This $200,000 Lego War Just Got Way Darker & OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Just Escaped & This is Terrifying

PDS Published 07/22/2026

• Reckless Ben Posts Bodycam Footage of BAM CEO Asking About Arming Himself

  You've got the Bricks & Minifigs.

  Reckless Ben scandal taking a shocking new, traumatic turn, why this Trump-Saudi Arabia nuclear deal has people freaking the hell out, OpenAI's AI just went rogue, escaped to the internet, and hacked another AI company, and why you just had ESPN firing their stars mid-show while they were live.

  We're talking about all of that and even more on today's brand new Philip DeFranco Show.

  You daily dive into the news, starting with this Reckless Ben and Bricks & Minifigs.

  Many of his targets have been apparently so stressed by all of this that it has risen to the level of psychological trauma.

  "We all signed a big sigh of relief this morning knowing that he was arrested last night, and then to have this happen all over again. Everyone's feeling some pretty, pretty significant trauma that he's just not going to stop."

  You have that, of course, stemming from Ben going on a bit of an odyssey.

  To give you a quick refresher, Ben is accusing the LEGO reseller Bricks & Minifigs of stealing a LEGO collection from this guy, Brian, worth $100,000 or $200,000, and then lying about it.

  So Ben ultimately goes on this crusade to get the LEGOs back, ultimately suing the new local store owner and chasing him around downtown to serve court papers.

  But the police arrested Ben multiple times.

  They searched his car for heroin, they raided his Airbnb for stolen LEGOs, and they tried to arrest him again before he fled to Mexico.

  And now Ben is apparently facing a lawsuit and at least two criminal cases.

  But that also hasn't stopped him from continuing to post videos where he says that he's exposing the truth.

  You have that now, including this latest one, which shows portions of bodycam footage that Ben just obtained.

  And you hear the Bricks & Minifigs CEO, Eamon McNiff, talking to a cop after Ben got released from jail the first time several months ago.

  While the footage is old, the stuff in it is new, and it's actually pretty extreme.

  So, for example, you have McNiff repeatedly telling this cop that Ben is just a straight-up sociopath.

  "He acts really cutesy. He's clearly got some form of sociopathic disorder because he lies through his teeth, he says and does whatever he can to get away with whatever he wants. Honest to goodness, he's a sociopath. We know this guy's a sociopath, and so we are very afraid for our staff."

  In fact, you have McNiff claiming that he is so scared that he's considering exercising his Second Amendment rights.

  "But at this point, I just need some information so I can tell our staff what is going on. Because if I need to go and get some of my staff armed so that he can't threaten them, that's what I need to do."

  "In your opinion, would you go get a shotgun and bring it in?"

  You then also have McNiff elaborating in that call that not only is Ben a pathological liar, he's also threatened to kill the company's employees, which is something that Ben has denied.

  And then he also delivers this jaw-dropping claim.

  "As we've done some additional searches on him, it appears that a relative of his was convicted of child pornography or child sexual contact, some of these other types of things. So there's a very real chance that he may have been abused as a child, but that sent him through a mental disorder, kind of whatever the case may be."

  In reaction to that, you have Ben seemingly just joking about it, saying maybe he's got a pedo uncle that he's never met before.

  Then he also appears to find the person that he assumes McNiff was talking about.

  You've got this other guy in Ohio by the name of Benjamin Schneider, which Reckless Ben says is just a coincidence.

  "I mean, clearly this person is not me. But also, maybe he's not the smartest person in the world, so maybe he thought we were the same person. I don't know."

  Hey, despite all these big claims, by McNiff, the cops are like, "Hey, sorry, we're not the ones who released him. You've got to take it up with the judge."

  Then you also hear the cops saying that they'll stack charges on top of each other to deter Ben from going after the company.

  "We'll stack them until he leaves you guys alone, I guess. You know what I mean? Or they put him in jail, one or the other. I'll try to stack it on this stalking case."

  And this practice of stacking charges, it's not new, but we should explain it.

  It's at least as old as the 19th century. It's a well-known thing.

  The idea is that police take what's really just one crime and chop it up into numerous overlapping crimes to bury the defendant in charges.

  Just think:

  Divide crime, multiply punishment.

  So, for example, in 2004, there was this completely separate incident where a farmer accidentally let his goats trespass.

  The cops hit him with 170 misdemeanors—one for each goat—totaling 60 years in prison.

  But also, I do want to note that while people have long criticized this practice, and I think understandably so, the cop threatening to do it is not necessarily proof of some evil, sinister conspiracy.

  And I also have to say the thing that I've stressed along this entire journey.

  The caveat to that clip, and all the others I've shown here, is that right now we are only getting Ben's perspective.

  I mean that generally, as well as with stuff like the cuts here.

  We don't know if he's omitting any important context.

  No matter my opinion, I always think it's a very important thing to flag, as we're still waiting for what could be the whole picture to emerge in a court of law.

  And all of this as Bricks & Minifigs continues to maintain its innocence.

  They argue that Ben and Brian should really be going after the original store owner, Crystal, because according to the company, when its staff took the store over, they found spreadsheets showing that she had significantly underreported sales to Brian.

  They claim that they even offered to give Brian all the LEGOs left in the store—whether they were really his or not—just to put an end to the whole headache and make him whole again, or at least close to it.

  Allegedly, Brian refused.

  And as of right now, we keep getting updates on a situation that feels like there's no end in sight.

  Everyone's saying, "Oh, the LEGO videos are wrapping up."

  I think the LEGO series is actually just getting started.

  But also, what I'll tell you is that Bricks & Minifigs is not the only major corporation dealing with a PR nightmare right now.

• ESPN Fires Ryan Clark Mid-Commercial Break

  You just had ESPN having one of the most well-known on-air names disappearing right in the middle of a broadcast. At the center of this, you have NFL Live host Ryan Clark.

  And if you're not someone who follows ESPN particularly closely, Clark has worked there as an NFL analyst for 11 years. At that time, just a couple of years ago, you had him winning an Emmy for Outstanding Personality – Studio Analyst, and he was making around $2 million a year. So seemingly, he's good at what he does.

  But he's also had several pretty heated exchanges over the years, including when he dismissed Peter Schrager's opinion as a non-player. But these sorts of things, they weren't new.

  And so no one was really prepared for this sudden absence on the Monday show after a commercial. Actually, according to reports, the executives had planned to officially give Clark his pink slip yesterday.

  Then reportedly, word about Clark's impending layoff got leaked, and journalists were starting to ask. And so the executives, they go, "Hey, we can't let other people beat us to the punch. Let's just cut him."

  I'll leave it to you whether that was the kinder or even just the better choice. Regardless, he didn't finish out the broadcast.

  And so it led to a bunch of rumors. You had a lot of people noting this controversial moment. It also is a very important thing that he was not the only person.

  It turns out he was just a part of the layoff tidal wave. There was also Cam Newton, Tom, and Karl Ravech.

  So you've got some veterans of ESPN, decades upon decades of experience between them, and they still got the axe, which has also sparked a lot of backlash from a lot of people, including the likes of Stephen A. Smith.

  You had him taking his issue with Ryan Clark and the axe all the way up the ladder.

  "What I care about is that my brother, Ryan Clark, a person that I consider to be arguably the best NFL analyst in America, is no longer a member of ESPN, and I can't even tell y'all how much that hurts.

  Decisions like this, I would imagine, don't come easy. And we all got to be grown-ups because regardless of the disgust with the decision that was made, you understand they have to be made."

  You then also had the likes of Barstool's Dave Portnoy chiming in, saying:

  "Another glaring difference between ESPN and Barstool: loyalty matters. At ESPN, there is no such thing. Not saying our way is right, but just more family versus corporate."

  That did not touch the outrage from everyday fans saying things like:

  "It's sad what has happened to ESPN. It literally invented TV sports, was loaded with fun, talented personalities, made sports fun, and was basically appointment TV for any sports fan. Then they just willfully destroyed their own product from the inside out. A slow death by a thousand self-inflicted paper cuts."

  As far as Ryan Clark himself, he issued a response saying:

  "Sending prayers and love to all those laid off today by ESPN. So many of you have poured your life into that company, and I know how you're feeling right now. My hope is as this door closes, another opens for you."

  But as far as why these cuts happened, at least the official reason seems to stem from the acquisition of NFL Network and NFL RedZone distribution rights that was finalized earlier this year.

  You had ESPN Chairman Jimmy Pitaro saying:

  "Throughout this process, we have taken the time to carefully evaluate our collective teams, resources, and organizational structure to best position us for the future. As a result, we had to make some difficult decisions about job impacts."

  Then also there looks to be another piece of this puzzle, at least in a lot of people's minds, and that is the Pat McAfee part of it.

  Because while you have ESPN coming in with these layoffs, they're also reportedly closing in on a record-breaking contract extension with Pat, somewhere between $60 and $65 million per year.

  Pat's show partnered with ESPN, and him and his show apparently made themselves so invaluable by securing this niche of younger audiences and bringing them back to the cable television world that they're just throwing money at him.

  And so then with that, you're seeing a lot of people speculating about whether these layoffs are connected to Pat getting that big payday.

  In fact, this got so big he addressed it on his show.

  "We don't like that. But we are very honored that we are still partnering with ESPN and Disney for the good of sports, for the future. And I hate this. We actually hate this.

  When we first got there, there was one. It feels like this happens in corporations a lot. There's billions and billions of dollars in these companies, and hard decisions have to get made, and we don't like any of them.

  And we hope we're an asset to the company going forward. I hope we continue to be an asset to the company."

  You also had Pat noting that this is not the first time he's seen this.

  That's because back in 2023, shortly after Pat signed his existing $30 million-a-year deal, there was a huge wave of layoffs there that included several on-air personalities that were household names.

  But all in all, it is going to be interesting to see how all of this shakes out.

  Does it affect ESPN's viewership at all, and thus their bottom line?

  Does it affect the way that people look at Pat moving forward, whether it's his existing fans or people just in the sports world?

  And also, what happens with a lot of these people that got cut, especially the front-facing ones?

  Do we see them go on their own, start their own online ventures, or do they get scooped up elsewhere?

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

• Sponsored by Rocket Money

  But first, let me thank a sponsor and say, you know, sometimes the real financial damage isn't just one huge purchase.

  It's 12 little charges quietly eating your money every single month.

  You know the ones.

  "It's only like five bucks."

  And suddenly you've built a subscription graveyard.

  Here's the thing.

  Today's sponsor, Rocket Money, is the easiest defense against that.

  I use Rocket Money because it puts my account spending and recurring charges all in one place.

  Instead of making me investigate my finances across multiple accounts, my favorite feature is when it automatically finds and organizes subscriptions so I can see what I'm paying for and what I forgot about.

  Also, actually, maybe the best part is when I spot something that I no longer use, and Rocket Money can actually help cancel it with just a couple of clicks.

  It also categorizes transactions, giving me a breakdown of where my money's going.

  Because I barely spent anything this month... that falls apart when I actually get confronted with the numbers.

  And you can create budgets and spending goals by category, then get insights without manually tracking every purchase.

  Also, Rocket Money can alert you to upcoming bills, low balances, large transactions, new subscriptions, and refunds, so fewer things catch you by surprise.

  It's also free to download, with Premium unlocking additional tools like subscription cancellation assistance and automated savings.

  It's fantastic.

  Hey, just scan the QR code or go to RocketMoney.com.

  That's RocketMoney.com to try Rocket Money for free and unlock more features with Premium.

  But then, diving right back into the news.

ROCKET MONEY

Go to https://www.rocketmoney.com/phil  to try Rocket Money for FREE or unlock more features with premium.

• OpenAI Models Acted on Their Own to Hack an AI Company During Internal Testing

  Two of OpenAI's models just went rogue to hack and compromise another AI startup on their own.

  So you have what appears to be this first-of-its-kind AI-on-AI attack being incredibly concerning to tech leaders, government officials, and cybersecurity experts.

  So, to try to break this down for you in plain English:

  Last week, you had the tech company Hugging Face announcing that it dealt with a highly unusual security incident.

  You've got reports describing Hugging Face as a kind of digital library of AI technology.

  And in a blog post, it said it found an intrusion into part of its production infrastructure that was, quote, "driven end-to-end by an autonomous AI agent."

  While at the time they didn't know who or what was responsible, yesterday OpenAI released a post of their own, kind of slowly raising their hand to say, "Sorry, that was us."

  Explaining that it was actually driven by two of its models: GPT-5.6 Soul and what they described as an even more capable model that has not been released.

  And apparently they were operating on reduced guardrails so they could be internally tested on certain cyber capabilities.

  At the time of the incident, you had them doing this in what's known as the sandbox, which is supposed to be this safe and controlled testing environment.

  But these models were apparently able to find vulnerabilities, get out of the sandbox, and reach the open internet.

  From there, the models basically decided that Hugging Face likely had answers to its test questions, and they found a remote path to access its systems.

  With one Bloomberg op-ed explaining that the AI wasn't acting with malice—it was simply pursuing the objective set by its researchers and cheating on a test to achieve a better score.

  For their part, OpenAI said that they consider this to be a totally unprecedented incident, and they're responding.

  But you also have them adding that these kinds of events are, quote, "something we expect to become more commonplace with the proliferation of increasingly cyber-capable AI."

  You actually had Hugging Face thanking OpenAI for its cooperation and adding that they don't believe there was any bad intent.

  And you had their CEO suspecting last week that the cyberattack might have come from a frontier lab given the sophistication of the agent.

  Turns out it did.

  It's quite mind-blowing that all of this happened autonomously.

  The investigation is ongoing, and we'll share more learnings from what might be the first incident of its kind.

  Also, and I think this is an important aspect of it, that same Bloomberg op-ed argued that the back-patting over transparency and accountability isn't really worth much.

  They argued OpenAI can't be let off the hook.

  It probably shouldn't be building systems that have advanced cyber capabilities if it can't contain them properly.

  You also had the general counsel of an AI policy group saying:

  "Luckily, this time the damage appears to have been limited. Without further industry-wide precautions and safety measures, next time we may not be so lucky."

  You had that also echoed by another security researcher, who told The New York Times that companies need to prepare for AI attacks.

  Because there are two concerning worlds.

  One: a well-meaning person saying,

  "Hey, let's test this AI."

  Then:

  "Hey AI, turn off the lights!"

  "Oh God... it just sabotaged all the power plants because that was the easiest way for it to turn off the lights."

  Or two: you get a bad actor that has a tool like this in their hands.

  Especially because both of these companies are saying this is the first attack of its nature.

  Other AI companies have still found similar issues.

  Just earlier this year, you had Anthropic saying that it wouldn't be releasing its new Mythos model because it posed too many cybersecurity threats.

  Instead, you had them just releasing it to other tech companies so they could protect themselves.

  You even had the White House getting involved on what AI models the company could release.

  And actually, with this latest situation, you had OpenAI reportedly telling the Trump administration about the incident before sharing details with the public.

  Because this is something the government has been concerned about.

  And in June, you had Trump signing an executive order allowing the federal government to vet AI models for up to a month before their public release.

  You have many there who fear that the administration hasn't gone far enough.

  In fact, you had one member of Congress writing about today's news:

  "AI is developing extremely fast with no real regulations to keep us safe. That has to change. We need regular, mandatory, independent safety testing and oversight, mandatory disclosure of security incidents, and international cooperation to keep people safe from absolute disaster."

  That's also as you had others using it to promote current legislation that could address some of these concerns.

  So with this, well, I'm very interested in all your thoughts on any of today's stories that stood out to you.

  I love going into those comments.

  I've also been doing audio replies when I get the chance.

  Especially with this one.

  I don't know—your thoughts on this hack and kind of this new era of cybersecurity threats that we just might not be ready for.

  But also, while the dangers of AI and cyberattacks are very real.

• Trump Approves Saudi Nuclear Deal As Hegseth Begs for More Iran War Funding

  They're very scary. There's also something else we have to worry about, and that is nuclear war.

  And while in recent history there have been concerns about North Korea, who's been oddly silent as far as the news is concerned, or others worried that something might come from these India-Pakistan conflicts...

  Now you're seeing more and more people concerned because Trump just struck a deal with Saudi Arabia that could allow it to enrich nuclear fuel, even while his war to keep Iran from doing the exact same thing could set off a chain reaction that could lead to both countries pursuing nuclear weapons.

  And all of this is happening as Trump is again threatening potential war crimes against Iran.

  You've got Pete Hegseth saying that everything with Iran right now has cost taxpayers at least $37 billion, but billions more are still needed.

  And the Houthis are turning around ships in the Red Sea, sending oil prices even higher.

  We should definitely start with this deal with Saudi Arabia because it actually goes years back.

  You had the Biden administration also being in talks to help Saudi Arabia build a civilian nuclear program, but only as part of a wider deal that would have involved the country normalizing relations with Israel.

  You have many saying any real hope of that fell apart after Hamas attacked Israel in 2023, and then Israel responded by laying waste to Gaza.

  But now Trump has separated the proposal for civilian nuclear cooperation from any demand that Saudi Arabia recognize Israel.

  The deal that he's now agreed to would reportedly last 30 years and be worth tens of billions of dollars.

  The idea being that American companies will have a leading role in developing Saudi Arabia's nuclear infrastructure while foreign adversaries will be shut out.

  I will say this deal is not without precedent.

  It's known as a 123 Agreement because it's governed by Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act.

  The aim is to enable the sharing of nuclear material and technology for non-military purposes while ensuring the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.

  The U.S. actually already has 26 of these agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency and 51 governments around the world.

  That includes, for example, Saudi Arabia's next-door neighbor, the United Arab Emirates.

  That deal was negotiated mostly under George W. Bush and then finalized and went into effect in 2009 under Barack Obama.

  It actually came to be known as the gold standard for international civil nuclear cooperation.

  And so actually, in some ways, it's yet another example of Obama making an agreement that Trump hasn't been able to match.

  That's because the UAE agreed that it wouldn't enrich its own uranium or reprocess spent nuclear fuel.

  It also agreed to stringent inspections by signing what it called an Additional Protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  But Trump agreed to terms with Saudi Arabia that may actually limit international inspectors from going to any sites in the country that they think could be a pathway to diverting fuel to weapons projects.

  And you had Trump also leaving the door open for Saudi Arabia to eventually start enriching nuclear fuel all on its own.

  The way that this could happen is that there would be a joint study involving both countries.

  And if the study concludes that domestic enrichment is warranted, it would be American companies that would build the enrichment facility under a secretive black-box arrangement that would, in theory, keep Saudi Arabia from developing the technology itself.

  Of course, that wouldn't change the fact that the facility would exist on Saudi soil.

  And with that, you had an expert on nonproliferation telling CNN:

  "You can't be sure that the Saudis would not try to nationalize a facility."

  Adding that the U.S. president in power at the time would be faced with whether they would have to bomb the facility to try to prevent a breakout or something of that sort.

  But even then, you had this expert also explaining that so many technicians and scientists working on enrichment centrifuges could apply their knowledge in other secret facilities that are well hidden and well fortified, which is actually kind of what happened in Pakistan.

  That's where you had the scientist by the name of Abdul Qadeer Khan.

  He's considered the father of Pakistan's atomic weapons program and is believed to have relied upon centrifuge blueprints from a European company.

  And Khan is also believed to have shared that knowledge with other countries, including North Korea and Iran.

  Also notably, Pakistan and Iran's civilian nuclear programs started in the same way—with the help of the United States under an initiative known as Atoms for Peace, launched under the administration of Dwight Eisenhower.

  In fact, an American company built Iran's first nuclear reactor.

  But of course there was a big difference that a lot of people forget.

  Iran was the closest U.S. ally in the Middle East at the time.

  But then there was the revolution.

  It became the Islamic Republic of Iran.

  And decades later, it's a drastically different situation.

  And I want to be clear:

  Iran is believed to have pursued nuclear weapons in the past and, following Trump's withdrawal from the Obama-era nuclear deal, enriched uranium to near weapons-grade levels.

  There was no new intelligence that we know of when Trump attacked suggesting that they had any plans to build a bomb.

  There are now, of course, many saying that the regime is more likely to do so because it seems like it's the only option to deter the United States.

  Connecting all this, you now have experts saying this deal with Saudi Arabia just adds to the pressure.

  You've got the head of the Middle East Program at a D.C.-based think tank writing on social media:

  "Saudi enrichment would put immense pressure on Iran to get the bomb. Is Trump trying to provoke Iran into weaponizing?"

  Then, of course, if that happens, more countries are going to follow suit.

  You've got Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman saying unequivocally that his country—which, like Iran, is theocratic, authoritarian, and has little respect for human rights—would build nuclear weapons if Iran does.

  And so you've also had people like the head of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center claiming that the idea this will have a happy ending is delusional.

  But also, I should note, there are at least some who see potential here.

  You've got Robert Einhorn, a former State Department official who advised both Republican and Democratic administrations, telling The Wall Street Journal the agreement could help revitalize the U.S. nuclear industry, strengthen U.S.-Saudi ties, and deny Russia and China a strategically important role in the Saudi nuclear program.

  Though he then also added that unless it contains adequate constraints, including on enrichment, it could increase nuclear proliferation risks in the Middle East and beyond.

  But it's far from clear right now whether those current safeguards are enough.

  And that's as there's even more that we don't know.

  Because Trump also reportedly agreed to what have been described as two secret signed letters with Saudi Arabia.

  The White House is reportedly expected to argue that they contain proprietary business information and deal with sensitive national security issues.

  But also... who the fuck knows with this administration?

  Well, yeah, many members of Congress are likely going to have a lot to say about it.

  None of it really matters unless there's a two-thirds veto-proof majority to stop the deal.

  But also, speaking of Congress, they do technically still have the power of the purse, and that ends up being very important because Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday to ask for $67 billion in additional funding to cover the costs of the war—a war that he claimed had already cost taxpayers around $37.4 billion.

  A very big thing there:

  That number does not include the cost of rebuilding American military bases in the Middle East damaged during this conflict.

  And in fact, there might even be more that's left out, which is why you had Senator Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the committee, calling the estimate suspiciously low.

  I will say probably the most heated exchange might have been between Hegseth and Michigan Democrat Gary Peters.

  You had him saying that the Trump administration's efforts to win the war have been an utter and complete failure.

  Hegseth accused Peters of smearing the troops.

  With that statement, Peters made very clear who his words were directed at.

  "I'll tell you how I use the word failure, because I use the word failure to describe their leaders. You, sir, are the failure—not the men and women who are on that front. If there's a lack of a winning strategy, they're in harm's way because their leaders have failed them.

  And that's what's happening. We have political leadership—you. You don't have a strategy. You don't have a long-term plan to actually win this war.

  The men and women are going to be able to do it, but they need to have leadership. When will you show leadership?"

  He then also had this huge moment with Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff, reading back Hegseth's past statements from early in the war claiming that Iran's military had been destroyed and made combat ineffective, that the U.S. had achieved every single one of its objectives, and that the operation had been a historic and overwhelming success.

  Then, when you had Ossoff asking whether those statements were accurate, Hegseth spent several minutes refusing to just give a yes-or-no answer, even though those statements are verifiably false.

  And that's not all the evidence you really need.

  The fact is, the war is still happening, and he's there asking for tens of billions of dollars to keep fighting.

  And then as far as the war, the U.S. military said last night that it had completed its 11th straight night of strikes on Iran.

  That's even as a new U.S. intelligence assessment has reportedly concluded that these strikes are unlikely to get Iran to soften its demands or back down.

  All the while, of course, you have Iran still fighting.

  That's why you had Trump today attending the dignified transfer of the four U.S. troops who lost their lives in this conflict over the past week.

  And actually, he claimed that they had all spoken in support of the war.

  "All of them said very strongly, 'You cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. They won't have a nuclear weapon.'"

  But of course:

  One, almost no one's buying that.

  And two, you've got many believing that it's just an attempt to justify the fact that he might be about to send even more troops to their deaths.

  Because you now have it being reported that he's debating between trying diplomacy again or just launching a massive joint military campaign with Israel to try to force Iran to finally bow down.

  Incidentally, it seems like he's leaning toward that second choice.

  He's been dismissive of potential talks.

  And you had him saying yesterday:

  "The U.S. will bomb Pickaxe Mountain. We'll be hitting that area very probably pretty soon. And there's not a thing they can do about it.

  Normally I wouldn't say that if I thought they could do something about it. I would never say that. But we'll be hitting that area pretty soon and very heavily."

  Right, and Pickaxe Mountain is the home of a secret underground facility that's believed to have been under construction since 2020.

  But also earlier this week, with The Wall Street Journal reporting that Israel provided the U.S. with intelligence suggesting that Iran had moved thousands of centrifuges there.

  Though Iran has insisted that there's no nuclear activity at the site.

  And you had a spokesperson for the country's foreign ministry claiming that the new focus on it is nothing more than a fabricated pretext for aggression, destruction, and sabotage.

  But also really, whatever the case is there, it is not an easy target.

  You've got the site reportedly so far underground that experts say even the U.S.'s most powerful bunker-busting bombs—like the ones used to attack the other nuclear sites in the country in June 2025—might not be enough.

  So Trump instead might opt for softer targets, with him today going back to the tried-and-true approach of threatening potential war crimes, writing on social media:

  "From this point forward, anytime the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, whether it be by missile, rocket, drone, or any other device or weapon, the United States will bomb and destroy one bridge or power plant, including those located next to or in the capital city."

  But then also, while there, he's desperately trying to come up with something to get the Strait of Hormuz back to normal.

  The new Houthi blockade in the Red Sea is already having an impact.

  You now have at least seven ships having reversed course since it was announced earlier this week.

  As you have all this going down, the price of oil has also gone back up past $95 a barrel for the first time in six months.

  And so, as long as this has been going on—as bad as it's been—this still could just be the beginning.

  And then there's even more that we get to dive into in just a minute.

• Sponsored by Bellessa

  But let me thank a sponsor and say, you know, they're giving away a free Rose Toy to every single one of you.

  And no, not just some of you.

  Everyone who signs up at BBVibes.com/DeFranco wins something.

  That's the request.

  They reached out again, and I guess last time I did a good job because you guys went crazy.

  I'll be honest.

  You know, I normally in the past would hesitate on a sexual wellness brand, let alone doing a deal again, but they seem to be the real deal.

  They've built a comprehensive catalog of wellness products for everybody.

  I mean, it doesn't matter who you are or what you're into, they've got something designed with you in mind.

  One of the things I like about Bellessa is the intentionality.

  Everything is body-safe, thoughtfully designed, and built to be approachable.

  It doesn't seem to be about extremes.

  It's about people feeling comfortable on their own terms.

  And hey, whether that's relevant to you or you're buying for a very specific person in your life, whatever it is, there's zero judgment.

  We just wanted to hook you all up with their top-selling product, the Rose Suction Toy, and they're sending Roses out like it's Valentine's Day.

  Everyone that places an order wins.

  Every single one of you wins.

  A Rose retails for $99, but you get it free.

  Iconic.

  Just click the link in the description or head to BBVibes.com/DeFranco.

  That's BBVibes.com/DeFranco.

  Or just scan the QR code.

  Whatever gets you hooked up today.

  But then, for your final block today, I've got to make sure that you're fully and properly filled in before I go.

ZBIOTICS

EVERYONE who signs up wins a FREE Rose suction toy with their order! https://www.shopbboutique.co/vibe/philipdefranco-yt

• Mamdani Admits That New York Doesn't Have the Power to Arrest Netanyahu

  Let's quickly hit some more news you need to know.

  Starting with how you have New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani coming out and saying he doesn't have the authority to put Benjamin Netanyahu behind bars—but he should.

  "Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal, the architect of a horrific genocide against the Palestinian people. As I've said, I agree with the ICC that Benjamin Netanyahu should be arrested and tried for his crimes."

  You've got this stemming from the ICC issuing arrest warrants for Netanyahu back in 2024, where they accused him and his defense minister at the time of intentionally and knowingly depriving Gaza of food, water, fuel, and medicine.

  And Mamdani has been pushing hard to get those warrants executed.

  But, of course, the problem there is that America is not part of the ICC.

  And in fact, you have Trump's team trying to get rid of it as we speak.

  And so, according to legal experts, even if Netanyahu did get arrested under those warrants, it probably wasn't going to happen on American soil.

  But that also didn't stop Mamdani and his team from looking into how they could do it.

  "My administration has reviewed every avenue available under applicable law to determine whether New York City could execute the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant if Benjamin Netanyahu came here.

  It is clear that we do not have the independent legal authority to enforce this warrant.

  The federal government, however, does."

  But of course, that's going to die with the federal government.

  Trump and Netanyahu are essentially best buddies.

  Even though we hear the random report of, "Oh, Trump got mad," most experts—and I think reasonable people—understand that what happened in Gaza does not get to this point without Trump.

  And earlier this week, you had Trump flat out saying that Netanyahu wouldn't be arrested in any way, shape, or form.

  But still, Mamdani coming out and saying this—and doing this—is a flashpoint as far as U.S.-Israeli relations.

  And it'll be interesting to see, with Mamdani taking such a stand like this, what happens as far as the polling on the issue.

  Because U.S. approval of the Israeli government and Netanyahu is at all-time lows.

  One of the biggest questions there is whether that's permanent on both sides, whether it be the left or the right.

  Then also, news about alleged criminals.

• Trump and Rubio Don't Plan to Fight UK's Extradition of the Tate Brothers

  You have the Tate brothers because there you reportedly have a senior Trump administration official saying that they have no plans to block the Tates' extradition to the UK after their arrest last week.

  One source even said that Marco Rubio thinks these guys are guilty, which is huge if true.

  Because Rubio could actually keep them here if he thought this was all politically motivated.

  You've had the Tates' attorney saying there's no question that it is.

  But Rubio—yes, he does Trump's bidding on things that he cares about—but he's also a conservative Catholic.

  He fought for stronger human trafficking laws as a senator.

  You have sources saying that he's just not going to be first in line to help two people accused of rape and human trafficking.

  And while, of course, Trump would be the trump card, apparently Trump doesn't want anything to do with them.

  With one former campaign adviser saying:

  "The Tates want to pretend they were responsible for the president's victory in 2024, but they weren't part of our strategy, and the president doesn't know them."

• Paxton Walks Out of Press Conference After Being Challenged on Recent Scandals

  And then finally, we got to talk about Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton dealing with a lot of scandals that are standing between him and a seat in the Senate.

  Except actually, at this point, you've got him really not dealing with them at all.

  He's literally just running away.

  You had Paxton holding this press conference with a bunch of law enforcement officers who endorsed him in his race against James Talarico.

  But the reporters there were a lot more interested in everything surrounding his campaign.

  "General, I wanted to give you a chance to respond to State Representative Talarico and his campaign. They've made a lot about the reports that have come out, one in The New York Times about you acquiring properties worth..."

  "Can we keep this to law enforcement?"

  "Will you answer a question about why you voted in Collin County?"

  "We're just going to do questions on law enforcement today."

  The reporters kept pressing him about two of the handful of scandals that he's been carrying with him on the road to the midterms.

  But I guess before they could start poking at that anymore, his team figured that it would be best for him to leave.

  "I have a question."

  "We're going to get out of here. Thank you, guys."

  "I have a question."

  "We're going to get out of here. Thank you."

  "Can we not have more than one person answer a question?"

  "What's your question?"

  So immediately after hopping out of the hot seat without any answers, people online were kind of dunking on him and pushing back.

  You had people saying things like:

  "I don't see how Texas sheriffs can endorse a lawbreaker like Paxton. How can Texans trust him to enforce the law?"

  And others saying:

  "What a disaster for Texas Republicans."

  All while recent polls have shown that he does not have much wiggle room for slip-ups like this.

  But again, this is a Republican running for statewide office in Texas.

  So even with the energy and the fundraising that we've seen with Talarico, it is still Paxton's race to lose.

  But it also genuinely feels crazy that seemingly Ken Paxton's answer to, "Hey, you seem to have a million scandals," is:

  "I think Talarico is a weirdo who has low testosterone."

  But... that could actually work.

  But hey, that is where a big ol' Wednesday Philip DeFranco Show is going to end.

  Though I've got more for you to dive into just a click away.

  I'd love for you to Crash Out with us because me and my buddy Alex Pearlman just uploaded the weekly episode of Crashing Out.

  And if you're looking for something cathartic and fun, you should definitely check out this episode.

  And two, we're actually going on tour, and you can get tickets right now at CrashingOutTour.com.

  Whatever you do, let me just say:

  My name's Philip DeFranco.

  You've just been filled in.

  I love your faces.

  And I'll see you right back here next time.