Bill Gates’ daughter Phoebe sparked controversy after her AI startup team approached a fashion influencer demanding free promotional work, exposing a troubling pattern of elite entitlement masquerading as entrepreneurial independence. Entitled Outreach to Working Influencer Phoebe Gates and co-founder Sophia Kianni launched Phia, an AI-powered price-comparison app, in April 2025. The following month, the startup team contacted fashion influencer Jarrod Jenkins through his free Substack subscription tier, requesting he review and promote their app to his substantial TikTok following without compensation. Jenkins, who typically commands fees exceeding $100,000 for professional promotional work, tested the app and discovered multiple problems including arbitrary recommendations and poor deal-finding capabilities. This approach demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of professional business relationships and fair compensation for skilled labor. Ignored Expertise and Public Backlash Jenkins responded to the outreach by offering unpaid advisory assistance to help improve Phia’s functionality before launch, identifying specific technical shortcomings that undermined the app’s core value proposition. The Phia team completely ignored his professional guidance and failed to respond to his offers of help. Feeling disrespected and used, Jenkins took his concerns public through TikTok and VnExpress, criticizing Gates for what he characterized as spoiled and bratty behavior. His criticism resonated with audiences frustrated by wealthy individuals expecting free labor from working professionals while claiming entrepreneurial credibility. Jenkins specifically noted the irony of being treated dismissively by the daughter of Bill Gates. Phoebe Gates says she didn’t use her father’s last name until high school. Her parents wanted her and her siblings to grow up without the instant attention that comes with being a Gates. She explained on her podcast that using Melinda French Gates’ maiden name helped her make… pic.twitter.com/8YP5IXUF0G — Benzinga (@Benzinga) November 28, 2025 Self-Made Claims Ring Hollow Gates publicly claimed she funded Phia independently from her parents’ fortune, following advice from mother Melinda Gates to “learn and fail” without family money. She secured approximately $1 million from unnamed investors and grants to employ four full-time engineers. However, this narrative of bootstrap independence falls apart when the startup’s outreach strategy involves exploiting influencers for free promotional work rather than budgeting appropriately for marketing expenses. Gates herself acknowledged that privilege colors perceptions, admitting that success would be attributed partly to her family connections. This incident validates those concerns, revealing that rejecting parental funds while maintaining entitled attitudes toward other people’s labor is not genuine independence. Pattern of Elite Entitlement The controversy surrounding Phoebe Gates reflects broader frustrations with nepotism beneficiaries in the tech industry who leverage family connections and credibility while claiming self-made status. Gates’ sister Jennifer faced similar “out-of-touch nepo baby” criticism previously, suggesting a pattern within elite families of misunderstanding how ordinary Americans build businesses through genuine sacrifice and fair dealing. Professional influencers like Jenkins invest years building audiences and expertise that deserve fair compensation, not exploitation by startups backed by investor money. The incident also revealed that Gates faced inappropriate personal questions from some investors about family planning, which she found frustrating, yet this does not excuse unprofessional outreach to working content creators. The Phia controversy underscores the importance of respecting market norms for professional services. Conservatives value genuine entrepreneurship built on merit, fair exchange, and respect for individual labor. When wealthy founders claim independence while demanding free work from middle-class professionals, they reveal the hollow nature of their self-made narratives. True business success requires understanding that every professional’s time and expertise has value, regardless of one’s family name. As of early 2026, no resolution between Gates and Jenkins has been reported, and Phia continues operating with its initial funding, though the reputational damage from this incident may complicate future partnerships with influencers and other marketing professionals. Sources: Bill Gates’ Daughter Phoebe Soured Her Reputation With Spoiled Behavior – The List When will you have… the investors question that annoyed Bill Gates’ daughter Phoebe Gates the most while raising funding for her startup – Times of India

President Donald Trump has issued a stark ultimatum to Iran: reopen the Strait of Hormuz by Tuesday evening or face immediate strikes on civilian infrastructure including bridges and power plants. The deadline expires at 8 p.m. Eastern Time, with Trump warning that failure to comply will result in widespread destruction within four hours. Strikes Intensify Across Iran Throughout Tuesday, military operations escalated significantly inside Iran. American and Israeli forces targeted railway bridges, highway infrastructure, a petrochemical facility, and transmission lines, according to Iranian state media. Power outages hit areas west of Tehran after strikes damaged substations. Explosions rocked Kharg Island, home to Iran’s primary oil export terminal, which Trump has publicly considered destroying or seizing. An attack on Khorramabad International Airport and another strike in Alborz province killed 18 people. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed his air force struck bridges and railways, claiming they transported materials for weapons production. Iran responded by declaring it would no longer restrain attacks on Gulf neighbors’ infrastructure. Tehran’s Revolutionary Guards struck Saudi Arabia’s Jubail industrial site, where Western oil companies operate billion-dollar facilities. Verified footage showed flames and smoke rising from the complex. Iranian forces also claimed fresh strikes on vessels in the Gulf. A synagogue in Tehran was destroyed overnight in what Iran described as Israeli airstrikes, with Hebrew texts scattered among debris. Lawmaker Homayoun Sameh, representing Iran’s Jewish community, confirmed Torah scrolls remained buried under rubble. International Concerns Mount Trump posted on social media that a whole civilization would die unless Iran agrees to end the conflict. Former State Department legal adviser Brian Finucane stated Trump’s language could plausibly constitute threats of genocide under American and international law. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney responded to questions by emphasizing that all parties must respect international laws and avoid targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure. Carney noted Canada has made this position clear both publicly and privately. Stakes Continue Rising Iran maintains its blockade of Gulf oil shipments while Trump’s deadline approaches. Iranian officials warned their response would deprive America and regional allies of oil and gas for years. The Revolutionary Guards stated that up until now, Tehran has shown restraint in selecting retaliatory targets out of consideration for neighboring countries. Gulf cities depend entirely on electricity and water systems that could become vulnerable if regional infrastructure warfare expands. Both sides appear committed to their positions with hours remaining before Trump’s stated deadline for launching what he termed an unprecedented bombardment campaign. Sources Cbc: U.S., Israel launch strikes across Iran, including energy hub Kharg Island | CBC News

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin warns that major international airports in sanctuary cities could lose federal customs operations if local governments continue refusing to cooperate with immigration enforcement. Sanctuary Cities Face Airport Consequences Secretary Mullin told Fox News that his department is examining whether cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws should retain their customs processing capabilities. He questioned why federal agents should process international arrivals when local authorities immediately shield those same individuals from immigration enforcement once they leave the airport terminals. The proposal targets major hubs including New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, where local policies prevent police from assisting federal immigration officers. When pressed on whether major airports could actually lose customs operations, Mullin confirmed the possibility. He explained that Democrats are already pushing to defund Customs and Border Protection, which forces him to make hard decisions about resource allocation. The secretary emphasized he would prioritize cities willing to partner with federal authorities while staying within policies established by Congress. San Francisco Incident Highlights Conflict The threat comes after a recent incident at San Francisco International Airport where ICE agents detained an illegal immigrant, only to face interference from far-left activists while local police refused to provide assistance. San Francisco’s sanctuary city policies prevented officers from supporting federal law enforcement, illustrating the conflict Mullin now addresses. The city’s airport handles millions of international passengers annually, making customs operations essential to its economy and transportation infrastructure. What This Means for Major Cities Removing customs operations would force international flights to reroute to airports in jurisdictions that cooperate with federal immigration law. This would devastate local economies dependent on international travel and business connections. Mullin argues that sanctuary city policies are unlawful and that federal resources should support communities willing to enforce immigration statutes. The proposal represents a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict between federal immigration enforcement and local sanctuary policies that have shielded individuals from deportation for years. Sources The Gateway Pundit: DHS Secretary Mullin Threatens to Remove CBP Operation from Sanctuary City International Airports Until They Stop Harboring Illegals and Comply with Federal Law

Georgia voters head to the polls for a critical House runoff that will determine the balance of power in Washington, as Republican Clay Fuller faces Democrat Shawn Harris to replace Marjorie Taylor Greene after her dramatic split with President Trump over Iran policy. Race Holds National Stakes Republicans currently hold 218 seats in the House, including one independent who caucuses with the party, while Democrats control 214. The Georgia seat becomes pivotal as Fuller and Harris compete to fill the vacancy left by Greene’s departure. Harris narrowly edged Fuller in the March 10 special election, but neither candidate secured the majority needed to avoid a runoff. Political analysts attribute Harris’ slight advantage to a crowded Republican field rather than Democratic momentum in a district Greene consistently won by 30-point margins. Iran War Divides Candidates Fuller, a district attorney and Air National Guard veteran, strongly backs Trump’s military action against Iran. He described the Iranian regime as a death cult that cannot be negotiated with, declaring the country safer because of Trump’s Iran decisions. Harris, a retired Army general and farmer, called the conflict a war of choice during their debate last month. He argued Trump should focus on economic recovery instead of foreign intervention. Greene herself has not endorsed either candidate, but her criticism of Trump remains fierce. She accused the president of going insane after he threatened to bomb Iranian infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz remained closed. Path Forward Remains Uncertain Both candidates face potential rematches throughout the year. The runoff winner will serve until January 2027, but Fuller and Harris must first navigate May 19 midterm primaries before a November general election determines who holds the seat through January 2029. Greene first won the district in 2020 by nearly 50 points and maintained 30-point victories in subsequent races. Her break with Trump over America First principles creates unusual dynamics in a traditionally conservative stronghold, though Democrats face steep odds in flipping the seat. What This Means The Georgia runoff represents more than a single House seat. It tests whether Trump’s endorsement still carries weight after his split with Greene, and whether voters prioritize foreign policy or economic concerns. The result could signal shifting conservative priorities as the nation grapples with war abroad and economic challenges at home. Both parties watch closely as every seat matters in the narrowly divided chamber. Sources Cbsnews: Georgia runoff to decide who replaces Marjorie Taylor Greene after her spat with Trump

A single line at a county Democrats meeting in Maine exposed the next big fight in American politics: whether one party should be able to re-engineer the Supreme Court when it doesn’t like the decisions. Skowhegan’s Warning Shot: A Local Speech With National Consequences Graham Platner’s message to party activists in Skowhegan was blunt: if Democrats take the Senate, they should make Supreme Court expansion and impeachment a top priority. He described the Court as a political arm of conservatism and argued that justices should face the same standards applied to other federal judges. He offered no list of alleged misconduct, no names, and no roadmap—only the demand for leverage. That lack of specifics matters because impeachment is not a vibe; it’s a constitutional procedure built around claims that can survive scrutiny. Platner’s own framing also collides with a basic expectation many voters still hold: courts should interpret law, not serve as a rotating spoils system. When a candidate treats the Supreme Court like a legislature you can restructure after losing an argument, he invites a question that lingers—what happens next time the other side wins? The “Contempt of Court” Hook Doesn’t Match the Record The public framing around this episode sometimes uses language like “contempt of court,” but the research record provided doesn’t show Platner using that term or citing that kind of conduct. What appears in reporting is a political critique: he sees the Court as ideological, and he wants Democrats to respond with aggressive institutional tools. That distinction is more than semantics; it separates a claim of lawlessness from a claim of illegitimacy, and those lead to very different remedies. When politicians blur those lines, they often do it for a reason: “the Court is corrupt” sounds like justification, while “I hate the outcomes” sounds like a tantrum. Conservative common sense says you don’t impeach umpires because your team dislikes the strike zone. If you think a justice violated ethics rules, you present the facts. If you think the Court’s philosophy is wrong, you win elections and pass clearer laws. Court-Packing Isn’t “Reform” When It’s Just Scorekeeping Expanding the Supreme Court gets marketed as modernization, but the political history is a warning label. The most famous attempt came when Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to add seats after facing resistance to New Deal policies, and the proposal became synonymous with raw power politics. The deeper risk is reciprocity: once one party expands the Court to lock in outcomes, the other party can expand it right back, turning nine justices into an ever-growing committee. That spiral erodes the one thing the judiciary relies on when it can’t enforce rulings with an army: public acceptance that decisions come from law, not partisan muscle. People over 40 have watched enough institutions decay to recognize the pattern. When rules become tools for revenge, you don’t get “accountability,” you get permanent escalation. The end state looks less like constitutional government and more like an endless remodel of the foundation. Impeaching Justices: Constitutionally Possible, Politically Explosive, Historically Rare Platner’s call to impeach “at least two” justices jumps over an inconvenient fact: impeachment of Supreme Court justices almost never succeeds. The Constitution sets a high bar—“Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”—and American practice has treated removal as extraordinary. Only one justice, Samuel Chase in the early 1800s, was impeached, and the Senate acquitted him, reinforcing the norm that impeachment can’t become a substitute for disagreement. That history doesn’t mean justices are untouchable; it means the country learned early that judicial independence dies when impeachment becomes a partisan weapon. If Platner believes two justices committed impeachable acts, he needs more than intensity. He needs allegations specific enough to test, evidence strong enough to persuade skeptics, and a theory of misconduct that doesn’t collapse into “they vote the wrong way.” Without that, the demand reads as performative politics. Maine’s Political Reality: Primary Heat, General Election Cold Water Maine is not a laboratory for rhetorical purity; it’s a state where general elections punish perceived extremism, especially when an incumbent like Susan Collins can position herself as a stabilizer. Platner’s posture also creates contrast with Democrats who criticize the Court but stop short of structural retaliation. If his primary goal is to energize activists, these lines can work in the room. If his goal is to win statewide, the room is not the state. The reported silence from Platner’s campaign after the remarks adds another layer. Candidates usually amplify their strongest message, not bury it. When a campaign site omits the issue while a candidate tells activists it’s a top priority, voters infer either calculation or inconsistency. Neither helps trust, and trust becomes the central currency when the topic is the Supreme Court—an institution that depends on legitimacy more than popularity. The Bigger Lesson: When Politics Targets Referees, The Game Breaks Americans can debate judicial philosophy all day, but weaponizing impeachment and court expansion as routine tactics crosses a line from persuasion to coercion. Conservatives tend to see that line clearly because limited government requires limits even when power is available. If every hard decision triggers threats to restructure the Court, the judiciary becomes just another partisan chamber—and the Constitution becomes whatever the last majority can intimidate into existence. Platner’s comments matter less for their details than for what they normalize: the idea that winning the Senate means rewriting the judiciary. The healthiest response isn’t censorship or hysteria; it’s insistence on standards. Name the misconduct or stop implying it. Make the case with facts or admit it’s ideology. That’s not just conservative preference—it’s the minimum requirement for a country that still wants courts, not political commissions. Sources: Graham Platner Calls To Stack the Supreme Court and Impeach ‘At Least Two’ Sitting Justices Maine Democrat Wants To Stack SCOTUS, Impeach Justices