Sports Betting "Gold Rush," Stablecoin Corruption, and Abortion Pill "Defense" Smokescreen

Clay Travis’ Misguided View on What His Audience “Understands” about Gambling

Clay Travis, sports and politics commentator and founder of OutKick, sat down with Semafor’s Ben Smith and Max Tani on their Mixed Signals podcast this week to talk about a variety of topics related to sports, politics, and media. At one point, the trio discussed legalized sports betting—specifically, the millions of dollars that Travis and his company have made through their partnership with FanDuel.

When Travis bragged about his company previously getting $350 for each new sign-up he brought to FanDuel as an affiliate marketer, Smith seemed to gently question whether Travis ever weighed the morality of such a lucrative arrangement:

“Now when you’re getting that money, doesn’t that make you nervous? I mean, I just feel like whenever there’s a transaction like that, that means they are just taking in so much revenue, so much profit from your loyal readers. I mean, doesn’t that make you a little queasy?”

In Travis’ answer, he seemed to justify the concerning economics by framing sports betting mainly as an entertainment enhancer, suggesting that bettors “understand” that gambling tends to be a money losing endeavor, and that people can still lose “50 or 100 bucks and feel like you had a good night.”

There are several major problems with this justification. The first is that the majority of gambling profits do not come from casual fans who lose “50 or 100 bucks” here or there. A 2024 study from the Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services showed that wagers from addicted gamblers made up over half of the state’s overall sports wagering revenue.

While it’s likely the case that many of the new customers an affiliate like Travis brings to FanDuel may not individually net the company more than $350 in new profits, the company may nab enough “whales” (aka, newly-minted gambling addicts) from this group to subsidize the cost of acquiring the rest.

Even before legalized online sports betting, the business models of gambling companies have long relied on gambling addicts. One study estimated that the 75% of casino gamblers who are considered “casual” and don’t exhibit any traits of gambling addiction only amounted to 4% of a casino’s total profits.

Second, Travis’ assumption about gamblers’ mindsets—that they know full well the house has an edge and that they’ll more than likely lose money—is not borne out by the data. A survey conducted by the National Council on Problem Gambling found that nearly 75% of 18- to 24-year-olds believe that sports betting is either a “great way to make money” or they are unsure. In the age of Robinhood-fueled meme stocks and crypto trading, many young people—especially young men—may be more likely to view the sports betting app on their phone not as an entertainment expense, but as a potential side hustle.

Although the hosts didn’t get explicit about gambling-related harms during the interview, in their episode wrap-up, Smith did note, “By the way, I mean, his enthusiasm for gambling? I think that’s another backlash that’s coming.”

Trump Corruption Concerns Sink Stablecoin Bill

This week, a last-minute change of heart from a group of Senate Democrats stopped the GENIUS Act—a bill that would begin to regulate crypto stablecoins—from advancing in the Senate. While many previously expected the bill would pass with the requisite 60 votes, President Trump’s recent use of crypto to enrich himself and his family appears to have soured Democrats on the idea of giving their blessing to the technology without appropriate safeguards against corruption.

The day after the bill suffered its (at least temporary) defeat, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Chris Van Hollen led on a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Attorney General Pam Bondi raising questions around the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial (WLF) and the controversial crypto giant Binance.

The letter follows the recent announcement from Zach Witkoff—WLF co-founder and son of Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff—that Abu Dhabi-backed investment firm MGX had used WLF’s USD1 stablecoin to complete its $2 billion investment in Binance. The senators note that the connection to Binance is particularly concerning given the company’s 2023 guilty plea and settlement in court on charges of “money laundering, operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, violating U.S. sanctions laws, and failing to prevent and report suspicious transactions with terrorist groups, including Hamas and ISIS.”

Perhaps even more concerningly, Zack Witkoff announced that USD1 would be integrated into TRON, a notorious international blockchain founded by Justin Sun—who was in the middle of being prosecuted by the SEC until he apparently bought Trump’s favor by purchasing $75 million worth of WLF tokens.

In 2023, CfA wrote a letter to Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown, explaining that U.S. cryptocurrency firm Circle was complicit in terrorist fundraising by allowing its USDC stablecoin to be circulated on TRON. While CfA’s analysis initially prompted Circle to publicly object to our characterization, the company announced several months later that it would be discontinuing support for USDC on TRON, as part of its efforts “to ensure that USDC remains trusted, transparent and safe.”

Apparently, with the Trump family at the helm, World Liberty Financial does not share such concerns.

The Truth about the Trump DOJ’s Abortion Pill “Defense”

You may have seen headlines this week that seemed to imply that the Trump DOJ would be defending the rights of women to access the abortion medication mifepristone. While some outlets looked at this action in isolation and quickly determined that the administration may adopt a soft stance on mifepristone access, in reality, it may be part of a longer term strategy to ban to medication abortion.

A bit of background: the Attorneys General of Missouri, Kansas and Idaho previously sued the Biden FDA to restrict access to mifepristone, falsely claiming that the drug is unsafe. They filed the case in the Northern District of Texas, where they knew they had a better chance of a favorable ruling. The Biden administration had sought to have the case dismissed for lack of standing—since the plaintiffs have no connection to the district—and now the Trump administration has agreed. Yet, the Trump DOJ’s filing did nothing to dispute the merits of the case, and only agreed with the Biden lawyers in saying that the states did not have standing.

According to Jessica Valenti in Abortion, Every Day, the Trump administration may look favorably on a precedent that says individual states don’t have the standing to challenge FDA decisions. Establishing this, Valenti posits, would prevent pro-choice states in the future from being able to challenge hypothetical moves by a conservative FDA to restrict or ban abortion medication.

While Trump-appointed FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said in April that he has no plans to restrict mifepristone, he added that if new data arises, “we can’t promise we’re not going to act on that data.” Just a few days after those comments, an anti-abortion religious think-tank put out a misleading study, which seeks to paint mifepristone as leading to far more adverse medical events than it actually does. Already, GOP Sen. Josh Hawley has introduced a bill to roll back access to mifepristone, using the junk science report as the law’s primary justification.