Cracks in the GOP Over Trump’s Immigration Push and Social Media on Trial

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Here's the Scoop" – Cracks in the GOP Over Trump’s Immigration Push & Social Media on Trial

Host: Yasmin Vossoughian, NBC News
Episode Date: January 28, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the mounting fractures within the GOP over President Trump’s immigration policies, highlights a brewing congressional showdown over the Department of Homeland Security’s response to a deadly federal shooting in Minnesota, and covers a landmark trial against major social media companies accused of addicting and harming children. The show also features updates on legislative actions, notable incidents involving Rep. Ilhan Omar, and the global implications of U.S. foreign policy decisions.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. GOP Pushback Against Trump’s Immigration Policy

Guest: Ryan Nobles, Chief Capitol Hill Correspondent
[00:58–05:10]

• Significant GOP Dissent: Senators Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Thom Tillis (North Carolina) are the first Republicans to call for DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s ouster after her handling of deadly Border Patrol shootings in Minneapolis. Vossoughian plays a clip from Sen. Tillis criticizing Noem:

  "She has taken this administration into the ground on an issue that we should own. ...something that got the president elected. They have destroyed it through their incompetence."
  – Sen. Thom Tillis [01:09]

• Congressional Leverage: Nobles explains that while public criticism is notable, true consequences hinge on Congress's willingness to use its oversight authority:

  "Almost every Republican senator ...have said in some form or fashion that there needs to be an independent and transparent investigation."
  – Ryan Nobles [01:54]

• Democratic Leverage in Funding Vote: With a looming government shutdown and the appropriations bill (including DHS funding), Democrats threaten to block the package unless immigration enforcement "guardrails" are imposed.

  "It's almost inevitable that the government is going to have another partial shutdown…Democrats feel they need to send a symbolic message that they're unhappy with what's happening in Minnesota, and the pressure point... is government funding."
  – Ryan Nobles [04:32]

• Lack of Clear Demands: Democrats haven't clearly articulated what they would accept in exchange for their votes, ranging in suggestions from personnel changes (firing Noem or Stephen Miller) to complete withdrawal of CBP/ICE from Minnesota.

2. Security & Political Rhetoric: Attack on Rep. Ilhan Omar

[05:55–08:30]

• Incident Overview: Rep. Ilhan Omar was assaulted at a town hall when a man surged the podium and appeared to squirt her with a liquid (identified later as apple cider vinegar).

• Political Response: Bipartisan condemnation swiftly followed, including from Republican lawmakers who had previously criticized Omar.

• Presidential Reaction: President Trump, in an ABC News interview, implied Omar "probably had herself sprayed"—a baseless claim further inflaming political tensions.

  "That comment made absolutely no sense, was not based in any sort of reality."
  – Ryan Nobles on President Trump’s remarks [06:55]

• Security Concerns: Nobles highlights the increased security threats faced by lawmakers, noting federal statutes provide additional protection for members of Congress and warning against politicizing such attacks.

  "It should be a blaring red light for all of us…And how quickly that could have been something very terrible, I don't think that we should underplay at all."
  – Ryan Nobles [08:21]

3. Congressional Oversight: U.S. Actions in Venezuela

[08:30–12:48]

• Rubio’s Testimony & Paul’s Critique: Secretary of State Marco Rubio faces tough questioning from Sen. Rand Paul over U.S. intervention in Venezuela—including airstrikes and the capture of leader Nicolás Maduro.

  "If you reverse the circumstances, it becomes very difficult for these arguments to hold up. ...would that be considered an act of war?"
  – Sen. Rand Paul [08:57]

• GOP Foreign Policy Divisions: Nobles characterizes Paul as representing a “significant part of [Trump’s] base” disillusioned with growing interventions, detailing how the GOP coalition is less monolithic and more issue-driven.

  "Rand Paul is voicing that frustration from that significant portion of the president’s base."
  – Ryan Nobles [11:35]

  "If you’re a MAGA Republican running for reelection in 2026, are you adopting this foreign policy from this president, or do you need to show or demonstrate that you do not support that?"
  – Ryan Nobles [12:30]

---

4. Social Media on Trial: Youth Addiction & Tech Accountability

Guest: Savannah Sellers, NBC News NOW Anchor
[15:32–24:13]

• Context: Meta (Facebook/Instagram) and Google (YouTube) are defending themselves in court against claims their platforms are intentionally addictive and have caused widespread harm to children. Snap and TikTok settled prior to trial.

  "These lawsuits could just cascade ...to have [Mark] Zuckerberg in the hot seat ...is huge."
  – Savannah Sellers [16:26]

• Plaintiff’s Argument: A lead plaintiff, KGM (now 20, a minor at the time), alleges early and sustained addiction caused or exacerbated by social media design geared to keep children hooked.

• Defendant Strategies:

  • Citing safety features like "teen accounts" to demonstrate preventive efforts, while arguing addiction isn’t clinical and different from substance or tobacco use.
  • Relying on the "Section 230" legal shield, which, as Sellers explains, protects them from liability for user-generated content—though here, the case is about how algorithms, not content, drive addictiveness.

    "What is being argued here is ...there is blame in the infrastructure of the apps, in their algorithms..."
    – Savannah Sellers [19:30]

• Plaintiffs Seek Algorithm Changes:
  Not just more guardrails, but fundamental changes to the content-surfacing technology itself.

  "Doesn't that seem to you like, hey, if you did all that, didn't that mean you knew you had a problem?"
  – Savannah Sellers [22:08]

• Potential for Reform: Jury siding with plaintiffs could set precedent for regulation and force substantive change across social media platforms. Ongoing bipartisan (but stalled) legislative efforts, like the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), reveal congressional reluctance to regulate Big Tech.

  "There is some bipartisan agreement on protecting kids online ...what I do think though, yes, we're starting to see is a global sort of rejection..."
  – Savannah Sellers [23:07]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Trump Immigration Policy:

  "They have destroyed that for Republicans ...through their incompetence."
  – Sen. Thom Tillis on DHS leadership [01:09]

• On Political Rhetoric Around Violence:

  "If the FBI and the Department of Justice do not investigate this and prosecute this individual to the fullest extent of the law, I don't see how you don't interpret there being some sort of political motivation behind it."
  – Ryan Nobles on the Omar attack [07:30]

• On Social Media Safety Measures:

  "If you did all that, didn't that mean you knew you had a problem?"
  – Savannah Sellers on tech companies’ safety features [22:08]

---

Important Segment Timestamps

| Segment | Start Time | Topic | |----------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------------------------------| | GOP Immigration Fractures | 00:58 | Tillis/Murkowski vs. Trump, DHS firings, congressional oversight | | Government Shutdown / Appropriations | 04:02 | Funding standoff over DHS, Dem demands | | Ilhan Omar Attack & Rhetoric | 05:55 | Assault at town hall, responses, Trump comment | | U.S.-Venezuela Policy, Rand Paul | 08:30 | Senate hearing, GOP ideological splits | | Social Media Addiction Trial | 15:32 | Meta/Google on trial, KGM case, Section 230 | | Plaintiffs vs. Tech Defenses | 18:03 | Safety features, legal shields, algorithm focus | | Potential for Reform | 22:48 | Legislation, global context, implications |

---

Closing Headlines [26:13–End]

• Judge blocks removal of a 5-year-old from a migrant detention center in Texas.
• Fed holds rates steady amid political pressure.
• Amazon and UPS announce major layoffs.
• Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show” to end in May.
• “Dirty Dancing” sequel greenlit, Jennifer Grey returns as Baby.

---

Summary: Why This Episode Matters

This episode offers a direct lens into the GOP’s internal struggles over how far to go in supporting the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement, demonstrates how both parties are grappling with the consequences of heated rhetoric and violence against lawmakers, and previews a potentially transformative trial on Big Tech’s responsibility for youth mental health. With lively expert reporting and firsthand quotes, the episode is a thorough primer for anyone following U.S. politics, legislative priorities, and the ever-evolving relationship between society and technology.

Transcript

[A]

Hey, everybody. And welcome to here's the scoop from NBC News. I'm Yasmin Vasugin. So coming up on the show today, social media companies are headed to trial over claims that they knowingly made their platforms addictive. Plus, the Fed votes to hold rates steady at its January meeting. And nobody puts baby in the corner is back up. First, though, there is growing pushback against the president's immigration policy. On Capitol Hill, you got more Republicans speaking out against the administration's actions. In Minnesota. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski and North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis became the first Republicans to call for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to lose her job after her response to deadly shootings by federal agents in Minneapolis. And then with this key spending vote coming up this week, we gotta ask, will Republicans break with the White House? I want to bring in chief Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles for more on this. Hey, Ryan.

[B]

Hey. How are you?

[A]

Yes, I'm good. I want to play for you first some sound from Senator Tillis from North Carolina slamming DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.

[B]

She has taken this administration into the ground on an issue that we should own. We should own the issue of border security and immigration. But they have destroyed that for Republicans, something that got the president elected. They have destroyed it through their incompetence.

[A]

So he's not the only one. I know you also spoke with Lisa Murkowski in the last 24 hours or so. How big of a deal is it from your perspective that Tillis, that Murkowski and others are breaking from the president on immigration?

[B]

I think it's notable, but I don't know if it's significant, if that makes sense, because it's usually the same cast of characters in the Republican Party, particularly on the Senate side, that are willing to put out public statements and distance themselves from President Trump's policies. But we have yet to see that truly manifest in any sort of substantive action. I actually think it's more notable that almost every Republican senator, not just the outliers, have said in some form or fashion that there needs to be an independent and transparent investigation into what happened in Minnesota. And that's where Congress has real potential power and authority to exert its influence. They have oversight responsibility. So if they feel like the FBI and the Department of Justice are not doing their full diligence in investigating this from every possible angle and holding the proper people accountable, they can issue subpoenas, they can haul people in front of them for hearings. They can demand change and action. And you saw it not Just on the Senate side, but on the House side as well, where the House Homeland Security Committee has also called for investigations and hearings around this.

[A]

And I do think it's important to note that the Border Patrol agents involved in the shooting of Alex Pareti have, in fact, been placed on administrative leave, according to a DHS spokesperson. With that, though, does Congress have the power to demand that Minnesota officials have access to the investigative materials they need?

[B]

They have the power to demand it. Whether or not they have the power to actually force that to happen, I think remains an open question. You know, what we've seen, particularly in the early part of this version of the Trump administration, is a general disinterest in including Congress or respecting Congress's role as a co. Equal branch of government.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

That's why I do believe that this week is so crucial in terms of the future of this investigation and the role that Congress plays in asserting itself, because we do have this unique situation in which Democrats do have some level of authority here because of the government funding bill that's in front of us. Democrats assert that authority to get tangible changes and reforms associated with this, I think, is an important question.

[A]

So let's talk about that. Right. This appropriations package that needs to get across the finish line come Friday. Right. To avoid a partial government shutdown, and the package includes funding for dhs, Department of Homeland Security. Democrats, as you kind of alluded to, they're vowing to block it without new guardrails on immigration enforcement. Could they get Republican support on this? Is this likely to happen? Where are we going to go here?

[B]

So I think it's almost inevitable that the government is going to have another partial shutdown. There's just impossible, with the amount of time that we have between now and Friday when the government's going to shut down, that there can be some sort of reasonable proposal from Republicans that Democrats would be satisfied by. And I think Democrats feel, at the very least, they need to send a symbolic message that they're unhappy with what's happening in Minnesota, and the pressure point that they have is government funding. To answer your question, though, from a substantive perspective, I don't think the Democrats have done, at least not publicly, a clear enough job of explaining exactly what they want to get out of this in order to then give their vote for government funding. I think they'd be satisfied if the DHS portion was split off. I think they would vote yes. At least enough Democrats would vote yes to get the Pentagon's budget and all the other budget lines that need to be taken care of approved. But Democrats have yet to say before we vote yes on dhs, X, Y and Z have to happen. Now, they've used some kind of lofty things like some have said that they want Stephen Miller out. Some have said that they want Noem out. Some have said that they want CBP complete and ICE completely pulled out of Minnesota. But there isn't a consistent and clear proposal that they're offering up to the White House and the administration to say if you give us this, then we will vote yes.

[A]

Let's talk Ilhan Omar. Representative Ilhan Omar attacked during this town hall in her district last night, a man charging the podium. She was standing out, speaking, appearing to squirt some sort of liquid at her using a syringe. You've got lawmakers on both sides of the aisle condemning the attack on Omar, including Republicans from Minnesota, Michigan, Missouri. And by the way, these are folks that have previously bashed her, attacked her on various issues. You have the president, on the other hand, in an interview with with ABC News last night, saying without evidence that Omar had, quote, unquote, probably had herself sprayed. And this, of course, is after the president has said that the DOJ was investigating Omar's finances. Are the calls to tone down the rhetoric yet another sign of a break between Republican lawmakers, Republicans in Congress and the president, considering the messaging we're hearing from both.

[B]

Well, I don't think you're going to find too many Republicans that are going to be specifically critical of what President Trump said, despite the fact that that was that comment made absolutely no sense, was not based in any sort of reality. You know, I think that what has to happen here, and I think one of the things that we have to look for in terms of as to how this process plays out is that she is a sitting member of Congress. There are very specific federal statutes where if someone assaults a member of Congress, there are specific federal penalties that are connected to that that go above and beyond whatever state charges. If she were just an average person sitting in that crowd, and if the FBI and the Department of Justice do not investigate this and prosecute this individual to the fullest extent of the law, I don't see how you don't interpret there being some sort of political motivation behind it. It's as clear cut as you can get. And so at the bare minimum, Capitol Police is already involved. They're investigating it. To their credit, they came out immediately and said that it was something that they were concerned about and keeping an eye on. But Congresswoman Omar has said for weeks now that she's been concerned about the level of security that she has, that she's constantly getting threats against her life, that she's constantly concerned about her safety and security. We saw that play out last night. Just the whole incident in general is. Man, it should be a blaring red light for all of us in terms of. I mean, if we haven't dealt with this already, both Republicans and Democrats are constantly under threat. And how quickly that could have been something very terrible, I don't think that we should underplay at all.

[A]

I got one more thing for you, Ryan, before I let you go. And that is what's happening where you are today. You got Secretary of State Marco Rubio testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations committee on the U.S. s actions inside Venezuela. Strikes on boats in the Caribbean Pacific, and then, of course, the decision to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro. He got some pretty tough questions, particularly from Kentucky Republican Rand Paul. Let me play that for you.

[B]

If you reverse the circumstances, it becomes very difficult for these arguments to hold up. So I would ask you, if a foreign country bombed our air defense missiles, captured and removed our president and blockaded our country, would that be considered an act of war?

[A]

What do you make of that kind of Rand Paul pushing back. Is that to be expected? Or is this kind of an inflection point, yet another place in which maybe you've got Congress looking to get some leverage back over this administration?

[B]

You know, I've covered a lot of these guys for a long time. There are few members of both the House and Senate who remain pure in their convictions and their principles as much as Rand Paul, an avowed libertarian. That's how he believes, but he's never wavered in that. Rand Paul would have been opposed to this regardless who the President was or how the president was executed. He just does not believe that foreign military intervention is an appropriate use of America's resources. The thing that I thought was most interesting about his questioning of Rubio was he presented the context of whether or not we believe Maduro is legitimate in his role as president of Venezuela, to which Rubio said no. And then Rand Paul pointed out that Donald Trump questioned whether or not Joe Biden won the election in 2020. Hillary Clinton questioned whether or not Donald Trump won the election in 2016, and asked the question, how would we have felt if a foreign country came in and removed one of our leaders based on that premise, based on the speculation that there might have been something inappropriate with the election? And he's like, and I don't disagree, maybe that the election in Venezuela was corrupt, but his point is always that these countries should be making these decisions for themselves, and it's not our responsibility to be their big brother. I don't think this is out of the ordinary for Rand Paul. I do think in the last six months or so, he's been much more willing to be vocal about how he feels about these things in a way that maybe he wouldn't have done shortly after President Trump was reelected. But I also think that he is voicing a frustration from a pretty significant group of President Trump supporters. You know, I always talk about how Donald Trump has 30% of the country that are ride or die with him. It doesn't matter what issue he cares about. They will shift and move with him wherever he goes. They believe in Donald Trump, but in order for him to win the 2024 election, he had to get another 20% of the country to buy in. And he did that by putting together this kind of loose coalition of people that really care deeply about very specific issues. And you and I have talked about this before, right? It's the Epstein files fol folks. It's the Maha moms, It's the Second Amendment folks. And these are people that aren't necessarily Donald Trump first people. They're people that became Donald Trump people because he identified an issue that they cared about and adopted that issue, foreign interventionism. And America first is a big part of that coalition. And in just the last eight months, what have we done? They bombed Iran. They invaded and took out the leader of Venezuela. They've suggested taking over Greenland. They've even talked about making Canada the 51st state. And Rand Paul is voicing that frustration from that significant portion of the president's base. And I just have to wonder, if you're a Republican, if you're a MAGA Republican running for reelection in 2026, are you adopting this foreign policy from this president, or do you need to show or demonstrate that that you do not support that? So to me, that's what was most significant about that line of questioning, is that this is a Republican saying this. This isn't a Democrat. This isn't someone that hates Donald Trump. This is someone that's been supportive of him and supportive of him for a very specific reason, representing a very specific part of his base.

[A]

Ryan Nobles, thank you.

[B]

Thanks, Yaz.

[A]

By the way, Representative Ilhan Omar's office says that they've been given a preliminary report on that substance that the congresswoman was sprayed with Tuesday night. And they're being told it was Apple cider Vineg. All right, we are going to take a very quick break and we'll be back in just a minute with news from a blockbuster trial against social media companies. Stay tuned for that. And hey, while you have a minute, why not subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you listen. That way you will not miss an episode.

[B]

The new year brings new health goals and wealth goals. Protecting your identity is an important step. Your info is in endless places that could expose you to identity theft leading to lost funds. Lifelock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Resolve to make identity, health and wealth part of your new Year's goals with Lifelock, save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com specialoffer terms apply.

[C]

This is a Monday.com ad. The same Monday.com helping people worldwide getting.

[A]

Work done faster and better.

[C]

The same Monday.com designed for every team and every industry. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.com that your team will actually love using the samemonday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free.

[A]

Yes, the same Monday.com team USA takes the gold. Let's go.

[C]

I wish I could play hockey like that.

[B]

That's a big dream, Kyle. But Xfinity can help you chase it.

[A]

Wait, you talking to me?

[B]

Sure am. Because your reliable wi fi keeps you right in the action.

[C]

Wow.

[A]

What else can it do?

[B]

It makes sure you can do homework, stream and game smoothly, even under pressure. Kind of like a good coach. Yes, but with less yelling.

[C]

Uh oh. Snowboarding and speed skating are starting.

[B]

So fire up MultiView with Xfinity TV and stream up to four events at once.

[C]

That's awesome. Now I want to hit the ice. Want to come?

[B]

Well, with Xfinity Mobile, Me, wi fi and 5G go where you go. Cool.

[C]

You okay?

[A]

In a pocket.

[C]

Hey, I love a road game with Xfinity Wi Fi. Your technology works together seamlessly. Get one Internet price for five years guaranteed Xfinity. Imagine that. Proud partner of Team USA Restriction Supply select plans only Xfinity Mobile requires Xfinity Internet.

[A]

All right, we are back with here's the scoop from NBC News. So the world's largest social media companies are headed to trial and they're facing claims that their platforms are responsible for harming children. The case is the first in a wave of lawsuits that accuse Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. Google, which owns YouTube, TikTok and Snap, Snapchat's parent company of knowingly designing addictive products that cause harm to the mental health of their young users. TikTok and Snap, they reached settlements with the plaintiffs ahead of the first case. Google and Meta have taken this all the way to the courtroom for what is shaping up to be a landmark case that might force these tech giants to reshape their platforms. So with that, I want to bring an NBC News now anchor, Savannah Sellers. Hi, Savannah.

[C]

Hi. Yes, thanks for having me.

[A]

It's great to have you. So walk us through this case. What is at stake here?

[C]

This is really sort of like a novel concept that these companies are being put in this position and that so many plaintiffs, I mean this is individuals, this is families, this is school districts, thousands, who these lawsuits could just cascade from depending on what happens here. It's also super notable. Yes, because these tech executives now at this point, it'll be Mark Zuckerberg, Meta. I mean, he's expected to testify on February 9. To have him in the hot seat and be asked direct questions about these potential issues that these apps could be causing young people is huge. So what's being argued here, as you laid out, is, is is them saying that these apps are addictive, that they were essentially defective products that caused this addiction, the way that it's really being compared a lot to what happened with tobacco.

[A]

I do though, want to clarify for folks that this case focuses on a 20 year old woman. This 20 year old woman was identified in court as KGM and who was a minor at the time of the incidents outlined in this lawsuit. And KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. And the lawsuit also claims that this was done through deliberate design choices made by companies that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children and to boost profits as well. I will say that there are more than 1600 plaintiffs. That is one case amidst all of them. What do you see the arguments here that are going to be made by these, by these social media giants as to why it is they are not addictive? Yes.

[C]

What I think one thing that will be really interesting to watch for is how do these companies talk about the fact that they have put safety measures in place? Right. Like there's a thing called a teen account for Instagram. It's essentially immediately puts teens into a version of the app. Their experience in the app is different. And they say it's tailored to their age. How can something like that, though, even really come up? Yes. Right. Without it almost being an acknowledgement of the problem. Look, you've done all these things because these teens need these things to be done in order to be in your app. And yet this is still happening. That's one thing I'm really looking out for when it comes to how they defend themselves. The other big thing. Yes. Is this idea that it is not clinical, this type of addiction. It's not the same right as drugs or as tobacco. Now, the plaintiffs, of course, argue that that does not mean that it's not real. And that's how we've even gotten to this point, is that there seems to be some legitimacy recognized in that argument, which is why these trials are moving forward at this point. But that I expect to be the big thing that these companies are going to lean on is you can't necessarily prove they will say that this is a clinical addiction.

[A]

I would also point out this federal Shield Law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency act of 1996, which I know that they are arguing, these social media companies saying it protects them from liability for what their users post online. How much credit is that going to have in the courtroom?

[C]

It's really what has shielded big tech from pretty much any type of regulation up until this point. And that is because what it says is that Internet companies are not responsible for content that is posted on their platforms that they say is an infringement of free speech of the user. What is being argued here is not, though, that the content that individual users are putting up is where there is blame. What's being argued is that there is blame in the infrastructure of the apps, in their algorithms, in the way that they recommend the content that users can feel free to put up if they want. Obviously, they do have certain guidelines that you're not supposed to put up certain content. But what's being argued here is not even about that content. It is that the way it's recommended to young people and therefore surfaced and they even become aware of it, is done in such a way that is addictive and that the companies put profits over the safety of these kids by pushing that content to them. And that is different than a free speech concern.

[A]

So I just want to read two statements, one from Meta and one from Google, because we do know that Snap settled and TikTok settled as well. Meta saying in a statement we strongly disagree with these allegations and are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people Google is saying providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work. In collaboration with youth, mental health and parenting experts, we built services and policies to provide young people with age appropriate experiences and parents with robust controls. When we talk about the guardrails that have been put in place, for instance, by Meta and, you know, we talked about teen accounts, for instance, in the last couple of years, the plaintiffs aren't looking for guardrails, Right. This is more about the algorithms changing the core technology of these social media platforms versus just putting up guardrails. Can you explain the differences between those two?

[C]

What happens, as you just described, is there's so much information that can be gleaned that these social media platforms have. Even in just your brief periods of being on one of these platforms, how much time you spend on a video watching it? Do you watch it all the way through to completion? Do you like it? Do you comment on it? All of those different types of actions that you can take essentially give these companies little bits of information that create this mosaic of you as a user and it gets to understand the type of content. For example, a big one is this person watches all the way through. Let's keep giving it to them. Sometimes that could be, you know, harmless puppy videos. Other times, especially for young people, it's the eating disorder content, it's the harming yourself content. The guardrails are supposed to prevent any of that from even getting or onto the platform in the first place. The problem is that we can see that it absolutely is. I am really interested to see in this trial how these companies handle the fact that they have done a lot and by the way, made a lot of noise about the fact that they have tried to put in protections to make these apps safer because. Right. Doesn't that seem to you like, hey, if you did all that, didn't that mean you knew you had a problem? I don't know how they're going to handle that in court.

[A]

Final question here is if the jury in fact sides with the plaintiffs here in this case and the social media companies lose, could this lead to any substantial changes beyond these guardrails that they have put into place over the last few years?

[C]

I think that the answer is it could, and I haven't said that really ever. When it comes to changes that we've tried to see be made to social media, there's something that's been called, it's called the Kids Online Safety act or cosa, that has still not made it over the finish line, even though I will point out this is one of the extremely rare areas where there is some bipartisan agreement on protecting kids online that still hasn't gotten over the finish line because of the lobbying effort that we've seen from Big Tech because of, as I mentioned, Every time those CEOs are on Capitol Hill, it is tense, it is emotional. There will be family members who say that they lost their children to suicide because of what they've been learned online. And yet still nothing has changed. What I do think, though, yes, we're.

[A]

Starting to see is a global sort.

[C]

Of rejection of some of this. Australia, for example, changing that age from 13 to 16. Basically one day when the law went into effect, if you had said when you signed up for these apps that you were under the age of 16, the next day you didn't have the app anymore, you couldn't get on it. So I think as you start to see something like this as public perception potentially changes as a highly publicized trial like this gets underway, remember, we're going to see Zuckerberg on the stand in just a couple of weeks having to answer these questions. How do people feel about how he answers them? Does any of that move lawmakers to really focus on and push along some legislation? And I think that that could be in change.

[A]

Savannah Sellers is going to be making her way to the Olympics in a matter of hours. Have so much fun. Thank you.

[C]

Thank you. And hopefully I'll be joining you for some Olympic coverage from there. Thank you. Yes.

[A]

We're going to take a very quick break. And when we are back, why Amazon and UPS are slashing thousands from their workforce. Stay with us for the headlines.

[C]

This is a Monday.com ad, the same Monday.com helping people worldwide, getting work done faster and better. The same Monday.com designed for every team and every industry. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.com that your team will execute. Love using the same Monday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free. Yes, the same Monday.com hey everybody, it's Kate Snow. I'm an NBC News anchor and host of the new podcast the Drink with Kate Snow. So here's the deal. I sit down with all kinds of celebrities, actors, musicians, athletes, for a casual conversation over a drink of their choice. It's always about their journey, the successes, the struggles, the lessons they learned. I thought I knew all about self help superstar Mel Robbins, but in our candid conversation, she got really honest about a business decision that almost bankrupted her and how she was able to pull herself out and then build an empire. Trust me, you're going to learn something. I always do. I hope you'll listen. Just search for the Drink with Kate Snow wherever you get your pocket and follow now.

[B]

Hey guys, Willie Geist here reminding you.

[A]

To check out the Sunday Sit down podcast. On this week's episode, I get together with Hollywood superstar Jason Momoa to discuss his professional journey from those early days of Baywatch, Hawaii to Aquaman and now his new movie, the Wrecking Crew.

[B]

You can get my conversation with Jason.

[A]

For free wherever you download your podcasts. All right, let's get to some headlines. A judge has blocked the Trump administration from removing 5 year old Liam Ramos from the Texas Detention center where he is being held with his father. The two were detained in Minnesota last week. According to the Columbia Heights Public Schools Superintendent, Liam was taken into custody on January 20 while returning home from preschool. A witness reported hearing pleas for agents to leave the child behind during the encounter. The Department of Homeland Security denied the child was targeted, saying his mother refused to take custody and that his father agreed to keep him in his care. DHS did not respond to a request for comment after the ruling. After three consecutive interest rate cuts, the Federal Reserve voted to hold rates steady at its January meeting. Inflation remains above the Fed's 2% target and unemployment has been edging a bit lower. The decision comes amidst unprecedented political pressure on the Fed to lower rates from President Trump. He's expected to soon name his pick for the next Fed chair, who will replace Jerome Powell. Amazon says it is laying off 16,000 people in an ongoing bid to restructure the sprawling trillion dollar firm. It is the second round of major job cuts in recent months. 14,000 corporate positions were eliminated in October. Meanwhile, one of Amazon's delivery partners, UPS, is also slashing up to 30,000 jobs and shutting 24 facilities this year. UPS is reducing shipments for the retail giant, calling the Amazon deliveries quote extraordinarily dilutive to profit margins. Late Night host Stephen Colbert has set a date to bring down the curtain on the Late show, with the finale airing on May 21. In an appearance on Late Night With Seth Meyers, Colbert chatted about wrapping things up in the next four months. It feels real now. I'm not thrilled with it. Cbs plans to retire the entire late night franchise when Colbert exits, closing a 33 year chapter of Late Night on the network that began with comedian David Letterman closer in the time of my life and I owe it all to you. The music hits, the nostalgia rushes in, and suddenly all Gen Xers are back in the Catskills with Johnny and Baby. Well, Lionsgate has just confirmed that Dirty Dancing, the sequel, is officially moving forward with production slated to begin later this year. Jennifer Grey, by the way, is going to return as Frances Baby Houseman, now in her 60s in a story set decades after that unforgettable summer. Because remember, nobody puts Baby in a corner. All right, that is gonna do it for us at. Here's the scoop from NBC News. I am so excited for the sequel. I'm also Yasmin Vasugi. And we'll be back tomorrow with whatever the day may bring. And if you like what you heard, subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We'll see you tomorrow.

[B]

Close your eyes. Listen to Monday.com feel the sensation of an AI work platform so flexible and intuitive it feels like it was built just for you. Now open your eyes, go to Monday.com, start for free, and finally, breathe.