- Today, we're talking about Andrew Tate
winning his freedom.
Why the internet is raging at Mia Khalifa.
We've got US lawmakers waging a water war
that could devastate the nation.
And why there's such a controversy right now
around space flight regulation.
We're gonna talk about all that
and so much more on today's brand new Philip DeFranco Show,
your daily dive into the news today
powered by the Beautiful Bastard drop
that goes live tonight at midnight.
New and incredibly comfortable shirts, crews, hoodies
tie dye socks and bandanas, dad hats and bucket hats,
a brand new summer shorts for the pool or beach
and our new fantastic linen button up.
And all of it at 30% off if you get in on it
when it drops tomorrow.
And if you're worried about missing it,
text me at 813-213-4423.
We'll text you the update.
But we got a lot of news to talk about
so hit that like button and let's just jump into it.
Starting with as of recording this, Andrew Tate
is a free man or at least he is now free to roam Romania
after a judge lifted his house arrest order on Friday.
Though notably, he's still barred from leaving the county
that surrounds Bucharest where he lives.
Where with all of this of course connected
to the investigation into him, his brother,
and two other women on human trafficking, rape,
and organized crime charges,
with prosecutors formerly indicting the four back in June.
And in a statement outside his house on Friday, Tate said.
- In January when I was thrown into jail cell,
the media reported and told the world
I was a terrible person.
They said that I hurt people and I make a lot of money
from criminal enterprise.
And here, we stand seven or eight months later
and I've not seen a single victim on the news.
I don't know if you have.
I've seen lot of girls sticking up for me,
lots of people defending me.
I've not seen a single person stand up
and say that I have hurt them, not one
- So there, prosecutors have chosen to keep the names
of the seven alleged victims in the case anonymous
with that also likely for good reason because two
who claim to be on the list were reportedly doxed online
by some Tate's fans and then forced into hide it.
As well as there being other situations
like you had two other women earlier this year
saying their names were wrongly
listed as victims in the case.
Reportedly, it's still unclear
if their names actually are on that list.
But regardless, we have seen women speaking out
including four in the UK that are now suing Tate
for sexual and physical assault.
But for now, eyes are still on this looming trial
and the ultimate verdict that's gonna come down from it.
And then why is the internet at Mia Khalifa
and why are people comparing her to Tom Brady?
Well it's 'cause Mia went absolutely viral after responding
to a comment from someone who said they got married at 18,
divorced at 20 to which Mia was like,
"Oh I can one up that.
- I'm Tom Brady at this game.
Married at 18, divorced at 21.
Second marriage married at 25, divorced at 28.
Third engagement engaged at 29, ended it at 30.
- And then she just basically says, "Even if you have a ring
on your finger, you always have the right
to leave a relationship if you're not happy."
- We should not be afraid to leave these men.
We are not stuck with these people.
Marriage is not a sanctimonious thing.
It is paperwork, it's a commitment you make to someone
but if you feel like you are not getting anything
from that commitment and you're trying,
you gotta go, you gotta go.
- And with that saying,
life can be hard but this is your life
and you shouldn't feel stuck with someone.
And that video went absolutely viral,
though likely not for the reason she intended.
They're mostly blowing up because people were mocking her.
Which to sum up the majority of the arguments being,
because she is divorced and she formerly appeared in porn,
she shouldn't be giving out this kind of advice.
Or something it's absolute joke saying she's gotta be top 10
worst people on the planet to receive marriage advice from.
But then on the other side you had people saying,
"You're just weaponizing her former profession."
And saying it's an important message to get out there
that it's not a crime to get out of a marriage
if it makes you unhappy.
And then tell other women
that they have the power to do the same
especially 'cause a lot of people look
at divorces as like these massive failures.
Saying things like, "Funny thing is that all Mia Khalifa
is saying here is don't force yourself
to stay with someone you don't love.
Meanwhile, the checkmarks are acting
like she's saying something insane."
As well as, "Most dudes find it threatening
that a woman would tell other women
to get the fuck outta toxic relationships.
Her work history is irrelevant, nobody bats an eye
when priests who can't get married give advice.
At least Mia Khalifa has relationship experience."
But ultimately, as far as my takeaway here,
I kinda got three main things coming to mind.
The first being that if you're immediately dismissing
anything Mia Khalifa is saying here
because she used to be a sex worker,
I think that's really fucking stupid.
Just a really ignorant mindset.
Two, I do think it's an incredibly important message
to get out there that if you're just like fucking miserable
or you don't feel safe in your marriage, get out.
Well for many of you watching I think you think
that's common sense
but I've seen like an increasing number
of like dude bro podcasts,
like a lot of those ones where they're debating.
Where there have been conversations about physical
or emotional abuse and they're like, "No, you suck it up.
You figure out how to work through it."
No, if someone's abusing you get the fuck out.
Or give any marriage enough time, it can get hard.
You use common sense
about what you can work through and what you can't.
But all that, bringing to three
where I just I have a mindset
that doesn't necessarily line up
to I think the message me is giving here
'cause I feel like one of the lessons there
is do not rush into marriage.
In no world am I an expert but like when people get married
after a year, I'm like, "Whew, good luck man."
You've only been in a relationship
with one to three versions of that person.
We're always growing and changing
and I mean, have you ever taken a trip
with that person for like three weeks?
And also I think it's a healthier mindset to not look
at marriage like some people do where it's like success,
like that was a goal.
It's not, it's an aspect of your relationship
and also something that I don't think
everyone needs to be in.
But ultimately, that's a story.
Some of my takeaway
and now I'll pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts here?
Where do you stand on this?
And then would you accept a flight on a rocket
or a spacecraft if there were virtually
no safety regulations for passengers?
And I ask not because this is Ocean Gates new venture
but rather, because in many cases,
that's actually how it's been for 20 years.
For companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic.
However, that's actually all set to change
in September as long as Congress just sits on its ass.
Which hey, on face value might seem like a good thing
but industry experts actually argue
this lack of regulation is completely necessary
to keep the private space industry booming.
Because technically, there are safety regulations in place
for passengers on spacecraft, private crafts included.
However, in 2004, Congress wanted to make sure
that smaller private companies actually stood a chance
of making advancements in the field
and felt that taking commercial astronauts
or space tourists gave them a better chance of growing.
So while they did keep the rules about launching spacecraft
and other aspects of the industry in place,
they exempted companies below a certain size
from rules surrounding occupant safety
and is giving them what's known as a learning period.
And the idea was that this period
of lax regulation would give them the experience, expertise
and ability to grow to the point
that when they had to comply with the regulations,
it wouldn't be nearly as big of a burden.
With passengers on these flight
just needing to sign what's called
an informed consent waiver with George Nield,
the former head of the FAA's
Office of Commercial Space Transportation
describing it like this.
Saying, "Anyone who wants to fly
on these rockets needs to be thoroughly briefed
on all the hazards, all the risks,
all the things that could go wrong,
that they could be injured or even killed on these flights.
Then if they're still willing to go,
they sign the piece of paper and they're allowed to fly."
But now with those exemptions set to expire
in just a few months, industry groups are trying
to get get Congress to extend them.
We're seeing Karina Drees,
President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation
urging lawmakers at a house science committee hearing
to take action.
Saying, "Allowing the learning period to end this year
with lead to regulations that inadvertently freeze
development before industry has had time to mature."
And adding that letting the exemptions expire
also hurt any future company wanting to break
into the industry.
Saying, "We wanna enable an industry
that allows entrepreneurs to flourish
and that allows new companies to come online
with new capabilities.
And it's very difficult to do that
if the regulation is already in place."
Otherwise, under her framework,
the private spacecraft industry has pretty much stuck
to SpaceX, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic
which together, have taken 10 private passengers total
into space across the last two decades.
Also, another issue that many industry experts
have pointed to is that actually writing
effective regulations might be too hard.
Is there currently only three companies
engaging in these flights?
And making matters worse,
is that each company uses wildly different designs.
So a one-size-fits-all set of rules
may not work as intended.
However, not everyone's actually in agreement
that letting the exemptions finally retire
means the industry is just gonna crumble.
With the RAND Corporation actually recommending
the expiration in a study from April arguing
that doing so doesn't mean regulations
will or even should suddenly be in place
a day after they're gone.
And Kevin Coleman, who leads the FAA's Office
of Commercial Space Transportation seeming to agree saying,
"We don't have a drawer full of regulations ready to go,
far from it.
We would just like to engage with industry and figure out
what the future regulatory framework ought to look like.
So in some sense, there may not be a noticeable change
at all at least in the near term."
And Nield actually added onto this saying
that a balance should be struck where regulations
surrounding specific design features should be avoided.
And instead, regulations about processes
or redundancies should be focused on.
With his biggest fear being that some kind of accident's
gonna happen and then lead
to a reaction by the public in the FAA.
Even comparing a hypothetical space accident
to that of the recent Titan submersible.
Where now you have so many calling
for the private submersible field
to be more heavily monitored.
And while he does think
that regulation should happen, he said,
"My view of this is that rush regulations
are bad regulations.
Let's take our time, but let's get started
and see what we can come up with
in terms of an overall framework."
And it's argued that there is time here
'cause currently, the entire question
really doesn't affect too many passengers.
Although that might change kind of.
And that is because NASA is actually considering
using some of these crafts to help train its astronauts
with the problem there being that NASA
has much, much stricter regulations in place
that it follows.
With the report saying that NASA's currently toying
with the idea of instead of forcing
those regulations onto these private companies,
instead having them submit reports for certification.
And after that, if NASA thinks it's sound
it'll let its astronauts onto the craft.
Which I mean that alone could be a huge boost
for the industry.
Like we saw with SpaceX when they got a contract
to fly NASA astronauts to the ISS,
although notably there, NASA had them follow
their strict regulations from the start
so things will be even looser for the new projects.
And then did you know that everyday people
can and do buy records containing an alarming amount
of your sensitive information
with as little as your phone number or an old address?
And if you don't like the idea
of some random Joe Schmo finding out where you live or work,
wouldn't you wanna know
if there's anything that you could do about it?
Well, thanks to the fantastic sponsor today's show, Incogni,
you can do something about it.
Your first question may be,
where do people find this kind of information?
And oftentimes, it can happen way easier
than you might think.
People search sites like BIN Verified and Spokeo
to scrape the internet for your data.
Like when you're registering
for a store's loyalty program is one easy example.
And then with as little as a phone number,
old address or name, complete strangers
can buy records containing sensitive information
and that's where Incogni comes in.
Incogni removes your personal data
from these kinds of websites,
and they do it automatically in the background.
To do this on your own is a tremendous amount of work
and nobody has time for that amount
of tedious annoying work.
So just go to incogni.com/defranco to learn more.
And don't forget to use code DEFRANCO.
That's incog.com/defranco,
use code DEFRANCO or just click that link down below
to take your personal data off the market.
And then the water wars in America
are getting crazy and politicians
on both sides of the aisle are making it worse.
'Cause y'all, we could be on the verge
of a serious water crisis
and it could happen in any number of places.
And at the center of this, you have $2.3 billion.
That's the amount of money initially allocated
for federal water funds that lawmakers have funneled
towards their own pet projects instead
just in the last two years alone.
And those actions have come at the expense
of poorer and needier communities.
With the data obtained and analyzed by The Post finder,
that 38 states and territories have been shortchanged
about $660 million in federal watery.
Illustrating how the system
often has rewarded politically well-connected lawmakers
in some of the wealthiest areas nationwide.
So one of the biggest questions here
is how the hell does this happen?
Well, it turns out, as part
of the annual appropriations process each year,
Congress allocates money
to two different federal water funds under the EPA
with those then tasked with giving out grants
to states provide clean and reliable drinking water.
You know, think replacing lead pipes,
updating water storage systems,
general clean water infrastructure.
And since last year, the federal government has set aside
around $5.5 billion for those two EPA water funds.
And while that might seem like a good chunk of change,
it actually provides less than 1%
of the estimated $625 billion needed to address the backlog
of clean water projects.
And then even that is just a fraction of a fraction
of the money that's needed for those projects.
And those funds get whittled down even more
before they even go out
to states through a legislative tool called earmarks.
'Cause under the earmarking process,
members of Congress can effectively skim off
the top of the funds and reserve the federal water funding
for certain projects in their homes, states, and districts.
And only after that's been done,
then the government splits up
the rest of the aid among the states
with the post explaining in some parts of the country,
the result of that congressional meddling is a net cut
in funding creating an effect a system
of water winners and losers.
Take for example, Illinois.
Recent federal analysis shows that Illinois
has some of the most intense water needs of any state
including having these second most LED pipes
in the entire country.
But according to data and records compiled
by the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities
or CIFA, the state received $14.7 million
less than it would've been given
in include water funding because of the earmarks process.
And those losses were even worse for Puerto Rico
which also doesn't even have a voting member in Congress.
With earmarks stealing around $26.6 million
that should have gone to the territory
even as it struggles to rebuild
after the absolute devastation
brought on by a series of hurricanes.
But again, those are far from the only places impacted
with The Post also reported.
Over the past two fiscal years,
Pennsylvania similarly received about $36 million
less than it would've received
if lawmakers had not allowed earmarks.
For Indiana, the cut totaled roughly $45 million
and noting in Texas, the reduction exceeded $65 million.
Meanwhile, on the other side of this story,
the lawmakers that have been siphoning away funds
and earmarks have used them to directly fund
pet projects in their homes.
Like in California
where the state's two Democratic senators
Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla obtained $32 million
in water related earmarks just last year alone
with an analysis from CIFA showing that since 2022,
the state has secured roughly $43 million
more than it would've if lawmakers
had not earmarked the funds.
And notably here, a spokesperson
for Padilla defended the earmarks is part
of the senator's ongoing work.
To quote, "Address decades
of underinvestment and the needs
of the 40 million Californians he represents
including nearly one million
who are without access to safe drinking water."
This was also echoed
by Alaska's Republican governor, Lisa Murkowski
who is largely responsible for the $73 million increase
in water funding her states received
in the last two years, mostly because of her earmarks.
And actually, in an interview
with The Post, Murkowski even acknowledged that quote,
"Some would look at last year's accounts
for Alaska and say that's rather eye-popping.
It seems out of line given Alaska's population."
But she still defended the move,
arguing that her state's been under-resourced
based on the formula that normally gives out water fund.
And adding, "What far too many people fail to recognize
in my state is we're not repairing existing infrastructure.
We're not replacing, we're putting in water and sanitation
for the first time."
But then even beyond all that,
The Post Also found that congressional earmarks
appear to benefit wealthy communities over needier ones.
Raising the specter that the process could be worsening
the country's racial and economic divides.
And according to an unpublished analysis that was circulated
within the Biden administration
and then obtained by The Post, in multiple states
including Maryland, Massachusetts, and Virginia,
less than 20% of water funding earmarks went
to communities that are considered to be disadvantaged
during the 2023 fiscal year.
And while states usually provide water funding
in the form of loans, the earmarks were provided
in the form of grants.
And in a letter to the Biden administration in March,
Timothy Male, the executive director
of the Environmental Policy Innovation Center,
he estimated that 200 earmarks
in 2023 went to communities that are wealthier
than the statewide average income.
Also adding that those cities and towns
would've been eligible for loans but not grants
if lawmakers hadn't interfered.
With this including the city of Bel Air, Texas,
where the average household income
is more than $200,000 annually
getting $2.4 million to replace its waterline.
And while Bellaire may have usually needed to take out
a loan for the project, it just received a federal grant,
thanks to its Democratic representative, Lizzie Fletcher.
But one of the craziest things with the situation
and a big part of why we need to talk about this
is it could get much, much worse.
Even with the earmarking process, most states
and territories have still been able to pay
for their water projects
because of the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure bill
with that notably allocating around $55 billion
to improving water access supply and treatment.
But that also fell short of America's water needs.
Take for example, lead pipes
a problem that was infamously the cause
of the Flint water crisis
and still plagues millions of Americans nationwide.
While the infrastructure bill provided a solid
$15 billion to replace lead pipes,
that is not nearly enough to address the issue.
With various analyses
from groups such as the Brookings Institution,
finding that it could cost three times that amount
to actually fix the problem.
What's more the money set out
under the infrastructure law is only temporary.
It was just a one-time boost increase funding
over a five-year period.
Or to put it another way, we are now inching
closer and closer to a massive water cliff.
And if we fall off that cliff,
it could create a series of crises.
An expert saying that lawmakers diverting funds
to their own homes
through earmarking are seriously exacerbating the problem.
With one top official
at the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency saying,
"That states are worried about this trend,
the direction that it's going."
Adding, "If it continues and our grants continue
to be reduced and the bipartisan infrastructure
law money ends, then what do we do?"
And unfortunately, there's even more
and that more is bad news.
'Cause for some stupid fucking reason
house Republicans are now trying to pass measures
that will make the situation even worse.
With us seeing in just the last few weeks,
Republicans advancing legislation
that would massively cut federal water spending
by more than half.
And nearly all the money that is still left
would be reserved for earmarks.
Effectively creating a combination of fiscal constraints
next year that state officials
have described as devastating.
But Republicans for their part have argued
that the cuts won't be bad because the infrastructure bill
still gives states extra water funding.
But according to reports, if the bill becomes law though,
CIFA predicts that 43 states
would each receive less than $1 million
in drinking water aid to use as they see fit.
Something that's been described
as a staggering drop that some states just can't afford.
And that brings us to the end
of this Sunday daily dive into the news.
But two quick things.
One, frankly reminder,
that new beautiful bastard drop goes live tomorrow.
30% off if you get in quick enough.
Stock's also gonna be pretty limited.
And two, for more news,
you need to know I got you covered right here
or in those links down below.
And if you're all caught up, don't worry
'cause my name's Philip DeFranco,
you've just been filled in.
I love yo faces and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.