Politics Politics Politics

The killing of Alex Pretti is different from the earlier death of Renee Good in ways that matter politically and institutionally. The video is clearer, the optics are harsher, and the official response has been far less defensible. In this case, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem immediately claimed Pretti brandished a weapon and intended to inflict maximum harm on officers. There is no evidence to support that claim, and there likely never will be. What should have been a period of restraint and investigation instead became a rush to narrative control.That choice carries consequences. Law enforcement credibility depends on patience and precision, not speed. When leadership declares conclusions before facts are established, it erodes trust not just among critics, but among potential allies. The Minneapolis footage has already become iconography, a moment that redefines how many Americans understand immigration enforcement. This will not fade quickly, and it will not be compartmentalized to one incident.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The DHS Civil War Comes Into the OpenWhat made this whole scene unavoidable is that it landed directly on top of an internal power struggle that has been building for months inside the Department of Homeland Security. On one side are Stephen Miller, Corey Lewandowski, and Kristi Noem, who favor aggressive, street level enforcement driven by visible numbers. On the other is Tom Homan, a hardliner himself, but one who believes deportations at scale require discipline, prioritization, and some measure of public legitimacy.The Minneapolis shooting detonated that fault line. Noem’s public statements effectively forced the White House to intervene. Donald Trump responded by dispatching Homan to Minneapolis and opening direct communication with Governor Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey. That is not a coincidence. It is a signal that the White House understands the damage being done and is trying to reassert control through a figure it trusts to stabilize the situation. Whether that effort succeeds depends on whether optics or operations ultimately win inside DHS.Organized Resistance and Local Political RealityAnother element that cannot be ignored is the sophistication of the protests themselves. Groups like ICE Watch were not reacting spontaneously. They were coordinating through encrypted messaging, dividing the city by districts, assigning roles, and establishing rules of engagement. That level of organization changes the risk environment for officers and protesters alike. Obstructing federal officers is a felony, regardless of intent, and these encounters were always going to escalate under those conditions.At the same time, Walz and Frey face their own political bind. Cooperating too closely with federal authorities risks backlash from highly motivated activist groups that have demonstrated an ability to mobilize quickly and aggressively. That tension leaves local leaders squeezed between federal pressure and domestic unrest, a dynamic that makes clean resolutions unlikely.Congress, ICE Funding, and the Shutdown ClockThe legislative consequences are now unavoidable. Senate Democrats are openly stating they cannot support funding bills that continue to finance ICE in its current form. House Republicans moved spending bills forward before the storm, but Senate leadership did not act in time. As of now, a government shutdown by the end of the week looks more likely than not.What makes this moment especially dangerous is that it did not need to escalate this far. With slower messaging, tighter discipline, and less performative leadership, DHS could have contained the damage. Instead, a tragic death has become a defining symbol, one that will stick to this administration through the midterms and beyond. This is the kind of image that reshapes political reality, not for a cycle, but for a generation.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:40 - Minneapolis00:23:23 - Update00:24:15 - Trump’s Visit to Iowa00:26:08 - UK Conservatives00:27:24 - Vindman Runs for Senate00:31:41 - Evan Scrimshaw on Canada, Carney, and the Midterms01:04:40 - Steelers Talk01:21:46 - 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

I went back and watched Donald Trump’s speech at Davos after the reaction to it spiraled into calls for the 25th Amendment. Having seen it in full, I have to say, that response struck me as pretty overstated. The speech was odd, repetitive, and occasionally sloppy, but it was also entirely familiar. Trump no longer has multiple registers. He speaks the same way at Davos that he does in Greensboro, North Carolina. Rally Trump is the only Trump left.Yes, he mixed up Greenland and Iceland, and that matters if you believe he is on the brink of ordering military action. But once the Greenland panic subsided and the White House quietly declared the issue settled, the speech reads less like evidence of incapacity and more like evidence of stagnation. Trump told the same tariff stories, did the same accents, and framed global politics through the same lens of personal deal making. That consistency may be unnerving, but it is not new. If anything, the Davos speech underscored how little adaptation Trump feels he needs to make, even on the world stage.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.DHS Infighting and the Immigration Power StruggleThe most revealing domestic story was the open tension inside the Department of Homeland Security. Reporting that Kristi Noem and Corey Lewandowski are trying to force out CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott is not just palace intrigue. It exposes a deeper divide between political operatives and career enforcement officials.On one side are Stephen Miller’s allies, filtering through Noem and Lewandowski, pushing for maximal optics and aggressive deportation numbers. On the other are figures like Tom Homan and Rodney Scott, who argue that certain tactics erode public trust and make enforcement harder, not easier. Homan’s recent media blitz reflects that anxiety. He keeps stressing that deportations are happening, that priorities exist, and that blue state resistance is the real bottleneck. When enforcement professionals feel compelled to publicly justify their competence, it usually means politics has begun to overwhelm operations.Congress Moves, Barely, and Voters NoticeOn Capitol Hill, the House narrowly passed funding for the Department of Homeland Security, overcoming Democratic opposition tied to immigration enforcement concerns. It was not a clean win. Only seven Democrats supported the bill, and the compromises focused on oversight rather than substantive limits on ICE. Still, the broader takeaway is that Congress is moving more bills than expected for late January, even as shutdown deadlines loom.At the same time, new polling suggests Democrats are regaining momentum. An Emerson College survey shows Democrats leading Republicans by six points on the generic congressional ballot, alongside Trump’s approval sitting well underwater. Six points is not a wave by itself, but it is the range where wave watching becomes justified. Voters are signaling frustration on affordability and foreign policy, and that dissatisfaction is beginning to register in the numbers. If that margin holds or grows, Republicans will not be able to dismiss it as noise.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:23 - Davos00:16:05 - Ryan McBeth on Venezuela00:43:29 - Update00:43:58 - DHS Infighting00:47:18 - DHS Funding00:48:28 - Midterms Polling00:50:13 - Ryan McBeth on Iran01:06:19 - Ryan McBeth on Russia-Ukraine01:14:44 - 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 Greenland situation continues to look more theatrical than existential. To me, leaked private messages from Emmanuel Macron, public frustration from Donald Trump, and hurried diplomatic calls ahead of Davos all point to the same conclusion: this is pressure politics playing out in real time. Trump’s irritation appears rooted less in Greenland itself and more in confusion over European military commitments and mixed signals from allies. That kind of misunderstanding is combustible, but it is also solvable, especially when everyone involved is about to be in the same conference rooms in Switzerland.Europe’s response, though, has been pretty revealing. Ursula von der Leyen’s declaration that the “old order is dead” was less a threat than a signal of insecurity. Europe wants leverage, and hinting at closer ties with China is one way to gesture at it. My priors remain that this all de-escalates quietly. The United States and Europe trade too much, rely on each other too deeply, and share too many strategic interests for this to spiral beyond bruised egos and tough talk. The laws of economics tend to win these fights.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Immigration Enforcement and the Internal SplitBack at home, the most interesting fight is not between parties, but within the Trump administration itself. Tom Homan publicly arguing for better messaging around ICE operations is a tell. He understands that enforcement without a moral argument collapses under public scrutiny. His claim that roughly 70 percent of those arrested are criminals is clearly meant to counter the perception that ICE is acting indiscriminately, especially after the fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis.What stands out is who is not making that case. Kristi Noem, who has leaned heavily into the aesthetics of enforcement, has ceded the substance to Homan, and that imbalance matters. When enforcement becomes spectacle, it invites backlash. When it is framed as governance, it can sustain itself politically. The friction between Homan and Noem is, to me, the most important palace intrigue to watch in Trump’s second term.Britain, Chagos, and Playing to the FutureSpeaking of our relationship with Europe, Trump’s sharp criticism of the United Kingdom over the Chagos Islands is best understood through a political lens, not a strategic one. The deal to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius while leasing Diego Garcia back for 99 years is not new, nor was it opposed by Washington initially. Trump’s reversal feels less about the base itself and more about aligning with figures like Nigel Farage, who benefit from confrontation with current European leadership.This is Trump playing a long game with the people he thinks will be in power next, not the ones currently holding office. Whether that gamble pays off is unclear, but it explains why a relatively obscure British territorial issue suddenly became Truth Social fodder. It is coalition maintenance, not military planning.Netflix, Warner Bros., and the End of Cable GravityFinally, Netflix’s revised all-cash bid for Warner Bros. Discovery does a great job highlighting just how badly legacy media wants scale — and how selectively Netflix wants assets. Netflix does not care about cable networks. It wants intellectual property: Batman, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones. Paramount, by contrast, wants the whole thing in order to fight back against Netflix, and is willing to fight in court to get it.Hovering over all of this is CNN, which Netflix has no interest in owning and Paramount views as distressed but strategically important. Trump’s recent reposts criticizing Netflix’s cultural dominance suggest he may no longer stay neutral, which adds another unpredictable variable. This fight is not just about entertainment. It is about who controls narrative power in a post-cable world.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:05:47 - Justin and Kirk Bado on Republicans, Greenland, and Trump00:32:59 - Justin and Kirk Bado on Democratic Midterm Primaries00:49:20 - Justin and Kirk Bado on Josh Shapiro and 202800:59:51 - Steelers Talk01:13:25 - Update01:13:48 - Immigration01:16:30 - Chagos Islands01:21:16 - Netflix, Paramount, and Warner Bros.01:25:06 - Interview with Juliegrace Brufke on Congressional Vibes01:58:28 - 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

The resignation of Madison Sheahan, an ICE deputy director to run for Congress might look like a routine political move, but it says more about the internal state of immigration enforcement than any press release. ICE is increasingly being pulled between two competing instincts: governing and performing. Tom Homan represents the former, focused on operational reality and risk management. Kristi Noem represents the latter, treating enforcement as a political identity meant to generate headlines and loyalty. Those approaches are not compatible, and when senior officials start eyeing exits into electoral politics, it usually means the institution itself is under strain.On Capitol Hill, leadership is once again trying to stitch together a spending package just robust enough to avoid a shutdown. Progress exists, but only in the narrowest technical sense. Most discretionary funding is unresolved, and Homeland Security remains the pressure point. That is intentional. Immigration funding is leverage, and no one wants to give it up before extracting political value. The result is a familiar pattern: public urgency, private hesitation, and a quiet hope that the consequences land after the next recess.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Meanwhile, a bipartisan proposal to create a strategic reserve of critical minerals is moving forward with little fanfare. It should be getting more attention than it is. Reducing reliance on China for rare earths and other key materials is not a culture war issue. It is basic national security planning. In a Congress addicted to short-term fights, this stood out as an example of lawmakers thinking beyond the next headline or election cycle.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:56 - Interview with Anna Gorisch00:27:17 - Update00:28:16 - Senate Spending Package00:29:27 - Madison Sheahan Resignation00:32:20 - Mineral Reserve00:33:27 - Interview with Anna Gorisch, con’t01:13:44 - 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 week began with a borderline farcical incident in Greenland, where organizers of a traditional dog sled race condemned what they viewed as inappropriate political pressure after an invitation was extended to a U.S. political figure linked to Donald Trump’s ambitions toward the island. The Trump administration has clearly dialed back its more provocative rhetoric on Greenland, moving away from loose talk of force and toward a framing rooted in NATO security and Arctic competition with China and Russia. That shift is necessary, but it is not sufficient.If the United States wants Greenland aligned with its sphere of influence, cultural buy in matters. Right now, we are losing that battle. From my admittedly tongue in cheek but sincere proposals involving sports exchanges, Arctic games with Alaska, and even Hollywood soft power, the point remains serious. You cannot strong arm affinity. You have to earn it. Greenland’s resistance to even symbolic American political presence should be a warning sign, not a punchline.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Iran, Unrest, and Trump’s Misdirection DoctrineIran is far harder to read. The internet blackout, scattered video, and wildly varying casualty estimates make certainty impossible. I do not trust low numbers, nor do I trust high numbers. I do not trust most of the footage. Historically, when Iran shuts off the internet, it precedes violent crackdowns, so it would not surprise me if protesters are being killed. But the fog is thick, and anyone claiming clarity is overselling it.What does feel clearer is the Trump administration’s evolving playbook on foreign intervention. We have now seen a pattern where public messaging intentionally misleads the press ahead of decisive action. It happened before strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. It happened with Venezuela. Loud uncertainty followed by sudden execution. With Trump publicly encouraging Iranian protesters while factions inside his administration urge restraint, the real question is not whether something happens, but what form it takes. Cyber operations, targeted strikes, covert assistance, or none of the above. The only safe assumption is that the public story may be the opposite of the private plan.Venezuela, Powell, and the Cost of Weaponized InstitutionsVenezuela remains the clearest example of this strategy in action. The removal of Nicolás Maduro and his arrival in New York did not follow months of public drumbeats. It followed confusion. That pattern now shadows Iran as well. But the episode did not stay overseas. It came home with the Justice Department’s move against Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.The subpoena and threatened indictment over cost overruns at Fed headquarters are politically radioactive. Even Republicans who agree the renovation was excessive argue this never should have been criminal. Scott Bessent’s reported anger reflects a broader concern inside the administration. Undermining the Fed’s independence while simultaneously pressuring it to cut rates is self defeating. Inflation data this week was not disastrous. Absent this DOJ fight, the headline might have been cautious optimism about future cuts. Instead, the story became institutional overreach and internal dysfunction.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:04:15 - Greenland00:17:16 - Update00:18:05 - Iran00:24:51 - Jerome Powell00:29:25 - Inflation00:31:36 - Interview with Al Brushwood01:06:21 - 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 most consequential story remains Iran, where protests appear to be growing despite the regime shutting down the internet, a move that historically precedes lethal force. The scale of the demonstrations is difficult to verify, but the videos that do emerge suggest a population no longer content to absorb repression quietly. It is hard to separate this moment from the cascading effects of October 7, the regional dismantling of Hamas and Hezbollah, the fall of Syria, and the degradation of Iran’s military capacity. Whether this becomes a true regime crisis is unknown, but it is unquestionably the most important story in the world right now.A Fatal ICE Encounter and a Nation Watching the Same Video DifferentlyDomestically, the killing of a 37 year old mother during an ICE operation in Minnesota has become a political Rorschach test. She was ordered out of her car, did not comply, put the vehicle in motion, and was shot by an ICE officer. Federal authorities have shut down any investigation, with Vice President J.D. Vance asserting absolute immunity. What is striking is not just the tragedy itself, but how confidently people draw opposite conclusions from the same footage. To Republicans, this is law enforcement under siege. To Democrats, it is evidence of authoritarian overreach. The incident hardens beliefs rather than persuading anyone new, which is precisely why it is politically potent.Texas Democrats and a Brutal Primary RealityThe Texas Senate race continues to clarify in uncomfortable ways for Democrats. Reporting suggests Republican maneuvering helped nudge Jasmine Crockett into the race, and the stylistic contrast with James Talarico could not be sharper. Crockett is relentless and confrontational. Talarico’s first ad, by contrast, feels staged and overly polite. In a Texas Democratic primary, that is a problem. Style matters, and beating Crockett will require more than reasonableness. It will require a moment, a line, or a conflict that reframes the race entirely.Affordability, Power, and Trump UnfilteredDonald Trump’s affordability push continued with a pledge to direct the purchase of mortgage bonds to drive down rates, paired with earlier proposals to restrict large institutional buyers from the housing market. Whether these ideas work is secondary to the political intent. Trump wants to be seen doing something on costs. His two hour interview with The New York Times reinforced that worldview. He openly dismissed international law as a constraint, embraced coercive diplomacy, and framed power as its own justification. It was Trump without the volume turned all the way up, which may be the most revealing version of him.Chapters:00:00:00 - Intro00:01:50 - Iran00:04:20 - ICEf00:11:59 - Texas Races00:16:11 - Interview with Reese Gorman00:52:23 - Update00:52:46 - Mortgages00:54:34 - Trump’s NYT Interview00:56:54 - Tariffs00:59:00 - Interview with Stella Tsantekidou01:32:50 - 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

Maduro in Manhattan and the Legal Test AheadFormer Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, pleaded not guilty this week in federal court in Manhattan to sweeping charges that include narco terrorism, cocaine importation conspiracy, and weapons offenses. Maduro, who was captured by U.S. forces in Caracas, declared himself innocent and insisted he remains Venezuela’s legitimate president, framing his arrest as a kidnapping rather than a lawful apprehension. The arraignment itself was brief, with the next hearing scheduled for March. His legal team is already signaling a two-pronged defense focused on sovereign immunity and the circumstances of his capture.What stands out to me is the venue. Trying this case in New York rather than Florida suggests prosecutors are being cautious about jury composition and procedural challenges. Whether that caution pays off is an open question. This case is going to test not only the strength of the evidence, but also how far U.S. courts are willing to go in asserting jurisdiction over a former head of state seized abroad. However it ends, it will be watched closely far beyond Venezuela.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.A Security Scare at the Vice President’s HomeA far quieter story, but a troubling one, emerged out of Cincinnati. A 26-year-old man was arrested after allegedly attempting to break into Vice President J.D. Vance’s home, smashing windows with a hammer, damaging a Secret Service vehicle, and trying to gain entry. Vance and his family were not home at the time, and law enforcement responded quickly. The suspect now faces multiple charges, including vandalism and criminal trespass.These incidents rarely become more than brief news items, but they raise uncomfortable questions. The volume of unstable individuals the Secret Service has to manage is staggering, and this case highlights how thin the margins can be. It does not appear the suspect would have gotten as close if the vice president were present, but the fact that he got close at all is worth taking seriously. Political violence does not always announce itself loudly.Klobuchar, Walz, and the Next Democratic ShuffleFinally, after conversations I referenced earlier with Kirk, reporting now strongly suggests that Senator Amy Klobuchar is preparing to run for governor of Minnesota. According to local reporting, discussions with Tim Walz took place before his announcement, and Klobuchar would enter the race as the clear front runner. The timing is curious. She was reelected to the Senate not long ago, but this move starts to make sense if leadership changes are coming at the top of the Democratic Senate caucus and she is looking to avoid future internal battles.The Minnesota angle also intersects with renewed scrutiny around the massive fraud scandal tied to Somali focused nonprofits. Reporting by Armin Rosen argues there is no evidence that Walz orchestrated or financially benefited from the fraud, though he may have been, in Rosen’s words, suspiciously incurious. If Klobuchar is indeed running, she gets executive experience, a relatively clean pivot point, and a chance to step sideways rather than down. In a party bracing for internal realignment, that kind of move feels increasingly rational.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:04:34 - Interview with Kirk Bado00:28:41 - Justin and Kirk Talk Steelers00:49:22 - Update00:52:00 - Venezuela00:53:13 - JD Vance00:54:27 - Amy Klobuchar00:58:04 - Interview with Andrew Zarian01:55:42 - 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 United States’ decision to seize Nicolás Maduro and bring him to New York marks one of the most dramatic assertions of American power in the Western Hemisphere in decades. In this episode, I focused on what actually happened, why it happened now, and what it signals about how the Trump administration views regime change, legality, and leverage.The facts, as we know them, are stark. In a rapid operation lasting roughly two and a half hours, U.S. forces assisted federal authorities in arresting Maduro and removing him from Caracas. He now faces sweeping federal charges, including narco-terrorism conspiracy and large-scale cocaine trafficking tied to terrorist organizations and major cartels. The indictment is notable not just for its scope, but for what it omits. There is no fentanyl count. This reinforces what many analysts suspected: the recent pressure campaign against Venezuela, including interdictions at sea, was less about opioids and more about systematically strangling Maduro’s remaining sources of revenue until something broke.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.What broke appears to be internal loyalty. It is difficult to believe a head of state with military protection is removed this quickly without acquiescence from inside the regime. That reality shapes everything that comes next. Rather than immediately installing an opposition leader, the administration has left much of the existing government in place while asserting overwhelming control over money flows, shipping, and oil exports. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been careful to say the United States is not “running” Venezuela, while also making clear that the people still in charge have no meaningful freedom to act. This is not Iraq or Afghanistan. It more closely resembles Panama and the Noriega arrest: criminal charges paired with brute leverage, not nation building through occupation.The unanswered question is whether this produces reform or simply swaps one strongman arrangement for another. Venezuela remains a petrostate with enormous reserves, crumbling infrastructure, and a population exhausted by corruption and repression. Removing Maduro may be morally satisfying and strategically defensible, but history offers little comfort about what follows. This is a high-risk bet that coercion can force democratic outcomes without igniting prolonged instability. Whether that gamble pays off, or whether it opens the door to a different kind of failure, is the story that now begins.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:04:16 - Maduro’s Arrest00:11:51 - Marco Rubio00:54:28 - Everyone Else01:10:08 - 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

Topics discussed, by month:JanuaryThe year opened with Donald Trump’s second inauguration and a rapid slate of executive actions, including a controversial move that effectively kept TikTok alive after a brief shutdown. The ceremony highlighted a conspicuous alliance between Trump and major tech figures — framed as an early signal of an AI-driven, business-friendly Trump 2.0 — alongside cultural flashpoints like Elon Musk’s gesture that sparked online backlash.FebruaryTrump reintroduced tariffs on Canada and Mexico, triggering market volatility and a sense that the second administration would closely resemble the first. The episode became a turning point for media and political observers, who noted both reduced hysteria compared to 2017 and a more subdued press landscape shaped by declining ratings, clicks, and subscriber growth.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.MarchA historic blizzard paralyzed much of the American South, hitting northern Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and especially the Dallas–Fort Worth area, where hundreds of thousands lost power. The storm stood out as a rare reminder of infrastructure vulnerability in regions unaccustomed to severe winter weather.April“Liberation Day” marked Trump’s sweeping tariff announcement, forcing long-time free-trade conservatives to publicly accept policies they once opposed as markets reacted sharply. The moment crystallized tensions within the GOP coalition, highlighted generational backlash from Gen Z voters, and underscored growing anxiety about the economy, inflation, and job security.MayTrump announced a major economic deal with Qatar, bringing Middle East politics and foreign influence — particularly within right-wing media — into sharper focus. The deal coincided with intensifying divisions inside conservative circles over Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the broader regional conflict, exposing deep fractures within the MAGA-aligned media ecosystem.JuneThe U.S. carried out targeted airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities in one of the year’s strangest and most anticlimactic geopolitical moments. Despite intense speculation and internal right-wing conflict over the prospect of war, the strikes produced no immediate escalation, quickly fading from public attention after briefly dominating political discourse.JulyCatastrophic flooding in Texas over the July 4th holiday killed at least 135 people, with the destruction of a girls’ summer camp becoming a focal point for grief and anger. The discussion centered on loss of life, questions about building in known flood zones, and the emotional toll of reporting on tragedy.AugustA surprise U.S.–Russia summit in Alaska brought Vladimir Putin to American soil for the first time in years, framed as a tentative step toward ending the war in Ukraine. SeptemberThe assassination of Charlie Kirk at a Turning Point USA event in Utah dominated the conversation as the defining story of the year. The killing reshaped right-wing media, hardened attitudes around speech and retaliation, exposed moral failures in online discourse, and accelerated the rise of figures like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes amid what is described as a profound loss of cohesion on the right.OctoberThe longest government shutdown in U.S. history paralyzed Washington and revealed how little clarity even insiders had about its endgame. While it failed to specifically earn the Democrats what they publicly said they wanted, the shutdown ultimately functioned as a political weapon, energizing Democrats in off-year elections while deepening public cynicism about governance and leverage politics.NovemberDemocratic overperformance in off-year elections, including Virginia and New Jersey, reframed the shutdown as a tactical success rather than a policy-driven fight. That momentum quickly curdled into skepticism, with voters sensing a power grab and turning on Democrats once the immediate political payoff was achieved.DecemberThe Trump administration’s pardon of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández — convicted of facilitating large-scale cocaine trafficking — sparked debate over executive power, corruption, and contradictions in U.S. anti-narcotics policy. The month closed with a broader reflection on “state of exception” politics, where violence and extralegal force are justified as necessary to restore order, a theme tied back to both Trump’s actions and the year’s broader political unrest.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:21 - January00:11:10 - February00:15:47 - March00:18:38 - April00:25:41 - May00:31:54 - June00:37:08 - July00:47:04 - August00:52:22 - September01:27:14 - October01:30:03 - November01:34:48 - December01:44:15 - 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

With the Sunday shows having pre-recorded the bulk of their conversations and the flow of news quieting down for the holidays, Justin sat down to answer your questions on a livestream held this past Sunday afternoon. Topics include: AI, the future of MAGA, journalism, politeness in politics, Marjorie Taylor Greene, (not) the Steelers-Browns game, and much more.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.This livestream has been lightly edited for brevity; the original version can be found on YouTube: 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 Epstein files keep coming out, and instead of clarity, they are producing something far messier: suspicion without resolution and outrage without proof.What we are seeing now is not the mythical document many people imagine, a clean list pairing powerful men with specific criminal acts. That list does not exist. What exists are FBI files and grand jury materials filled with allegations, some credible, some vague, many never fully investigated. The result is a widening cloud of suspicion over a long list of names, with no clear answers about who did what or why prosecutors failed to act when they had the chance.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.That ambiguity is why this release satisfies no one. New documents, like the bizarre and possibly fake letter to Larry Nassar attributed to Epstein after his death, only deepen confusion rather than resolve it. If the Trump administration delayed releasing these files out of fear of what they contained, that decision backfired badly. The slow drip has turned the Epstein case into a permanent Rorschach test, where everyone sees what they already believe. Until the Justice Department explains what it has, what it does not, and why accountability failed for so long, the Epstein story will remain unresolved and corrosive.Chapters00:00 - Intro01:39 - Epstein05:16 - Tevi Troy on Lame Duck Presidents49:41 - 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’s primetime address this week was far less dramatic than advertised, but far more revealing than it looked at first glance. Stripped of the rumors and speculation, the speech functioned as a quiet reset on the issue that matters most to his presidency: the economy.Going into the address, expectations were wildly inflated. Cable chatter and online speculation had convinced many people that Trump was preparing to announce military action in Venezuela or unveil a sweeping foreign policy shift. Instead, the speech clocked in at just under 20 minutes and stayed tightly focused on affordability, inflation, and household pressure. That choice alone tells you where the White House believes its real vulnerability lies.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Trump did something slightly out of character by acknowledging economic strain without declaring immediate victory. He framed the economy as a process rather than a finished product, arguing that recovery takes time and patience. That is a notable shift from his usual insistence that conditions are already excellent. It was not an apology, but it was an admission that voters are not wrong to feel squeezed.Much of the address revolved around tariffs and tax policy, with Trump asking voters to accept short-term pain in exchange for long-term gain. He pitched tariffs as leverage that will eventually lower costs and increase domestic production, and he pointed to upcoming tax benefits tied to overtime, tips, and Social Security as proof that relief is coming. The problem is timing. Politically, promises that hinge on next year’s tax filings are hard to feel in the present, especially when prices remain high.Trump’s instinct throughout the speech was still salesmanship. He moved quickly, spoke loudly, and leaned on confidence rather than detail. The strongest moments came when he attacked insurance companies and framed his agenda as a fight against corporate abuse. Those lines landed because they matched public frustration. The weaker moments were the familiar optimism that everything is already turning the corner. For voters who do not feel that turn yet, tone matters as much as substance.This address was not about breaking news. It was about recalibration. Trump needed to re-anchor his presidency around the economy and away from foreign policy speculation, legal noise, and internal party drama. In that sense, the speech did its job. It lowered the temperature, narrowed the focus, and reminded supporters what they are supposed to be rooting for.Still, a reset speech only works if reality cooperates. If affordability does not improve, no amount of rhetorical discipline will save the argument. This speech could have been shorter, and it certainly could have been written as a memo. But compared to the expectations of escalation and crisis, it was a deliberate attempt to sound grounded. Whether voters reward that restraint is the question that will define the year ahead.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:34 - Trump’s Affordability Speech00:12:23 - Brian Brushwood on Empathy00:28:53 - Update00:29:19 - Marijuana00:33:07 - Appropriations Package00:34:00 - DNC 2024 Report00:38:10 - Brian Brushwood on Empathy, con’t01:01:32 - 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

On Tuesday, a sprawling two-part Vanity Fair piece built from more than a dozen interviews with Susie Wiles, President Trump’s chief of staff, dropped online. It is, without exaggeration, one of the most revealing portraits of an active White House power broker I can remember. Wiles describes Trump as having an “alcoholic’s personality,” a striking characterization given his lifelong teetotalism. Trump, notably, did not dispute it. He later confirmed the description himself, calling it aggressive, possessive, and myopic.Wiles also took shots across the bow at several major figures. She labeled Elon Musk an “odd duck,” dismissed his politics, and triggered a very public response that included Musk taking a drug test near my own neighborhood to rebut claims of ketamine use. She endorsed JD Vance as the likely Republican nominee in 2028 while simultaneously describing his MAGA conversion as politically convenient. On Epstein, she confirmed Trump’s name appears in the files, contradicted Trump’s claims about Bill Clinton, and slammed Attorney General Pam Bondi’s handling of the document release as a total failure. These were not slips. They were deliberate disclosures from someone who understands power intimately.Perhaps most telling was Wiles’s admission that some Trump-era prosecutions look vindictive and that Venezuelan boat strikes were intended to pressure Nicolás Maduro politically, not just disrupt drug trafficking. That level of candor is rare. It reframes policy decisions as leverage rather than law enforcement, and it explains why the article landed like a grenade inside Republican circles.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.A Cooling Jobs Market and a Complicated Economic PitchAway from the media drama, the November jobs report offered something for everyone but reassurance. Payrolls grew by 64,000 jobs, better than feared but far from robust. Unemployment climbed to 4.6 percent, the highest level in more than four years, signaling a labor market that is cooling but not collapsing. The Labor Department flagged unusual data uncertainty due to the government shutdown, muddying trend lines even further.Supporters of the administration argue that private sector employment remains solid and that government job losses were inevitable given debt and deficits. Critics counter that Trump ran as the “economy man,” and this is not an economy that inspires confidence. Manufacturing and professional services continue to contract, while gains are concentrated in health care and education. The Fed’s recent rate cut looks justified, but the promised “golden age” is difficult to sell when affordability remains front and center for voters.A Prime-Time Address and the Politics of the MomentAll of this sets the stage for Trump’s prime-time address from the White House, scheduled for Wednesday night. Officially, there is no news hook. Unofficially, this looks like a straight-to-camera year-in-review and year-ahead speech, a nakedly political address designed to reset the narrative as he approaches the midpoint of his second term. If there were a major announcement, such as a Russia-Ukraine breakthrough or a stimulus package, it would not stay secret. The absence of leaks suggests there is no surprise coming.At the same time, Speaker Mike Johnson is facing an internal revolt over expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies. Moderates in swing districts are desperate for a vote they can point to, even if it fails. Hardliners insist on abortion-related restrictions tied to the Hyde Amendment, and leadership is frozen. With discharge petitions circulating and Trump’s own political strength under scrutiny, Johnson’s power is only as strong as Trump’s grip on the conference. Right now, that grip looks uncertain.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:23 - Susie Wiles in Vanity Fair00:04:49 - Kirk Bado on Susie Wiles00:35:30 - Update00:37:14 - Jobs Report00:39:43 - Trump’s Primetime Address Announcement00:44:04 - Mike Johnson and the ACA00:50:37 - Kirk Bado on Nuzzi/Lizza and More01:13:57 - 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 Senate’s vote to extend enhanced ACA subsidies was the clearest sign yet that congressional Republicans are fracturing as they head toward the midterms. Four GOP senators — Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Dan Sullivan, and Josh Hawley — joined Democrats to back a three-year extension. The measure failed, but the defectors matter. Two are facing reelection in 2026. All four have been pressured by constituents facing premium spikes. And every one of them knows that allowing subsidies to expire is a political nightmare.The problem is that no Republican-sponsored alternatives have enough momentum to pass. Hardliners insist insurers are bluffing about catastrophic premium hikes and argue that federal subsidies can flow to abortion providers in violation of the Hyde Amendment. Leadership is frozen, moderates are restless, and none of the policy paths available appear functional. My read: the subsidies will expire. And the longer Republicans look divided on health care, the messier 2026 becomes.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Trump Loses Indiana — and a Bit of His Grip on the GOPTrump’s aggressive mid-cycle redistricting push hit a brick wall in Indiana, where 21 Republican state senators joined Democrats to defeat a map designed to produce two more GOP-friendly House seats. The vote wasn’t close. This wasn’t quiet dissent. It was a collective “no.” And the reason is obvious: Republican lawmakers are terrified of a “dummymander,” a map that overreaches and accidentally creates more vulnerable districts in a bad year. If 2026 is shaping up to be a Democratic wave — and every special election suggests it might be — legislators don’t want to be caught holding the bag.Trump’s allies threatened primaries. Outside groups ran ads. J.D. Vance weighed in personally. None of it mattered. If you want a temperature check on Trump’s leverage right now, this is it. He still commands loyalty, but not fear. And when Republicans stop fearing the leader of their own party, they start preparing for the next one. That’s how lame-duck dynamics begin — long before anyone says the words out loud.A Hard Pivot on VenezuelaThe administration also announced new sanctions on Nicolás Maduro’s inner circle, targeting his nephews, his wife, and a network of businessmen and shippers. This came just after the U.S. seized a tanker carrying Venezuelan crude. For now, this is a sanctions campaign — not military escalation — but it fits a familiar Trump-era pattern: push to the brink, stop just short, and ask adversaries whether they still want to keep playing.With Iran, the strategy eventually led to direct strikes. With Venezuela, nobody knows yet. But every foreign-policy story pulling headlines away from domestic issues is a political risk for Trump. His base doesn’t want global adventurism. They want America First, not America Everywhere.Chapters00:00 - Intro02:06 - Nuzzi/Lizza10:46 - Update11:01 - Obamacare12:14 - Indiana Redistricting15:53 - Venezuela Sanctions18:35 - Matt Laslo on the WH Press Corps54:10 - 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

Jasmine Crockett’s launch ad did exactly what it was designed to do: dominate the conversation. It’s a sparse spot — just Donald Trump’s voice calling her “low IQ” while she slowly turns to camera and smiles—but the message is unmistakable. She’s positioning herself as the fighter, the foil to Trump, the progressive star ready-made for the national stage. Whether you think the ad is brilliant, asinine, or somewhere in between, the confidence behind it is unmistakable. This is a politician who believes the moment belongs to her.And the moment may actually be hers. Crockett’s entrance triggered the first major domino: Colin Allred is out. Allred saw exactly what was coming: a three-way field in which he was slowly slipping into fourth place, with poll numbers showing Crockett and state representative James Talarico dramatically outpacing him. In politics, you can bow out early or you can be forced out late. Allred chose the former and retreated to a reelection bid for his House seat. It was one of the rare cases of a politician reading a bad hand correctly before the stakes got worse.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.That leaves the primary as a one-on-one: Crockett versus Talarico. And Talarico’s opening move — a polite welcome video directed at Crockett — landed with a thud. If Crockett walks into a room like a lightning bolt, Talarico walked in like a guidance counselor. He cannot afford to make this a personality contest. Crockett thrives in personality contests. If he wants to win, he has to make this about message, not magnetism. The question haunting Texas Democrats for years — can a centrist survive a primary built to reward progressives? — will finally get an answer.Democrats dreaming of flipping Texas understand the trap. Yes, Crockett is electrifying. Yes, she’s a rising star. But statewide politics in Texas is still shaped by a conservative-leaning bloc of independents who view her as too far to the left. Early polling from the University of Houston and Texas Southern University shows both Crockett and Talarico losing to Attorney General Ken Paxton. Paxton, who was impeached by his own staff, dogged by scandal, and widely regarded as too extreme even by many Republicans. Yet he leads both Democrats by narrow margins.That tells you everything about the strategic stakes. If Democrats nominate a progressive firebrand, even a wounded Republican like Paxton becomes viable. And the fear for Democratic strategists is simple: the moment Crockett wins the nomination, a large number of center-right independents will default to whoever the GOP nominates. That’s the shadow hanging over her rise. Her path to the nomination is the clearest. Her path to victory in November may be the hardest.Republicans: A Primary That Shouldn’t Be Close, But IsOn the Republican side, the Senate primary is turning into its own demolition derby. For months, John Cornyn seemed secure: the senior statesman, the institutional favorite, the known quantity. But recent polling shows Cornyn clinging to a razor-thin lead over Paxton, with Representative Wesley Hunt sitting as a serious third-place contender. Hunt’s entry infuriated the Cornyn team, and with good reason — Hunt is young, popular, and ideologically aligned with the party’s post-Trump base in ways Cornyn simply isn’t.Paxton, meanwhile, remains the wildcard. He survived impeachment by leaning entirely on his loyalty to Trump, and the MAGA base has rewarded him for it. Trump is widely expected to endorse Paxton, and the only mystery is whether he gives Hunt a co-endorsement. Either way, Cornyn is not getting Trump’s blessing, and if you are a Texas Republican trying to win a statewide primary without Trump’s blessing in 2026, you are playing football with no helmet.As filing deadlines pass and the field locks in, Republicans now find themselves with the one candidate Democrats most want to face — and simultaneously the only candidate who might actually beat them.If both primaries break the right way, Texas could get the most entertaining political matchup in modern state history: Jasmine Crockett versus Wesley Hunt. Two young, charismatic Black lawmakers representing opposite poles of America’s political identity, both natural performers, both eager brawlers. They could fill AT&T Stadium for a debate. They might try. And I would pay to see it.But beneath the spectacle is the deeper truth: Texas politics is in flux. Both parties are being reshaped by their loudest wings. Both are terrified of nominating the wrong candidate. Both primaries could create general-election vulnerabilities neither side fully understands yet. We’re watching political identity evolve in real time.And for once, Texas isn’t just a red state or a blue target. It’s the center of the storm.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:19 - Texas Senate Races Heats Up00:17:29 - Update00:19:29 - Republican Healthcare Bill00:22:22 - Ghislaine Maxwell Record Release00:24:03 - Tariff Bailouts00:26:07 - Bill Scher on Dems’ 2026 Outlook and More00:58:23 - 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

I’ve long found the January 6 pipe bombs case particularly frustrating. Too serious to be forgotten, too mysterious to be ignored, we’ve had no answers for nearly five years. And now, at long last, we have an arrest.The alleged bomber, Brian Cole Jr., faces federal explosive-device charges that could carry up to 20 years apiece. Court documents describe receipts, phone pings, and cameras placing him near the RNC and DNC buildings on January 5, 2021. All the evidence cited appears to have been in federal hands for some time, which naturally raises the question: why now? The government says enhanced forensic review — not new intelligence — finally broke the case open. But the timing will fuel speculation until prosecutors offer more transparency.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.For me, this case matters not only because it’s finally moving forward but because it was always part of the emotional experience of January 6, even if the public didn’t talk about it. Lawmakers were moved and evacuated not just because of the riot at the Capitol, but because of the pipe bombs. It shaped decisions, reactions, and rhetoric that day. The mystery left a vacuum. We’re finally filling it.The week also brought new revelations about the Venezuelan drug-boat strike, which continues to create friction between congressional Republicans and the Trump administration. Admiral Frank Bradley told lawmakers he never received a “kill everybody” directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, directly contradicting a Washington Post story that ignited days of speculation. Bradley maintains he followed detailed written orders, not verbal instructions, and that subsequent strikes in similar encounters resulted in survivors being rescued, not targeted.Republican lawmakers — many of them veterans themselves — are increasingly frustrated by the administration’s lack of clarity. They want the full video, the exact legal guidance, and the chain of command spelled out plainly. Their frustration isn’t ideological. It’s procedural. Military rules of engagement matter because credibility matters. When the administration’s communication is muddled, confidence erodes. And with foreign policy front and center again — from Gaza to Ukraine to Venezuela — credibility is the one currency Washington can’t afford to spend recklessly.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:46 - Evan Scrimshaw on Recent News00:26:48 - Update00:27:20 - January 6th Pipe Bomb Arrest00:34:18 - Venezuelan Drug Boats00:37:15 - Gaza Peace Plan00:39:27 - 2026 Primary Draft01:31:20 - 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

The Tennessee 7th District special election is no ordinary off-calendar contest. It is a rare moment when a deeply red seat, long considered immovable, has become a stress test for the political environment itself. Before the results are spun beyond recognition, here is how I see the race and why its outcome — whatever it is — matters far more than who wins.Tennessee’s 7th District is not supposed to be competitive. For years it has behaved like a Republican fortress: John McCain won it by 28 points, Mitt Romney by 24, and Donald Trump by anywhere from 21 to 34. Former Representative Mark Green consistently won with more than two-thirds of the vote. But those numbers mask reality. Trump has bled suburban support with each cycle, and while the district remains red, it has trended steadily closer to the center. That shift matters more in a special election, where turnout is low and national money is targeted at one race instead of dozens. In that kind of environment, even a heavily favored side can wobble.That brings us to the candidates. Republican Matt Van Epps is the type of standard-issue conservative you’d expect to see in a district like this: a veteran, a conventional platform, and a campaign that’s been competent but unremarkable. He has not run toward Trump the way many Republicans in similarly structured districts once would have, an omission that speaks volumes about the nervousness inside the party. Democrats, meanwhile, are running Aftyn Behn, whose message is strong — focused on affordability and frustration with tariffs — but whose opposition research file is… extensive. Past tweets cheering the destruction of a police station and musing about abolishing the Nashville Police Department have given Republicans plenty of material. Not exactly what you want in Tennessee.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.I keep coming back to the same three scenarios. The first is the earthquake: Aftyn Behn flips the seat. If that happens, the panic inside the Republican conference becomes immediate and existential. This majority is already strained by retirements, factional fights, and Trump’s declining approval ratings. Losing Tennessee 7 would signal that no district is safe, and it would meaningfully raise the odds that Republicans lose the House outright — potentially even before the midterms if more members resign.The second scenario is the reset: Matt Van Epps wins comfortably, by 10 to 15 points. Republicans would exhale. Leadership would declare this a reaffirmation that the party’s base remains intact. They would argue that a focused Democratic effort still couldn’t move the needle enough to threaten a core GOP district. It would be evidence that the sky is not falling — at least not everywhere, and not yet.The third scenario is the most interesting: a narrow Van Epps win. A single-digit margin would function as a Democratic moral victory and a Republican warning klaxon. It would confirm that the party’s suburban erosion is accelerating, that Trump’s drift downward is shifting the map, and that a generic Republican — even in Tennessee — is not insulated from national sentiment. A Politico report suggested the GOP conference would become “unhinged” if the race lands here. Having watched the last month of Republican caucus behavior, I’m not inclined to disagree.This isn’t just a regional contest. It’s a snapshot of a party that has been running on fumes — caught between a base powered by Trump and a national electorate increasingly uneasy about his second-term performance. It’s also a test for Democrats, who are experimenting with insurgent messaging in places they normally ignore. Aftyn Behn is trying to run as an outsider in a district where the outsider lane belongs to Republicans. Whether that gamble pays off will tell us something about how Democrats might approach similar red districts next year.No matter which path emerges, the Tennessee special election is less about two candidates and more about the political weather. And for the first time in a while, Republicans can’t be sure the forecast is on their side.Chapters00:00 - Intro03:11 - Tennessee Special Election Explainer18:54 - Update19:25 - Pete Hegseth22:16 - Travel Ban27:03 - Paul Finebaum30:17 - Andrew Heaton on Congressional Dread52:50 - 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 no two ways about it — Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation came as a shock. She’s leaving Congress at the start of the year, which means Republicans will immediately lose a vote they absolutely cannot spare. Governor Brian Kemp now has to call a special election, and even if he moves at the fastest pace legally possible, Georgia’s replacement likely won’t arrive until April or May. At that point we’re deep into a cycle where dozens of House Republicans are juggling competitive reelection campaigns, statewide ambitions or both. Losing a seat now isn’t a problem; losing a seat during the most politically fragile stretch of the year is a crisis.The fascinating part is how we got here. Greene was once one of Trump’s fiercest and most loyal defenders, a political brawler who generated attention, small-dollar fundraising and cable hits. Her real institutional power, however, came from her alliance with Kevin McCarthy. When McCarthy fell, Greene’s entire support structure collapsed with him. She wasn’t able to transfer that leverage to Speaker Mike Johnson. In fact, her attempt to oust Johnson failed so publicly that it effectively isolated her. Add to that the now-infamous Tony Fabrizio polling memo — sent from the inside of Trumpworld directly to Greene herself — telling her she couldn’t win statewide, and suddenly the relationship that once powered her rise curdled into animosity. Once Trump’s giving you mean nicknames on a Truth Social post, it’s pretty clear your days inside the tent are over.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.In the past few weeks, Greene has been everywhere—Real Time, The View, CNN—adopting a noticeably softer tone about political adversaries, including Nancy Pelosi. None of that happens by accident. And while no one close to her has confirmed anything, I can’t shake the sense that she’s plotting a pivot toward statewide office. The national rebrand won’t work; she’s too defined. But in a state like Georgia, where the Republican base still views her as a heroine and suburban women remain the barrier to statewide wins, maybe she sees a narrow path for a remade persona. Insiders I’ve spoken with don’t think it’s likely — but nobody dismisses it out of hand. After all, Georgia politics has delivered plenty of stranger twists than Marjorie Taylor Greene trying to run as a kinder, gentler insurgent.A Bad Week for DOJ: Sloppy Cases, Angry Allies and a Political CostWhile Greene was calculating her next chapter, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice was stumbling through one of its most humiliating stretches since the start of the second term. Two high-profile cases—one targeting James Comey and another targeting New York Attorney General Letitia James—fell apart in spectacular fashion. The Comey case wasn’t dismissed on a technicality; it was thrown out because the Department of Justice may not have even properly secured a grand jury indictment. Not good. And because of how the dismissal occurred, the case cannot be refiled. Comey is permanently in the clear. The Letitia James case was dismissed for different reasons, and that one can theoretically return — but in practice, it’s now damaged and politically radioactive.Look. These cases were clearly pushed at the direction of Donald Trump himself. He said the quiet part out loud on Truth Social, publicly urging prosecutions of Comey, James and Adam Schiff before deleting the message. Trump wanted consequences for people he sees as political enemies. But wanting something and executing it competently are two very different things. And what happened here wasn’t just sloppy — it undercut the credibility of his claim to be the only person who can “clean up the system.” If you’re promising a more efficient, more disciplined government, you cannot afford your Justice Department to mishandle prosecutions this badly.This is also where the political costs begin to show. Punchbowl reported this week that Greene’s resignation has other Republicans eyeing the exits. I’ve heard similar grumbling from people close to MAGA-aligned lawmakers: they feel neglected by the White House, shut out of decision-making, and deprived of the small wins that normally help hold a caucus together. On issues like Venezuela, they simply want explanations — and aren’t getting them. Add the DOJ fiasco on top, and you have a governing coalition that increasingly feels taken for granted. The math is brutal: Republicans are two retirements away from losing the House majority outright. No one thinks a mass exodus is imminent, but the fact that the scenario has become a topic of conversation tells you how fragile the coalition is.The bottom line: if the Trump administration wants to restore confidence — inside the party and beyond — it can’t afford more weeks like this. Competence matters. And right now, the DOJ is delivering the exact opposite.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:10 - Marjorie Taylor Greene00:11:02 - Rush Hour 4 (seriously)00:11:44 - DOJ’s Bad Day00:16:38 - Are the Republicans in Trouble?00:19:39 - 2028 Picks with Gloria Young01:03:30 - 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’s approval ratings have entered their roughest stretch of his second term, with three separate polls showing him hitting new lows after months of a seemingly bulletproof floor.The pattern itself is not unusual. Presidents in their second term often experience a dip once the early burst of post-inaugural goodwill fades. But Trump’s decline is sharper than expected, sliding from the mid-forties into the high thirties. That puts him back in the territory he occupied for much of his first term, except this time he lacks the external crises that once helped explain his numbers. For better or for worse, he has defined the narrative of this second term so far, and voters are judging him on the results.It’s no secret what the cause is for this drop: the economy. For months, Trump framed the United States as operating in a “golden age,” yet affordability remains a pain point. Tariffs have become an easy messaging target for Democrats, who argue that the disruptions fall hardest on consumers. Trump’s core Republican base hasn’t budged and Democrats remain consistently opposed, with the movement almost entirely coming from independents, many of whom appear to be remembering the volatility of Trump-era governance.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Whether this downturn is temporary or the beginning of a deeper slide will become clearer after the holidays. For now, the numbers are unambiguously weak. If Trump wants to regain altitude, he will need more than assurances about economic strength. He will need voters outside his base to believe it. Just ask Biden.Chapters00:00 - Intro02:32 - Trump Approval Ratings06:05 - The State of the Economy with JD Durkin42:33 - 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

I came back from the UK expecting to ease into the week, and instead I walked straight into one of the wildest legislative twists I have seen in years. The Epstein files bill (HR 4405) cleared the House by way of a discharge petition and did so with only a single vote against it. I’ll admit — did not take this seriously when it first appeared. I assumed it would stall in committee or die somewhere between the House and Senate. And now that I’m holding the text of the bill in my hands, it is obvious that this is very real and very close to becoming law. Donald Trump has already said he will sign it, and with a nearly unanimous House vote, it’s hard to imagine the Senate blocking it.This portion of our story really begins last Tuesday when House Democrats released a new batch of Epstein related emails. The headline was an email in which Epstein told an associate that Donald Trump knew about his behavior and had spent time at his house with a girl later identified as Virginia Giuffre, though crucially, this email did not accuse Trump of participating in abuse. However, with the House reopened and Adelita Grijalva finally sworn in as its newest member, the discharge petition managed to mass on the exact same day — despite reports that Trump immediately called people like Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mace urging them to pull their signatures.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Trump’s reaction also says a lot here. On Thursday, Trump was furious, calling allies to warn them that he would rescind endorsements if they voted for the petition. The White House framed the anger as frustration that Republicans had given Democrats a politically useful victory. But by Friday, Trump reversed himself and said everyone should support the release since there was nothing to hide. Late Sunday, he doubled down again, telling reporters the files were long overdue and that Pam Bondi should open new investigations into Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, and Reid Hoffman. It was at that point that it became obvious that the bill was going to sail through. Even Speaker Mike Johnson voted for it — an unusual action considering discharge petitions are mechanisms designed to bypass the Speaker.The bill itself is sweeping. It orders the Attorney General to turn over internal DOJ communications related to charging decisions, investigations, destruction of records, detention details, and Epstein’s death. It blocks the government from withholding records due to embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity. Only material that qualifies as child sexual abuse imagery or details an active investigation can be withheld.The winners in all of this are obvious. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna get enormous credit for pushing the discharge petition from the beginning. They stared down the White House and they won. The losers are just as clear. Trump took the biggest political hit because this never needed to become a fight in the first place. If he wanted the files released he could have released them. The notion that people like Kash Patel and Pam Bondi were acting on their own is nonsense. They do not freelance on something this sensitive. Trump might be trying to rewrite the narrative, but the timeline speaks for itself.Personally, I think the files have never been released because the conclusion reached is messy rather than clean. We know Epstein abused underage girls. We know Ghislaine Maxwell helped facilitate it. The open question is whether other powerful people committed crimes that can be clearly proved. If the files contain only partial hints or ambiguous associations, releasing them will satisfy no one. People will assume something is missing, especially considering just how conspiratorial this entire story feels. People build their own conclusions in the absence of official clarity, as we’ve seen since the death of Epstein himself.Still, the fact remains that this administration took an enormous and unnecessary political loss by fighting transparency that it had promised during the campaign. They went from inviting influencers to the White House for binders labeled Phase One to issuing a one page memo suggesting there was nothing further to see. We do not know what will emerge when the full set of records is released. We do know that the political consequences of this episode are locked in place. Everyone who pushed for transparency won. Everyone who resisted it lost. And once the documents are public nobody will be able to put the lid back on whatever comes next.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:38 - Epstein Files00:20:44 - Update00:22:36 - Saudi Crown Prince00:26:51 - Texas Maps Blocked00:28:09 - Tariff Checks00:31:10 - UK Politics, AI, and More with Tom Merritt01:09:36 - 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