Afleveringen
-
The madman did it. Mike Johnson pushed the Big Beautiful Bill through the House in a razor-thin 215–214 vote, with one Republican voting present. It happened in the early hours of the morning, after an all-night session where, reportedly, one GOP member literally fell asleep during the vote. It’s wild how this keeps happening: Johnson, backed by Trump, threads the needle just enough to claim victory — first on his own speakership, then on the budget, and now on the crown jewel of Trump’s second-term domestic agenda.
The vote was close, but this wasn’t chaos. It was strategy. Johnson avoided making promises, waited out the loudest factions, and let Trump do the squeezing. First, the SALT caucus got its $40,000 cap. Then, once the blue-state Republicans were on board, the House Freedom Caucus got summoned to the White House. Trump made it clear — get in line. And they mostly did.
What’s Actually in the Bill
The bill itself is massive. It permanently extends the 2017 Trump tax cuts. It temporarily exempts tips, overtime, and auto loan interest from taxes through 2028. It raises the SALT deduction cap to $40,000 for households earning up to $500,000. It imposes work requirements on Medicaid recipients aged 18 to 65 who don’t have disabilities or young children. It bans Medicaid and CHIP from covering gender-affirming care. It cuts federal funding to states offering Medicaid to undocumented immigrants.
Then there’s the border and defense spending: $46.5 billion for the wall, $4.1 billion for more Border Patrol agents, $1,000 asylum application fees, nearly $150 billion for defense, including missile shields and naval expansion. It throws in a Trump Savings Account for kids, expands 529s for education, and guts clean energy tax credits earlier than expected. This is not a modest proposal. This is the full kitchen sink — and it cleared the House.
The Congressional Budget Office says it’ll add $3.8 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. For a party that used to live and die by fiscal restraint, it’s a hell of a turn. And yet, what’s striking is that Democrats are the ones now talking about debt again. The shift is real. But the counterargument is simple: we’ve been living under this tax structure for seven years. Making it permanent just formalizes the status quo. The new spending and credits? That’s where the fight will be.
Next Stop: The Senate Wall
None of this becomes law unless it gets through the Senate — and that’s a very different battlefield. The GOP has three votes to spare. And their best lobbyist is JD Vance, who’s barely spent any time in the chamber. This is not the House. Rand Paul is a hard no. Ron Johnson is already calling out the deficit. Susan Collins is watching the optics. McConnell still looms over the process, even if he’s stepping back from leadership.
The House version of this bill isn’t making it. Changes are coming — the question is whether they come from the right or the left. Johnson’s strategy got him this far. But in the Senate, Trump’s grip isn’t as strong, and the margin is even tighter. The message is clear: they passed it out of the House, but the real negotiation starts now.
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro
00:03:12 - Big Beautiful Bill Passes House
00:13:34 - Interview with Ryan McBeth
00:46:17 - Update
00:47:21 - Israeli Embassy Shooting
01:02:26 - Senate Bill Response
01:04:15 - Texas Hemp Ban
01:06:06 - Interview with Ryan McBeth, cont.
01:34:29 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
Donald Trump went to Capitol Hill this week to push House Republicans across the finish line on his big domestic policy bill. Behind closed doors, he told conservatives not to “F— around with Medicaid,” and told blue-state Republicans to take the SALT deal on the table: $40,000 for four years, then snapping back to $30,000. That would cover about 90% of blue-state filers, but not the ones making the most noise. Even with Trump applying pressure, guys like Andy Harris and Mike Lawler are still holding out. Some members are softening, but others like Thomas Massie are dug in. So, for now, Speaker Mike Johnson’s goal of getting a vote within 48 hours is shaky at best.
The bill itself is massive — over 1,100 pages, with tax cuts, defense spending increases, and border policy changes. It would still remove Medicaid coverage for more than seven million people, depending on which estimate you believe. And of course, any version that passes the House is going to get shredded in the Senate. Whatever they vote on now, they’ll end up voting on something worse later. So a lot of this feels like performance. The fight is real if you’re in the trenches, but from the outside, it looks like an inevitable mess.
The bottom line is that they have to pass this. Everyone’s worried about the attack ads, about the carveouts, about what they’ll be blamed for, but if they don’t pass this, they’ve got nothing. No achievements. No wins. And that’s a death sentence for 2026. Trump knows it, and that’s why he’s pushing so hard. The longer this drags out, the more nervous the business community gets. Right now, things are relatively stable — tariffs are high but consistent, regulations are locked in, and the tax code hasn’t changed yet. That kind of stability is gold to investors. It gives them permission to move. If you pass this bill now, businesses start planning in Q3, making decisions in Q4, and consumers start to feel it by next summer — right as the midterms heat up.
And that’s the ballgame. Republicans don’t want to be running in 2026 on the ghost of Joe Biden’s presidency. They want to run on Trump’s second-term economy. They want to say, “This is what we did. Do you want to go back?” That’s the message — and it only works if the economy is good. So from a strategic perspective, if you’re a Democrat, you want this thing to grind. Drag it out. Make the House Freedom Caucus fight harder. Blow it all up and pray the delay ruins the timeline. Because that’s the only way this thing doesn’t end in a campaign-ready boom for Republicans.
My guess? The bill passes the House in the next five days. I don’t see what changes between now and the two-week delay the Freedom Caucus wants. Someone’s going to have to eat it, and most likely, that someone is going to realize there’s no better option coming. As for the SALT caucus — I’m still not sure what they’re waiting for. Whatever it is, it’s not making them look particularly sympathetic to the rest of the country.
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro
00:01:37 - Original Sin Book Thoughts (with Chris Cillizza)
00:35:17 - Update
00:39:13 - Big Beautiful Bull
00:48:41 - Russia Talks
00:53:17 - Kristi Noem
00:57:42 - Original Sin and the State of Cable News (with Chris Cillizza)
01:37:56 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?
-
Joe Biden has aggressive prostate cancer. That news dropped as we were getting ready to record today’s show, and it immediately redefined everything I had planned for this episode. The White House says he found out late last week. But after everything we’ve seen — after everything we now know — I just don’t buy it. Not on its face. Not without skepticism. And certainly not from a team that has serially misled the public about this president’s health.
This isn’t partisan. This isn’t about political advantage. It’s about trust. And the Biden White House has burned every ounce of trust it ever had on the question of Joe Biden’s mental and physical condition. We were told he was sharp. We were told he was healthy. We were told the only concerns were conspiracy theories. Now we’re told he has bone-level prostate cancer and just found out a few days ago. The story does not add up.
We’ve known — not speculated, but known — that Biden’s team actively suppressed signs of his decline. It’s the core premise of the new book Original Sin by Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper. In it, we learn the White House doctor predicted Biden would be wheelchair-bound in a second term. We hear about the memory lapses, the failures to recognize people close to him, the moments that were carefully hidden or brushed aside. The story isn’t new — it’s just finally being told with names attached. And that’s the part that stings.
Because for those of us who were watching this unfold in real time, the media’s about-face is galling. Take Jake Tapper. He’s now co-author of the book and the face of its rollout — doing long, self-congratulatory segments on CNN about the secrets he’s finally exposing. But these weren’t secrets to people who were paying attention. Fox News ran segments on Biden’s decline all throughout 2023 and 2024. Clips went viral. The press dismissed them as “cheap fakes.” And now Tapper’s shocked — shocked — to find out the emperor has no clothes?
That’s what grates. Not just the cover-up, but the theater around its unmasking. The same people who waved it away are now acting like they cracked the case. And worse, they’re treating the rest of us like we weren’t there watching them do it. CNN actually responded to a viral clip reel of Tapper’s past dismissals by calling it “disingenuously edited.” The same playbook they criticized the White House for using. You can’t gaslight people and then write a book about how gaslighting is wrong.
And now we get to the real question: what did they know, and when did they know it? Did Biden already have this diagnosis when he decided to run for reelection? Did his inner circle? Did the press? These aren’t cynical questions — they’re essential ones. Because if the answer is yes, then everything about 2024 shifts. Every calculation, every debate, every moment the press refused to ask harder questions — it all changes. Because this wasn’t about a stutter or a slip of the tongue. This was about a man with a potentially terminal illness running for the most demanding job on the planet.
The cleanest way for Biden to bow out was always going to be health-related. I said it on this show more than once. If he ever had to step aside, cancer would be the story. Not scandal, not defeat — just a body failing a man who still wanted to fight. I didn’t think he’d actually get cancer. But now that he has, the question isn’t whether he should drop out. The question is whether he was ever in the race honestly to begin with.
We deserve the truth. Not just out of respect for the office, but because the American people shouldn’t be the last to know that their president is unwell. And certainly not after being lied to for years about how well he was.
Chapters
00:00 - Intro
01:26 - Joe Biden’s Cancer Diagnosis
13:04 - Jake Tapper’s CNN Broadcast
27:17 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
The Big Beautiful Bill is finally past the quiet phase. The behind-the-scenes negotiations have spilled into the open, and now we’re in the bloodletting. Speaker Mike Johnson wants this out of the House by Memorial Day, which means committee votes need to happen, and fast. But right now, the Budget Committee is a problem. Hardliners are balking — Ralph Norman, Josh Brecheen, and Chip Roy are all leaning no. They’re not satisfied with the Congressional Budget Office’s timeline for a cost estimate, and they’re worried the Medicaid changes could pressure red states into expanding coverage.
Mike Lawler and Marjorie Taylor Greene are fighting on Twitter over SALT deductions — state and local tax breaks — and that fight is not going away. There’s talk of raising the cap from $30,000 to $40,000 or adjusting the phase-out thresholds. But this is exactly why they’re doing one big bill instead of multiple smaller ones. Everyone knew it was going to be painful. Nobody wanted to go through this kind of battle again and again for every policy item.
Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Still, I’m bullish. It’s ugly right now, but that doesn’t mean it’s doomed. The usual sign of failure — a flood of press conferences from members declaring the bill dead — hasn’t happened. Republicans aren’t holding cameras. They’re texting reporters. They’re venting in group chats. But they’re not going on record saying they’ll tank Trump’s agenda. That’s a big difference. This isn’t like other bills I’ve seen die. It still feels like something they’re going to get through — just barely.
The key players are all doing what they need to do. Trump is overseas for now, but his influence is still real. He got Johnson the speaker’s gavel. He’s kept this whole thing moving. When he’s back, the pressure campaign ramps up. Meanwhile, JD Vance is already starting his Senate charm offensive to get reconciliation done once it clears the House. They know they’ll lose a few senators, but they’re planning for that. The goal is to get something — anything — through.
And here’s what’s actually in it: no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on Social Security for anyone making under $150,000. Yes, those provisions sunset in four years, but let’s be honest — once they go into effect, they’re not going anywhere. Nobody’s going to vote to take those benefits away from working people. Republicans used to hate that logic — the “give a mouse a cookie” approach to entitlements — but now they’re writing the cookies themselves. And they’re going to love running on them.
This bill is messy. It’s jammed with contradictions. It’s being held together with string and prayers. But I still think it passes. And if it does, the Trump administration gets to claim a huge legislative win — not just a headline, but real, sticky policy that people will feel in their paychecks. That’s the ballgame.
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro
00:03:52 - Big Beautiful Bill Progress
00:15:51 - Interview with Bill Scher
00:39:39 - Update
00:40:23 - Inflation
00:43:36 - Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship
00:45:44 - Iran Nuclear Deal, "Sort Of"
00:47:57 - The News Sheriff
00:53:03 - Interview with Bill Scher (con't)
01:18:02 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
Donald Trump is rumored to have a plan to receive a $400 million plane from Qatar, retrofitted to serve as Air Force One. On its face, it’s a straightforward diplomatic gift to the United States, meant to replace aging presidential aircraft. But the controversy kicked into overdrive with reports that this plane could eventually end up in Trump’s hands personally, via his presidential library. That’s where things get murky.
Let’s start with facts. The two current Air Force One planes have been flying since the George H.W. Bush era. They’re overdue for replacement, and Boeing was contracted to deliver new ones. But Boeing’s been a mess—delays, scandals, technical issues. Trump, frustrated with the pace, toured a Qatari 747-8 already fitted for luxury use. This plane is 13 years old, but still valued around $400 million.
Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Now, Qatar is a massive buyer of American military hardware. We’re talking $26 billion in purchases over the past decade. In that context, a $400 million jet as a gesture of goodwill isn’t shocking. What makes this different is the personal angle. According to ABC’s original report, Trump’s library would receive the plane by January 1, 2029 — before Trump’s successor takes office, and potentially before Boeing’s replacements are ready. If true, that would mean Trump gets to keep a retrofitted Air Force One for personal use, while the next president is stuck with the old models.
For me, that’s the red line. If Trump forces his successor to downgrade because he took the new plane for himself, that’s blatant self-dealing. If the plane stays in the rotation until Boeing delivers, and only then moves to his library, it becomes more of a vanity project — still unusual, but not unprecedented. Reagan’s old Air Force One is parked at his library, after all. You can even see it in some of Trump’s old debates, the ones held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
But Reagan’s plane wasn’t transferred to him personally right after his presidency. It stayed in service until Clinton’s term ended before being disassembled and reassembled in Simi Valley. Trump’s timeline — if ABC’s reporting holds — would be far more aggressive, and far more self-serving.
The frustrating part is how little clarity we’ve gotten. Most coverage fixates on whether it’s “appropriate” for Qatar to give the U.S. a plane. That’s not the interesting question. The real issue is when Trump plans to take personal control of it. That’s what determines whether this is normal diplomatic horse-trading — or brazen corruption.
Until we get a straight answer on that, this story stays in limbo. Potential scandal or overblown noise — we just don’t know yet.
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro
00:03:55 - Qatari Plane Deal
00:18:10 - Update
00:21:19 - John Fetterman
00:24:52 - David Hogg
00:27:13 - Inflation
00:31:11 - Interview with Matt Laslo
01:17:52 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
Brian Kemp is out. No Senate run in 2026, and that shifts the entire field. Kemp was the Republican Party’s best shot at flipping the Georgia seat currently held by Jon Ossoff — and he knew it. He didn’t just flirt with the idea. He let it hang out there long enough for donors, strategists, and journalists to start treating it as likely. So when he made it official this weekend, it sent shockwaves through the Georgia GOP and national Republicans hoping for a clean, high-profile pickup in a battleground state.
Let’s be clear: Kemp would’ve been a problem for Ossoff. He’s a two-term governor with a reputation for competency, no Trump baggage, and enough distance from the MAGA wing to appeal to suburban voters. He beat Stacey Abrams twice. He stared down Trump in 2020 and walked away stronger. There are few Republicans who can claim that kind of profile. Without him, the bench gets thin — and fast.
Ossoff is already pulling in national dollars, and now he doesn’t have to spend the next 12 months preparing for a Kemp-style challenge. That gives him time to build narrative, define the race early, and lock down coalitions that might’ve been vulnerable in a high-turnout, split-ticket election. Democrats don’t have to win Georgia by a landslide — they just need to hold it. And in a cycle that’s already looking rough for Republicans in other swing states, the GOP needed Georgia to be easy. It’s not.
Now the question becomes whether Republicans want to rally around a moderate and play defense, or roll the dice with a firebrand and try to rally the base. Either option carries risk. A moderate might not excite anyone. A MAGA pick might turn the whole race into a referendum on January 6 or Trump loyalty. And the problem with a crowded primary isn’t just messaging — it’s money. Ossoff gets to hoard his resources while Republicans knife each other in the dark.
It’s early, but the GOP just lost its best card. And unless something big changes — a surprise retirement, a shocking recruit, a sudden scandal — this race has quietly shifted from “toss-up” to “lean blue.” Not because Ossoff is invincible. But because the Republican bench is looking thin, the calendar is ticking, and Brian Kemp just said, “No thanks.” Heck, if Marjorie Taylor-Greene steps in, it might just be Ossoff +7. And it will not be for lack of news coverage.
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro
00:02:48 - Brian Kemp Not Running for Senate
00:06:18 - Interview with Aubrey Sitterson
01:14:20 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
May 2025 might go down as the most pivotal month of Donald Trump’s second presidency. The post-Liberation Day disruption gave him room to play the chaos card — but that only lasts so long. Now it’s time to deliver. And according to what the White House is telling Congress behind closed doors, a lot is in motion. Sixty countries are either actively negotiating trade terms or exchanging paperwork with the administration. Congress is being told these deals won’t require their approval, which Congress, for the record, does not agree with. But this is Trump we’re talking about — when has he ever waited for a vote?
Still, the big names you’d expect — China, Canada, Mexico — aren’t in the mix. China’s radio silent, Mexico and Canada are being folded into existing USMCA renegotiations. That leaves three countries reportedly close to a deal: the United Kingdom, Australia, and most importantly, India. India isn’t just geopolitically important — it’s the key to rewriting how America competes with China. A deal there could shift the entire narrative.
Why India Matters More Than You Think
India is the crown jewel of this effort. There's personal chemistry between Trump and Modi, which helps. JD Vance just visited India, and his family ties only reinforce the good vibes. But this isn’t just a soft power thing. India offers cheap manufacturing, which Trump badly needs to offset Chinese trade disruption. If you’re going to tell a story about reindustrializing America and cutting reliance on Beijing, India is where you start.
There’s also the intellectual property angle. India doesn’t have the same IP hang-ups as China, which means Trump could insert protections into this deal and claim it as a model for future negotiations — including, eventually, with China. It’s the kind of pivot that’s both symbolic and real. Add in niche export wins — like bourbon or Harley-Davidsons, which have demand in India but face big trade hurdles — and suddenly you’ve got tangible proof of progress.
Fast Deals, Reversible Wins
Here’s the catch: none of these deals are expected to go through Congress. They’re handshake deals. That means they can be reversed at any moment — by Trump himself. And that’s kind of the point. Trump wants to touch every single part of the negotiation. No detail moves without his approval. That gives him the power to declare victory on anything, even if the actual text doesn’t amount to much.
So the real question isn’t whether Trump can get a deal. It’s whether he can get one that’s meaningful — and fast. Because right now, the administration needs wins. Not headlines. Not vibes. Wins. The stock market is shaky, the trade war with China is frozen, and the White House knows it’s currently heading into the midterms with a record that still feels unsettled. India might be the win they’ve been waiting for. But if it doesn’t land soon, the window to define this presidency might close a lot faster than anyone expects.
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro
00:00:15 - Tariff Negotiations
00:10:11 - Worst State Party Draft, part one
00:41:37 - Update
00:42:36 - Mike Waltz Goes to the U.N.
00:44:48 - Alien Enemies Act Ruling
00:48:55 - Ukraine Mineral Deal
00:51:55 - Worst State Party Draft, part two
01:34:53 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
Late last night, the news finally came in: the Liberal Party of Canada pulled off the upset and held onto parliamentary power. It wasn’t pretty. It wasn’t dominant. But they survived — and a few months ago, that seemed almost impossible. They had everything working against them: more than a decade in power, a deeply unpopular former prime minister they had to jettison, and an electorate that looked ready for change. Yet when the votes were counted, the Liberals were still standing.
And you can’t tell this story without talking about Donald Trump. Trump has been a thorn in Canada’s side since his first term — publicly antagonizing Justin Trudeau, calling Canada the "51st state," and slapping brutal tariffs on Canadian goods. That lingering resentment became part of the political terrain in Canada. The Liberal candidate, Mark Carney, didn’t just have to run against Peter Poilievre and the Conservative Party — he got to run against the memory of Trump, and against the uncertainty that conservatives couldn't fully distance themselves from.
Poilievre never figured out how to adapt. He spent too much time running a traditional opposition campaign and not enough time answering the deeper question a lot of Canadian voters were asking: would a Conservative government just invite more chaos with Trump? Carney seized on that. He didn’t have to make it the centerpiece of his campaign, but it was always there in the background. Steady hand versus risk. Familiarity versus volatility.
And while some Conservatives are already spinning this as a "moral victory" because of how tight the race was, that’s not how elections work. A win is a win. In a parliamentary system, survival is everything. The Liberals get to control the agenda, pick the cabinet, and frame the narrative going into the next few years. That’s not moral victory — that’s real, tangible power. And for a party that looked like it was about to lose everything, it’s a remarkable political save.
Now, the Liberals may still need a coalition with the NDP to govern effectively. It’s razor-thin. But that’s a separate conversation. The scoreboard is the scoreboard. And right now, the score says the Liberals survived. Trump’s shadow loomed large over this race — and in the end, it helped save the very people he’s spent years antagonizing.
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro
00:01:28 - WHCA Substack Party
00:11:27 - Interview with Kevin Ryan
00:28:46 - Update
00:29:08 - Canadian Election Results
00:31:38 - Big Beautiful Bill’s July 4th Deadline
00:35:46 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, con’t
00:57:28 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
David Hogg, the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, announced he’s spending $20 million through his group, Leaders We Deserve, to primary sitting Democratic incumbents. He’s targeting safe-seat veterans, mostly older members, and it’s kicking off a full-blown internal fight.
DNC chair Ken Martin isn’t having it. He’s proposing a rule that would ban DNC leaders from participating in partisan primaries — meaning Hogg would either have to step down or drop the activist role. The rule’s set to be debated at the DNC’s August meeting, and Hogg’s already digging in, saying he’ll fight to stay. Martin’s also announced a $1 million-a-month allocation to state parties, saying the DNC needs to decentralize. The real translation? Tension is so high they’re trying to buy unity.
But here’s the thing — I actually think Hogg is right. The Democratic Party would benefit from some turnover. There are plenty of incumbents who have grown comfortable, complacent, and maybe even a little out of step. At the same time, that’s only half the issue. Because the problem with tossing out incumbents is you need to replace them with winners. These older Democrats have won election after election, and that’s not something you just replicate by parachuting in a 24-year-old with a TikTok following and a podcast. Safe seats aren’t invincible. Primaries can backfire. And while I’m all for change, I’m also for winning.
The larger problem here is that you can’t be both the referee and the quarterback. If you’re helping to write the rules for how the party operates, you don’t get to break them for your own political goals. It’s not about silencing voices — it's about basic conflict of interest. If the DNC is supposed to be the governing body that creates a level playing field, its leaders can’t be in the middle of bloodying that field themselves.
Hogg was already a controversial pick. He’s got detractors inside and outside the party. He’s drawn criticism not just from Republicans or centrists, but even from fellow gun control activists. The fact that this move feels more like a campaign than a strategic plan doesn’t help. It feels loud. It feels disruptive. And in a moment when Democrats are trying to project unity — especially heading into an election where every House seat could make or break their control — it feels reckless.
The reality is that American politics is in a narrow-band era. Gerrymandering, polarization, and party-line voting mean that major swings are less likely. Which makes every seat even more valuable. We’re not in a 60-seat blowout environment anymore. We’re in a +5, -5, maybe +15 cycle. That means replacing a proven vote-getter with someone untested — even in a “safe” district — can be dangerous.
So yeah, I think Hogg is right that the party needs to evolve. But I also think he’s wrong to do it this way. Because if it leads to chaos, to even a few avoidable losses, he’s not just risking some outdated Democrats — he’s risking the whole agenda. And if he’s not willing to see that, then maybe Ken Martin’s rule isn’t such a bad idea after all.
Check out Gabe’s reporting at The Free Press!
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro
00:01:55 - DNC Confusion
00:05:43 - Interview with Gabe Kaminsky
00:25:39 - Update
00:25:58 - Ukraine Peace Deal
00:29:42 - Voter ID
00:31:24 - Canadian Election
00:36:40 - Interview with Gabe Kaminsky, continued
01:03:33 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
There’s a civil war happening inside the MAGA coalition, and unless you’re really in the weeds, you probably haven’t heard much about it. It’s not being covered seriously, either by the traditional media or the independent press. And that’s a shame — because it pits two foundational visions of conservatism against each other. On one side, you have Grover Norquist and his ironclad “no new taxes” pledge. On the other, you have Steve Bannon and his populist charge to eat the rich.
Norquist has spent decades making sure no Republican dares raise taxes. His philosophy is clear: low taxes are good for everyone, rich or poor, and raising them is political suicide. He’s survived every GOP iteration — from neocon war hawks to MAGA populists — by keeping that line firm. But now, Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” may include a tax hike on the wealthy. Norquist is sounding the alarm, warning that breaking this promise would be as foolish as George H.W. Bush’s infamous “read my lips” moment.
Meanwhile, Bannon doesn’t just want to raise taxes — he wants to send a message. He sees MAGA as a working-class movement, and taxing the rich is part of proving that Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the GOP’s old donor class no longer control the party. It’s the clearest philosophical fault line we’ve seen on the right in years. If the GOP embraces even a modest tax hike on the wealthy, it could mark the end of a Reagan-era consensus that has defined Republican politics for half a century.
Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
And yet, barely anyone is talking about it. Not because it isn’t interesting, not because it isn’t important, but because media — mainstream and independent — is stuck on one setting: “trouble for Trump.” It’s a framing device. Every Trump story must either confirm that he’s a danger to democracy or a bumbling fool. Anything else? Not interesting enough to cover.
Steve Bannon, who’s all over mainstream shows like Real Time with Bill Maher and Stephen A. Smith’s podcast, is out here advocating a radical repositioning of the Republican tax platform — and the headlines are all about whether Trump should run for a third term. And I get it, that’s the clickier angle. But it’s also lazy. We’re watching tectonic plates shift, and we’re still playing with bumper stickers.
That’s not just a mainstream media problem, by the way. It’s an independent media problem too. There are great voices on Substack and elsewhere that have done real work to break free from traditional narratives. And yet, over the last few weeks, I’ve seen far too much content boil down to one question: “Is this an outrage? Yes or no?” And when the answer is always “yes,” you’re not informing anymore — you’re reinforcing.
My goal isn’t to register my opinion on every current thing. My goal is to give you something that still feels relevant five years from now. Something you can remember discovering here before it hit the mainstream. I’m not always going to say the thing that fits into someone’s ideological slot. That’s going to disappoint people sometimes. I get that. But I hope the tradeoff is worth it. Because if you’re giving me your time and maybe even your money, I owe you something rare. Something original.
Something honest.
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro
00:01:58 - MAGA’s Secret Civil War
00:19:35 - Update
00:21:05 - Signalgate 2.0
00:27:14 - Pope Francis
00:30:51 - Student Loan Debt Collection
00:34:50 - Interview with Dave Leventhal
01:13:34 - Canadian Election with Evan Scrimshaw
01:27:11 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
In a recent Oval Office meeting, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni sat across from Donald Trump as part of a European Union effort to navigate the ongoing trade turbulence. The meeting was cordial enough. Meloni emphasized transatlantic unity and expressed hope for deeper economic collaboration. Trump, however, was unmoved. He praised Meloni personally, but made his stance clear: the U.S. is not in a rush to finalize trade deals. According to him, tariffs are “making the United States rich,” and other countries want deals more than he does.
This exchange happened during the 90-day pause in Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs — a moment intended, at least in theory, to give global leaders time to negotiate. But what the meeting really signaled is that Trump views this pause as leverage, not compromise. Yes, he did lower EU import tariffs from 20% to 10%, but that move was largely a reaction to bond market jitters. When it comes to negotiating with Europe, he’s staying firm.
Meloni’s presence is notable. She’s a controversial figure in Europe — once derided by the American press as a far-right nationalist and compared to Mussolini. But in this moment, she’s being positioned as the EU’s Trump whisperer. She attended Trump’s inauguration. He’s reportedly fond of her. He even accepted an invitation to visit Rome. But none of that moved the needle in this meeting.
What Trump wants is access to European markets. But in European politics, protectionism isn’t just a policy — it’s a survival tactic. Leaders there know that anything perceived as selling out local interests could cost them their jobs. Italy, for example, has a trade surplus with the U.S., not because of anything shady, but because Americans genuinely love Italian exports: high-end fashion, food, luxury goods. We buy a lot from them. They don’t buy much from us. That’s not an imbalance that tariffs alone can fix.
So the real question is: what happens next? Trump has all but said he’s happy to wait everyone out. That leaves European economies in a holding pattern. It leaves small and medium U.S. businesses — especially those tangled up in international supply chains — in limbo. And it leaves Meloni with the unenviable job of being the friendly face of a negotiation that isn’t really moving.
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro
00:03:13 - Interview with Gabe Fleisher
00:23:00 - Update
00:23:36 - Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s Visit
00:27:44 - Birthright Citizenship Arguments
00:30:05 - FSU Shooting
00:31:47 - Interview with Gabe Fleisher, con’t
00:59:13 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
It was just last week when the Trump administration hit pause on its Liberation Day tariffs — except when it came to China. Not only were they excluded from the pause, they got slapped with additional hikes, escalating what had already started to look like an all-out trade war. Then came Saturday morning’s Customs and Border Patrol announcement, which seemed to undercut all of that: nearly 60% of Chinese exports, including smartphones, laptops, and semiconductors, were apparently exempt from the new tariffs.
So, what happened? Did the White House backtrack? Was this a walk-back in disguise? The administration scrambled to clarify. Their explanation: those goods are being set aside into their own “buckets” — alongside other key industries like cars and steel — for future, tougher action. These aren’t exemptions, they insist, just part of a long-term plan. The reason for the sudden PR push? According to Axios’ Mark Caputo, Trump simply doesn’t like the words “exemption” or “exception.” He felt too many were granted in his first term and didn’t want the headline suggesting he’d lost his edge.
But let’s be honest: This is hair-splitting. Whether you call them buckets or carveouts, the reality is a significant chunk of Chinese goods aren’t being hit right now, and the market knows it. The real question is whether the administration is buying time, recalibrating, or trying to thread the needle between tough-on-China optics and economic stability.
Saber Rattling, Delistings, and Peasant Talk
In the meantime, tensions are ramping up. The U.S. is now considering delisting nearly 300 Chinese companies from American stock exchanges — a move that’s part economic pressure, part political theater. The legal foundation? The Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, which requires financial transparency from foreign firms. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Senator Rick Scott are reportedly behind the push, with Trump expected to lean on executive orders to expedite the process if necessary.
Naturally, China isn’t taking this lightly. In response, they’ve begun blocking deliveries of Boeing jets, and the rhetoric has turned acidic. China's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office issued a statement saying, in part, “Let those peasants in the United States wail in front of five thousand years of Chinese civilization.” That’s not diplomatic posturing — that’s a full-throated nationalist flare-up, made more surreal by the fact that JD Vance himself had recently referred to Chinese laborers as “peasants” on Fox News.
And through all of this, both sides are playing the “we’re open to talks, but we won’t be the first to call” game. It’s juvenile, it’s geopolitical theater, and it’s exactly the kind of posture that leaves markets — and companies — dangling.
What Happens Next?
Here's where I land: I don’t think we’re going back to “normal” with China anytime soon. The issues the U.S. wants addressed — IP theft, forced joint ventures, restricted market access — aren’t things China’s going to give up easily, if at all. So yes, the tariffs might eventually get reshuffled or reduced. But the era of posturing, of economic nationalism, of strategic decoupling? That’s here to stay.
The polling shows Americans are broadly in favor of being tougher on China — until, of course, it hits them in the wallet. That’s where this whole thing could flip. For now, though, the administration seems fine dragging this out. Tariffs, carveouts, buckets, delistings — it’s all part of the same dance. And we’re still in the first few steps.
At least that’s this peasant’s opinion.
Chapters
00:00 - Intro
02:14 - US-China Trade War Continues
11:45 - Update
13:13 - AOC Fundraising Record
15:15 - Andrew Cuomo NYC Race
17:22 - Brian Kemp’s Senate Potential
22:22 - Interview with Tom Merritt
49:59 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
Liberation Week has come and gone, and now we’re in the pause phase. The tariffs? Temporarily stalled. The market? Down, then up, then down again. We’re in a holding pattern — with one major exception: the trade war with China is not only still on, it’s intensifying.
So what did we learn from all this? The answer starts and ends with Trump. The Democrats have branded him the “chaos president,” and they might not be wrong — but maybe not in the way they think. I don’t believe Trump sees chaos as a liability. I think he sees it as a strength. When the world is spinning, he can sit back, watch the options unfold, and pick the off-ramp that benefits him most.
This isn't about 4D chess or reckless stumbling. It’s about comfort in disorder. Trump’s not detail-oriented. He doesn’t care if the tariffs were slapped together or if mixed messages were coming out of his administration. That’s not the game he’s playing. He thrives in the swirl, in the noise, and when the moment is right, he chooses a direction — and makes a deal.
This matters politically. If the economy craters, Trump owns his executive-order recession. But if it doesn’t? If this all just amounts to turbulence before stabilization? Then Democrats are stuck.
Because for all the clumsiness and confusion, Trump did a thing. And that matters. In a political world where voters are constantly begging politicians to just do something, Trump did. Democrats will struggle to cut through that with a message if the damage doesn’t materialize — or worse, if voters feel like they’re seeing results.
Which brings us to the working class, to the labor unions, to voters in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Does a falling stock market hurt them the way it hurts Wall Street? Or are they more focused on jobs, reshoring, and seeing a president at least pretend to care about their industries?
That’s the gamble Democrats are walking into. Now they have to figure out how to respond to it.
The Trump Campaign, Rewritten
If you’re like me, you probably went into 2024 expecting another messy, chaotic Trump campaign — full of infighting, wild pivots, and, frankly, incompetence. But Revenge by Alex Isenstadt tells a very different story. It’s the first real deep dive into what made Trump’s third run for the White House so much more stable and effective, and honestly, I think it’s a must-read.
This book doesn’t just explain how the campaign functioned — it shows how Trump evolved. He may still be the same bombastic figure, but the operation around him was leaner, smarter, and built to survive the spotlight. The team of Suzy Wiles and Chris LaCivita comes off as professional, savvy, and above all, in control. They’re not drama-free, but they’re competent — and that’s a big departure from past cycles. Trumpworld has often been defined by volatility. This time, it was defined by cohesion.
One of the most compelling parts of the book is how it tracks Trump’s own evolution over two pivotal moments: when it became clear he could go to jail, and when he nearly died. Those aren’t just plot points — they’re moments that reshape how a person approaches power. Isenstadt paints a picture of a Trump who, while still instinct-driven, begins to understand the stakes in a deeper, more self-preserving way. It doesn't make him less Trump, but it does add a new layer to how he maneuvers.
Winners, Losers, and the Veep Pick
The behind-the-scenes of the VP selection process is where the book truly shines. JD Vance and his team played the long game masterfully. They activated the right surrogates, moved in sync with the campaign’s tone, and created a role that added tangible value to the ticket. Isenstadt captures not just the strategy but the discipline, something we hadn’t really seen in previous iterations of MAGA campaign staffing. It feels like a glimpse into the next phase of the movement, where operatives are less bomb-throwers and more builders.
Then there are the losers. Corey Lewandowski is treated with near-universal disdain by sources — portrayed as an unstable, self-interested distraction. Natalie Harp, known as the “human printer” for how closely she follows Trump, is mocked for her over-the-top loyalty. These aren’t random asides — they're repeated themes, echoed by multiple voices, and they speak to a Trump operation that’s becoming more discerning about who actually adds value versus who just adds noise.
A Must-Read for 2024 Watchers — and Beyond
What makes Revenge stand out is that it’s not breathless or fawning. It’s sober, well-sourced, and focused. It reads like a campaign post-mortem, but for a campaign that’s still alive and well. And in doing so, it provides a roadmap — not just for how Trump won again, but for how the infrastructure around him is solidifying into something more lasting. If you’re trying to understand where MAGA goes from here, this is the text you start with.
If you're following this stuff closely — whether as a political junkie, strategist, or just someone trying to make sense of the world — Revenge isn’t just good. It’s essential. Trumpworld has never looked this coordinated, and Isenstadt gives us the clearest picture yet of how it happened.
But don’t take my word for it. Read it yourself!
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro
00:00:17 - Trump’s Tariff Strategy
00:13:00 - Revenge Book Report and Analysis
00:21:38 - Update
00:22:08 - House Budget Framework
00:25:12 - Security Clearances Revoked
00:27:01 - Chris Sununu Not Running for Senate in 2026
00:29:31 - Interview with Revenge’s Alex Isenstadt
01:03:00 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
After several days of panic in the markets, the Dow Jones Industrial average is rebounding. Why? It seems as if the Liberation Day tariffs may be leading to new trade deals.
The market swoon and lack of clarity has put the Trump administration in the wilderness. Is the goal to really bring all trade deficits to zero? Do we want our children screwing together iPhones as a career? Or is this just a set up for Trump to schedule a month long rose garden signing ceremony where world leaders line up single file to welcome American exports?
Today, we talk to our logistics expert Big Jim and check in with J.D. Durkin to figure out whether Trump’s tariffs mark a shift toward isolation, or just a high-stakes negotiating move. Is this a reset of global trade, or just a pause before the next deal? We’re on the clock, because by the time this drops, the whole game might have changed.
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro
00:02:44 - Interview with Big Jim
00:43:02 - Update
00:45:09 - Supreme Court Decision Over Alien Enemies Act
00:48:30 - June 14th Military Parade
00:49:54 - House Democrat Seat Targets
00:52:34 - Interview with J.D. Durkin
01:35:18 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
“Liberation Day” has come and gone. The massive tariff announcement from the White House that landed just after markets closed on Wednesday. It’s a sweeping 10% universal tariff on all goods, effective Saturday, April 5th, with even higher rates for countries like China (34%), the EU (20%), Japan (24%), and an eyebrow-raising 46% for Vietnam. Cars assembled abroad? They’re getting hit with a 25% tariff starting May 3rd.
Put simply, the market didn’t take kindly to this. It’s been a financial bloodbath: the Dow fell 1,400 points (around 3.8%), with the S&P and NASDAQ down even more. Apple and Nvidia alone lost a combined $470 billion in value, and the dollar hit a six-month low. Investors are clearly spooked by what could be the beginning of a global trade war. I’m not an economist, and I plan to have some real-deal experts on the show next week to discuss this in more detail, but from where I sit, this feels like a high-stakes gamble.
Politically, this is an all-in move by Trump. If his critics are right, this could usher in financial ruin. But if the market recovers, prices stabilize, and jobs return, then maybe — just maybe — he’s onto something. The key indicators to watch: inflation and jobs. If grocery bills soar, he’s in trouble. If not, and if some manufacturing jobs make their way back to the U.S., this could be a paradigm shift.
We’re witnessing something that happens maybe once in a generation — one of America’s major political parties changing its stance on a foundational economic principle. The GOP, long champions of free trade, are now planting their flag in protectionist soil. I grew up associating tariffs with progressive, union-backed economic arguments. Yet here we are, with a Republican president pushing a policy that would’ve made progressives cheer in decades past.
Trump’s economic approach would have been seen as left-wing populism not too long ago. The idea that tariffs can be used to protect American jobs is not new, but seeing it come from the right is a dramatic turn. It makes this moment politically fascinating, even if it brings financial risk.
The big question remains: who’s right? Every economist I’ve ever read has warned against tariffs, citing global market efficiencies and the cost to consumers. But Trump is betting on a different equation — one where protecting American industries and reducing the trade deficit leads to long-term gains.
As I look at this from my seat, the numbers make me queasy. A 46% tariff on Vietnam because of a trade deficit calculation? That feels arbitrary at best. Aiming for a zero trade deficit with every nation doesn’t necessarily reflect economic reality. We’ll see how this unfolds, but for now, it’s a major inflection point in both economic policy and political identity.
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro and Tariff Thoughts
00:09:29 - Interview with Karol Markowicz
00:25:00 - Update
00:26:39 - Eric Adams Goes Independent
00:30:10 - NSC Firings
00:33:11 - Senate Republican’s Budget Plan
00:37:28 - Interview with Karol Markowicz, continued
01:06:13 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House is a detailed account of the unraveling within the Democratic Party, and it starts with a shocking reality: Co-authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes didn’t originally intend to write this book. The result is a work that skips over primaries but captures, in vivid detail, the implosion of Joe Biden’s re-election effort as 2024’s political battles came to a head.
Reading it, I was stunned at the depth of denial w ithin the Biden White House. The President’s mental decline — obvious in isolated public moments — was a constant behind the scenes. Everything from oversized fonts on cue cards to aides using Day-Glo tape to guide his steps in the White House painted a troubling picture. And no one, not even his closest confidants or family, could convince him to step aside.
Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive two bonus episodes a week, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
What emerges from Fight is a picture of a campaign built on delusion. Aides and strategists twisted themselves into knots to compensate for a candidate who was no longer capable of meeting the demands of the presidency. Biden's infamous “Where’s Jackie?” moment, where he searched for a deceased congresswoman, is only one of many jarring anecdotes.
Eventually, the dam broke. Chuck Schumer’s blunt conversation with Biden about waning Senate support coincided with Trump being shot in Butler — two seismic events on the same day. For all the chaos that defined the Biden campaign, that moment marked a pivot.
Kamala's Rise and the GOP Machine
Kamala Harris’s takeover of the Democratic ticket happened with surprising efficiency. Despite opposition from heavyweights like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, who preferred Gretchen Whitmer and wanted a mini-primary, Harris’s team moved quickly to shut down all challengers. They outmaneuvered everyone, including J.B. Pritzker’s billions, and solidified her position.
Still, old habits died hard. Many of the Biden-era staffers, including campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon, were kept on. It was a costly mistake. The same strategic paralysis that haunted Biden’s run persisted. One of the most telling moments? The botched attempt to land Kamala on Joe Rogan’s podcast — a micromanaged mess that ended with Trump getting the coveted spot instead.
In stark contrast, the Trump campaign is depicted as ruthlessly efficient. They knew their weaknesses (Trump’s tendency to force headlines) and their strengths (his appeal on unconventional platforms like Theo Von’s podcast). Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita emerge as the stars — people who knew how to play the game and win. Even a brief internal hiccup involving Corey Lewandowski was swiftly handled without much in the way of fallout.
The Scorecard: Who Rose, Who Fell
Fight functions as a political report card as much as a narrative. On the Democratic side, it's a tale of lost influence. Jen O'Malley Dillon, once considered a top operative, is portrayed as a non-responsive, bunker-minded leader. Barack Obama, too, takes a hit. Despite pulling the strings to push Biden off the ticket, he couldn’t get his preferred successor in place or move the needle on the campaign trail.
And that may be the most sobering takeaway. Obama, once the undisputed leader of the Democratic Party, couldn’t rally it. His influence is clearly waning — and the next Democratic president might not treat him with the reverence millennials once did.
Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the power players are clear. Wiles and LaCivita are now kingmakers. Tony Fabrizio’s polling proved consistently accurate. Alex Bruesewitz reinvented Trump’s online presence for a younger generation. If Trumpism persists, these are the architects.
I strongly recommend Fight. Whether you’re a political junkie or just trying to make sense of how the 2024 election unfolded, it’s essential reading. Parnes and Allen provide not just insider details but clarity in the chaos.
Read it yourself. Then let me know what you think.
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro
00:01:20 - Fight Book Report and Analysis
00:28:13 - Update
00:29:35 - Marine Le Pen Sentenced, Fined, and Barred from Politics in France
00:32:37 - Tuesday Special Elections Preview
00:37:26 - Interview with Fight’s Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes
01:11:43 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
Elise Stefanik, once considered a front-runner for Donald Trump’s vice presidential slot and more recently tapped as the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, has been asked to withdraw from the nomination. The directive came directly from Donald Trump, urging her to return to the House of Representatives — a move that has left many observers puzzled, especially since Stefanik had already begun a farewell tour of her district.
This surprise reversal raises questions about the strategic reasoning behind Trump’s decision. The timing, the political stakes, and the looming legislative calendar all appear to be key components in a much larger game of congressional chess.
A central concern appears to be a special election in Florida. Polling data from Fabrizio Ward — helmed by Trump’s trusted pollster Tony Fabrizio — shows the Republican candidate with only a three-point lead in a district that Trump carried by 30 points in the last election. The narrowing margin is attributed not just to candidate quality, but also a significant financial disparity: Democrats have outspent Republicans by over $8 million. This disparity has translated into heavier air traffic and visibility for the Democratic challenger.
Speculation suggests Trump may be trying to protect the Republican majority in the House, fearing it could be further weakened by Stefanik’s departure. But some political watchers — myself included — argue that this explanation is too simplistic and out of step with Trump’s usual political instincts.
A more intricate and possibly more compelling reason involves legislative mechanics in New York. Stefanik has not officially resigned from the House. If she had, Governor Kathy Hochul — who, as a Democrat, has little incentive to rush — would have 90 days to call a special election. Starting that clock now would push any vote into late June, possibly beyond the key reconciliation package deadline. That seat, currently held by Stefanik, could be unavailable during crucial legislative moments.
Further complicating the issue, a proposed bill in the New York State legislature would allow the governor to delay special elections until the next general election. If passed, this would effectively remove Stefanik’s seat from the House until 2026, robbing Republicans of a vote not only for the rest of this year but most of next year as well.
This development underscores how thin the Republican majority truly is. Stefanik stepping away — even temporarily — represents a potentially significant loss in the vote count. With both the House and Senate reportedly aligning this week on legislative priorities, every vote counts more than ever.
Stefanik, having exited Republican leadership and publicly prepared for her transition to the UN role, now finds herself in a politically awkward position. She will likely need a face-saving path back into House leadership — an effort that could trigger even more internal headaches for the GOP.
Whether this pivot was prompted by a cold read of Florida polling numbers or a strategic maneuver to preserve legislative power, the consequences are clear: political timing and control of congressional votes are dictating decisions at the highest levels of Republican leadership.
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro
00:00:20 - Elise Stefanik Asked to Withdraw
00:08:03 - Interview with Michael Cohen
00:25:41 - Update
00:27:28 - Student Visa Deportations
00:30:11 - HHS Job Cuts
00:31:48 - MS-13 Leader Arrested
00:35:47 - Interview with Michael Cohen, cont.
01:19:12 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
This week, something truly surreal happened — or was revealed to have happened — thanks to, of all people and places, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic. He was added to a Signal group chat that included essentially all of the national security members from Donald Trump’s cabinet. It’s one of the most Veep-like scandals we've seen in a long time. I even saw one joke online that the person who added him must have thought he was Jonah from Veep.
Now, I’ve got one big point to make, and then a few smaller ones. Here’s the big one upfront: Mike Waltz screwed up. Badly. This isn’t just an oopsie — you don’t create a Signal group discussing bombing the Houthis in Yemen and accidentally add someone like Jeffrey Goldberg. You don’t add your mom. You don’t add your college roommate. And you absolutely do not add Jeffrey Goldberg.
If you’re not familiar with Goldberg, he’s a longtime media figure who played a pretty colorful role in the lead-up to the Iraq War and has since become one of the most vocal Trump antagonists in mainstream media. The Atlantic — once a home for serious feature writing — is now almost entirely a laundering house for anti-Republican takes. So when you add that guy to your Signal group, you should never be trusted with a phone again. Seriously.
That’s the main takeaway. But I’ve got three smaller points that I think are worth diving into.
First, let’s talk about Jeffrey Goldberg himself. If you’ve ever felt misled in the lead-up to the Iraq War, you might want to revisit some of his early work — he was one of the people laying down those breadcrumbs. And in this latest piece for The Atlantic, where he reveals the Signal chat — including screen grabs of Pete Hegseth, JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Scott Bessent, Stephen Miller, and others — he goes dark on the details when it comes to what he describes as military plans.
He claims they discussed confidential strategies about striking the Houthis in Yemen, and if this had come from anyone else, I might believe it. But it’s Jeffrey Goldberg. So, I don’t know. The fact that it was him added to the group is what gives the Trump camp’s defense — that there was no classified info shared — any credibility. Still, how does this even happen? And if someone was dumb enough to add Goldberg, were they also dumb enough to drop classified intel in an unsecured chat? Possibly.
Second, let’s talk about Signal. It’s an encrypted messaging app, popular with journalists and hackers for a reason. It’s end-to-end encrypted, meaning messages are harder to intercept. But security depends on the user. MG, an InfoSec expert and a listener of this show, had a great thread on X explaining how to actually use Signal securely. It involves checking secure keys to verify identities — something that clearly wasn’t done here.
Then there’s Ryan McBeth, who made a solid point in a recent video: secure systems are only as effective as the people using them. If secure lines are too clunky or inconvenient, people won’t use them correctly. His take? Issue secure smartphones to everyone dealing with national secrets. Using consumer apps like Signal just isn’t enough.
Lastly, and this is the closest thing to original reporting I have on this: Signal is the app of choice for Trump-world. Everyone I know who’s interacted with the Trump campaign or administration did so over Signal. So it’s no surprise that this chat happened there.
That’s what I’ve got on this whole Signal debacle. We’ll see where it all goes from here.
Chapters
00:00:00 - The Signal Scandal
00:12:40 - Intro and Florida’s Special Election
00:17:52 - Interview with Kirk Bado
00:22:16 - Interview with Kirk Bado (post-sports talk)
01:01:43 - Update
01:02:34 - Congressional Republicans Facing Budget Standoff
01:04:19 - Russia and Ukraine Navigational Agreements
01:06:28 - Direction of USA Poll
01:10:18 - Interview with Matthew Frank
01:40:09 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
The biggest political story in America right now isn’t about a campaign, a scandal, or even a vote. It’s something far more fundamental: Donald Trump’s clash with the judiciary.
It’s the kind of confrontation that doesn’t just make headlines — it shifts the tectonic plates of our democracy. It forces us to look hard at the limits of executive power, the independence of the courts, and whether the guardrails of our system are holding up or giving way.
At the center of it all: Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, sending them to a supermax prison in El Salvador. One flight, carrying deportees, was already in the air when a judge ruled the move illegal. That flight didn’t turn around.
That was the spark.
Suddenly, it wasn’t just another Trump-era controversy. It was a constitutional crisis.
What Happens When Trump Defies a Judge?
The reaction was swift and furious. The noise from the media, legal scholars, activists, and political commentators reached a full roar. Was Trump defying the courts? Were judges overreaching their authority? Were we witnessing the collapse of the basic balance of powers in real time?
Some folks lost their minds.
And honestly, I get it. If you squint hard enough, this looks like the beginning of a genuine authoritarian slide. You’ve got Trump, once again, taking an aggressive stance on immigration — and this time, ignoring a judicial ruling in mid-flight. It feels dramatic. It feels dangerous.
It also feels... familiar.
Because this is a recurring theme of the Trump presidency: bold, legally provocative action, followed by legal pushback, followed by public outrage, followed by months of litigation.
The difference now? Trump’s not just promising things. He’s delivering — aggressively.
The Two Simplest Takes
Let’s be real. There are two clean, simple, headline-ready narratives here.
Narrative One: Trump is a lawless authoritarian. He’s ignoring the courts, trampling over civil liberties, and pushing the country toward dictatorship. Bannon’s out here musing about a third term. The plane that didn’t turn around? That’s not just a flight — it’s a red flag.
Narrative Two: Trump is finally doing what America has been demanding for years. He’s cleaning up the streets, deporting violent criminals, and living up to his campaign promises. And if that pisses off elite judges or cable news pundits, so be it.
Either of these takes will get you clicks. They’ll fire up your base. But both are missing the point.
Here’s where I land. I don’t have a hot take. I don’t have a screed. I have some questions, some caution, and a long view.
Let’s start with this:
Even if you think these deportations are justified, you want due process. There’s a guy who says he was just a soccer player with tattoos, mistaken for a gang member and deported without a fair hearing. Maybe that’s a fluke. Maybe it’s not. But when you're using a rarely-invoked 18th-century law to fast-track deportations, you better be damn sure you’re right.
At the same time, it’s impossible to ignore what’s happening politically.
Trump is doing something that’s rarely seen in American politics: actually fulfilling campaign promises. That’s shocking. And for a lot of Americans — particularly in the Spanish-speaking communities that have been targeted by the Tren de Aragua gang — this isn’t authoritarianism. This is action.
It also helps explain why Trump gained ground with minority voters in 2024. When crime is real, when gangs are active in your neighborhood, when you feel like no one is protecting you, then a president who acts decisively (even if controversially) doesn’t feel scary. He feels necessary.
No One Should Be Too Certain Right Now
So where does this go? Honestly, we don’t know yet.
Trump is pushing hard. The courts are pushing back. He says he’ll comply, but also defend his position tooth and nail. This is what the process looks like in a functioning democracy. The key word there is “process.”
And if you’re one of the people passionately demanding that we respect the judiciary? I agree. But I’d also remind you: the Supreme Court has the final say. And this is the same Supreme Court that many on the left have called illegitimate. So if you’re praising judicial power now, be prepared to keep that same energy when the ruling comes down, because it may not go your way.
For now? I'm watching. I'm waiting. And I’m staying cautious.
Because what we’re witnessing isn’t just a legal fight or a partisan squabble. It’s a realignment. It’s a redefinition of how power is used, challenged, and ultimately judged in 21st-century America.
And while the takes are hot, the only thing I know for sure is this:
I got nothing.
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro
00:01:44 - Trump and the Courts
00:11:41 - Update
00:12:34 - Israel-Hamas Attacks Heating Up
00:14:26 - Trump’s Dept. of Education Executive Order
00:17:58 - George Glezmann’s Release from Taliban
00:19:25 - Interview with Katy Stech Ferek
00:58:39 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
Chuck Schumer is in hot water with progressives after supporting a GOP stopgap funding bill aimed at preventing a government shutdown. Many on the left see this as a strategic blunder, arguing that he surrendered leverage to Trump. Progressive groups like Indivisible have publicly called for Schumer’s resignation, and moderate Democrats, such as Charlotte Clymer, have led donor boycotts, amassing over 25,000 signatures.
Schumer’s defense? He argues that preventing a shutdown was the "lesser of two evils," protecting the party from greater damage under Trump. However, his attempts to quell the outrage — including appearances on CBS Morning News and The View — have done little to shift the narrative. His decision to cancel book tour events amid protests underscores just how serious the backlash has become.
Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The biggest problem? His critics don’t appear to have a clear plan for what comes next. If Democrats truly want Schumer out, they must follow through — otherwise, they risk looking weak and divided at a critical political moment.
Polling numbers paint a bleak picture for Democrats. Both CNN and NBC report that the party’s approval rating sits between 27% and 29%, a stark decline from previous cycles. With about 40% of the country identifying as Democrats, that means at least 11-13% of them are unhappy with their own party.
Data analyst David Shor’s research further complicates the narrative. His analysis of the 2024 election challenges the idea that low voter turnout hurt Democrats. Instead, Shor suggests that even with maximum turnout, Trump still would have won by nearly five points — a sobering reality for the left.
The party’s problems are multifaceted: Independents aren’t sold on the Democratic agenda, progressives feel sidelined, and moderates are frustrated with leadership. Right now, the party’s best hope appears to be waiting for Trump to wear out his welcome with the American public. But that’s not a strategy — it’s wishful thinking.
The most surprising shift in this political moment? Donald Trump’s growing appeal to economic progressives. Recent discussions in leftist circles highlight Trump’s stances on issues like the carried interest loophole (a tax policy long criticized by progressives), trade protectionism and tariffs, and economic populism.
Journalist Batya Ungar-Sargon even went on Bill Maher to declare herself a “MAGA leftist,” arguing that Trump has done more for the progressive economic agenda than Democratic politicians have. While many on the left may dismiss this claim, the fact remains: Trump is successfully appealing to disaffected progressives, a major threat to Democrats who rely on that voter base.
Meanwhile, JD Vance, a key figure in Trump’s political circle, is emerging as an heir apparent, pushing an even more economically populist agenda. If Democrats don’t reclaim these issues, they risk ceding major ground in 2026 and beyond.
At the heart of this moment is a clear message: Democrats must decide whether they are serious about their internal fights. Whether it’s Schumer’s leadership or a broader strategic pivot, they can’t afford half-measures. If they challenge Schumer, they must see it through. If they oppose Trump’s growing influence, they must present a compelling alternative — not just react to him.
Every second spent in an intra-party squabble is a moment not spent rallying the country behind a clear vision. And as Democrats bicker, the house is on fire.
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro
00:02:03 - Schumer Facing Backlash and the Future of the Democratic Party
00:03:55 - Interview with Isaac Saul
00:50:53 - Update
00:53:16 - Justice Roberts’ Comments on Trump
00:56:00 - Trump and Putin’s Meeting
01:01:00 - JFK Files To Be Released
01:02:55 - Interview with Tara Palmeri
01:25:53 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe - Laat meer zien
