Uploaded August 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Today we're breaking down two stories we can't stop thinking about: an anti-trans political stunt at a WNBA game that spectacularly backfired, and a Supreme Court decision that could give Donald Trump significantly more room to interfere with how states handle mail-in voting ahead of the 2026 midterms.
0:34 - Ex-NBA Player’s WNBA Stunt BACKFIRES
Former NBA players have spent weeks claiming they want to enter the WNBA as part of a supposed effort to "protect women's sports" from transgender athletes. There's one glaring problem with their argument: there are currently no trans women playing in the WNBA.
That manufactured controversy spilled into an actual WNBA game when former NBA player Enes Kanter Freedom attended an Indiana Fever vs. Chicago Sky matchup wearing an anti-trans shirt.
After Chicago Sky player Natasha Cloud approached him during the game, Kanter Freedom stepped onto the court and was ultimately removed from the arena as fans booed. The episode argues that the confrontation exposed the contradiction at the heart of the stunt: men claiming to "protect women's sports" showed up at a women's sporting event and turned the attention away from the athletes and onto themselves.
But the story goes beyond one courtside confrontation.
Talking Points Memo reporting discussed in the episode connects the activity surrounding Kanter Freedom to the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute. The organization promoted footage of his arrival, one of its executives attended the game, and the group has even begun selling "Let Freedom Play" merchandise.
Meanwhile, the WNBA has made clear that these former NBA players will not be eligible for its draft.
We break down the political movement behind these stunts, why actual WNBA fans appear increasingly frustrated by them, and how the fixation on a nonexistent problem is being used to fuel a much larger anti-trans culture war.
17:01 - Supreme Court Gives Trump New Opening on Mail-In Voting
Then we turn to a decision with potentially enormous consequences for the 2026 midterms.
On August 24, the Supreme Court cleared a major legal obstacle standing in the way of Trump's executive order targeting federal elections and mail-in voting.
Importantly, the Court did not rule that Trump's plan is constitutional. Instead, the majority determined that states challenging the executive order had sued prematurely because they had not yet suffered a sufficiently concrete injury.
The practical consequence is significant. Trump now has more room to attempt to implement portions of his executive order while states may have to wait before challenging those actions again.
The order calls for a new federal citizenship database, directs the Postal Service regarding ballots deemed ineligible, and tells the attorney general to prioritize investigations and potential prosecutions involving state and local officials who provide federal ballots to people deemed ineligible.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the dissent, stressing that the ruling does not determine whether Trump's attempts to interfere with states' administration of the November elections are lawful. She argued that the states already face a sufficiently concrete and imminent threat to bring their challenges.
And there's another layer to Trump's war on mail-in voting: Trump himself recently voted by mail.
Despite publicly claiming that mail-in voting leads to "crooked elections," Trump used a mail-in ballot in a Florida special election. When pressed about the contradiction, Trump justified his own use of the system by pointing to the fact that he's president and saying he was too busy to vote in person.
With the midterm elections rapidly approaching, we break down what the Supreme Court actually decided, what it did not decide, what Trump is trying to change, and why the coming legal fight over voting rights could have major consequences in November.
SUBSCRIBE to @COURIERHQ for more.
#WNBA #Trump #Politics
Today we're breaking down two stories we can't stop thinking about: an anti-trans political stunt at a WNBA game that spectacularly backfired, and a Supreme Court decision that could give Donald Trump significantly more room to interfere with how states handle mail-in voting ahead of the 2026 midterms.
0:34 - Ex-NBA Player’s WNBA Stunt BACKFIRES
Former NBA players have spent weeks claiming they want to enter the WNBA as part of a supposed effort to "protect women's sports" from transgender athletes. There's one glaring problem with their argument: there are currently no trans women playing in the WNBA.
That manufactured controversy spilled into an actual WNBA game when former NBA player Enes Kanter Freedom attended an Indiana Fever vs. Chicago Sky matchup wearing an anti-trans shirt.
After Chicago Sky player Natasha Cloud approached him during the game, Kanter Freedom stepped onto the court and was ultimately removed from the arena as fans booed. The episode argues that the confrontation exposed the contradiction at the heart of the stunt: men claiming to "protect women's sports" showed up at a women's sporting event and turned the attention away from the athletes and onto themselves.
But the story goes beyond one courtside confrontation.
Talking Points Memo reporting discussed in the episode connects the activity surrounding Kanter Freedom to the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute. The organization promoted footage of his arrival, one of its executives attended the game, and the group has even begun selling "Let Freedom Play" merchandise.
Meanwhile, the WNBA has made clear that these former NBA players will not be eligible for its draft.
We break down the political movement behind these stunts, why actual WNBA fans appear increasingly frustrated by them, and how the fixation on a nonexistent problem is being used to fuel a much larger anti-trans culture war.
17:01 - Supreme Court Gives Trump New Opening on Mail-In Voting
Then we turn to a decision with potentially enormous consequences for the 2026 midterms.
On August 24, the Supreme Court cleared a major legal obstacle standing in the way of Trump's executive order targeting federal elections and mail-in voting.
Importantly, the Court did not rule that Trump's plan is constitutional. Instead, the majority determined that states challenging the executive order had sued prematurely because they had not yet suffered a sufficiently concrete injury.
The practical consequence is significant. Trump now has more room to attempt to implement portions of his executive order while states may have to wait before challenging those actions again.
The order calls for a new federal citizenship database, directs the Postal Service regarding ballots deemed ineligible, and tells the attorney general to prioritize investigations and potential prosecutions involving state and local officials who provide federal ballots to people deemed ineligible.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the dissent, stressing that the ruling does not determine whether Trump's attempts to interfere with states' administration of the November elections are lawful. She argued that the states already face a sufficiently concrete and imminent threat to bring their challenges.
And there's another layer to Trump's war on mail-in voting: Trump himself recently voted by mail.
Despite publicly claiming that mail-in voting leads to "crooked elections," Trump used a mail-in ballot in a Florida special election. When pressed about the contradiction, Trump justified his own use of the system by pointing to the fact that he's president and saying he was too busy to vote in person.
With the midterm elections rapidly approaching, we break down what the Supreme Court actually decided, what it did not decide, what Trump is trying to change, and why the coming legal fight over voting rights could have major consequences in November.
SUBSCRIBE to @COURIERHQ for more.
#WNBA #Trump #Politics
