as we've seen happen with just so many other politicians who have kept their health a secret, the total lack of transparency has allowed wild rumors and speculation to go viral.

  You've got so many people claiming that he's in a coma or brain dead, and that's why his team hasn't given specifics.

  With Laura Loomer claiming that a high-level source close to the White House tells her that, quote:

  "Mitch McConnell is officially brain dead. He's not coming back."

  You had one woman who said she was a critical care nurse claiming that it was highly unlikely that he was participating in daily Senate business after suffering a cardiac arrest that required full resuscitation at his age and given his recent health events.

  Adding that the statistical chances of a full recovery are slim to none and arguing that his constituents and the rest of America deserve the truth.

  Elaine Chao's Trip Fuels Conspiracies

  You've also had a lot of people noting that his wife, Elaine Chao, went to China just three days after McConnell was hospitalized, a fact that fueled even more theories.

  With that including from Adam Cochran, who claimed that if McConnell vacated his seat before the August 3 cutoff, there would be a special election and anyone could register as an independent.

  Noting this could include recently ousted Congressman Thomas Massie and arguing that a run from Massie would split the Republican vote, giving him—or maybe even the Democrat—a chance to win by plurality.

  But then also adding that if McConnell's seat is not vacated before the third by legally stepping down or a signed death certificate, it's too close to the next election and the rules prevent a special election.

  Which bars any new registrations at that point.

  And you had him then going on to claim that because McConnell's wife traveled to China after he was hospitalized, the next of kin isn't available to sign off.

  And so the bar for ending life support is extremely high.

  You then had him concluding:

  "So all they have to do is drag their feet until August 3, then tell you that he didn't make it, and in turn block Massie from disrupting an otherwise safe Republican seat."

  Breaking Down the Claims

  Right. I mention that because that just went super viral.

  So there's a few things we've got to unpack here.

  First of all, it appears that Cochran is referring to a few different Kentucky laws.

  The first is a bill the state's Republican legislature passed back in 2024 that stripped the governor of appointment powers when there's a vacancy for a Senate seat, instead mandating that a special election take place.

  And the second is a provision of Kentucky's constitution that says if there's a vacancy less than three months before an election, the office will be filled by an appointment.

  The issue there is that the 2024 bill got rid of the governor's appointment powers.

  And while some argue that violates the state constitution, it hasn't been tested yet.

  To make matters even more confusing, the 2024 law is incredibly vague.

  It doesn't even specify exactly when the special election must be held.

  Instead, it just says that the governor needs to issue a proclamation declaring a special election at least 56 days before it takes place, and candidates must file at least 49 days before.

  But there doesn't seem to be anything in the law that prevents a special election from happening within a set timeframe of a general election.

  And so, hypothetically, it seems like a special election could potentially be held after the general election, and the person who won would just hold the seat for the final few weeks of that term.

  Now, whether or not that would actually happen ends up being a completely different matter.

  Especially because the 2024 law is vague, totally untested, and potentially even illegal under the state constitution.

  Why the Theory Doesn't Fully Add Up

  And making this extra unique is that McConnell has already said that he's resigning at the end of his term.

  And the general election this November is set to determine who's going to hold his old seat for the next six years.

  So to that point, when you take a step back from all the technicalities, there are also a number of logical flaws to Cochran's theory.

  One, even if there was a special election, the person who won would only hold the seat for a few months at the very most.

  So why would McConnell's team, the Republicans in general, or whatever powers that be, keep him alive just to prevent that?

  Then there's also this idea that his wife might be in China so that she doesn't have to decide to pull him from life support, which would require her to stay out of the country for weeks.

  Now, you did have Cochran trying to explain his legal justifications in a lengthy tweet.

  But he also didn't really address some of the outstanding issues.

  And he still insisted that the August 3 cutoff was legally relevant.

  But also, that was after his initial post went absolutely viral and was spread all over the internet.

  You've seen plenty of people across the political spectrum echoing his claims, including those from the far right.

  Like MAGA activist Kylie Jane Kremer, who posted:

  "The RINOs in power can't afford for that to happen. Which is why this whole situation feels like Weekend at Bernie's. Weeks have gone by with virtually no meaningful update on the condition of a sitting U.S. senator. The lack of transparency has been outrageous and has left people wondering whether he's being kept on life support or whether the full truth simply isn't being told. Has he already died? Something about this entire situation doesn't add up, and the American people deserve answers."

  Phil's Take

  And at the very least, I will agree with that last part.

  The American people do deserve answers.

  We've seen this man freeze.

  We've seen this man have unexplained injuries.

  This is unfortunately not a unique situation because there are just a lot of really old people in Congress who seemingly have health problems that we aren't privy to.

  You can make arguments that people are allowed to have their privacy.

  But when you represent the people, and it's about you doing the fucking job, the American people deserve to know.

  Hey, while we're just throwing out conspiracy theories, let me do mine.

  Mitch McConnell has actually been dead for the last eight months, and he's actually just been puppeteered since then by a mixture of nanorobots, AI, and the literal devil.

  You know, whatever is going on with Mitch McConnell, it is crazy.

• Dozens of People Shot Across the U.S. on the Fourth of July

  But it's also a different kind of crazy than what we saw kind of unfold this weekend over the Fourth of July.

  Well, my Fourth of July was fantastic. I didn't look at the news for 72 hours.

  I spent great time with my family.

  At the same time, you had mobs, mass arrests, dozens shot, and several killed.

  While an uptick in violence around the holiday is not exactly new, this year we were kind of left wondering whether future celebrations could be even more dangerous.

  Violence Across the Country

  That's in part because Trump is in the process of tearing apart hard-won gun control measures.

  And, you know what, at least one of the proposed changes will likely directly benefit his family.

  But where we should start regarding the chaos this weekend is in Newport Beach, California.

  That ended up being a good example.

  You reportedly had illegal fireworks, street fights, and heavy policing afterward that resulted in over 400 arrests.

  You had the head of the local police association claiming in a post on social media:

  "A large group of agitators invaded Newport Beach, spurred on by an alleged TikTok trend. These persons came to our city with the intent on causing harm, injury, and destruction, bringing harassment, disturbances, and riots."

  And then you had another alleged "teen takeover" in Florida.

  That one ended with a 19-year-old being shot and killed, while six others ranging from 16 to 26 years old were also shot.

  They all wound up recovering from their injuries at various hospitals.

  And ultimately, across at least nine states—including Florida, New York, Texas, Illinois, Arizona, Indiana, Tennessee, Michigan, and South Carolina—more than 50 people were shot over the weekend, with at least six killed.

  Why the Fourth of July Is So Violent

  And again, this is not entirely out of the ordinary.

  July 4 and July 5 are consistently the most violent days of the year in the United States.

  If you were wondering, like I was, what the second one is...

  It's followed by January 1st.

  Which is the weirdest New Year's resolution imaginable.

  One criminologist who analyzed that data told The New York Times:

  "Holidays and celebrations often involve drinking, sometimes drug use, and unfortunately, also guns. If there are lots of strangers, altercations and arguments can arise, and people may end up firing weapons."

  Trump's Proposed Gun Policy Changes

  And now, some of the news you're seeing is that thanks to Trump, there could soon be more guns on the street.

  With his administration now moving to scrap more than three dozen firearms regulations.

  For example, it'll be harder to revoke a gun dealer's license, requiring evidence not only that a dealer broke the law, but also that he or she knowingly broke the law.

  With many worrying that you're going to have more dealers who falsified business records, skipped background checks, or otherwise sold guns to people who are not meant to own them escaping consequences.

  Then on top of that, it's going to be easier for people who have been barred from gun ownership because of mental illness to purchase a firearm.

  And in fact, an analysis from Trump's own Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives found that the public safety risk could range from minimal to considerably greater, up to and including potential mass-casualty events.

  Critics Push Back

  And because some of these regulations were only introduced under Joe Biden—who, after a series of deadly mass shootings, signed into law the first major gun control reform we've had in decades—you're seeing the head of one of the country's biggest gun control organizations telling The New York Times:

  "With the Biden regulations that we got and put in place, we advanced the cause of public safety."

  But then she added that the Trump administration's approach takes us back 100 steps.

  Saying:

  "It's really decimating ATF's ability to regulate this industry."

  The White House Response

  As far as the White House, you had an official accusing the Biden administration of going around Congress to restrict gun rights.

  This administration, since the beginning, has been working to undo Biden's policies.

  Early on, for example, they ended Biden's so-called zero-tolerance approach toward gun dealers who broke the law.

  And now they're also challenging gun control measures that Democrats have passed at the state and local level.

  You also have other government agencies doing their part.

  Trump's Health and Human Services Department slashed funding for research into gun violence prevention.

  Also, the Postal Service has proposed allowing people to ship handguns through the mail.

  Trump Jr. and GrabAGun

  Something that really stands out because Donald Trump Jr. has a stake in a company aiming to become the "Amazon of guns."

  It's aptly called GrabAGun.

  And Trump Jr. got involved shortly after his dad got elected to a second term.

  Making a deal with the company to serve as a consultant in exchange for 300,000 shares of stock, or just over 1% of the company's value.

  Though since then, his shares—which were worth around $5 million—have dropped to around $700,000.

  Though if this rule goes through, those shares, wouldn't you know it, could skyrocket.

  You've got the ATF projecting that roughly half of all gun buyers—nearly 3.3 million people per year—would eventually use the home-delivery method.

  With that, you've got gun control groups arguing that shipping millions of firearms directly to buyers' homes is going to make it far easier for anyone who wants a gun to get a gun, no matter what other protections are supposed to be in place.

  What Happens Next?

  While these rules, many of them, still have to be finalized, some are still in the public comment period.

  Others might face legal challenges.

  Gun control advocates argue that this is ultimately putting the U.S. on a path that is going to lead to more people dying.

  You've got the head of another major group saying:

  "These guns are going to start to percolate back out into the community over the next couple of years."

  Adding:

  "I sadly expect that we will see an increase in violent crime."

  Of course, I say that as the levels of violent crime in this country are already exceptionally high compared to similarly wealthy countries.

• Bulletproof Vest Saves NYPD Officer Who Was Shot 10 Days Before Retiring

  And then for your final block today, we've got more news you need to know quickly.

  NYPD Officer Shot Days Before Retirement

  And it actually starts with, you know, that ninth and final story.

  It happened when an NYPD officer was shot in the back 10 days before he was supposed to retire.

  And apparently, it was friendly fire.

  It all happened yesterday in Brooklyn, a little after 4 p.m.

  The officer, Robert Carroll, was sitting in an unmarked car with three other officers.

  Reportedly, they'd all been reassigned to the area just a few hours earlier to help with the city's Fourth of July violence-reduction efforts.

  The Shooting

  What you had is that, a block away from where they were parked, an 18-year-old was caught on CCTV walking around with a gun in his waistband.

  Apparently, a few minutes before his run-in with the cops, he was also caught on camera pointing the gun at a man outside of a nearby deli.

  Reports say he even took a shot at an Uber that was driving by.

  While there's no body camera footage to prove exactly what happened when that guy came across Carroll and the other officers, according to NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch, he approached the car, and they all got out to engage him.

  At that point, the gunman opened fire.

  He reportedly kind of just sprayed the area.

  Officer Carroll was struck.

  There was another officer injured, though we aren't sure if that one was also the result of friendly fire or not.

  The suspect also hit their car at least seven times.

  That's when you had three officers shooting back.

  And apparently, one of those shots hit Officer Carroll.

  The Suspect Is Arrested

  With that, the gunman ended up still actually getting away.

  Though, I'll say, not for long.

  Because he made it only a few blocks before officers eventually caught up with him.

  They tased him and took him into custody.

  Carroll's Condition

  As far as what else we know, for Carroll, that bulletproof vest was literally the difference between life and death.

  Because he ended up suffering only a back contusion.

  And the second officer also suffered contusions to the face and arm.

  And while we wait for the identity of the shooter to be released, it's expected that these officers are going to make a full recovery.

  We also need to see what else comes from this investigation.

  Right?

  Motive.

  What charges is this guy going to get?

  Officials Respond

  We did have Mayor Eric Adams and other New York officials speaking out about it yesterday.

  "I want to take this moment to express my gratitude that this incident did not hold more grave consequences. And to Detective Carroll, and to every officer who has been safeguarding our city over what has been a busy holiday weekend, thank you."

  He also notably mentioned another shooting in the city this weekend where a masked gunman opened fire on a family cookout, leaving eight people shot, including four kids, with one adult still in critical condition.

  "There is no place for this kind of violence in our city. We will not tolerate it, and we will fight it with every single tool at our disposal. Let us also recommit ourselves to the work of building a city where every celebration is safe and every holiday is peaceful."

  Missing Mississippi Teen

  You then also have the news about the search for 18-year-old Nolan Xavier Wells, who disappeared this weekend during a celebration on Horn Island in Mississippi.

• Body Found Amid Search for Missing Mississippi Teen

  The biggest news there is that the search team announced this morning that they found a body.

  While that body still technically hasn't been identified, you have Jackson County Coroner Bruce Lynd saying:

  "There is no reason to believe it is not him."

  And you had Wells' mom posting on Facebook saying their family is absolutely devastated and asking for space to grieve.

  What We Know So Far

  While the details are still slim, what we do know is that Wells sailed to Horn Island with a group of friends.

  Officials say that he was last seen around 3 p.m. hanging out with a girl.

  Then, really after that, nothing.

  So then his parents were specifically asking for more information from anyone who may have seen him after 4:30 p.m.

  They've been out there looking for him.

  Officials launched a search as well, both on land and in the water.

  Online Speculation

  While we're waiting now to see if there's confirmation that this is his body, you've got people online letting others know they have their suspicions.

  You've got a lot of people out there saying they're skeptical or feel unnerved about a group of white friends returning safely without the only Black kid they went boating with.

  Others saying things like:

  "I never want to see white folks questioning the Black community on why so many teach their children to not be the only Black kid in the friend group."

  Phil's Closing Thoughts

  I do want to note that, right now, none of his friends have been officially implicated in Wells' disappearance.

  So I also understand that the optics of this raise red flags for a number of people.

  And you've got some comparing it to the Tamla Horsford case from a few years ago.

  You know, where she was found dead in her friend's backyard after going to a sleepover where she was apparently the only Black woman in the group.

  But hopefully we get an official confirmation with all this.

  Then your final bit of news today.

• Xbox Announces Major Layoffs

  The final bit of news today is that Xbox actually just announced this morning that they're cutting 20% of its gaming division, removing layers of management, restructuring studios, and somehow they're still getting praised.

  Major Workforce Reduction

  That means that by the end of next year, they will have 3,200 fewer positions, with 1,600 of those layoffs happening today.

  And on top of that, you had Xbox's new CEO, Ashish Sharma, saying that its studios would be refocusing their efforts on proven IPs and games, which is normally code for canceling projects and shuttering studios.

  The Silver Lining

  That is also where the silver lining comes in.

  Because at least four studios—and possibly more across the next year—are going to be going independent, or they're in talks to be sold off.

  So that means that despite the mass layoffs, no studios are actually being shuttered.

  And Xbox confirmed that no games are getting canceled.

  Which, if you're familiar with this space, is actually a pretty rare thing in the gaming industry.

  Because normally a company would just want to keep an IP in their back pocket in case they ever wanted to resurrect it instead of letting it go.

  This includes Double Fine, Compulsion Games, Ninja Theory, and Undead Labs, all of which have some successes under their belts.

  A More Transparent Explanation

  And then another thing you saw people pointing out about this morning's announcement from Sharma was that it just felt very transparent.

  You had him making it clear that there were shrinking margins, rising development costs, and a studio system that grew faster than the business itself.

  And so, taking the studio investment as a whole, so far they've lost $0.64 for every dollar invested.

  It was hoped that Game Pass and other business models would offset their losses.

  But it hasn't—not by a wide margin.

  All while the core business—Xbox consoles—died.

  Xbox's New Strategy

  And now you're seeing the plan, which is to go leaner and cut management layers to just three to five at most, which would be a huge change from the 14 layers that it currently deals with.

  Then you have them saying that there's going to be a bigger focus on Xbox's largest franchises.

  Stuff like Minecraft, Candy Crush, and other various titles by Activision Blizzard.

  Actually, Minecraft and Candy Crush will be reporting to Sharma directly.

  Plus, you have some reports saying that Halo might actually be moving under Activision's care, since they have a track record of pumping out a Call of Duty every year with almost no duds.

  Mixed Reactions

  And in total, you've got Sharma hoping to grow Xbox from a billion yearly users to a billion daily users.

  Though obviously there are people not happy because, you know, those silver linings—they're great.

  But still, at the end of the day, you're talking about thousands of people losing their jobs.

  And you're seeing mixed reactions because part of this is because Microsoft still hopes that AI is going to fill in the gaps.

  But then also, at the end of the day, this is mostly because the company bit off way more than it could chew.

  Closing

  But then, my friend...

  You beautiful bastard.

  That is the end of your Monday's Philip DeFranco Show.

  Thank you for watching.

  I love yo' faces.

  And I'll see you right back here tomorrow.