Politics Politics Politics

In the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I needed to sit down and talk with you — just you and me. This isn’t a guest-heavy episode, there is no news roundup. This is something different. This is something more personal, more direct, and honestly, more painful. I want to talk about what this moment means, why it matters, and what we do next. Because we’re at a crossroads, and that road cuts directly through our online and offline realities in ways we can’t ignore anymore.Charlie Kirk was shot with a rifle while on stage at Utah Valley University. The shooter is still unidentified, and the motives are still unclear. But there’s no denying what that moment was meant to signal: if you talk like this, we’ll kill you. And while that “we” remains unknown, the message it sends is loud and clear. This wasn’t a private act of violence. This was political. This was a statement. And the target wasn’t just Kirk — it was anyone who might stand where he stood or say what he said.Kirk wasn’t someone I always agreed with, but I did see what he built. Turning Point USA grew into a major player, replacing many of the institutions that shaped college conservatism before him. He blended the Buckley model of organizing with the showmanship of Limbaugh and became influential not just in youth politics but in the Trump movement itself. His voice mattered. His platforms mattered. And whether or not you liked what he said, it’s impossible to ignore that many young conservatives saw themselves in him.So much of what’s happened since his death has disturbed me. The edgelords on the internet doing their worst, cracking jokes about the bullet that hit him, pretending he wasn’t a person with a wife and children — that’s not just tasteless, it’s dehumanizing. And when you dehumanize someone in death, you’re justifying violence against the living. It’s not a good look. It’s not principled. It’s cruelty dressed up as politics.We’ve seen attempts to paint political violence as something that only comes from one side, but that’s not how any of this works. Whether it’s a left-wing shooter or a right-wing pipe bomber, we’ve got to stop turning every horrific act into a team sport. Every time someone uses violence as a form of political speech, it pushes the line further, normalizes the unacceptable, and opens the door for more of it. And that’s the real danger — the escalation, the dehumanization, the cheapening of life itself.Now look, I understand that people hated Charlie Kirk, and saw him as a cartoon villain solely taking up space on the internet. But if your first instinct when someone is murdered is to dig up their worst take, maybe it’s time to reevaluate what you stand for. Did Kirk say provocative things? Sure. But we’re either going to live in a country where bad takes are met with debate or one where they’re met with bullets. And if it’s the latter, none of us — not me, not you — are safe.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Among those edgelords and the calls for retaliatory violence, though, I saw hope. A YouGov poll found that 78% of Americans think it’s unacceptable to celebrate the death of a public figure, even one they dislike, and only 9% answered in the affirmative. That’s good. That’s a big majority, especially in today’s political climate, and it points to a baseline of decency in this country that hasn’t been completely eroded by the internet’s worst tendencies.And then there was Cenk Uygur, the founder of The Young Turks and someone who battled Kirk publicly. He posted something beautiful, something real. He talked about sharing a beer with Kirk, about choosing unity over hate. That matters. Because it shows that humanity still exists across the aisle. That you can disagree without celebrating someone’s death. That maybe — just maybe — we can start tending our own gardens before trying to burn someone else’s to the ground.So, what do we do now? We lead by example. We reject political violence — loudly, clearly, and without exception. We treat each other like people, not caricatures. And we remember that even in a polarized world, the line between democracy and something far darker is thinner than we think. Let’s not cross it. Not now. Not ever.Chapters00:00 - Intro02:42 - Who was Charlie Kirk?07:40 - Reaction clips13:09 - Discourse23:08 - This is different30:26 - The internet is not real life37:44 - What now? 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

UPDATE: President Trump posts that Kirk is dead.UPDATE: Initial suspect not the shooter. Suspected shooter fired from 200 yards away. Still at large.This was originally filmed Wednesday afternoon on September 10th, 2025.TRANSCRIPT:Charlie Kirk, shot, condition unknown. Hello and welcome to the Politics, Politics, Politics Extra for what would be September 11th, 2025. Justin Robert Young joining you here. This one is going to be an abbreviated edition that we’re going to get early and we’re going to put out publicly because among all the news that is happening in the world of politics, there is one that is breaking right now, and that is Turning Point USA’s founder, Charlie Kirk, shot at a public event at Utah Valley University in what appears in video online to be an extraordinarily serious, if not likely fatal, assassination attempt. Assassination being specifically defined as a premeditated murder with political motives.And first and foremost, let me just say that all thoughts and prayers to Charlie Kirk and his family. He had a wife and two kids. Obviously, the details on his health will be forthcoming. I will keep an eye on social media as I record this to get you the latest information before I put this out. The reason why I wanted to do this right now is because oftentimes, when this happens, and you have a murderer who commits an act of unspeakable violence, it’s usually hard to map their motivations onto mainstream politics. And I make sure that those points are made because what I don’t want is for aberrant violence to cloud what is otherwise a public dialogue about advocacy, rights, faith, belief, and ultimately the American dream—the desire to live a life that is better than those that came before you and to create a pathway for somebody after you to lead an even better one.And while we don’t know what the motives are of this shooter (who looks to be at least the man who was detained in an extraordinarily public setting was an older white man) what we don’t know is his exact motives. It is hard, at least at this stage, and this is again breaking news, it would seem likely that Charlie Kirk was attempted to be executed, if not successfully executed, as a public sign that he is somebody who was too dangerous to live for political purposes. This was not an act of violence that was taken out in secret. This was done to cow, to show as a demonstration that this is what happens when you stick your head up. You should live and be afraid.Now, we don’t know that for sure. Maybe this guy was just deranged and, you know, he did have whatever bizarre motivations that are beyond the world of mainstream politics. Maybe. Maybe. And if that is indeed the case, the next time that I do a show, I will bring that to you. I will bring that context to you. But in this moment, right now, it sure doesn’t look like it.We’ll take a moment right now to understand Charlie Kirk’s significance on the political landscape. He is somebody that has a very important role in the conservative ecosystem. Not only has Turning Point USA been a tremendous organizer for conferences, for student activism, but also in this cycle wound up taking on a more traditional vendor role for voter registration and door knocking, something that many people didn’t really believe they had the experience to do. And yet it did seem to be at least successful, as much as you can credit a vendor for the success of something like the Trump campaign.He is an unabashed political conservative. He is somebody that comes from the Rush Limbaugh mold. He has been important in the world of Arizona politics, where he lived. And while I have certainly had my commentary on the Arizona Republican Party, there’s no doubt that he plays a large role in that.It’s hard to imagine where this goes beyond Charlie Kirk being a martyr, alive or dead, that will be held up as somebody who was slain by left-wing violence. That will be a large talking point in the media. Okay. There is no doubt that we are living in a world of heightened tension. And so all I will say to you, anyone who listens to my voice or watches this video, is my goal has always been to make you understand and comprehend how politics—the mechanism by which we enact democracy—can work for you. My goal is to highlight campaigns and strategies that are working and ones that are not working.Now, obviously, there’s a swashbuckling element for me that likes being right and likes being able to comprehend the system. But the utility for you that I’ve always wanted to offer when I call myself the scoreboard and not the pep rally is to give you an understanding so you can interact with this system the way that you want and get what you want out of it. I do not believe that political violence has any place in our world. To be totally honest, I would go even further than that. I don’t believe that you should be cutting people off out of your life that you politically disagree with. I believe that there needs to be healing. There needs to be dialogue with people that care about you. Not every random stranger on the internet needs a friend, but I’m talking about friends, family, people that enrich our lives. Because when we are cut off from them, we only wither. We become less than.And as somebody who spends an inordinate amount of time following politics and politicians, trust me when I tell you from the inside, it is not worth it to trade them for the people that you know and love. Not to be all Marianne Williamson here, but the only way that we climb our way out of a world that has weaponized hate to the point where something like this can happen is through caring for our fellow man. Nobody should get that mad at a podcast. Charlie Kirk did not elect Donald Trump. The people of America elected Donald Trump. Everybody had a small piece of it, but it is the people that willed in the person, and then everybody else takes credit for it afterward. Charlie Kirk might have been successful in speaking to an audience about issues that they cared about, but he did not invent the issues. Dare I say, nor did he necessarily shape them. He talked about them in a way that his audience wanted to hear it. Sometimes when you’re as influential as he is, you can introduce new ideas, but there’s no guarantee that they’re going to take. You’re offering them to a populace, and they decide whether or not they care. Anybody who’s been in this game for any amount of time knows that to be the truth.Silencing Charlie Kirk through murderous violence does not stop the ideas. In fact, it likely emboldens those that are looking to change the country in the way that Charlie Kirk is looking to change the country to do so. I wish I had a regular episode for you. Obviously, any plans that I had for Friday’s episode are kind of out of the window. We’ll figure out what we’re going to do for that. But until next time, just know this: for anybody who is listening or watching me, I very much treasure and appreciate your time. And I would just say, love each other. Thank you very much. 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

A Trumpian CollisionOver the weekend, Donald Trump addressed a pretty strange situation involving a Hyundai plant in Georgia. ICE conducted a raid there, detaining over 475 people allegedly working illegally — including over 200 South Korean nationals. The site’s still under construction, which makes the whole thing even weirder. There’s now an ongoing diplomatic mess as South Korea tries to repatriate those detained. Trump’s response hit both of his usual notes: yes to foreign investment, but also yes to enforcing immigration law. A rare moment where his priorities clash in real time.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Signs from Buenos AiresIn Argentina, President Javier Milei took a hit in the provincial elections in Buenos Aires. That’s often seen as a signal of what’s coming in the congressional races. While there’s been some economic improvement under his government, it’s clear he still has to fight off the Peronists. I don’t have enough background here to give you more than the headlines — I’ll need to bring on someone who actually follows Argentine politics. But if you’re tracking libertarian movements worldwide, this is one to watch.An Attempted Assassin Faces CourtOn Monday, the trial began for Ryan Wesley Routh, the man accused of trying to assassinate Donald Trump on a golf course last summer. He’s facing charges including attempted murder of a presidential candidate. Based on his online behavior — including attempts to recruit people to fight in Ukraine — he’s definitely a character. I don’t know how much of the trial will be public, but if past is prologue, he’s probably going to try and make a spectacle of it. Whether or not his lawyers let him is another question entirely.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:49 - Interview with Kirk Bado00:48:00 - Update00:48:19 - Immigration00:50:23 - Argentina00:51:21 - Trump Trial00:52:39 - Interview with Evan Scrimshaw01:48:28 - 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

There’s a growing expectation that the National Guard will soon be deployed to Chicago. It hasn’t happened yet, but signs are pointing to it. Several weeks ago, the Guard was sent into Washington, D.C., and now there’s enough time and distance to measure the results — carjackings down 80 percent, violent crime down over 30 percent. That’s not just coming from the White House. Muriel Bowser, the Democratic mayor of D.C., is also saying it. She doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of public sentiment. She’s even making overtures to the White House about keeping some form of Guard presence to avoid a crime snapback.But Washington is a special case. It’s a federal district, and its autonomy is only delegated by the government. Chicago is not. In a federal system, cities like Chicago are under the control of their state governments — in this case, the governor and mayor, neither of whom want the National Guard there. That’s what makes this next move, if it happens, such a flashpoint. If Trump sends in the Guard — and I do believe it’s a when, not an if — the legal and political battle will hinge on the how, the how many, and the where.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.And then there’s the question of when they leave. Lawsuits will be filed. Injunctions will be issued. But I’m convinced this is going to happen because it’s good politics for Trump. He sees the Nixon playbook from 1968 — using force to control urban unrest — and believes it worked then. He believes it’ll work now. And if you look at the RealClearPolitics numbers, there’s a logic to it.Trump is underwater by 9.3 points on foreign policy. On the economy, he’s down 11.5. On inflation, it’s nearly minus 20. The country doesn’t think he’s doing a good job on the issues that normally shape campaigns. Foreign policy numbers can shift — if hostages are released or a ceasefire happens in Ukraine, those could bounce. But economic sentiment is more stubborn. And the danger is that Trump falls into the same trap Biden did: saying the economy’s fine while people feel like it’s not.That disconnect isn’t abstract. It’s felt at the gas pump, at the grocery store. It’s the pain of realizing you don’t have the money to cover the tab, of pulling items from your cart while your kids ask why you’re crying. It’s a humiliating, personal experience, and telling people it’s not real only makes it worse. Trump’s not winning that argument.But he is closer on immigration. It’s loud, it’s polarizing, but he’s only down 1.3 points in aggregate. Polls in August were a split: tied in Harvard Harris and YouGov, down eight in Reuters, up ten in Morning Consult. Two ties, two outliers. For an issue that gets as much airtime as immigration, that kind of polling tells you Trump’s message still resonates.And then there’s crime. The only issue where Trump is in the black — plus one. That’s after the Guard was deployed to D.C. He sees this as the cornerstone of his pitch: what if government actually worked for you? What if America came first? He wants to frame Democrats as soft, as willing to defend criminals while waving spreadsheets that say crime is technically down. And he wants to pit that against your lived experience — that you don’t feel safe, that your neighbor’s car got broken into, that you hesitate before getting on the subway late at night.It’s federally illegal. I believe the courts will eventually force a pullback. But not before Trump gets the message out. Because on this issue, unlike all the others, the American people are with him.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:04:40 - Trump Crime Ratings00:13:31 - Update00:16:23 - RFK Jr.00:23:21 - Eric Adams00:26:42 - Free Press Deal00:31:11 - Interview with Jen Briney01:04:29 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The Prop 50 Messaging BlitzProposition 50 is one of the most nakedly strategic plays in this cycle. It exists for one purpose: to eliminate California’s independent redistricting board so Democrats can gerrymander five seats back — a direct response to Republicans doing the same in red states. That’s the whole game. Strip away the messaging, and it’s a power move. The ads hitting the airwaves now make it clear how the campaign is going to run: targeted, segmented, and intensely focused on turnout.Gavin Newsom’s out front, naturally. The first ad is just him — classic ego-forward strategy. The second ad is aimed squarely at the Bay Area and Los Angeles liberal base, the same model they used to win his recall election. It’s all about maximizing favorable turnout in deep blue pockets. They’ve run this play before, and they know it works — but back then, they had a longer runway. This time, they’re racing the clock.Then there’s the third ad. That one’s for the independents, and its existence tells you everything. The campaign knows that gutting an independent redistricting board is a tough sell outside the bubble. They say it’s temporary. I don’t buy that. Nobody gives up control once they get it — not in politics. The only way this doesn’t work is if moderates see through the language and call it what it is. That last ad shows they’re worried that might happen.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Jerry Nadler’s Long ExitJerry Nadler is stepping down after more than 30 years in Congress and 50 years in public office. He’s one of those figures who’s always just sort of been there — a Manhattan political mainstay who most recently made headlines during Trump’s first impeachment. That might end up being his most lasting national footprint. He barely held onto his seat after being redistricted into a brutal primary with Carolyn Maloney. He survived that one, but it felt like the end of something.Now he’s officially retiring. He says it’s time to pass the torch, and he’s backing his former aide, Michael Lasher, to take over. That makes sense. It’s a controlled handoff. The district will stay blue. The torch will stay in the family. Nadler might not have been the flashiest member of Congress, but he was consequential — particularly in the Judiciary Committee, where he held the gavel through some of the most heated partisan fights of the Trump era.He stepped aside from that leadership role after Jamie Raskin challenged him, and that felt like the start of the wind-down. There wasn’t really a lane left for him in this current version of the Democratic Party. He’s not the TikTok-friendly progressive, and he’s not the compromise-seeking centrist. He’s just an old-school liberal from New York. And now, like a lot of others in his generation, he’s finally closing the book.Virginia Foxx and the Epstein FilesRepresentative Virginia Foxx, chair of the House Rules Committee, announced she won’t use her panel to block Thomas Massie’s discharge petition demanding the release of the Epstein files. That’s a big move — maybe even a signal. The Republican leadership has been slow-rolling this whole thing, not wanting to get too close to whatever comes out of those documents. But Foxx just let it breathe.Massie’s move has bipartisan cover — he’s working with Democrat Ro Khanna — and it’s gaining momentum. Speaker Mike Johnson says he supports “maximum disclosure,” but that there need to be protections for victims. That’s the dodge. That’s how they’re all trying to walk this line — publicly in favor of transparency, privately praying it doesn’t land on their doorstep.The buzz on the Hill is that DOJ will release just enough of the Epstein files to make the issue go away. Maybe that works. Maybe not. But one thing’s clear: the discharge petition isn’t just symbolic anymore. It’s a real threat. And the fact that leadership isn’t moving to squash it says a lot about how much weaker those levers of control have gotten. Foxx’s choice here wasn’t just about process — it was a quiet acknowledgment that the old rules don’t apply. Not with this. Not anymore.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:25 - Interview with Dillon Fleharty00:45:49 - Update00:48:02 - Prop 50 ads00:53:05 - Jerry Nadler00:55:08 - Virginia Foxx00:56:47 - Interview with Dillon Fleharty, con’t01:35:24 - 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 Democratic National Committee just wrapped up its meeting in Minneapolis, and one of the big ideas floated behind closed doors was a midterm convention. The logic is clear. Democrats are dealing with a brand problem. They want to reset, energize, and show that the party still has fresh faces and energy. That means television time. That means spectacle. So: midterm convention. And I’m all for it. I would love to cover one. I love conventions. Give me a big show with music, lights, messaging — I’m there.I don’t know if Trump caught wind of this plan early or just read it when the story dropped, but it’s clear what happened next. He jumped on Truth Social and declared that the Republican Party would also hold a midterm convention. Because if the Democrats are getting a big TV moment, then he’s going to get one too — and he’s going to make it better. That’s how Trump operates. If you’re doing a spectacle, he’s doing a bigger one. The man knows television, and conventions are made-for-TV moments. So now we might have two of them.What would those look like? For the Democrats, expect the same tightly-scripted, ultra-managed production they’ve always delivered. Nobody does a convention script like the Democratic Party. For all their other dysfunctions, they know how to build a prime-time political package. The Republicans? Expect a Trump rally — but bigger, glossier, and even more overloaded with segments, guests, and applause lines. Multiple nights, probably. A celebration of Trumpism that looks less like a traditional political event and more like an awards show.The Path to a Shutdown is ClearMeanwhile, Axios also reported that Democratic leaders in Congress have landed on their key demand to avoid a government shutdown: the reversal of Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill. And this is where things get interesting. Because while I’m not here to defend either side — I come from media, not partisanship — I can tell you that this is exactly the kind of story that drives conservatives crazy. This is what fuels the belief that the media covers these fights with blinders on. Because here’s the reality: Democrats want to shut down the government. They are choosing this. They want a shutdown — not because they think it will solve something, but because they think it’s a strong midterm frame.That frame is Medicaid cuts. Specifically, Medicaid cuts for rural hospitals. That’s the message. Not the whole bill, not the fiscal fight — just the healthcare piece. That’s the issue they believe will mobilize their base and let them go on offense. So everything that happens next, from press statements to floor speeches, is about setting up that narrative. The Republicans will try to pass a continuing resolution. Democrats will have to decide: do they agree, or do they shut it down?I don’t think Schumer or Jeffries can survive politically if they don’t let their caucus go through with this. That’s the point we’ve reached. The shutdown is happening, and this is why. The date to watch is September 30 — that’s when the funding runs out. And unless a miracle happens, we’re going to see this showdown play out just like they’ve mapped it. And the messaging is already here. Elizabeth Warren said, “If Republicans want Democrats to provide votes to fund the Trump administration, they can start by restoring the health care they ripped away to finance more tax handouts for billionaires.” That’s the line. That’s the campaign.It’s already baked in. Democrats sent a letter to Speaker Johnson and Senator Thune saying this has to be bipartisan — while knowing full well that their demands are nonstarters. It’s the same dynamic we’ve seen from Republicans in the past: throw out a demand that won’t be met, use the denial to justify the shutdown. The only difference is that Democrats usually don’t do this. But this isn’t the same Democratic Party as it used to be, now is it?Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:06:42 - Midterm Conventions00:09:35 - Dems Shutdown Plan00:15:34 - Update and Minneapolis Shooting00:18:28 - Epstein00:22:56 - CDC00:24:33 - Mark Teixeira00:27:01 - Interview with Howard Mortman01:04:10- 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

But I don’t want to focus on the Democrats right now. I want to focus on the Republican Party because one of the big things that’s going to shape the midterms — which, make no mistake, are going to be nationalized — is how the American public feels about the GOP. That includes the party’s overall image, the fact that they currently hold the House, Senate, and the White House, and the role of Donald Trump as president. Historically, that’s usually the kiss of death in a midterm. The public looks at single-party control and, whether consciously or not, pulls back a bit. It’s a check on power, and more often than not, it happens.I still believe, sitting here in late August of 2025, that Democrats are in a good position to take the House back in 2026. The redistricting mess adds some chaos, but even assuming that plays out neutrally or slightly in their favor, the historical precedent is clear — they should be competitive. That said, if we were heading toward something other than a typical midterm correction, you’d start to see signs. Not signs that Democrats are collapsing — that’s already evident in other areas — but signs that voters are unusually comfortable with Republican governance.And you know what? Those signs are there.If I had to judge the early terrain by three hard metrics, I’d go with national fundraising, party registration, and the president’s approval rating. Let’s start with the money. The Republican National Committee currently has $65 million in cash on hand. That’s not an overwhelming total, but it’s strong — especially with a year to go. More importantly, it’s four times what the Democratic National Committee has. The DNC is sitting on just $15 million. That gap alone is bad enough, but it gets worse when you factor in spending decisions like Proposition 50 in California. That fight — to temporarily override the independent redistricting commission — is going to vacuum up cash from the same organizations and donors who would otherwise be investing in House flips. So the Democrats are undercapitalized, and they’re committing resources to side projects.Then there’s registration data. According to a recent New York Times report, Democrats have lost 2.4 million registered voters in swing states that track party affiliation. In the same set of states, Republicans have gained nearly that same amount. That’s a five million voter swing. It’s not just that Democrats are losing — Republicans are growing. That kind of shift doesn’t usually happen in the middle of a polarizing presidency. People don’t suddenly start checking the box for the incumbent party unless something is resonating. And considering the kind of term Donald Trump is having — rapid policy implementation, constant headline churn, immigration crackdowns, inflation waves, even distractions like the Epstein debacle — you’d expect backlash. Instead, you get a net positive in party affiliation.That brings us to approval ratings. Trump’s RealClearPolitics average stands at 46.3 percent. He’s still underwater, with 50.8 percent disapproving. But let’s add context. That number is higher than Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or even Ronald Reagan had at this same point in their second terms. That’s unusual. And while being underwater is never ideal, that 4.5-point spread is about what you’d expect for Trump when you factor in how he’s consistently undercounted in national polling. And the range of poll results is all over the map — Rasmussen has him up one, Harvard Harris has him down two, YouGov has him down 12, and Gallup just released a poll with him down 16. But even Gallup’s number is an improvement from previous weeks, which suggests that Trump’s “tough on crime” stance — especially in DC — is landing.So when I step back and look at the full picture, what I see is a Republican Party that isn’t being punished. That might sound basic, but it’s a big deal. Historically, you’d expect that by now — with the administration moving aggressively, Democrats hammering every misstep, and inflation rising — the electorate would be turning. But instead, Republicans have a funding advantage, a registration advantage, and a president who’s polling better than most of his second-term predecessors.That doesn’t mean they’re going to hold the House. The historical pattern still favors Democrats picking up seats. But it does mean that the GOP is better positioned than it has any right to be under these circumstances. And if your theory of the midterms is based on Trump’s agenda — the one big, beautiful bill, cutting Medicaid, handing out tax breaks, and all the rest — then you have to reckon with the fact that, at least for now, it isn’t hurting them. Maybe that changes. But if this were going to backfire, I would have liked to have seen a little something from it by now.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:04:20 - Early Midterms Thoughts00:16:21 - Update00:16:42 - Abigail Spanberger00:23:47 - Trump’s Chinese Students Plan00:27:55 - Lisa Cook00:33:54 - Interview with Amanda Nelson01:26:10 - 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

Katie Porter's Surge in the California Governor RaceWith Kamala Harris opting out of a gubernatorial run, Katie Porter is reaping the benefits. New polling from Politico shows Porter pulling ahead, with 30 percent of Harris's former supporters now backing her. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra trail behind at 16 and 11 percent, respectively. Porter's advantage comes from her visibility and defined ideology — she’s well known and clearly positioned on the progressive spectrum.California's jungle primary system means all candidates run on the same ballot, and the top two — regardless of party — face off in the general. Right now, two Republicans are splitting their share of the vote, which adds up to something in the thirties. Porter is in the driver’s seat, but with that comes the expectation of incoming fire. Her reputation for detail and sharp questioning in Congress could cut both ways — she's admired for precision but rumored to have a temper and staff issues that may resurface.If you ask me, I'd rather be in her shoes than anyone else’s in this race. Governor Porter is no longer a long shot — she's a top contender. Sure, she's not universally loved, and her style is a sharp contrast to someone like Gavin Newsom, who leans more on charisma than policy depth. But Porter's grounded, process-oriented approach might resonate with voters ready for a different kind of leadership. It's early — but she's clearly in the lead.The Freedom Caucus ExodusChip Roy is heading home — not just to Texas, but into the state attorney general race. He’s leaving behind his role in the House and with it, another domino falls in the dissolution of the Freedom Caucus. He’s not alone. Byron Donalds is going for Florida governor. Barry Moore wants a Senate seat in Alabama. Ralph Norman is aiming for South Carolina’s governor’s mansion. The list goes on — and the pattern is clear.These were the hardliners — the names you heard when Speaker fights broke out or when high-stakes votes were in play. Now, they’re moving on, seeking promotions or exits. The Freedom Caucus’ influence, once loud and obstructive, is quietly fading. They all bent the knee to Trump eventually, and now it seems like they’re cashing out or repositioning for relevance in state politics.In Texas, the AG job is a powerful one. Ken Paxton used it as a springboard and wielded it aggressively. If Roy wins, expect more of that hard-edged, action-first governance. But nationally, their exodus signals something more — the end of a chapter. The Freedom Caucus isn’t what it was, and its main voices are scattering. Their watch has ended.Tulsi Gabbard's Deep State OverhaulTulsi Gabbard, now Director of National Intelligence, has unveiled ODNI 2.0 — a major restructuring plan that slashes staff and consolidates units focused on countering foreign influence and cyber threats. The goal is to cut $700 million annually — a bold move, but one in line with this administration’s mission to slim down government operations. It’s another signal that this White House doesn’t operate under old assumptions.The intelligence world, long a target of Trumpian criticism, is being gutted — not just for size but for perceived bias. There’s a strong undercurrent here about the so-called deep state and its relationship with the press. This move isn’t just administrative — it’s cultural. It’s about information control. Gabbard is targeting the pipelines that leak classified narratives to shape public perception.Living in D.C., you feel the impact of this. It’s a company town — when the company is laying off hundreds, the town shifts. Longer happy hours. People breaking leases. Uncertainty hanging in the air. But if you're in this administration, it’s not about sympathy. It’s about loyalty — or the lack thereof. And for many who see Trump as the duly elected CEO of the U.S. government, trimming the fat is justice, not politics.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:43 - Interview with Alex Isenstadt00:27:40 - Update00:28:54 - Katie Porter00:31:49 - Chip Roy00:34:28 - Gabbard Cuts00:41:23 - Interview with Evan Scrimshaw01:31:52 - 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

Graham Plattner is running for Senate in Maine. He’s not a career politician. He’s not a household name. He’s a newcomer, and he’s coming in with the kind of video that’s designed to break through the noise. It’s everything you’d expect from someone trying to signal that they’re different — kettlebell lifting, scuba diving, oyster farming, military gear. This is Fetterman-core, and I mean that in the pre-stroke, media-savvy, meme-friendly way. It’s intentionally loud, intentionally masculine, and intentionally designed to get people talking.But this isn’t just a vibe campaign. Plattner’s already built a real team. He’s working with the same media shop that did ads for Zohran Mamdani in New York and helped elect Fetterman in Pennsylvania. These aren’t DCCC types. They’re insurgent operatives with a history of getting attention — and winning. That tells me Plattner’s not just here to make a point. He’s running to win. And in a state like Maine, where ideological boundaries don’t map neatly onto party lines, he might actually have a shot.Democratic leadership, though, has other plans. Chuck Schumer and his operation would clearly prefer Janet Mills. She’s the sitting governor, she’s 77 years old, and she’d walk into the race with a national fundraising network already behind her. But that’s exactly the kind of candidate a guy like Plattner is built to run against. If she enters, it turns this race into a referendum on the Democratic establishment. And it gives Susan Collins exactly what she wants: two Democrats locked in a bitter primary while she gears up for a calm general election campaign.Maine is weird politically. I don’t mean that as an insult — I mean it’s unpredictable in a way that defies national modeling. This is a state that elects independents, splits tickets, and shrugs at coastal assumptions. A candidate like Plattner, who’s running a progressive but culturally savvy campaign, could actually catch fire. He’s already signaling that he’s not going to run from the Second Amendment — which would make him a unicorn among progressives — and he seems to get that guns, culture, and economic populism all intersect here in a way that’s not neat or clean.It’s early, and most people outside the state probably haven’t even heard of him. But he’s getting coverage. And he’s trying to frame himself as the guy who will show up everywhere — from left-wing podcasts to centrist fundraisers to gun ranges in rural districts. If he pulls it off, it won’t just be a Maine story. It’ll be a signal that Democrats are still capable of producing candidates who can speak across class and cultural lines without watering down the message. We’ll see if he holds up under pressure.Trump, Zelensky, and the Shape of a Ukraine DealTrump’s pushing a peace summit with Russia and Ukraine, and the location that’s gained traction is Budapest. That’s not a random choice. Budapest is where Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees that turned out to be meaningless. Putin invaded anyway. So now, years later, trying to broker a peace deal in that same city feels almost poetic — or cynical, depending on how you look at it. Macron wants Geneva. Putin wants Moscow. Orbán, who runs Hungary, is offering Budapest as neutral turf. That offer seems to be sticking.The terms of the talks are shifting. Zelensky isn’t being required to agree to a ceasefire before negotiations begin — which is a major departure from the Biden administration’s stance. Trump’s team seems to believe that real movement can happen only if you start talking now, without preconditions. That’s risky. But it’s also more flexible. The Russians are now suggesting they might accept something like NATO-style security guarantees for Ukraine — just without the name “NATO.” That’s a big shift. If they’re serious, it opens up a lane for something that looks like independence and protection without triggering all-out war.Zelensky, for his part, is in a bind. His approval rating has dropped. His party just lost ground. The economy is on life support. And the longer the war goes on, the harder it is to keep Ukrainians fully on board with total resistance. That’s not a moral failing — it’s exhaustion. What Ukraine wants now, more than anything, is certainty. If they’re going to give up territory — and no one’s saying that out loud, but everyone’s thinking it — then they want to know they’ll never have to fight this war again. That’s where the Article 5-style guarantees come in.Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, is reportedly testing those waters. And Marco Rubio said the quiet part out loud — that if Ukraine can get real security commitments in exchange for ending the war, it’s worth exploring. This isn’t the “bleed Russia dry” strategy the Biden administration backed. That was about regime change through attrition. This is something else. It’s about containment, closure, and trying to make sure the region doesn’t explode again five years down the line.No one’s pretending this is clean. Crimea isn’t coming back. Parts of the Donbas are going to remain contested forever. But if a deal gets Ukraine real protection, even without NATO branding, and gets Russia out of the areas it’s willing to surrender, that’s movement. And right now, movement is the only thing that separates this from another decade of trench warfare and broken promises. Whether it holds is anyone’s guess. But it’s on the table now — and for the first time in a long time, that actually matters.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:04:42 - Maine Midterms00:18:08 - Update00:19:04 - Trilateral Meetin00:30:04 - DC Fed Takeover00:33:24 - Epstein Files00:36:00 - Interview with Alex Epstein01:34:40 - 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

A short update this week while I’m on the road. Trump will join European leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, for an emergency virtual summit Wednesday ahead of his Friday meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska. The talks, organized by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, will focus on pressuring Russia, addressing seized Ukrainian territory, securing guarantees for Kyiv, and sequencing peace talks. Merz insists on a ceasefire before any negotiations or land swaps, and Europe is pushing for stronger sanctions on Russia’s banking sector. Three sessions will bring together EU leaders, NATO chief Mark Rutte, Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Ukraine’s military backers. I’ve been struck by how closely Europe and NATO are aligned with Trump here — but we’ve been down this road with Putin before. He’s not a trustworthy guy. My bet is Zelensky ends up in the summit, and Trump pushes for a wrap-up.Meanwhile, the Teamsters Union, long a Democratic stronghold, is broadening its political giving under President Sean O’Brien, donating to Republicans as well. It’s a big story — a sign that Democrats’ hold on organized labor’s money and loyalty is eroding, and it’s going to be something we need to watch as we move forward.Finally, a judge denied the DOJ’s request to unseal grand jury material in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, saying the public would learn little new. The DOJ’s handling — including interviewing Maxwell, transferring her to a less restrictive prison, and not notifying victims — has sparked outrage. The public want more answers, but it’s unclear what new revelations could satisfy that demand. Would naming names in exchange for a pardon be worth it? That’s the moral trade-off now on the table.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:00 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, pt. 100:30:00 - Update00:34:24 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, pt. 200:57:46 - 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

Netanyahu’s latest move isn’t subtle. He wants Israel to take full control of the Gaza Strip — dismantle Hamas, free hostages, and install a non-Hamas civilian government. On paper, it sounds like a decisive endgame. In practice, it’s a minefield. The UN, the UK, and even some of Israel’s own military leaders are warning this could be catastrophic, both humanitarian and legal. We’re talking about tens of thousands of troops pushing into Gaza City, uprooting a million residents to the south, and expanding a controversial aid network that’s already replacing the UN in distribution.I can’t say I’m shocked. From the moment October 7th happened, this was always one of the plausible end states — Hamas removed from power entirely. What I didn’t anticipate was Iran’s weakened state factoring into the timing, or the fact that Israel might see that as a green light to act more aggressively. The trouble is, any operation that moves into the areas where hostages are held risks killing them outright. That’s going to split Israel politically, because it forces a brutal question: if you were willing to risk their deaths now, why didn’t you do it immediately after the attack?And that’s before you even get to the problem of what comes after. Hamas leaders can’t make a deal and then just go live quietly in Gaza. They’d have to leave. But where? You don’t walk away from martyrdom rhetoric on Monday and spend Tuesday at Mario World in Orlando. Gaza under Hamas isn’t just a state — it’s a criminal syndicate, and that makes any negotiated exit almost impossible. Which means, if this plan goes forward, it’s going to be bloody, messy, and controversial from the start.Trump’s Putin PlayTrump’s continuing to signal he’ll meet with Putin “very soon,” possibly in the UAE. Early talk was that Zelensky would be part of a three-way summit, but Trump has apparently dropped that stipulation. Predictably, the Kremlin is treating this like a win, while critics warn it could legitimize Russia’s aggression and undermine NATO. That’s the Beltway framing.From what I’m hearing, it’s not that simple. Trump has actually been harder on Putin lately than some people realize — moving nuclear subs into range, green-lighting sanctions, and generally signaling that he’s done being strung along. This isn’t 2018 Helsinki. It might be Trump testing whether Putin will only make a deal after feeling genuine pressure.None of this means a breakthrough is coming. It probably isn’t. But it does mean Trump wants to own the narrative — that he’s the guy who ends wars through direct negotiation. And until Ukraine or Gaza is resolved, his foreign policy record will feel incomplete. I think he knows that, and I think that’s why this meeting’s on the table at all.FBI Assisting in Locating Texas DemsIn Texas, the Democratic walkout drama is back, with Senator John Cornyn confirming the FBI is helping locate them. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker is playing host, calling the state’s collection of Democrats “refugees,” which is absurd. They’re not refugees. They’re political props in his own long-term campaign plans.Here’s the thing — if you believe in what you’re doing, you should want to get arrested. That would make this story bigger, not smaller. It’s the most potent form of protest they’ve got. Instead, they’re hiding out in hotels, funded by Beto O’Rourke’s PAC, doing nothing to energize the very voters they’re supposedly defending.They could be knocking on doors in the districts that are about to be carved up, rallying people who are about to lose representation. If they got dragged back to Austin by Texas Rangers in the middle of that, it’d be front-page news. Instead, we’ve got photo ops in Chicago. It’s the same mistake they made in 2021 — swapping a real fight for a symbolic one, and then acting surprised when nothing changes.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:48 - Interview with Michael Cohen and Tom Merritt00:21:29 - Update00:21:57 - Gaza00:29:30 - Trump and Putin00:32:41 - Texas Dems00:36:07 - Interview with Michael Cohen and Tom Merritt (con't)01:01:12 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Texas is right outside my window. I live just a short drive away from the statehouse, and yet, I’m physically closer to it than most of the Texas Democratic Party right now. Because while redistricting votes are going down, they’ve skipped town. Some are in Chicago, some in New York, some who-knows-where. They’re avoiding quorum on a vote that could give Republicans five more congressional seats in the next midterms. That might sound dramatic, but the stakes are that high. This isn’t about making a point. This is about shaping the entire balance of the House.Let’s set aside the tired talking points about whether gerrymandering is good or bad, or whether California and Illinois are just as guilty. I don’t want to have that conversation right now. I want to talk about the Democrats in this state — the ones who keep losing, keep retreating, and somehow keep thinking that symbolic resistance is a strategy. It’s not. It’s performance. And worse, it signals to Texas liberals that their party isn’t willing to stand and fight. Not even in the state they claim to want to flip.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Texas doesn’t see itself as part of a broader movement. It sees itself as Texas. It doesn’t think of itself like the South, and it sure as hell doesn’t take cues from New York or Illinois. If you want to win here, you have to respect that. You have to show up and deliver for voters — on Texas terms. And skipping town because you’re mad about a vote doesn’t read like courage. It reads like cowardice. It says you don’t believe in the fight enough to have it on home turf.Democrats did the same thing back in 2021 over a voting rights bill. They went to D.C., got tons of national media, and nothing changed. In fact, they lost ground. Their already thin hold in the statehouse got thinner. Republicans strengthened their grip. So this idea that leaving the state is some kind of protest with teeth is pure fantasy. It’s been tried. It failed. And now they’re doing it again — not with new tactics, not with a new message, just the same tired escape hatch.What could they have done instead? I’ve got an idea. Take those same 50 Democrats and spend 72 hours barnstorming the neighborhoods that are about to be gerrymandered out of blue representation. Knock doors. Shake hands. Livestream the whole thing. Go to Frisco, Plano, East Houston, McAllen, Pflugerville, the Fifth Ward, and tell people what’s happening. Tell them they’re losing their voice in the Texas legislature. Register voters on the spot. Raise money. Make noise. Make it impossible to ignore you because you’re in Texas, not because you fled it.You want a viral image? Try getting hauled back to the Capitol in a Texas Ranger squad car. That’s real drama. That’s a story that cuts through. And it puts a spotlight on the very system you're protesting. But instead, we get hotel bar selfies in Albany — and no movement on the map that’s about to tilt the state even further red. The public doesn’t want passive resistance. They want a fight. And Texas voters — especially liberals — want to believe that their side still knows how to throw a punch.It’s not enough to blame the system. You have to build a response that feels real, rooted, and local. Texas is a massive media market. It’s expensive to campaign here. But if you don’t make Republicans spend, if you don’t at least make it look like a fight, they’ll never take you seriously, and they’ll never pay the price. Right now, all the Democrats have shown is that they’re not even willing to lose the right way.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:00 - Texas00:13:46 - Update00:14:29 - Treasury Secretary 00:19:36 - Gaza00:24:36 - Moon-based Nuclear Reactor00:26:31 - Interview with Kirk Bado01:23:11 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Georgia’s back in play, and this time it’s John Ossoff’s seat on the line. Everyone remembers how both Senate seats flipped blue in 2020, arguably the biggest down-ballot upset of that cycle. Now Ossoff is up for re-election, and while a lot of people in Democratic circles have high hopes for him, I’m not one of them. I think he’s competent, but in a low-turnout election, he’s vulnerable — especially against a Republican who can straddle the MAGA base and suburban swing voters. And the one guy who could have done that with ease? Brian Kemp. But Kemp says he’s out.That opens the door to speculation — and apparently, to Derek Dooley. I didn’t believe it at first. Dooley is a football coach. He’s never held elected office, never coached a team in Georgia, and hasn’t been politically active in any public sense. But people in Kemp’s orbit kept saying his name. Supposedly, he’s a close family friend. That’s fine. It just doesn’t make him Senate material. Especially not in a race where Georgia Republicans need a serious contender to take out an incumbent Democrat.Meanwhile, Buddy Carter and Mike Collins have both declared. Of the two, Collins has more momentum. People I talk to say Kemp World isn’t enthusiastic about rallying behind Dooley, and they’re not thrilled about having to realign with someone new. Collins could benefit from that vacuum — especially if he secures Trump’s endorsement. And if Kemp doesn’t step back in or offer a viable replacement, Collins may very well end up the nominee.The tension between Trump and Kemp adds another layer. These two have never been close — their feud goes back to Georgia’s certification of the 2020 election and the high-profile primaries that followed. Trump tried to run challengers against both Kemp and Brad Raffensperger, and they destroyed them. So if Trump goes all-in on Collins, and Kemp World is still wandering around trying to sell people on Dooley, it’s going to be a messy primary.But let’s game it out. If Dooley fizzles and Collins gets hot, then by the fall, we might be looking at Mike Collins versus Jon Ossoff in a high-stakes Senate race. Collins will make Ossoff answer for the border, for crime, and for culture war issues like trans athletes — all while wrapping himself in the Lake and Riley Act. That law, named after a murder victim killed by an undocumented immigrant, is going to be the core of his messaging. It’s brutal. It’s effective. And it could work.Still, there’s one wild card left: Brian Kemp himself. He made his announcement back in April, but if the economy is strong and the polling is tight come Thanksgiving, could he reconsider? Stranger things have happened. And Kemp is the only Republican in Georgia with a proven statewide machine, broad appeal, and a serious shot at clearing the field. If he’s still lurking in the background, this race isn’t over. In fact, it hasn’t even started.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:40 - Georgia Senate Race00:20:32 - Update00:20:54 - Kamala Harris00:24:06 - South Korea Trade Deal00:26:24 - Trump’s White House Ballroom00:28:07 - Interview with Josh Jennings01:18:15 - 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

Trump signed an executive order last week that could fundamentally reframe the way the federal government deals with homelessness. Titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets,” the order pivots away from housing-first strategies and toward public safety and mandatory treatment. That includes prioritizing funding for states and cities that ban urban camping, loitering, and open drug use, and it supports civil commitment — involuntary hospitalization for those with severe mental illness or addiction. Harm reduction programs are effectively defunded under this order, and treatment becomes a prerequisite for federal help.This didn’t get a lot of attention in the media. That’s a mistake. Homelessness is one of the most visible problems in American cities, and it’s not going away. I’ve lived in Oakland, San Francisco, and Austin — three cities that have all struggled mightily with this issue. San Francisco in particular is the worst I’ve seen. It’s not hyperbole to say that its homelessness crisis overshadows the city’s stunning architecture and rich culture. Visitors walk away talking about tents, not the Golden Gate Bridge.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.This isn’t a lecture about policy. I don’t think there’s an easy solution. From everything I’ve read and seen, roughly half of people living on the streets are there because of financial collapse — bad luck, bad decisions, and no safety net. The other half, though, don’t want to reenter society. Some of them are dangerous, many are mentally ill, and addiction is everywhere. That’s especially true in places like the Bay Area, where cheap or even free drugs are plentiful, and the spiral from one substance to the next ends in death more often than we acknowledge.Even in liberal cities, the political lines are shifting. When I moved to Austin in 2021, the city had rescinded its ban on urban camping. The results were immediate: tents on sidewalks, more street homelessness, and public parks taken over. A citywide referendum eventually reinstated the ban — not because Austin became more conservative, but because people across the political spectrum wanted cleaner streets. They didn’t necessarily care how it happened. That’s the political space Trump’s executive order moves into.It’s controversial, yes. And there are real concerns about forcing treatment and stripping funding from programs that do help some people. But the public mood is changing. People are frustrated. They want their cities back, and they’re running out of patience for ideological purity tests. Trump, love him or hate him, is filling a leadership vacuum here. I don’t know if his order will work — or if it’ll be implemented at all in places that oppose him. But I do think it’s a sign that this issue is far from settled, and it’s about to get a lot more attention.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:09 - Trump’s Homelessness Plan00:14:56 - Update00:15:18 - EPA Rollbacks00:20:09 - North Carolina00:23:12 - Epstein00:26:58 - Interview with Dan Turrentine00:59:56 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

I just spent three hours watching Hunter Biden, and I have a lot of thoughts. The interview, done by Andrew Callahan for Channel 5, is something like a confessional crossed with a stand-up set crossed with a Twitter thread that never ends. It’s raw, it’s chaotic, and weirdly, it’s compelling. If you’re a politics junkie, a media analyst, or just curious about the human side of scandal, there’s a lot to pick apart.First off, the man is online. Not just vaguely aware of what’s being said about him — he’s terminally online. He knows the jokes, the subtext, the usernames. I’m convinced he has burner accounts. He’s tracking how people talk about him in real time, and it bleeds through every answer. He’s got a list — Tapper, the Pod Save crew, Alex Jones, Stephen Miller, and on and on. He names names, and he torches them. It’s Seth Rollins with a flamethrower.But what’s interesting is how seriously he talks about addiction, sobriety, and crack — yes, crack specifically. He draws lines between drugs, dives into the stigma, and explains how being labeled a “crack addict” shaped public perception of him. These are by far the most honest and lucid parts of the interview. And they reveal someone who’s done the work of recovery — while still slipping into the old reflexes of deflection when the political heat turns up.He has this quote about “an evil symbiosis between money and power” — and I couldn’t help but think, does he hear himself? He’s talking about systems he’s literally a product of. And yet, he stays focused on everyone else’s money. When he brings someone up, it’s almost always first by how rich they are. Soros, Tapper, Bannon — doesn’t matter who it is, the cash comes first. There’s this constant undercurrent of scorekeeping.He also confirms, in his way, that the laptop is real — then turns around and champions the “hallmarks of Russian disinfo” letter like it was gospel. The tension never resolves. He owns up to some things, skirts others, and delivers just enough contradiction to keep everyone debating. Even when he talks about Burisma, he says the quiet part out loud: “I had connections.” That’s the trick, the real reason he was on that board. And he knows it.What stuck with me, though, was his resentment. Not anger — that’s expected — but a deep, lingering bitterness toward the people he feels used him, abandoned him, or dismissed him. It gives the whole interview a kind of edge that goes beyond politics. When he talks about the media, about Democrats who’ve distanced themselves, or even about his father, there’s a tension. Like he’s still waiting for someone to publicly say they screwed him over. He wants vindication as much as he wants attention.And that’s where it lands. This wasn’t an attempt to reset the narrative — it was a live demo of the very chaos people accuse him of embodying. He wants to be understood, but not too clearly. He wants to admit things, but only on his terms. He wants to lash out, but still come off sympathetic. It’s maddening, self-aware, and oddly human. If anything, the interview shows us who Hunter Biden is — and exactly why nobody in the Democratic Party knows what to do with him.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:09 - Epstein00:05:56 - Hunter Biden00:32:18 - Update00:33:34 - NC Senate Race00:36:40 - Wisconsin Gov. Seat00:38:19 - Florida Redistricting00:39:08 - Interview with Mary Ellen Klas01:17:30 - 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

We’re heading into another potential government shutdown, and the maneuvering is already underway. Schumer is strategizing with his caucus on how to handle the September 30 deadline. It’s a familiar script: Democrats want Republicans to commit to avoiding additional rescissions and to agree on the broader budget process before Democrats give their votes. The ask isn’t outrageous — a few basic guarantees in exchange for the seven Democratic votes Republicans would need to hit the 60-vote threshold in the Senate.The tension, of course, is baked in. Some Democrats want to force a shutdown, not avoid one. They think it’s time to show their base that they’ll stand up to Trump and his agenda. But Schumer doesn’t want to lose the optics war. If Democrats are the ones who initiate a shutdown, he knows they’ll never be able to claim the high road again when Republicans try the same play. That framing matters — especially in an election year.Meanwhile, Republicans are eager to push another round of budget cuts. They already passed an $8 billion rescissions package and want more. That’s what Schumer is trying to block, while also keeping his own party from turning a funding debate into a loyalty test. It’s a messy balancing act, and the countdown has already started.Public Media Hits a WallEdith Chapin stepping down from NPR is getting attention, but the real story is the billion-dollar rescission Congress just passed — a cut directly targeting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That’s the pot of money that gets divided among outlets like NPR and PBS. Chapin insists her departure isn’t related, and maybe that’s true. Thirteen years is a long run. Still, the timing speaks volumes.For years, public media has downplayed its reliance on federal dollars. They’d argue they only receive about 1% of their funding from the government, so budget cuts shouldn’t matter. But now that Congress has actually slashed that funding, the narrative changes. If they’re not publicly funded in any meaningful way, how do they survive? And if they are, then why haven’t they done a better job of building public goodwill to protect that funding?I don’t think the model holds up much longer. If you rely on taxpayer money, you have to make your case — constantly. You have to give people something they can see, something they can repeat. You can’t just be vague and institutional and assume the funding will continue. It’s not the ’90s anymore. The party’s ending, and there’s a new bartender who’s ready to close the tab.UNESCO and the American PullbackAnd then there’s UNESCO. Trump is pulling the U.S. out of the UN’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — again. It’s a reversal of a reversal from his first term. He says it’s too “woke,” too biased, too ineffective. Whatever the justification, it fits a larger pattern: the U.S. retreating from its role as primary funder of global institutions.There’s always a debate about whether this kind of move opens the door for China to step in and fill the void. That argument has merit. But I’ll say to UNESCO what I said to public media: if you depend on the American public — directly or indirectly — for your funding and relevance, then you have to win public support. You have to tell your story well, and often. You have to make people care.Some of these global organizations got comfortable. They assumed the checks would keep coming, and the U.S. would always foot the bill. But now they’re running out of room. The music’s fading. And if they can’t answer why they matter in plain language, they’ll find themselves cut off without much fanfare.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:25 - Justin’s BART Experience00:08:52 - Interview with Michael Tracey00:39:40 - Update00:40:17 - Gov’t Shutdown?00:43:32 - NPR00:45:09 - UNESCO00:47:35 - Interview with Michael Tracey, con’t01:18:40 - 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

Let’s talk about Liberation Day — and more importantly, how it’s going to end. Back in April, Trump rolled out what looked like a trade war on steroids: a flurry of tariffs aimed at countries big and small, with no clear structure except for one thing — disruption. It was pitched as a three-pronged strategy. First, if you want to sell into the U.S., we should be able to sell into your markets too. Second, we need to re-onshore American manufacturing. And third — and let’s be honest, this was the loudest part — Trump wins.For a minute, it wasn’t clear whether this was a real attempt to fundamentally restructure trade or just a way to set the stage for a bunch of “deals” later. The tariffs went out, the clock started, and everyone was told they had until August to make a deal or face serious costs. And yet, here we are in mid-July with just two completed agreements: Vietnam and the UK. None of the big players — China, the EU, Japan, Canada, Mexico — are done. So the question becomes, what’s the endgame?Here’s what I’ve been told: the White House is prepping a three-phase process that’s all about creating the appearance of momentum. Phase one is joint statements — political handshake documents, not legally binding deals. These are meant to say, “Hey, we’re working on it, don’t hit us with the tariffs yet.” It’s what they did with the UK, and it’s what they want from everyone else by early August. These aren’t trade agreements. They’re vibes.Phase two is an interim agreement — maybe 40 to 50 pages, with some of the real trade language baked in. This is where you’ll start seeing things like rules of origin pop up — basically, making sure countries like China can’t skirt tariffs by routing goods through friendlier ports. It’s technical, it’s dry, and it takes time, but it’s a necessary step toward real enforcement.And phase three, the big one, comes way down the road — probably after the midterms. These are the actual full trade agreements, hundreds of pages long, with all the boring but essential rules locked in. But here’s the twist: if you think countries will bother going through phase two and three after they’ve already locked in the tariff rate during phase one, you’re missing the enforcement tool — Section 232. The White House is making it clear: if you slack off, we’ll start making noise. We’ll investigate. We’ll embarrass you. Think Mexican tomatoes — everybody knows they’re breaking the rules, and we’ve just been letting it slide. But not anymore.So when all these joint agreements start rolling out at the end of this month, remember what they are: theater. The deals are political stunts to buy time, stabilize markets, and let Trump declare victory. The real work — the real meat — comes later. And that’s how Liberation Day ends. Not with a bang, but with a bunch of bullet-pointed PDFs.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:05 - How does Liberation Day end?00:16:24 - Interview with Jack Gamble00:41:30 - Update00:41:46 - Epstein Discharge Petition00:50:44 - Virginia Polls00:52:18 - Rescissions Package Passage00:53:36 - Interview with Jack Gamble (con't)01:15:25 - 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

Andrew Cuomo is still trying to matter.That’s the clearest takeaway from his latest appearance — a campaign reboot so empty and unconvincing it bordered on parody. After blowing a 60-point lead in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor to Zohran Mamdani, Cuomo continues to operate as if he didn’t just have — and squander — his best shot. It wasn’t a close race. It wasn’t an upset. It was a humiliation, and it made Mamdani a star. Cuomo didn’t just lose; he handed the spotlight to the person who beat him.What’s most baffling is Cuomo’s unwillingness to run as anything other than himself. His latest ad is a watered-down version of Mamdani’s campaign. Mamdani talked to people across the city about affordability — and even if his ideas were divisive, they were ideas. Cuomo’s pitch? Affordability. No vision. No contrast. Just a stale echo of a message he neither originated nor sharpened. If Cuomo wanted to offer something Mamdani couldn’t, he had options. He could’ve leaned into public safety, into the fear felt by many New Yorkers. He could’ve campaigned from a synagogue, framed himself as the candidate who would safeguard Jewish communities, and tied Mamdani to the left wing of the party in a way that forced a choice. Instead, we got nothing.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.There’s no attack line, no clear point of differentiation. Cuomo could’ve said: this is de Blasio 2.0. He could’ve framed Mamdani as a performance artist backed by a failed administration. He didn’t. Instead, he gave voters a lifeless, mimicry-driven campaign with no policy edge. And that brings us to what he is actually running on: his name. For a sliver of voters — the “Cuomosexuals” who liked Mario, liked Andrew, maybe even liked Chris — that might be enough. But for everyone else, Cuomo looks like a man clinging to a legacy that no longer serves him.This also highlights why “Stop ‘X’ Candidate” movements almost never work. Ego ruins coordination. Eric Adams isn’t dropping out — he’s the sitting mayor. Cuomo still acts like running is beneath him. Curtis Sliwa isn’t a serious enough contender to pull votes in a general election. And despite the specter of Mamdani's ideology frightening national Democrats, no consensus candidate has emerged. If there were a moderate Republican hedge fund type — pro-choice, socially liberal — that person could shake things up. But they don’t exist here. Not this cycle.Ultimately, national Republicans are thrilled. They see Mamdani as a gift. Mike Johnson and Donald Trump will seize on his victory to cast New York as the face of socialism in America — a symbol of excess, decline, and failed progressivism. It’s a setup for the midterms. They’re ready to prey on any misstep, real or imagined. And unless something changes fast, the ‘Stop Zohran’ movement isn’t materializing. Not because it couldn’t — but because no one in the race knows how to make it happen. Cuomo had his chance. He whiffed.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:37 - Cuomo Stays in NYC Race00:11:36 - Update00:12:05 - Inflation Report00:15:26 - Recissions Package00:18:45 - Israel00:19:55 - Interview with Emily Jashinsky00:59:15 - 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

As the 2026 election cycle takes shape, three stories signal how the political terrain is shifting: the return of Iowa to early-state relevance, the emergence of an independent challenge in Nebraska, and the Republican Party’s willingness to get aggressive — fast.Iowa Democrats are pushing to reclaim their first-in-the-nation status — and they’re doing it with or without national party approval. Senator Ruben Gallego is already promoting visits, and the message is clear: Iowa is back. For Democrats, this matters. The state has long served as a proving ground for insurgent campaigns, offering low costs, civic-minded voters, and a tight-knit media ecosystem. Barack Obama’s 2008 breakthrough began in Iowa for a reason. It rewards organization, retail politics, and real ground games.The party’s 2024 decision to downgrade Iowa was framed as a gesture to Black voters in states like South Carolina and Georgia. In reality, it was a strategic retreat by Joe Biden to avoid a poor showing. That backfired when Dean Phillips forced an awkward New Hampshire campaign and Biden had to rely on a write-in effort. Now, Iowa’s utility is being rediscovered — not because it changed, but because the party's strategy failed. For candidates who want to win on message and mechanics, Iowa remains unmatched.In Nebraska, Dan Osborne is trying to chart a different kind of path — not as a Democrat, but as an independent with populist instincts. Running against Senator Pete Ricketts, Osborne is leaning into a class-focused campaign. His ads channel a blue-collar ethos: punching walls, working with his hands, and taking on the rich. He doesn’t have to answer for Biden. He doesn’t have to pick sides in old partisan fights. He just has to be relatable and viable.That independence could be Osborne’s biggest asset — or his biggest liability. His support for Bernie Sanders invites the question: is he a true outsider, or a Democrat in disguise? Sanders has always caucused with Democrats and run on their ticket. Osborne will have to prove he can remain politically distinct while tapping into a coalition broad enough to win in a deeply red state. Nebraska voters might give him a chance, but they’ll need a reason to believe he’s not just another version of what they already know.And then there’s the tone of the campaign itself. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is already running attack ads that border on X-rated. A recent spot reads aloud hashtags from a sexually explicit tweet in a bid to link opponents with cultural extremes. The strategy is clear: bypass policy, bypass biography — go straight for discomfort. Make voters associate the opposition with something taboo. Make the election feel like a moral emergency.These tactics aren’t about persuasion. They’re about turnout. They aim to harden the base, suppress moderates, and flood the discourse with outrage. The fact that it’s happening this early suggests Republicans see 2026 as a high-stakes cycle where no race can be taken for granted. And if this is how they’re starting, the tone by next summer could be even more toxic.All of this — Iowa’s return, Osborne’s challenge, the NRSC’s messaging — points to a midterm cycle already in motion. The personalities are distinct. The tactics are evolving. But the stakes, as ever, are the same: power, perception, and the battle to define the political future before anyone casts a vote.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:56 - Midterm Ads00:15:18 - Interview with Dave Levinthal00:37:31 - Update00:38:11 - Ken Paxton and the Texas Senate Race00:43:02 - Congressional Districts00:47:31 - Fed Chair00:52:42 - Interview with Dave Levinthal (con’t)01:11:22 - 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 Justice Department under Donald Trump has formally closed its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. In a memo posted quietly to its website, the department declared there would be no new charges, and reaffirmed its conclusion that Epstein died by suicide. It’s a familiar ending — one that satisfied almost no one — but it also lit the fuse on a slow-burning political problem within Trump’s cabinet.At the center of it is Pam Bondi, Trump’s Attorney General, whose handling of the situation has been anything but decisive. Her tone during a recent cabinet meeting was defensive and evasive, and her history with this issue isn’t helping. Bondi has previously courted controversy by summoning social media influencers, handing them binders on Epstein, and pushing them in front of cameras. That kind of theater backfires when questions grow more serious. And as I said on the podcast — she’s getting fired. It’s not official yet, but the countdown has begun.Bondi’s standing is further weakened by reports of internal rifts. According to journalist Tara Palmeri, there’s tension between Bondi and figures like Dan Bongino and Kash Patel — names with significant sway over Trump’s perception of media battles and political threats. Add to that the fact that Bondi keeps attracting headlines Trump doesn’t want, and you have a recipe for dismissal. Trump, perhaps more than any modern political figure, watches the television coverage as a barometer of competence. And right now, Bondi’s airtime is working against her.None of this, of course, brings clarity to the Epstein case itself. As someone who followed the story when it was still a South Florida curiosity, long before it became national scandal, I’ll tell you this — there are more questions than answers, and most of them will remain unanswered. There’s been speculation Epstein was connected to intelligence services, that his travels and access were part of something larger. Maybe. I don’t know. But if there is some shadowy list of powerful clients, no administration — not Trump’s first, not Biden’s, and apparently not Trump’s second — has been willing to expose it.What’s more likely is something simpler, and grimmer. Epstein had money. He had access. And he knew how to exploit both to surround himself with women — some underage, many vulnerable — through a recruitment structure that has been thoroughly documented. I don’t buy the cleaner narrative that he was a glorified pimp operating on behalf of presidents and princes. It’s more disturbing than that: he didn’t need to offer favors. He created an ecosystem where abuse flourished because no one had the will or incentive to stop it.So where does Trump fit in? Despite the conspiracies, there’s never been strong evidence that Trump was entangled in Epstein’s criminal world. Did they know each other? Absolutely. They were two rich men in West Palm Beach — their social paths inevitably crossed. But the idea that Trump needed Epstein for access to women doesn’t add up. Trump, at the height of his fame, ran beauty pageants and a hit TV show. The Pipeline of Pliable Women was already installed. If anything, Trump’s problem with Epstein isn’t guilt — it’s optics. Being in the same orbit, in hindsight, was bad enough.And that’s the heart of the issue now. Trump doesn’t want this story back in the headlines. He doesn’t want cabinet officials stumbling on camera, reviving suspicions, or dragging his name back into the Epstein muck. The DOJ statement was supposed to close the book. Pam Bondi — with her missteps and misreads — may have accidentally ripped it back open. If Trump’s watching the coverage, he’s likely already decided: she’s more trouble than she’s worth.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:52 - Epstein Case Closed00:16:06 - Update00:16:47 - Elon’s America Party00:21:36 - AI Marco00:24:25 - Tariff Deal Deadline00:26:13 - Interview with Juliegrace Brufke00:56:36 - 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