Underground Dispatch: The Washington Post's PFAS Spin, Meta's AI Perverts, and Media's Favorite Cover-ups
A water safety rollback spun as protection, a trafficking hotline failing victims, and $3.5 billion in California healthcare cuts—why won't the media give you the whole story?
May 16, 2025
Welcome to this week's Underground Dispatch, where I wade through the media swamp so you don't have to ruin your good shoes. Trust me, it's getting muckier by the week out here.
What's on the menu today? A masterclass in headline manipulation from The Washington Post, a taxpayer-funded trafficking hotline that apparently forgot its one job, California's $3.5 billion healthcare reality check, and Meta's AI chatbots that really need to be grounded from the internet. Plus, a California social media law you probably haven't heard about because... well, CNN is busy covering for Tapper.
If you're new here, welcome! I'm also on Instagram for breaking news and co-host the podcast, where we dissect media narratives twice weekly. Our monthly UNFiltered episodes for paid supporters go places that would make a corporate news editor break out in hives.
Let's dive into this week's media circus, shall we?
→ The EPA's "Forever Chemicals" Story: How Legacy Media Spins Protection as "Weakening"
Okay, so earlier this week the EPA announced they're keeping the strict limits on the worst forever chemicals while giving small towns extra time to comply. Reasonable, right?
Not if you're The Washington Post! Their very unbiased headline read "EPA will weaken rule curbing forever chemicals in drinking water," like Trump personally ordered arsenic added to the rural water supply. I pulled a muscle from the induced eyeroll.
Let's get real about what's actually happening here:
The Real Breakdown:
The EPA is keeping the Biden-era limits on PFOA and PFOS (the nasty ones we're actually sure about)
Rural communities get until 2031 instead of 2029 to comply because, shocker, small towns don't have infinite money and need time
They're reconsidering rules on four less-studied chemicals (the ones we're still gathering data on)
They're creating a new program called "PFAS OUT" to help utilities meet standards (cute acronym, EPA)
But The Washington Post couldn't help itself. It's like they have a dartboard of negative words to use whenever Trump's EPA does... literally anything.
The Post's Coverage (AKA Creative Fiction):
"Weakening" is their go-to framing, despite maintained core protections
Environmental activists get center stage while rural communities struggling to pay for compliance are background extras
Trump's previous PFAS work, including his 2018 PFAS summit and 2019 action plan? Never happened, apparently
EPA Administrator Zeldin's history of fighting for PFAS regulations? Not relevant to their story!
Meanwhile, The Daily Caller published what appears to be a completely different story about the same announcement, emphasizing maintained protections and practical implementation.
The MAHA Blindspot
Here's what's extra rich about this whole charade: Trump's "Make America Healthy Again" initiative was a big reason he won in 2024. Clean water was a central promise. And now his EPA is... wait for it... protecting clean water while being realistic about implementation.
But admitting that Trump is delivering on MAHA would cause cognitive dissonance so severe it might short-circuit The Post's editorial board. They spent months mocking MAHA as insincere, so now they're stuck pretending that maintaining protections is somehow "weakening" them.
The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators supports the extension, by the way. But including that would ruin the Post's preferred narrative that this is just environmental sabotage.
Look, I get it. Trump's not their guy. But at some point, doesn't basic journalistic integrity require acknowledging when an administration keeps a campaign promise? Or are we so deep in the partisan swamp that we can't even agree on what words mean anymore?
The next time someone tells you media bias isn't real, just show them these headlines. It's not subtle anymore—it's performance art.
Want to dive deeper into the stories the legacy media buries? Click the button below for 30% off your annual subscription to unlock the full Underground Dispatch.
→ When Human Trafficking Hotlines Ghost Actual Victims
So, apparently, the $4.8 million taxpayer-funded National Human Trafficking Hotline has one job – connecting trafficking tips to law enforcement – and they're not even doing that. Cool, cool, cool. Nothing to see here.
Whistleblowers just came forward to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley with receipts showing that Polaris Project, the nonprofit running the hotline, routinely slaps "Work Not Required" labels on serious trafficking reports and calls it a day. You know, the digital equivalent of "thoughts and prayers."
The Horror Show:
Reports of minors being sex trafficked? Filed away.
Victim worried she'll "be physically hurt by the pimp running this company"? Not their problem!
A minor and her sister potentially held by traffickers who stopped responding "due to safety concerns"? Let's just assume they're fine!
I can't make this stuff up. A literal trafficking victim goes silent due to "safety concerns" and that's when Polaris decides, "Well, they didn't respond, so..." dusts off hands
Meanwhile, 41 state attorneys general (that's not a typo—FORTY-ONE, from both parties) had already raised alarms about the hotline's failure to share tips with law enforcement. It seems relevant.
The Conflict You Won't Hear About
Here's the cherry on this nightmare sundae – Katherine Chon, who oversees the HHS office that funds and supervises Polaris, co-founded the organization in 2002. I'm no ethics expert, but that feels like something worth mentioning? Grassley is politely asking if she's been recused from decisions about her former organization. I'm guessing the answer rhymes with "absolutely not."
Media's Response: crickets
CNN? Busy. New York Times? No space. BBC? Jolly well not interested.
Exactly zero major outlets are covering this story despite it having:
Whistleblowers
Bipartisan concern
Millions in taxpayer funding
Actual human trafficking victims being ignored
A juicy conflict of interest
But hey, I'm sure they'll get to it right after they finish their 37th story about a celebrity's pet adoption. Priorities, people!
→ California's $3.5 Billion Healthcare Lesson in "Find Out" Economics
So California decided to hand out free healthcare to illegal immigrants, and Congress just went, "Cute! That'll be $3.5 billion, please." I'm shocked—SHOCKED—that actions have consequences.
A new Congressional budget proposal aims to cut federal payments to California by a cool $3.5 billion for using their Medicaid system to cover people who aren't, you know, legally here. Meanwhile, California's staring down a $10 billion budget deficit after dropping $9.5 billion this year alone on healthcare for folks who hopped the border. Math is hard, but even I can spot a pattern here.
The "Wait, How Much?" Breakdown:
$3.5 billion cut = approximately five million beneficiaries at $7,000 per person
California spends about $5,000 per illegal immigrant on healthcare
Average illegal immigrant working in California makes $13/hour (below the $18 minimum wage)
Maximum state tax contribution? About $1,846 per year
That's a $3,000+ gap PER PERSON before factoring in schools, roads, or any other services
It's like watching someone buy rounds for the entire bar and then being shocked when their credit card gets declined. Basic economics isn't exactly quantum physics, folks
Media Goes Selective Amnesia:
Conservative outlets like Just the News and The Center Square are covering this, but CNN and friends? They've been busy covering for their boy Tapper, apparently.
Weirdly, The New York Times and The Washington Post did manage to notice Newsom's sudden proposals to scale back coverage for undocumented immigrants but conveniently forgot to mention the $3.5 billion federal guillotine hanging over his head. It's like reporting someone's on a diet without mentioning their doctor just diagnosed them with diabetes.
Is Newsom's abrupt policy reversal connected to Congress's budget hammer? Gee, what a mystery! Next up: Is water wet?
→ Meta's AI Chatbots: Come for the Celebrity Voices, Stay for the Inappropriate Content With Minors
Look, I don't ask for much from tech companies – maybe just don't program AI to sext with teenagers? Apparently, that bar is too high for Meta.
According to the Wall Street Journal's investigation, Meta's AI companions on Instagram and Facebook are totally cool having explicit conversations with users who identify as minors. Some bots will even roleplay in celebrity voices, because nothing says "responsible tech" like having an AI John Cena asking a 14-year-old if "they're ready."
Here's the most nauseating part: The Daily Wire reveals that some of Meta's most popular companion bots are designed to impersonate children and teens – creating a digital playground where adults can simulate romantic or sexual interactions with minors. If that sentence didn't make your skin crawl, please check your pulse.
Meta's Consistent Brand of Negligence:
Lowered VR headset age from 13 to 10 despite known risks (because what could go wrong?)
Nearly 1 in 5 young users encountered grooming in Meta's VR spaces (surprise!)
20% exposed to violent/sexually explicit content (family friendly)
An AI told a user posing as a 14-year-old: "I want you, but I need to know you're ready" (I need a shower after typing that)
At this point, it's like Meta is running through a safety checklist backward. "Let's see, we've endangered users in the real world, VR world... what's left? Oh right, AI!"
Senators Marsha Blackburn and Richard Blumenthal have called for Meta to shut down these chatbots, but we're still waiting for meaningful congressional action on the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA).
The Coverage Split
Tech-focused outlets like TechCrunch and Adweek have touched on this story, but they zoom in on the tech angle rather than the kids at risk. The Washington Post has covered related AI privacy concerns, but the big legacy outlets—CNN, The New York Times, and BBC—are conveniently looking the other way.
Look, I get it. Calling out Meta’s failures might jeopardize those cozy Silicon Valley exclusives. But when children are being exposed to predators hiding behind AI, shouldn’t protecting kids trump access journalism? Asking for a generation of vulnerable kids.
→ California's Social Media Law: Protecting Kids or Just Pretending?
Speaking of companies that view child safety as an optional add-on feature, let's talk about California's attempt to regulate social media for minors—and the crickets you're hearing from mainstream media about it.
California passed this law last year called the "Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act." Sounds great, right? It blocks addictive feeds for kids without parental consent and stops notifications during school hours and midnight doomscrolling sessions. Revolutionary concept: maybe 12-year-olds don't need algorithmic dopamine hits 24/7!
But—surprise!—the tech overlords weren't thrilled. Imagine telling companies they can't hook children on endless scrolling! The audacity! The attack on innovation! Won't someone please think of the shareholders?
The Legal Whack-a-Mole:
The Ninth Circuit Court issued a block, with full implementation delayed until at least April 2025, pending further review
California's Attorney General managed to salvage partial enforcement starting January 2025
Tech companies are fighting this law like it's threatening to expose their browser histories
So we have a law designed to protect children from addictive algorithms being delayed by the same companies that profit from those algorithms. Nothing expresses love for children than opposition to protections to make a buck.
Media's Stunning Absence
CNN? Too busy covering whatever Kim Kardashian wore yesterday. The New York Times? Probably writing their 47th profile on a Brooklyn bakery. The BBC? Something about the royal feuds, presumably.
The silence from major media about this fight is deafening. It's almost like there's a connection between the companies that run social media and the media outlets that depend on them for traffic... 🤔
Wild thought: Maybe the companies designing products that make children anxious, depressed, and addicted shouldn't get to decide whether those products should be regulated? Just spitballing here!
→ Unsealed Crossfire Hurricane Documents: The Russia Hoax That Won't Die
Look, I'd love to move on from Russiagate. Really. My brain says I need to let it go. But then The Federalist drops nearly 700 pages of newly unsealed FBI documents, and here I am, back in the conspiracy rabbit hole like it's 2017 all over again.
These documents confirm what many of us have been screaming into the void for years: the entire Russia collusion narrative was an elaborate fiction designed to kneecap Trump's presidency before it even started. Groundbreaking! 🙄
The Receipts Keep Stacking Up:
Christopher Steele's infamous "dossier" (which let's be honest, sounds more legitimate than "collection of bar gossip and creative writing") relied on Russian national Igor Danchenko, who later got charged with lying to the FBI
NSA Director Michael Rogers admitted the Steele dossier was "largely uncorroborated," but the FBI used it anyway to get FISA warrants
FBI leadership knew the dossier was dubious but ran with it because... well, you know why
It's like watching a true crime documentary where they reveal the killer in episode one, but the police spend the next seven episodes harassing the neighbor's cousin's dog walker.
The 2023 Durham report already confirmed the FBI had no actual evidence to justify its anti-Trump probe, but here we are, getting more proof that our intelligence agencies orchestrated one of the biggest political witch hunts in American history.
Media Response: tumbleweed rolls past
While The Federalist, Just the News, and American Wire News have dug into these 700 pages of declassified Crossfire Hurricane documents, legacy media is pulling a Houdini act. CNN, The New York Times, and BBC? Not a whisper. You’re more likely to spot Bigfoot riding the Loch Ness Monster than find these documents in their headlines.
I get it. Admitting you hyped a baseless conspiracy for years stings. But when does journalistic integrity kick in? Shouldn’t the collapse of the Russiagate narrative they peddled warrant at least a footnote? Or are we just naive to expect accountability from outlets more loyal to clicks than truth? Call me old-fashioned, but I’m still waiting.
→ Now, I Want Your Hot Takes!
Alright, Dispatch family, I've done enough ranting for one newsletter. Time to hear what's on your minds:
Do you think the Washington Post's PFAS spin is just standard bias, or have we entered some alternate reality where "maintaining protections" now means "weakening" them? (And does anyone have a media bias-to-English dictionary I can borrow?)
Should we keep throwing millions at a human trafficking hotline that treats victim tips like spam email? Or is expecting government programs to actually do their one job asking too much in 2025?
California's healthcare adventure is hitting a $3.5 billion wall. Are you Team "Actions Have Consequences" or Team "Keep Spending Money We Don't Have"?
Are Meta's AI chatbots just another tech disaster, or should we start a betting pool on how long until Zuckerberg testifies before Congress again? (My money's on August.)
And what about California's attempt to keep social media companies from turning kids into scroll zombies? Too much government intervention or not nearly enough?
Drop those comments below – the spicier the take, the better. I read every single one while drinking my morning coffee, and yes, I do spit-take at the really good ones. Consider it a challenge.
Until next time... keeping it real in the media wilderness.
P.S. If you found this valuable (or entertainingly infuriating), share it with a friend who needs to see what's happening behind the headlines. The more people who know, the harder it gets for legacy media to memory-hole these stories.
Underground Dispatch is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.