The Story AntiVax Groups Don’t Want You Asking About
PDS Published 07/15/2026
-
We've got to talk about how you have this mom who's blaming vaccines for what happened to her twin toddlers, but now she's being charged with murder.
As a group co-founded by RFK Jr. is still supporting her. Also, this Donald Trump, Todd Blanche, Jay Clayton situation is insane and why it's going to get worse Thursday. You've got a massive Canadian wildfire crisis that's turning into an air quality nightmare here in the U.S., and why you have Democrats derailing a must-pass defense bill around an unprecedented military partnership between the U.S. and Israel.
We're talking about all of that and even more on today's brand new Philip DeFranco Show, your daily dive into the news.
The Deaths of the Twin Toddlers
Starting with this, we need to talk about the situation around a woman that you've never heard of by the name of Andrea Shaw. She's a now 23-year-old mother in Idaho.
On May 1, 2025, she said that she found her 18-month-old twins, Tyson and Dallas, face down and dead in their shared bedroom.
Just a few days later, she and her husband sat down for an interview with Children's Health Defense, that controversial anti-vaccine nonprofit co-founded by RFK Jr. During that interview, Shaw said that vaccines had killed her babies.
About a week before their deaths, the twins had been given several standard childhood vaccines, including hepatitis A, flu, tetanus, and a few others. She claimed that during that appointment she had raised questions with her pediatrician about the flu vaccine in particular because members of her husband's family had reactions to it. She says that the doctor convinced her that the twins should still get the shot.
Then two days later, she took them to the hospital after they started experiencing diarrhea and vomiting. According to the hospital records, one of the kids did have a temperature of 99 degrees, but the doctor said that they were having a simple post-immunization reaction, which was treated with Tylenol and ice.
It was then a few days after that visit that Shaw found her twins dead.
Anti-Vaccine Claims Gain Support
When asked about her stance on vaccines during the interview with Children's Health Defense, she said:
"I wish I was anti-vaccine."
Unsurprisingly, this organization embraced Shaw with open arms, heavily pushed that interview, set up a GiveSendGo fundraiser that brought in more than $11,000, and named her as the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against the American Academy of Pediatrics, the top society of pediatricians in the U.S.
That lawsuit specifically accused the AAP of racketeering. They alleged that the organization falsely claimed that vaccines were safe and that the deaths of Dallas and Tyson proved they were not.
Murder Charges Filed
But then fast forward to last month, over a year after the twins' deaths, Andrea Shaw was arrested for murdering her own children.
This happened literally just five days after giving birth to a new baby.
Specifically, the grand jury indictment claims that Shaw suffocated her babies in an act that was either premeditated or committed during the course of aggravated child abuse.
She still claims that it was actually the vaccines that killed her kids, and Children's Health Defense has stood by her.
In that first interview they did just days after the twins died, Shaw literally said that police believed her children were suffocated and that she had supposedly had a postpartum overwhelming blackout and done it to her babies.
You had Children's Health Defense repeatedly dismissing both the criminal investigation and now the charges that have been levied against her.
The group's chief executive saying they will continue to back her claims following the arrest:
"They're messing with the wrong people. We stand for the truth. And the truth is that vaccines can cause death. And there's no evidence so far that this woman killed her children."
The Medical Evidence
As far as the actual case here, you have Shaw's lawyers telling multiple media outlets that they plan to argue that it was actually the vaccines that caused the suffocation.
But then with that, you have experts saying that's simply not a thing.
One doctor and vaccine expert at Baylor College of Medicine said he is not aware of any vaccine that would be able to cause suffocation.
"If that were the case, you'd expect to see other cases appearing in the community."
They also added that in this specific case it is even more unlikely because both kids died at the same time, and it happened a week after they received the vaccinations.
Beyond that, Shaw's lawyer failed to provide any evidence to support his claim when asked by reporters.
Judge Revokes Bond
During a court hearing yesterday, the judge overseeing the case noted that the defense has not identified any experts to testify on their behalf.
Also during that same hearing, the judge revoked Shaw's bond.
Initially, the bond had been set at $2 million, but Shaw's lawyer asked the judge to drop it to $100,000, arguing that she needed to be at home to breastfeed her new baby and wasn't a public safety risk.
But state prosecutors pushed back, arguing that her bond should actually be revoked entirely because this is a case where the death penalty is possible.
They also argued that Shaw could pose a risk to her newborn.
"That child is the most at-risk individual as a result of this case and as a result of the defendant's actions and behavior. That is the single highest risk factor that the state is looking to protect."
"We do not think she should be allowed to be anywhere near any children, let alone her own children, to take care of."
Ultimately, the judge agreed, ruling that the prosecution had strong evidence and that Shaw should remain in jail as the case plays out.
So we're going to have to wait and see how all of this develops, especially because you had Shaw's lawyer declining to enter a plea during yesterday's proceedings, claiming that he needed more time to review the prosecution's discovery.
-
But then also today, we should talk about a very different kind of threat on a much larger scale.
Massive Wildfires Continue Across Canada
You have tens of millions of people in the path of just crazy smoke from these wildfires in Canada.
If you didn't know, there are hundreds of fires raging across Ontario and northern Manitoba, with dozens still out of control. Thousands of people have been evacuated, with several more towns on standby.
One entire community has been wiped out. You've got roads shut down, national parks like the Boundary Waters closed to visitors.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz declared a peacetime emergency and mobilized the Minnesota National Guard to respond because the flames are moving so fast.
You can even see how crazy it is. There's this viral video now of a freight train in Canada being overtaken by the flames.
"This could potentially overtake us here. This has gotten a little scary."
"Holy shit. Okay. God, this is... okay. Y'all need to hurry up here. Like, seriously, we're encased in flames now."
Smoke Creates Dangerous Air Quality
Right, well understandably everyone's talking about the fire, the heat, and the smoke.
Those are also incredibly dangerous, which is why Environment Canada meteorologists are warning about it.
Especially because the smoke can cause:
Shortness of breath
Coughing
Dizziness
Fatigue
That's before even mentioning that it can aggravate heart disease, lung disease, and other chronic health issues.
You even had one study earlier this year finding that chronic exposure to pollution from wildfires has been linked to tens of thousands of deaths annually in the United States.
So while experts are warning people to stay inside and keep the windows closed—my sunglasses say yes, you should do that—but as far as the government's involvement, it feels like policy by shrug.
Especially for some because, like, in much of southwestern Ontario they have a heat advisory right now. If you're someone who doesn't have AC, you normally open your windows to stay cool.
Smoke Reaches the United States
But again, this is not just a Canada problem.
These fires are once again sending plumes of smoke hundreds of miles away over the Midwest, the Great Lakes region, and toward the Northeast.
Starting in Minnesota, you've got the Twin Cities, along with Alexandria and Two Harbors, under air quality alerts that last all the way through Friday.
Some areas are reaching hazardous levels, which means the air is unsafe for everybody—not just sensitive groups.
You also have the entire state of Michigan under an air quality alert, and the smoke just keeps moving east.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is warning about poor air quality in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania.
It's impacting tens of millions of people through the end of the week.
Comparisons to the 2023 Wildfires
If you're getting a sense of déjà vu, yeah.
You might remember that Canada had some extreme wildfires back in 2023 that resulted in the skies over New York City turning orange as the smoke moved over the U.S.
The air quality reached the most hazardous levels on record.
This time around, if you want to call it a silver lining, you've got the New York City Emergency Management Department releasing a statement saying they aren't expecting a repeat of 2023.
They did still note that New Yorkers—especially those with heart and lung conditions—should be careful.
Actually, thanks to the wildfires starting later this year being more contained overall, and because the smoke is largely staying higher up in the atmosphere, we're likely not going to see a repeat of 2023.
Though also, in 2026, I would not hold your breath on that... or maybe do with this specific situation.
But from there.
-
We should talk about a very different story, where Elon Musk could potentially face charges for bribing voters in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Election Commission Refers Case for Prosecution
You have the state's bipartisan Election Commission referring two cases to the Brown County District Attorney's Office after finding probable cause that Musk broke the law when he gave million-dollar checks to voters last year.
I know it feels like a million years ago, but it was just last year that there was that major Wisconsin Supreme Court election. It ended up being the most expensive judicial race in American history, with over $100 million spent from both sides.
Twenty million dollars of that alone came from Elon Musk, who backed conservative candidate Brad Schimel, who ultimately lost to the liberal candidate.
The Million-Dollar Giveaway
What specifically gets Musk into hot water is a now-deleted tweet from March 2025 where he wrote:
"On Sunday night I will give a talk in Wisconsin. Entrance is limited to those who have voted in the Supreme Court election. I will also personally hand over two checks for $1 million each in appreciation for you taking the time to vote. This is super important."
While he eventually deleted that post, there's another tweet that's still up explaining the promise:
"To clarify a previous post, entrance is limited to those who have signed the petition in opposition to activist judges. I will also hand over checks for $1 million to two people to be spokesmen for the petition."
Reports say that in the end, three voters actually received one million dollars, with some even getting the massive checks on stage during an event.
You even had his America PAC offering $100 to others who signed the anti-activist judge petition.
It was all a very similar move to the playbook that he ran during the 2024 presidential election, which was also incredibly controversial and faced numerous legal challenges.
Election Commission Vote
In the Wisconsin case, in addition to all the flak that he got, it included two complaints from voters in Green Bay and Milwaukee.
We've now learned that the state's Election Commission voted 5-1 to send those complaints to the district attorney, who now has 40 days to decide whether or not to move forward with prosecution.
Now, that said, the DA is a Republican, so many people don't know where this is going to go.
Musk Continues Political Spending
But I will say this does come at a crucial time for Musk.
Actually, staying focused on Elon Musk for a minute, after the whole Wisconsin thing where he threw millions of dollars behind a candidate that lost, he actually vowed to cut back on his election spending.
But like with a lot of things Elon Musk says, that hasn't really happened.
Just today, we learned that he is giving $5 million to back Vivek Ramaswamy's effort to become governor of Ohio.
According to The New York Times, he's now given $90 million during this election cycle.
The Growing Influence of Billionaires
While Elon Musk is a particularly bad actor, if you look at the state of America right now—and I'm not just being cynical—it's just the state of affairs.
If you don't see that we've, at least to some degree, turned into an oligarchy, I don't know what would convince you.
There was this recent analysis that found 300 billionaires and their immediate family members donated over $3 billion in federal elections in 2024, which is nearly 20% of all contributions.
Just to put that into perspective for how normal people donate, it would take 100,000 typical political donors to equal the average donation of a single billionaire family, which was around $10 million.
I know things have felt broken for a long time, but this specifically is pretty wild.
Five presidential elections ago, billionaire spending was basically nonexistent. It accounted for under 1%.
Now the money is enough to actually change the course of elections.
It's why you've got people like Jon Tester, who held a Senate seat for three terms until recently, losing to a billionaire-backed candidate.
It's a form of prostitution.
Quite frankly, it's one of the worst parts of the system.
Trump's Upcoming Address on Elections
And then also, if billionaires buying candidates wasn't concerning enough, right now there's a lot of concern about federal intervention and voter intimidation under the Trump administration.
Something we're going to have to keep our eyes on is that Trump might be ramping those efforts up this week because he's delivering a major primetime address on Thursday where he's expected to touch on multiple issues.
One of them is elections.
Actually, set an alarm or a reminder for 8:30 p.m. Eastern Thursday night. I'm going to be livestreaming it on the channel, reacting, breaking things down, and just getting through it all together with you.
I might actually also have my wife, Lindsey, join me since she's running for a state House seat this year.
Focus on Georgia and Election Claims
Very likely, what Trump is going to be talking about is Georgia.
That's because reports say he might revisit conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.
Trump has repeatedly used the power of the primetime presidential address—typically reserved for major national milestones—to deliver politically charged speeches.
Reports suggest Thursday's address could go even further, using the moment to amplify election lies before an audience of millions in an effort to boost Republican prospects before the midterms that threaten to hobble Trump for the remainder of his term.
As for what he might say, one administration official told Reuters that Trump plans to address newly declassified intelligence regarding investigations into U.S. elections and voting machine vulnerabilities.
That's widely seen as laying the groundwork for challenging future Republican losses.
Other reports say he's also going to focus specifically on Georgia's 2020 Senate race.
Even though one Trump adviser pushed back on that specific claim, there's already been a ton of backlash to the speech before it's even happened.
You have Senator Jon Ossoff saying:
"Donald Trump's spiral continues. The failed president, pocketing billions as he drives up prices, is afraid to lose the midterms. So he will reheat debunked election conspiracy theories and tell bizarre new lies to deny his 2020 defeat and attack voting."
Public Opinion and Election Misinformation
The unfortunate thing is that we live in a country where Trump's lies are simply facts to at least some people.
Polling from just a month ago found that 50% of Republicans still believe the 2020 election was stolen.
Now 72% believe his more recent unsupported claims of fraud in California's primaries.
On top of that, in recent days he has fired members of the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission.
He has federal agencies threatening to withhold funds if states do not change how they conduct elections.
And the list just goes on.
So, you know, be prepared for it.
Because honestly, whether it's Trump or a literal rat being pushed into a corner, you don't know what's going to happen.
Whatever it is, it will very likely be messy.
-
And then there's more we're going to dive into for you in just a minute.
But first, let me thank a sponsor and say, you know, Josh B., you're going to be going to see Bill Murray. And all you had to do was enter our weekly $500 SeatGeek giveaway.
Because today's sponsor, SeatGeek, has doled out nearly $60,000 to you beautiful bastards to get you off the couch and into the comedy club, the stadium, or the concert hall since 2024.
And it's been really awesome to see.
It will always be wild to me that there are still some people who haven't signed up.
I mean, summer's here and the events are stacking up. You've got baseball, soccer, tours for Bruno Mars, Ariana Grande, and your favorite comedians are out there.
I mean, get out there. It's free to enter, and it takes two seconds.
SeatGeek is the number one-rated ticketing app, with over 28 million downloads and tickets to over 70,000 events.
Sports, music, comedy, theater—you name it. Literally go right now and look for tickets to anything.
Simply download the app or hit the link in the description and use code PHIL10 for 10% off your purchase on SeatGeek if you're a new customer.
And then the next part is key.
Add that code to your SeatGeek account. That gets you the 10% off and enters you for your chance to win the weekly $500 giveaway.
Again, no purchase is necessary.
For all you longtime SeatGeek users, we wouldn't leave you out.
Just add code PHIL10 to your account and you're entered.
Scan the QR code or click the link below, add code PHIL10, and go make some memories.
SEATGEEK
SeatGeek: https://seatgeek.onelink.me/RrnK/PHIL10 use my code PHIL10 for 10% off tickets and to be entered in the weekly $500 giveaway
-
But then diving right back into the news, we've got to talk about this Todd Blanche situation because you had Trump's nominee for Attorney General at his confirmation hearing today, and it was something special.
"How long do you intend to put up with Kash Patel? Are you good with this? Are you confident he's not drinking on the job? Are you sure none of his travel is a pretext for vacation activities like snorkeling, the Olympics, and visiting girlfriends? Are you sure he knows what he's doing? Do you vouch for him? Are you willing to look at whether he lied to this committee?"
"That's an extraordinarily obnoxious question."
Blanche's Role Inside the DOJ
Actually, Blanche has been Acting Attorney General since Pam Bondi got the boot back in May, which honestly, for some reason, feels like three years ago.
The day before this hearing, The New York Times published a trove of Justice Department emails that gave some insight into Blanche's role at the DOJ.
They showed that he actually wrestled control over the so-called Weaponization Working Group away from its former head. That's the task force that, among other things, investigated the prosecutions of January 6 rioters and Biden's use of the autopen.
Blanche's deputies were also reportedly responsible for probing:
An FBI memo targeting a conservative Catholic group in Richmond.
Prosecutions of anti-abortion activists.
Federal scrutiny of conservative school board members.
One especially interesting example involved a team led by one of Blanche's aides reportedly focusing on a single person, Tina Peters—the Colorado elections official who was convicted, imprisoned, and later released for election-related crimes.
So basically, Blanche's office appeared to be directly involved in many of the highest-profile efforts to rectify Trump's personal and political grievances.
Questions About DOJ Independence
One of the biggest issues during the hearing centered around whether the Department of Justice can remain independent from the White House.
When asked whether he considers Donald Trump a friend, Blanche let out an awkward little Freudian slip.
"I'm his lawyer... was his lawyer."
That's just one of the many reasons a lot of people have concerns about him.
Even his prepared comments didn't inspire much confidence.
"Is the Department of Justice that you are running independent from the White House?"
"The Department of Justice, like every single department in the executive branch, is part of the executive. Article II of the Constitution gives executive power to President Trump. So we certainly operate with integrity. We certainly operate with the single mindset to serve the American people and do the right thing. But if confirmed, I will be a member of the Cabinet."
Questions About Election Enforcement
Blanche was also asked what he would do if President Trump directed certain election-related actions.
"Will you commit to following clear federal law and not deploying federal agents to polling locations?"
"I will commit to following the law, Senator."
"Does that include not deploying federal agents to polling places?"
"I will absolutely follow the law, no matter what it includes."
The Anti-Weaponization Fund
Another major point of contention involved the infamous Anti-Weaponization Fund, which stemmed from Trump suing the IRS after his tax returns were leaked years ago.
The IRS eventually settled.
Many critics viewed it as a bizarre and potentially corrupt situation where Trump was effectively suing his own government.
As part of that settlement:
Trump, his family, and his businesses were shielded from certain IRS audits and past tax actions.
The DOJ created a $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund, which critics described as a slush fund for Trump's allies, including January 6 defendants.
Recently, a judge ruled that both sides of the IRS case colluded to achieve that outcome, sanctioned Trump's lawyers, and suggested Blanche himself should face discipline.
During today's hearing, Blanche insisted:
"It's done. It's not moving forward. Basically, just forget about it."
But Senator John Cornyn pointed out that the settlement agreement itself still exists.
"Is the settlement agreement enforceable as a contract by the parties?"
"Yes, it's an enforceable document."
"So if President Trump's counsel sought to enforce it..."
"They potentially could. They could potentially argue that we breached the agreement by not moving forward. They haven't done that, and I'm not aware that they're planning to. But even if we were litigating it, there's no fund anymore. The result wouldn't be reviving the fund."
January 6 Pardons
The hearing also returned repeatedly to Blanche's views on the January 6 pardons.
Blanche repeatedly emphasized that the rule of law is the most important principle.
Democrats quickly pushed back.
"How many people were convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers on January 6?"
"I believe around 120, approximately."
"You're wrong. The answer is more than 200. And how many of those individuals had their sentences commuted or were pardoned by President Trump?"
"President Trump either commuted or pardoned every defendant from the January 6 events."
When asked how he could defend those pardons, Blanche responded:
"I have never said that any sort of violence against law enforcement is appropriate. I talk about what President Trump did. He has the absolute right to pardon anybody for any reason he sees fit, and every one of them got pardoned or commuted. I am not celebrating that. It is a fact."
If that feels wishy-washy to you, you're definitely not alone.
Senator Chris Coons then confronted Blanche with one of his own previous statements.
"If you look at what happened to the men and women convicted because of January 6, by 5 p.m. on January 20, every one of them was either pardoned or had their sentence commuted. So when folks say you've done nothing, I say you have a very short memory."
Coons argued that sounded very much like celebrating the pardons.
Blanche doubled down.
"I wasn't celebrating it. I was merely stating a fact, which is that the January 6 defendants received a very generous pardon or commutation from President Trump."
Questions About the Epstein Files
Another issue Blanche repeatedly stumbled over involved Jeffrey Epstein.
Ten Epstein victims actually attended the hearing, sitting in the audience while Democrats repeatedly pressed Blanche over how the Department of Justice handled the Epstein files.
They criticized the department for:
Redacting large amounts of embarrassing information.
Failing to properly redact some victims' identities.
Blanche apologized.
"Any mistake that was made is not appropriate. So yes, I am sorry that in about one percent of the documents mistakes were made. We devoted significant resources to correcting those mistakes immediately."
Even while acknowledging mistakes, Blanche portrayed the situation as though the Trump administration had always wanted transparency.
He argued that Trump's DOJ wanted to release the files but was prevented by existing law.
He also noted that Trump had signed legislation that ultimately made their release possible.
Phil pointed out that several Republicans who had once pushed for those disclosures are no longer in Trump's good graces because they became personal enemies of the president.
Meeting With the Victims
Even after the files were released, Blanche still would not directly commit to personally meeting with the victims who attended the hearing.
"Mr. Chairman, I appreciate them being here today. I also have somebody from my office who's spent her entire career working on cases like Mr. Epstein's. She's available to talk to them."
When asked directly:
"Will you meet with these ten survivors?"
Blanche responded:
"If they are represented by counsel, we will work with their counsel. If they don't have a lawyer, I will certainly make arrangements to make sure the right people at the Department of Justice get it done. I'm not allowed to meet with them directly, as you know."
Later in the hearing, however, Blanche appeared to contradict himself.
"I never said I can't meet with them. I said if they're represented, I have to meet through counsel. But of course I can meet with them. I'm the Acting Attorney General of the United States. So yes, I can."
-
Then also, today was not just about Todd Blanche because you also had Jay Clayton having his confirmation hearing.
He's yet another Trump nominee who refused to admit that Joe Biden won the 2020 election.
That becomes especially concerning because the office he might soon lead is responsible for, among many other important duties, identifying and countering foreign influence and interference in U.S. elections.
Trump's Pick for Director of National Intelligence
Clayton is Trump's pick to replace Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, who announced her resignation back in May.
Trump had actually first named Bill Pulte—a loyalist with no national security experience who has launched mortgage fraud investigations against Trump's political enemies—as Acting Director.
That immediately sparked pushback, and Trump later announced that his permanent pick for the role would be Jay Clayton.
Clayton's Background
As far as Clayton's background, after making millions of dollars working as a Wall Street attorney, he served as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission during Trump's first administration.
He's also now serving as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Ultimately, he wasn't really seen as all that controversial a figure, at least by the standards we've kind of come to expect under Trump.
But while, unlike Pulte, Clayton doesn't have experience serving in an intelligence agency, a few days before receiving Trump's nomination he publicly questioned the integrity of American elections.
"We're doing an absolutely terrible job, and the American people are right to question it."
Delays Over the SAVE Act
Despite those concerns, some lawmakers were eager to keep Bill Pulte from taking over the position entirely.
In fact, they moved to suspend Senate rules to hold Clayton's confirmation hearing and secure a vote as quickly as possible.
But then Trump abruptly delayed the confirmation proceedings, ordering Clayton not to appear at the initial hearing in an effort to pressure Congress into passing the SAVE Act.
That's the voter ID bill that voting rights groups argue would disenfranchise millions of Americans who don't have easy access to passports or birth certificates.
Not to mention, many critics argue it's a broader effort to severely restrict mail-in voting.
That move led Democrats to withdraw support for legislation reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, another controversial program that allows intelligence agencies to conduct warrantless surveillance under certain conditions.
But the delay also cleared the way for Bill Pulte to remain Acting Director.
Actions Taken by Acting Director Bill Pulte
Even during his short time in that role, Pulte has already:
Fired intelligence officials.
Worked on declassifying and potentially releasing documents related to election security and election interference.
Tomorrow night, he's also expected to appear alongside Trump during the televised address we talked about earlier, where he's expected to make claims about election fraud, possibly centered around voting machines.
Democrats Question Clayton's Independence
Now you've got Democrats—some of whom may have been willing to support Clayton—asking whether he'll really be any different from Pulte.
Especially since just last week he also authorized subpoenas for a group of New York Times reporters who covered security issues involving the new version of Air Force One that was gifted to Trump by the Qatari government.
A number of Democratic senators focused on that during today's hearing.
For example, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon asked Clayton who directed him to issue those subpoenas.
Clayton mostly sidestepped the question.
Instead, he said they were issued as part of an ongoing national security investigation and added:
"I am absolutely committed to and respectful of the First Amendment and the role of the press."
Refusal to Say Biden Won the 2020 Election
But remember, the election issue really came to dominate the hearing.
Time and time again, Clayton danced around one very simple question.
"Do you deny that Joe Biden won the 2020 election?"
Instead, Clayton responded:
"We have substantial work to do improving our electoral processes. It's part of national security, and I feel strongly about that."
That answer did not inspire much confidence.
Angus King Presses Clayton
So then you had Senator Angus King, an Independent from Maine, really laying into Clayton.
King: "Who won the 2020 election?"
Clayton: "I've answered that question."
King: "No, you have not answered that question. Could you answer the question? Who won the 2020 election? Pretty simple question."
Clayton: "As I said to you, we went through our processes and Joe Biden became the President of the United States. I'm here to talk about my qualifications."
King: "One of your qualifications is that you told us you're going to tell the truth to power, and you won't answer a very simple question."
Clayton: "I think I've answered it many times."
King: "You have not answered it."
Mark Kelly Questions Clayton's Loyalty
Probably the closest Clayton came to giving a direct answer was during questioning from Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, when he acknowledged that Biden received the most electoral votes.
But he still refused to simply say that Biden won.
Kelly argued that this demonstrated Clayton lacked the independence required for the position.
"You're going to be in a room with him many times, and at times you should have a difference of opinion."
"If you can't disagree with him when he's not in the room, are you going to be able to disagree with him when you're sitting across from him in the Oval Office or the Situation Room?"
What's Next
Finally, you had Senator Jon Ossoff also questioning Clayton about the 2020 election and criticizing his refusal to give a direct answer.
So with all of this, if all eight Democrats oppose his nomination next week, he'll need unanimous support from the committee's nine Republicans before the nomination can move to a full Senate vote.
But, of course, in the meantime, you still have Acting Director Bill Pulte already hard at work using the office to carry out Trump's agenda.
That speech tomorrow is going to be something we have to keep our eyes on because this isn't just about Trump possibly being a sore loser again.
If the reporting is accurate, this is laying the groundwork to challenge future election results that he doesn't like.
And throughout today's hearing, Clayton said very little to suggest that he would actually stand in the way.
And then there's even more that we've got to dive into in just a minute.
-
But first, let me thank a sponsor and say, you know, the older I get, the more I realize a great night isn't worth sacrificing the next day.
With my Crashing Out Tour about to kick off, where I'm going to get to see all your beautiful faces—and you should definitely buy tickets if you haven't already—I've got a lot of mornings where I need to be at my best.
That's why today's sponsor is ZBiotics Pre-Alcohol Probiotic.
It's earned a permanent spot in my travel bag.
How ZBiotics Works
ZBiotics Pre-Alcohol Probiotic Drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic, invented by PhD scientists to help tackle rough mornings after drinking.
Here's how it works:
When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in your gut. It's the buildup of that byproduct—not just dehydration—that contributes to those rough mornings afterward.
Pre-Alcohol produces an enzyme that helps break down that byproduct.
So just remember to make Pre-Alcohol your first drink of the night.
Drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best the next day.
Phil's Recommendation
I've personally already started packing these for the tour because I'd rather enjoy the show, hang out afterward, and still wake up ready for the next day.
And for you, with July bringing barbecues, lake weekends, fireworks, and nights out with friends, it's an easy thing to keep on hand.
So keep the good times rolling into the next day by making Pre-Alcohol your first drink of the night.
Just head to zbiotics.com/defranco and use code DEFRANCO for 15% off your first order.
Just scan the QR code to get started.
ZBIOTICS
Go to http://zbiotics.com/DEFRANCO and use code DEFRANCO at checkout to get up to 15% off your first order.
-
Hey, just scan the QR code to get started.
Then for your final block on today's show, we've got more news you need to know.
Senate Democrats Block the Defense Bill
For the first time in over 15 years, Senate Democrats have completely derailed a must-pass defense bill.
This is the massive $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which normally passes every year with overwhelming bipartisan support.
The bill funds the military, gives troops a pay raise, and is generally considered one of Congress's most reliable pieces of legislation.
But this time, every single Democrat voted no.
It really boils down to two reasons.
The first is the ongoing war with Iran.
The second is a highly controversial provision that would explicitly mandate much closer—and unprecedented—defense and military integration between the United States and Israel.
The Israel Provision
Some supporters described the provision as simply coordinating research and integrating defense technology between the two countries.
But for many critics, that's still a bridge too far.
Especially considering how controversial Israel's actions in Gaza and Lebanon have been.
Those actions have, at times, been described by many experts as genocide.
And also, I mean, it's all been so bad that even public support for the Israeli government has dropped dramatically.
Among Americans aged 18 to 29 who lean left, only 12% support the Israeli government.
Even among young Republicans, that number is only 28%.
Iran War Fuels Opposition
This vote also came just one day after the White House notified Congress that the temporary ceasefire had collapsed and that U.S. airstrikes, alongside Israel, had officially resumed.
A move that arguably reset the 60-day War Powers clock.
Needless to say, that made Democrats furious.
They argue that Trump is bypassing Congress entirely.
You even had Chuck Schumer blasting the bill, saying the NDAA cannot become a permission slip for what he described as recklessness in Iran.
Veteran Senator Tammy Duckworth also warned that throwing more money at an unauthorized military operation is simply a recipe for another forever war.
Republican Response
Republican Majority Leader John Thune criticized Democrats, accusing them of putting partisan politics ahead of national security and leaving American troops out to dry during an active crisis.
But this is also a crisis that Phil argues is entirely self-inflicted by Trump.
So does it really count as a crisis?
Isn't it Trump and the people enabling him who are responsible for creating the situation and any negative consequences that come from it?
Phil's Opinion on Military Aid to Israel
Actually, why not?
Maybe it's just one of those days, but I'm going to go one step further.
We should stop funding Israel entirely.
Now, I know that's not what this bill is about.
But I've actually got an unlikely ally for that proposal:
Benjamin Netanyahu himself.
While he obviously isn't officially proposing that today, Phil referenced a story Netanyahu shared involving the late Senator Lindsey Graham.
According to Netanyahu:
"The last conversation I had with Lindsey, I said, 'Lindsey, we've come of age. We have a robust economy. We can finance our own weapons for the defense of Israel and the defense of our common interests with America. So I'm going to phase out the military support for Israel over a period of years and bring it down to zero.'"
"He went ballistic. He said, 'No way. You can't do that,' because he was so concerned with our security, which he believed was your security."
"He actually fought the Prime Minister of Israel on keeping America's aid—or actually increasing it."
You know what?
That entirely believable story about a thing that definitely happened made me think...
Yeah.
We shouldn't fund Israel anymore.
They don't even want the money.
It's actually rude and disrespectful to keep giving it to them.
Yeah... just throwing that out there.
-
Then your final piece of news today is that you've got two men who have died in separate incidents connected to ICE operations, putting the agency once again at the center of controversy.
Florida Incident Under Investigation
Yesterday, you had four men traveling in a car in St. Augustine, Florida, when they reportedly encountered a team of ICE agents.
Right now, it's not clear whether the agents were actively pursuing them or whether there was any direct interaction. The Department of Homeland Security has only said that ICE agents were conducting an operation when it happened.
Whatever the case, all four men reportedly got out of the vehicle and ran.
One of them then reportedly ran across the road and was struck by a tractor-trailer.
The Florida Highway Patrol said the truck driver stopped immediately and attempted to help the man.
He later died at the scene.
An investigation into the incident is now underway.
Recent Fatal Traffic Stops Prompt Review
This comes right after the fatal shootings during traffic stops in Texas and Maine.
Neither of the men who were killed were the intended targets of ICE operations.
Those incidents sparked protests in both states.
Because of those events, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin announced yesterday that ICE would temporarily pause non-urgent traffic stops.
"It's a temporary pause. Look, we've had the last couple of shootings. ICE leadership, along with DHS, believes they want to review these incidents and ask whether something could have been done better—or whether officers were simply doing their jobs and bad things happened because people didn't comply with law enforcement. So I think there's going to be a short pause."
Trump Reverses the Pause
But then, first thing the next morning, Trump posted:
"We cannot give up one of ICE's most important and effective crime-fighting tools, the traffic stop. Once we do, we are playing right into the criminals. Radical Left Democrats would like to see this done, but it won't happen on my watch."
Reports say the White House has now confirmed that Trump officially overturned the temporary pause.
Officials also announced that every ICE team conducting operations will now be required to have at least one agent wearing a body camera.
The administration said this was necessary because:
"The media and sanctuary politicians consistently spread smears about our law enforcement officers."
Body Cameras and Public Reaction
For many people, that explanation is nonsense.
That said, many also believe that if ICE actually follows through with implementing the body camera requirement sooner rather than later, it could be a positive step.
But in the meantime, more families are grieving.
Calls to Abolish ICE
With all of the ongoing immigration controversy, you've also had leaders speaking out more forcefully.
New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani said this week:
"ICE is killing our neighbors. They cannot be reformed. Abolish ICE."
Closing
But then, my friends, you beautiful bastards, that is the end of your Wednesday show.
You've got more you can dive into or get filled in on because there are two more videos waiting for you.
One is an extra news story that didn't make today's show simply because of timing.
The other is, of course, my Wednesday Crashing Out podcast.
It's a great one. I think you'll love it.
And we're almost at 100,000 subscribers, so thank you.
But hey, whatever you do, my name's Philip DeFranco.
You've just been filled in.
I love yo' faces, and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.
