Politics Politics Politics

The Iran situation remains murky. President Trump says he will be indirectly involved in renewed nuclear talks in Geneva, describing them as “very important,” while simultaneously ordering a significant military buildup in the Persian Gulf. A second aircraft carrier. Additional F-35s. Diplomacy and deterrence running in parallel.I am genuinely unsure what the endgame is here. Is this Venezuela-style pressure, where decapitation and economic realignment are the model? Or is this about crippling missile capacity and nuclear infrastructure? Iran is not Venezuela. It has ideological cohesion in ways Caracas did not. It has true believers.What confuses me most is timing. If there was a moment of peak internal pressure inside Iran, it may have passed. Now we are left with talks that may or may not be sincere, layered on top of military posturing that may or may not be a prelude to action. I would not be shocked by a strike. I would not be shocked by a deal. That is not analysis. That is honest uncertainty.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 Shutdown and Democratic LeverageMeanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security remains in shutdown limbo. Senate Democrats blocked a stopgap funding bill demanding tighter warrant requirements, unmasking of agents, expanded body camera usage, and changes to patrol tactics after controversial shootings. Republicans argue ICE funding continues under prior legislation and most DHS workers are deemed essential anyway.So far, public disruption has been limited. But if TSA agents and other DHS personnel miss paychecks long enough, pressure will build. My priors here are consistent: Democrats believe they are in a popular posture standing up to Trump. They are, at least rhetorically. But at some point, the government has to reopen fully. And any deal negotiated from the minority will disappoint the activists who demanded maximal reform.That is the trap of shutdown politics. You escalate to energize your base. Then you have to compromise to govern.Jesse Jackson and a Bygone EraFinally, Reverend Jesse Jackson died at 84. Whatever your partisan perspective, he was a towering figure in American political history, a bridge between the civil rights movement and modern Democratic presidential politics. He changed what was imaginable in national campaigns. His influence on leaders like Barack Obama is undeniable.The era he represented feels distant now. The fights are different. The coalitions are different. Even the tone is different. But history has long shadows, and Jackson cast one.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:04:35 - Uncle Luke Running For Congress00:07:51 - Polymarket Odds for Texas Senate Primaries00:26:04 - Update00:26:18 - Jesse Jackson00:28:52 - Iran00:32:44 - DHS Shutdown00:36:56 - Polymarket Odds for California, Maine, and Michigan01:02:03 - 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

Over the past couple of weeks, Senate Republicans have come up with this plan to bring back the talking filibuster, all in an effort to pass the SAVE America Act. On paper, it is clever. Force Democrats to physically hold the floor to block voter ID legislation that polls as an 80-20 issue. Make them read the phone book. Make them look unserious. Put Jon Ossoff and other swing-state Democrats on the record defending a position that is wildly unpopular nationally.I actually think it would be smart politics. It’s also never going to happen.The reason is simple: Senate institutionalists. John Thune does not want to be the Republican leader who weakened the filibuster, even in a limited way. The Senate sees itself as the “august deliberative body,” not the truck stop chaos of the House. No one wants on their résumé that they chipped away at the 60-vote threshold. The irony is that nothing in the rules prevents a talking filibuster. It simply fell out of use. But reviving it would still be seen as escalation.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.And escalation is not what senators do to each other lightly. They are there for six years. They share committee rooms and green rooms. They nurse grudges quietly. They do not enjoy public humiliation.So while conservatives may draw up elaborate procedural roadmaps, this one caps out at tradition. And tradition, in the Senate, wins more often than base energy.The Shutdown Nobody WinsMeanwhile, we are entering an actual shutdown this weekend because Senate Democrats blocked a Department of Homeland Security funding bill after the House had already left town. Democrats escalated their demands from a handful of changes to what is effectively a multi-point overhaul. The problem is not moral clarity. The problem is math.When you shut down the government, history suggests you rarely get what you want. Often, you get nothing. The Trump White House already has a blueprint from the last shutdown: keep the pain manageable, move money around where possible, and wait for pressure to build. If that pressure intensifies, especially around TSA delays, FEMA responses, or spring break travel, Democrats will face the same brutal reality every minority party faces during a shutdown.Just like in the fall, they will have to cut a deal.And when they do, their base will not celebrate incremental concessions. They will accuse leadership of caving. The drawdown of ICE activity in Minneapolis, which could have been framed as a win condition, has already been overtaken by new demands.That is the trap. You negotiate past your leverage point because your base expects maximalism. Then you are left explaining why the maximalist outcome was never achievable in the first place.A State of the Union CircusAll of this sets up a February 24th State of the Union that looks increasingly like a circus. Some House Democrats are openly discussing protests, despite Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries urging restraint.We have seen these moves before. Last year’s disruptions did not damage Trump. If anything, they made him look calmer by comparison. When the visuals are heckling and signage next to moments crafted for television, the protest becomes the spectacle, not the message.The deeper issue is control. Neither Mike Johnson nor Hakeem Jeffries appears to have ironclad command over their conferences. The margins are thin. The base pressure is intense. And Trump remains such a polarizing figure that restraint feels like betrayal to some members.So expect noise. Expect moments engineered for viral clips. And expect very little institutional discipline.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:04:03 - Talking Filibuster DOA00:18:06 - Update00:18:33 - Shutdown00:22:36 - ICE in Minnesota00:25:50 - Democrats SOTU Plans00:28:55 - Interview with Stella Tsantekidou on UK Politics and Epstein01:13:06 - 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 has a new ad, and it’s everything you’d expect out of 2026 so far. It’s a TV ad utilizing an anime style — and potentially some AI. It is inventive, loud, and undeniably designed to cut through clutter. In a vacuum, it might even be smart. Anime specifically has real cultural traction, especially with younger and Black voters, and the ad signals energy in a race where attention is scarce.The problem is context. Crockett is getting creative on television very late in the game, after being outspent roughly 19 to 1, and amid reporting that suggests her campaign lacks clear leadership and strategic direction. The theory of the campaign seems to be that message intensity can compensate for organizational weakness. That is a risky bet. Strong words without disciplined execution rarely scale, especially statewide.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.What turned this race from messy to combustible was Colin Allred’s response to an influencer claim that James Talarico privately referred to him as a “mediocre Black man.” Allred did not hedge. He endorsed Crockett, appeared with her, and went on television saying Talarico refused to apologize. That escalated the race instantly.At this point, Crockett’s campaign is no longer merely contrasting policy or style. It is prosecuting a character case aimed directly at Black voters. If there were any functional party leadership involved, they would be trying to de-escalate this immediately. Burning Talarico to the ground may help Crockett in the primary, but it risks destroying a Democrat many believed could be viable in future statewide races. Instead, the attacks have intensified, and Talarico’s response has been uneven at best.His ads have not helped. They feel staged, overly cinematic, and oddly reverential, as if he is preaching rather than connecting. Authenticity is supposed to be his calling card, yet his campaign keeps placing a layer of polish between him and voters. That disconnect is now showing up in the data.A University of Houston poll taken in late January shows Crockett up nine points on Talarico, despite her spending disadvantage. That is a flashing warning sign. It suggests Talarico is not breaking through, and that Democratic primary voters are responding more to confrontation than caution.On the Republican side, the implications are enormous. If Crockett emerges as the nominee, the GOP path depends heavily on who survives its own primary. John Cornyn remains the establishment preference, backed by Trump’s former campaign leadership, but recent polling shows Ken Paxton leading. If Paxton is the nominee, Republicans will have to spend aggressively in a race they would normally ignore. If Cornyn is the nominee, the race likely snaps back to lean Republican.That is why this primary matters beyond Texas Democrats. A Crockett win followed by a Paxton nomination would force Republicans to defend ground they assumed was safe. If Texas flips, even into wave watch territory, it will not be because demographics finally arrived. It will be because campaigns failed, misjudged, or overreached at exactly the wrong moment.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:09 - Texas Dem Senate Primary00:17:26 - Update00:17:47 - DHS Funding00:20:27 - Epstein00:25:44 - Susan Collins00:26:41 - Tom Merritt on AI’s Impact on the Midterms01:07:49 - 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 renewed focus on Jeffrey Epstein has pulled Bill and Hillary Clinton back into a political posture they know better than almost anyone. Hillary Clinton’s decision to publicly challenge House Oversight Chair James Comer and call for a live, televised hearing was not defensive or impulsive. It was classic Clinton strategy. When scrutiny becomes unavoidable, they prefer exposure on their own terms rather than silence that allows suspicion to metastasize.This approach is rooted in decades of experience. From Arkansas through the White House years and into the post-presidency era, the Clintons have learned that retreat signals weakness. Engagement, even aggressive engagement, creates opportunities to reframe. By demanding a public forum, Hillary Clinton is betting that structure, preparation, and confidence outweigh the risk of unpredictable questioning. It is a wager based on a long track record.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.There is a widespread assumption that a public deposition would inevitably turn into a referendum on Donald Trump or spiral into uncontrollable chaos. I do not buy that. For such a moment to damage the Clintons meaningfully, Bill Clinton would have to concede proximity to wrongdoing he has denied for years. That would contradict every instinct the Clinton political machine has ever displayed.Instead, the more likely outcome is disciplined deflection. Epstein becomes a cautionary tale about elite misconduct broadly defined. Republicans become opportunists exploiting tragedy. Trump becomes the moral counterexample. This is not improvisation. It is choreography. The Clintons are exceptionally skilled at narrowing the scope of inquiry while expanding the scope of blame.What we are watching is not a reinvention, but a revival. The logic of the “vast right wing conspiracy” never disappeared. It simply went dormant. In moments like this, it reemerges because it still works with Democratic audiences inclined to see investigations as partisan weapons rather than truth-seeking exercises.That does not mean the Epstein issue goes away. It means it gets absorbed into a familiar frame where accountability is abstract and suspicion is redistributed. For Democrats privately uneasy about defending Bill Clinton, this strategy offers an escape hatch. For Republicans hoping for a decisive reckoning, it is a reminder of how resilient the Clintons remain under pressure.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:05:45 - Clintons00:24:37 - Update00:24:53 - Jobs00:28:15 - Maine Polls00:29:50 - Texas00:32:19 - Kirk Bado on the State of DC01:03:29 - Wrap-up (and Bonus Crazy Political Ad) 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

Texas has found itself in the spotlight over the past few days, and for pretty interesting reasons at that. First, we saw a Texas special election that flipped a deeply Republican district at the state level. In a seat Donald Trump carried by roughly 17 points, Democrats managed to pull off a low-turnout win. This was not a wave election, and pretending otherwise does not help anyone. Special elections are weird, electorates are tiny, and turnout models collapse. But the direction still matters.However, Republicans continue to rely on a coalition that is extremely Trump-centric. When he is not on the ballot, participation drops, especially among lower-propensity voters. Democrats, by contrast, have been showing up consistently in off-cycle contests. While that does not guarantee success in a general election year, it is enough to justify early anxiety. If Republicans cannot reliably mobilize their voters without Trump himself, Texas becomes less static than it has been for decades.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.That volatility should be a gift to Democrats. Instead, the Texas Democratic Senate primary is rapidly becoming a cautionary tale. Senator John Cornyn’s seat is up, Ken Paxton is leading on the Republican side, and Democrats should be salivating. Paxton is polarizing, ethically radioactive, and deeply divisive. In theory, this is the opening Democrats have been waiting for.In practice, the primary is turning ugly. James Talarico, a rising star with genuine crossover appeal, now finds himself in a five-alarm crisis after a viral allegation that he described Colin Allred as a “mediocre Black man” while expecting to face him in the race. The context, the intent, and the precise wording are now almost secondary. What matters is that the damage landed squarely where a Texas Democrat cannot afford it: trust with Black voters.Colin Allred’s response was not subtle. He went directly at Talarico, endorsed Jasmine Crockett, and framed the controversy as a racial and moral failing, not a messaging mistake. Talarico’s apology attempted to split the difference, acknowledging poor phrasing without directly calling the accuser a liar. That move may have been legally cautious, but politically it validated the outrage. With the primary weeks away and a runoff likely, Democrats are now locked into a prolonged intraparty fight that makes the eventual nominee weaker, not stronger.Zooming out, this is why Texas continues to torment Democrats. Structural conditions occasionally line up. Republican candidates overreach. Demographic change inches forward. But the moment opportunity appears, the coalition turns inward. Instead of clearing the field and running a disciplined campaign against Ken Paxton, Democrats are now litigating identity, intent, and trust in public.The tragedy here is not ideological. It is tactical. Texas Democrats do not need a perfect candidate. They need a boring one who does not give voters a reason to hesitate. Every additional week spent tearing down a potential nominee is a week Paxton gets for free. If Democrats manage to lose this race, it will not be because Texas is unwinnable. It will be because they couldn’t get out of their own way.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:37 - Drama in Texas00:18:02 - Michael Cohen on Texas, Midterms, and More00:38:36 - Update00:38:52 - Clintons00:41:00 - Shutdown00:43:15 - Republicans’ House Margin00:44:22 - Michael Cohen on Texas, Midterms, and More, con’t01:19:52 - 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

In the immediate aftermath of the fatal ICE shooting in Minneapolis, Senate Democrats are attempting to translate outrage into leverage. After a closed-door caucus, they emerged unified around a set of concrete demands tied to Homeland Security funding: tighter warrant requirements, bans on agents wearing masks, mandatory body cameras, visible identification, and a uniform code of conduct with independent investigations. These are not abstract reforms. They are specific guardrails aimed at slowing enforcement down and restoring a baseline of accountability.The politics here are brutal. Republicans are warning that reopening the funding package would stall it in the House, and they may be right. Any deal that ultimately passes will require Donald Trump’s explicit blessing, otherwise it dies before it clears the lower chamber. At this point, a partial government shutdown looks likely no matter what. The real strategic question for Democrats is prioritization. If they are forced to choose, which reform matters most. Masks. Warrants. Body cameras. They can’t win them all, and it’s up to them to determine which one is worth a shutdown fight.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Georgia, the 2020 Election, and Reopening Old ScarsAs if immigration were not volatile enough, the FBI executed a court-authorized search warrant at election offices in Fulton County, Georgia, seeking records related to the 2020 presidential election. The bureau confirmed the investigation is ongoing but offered no details. County officials acknowledged the focus on 2020 materials and declined further comment.Anything touching the 2020 election is radioactive. Anything touching Georgia is worse. This reopens the deepest fault line inside the state Republican Party, the one that pits Donald Trump against Governor Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Trump tried and failed to destroy both men politically, and they emerged stronger for it. Whenever 2020 resurfaces, that fragile détente collapses. Even without knowing where this investigation leads, the act of reopening the file guarantees renewed tension inside Georgia politics and fresh oxygen for conspiracy narratives.The Fed Holds Steady Under Growing PressureThe Federal Reserve held interest rates steady at 3.5 to 3.75 percent, signaling confidence in economic growth and a stabilizing labor market after three rate cuts late last year. The language shift mattered. The Fed removed references to rising employment risks and emphasized that rates are now near neutral. Chair Jerome Powell stressed that future decisions will be data-driven, not political.That reassurance comes amid extraordinary pressure. The Justice Department is investigating matters related to the Fed, the Supreme Court is weighing a case on presidential authority over the institution, and Donald Trump is nearing a decision on who he will nominate to succeed Powell. Two Trump-appointed governors dissented, favoring a quarter-point cut. Through it all, Powell insisted the Fed’s independence remains intact. Whether markets believe that as the political scrutiny intensifies is the question that now hangs over monetary policy.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:58 - Bill Scher on a Potential Gov Shutdown and Dem Primaries00:43:47 - Update00:44:18 - Democrat Demands for DHS00:46:17 - Fulton County FBI Investigation00:47:51 - Fed Rate Holds00:49:13 - Chris Cillizza on CBS News, Washington Post, and Modern Media01:41:01 - 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 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