Sup, you beauty of all bastards. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show, your daily dive into the news. Today is Thursday, December 5th. There's a lot we need to talk about today, but let's start.

Let's start with you hitting that like button and talking about the Hawke to a girl controversy. Real name Hailey Welch, but everyone calls her Hawke to a girl. Spit on that thing. Unfortunately, in this situation,

the thing that she is apparently spitting on is in people's faces. Allegedly. Allegedly. Allegedly. I'm stealing that from Desus and Mero. So here's the deal. Hawke to a girl is the most recent influencer to launch a crypto meme coin,

called the Hot Coin. It went live yesterday after a lot of promotion. And she even did an interview with Fortune about it, claiming that it wasn't just a cash grab, saying, you know, she used to view crypto as just a scam and an easy way to lose money.

Then claiming that her opinion changed after attending crypto conferences, saying, "I don't really see it as like a gambling thing. I think it's like a fun way to get my fans to interact." Their manager then also claiming at the heart

of the token, it'll be different from other previous celebrity crypto endeavors because they're not telling people to buy and will give free tokens to her followers and people who have purchased merch. With that, also claiming that Hayley, you own

10% of the supply,
but can't sell for a year. Seemingly, one of the immediate responses
to this coin was a lot of skepticism. Some saying, you know, it seems like she's
maybe going to be talking to a judge.

Also, huge influencers in the space
like Coffeezilla adding, "Please do not put your money in a coin.
Meme coins always benefit insiders
and trading bots. Don't be late to exit. Liquidity." Then, with all of that,
Hailey ended up trending this morning,

a lot of people discussing how the coin
had already plummeted substantially. So, with that,
some accused her and insiders of a pump-and-dump scheme, though Hailey denies
that anyone on her team has sold yet and said no
leaders were given free tokens.

But, according to the Independent,
at least one investor has already filed a complaint.  Want to add, others online
are talking about how much money they ended up losing. There, I will say
it appears that there's a mishmash, if you look online, of some people
that seem to have legitimately lost money

and other people just kind of memeing
and making fun of those who did. Because, really, whoever
is losing money on this, if you look online,
there's not a lot of sympathy for them. And, personally, I find myself on the side
of those that are not sympathetic here.

Because I think that if you lost money
on the "hodl a girl" meme coin, you're either dumb, greedy,
or some mixture of the two. Or, who's out there
going all-in on everyone in the space?  Hailey is the girl that's figured it out.

I looked at her track record of talking enthusiastically about blowjobs and a "Man on the Street" video, and then she took that fame and partnered with Jake Paul's sports betting company to launch a podcast. And I said, "This is the one."

With this, I'll say I'm very interested in how Hailey Welch is going to navigate this situation, because really, if you look out there and, for me personally, to some extent, she has burnt through some goodwill. That's in part because of how she's dealing with the criticism.

Because she and some of the people involved here went live, and they ended up allowing Coffeezilla to speak. And this is how the interactions started.  I'm really happy to answer any questions I have. I'm raising my hand. Hey guys, what coffees? I'm...

Hey. Hey. This is one of the most miserable, horrible launches I've ever seen in my life. Okay, then why the fuck are you on? I've been tracing it on chain for a while. Oh, Hailey. What are you doing?

Hey, we'll see what happens. If I were a betting man, given my 18 years in the space, the way I imagine this is going to play out, at least from a PR perspective, is people are going to infantilize Hailey

and allow her to use her ignorance in this space as a shield. Well, she is a young woman, and a lot's been thrown at her. She's not a fucking baby. Obviously, social and PR concerns are different than any potential legal fallout.

So for now, we'll have to wait and see. Of course, in the meantime, I'd love to know your thoughts in the comments below. But then we gotta talk about updates around the killing of the CEO of UnitedHealth Group.

Because, among other things, the social media response has only grown since yesterday. Because yesterday we touched on the fact that people online were, let's say, not very sad about the news, to put it politely. And since then, we've seen outlets like Axios doing a piece,

noting that this murder, quote, unleashed a wave of social media-fueled rage against health insurers. The outlet added that experts say the lack of sympathy may reflect an inherent truth about Americans and their health plans. People tend to like their own insurer, but distrust the industry

and indeed, the health system at large. That outrage only grew when Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield decided that yesterday of all days would be a good day to announce that it was limiting anesthesia coverage in three states. They will no longer cover the full length of anesthesia

if the surgery exceeds a certain amount of time, depending on the procedure. With the initial news stating this would impact those in New York, Missouri, and Connecticut. The local outlets in Connecticut have since said that, at least in that state, the policy was backtracked.

Now, currently it is not clear if the backtracking will extend to the other states. But the point stands: as the initial news broke, people were pissed, right? You had medical groups slamming the potential decision, as have big political figures like the governor of New York.

But also what we've seen is the biggest response, given the timing of this, coming the day of the murder of UHC CEO Brian Thompson, is people deciding to share the name of Blue Cross's CEO. Right. And so, with that, some openly hoping for a takedown, to some saying that disdain

for the health insurance industry seems to be the only thing uniting both sides of this country. I don't think that it's crazy to think, given the reaction we have seen online, that this could spark copycats in the future.

Right now, it really doesn't look like the response is changing. And if anything, it's really only growing. As we get new updates in the manhunt for the suspect we're speaking of, those will touch on some of the big ones.

This morning, the NYPD shared new photos of a person of interest, wanted for questioning. Officers have also said that they found shell casings at the scene of the killing that had the words "deny," "defend," and "oppose" written on them.

Well, the gunman is still at large, and the motive is technically unclear. Some have started speculating about what those words might mean, with, for example, *The New York Times* saying that some believe those words to be a reference to the ways insurance companies seek to fend off claims.

During a 2010 book on the topic, *Delay, Deny, Defend* argues that health insurers' claims departments try to increase their profits by not honoring the terms of insurance policies. *The Times* also reports that police in the Minnesota town that Thompson lived in actually investigated bomb threats.

into his residence around 12 hours after he was shot. And while any connection to the killing is still being looked into, NBC News did report this afternoon that the threat may have been a hoax. For now, that's where we are.

And we'll have to wait to see what happens with the suspect in the manhunt in general. This might be hyperbole, but I will let you be the judge. The decision to put lead in pretty much everything has to rank as one of the worst

things the United States did during the 20th century, which is saying something if you know anything about U.S. history. Lead is a neurotoxin that wrecks your brain and poisons nearly every organ system in the body.

I mean, there's a reason that the CDC says there is no safe amount of lead. So thankfully, we banned lead paint in 1978, lead pipes in '86, and leaded gasoline in 1996. But what that doesn't mean is that we are free of its effects.

In fact, more than half of the current U.S. population was exposed to adverse lead levels in childhood from leaded gasoline alone. Of course, that begs the question, well, what does that actually mean for those people? How are they really affected?

To answer that now, we've actually got a peer-reviewed study from researchers at Duke University, Florida State University, and the Medical University of South Carolina answering that exact question.  Analyzing childhood blood lead levels from 1940 to 2015.

and singling out the effect of leaded gasoline, in particular. According to their findings, Americans suffered an estimated 151 million excess mental health disorders that they wouldn't have had if they hadn't breathed in all those exhaust fumes.

Though, this is less of a concern if you were born closer to 1940 or 2015. The brunt of the damage hit Generation X, those born between 1966 and 1986, with people born between 1966 and 1970 being especially hard hit

since they grew up at the peak of leaded gasoline use.  For all of them, they could expect higher rates of depression, anxiety, and ADHD, as well as altered personalities. The study's co-author even told CNN that lead exposure makes people a little less conscientious.

less well-organized, less detail-oriented, less likely to be able to pursue their goals in an organized way, and more neurotic. Possibly some of your parents and extended family are coming to mind right now. And according to a previous study by the same authors, exposure

to leaded gasoline lowered the IQ of half the present-day population of the United States. Or more specifically, costing an estimated 824 million IQ points in total, or 2.6 points per person on average. Which, I would say,

you know, for most people probably isn't noticeable on an individual level, but on the population level, it's like we took the entire bell curve of America's IQ and shifted the whole thing to the left. Specifically for people born in the 60s and 70s,

The loss was definitely noticeable; they're losing up to 6 or 7 IQ points. So you have the study's coauthor telling NBC, "We're not at all concerned that we have in any way overestimated the harm. In fact, the estimate might be an undercount."

Since the study didn't measure all possible sources of lead exposure. Because, as mentioned, lead still contaminates water pipes, house paint, children's toys, and soil in many parts of the country. Plus, this study only considers mental health effects.

But physical ailments are a big thing, too. Which is why you have the coauthor saying to CNN, "Millions of Americans are walking around with an unknown, invisible history of lead exposure that is likely influencing them for the worse."

How they think, feel, and behave. So, yeah, it wasn't that fun thing to learn about. But then, taking a quick breather from the news. You know, it is the season of giving. And I love sharing my favorite finds when they come with amazing discounts.

Like, for example, 40% off the best sheets I have ever owned, thanks to our sponsor, Cozy Earth. These folks have mastered the art of comfort; cozy, artsy bamboo sheet sets. They make the perfect holiday gift. It's all about giving the gift of unmatched

coziness, transforming every night into a high-end feel and experience. Crafted from bamboo-derived viscose, these sheets help regulate temperature year-round, meaning whether it's freezing or warm, they've got you covered. Also, let's not forget their Cityscape collection, right?

Hoodies and sweatpants designed for ultimate comfort and practicality. Perfect for lounging or tackling holiday errands in cozy style. It takes everyday luxury to the next level, making their products the kind your loved ones will actually use and truly appreciate for their durability.

Check. These sheets do not peel and they stay incredibly soft even after countless washes. Plus, their ten-year warranty on bedding and bath items speaks for itself. This holiday season, wrap your loved ones in luxury with Cozy Earth. Just use the code "Franco" and get 40% off.

to give the gift of comfort they'll never forget. Order by December 13th for free shipping. If you need it faster, expedited shipping is available until December 20th. Just remember cozyearth.com/theFranco (use code Franco), and if you fill out

a post-purchase survey, let them know the PDF sent to you. But now, for this next deep dive, I'm going to do it. And my standing desk is... my legs are falling asleep. Okay, here we go. So we should talk about Donald Trump and immigration.

Because he's been making some big promises. And so we've talked a little bit about what to expect, but we should really deep dive into it. So to start, we should actually go back to the first time that Trump was elected.

In 2017, he started his presidency pledging to deport millions of immigrants. In the end, he found that it wasn't that simple. There were all sorts of logistical, financial, and legal obstacles. And finally, there was a public outcry when he began separating migrant families.

at the border, all of which eventually led him to reverse course and sign an executive order that ended the practice. Here's the thing: Even though that happened, there's reason to believe things will be different this time.

Why we're seeing people like Lee Gelernt, an ACLU lawyer who challenged some of Trump's first-term immigration policies, saying, 'As bad as the first Trump administration was for immigrants, we anticipate it will be much worse this time.' This is important because not only did Donald Trump win the presidency,

he has the House and the Senate on his side. And while it's true he had that in 2016, the makeup of the Republicans there is different. There are actually a number of Republican senators that push back more.

Like, for example, nearly a dozen GOP senators once opposed attempts to use emergency powers to take funds to build the border wall, whereas now it doesn't really seem like we should expect numbers like that to appear.

And then on top of that, he's also now starting his term with a conservative Supreme Court majority that he was able to put into place near the end of his first term; a Supreme Court that is also potentially emboldened Trump with its decision on presidential immunity.

And more notably, connected to the immigration issue, it specifically ruled in 2022 that lower courts cannot issue injunctions on immigration enforcement policies. That means whatever potentially illegal policies Trump implements can stay in place even as challenges work their way through the system.

Notably, all of this is contributing to a lot of people believing what Trump has been putting out there. Like, according to a recent poll, 64% of Americans wrongly believe immigrants receive more in welfare and benefits than they pay in taxes. Similarly, more than half wrongly believe unauthorized immigration

is linked to rising crime. Of course, people have argued that any extra crime committed by people who are not supposed to be here is unacceptable. So, with all that, half of Americans reportedly support mass deportations

of undocumented immigrants, and notably, that includes 42% of Democrats.  At that point, we've seen that shift at the local and state level as well, especially as border states started bussing migrants from the border to blue cities back in 2022.

Many of them were so-called sanctuary cities. Now we've seen them clearing encampments and evicting migrants from public shelters. With that, you have people like Chad Wolf, who was Trump's acting Homeland Security Secretary, claiming that Trump will have more leeway

to make major changes, saying voters have repudiated what he called the chaos at the border under Biden and adding, "I think the American people as a whole are much more open to his policies because they've seen what's happened over the last four years."

To that point, while Trump is planning a border crackdown, Biden arguably already started one, at least continued what began under Trump before. And actually, in their campaigns, both Trump and Harris were pledging to impose some of the most restrictive immigration, asylum, and border policies in decades.

One of the big ways that this will be different from Trump's last term is that he's far more prepared. For example, immigration lawyer Hassan Ahmad says the Trump administration's incompetence during the first term was a silver lining,

allowing many of his policies to be stopped. He adds, "I'm not expecting that to happen nearly as much during his second term. They eventually figured out how to program the machine."  The man behind a lot of it is Stephen Miller.

He was the primary architect of Trump's first-term immigration policy and will be Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy this time around. He's not hiding his cards. He has told the New York Times that the incoming administration

is planning a blitz designed to overwhelm immigrant rights lawyers, saying that any activist who doubts President Trump's resolve is making a drastic error. Trump will unleash the vast arsenal of federal powers to implement the most spectacular migration crackdown.

As far as specifics, Miller said Trump would move away from ICE's practice of arresting specific people of interest, instead carrying out workplace raids and other sweeps in public spaces aimed at arresting many unauthorized immigrants at once. Trump is also reportedly planning

to reassign federal agents and deputize local police officers and National Guard soldiers voluntarily contributed by Republican-run states.  Miller also claims Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 at the border, enabling the use of federal troops to apprehend migrants.

And then, just because of the sheer number, right? The magnitude of arrests and deportations being contemplated, they plan to build a vast holding facility that would function as a staging center.  With this, also seeing Miller saying that he would try again to overturn something known as the Flores Settlement.

Which is a long-standing court order that says the government cannot indefinitely hold children. And at that point, Trump has repeatedly declined to rule out restoring detention for migrant families. And he hasn't given a clear answer on whether he would again

try to separate migrant parents and children, although very notably, Trump's new border czar, Tom Homan, championed the family separation policy in his first term. More recently, he's talked about expelling entire families.

And then, with all this, right, moving forward, Trump would reportedly significantly expand a form of fast-track deportations known as expedited removal, which denies undocumented immigrants the usual due process. He's also repeatedly pledged to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798,

which empowered the president to quickly deport foreign nationals without a hearing. That would reportedly be specifically to expel suspected members of drug cartels and criminal gangs, also without due process.  Which, for a lot of people on the surface, they're not going to care, right?

If they're members of a drug cartel, if they're members of a gang, most people think, 'fuck them.' But the concern and criticism is the lack of due process. How do you make sure that they're actually members of a gang or a cartel? And this, notably, as people say,

If you look at the history of the law, it's very telling.  It's only been used three times: the War of 1812, World War One, and World War Two, when it was employed to justify internment camps.

where people of Japanese, German, and Italian descent...  People have pointed out that Trump has admitted that his plan is to carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.

That's modeled on the Eisenhower model, referring to a controversial 1950s deportation program where hundreds of thousands of Mexican immigrants were rounded up, separated from their families, and sent back to Mexico on buses, planes, and boats.

Now, with all that... Trump and his allies said, as far as priority, that it will be the deportation of criminals and national security threats.  People are noting that's already policy. In fact, one former advisor

said he expects Trump to repeal Biden's policies that limit deportations, mostly to serious criminals and recent border crossers. And actually, with all that, you have some saying that Trump's efforts here are going to make it harder to tackle crime.

This is because about half of ICE's 21,000 employees are part of its Homeland Security Investigations unit, which focuses on transnational crime, things like drug smuggling and child exploitation, rather than immigration enforcement. But several Trump allies said that

The unit would need to spend more time on immigration. Notably, as the unit has reportedly distanced itself from ISIS immigration work in recent years, they say fear of deportation made it harder for its investigators to build trust in immigrant communities.

And at that point, a recent analysis from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, concluded that Trump's agenda might actually make the country less safe, saying that it would shift focus away from the removal of immigrants who do commit crimes.

And with that, arguing that we already saw that in Trump's first term, claiming that while Trump was prioritizing prosecutions of migrant parents, separating families and banning asylum, it also released criminals, including those who went on to commit crimes.

And the institute ultimately argued that Trump's policies actually led to far more attempted illegal crossings by individuals with criminal convictions. Though, with all that, I do not want to act like nothing is happening at the border. There has been an uptick in border crossings.

And that comes with real challenges. For example, unlike past migrant influxes, people coming over the last four years have more often been people without relatives already living in the U.S., meaning that they've been relying more on cities

and towns to provide shelter and food at a cost of billions of dollars. There's also, as many argue, that the more math that you do on this, it actually shows that immigration is a net positive for the country.  With the American Immigration Council, for example, seeing things like...

which I should say is an immigrant advocacy group estimating the cost of deporting 13 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally as being $968 billion over a little more than a decade. Right. Which is just the deportation part.

They also argue that there's value that the immigrants bring to the economy. Right. Trump campaigned on the idea that the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants would lead to more jobs and higher wages, but studies of large-scale deportations have found

that these expulsions actually do the opposite.  A report from the Congressional Budget Office found that increased immigration is expected to drive higher economic growth and labor supply, grow federal revenues, and shrink deficits over the next ten years.

Whereas Trump's immigration policies could lead to higher prices, low job growth, lower pay, and threaten funding for social safety nets like Social Security and Medicare, with Robert Lynch, for example, a professor emeritus of economics at Washington College saying,

8 million undocumented people are currently earning hundreds of billions and spending hundreds of billions on food, clothing, shelter, and more. If you remove those people from the economy, American businesses will sell less. When they sell less, they're going to produce less,

and we'll need fewer workers and will lay off workers. Incomes will fall. And then, you know, we found that people's big problem isn't necessarily with immigration, but rather what's considered illegal immigration. Right. 65% of Americans reportedly think that the U.S.

should make it easier for anyone seeking a better life to enter legally, so they don't need to enter illegally. 58% say they support expanding legal pathways for orderly immigration. This is compared to 46% who said asylum seekers should be protected if their cases are legitimate.

And while Trump has said that he supports certain legal immigration, notably, he may also pave the way for the deportation of hundreds of thousands of migrants who are actually authorized to be here. His transition team is reportedly considering ending

two Biden programs that have allowed more than 1.3 million immigrants to enter the United States legally. Making those who entered but have not yet received asylum eligible for deportation. But ultimately, here's the deal:

January 20th, he is going to be president, and he is going to have the House and the Senate. We know that moves are going to be made, but how it's going to turn out remains unknown right now. Both sides have been and are currently preparing for this.

Hawk Tuah Girl’s “Scam” Scandal is Crazy, CEO Killer Updates, “Deny Defend Depose”, & Today's News

Scripts