Avsnitt
-
In a Truth Social post on Thursday, President Donald Trump declared that "the golden age of America has just begun." He touted his administration’s early successes and emphasized that his newly assembled cabinet is focused on cost-cutting measures and staffing decisions, with the Department of Government Efficiency — colloquially known as "DOGE" — playing a central role.
According to Trump, his administration will take a "scalpel rather than the hatchet" approach to reducing government waste. He praised Elon Musk and DOGE for their efforts in streamlining operations, stating that his team would be conducting biweekly meetings to assess and refine their approach.
However, the speed and aggressiveness of the administration’s restructuring efforts have not gone unnoticed. Over the past 48 hours, there has been a discernible shift — a brake pumping, if you will — on the administration’s initial velocity. Reports suggest that Attorney General Pam Bondi recently presented Trump with binders labeled Epstein files, only for him to realize that most of the information was already publicly available. The implication? There may be an effort to control the chaotic rollout of these reforms.
Behind the scenes, Chief of Staff Suzy Wiles appears to be taking on a stabilizing role. She remains largely unquoted in the press, but her influence is evident. While no one can dictate Trump’s decisions, if there is anyone capable of channeling his impulses into a more structured path, it is likely Wiles.
The Challenge of Government Reform
Polling data presents mixed signals for the administration’s strategy. While government reform remains broadly popular, Elon Musk himself does not poll particularly well. Moreover, while fiscal responsibility is a winning message, mass firings are unpopular, especially when they disrupt essential services.
Some of the layoffs initiated by DOGE have drawn minimal public sympathy, such as the widely ridiculed case of a Yosemite employee responsible for bathroom keys. But other cuts have raised alarm, like the reported downsizing at the National Weather Service. This agency is crucial not only for routine weather forecasts but also for emergency alerts, particularly with tornado and hurricane seasons approaching in the coming months.
If the administration is now signaling a more measured approach, it may be an acknowledgment that they have tested the limits of public tolerance for aggressive government downsizing. Silicon Valley's ethos values rapid iteration, but that approach does not always translate well to governance. In the tech world, listing a feature that doesn't yet exist isn’t necessarily misleading if it eventually becomes reality. However, in government, making sweeping announcements without a clear plan can create the perception of recklessness rather than innovation.
This shift in tone suggests that the administration is attempting to move away from the narrative that it is slashing government with reckless abandon. Instead, the messaging now emphasizes precision: cutting waste while retaining key personnel and essential services. Whether this recalibration is enough to change the public perception is a question for another day.
One clear indication of this shift is a new push in Congress. Senate Republicans are urging legislative action to codify DOGE’s spending cuts, following a court ruling that limits the department’s unilateral authority. While some lawmakers have praised Musk’s efforts, others, including Senator Rand Paul, have cautioned that major spending cuts should be handled through Congress rather than executive fiat. Senator Lindsey Graham, a supporter of DOGE, has acknowledged its flaws and has encouraged a more structured approach through legislative rescission.
The Coming Battle Over Rescission
One term that is about to become more prominent in political discourse is rescission. While it may sound similar to reconciliation, the two are entirely different budgetary mechanisms. Rescission allows the president to formally request that Congress cancel previously approved federal spending.
Here’s how the process works:
* The president submits a rescission proposal to Congress, specifying funds to be cut.
* Congress has 45 days of continuous session to approve the request. Importantly, approval only requires a simple majority in both chambers, meaning it bypasses the 60-vote Senate filibuster.
* If Congress approves, the specified funds are canceled, preventing the executive branch from spending them. If Congress rejects or ignores the proposal, the funds remain intact.
The significance of this approach is that it moves beyond the constitutional gray area of unilateral executive spending cuts. Instead of DOGE simply slashing budgets at the departmental level, rescission would put the matter before Congress, potentially giving the cuts more permanence.
According to reports, Musk was convinced to support this approach after Lindsey Graham pointed out that any cuts made solely at the department level could easily be reversed by a future Democratic administration. A congressional rescission, however, would be far more difficult to undo.
While this approach is unlikely to balance the budget overnight, it represents a strategic shift. It acknowledges the reality that sweeping cuts cannot be imposed without some level of congressional buy-in. The debate now moves to Capitol Hill, where budget hawks may find it difficult to oppose targeted spending reductions, even as Democrats push back.
The Trump administration is attempting to walk a fine line: maintaining its image as bold reformers while avoiding the perception of recklessness. The rescission package will likely be controversial, and its success will depend on whether Trump and his allies can frame it as a necessary step toward fiscal responsibility rather than an indiscriminate assault on government programs.
As this battle unfolds, the administration’s challenge will be proving that it can not only take risks but also manage them effectively. Whether that message resonates with the public — and with Congress — will determine the next phase of Trump’s government efficiency crusade.
Chapters
00:00:00 - Intro
00:02:03 - Trump’s DOGE Post
00:08:25 - Codifying Rescission
00:12:36 - Update intro
00:13:43 - Al Green’s Censure
00:17:25 - Hunter Biden’s Financial Struggles
00:21:13 - More Tariff Twists
00:24:47 - Interview with J.D. Durkin
00:58:34 - 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 -
Last night, Donald Trump delivered a speech that, while technically a joint address to Congress, carried all the hallmarks of a campaign-style event filled with made-for-TV moments, emotional appeals, and strategic messaging. Let’s break down what happened.
Trump’s Optimistic Tone: A Departure from "American Carnage"
One of the most surprising takeaways from the speech was Trump's notably optimistic tone. Historically, Trump has thrived on highlighting crises, framing America as a nation in peril, in need of his leadership to "fix it." This time, however, there was a shift. He painted a picture of a country that was on the verge of a new golden era, offering solutions rather than just grievances.
While still aggressive in his direct call-outs — pointing at specific politicians and criticizing their policies — Trump's rhetoric was more forward-facing. Whether one believes his words or not, the tone of his message was clear: We’re going to be okay, and here’s why.
The Democrats' Disjointed Strategy
If Trump’s address was an exercise in tight, focused messaging, the Democratic response was anything but. There appeared to be an internal divide on how to handle the moment. Leadership suggested a visual strategy, having members bring a “plus one,” specifically fired federal workers, to highlight job losses under Trump. But instead of a powerful display, the execution was lackluster.
What Democrats mostly did was hold up small signs with messages like “False”, “Protect Medicaid”, and “Fire Musk.” These signs echoed previous protest tactics, like Rashida Tlaib’s “War Criminal” sign when Netanyahu spoke. However, instead of appearing unified and strong, it made them look like they were following a playbook set by a single faction of the party rather than presenting a broad, compelling counterargument.
Al Green’s Yelling and the Optics Battle
The lack of a coherent Democratic strategy was further highlighted when Rep. Al Green (D-TX) stood up mid-speech and began yelling, though it was unclear what he was yelling about. The 77-year-old congressman was eventually escorted out, but the visual of an elderly man angrily shouting and then leaving quietly did little to make an impact.
Trump, anticipating resistance, built a line into his speech about how Democrats would refuse to stand or cheer for anything he said. True to form, many Democrats remained seated during moments that, at least on camera, appeared universally positive. The optics of the party looking grumpy and disengaged while Trump supporters clapped and cheered was, at best, a missed opportunity.
Policy Highlights: Inflation, Tariffs, and Open Borders
Trump’s speech hit several key policy points, starting with inflation, a topic polling shows as a top voter concern. His approach? Blame Biden and promise that lowering fuel costs through increased drilling would lower overall prices.
He also reaffirmed his stance on tariffs, arguing that protectionist policies would bring jobs back to America. However, as Justin pointed out, this messaging could be tricky. If tariffs are seen as inflationary, they could directly contradict his economic promises.
Immigration was another focus, with Trump highlighting border security as one of his administration’s major successes. While migration levels have significantly decreased, he took full credit for the decline, presenting it as a unilateral victory.
The Made-for-TV Moments
This address will likely be remembered more for its emotional and strategic moments than for its policy substance. Trump repeatedly leaned into personal stories, putting everyday Americans in the spotlight. Among the most notable:
* A Mother of a Murdered 12-Year-Old – Trump honored a grieving mother whose son was killed by gang members, announcing the renaming of an animal sanctuary in her child’s honor.
* A Young Female Athlete and Transgender Sports Debate – He highlighted a female volleyball player who suffered a head injury from a transgender opponent, a move that played directly into the right’s ongoing cultural battles over women's sports.
* A Cancer Survivor Turned Secret Service Member – In a surprise moment, Trump announced that a 13-year-old pediatric cancer survivor was being made an honorary Secret Service agent, prompting an emotional response.
* A Military Legacy Continues – A young man from a military family was told, on stage, that he was being accepted into West Point — yet another moment of surprise designed for maximum emotional impact.
* Afghanistan and ISIS-K – Perhaps the biggest bombshell was Trump’s announcement that the mastermind behind the ISIS-K attack that killed 13 U.S. service members in Afghanistan had been captured and was being extradited.
Polling and Public Perception
In the immediate aftermath, polling suggested the speech played well. A CNN snap poll showed 69% of speech watchers viewed it positively. A CBS YouGov poll reported that 68% of respondents felt “hopeful” after the speech, while only 16% felt “angry.” These numbers suggest that even some Democrats who tuned in didn’t find the address entirely off-putting.
However, the real test will come in the weeks ahead. Trump’s messaging was disciplined and effective, but whether it translates into a meaningful shift in public opinion remains to be seen.
Final Thoughts: The Democrats' Strategic Void
Trump may have dominated the night, but the bigger question is: What is the Democratic strategy? Right now, it seems like their approach is to hope Trump makes mistakes. But hope isn’t a plan, and as Justin Young notes, failing to engage effectively in key political moments like this could spell trouble in November.
As the 2024 election approaches, one thing is clear: If Democrats don’t sharpen their messaging, Trump is going to keep winning the optics battle.
Chapters
00:00 - Intro
08:19 - Trump’s Opening Remarks and Al Green’s Removal
16:02 - Trump’s Relationship with Democrats and Biden
19:39 - Trump’s Comments on Inflation
22:04 - DOGE and Open Borders
33:23 - Made-for-TV Moments
41:19 - Abbey Gate, Ukraine, and the Democrats’ Reactions
48:39 - Final Thoughts
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 -
Saknas det avsnitt?
-
The United States has officially imposed broad tariffs on two of its largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico, marking one of the most aggressive trade measures in recent history. With potential economic fallout looming, world leaders, economists, and businesses are scrambling to assess the impact of President Donald Trump’s latest move.
From Trade Deals to Trade Wars: How We Got Here
During Trump’s first term, his administration took a mixed approach to tariffs. While he aggressively targeted China with import duties — many of which remain under President Biden — his strategy with Canada and Mexico was more nuanced. Initial tariffs on specific industries such as lumber, steel, and aluminum eventually gave way to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a revised version of NAFTA that stabilized trade relations.
However, with Trump back in the White House, he has revived concerns over trade imbalances, particularly with Canada and Mexico. On January 20th, Inauguration Day, Trump signed an executive order launching a review of USMCA, with findings due in April. But before that process could unfold, he moved forward with major tariff increases.
On February 1st, Trump announced two executive orders imposing sweeping tariffs. Canadian imports now face a 25% tariff, with a lower 10% tariff on energy exports like oil and gas. Mexico has been hit with a flat 25% tariff on all imports. Though negotiations initially delayed the tariffs by 30 days, they have now gone into full effect, shaking up a $1.3 trillion annual trade relationship.
To justify the tariffs, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a legal framework typically used for sanctions. He linked the move to national security concerns, specifically citing fentanyl trafficking and illegal immigration.
Sweeping Tariffs Hit North America Hard
The response from Canada and Mexico has been swift and severe. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau condemned the tariffs as "absolutely unacceptable" and unveiled a $30 billion retaliatory tariff package, with plans for an additional $125 billion in tariffs within 21 days if the dispute is not resolved. Several Canadian provinces have announced bans on U.S. products, pulling American wine, beer, and liquor off store shelves.
In Mexico, President Claudia Sheinbaum issued a sharp protest but has not yet outlined a formal retaliation. However, Mexican officials have signaled that they may target key U.S. industries, including soybeans, pork, and beef exports.
Domestically, the tariff decision has sparked significant economic concern. Stock markets tumbled following the announcement, and major retailers like Target and Best Buy have warned that prices on imported goods will rise sharply, with businesses passing the cost onto consumers.
Economists overwhelmingly predict inflationary pressure, warning that tariffs could lead to a U.S. recession and further damage trade relations. The automotive industry is expected to see major price hikes, as will sectors reliant on steel and aluminum, energy resources, agriculture, and consumer goods such as electronics, clothing, and household appliances.
Trump’s Endgame: Tough Negotiation or Economic Gamble?
These tariffs will likely be felt most harshly by Canada and Mexico, as the United States is their largest export market. Seventy-five percent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., while for Mexico, that number is even higher at 80%. By limiting these exports, Trump is exerting maximum pressure on both countries, but the strategy raises significant questions.
Is he using tariffs as leverage to renegotiate USMCA? Does he expect Canada and Mexico to cave under economic strain? Or is this a broader shift toward economic protectionism, despite warnings from economists?
Trump’s decision could make or break his administration. While his supporters may see the move as a strong stance against unfair trade practices, rising prices and economic downturns could alienate voters — especially those who supported him for his stance on inflation control. The coming months will reveal whether these tariffs are a negotiation tool or a long-term policy shift. For now, both the U.S. and its North American neighbors brace for an economic showdown.
Chapters
* 00:00:00 - Introduction
* 00:02:39 - Ukraine Mineral Deal Fallout
* 00:06:35 - The Impact of Tariffs on Trade Relations
* 00:17:22 - Consequences of Tariffs on the Economy
* 00:22:15 - Interview with Bill Scher
* 00:58:09 - Update introduction
* 01:00:13 - J.D. Vance’s European Controversy
* 01:03:02 - GOP Government Funding Bill
* 01:04:48 - Democrats’ Plans to Protest Trump’s Speech
* 01:08:00 - Interview with Katie Harbath
* 01:45:25 - Outro
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
In a dramatic turn of events last Friday, an Oval Office press conference meant to signal unity between the U.S. and Ukraine spiraled into an unanticipated disaster. What was supposed to be a step toward solidifying a peace negotiation framework with Russia instead resulted in the unraveling of a crucial minerals-for-aid deal. The fallout has raised pressing questions about the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations, President Trump’s foreign policy, and Ukraine’s ability to sustain its war efforts.
The Lead-Up: A Fragile Partnership
To understand the significance of last Friday’s debacle, it’s essential to examine the events leading up to it. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a seasoned political operator, has long been reliant on U.S. support. Despite initial tensions, particularly regarding Biden’s approval of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, the Ukraine-U.S. relationship strengthened in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion. The Biden administration’s vocal support and military aid were critical in keeping Ukraine afloat.
However, Zelenskyy has never shied away from playing hardball in the American political arena, a strategy that has at times put him at odds with U.S. leaders. His aggressive advocacy for Ukraine, including his willingness to publicly challenge U.S. decisions, set the stage for what would become a deeply consequential clash with the Trump administration.
The Minerals-for-Aid Deal: A Shaky Foundation
One of the most underreported aspects of Friday’s breakdown was the origins of the proposed minerals-for-aid agreement. Contrary to some portrayals, this wasn’t a Trump-led shakedown—it was an idea first floated by Zelenskyy himself in October 2024. His proposal sought to leverage Ukraine’s vast rare-earth mineral reserves, essential for advanced technology and defense systems, in exchange for long-term U.S. and European support.
The Trump administration seized on this idea, seeing it as a way to justify continued investment in Ukraine while securing critical materials. However, negotiations faltered. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and a delegation, including Senator JD Vance and Marco Rubio, attempted to finalize the agreement in multiple rounds of talks. Zelenskyy, at one point, appeared ready to sign—only to later insist on additional approvals from Ukraine’s parliament, frustrating Trump and his team.
The Press Conference Meltdown
The diplomatic strain reached its breaking point at the White House. The stage was set for Zelenskyy and Trump to present a united front and sign the minerals deal. Instead, what followed was an unexpectedly confrontational exchange that unraveled months of negotiation.
The first warning signs appeared when Zelenskyy openly bristled at Trump’s references to Russian casualties, signaling an underlying frustration with the framing of the discussion. Tensions escalated when Zelenskyy, rather than using the platform to solidify the agreement, engaged in an impromptu challenge to JD Vance regarding U.S. support for Ukraine.
Key moments included:
* Trump’s unexpected commitments: Despite accusations that his administration is soft on Russia, Trump pledged continued arms shipments to Ukraine and even left the door open for U.S. troops participating in a peacekeeping force.
* Zelenskyy’s misstep: His attempt to push for additional reparations from Russia, while politically sound, was ill-timed given the fragile state of negotiations.
* The breaking point: A contentious back-and-forth between Zelenskyy and Vance, initiated by Zelenskyy, derailed the proceedings. Within hours, the deal was dead.
The Fallout: A Win for Moscow?
The failure to secure an agreement is a major setback for Ukraine. Without a clear U.S. commitment, European nations may hesitate to maintain their full-throated support, wary of straining relations with Washington. Meanwhile, Russia stands to benefit from any cracks in the Western alliance’s stance on Ukraine.
For Trump, the incident may not be the political liability that critics assume. Polling suggests that a majority of Americans remain skeptical of prolonged foreign military commitments. His stance, which aligns with a broader shift toward isolationism within the Republican Party, is unlikely to cost him significant political capital.
What Happens Next?
Despite the disastrous turn of events, all hope is not lost. The underlying incentives for a deal remain strong—Ukraine needs U.S. support, and the U.S. has a strategic interest in securing rare-earth minerals.
* Will Zelenskyy make amends? His best course of action may be to reopen negotiations, perhaps even making a direct appeal to Trump at Mar-a-Lago.
* Can Europe fill the gap? In the immediate term, European leaders, including France and the UK, are trying to reassure Ukraine, but their ability to replace U.S. support remains in question.
* Will the Trump administration re-engage? The White House has signaled that the door is not entirely closed. Treasury Secretary Bessent has expressed confidence that an agreement can still be reached.
Friday’s Oval Office debacle was a textbook case of diplomatic miscalculation. Zelenskyy, known for his sharp political instincts, overplayed his hand at a critical moment, while Trump’s characteristic unpredictability added to the chaos. The result was a self-inflicted wound for Ukraine at a time when it can least afford uncertainty.
In the coming weeks, the world will watch closely to see if this was a temporary setback or a turning point in the war. One thing is certain—Ukraine cannot afford another misstep.
Chapters
* 00:00:00 - Introduction
* 00:02:28 - The Build-Up to Friday’s Trump-Zelenskyy Meeting
* 00:20:20 - The Meeting at the Oval Office
* 00:59:04 - Reactions and Fallout
* 01:10:39 - Wrap-up
Trump-Zelenskyy Takes:
* Zelensky Has Behaved Honorably. He Should Now Resign. - Richard Hanania's Newsletter
* Trump and Zelensky: How We Got Here - Gabe Fleisher
* Zelensky's White House meltdown - Michael Tracey
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 -
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi recently released a set of documents titled the Epstein Files: Phase One, which were expected to shed new light on the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s extensive network and illicit activities. However, the heavily redacted documents primarily contained information already available to the public, leading to significant criticism.
Following the document release, Bondi sent a stern letter to FBI Director Kash Patel, accusing the FBI’s New York field office of withholding thousands of pages of additional records related to the Epstein investigation. She stated that despite assurances that all Epstein-related files had been provided, she quickly learned of the existence of more material.
Bondi demanded the release of all remaining records—documents, audio, and video—by 8 a.m. on February 28th. Additionally, she announced an internal investigation into the handling of these files and instructed Patel to propose personnel action within two weeks.
The document release quickly turned into a social media firestorm. Several influencers, including Libs of TikTok owner Chaya Raichik, Mike Cernovich, Jessica Reed Kraus of House Inhabit, and Chad Prather, were photographed at the White House holding binders labeled Epstein Files Phase One.
This sparked outrage, with many questioning why these influencers had early access to the files while they were not made publicly available online. Others, particularly those who have long followed the Epstein case, downplayed the release, arguing that these files contained little new information.
The controversy extended beyond social media, as members of Congress expressed frustration over the handling of the files. The House Judiciary Committee mocked the situation by posting a fake link to the Epstein files—only to rickroll their audience. Meanwhile, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who is involved in declassifying public secrets, stated that she had not been provided access to the documents before their release, raising concerns about poor coordination within the Justice Department.
The release of Phase One has left more questions than answers. While Bondi insists that additional documents exist and must be made public, the disorganized rollout has fueled skepticism. Some remain hopeful that new, previously unknown details about Epstein's network will eventually surface. For now, the public is left with confusing and frustrating news—but potentially more revelations on the horizon.
Chapters
* 00:00:00 - Introduction
* 00:03:00 - Stephen A. Smith’s Potential Presidential Run
* 00:16:12 - Keir Starmer
* 00:19:51 - The Epstein Files Debacle
* 00:24:10 - USAID Fallout
* 00:25:55 - Interview with Claire Meynial on CPAC, Europe, and Ukraine
* 01:02:09 - Wrap-up
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
Sixteen years ago, CNBC commentator Rick Santelli stood on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and delivered an impassioned rant against federal plans to bail out struggling homeowners. “Do we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages?” he shouted, calling for a “Chicago Tea Party” to protest government intervention.
That moment became the rallying cry for a movement that would reshape conservative politics, define opposition to the Obama presidency, and eventually evolve into the MAGA movement that has since won the White House twice.
Lately, the Tea Party has been on my mind because of the way political movements are often dismissed by their opponents. In liberal circles, one word was frequently used to wave off the Tea Party: astroturf.
“This isn’t a grassroots movement,” critics insisted. “It’s funded by billionaires to look like a populist uprising.” After all, it started on CNBC—hardly a blue-collar favorite.
But that’s not the whole story. And now, in 2024, astroturfing accusations are being hurled in the opposite direction.
Last week, Republican Rep. Rich McCormick of Georgia faced a hostile crowd at a town hall in Roswell. The moment (captured in a widely circulated video) showed Democrats in his district voicing their frustration, pushing back forcefully against GOP policies.
In response, conservatives dismissed the backlash as manufactured outrage, a coordinated effort by the so-called “deep state” to rattle the Republican establishment.
Sound familiar?
To understand whether today’s Democratic anger is real or manufactured, it’s worth looking back at how the Tea Party took shape.
While Santelli’s on-air rant is widely credited with sparking the Tea Party, grassroots opposition to Obama’s policies had already begun. Keli Carender, a blogger in Seattle, organized an anti-stimulus protest even before Santelli’s speech. Her February 2009 demonstration—dubbed the “Porkulus Protest”—drew about 100 people.
But once Santelli’s rant went viral, Tea Party protests exploded across the country. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter helped coordinate events, and by April’s Tax Day, an estimated quarter-million people took to the streets in organized demonstrations.
Conservative media played a crucial role in amplifying the movement. Fox News hosts like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity championed Tea Party causes, helping grow its ranks. Soon, prominent Republican figures lent their support, though the movement remained largely decentralized.
By the summer of 2009, as Obamacare made its way through Congress, Tea Party activists shifted their strategy. Instead of street protests, they flooded town halls, confronting Democratic lawmakers with fiery opposition. Videos of these clashes—angry constituents challenging their representatives—became a defining image of the movement.
And electorally, the Tea Party had teeth. While it failed to topple the Republican establishment entirely (Mitt Romney still won the 2012 nomination), it helped flip House seats and push the GOP further to the right.
What does the Tea Party teach us about today’s Democratic opposition?
* It’s never too early to be angry. Santelli’s rant came barely a month after Obama took office. Right now, Trump’s disapproval ratings are rising, but Democrats haven’t yet rallied around a singular issue.
* Movements can make an impact—especially in the House. The Tea Party didn’t need to control the White House to change the political landscape. A handful of flipped seats can shift the balance of power.
* Dismissing protests as ‘astroturf’ is risky. If the same kind of town hall showdowns seen in McCormick’s district begin happening elsewhere, they could turn into a trend.
The Tea Party was fueled by a raw, pent-up anger over fiscal conservatism. Many conservatives felt betrayed by their own party—George W. Bush had campaigned on balanced budgets, only to expand deficits through wars and bailouts. Obama’s presidency, with its ambitious government programs, only amplified those frustrations.
The question for Democrats now is: What’s their version of that anger?
If it’s simply opposition to Trump, that’s not enough. Even figures like Elon Musk—despised by many progressives—aren’t sustainable political villains. “Musk sent another email” isn’t a battle cry that will mobilize voters in the long run.
That’s why Democratic strategists should be tickled by what just happened in the House. They (impressively) passed a budget that, while avoiding direct mention of Medicaid, includes $880 billion in cuts overseen by the Energy and Commerce Committee—which just happens to control Medicaid.
Why the cuts? Because fiscal hawks in the House need a way to offset the Trump tax cuts.
For Democrats, that’s a classic, politically potent message: Republicans are cutting your Medicaid to give tax cuts to the rich.
If they can harness that into a movement—one that gets people angry enough to show up at town halls, knock on doors, and vote—then history might just be repeating itself.
Podcast Chapters & Timecodes
* 00:00:00 – Introduction
* 00:01:58 – The Tea Party’s Legacy and Lessons for Democrats
* 00:14:55 – Dan Bongino Becomes FBI’s Second-in-Command
* 00:19:15 – MSNBC’s Prime-Time Shake-Up & Network Struggles
* 00:22:58 – NYC Mayor Eric Adams’ Re-Election Challenges
* 00:26:27 – Interview with Brian Sack on Ukraine & DEI Policies
* 01:05:28 – 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 -
One down, 47 to go.
With Donald Trump’s first month in office coming to a close, we are seeing something that feels a bit more familiar. According to three recent polls, his approval rating is now underwater—meaning more people disapprove of him than approve.
This is still essentially the same conversation we were having before. There are deeply entrenched beliefs on both sides, with some convinced he is doing a terrible job and others believing he is performing tremendously.
Keep Politics Politics Politics alive! Get two bonus episodes each week! Upgrade to paid!
The numbers reflect this divide. A CNN SSRS poll shows Trump’s approval at 47% with 52% disapproving. Similarly, a Reuters Ipsos poll reports 44% approval and 51% disapproval, while Gallup’s latest survey records a 45% approval and 51% disapproval. I have seen other numbers where he remains above 50% and in net positive territory, but the general trend suggests that the more people hear his name, the less they seem to like him.
Sound familiar?
At the heart of this, however, is the same issue that contributed to Joe Biden’s defeat: the economy. Economic fears and anxieties remain high, and now that people are reminded of both the speed and the sheer volume—both in quantity and loudness—of the Trump administration, there’s a sense of, “Ah, okay, here we go again.” If the economy rebounds, Trump could find himself in a very strong position. But if it does not, whatever mandate he might have had will quickly evaporate.
It’s worth noting that we still have the majority of Trump’s first 100 days ahead of us, though you’d be forgiven for forgetting that as it feels like he’s been in office for six months.
Chapters
02:06 - Trump Approval Rating Down
04:46 - Evan Scrimshaw on Why Canada Hates The US
51:53 - Mitch McConnell Retirement
54:05 - Kash Patel Confirmed
57:37 - Zelenskyy To Sign Mineral Deal With US
01:03:12 - Kevin Ryan
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 -
Wait, what?
What just happened?
To who? When?
And it just flipped when it landed? A 13th kid with a fourth woman?
Does that have anything to do with the other thing? You know, the one that just happened. Or maybe that was last week…
The first month of Trump 47 has felt more like 47 weeks than it has four, with a relentless barrage of executive orders, personnel decisions, and, let’s say, charitably unconventional accounting procedures that have kicked ant piles both foreign and domestic. And with all of that, much of what you read on social media, Substack, or in your podcast feed is likely very, very hyperbolic—or, if you’re on the conservative side of the aisle, particularly gleeful.
My goal, however, is to ask a simple question every day: What actually matters?
On this episode of the show, we’re going to talk to two people with vastly different perspectives on the political system. First, we have Gabe Fleisher, who writes the Wake Up to Politics newsletter and, even as a fresh college graduate, has probably forgotten more about political history and minutiae than the average voter has ever cared to learn. On the other end of the spectrum, we have John Teasdale, an entrepreneur and co-creator of The Contender card game, who intentionally disconnected himself from politics for the past year and has only just returned stateside.
“Sure, Justin, I’ll enjoy both of those conversations. But what about me? What does that give me as a framework to understand what’s happening right now?”
Well, to help with that, I want to dust off something that doesn’t usually get brought out in the political realm, but given the breakneck pace of news, I think it’s worth it. In 2013, WNYC’s On the Media program put out a helpful infographic titled the Breaking News Consumer Handbook. You’ve probably seen it during major events like shootings or tragedies, but with the flood of headlines right now, I think it’s worth revisiting its five core tenets and applying them to this moment.
In the immediate aftermath of any major event, most news outlets will get it wrong.
This is crucial to remember because, amid the deluge of information, you owe it to yourself to slow down. Wait a few days, maybe even a week, before getting worked up about something. Half-truths, gossip, and rumor fly out of every orifice in Washington, and with time, further context often clarifies the situation—or at least reveals whether it’s even newsworthy. Don’t you deserve the full set of facts before being led around by the nose by the outrage machine? I think you do.
Don’t trust anonymous sources.
Case in point: as I was recording, a story broke from NBC News stating that U.S. intelligence indicates Vladimir Putin isn’t interested in a real peace deal. The sources? Four anonymous sources—two congressional aides and two intel sources, presumably provided by those aides. The article essentially asserts that while Putin may negotiate with Trump, he’s not deterred from taking Ukraine in the long run.
To which I say: da-doi.
Unless you genuinely believed that Putin was going to apologize for invading Ukraine and promise never to do it again, this “news” adds no value. It doesn’t outline the parameters of a peace deal, Russia’s red lines, or any concrete details. It simply reiterates that Putin remains an authoritarian thug, which, let’s be real, even MAGA supporters acknowledge. The end of war is not a morality play—it’s about making decisions that stop people from dying. This story is calorie free by making a stupid point and not even using named sources to do it.
Don’t trust stories that cite other media outlets as sources.
This is a favorite trick of churn-media articles, particularly those designed to game Facebook’s algorithm. If you mostly get your news from social media, you’re consuming content optimized for engagement, not accuracy. These outlets often regurgitate information from elsewhere, making their legitimacy dubious at best.
Fourth, and this one is more relevant to shootings, but still applicable…
There is almost never a second shooter.
In a broader sense, Occam’s razor applies—sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. While plenty of conspiracy theories have turned out to be true (COVID lab leak, Hunter Biden’s laptop, etc.), not everything that pops up on social media is exactly what it seems, especially when it comes to government spending. Right now, people are combing through federal expenditures, uncovering what might appear to be scandals. Give it time. Wait a few days before reacting and hitting retweet.
Pay attention to the language the media uses. Phrases like “we are getting reports” could mean anything. “We are seeking confirmation” means they don’t have confirmation. “The news outlet has learned” means they have a scoop or are going out on a limb.
Stick to fundamental journalism: a compelling lead, a nut graph that clearly outlines the news, and at least three on-the-record sources directly involved in the situation. If those elements aren’t there, take the story with a grain of salt. In truth, there isn’t as much actual news as the fire hose of content would suggest. There’s plenty of gossip, innuendo, and hot takes, and that’s before you get to people in the arena yelling at each other on social media. But real, capital-N news? That’s much rarer than it seems.
Chapters
00:00:00 : Introduction and Overview
00:01:20 : Political Analysis and Current Events
00:02:04 : Breaking News Consumer Handbook
00:11:04 : Interview with Gabe Fleischer
00:51:14 : Update on Ukraine-Russia Peace Deal
00:57:02 : New York Mayor Eric Adams' Administration Turmoil
01:00:03 : Elon Musk and Fort Knox Investigation
01:01:51 : Interview with John Teasdale
01:25:38 : Show Wrap-Up and Listener Support
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 can think of no more romantic way for you to spend a quiet moment alone with your partner on this Valentine's Day than drawing a warm bath, throwing in some scented oils, and reading aloud the latest Politics, Politics, Politics post.
"Great point, Justin," you can say to each other as you make longing eye contact and renew your commitment to one another.
But it is in that spirit of passion that I tell you: somebody's gonna get f***ed — either the House or the Senate.
This is a Republican problem, and we are in strange days. Normally, the People's House, which has a far higher headcount, operates with majorities of 10, 15, 20, maybe even 30 seats, at least in a bygone, un-gerrymandered era. In those situations, you could craft policy where some members of your own coalition wouldn't have to vote for it.
The Republicans don’t have that luxury.
Right now, the House majority is two.
Two people.
And reinforcements aren’t coming until April with the Florida special elections. We have no idea when the New York special election to replace Elise Stefanik will happen. The House wants to pass one big, beautiful bill with all of Donald Trump's agenda in it. The Senate doesn't want that. They would rather pass two bills. Over the last few days, as Lindsey Graham moved a budget bill out of the Senate, the message has been clear: if the House can't act, the Senate will.
Meanwhile, the House, constantly scrapping for power because of its easily divided nature, is saying, "No, we're sending you one bill. You figure it out." And here’s the inside sauce on it: the reason the House wants one bill, many House Republicans don't like massive bills crammed with everything at once. They prefer voting on things individually. But Republicans can't afford to do that right now. They need members to vote against what they’ve pledged to vote for, and the only way they believe they can achieve that is by bundling multiple things together including some things that fussy members can’t not vote for.
For example? Budget hawks who won’t raise the debt by one penny… are you not going to vote for border funding? Same for Border Warriors who want every illegal migrant out tomorrow along with their whole family… are you going to be an all-or-nothing puritan and not green light the tax cuts?
The Senate sending two bills to the House is a problem for Republicans. The first bill, likely the border package, would pass easily. But when the second bill—probably tax cuts—comes around, budget hawks will balk. And if the House, Senate, and White House are all in Republican hands but fail to pass Trump's legislative agenda, that would be a disaster.
The Senate's noise has some in the White House thinking the House is a lost cause. Yesterday, the House finally released a budget, and sources inside the chamber are unhappy. “The numbers are bad, campaign promises are broken, and member priorities are ignored,” As one source put it. "We need a speaker with big balls. In fact, I’d take (Elon’s) Big Balls over Mike Johnson’s any day."
Which brings us to Speaker Johnson, the Hudsucker Proxy speaker.
If you’ve never seen that movie, Tim Robbins plays a mailroom worker who gets unexpectedly elevated to CEO by a scheming board looking for a patsy. The movie ends with Robbins proving himself to be an exceptional CEO. Johnson would love for that to be his story. But the speakership in this situation is an impossible job. He can only afford to lose two votes, and one of them is already Thomas Massie. He got this job because, after Kevin McCarthy was ousted, every other candidate had at least four enemies. Johnson? He was just well-liked enough to slip through. Now, he's at the center of the storm.
The House budget committee has angered members, and things are bleak. This doesn't mean the end, but it does mean they might have to split into two bills. If that happens, tax cuts might take a long time—or not happen at all. That’s a problem because tax cuts are a kitchen table issue. If Trump’s cuts aren’t in place by next year, it would be a massive failure. The number one reason people voted for Trump was to get inflation under control. If taxes go up, it’s a disaster.
And the issue here is that there is no legislative North Star. Paul Ryan isn’t walking through that door. He was a legislative guy, a wonk. Right now, there’s no one like that in the House. And there’s certainly no one like that in the White House.
And that’s where we land now. The big question? Considering all the noise that has been made by DOGE, does the idea of those savings factor into any of these budget talks?
If not, then get ready for a bumpy ride with the first test being the expiration of government funding on March 14th.
Chapters:
- 00:00:00 - Introduction and Overview
- 00:00:50 - Valentine's Day Special Opening
- 00:01:19 - Discussion on House vs. Senate Republican Strategies
- 00:02:38 - The House's Push for a Single Comprehensive Bill
- 00:04:38 - Challenges in Passing Trump's Legislative Agenda
- 00:07:27 - Interview with Matt Laszlo on Congressional Dynamics
- 00:10:12 - Democrats' Internal Struggles and Strategy
- 00:20:22 - Potential Government Shutdown and Democratic Response
- 00:32:00 - Republicans' Legislative Challenges and Budget Issues
- 00:39:00 - Lobbying Efforts to Influence Trump's Immigration Policies
- 01:00:00 - Interview with Dave Leventhal on Lobbying and Immigration
- 01:24:00 - Closing Remarks and Additional News Updates
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 second term does not look like his first.
In his Super Bowl interview with Brett Baier, Trump admitted that back in 2017, he was a New York guy, a novice to Washington, D.C., and all but confessed that he stepped on every rake in sight. He appointed the wrong people, got caught up in the wrong traps, and was unable to effectively govern.
To the casual observer, it may seem like not much has changed—Trump was causing chaos then, and he's causing chaos now. But this show understands the difference: Previously, chaos happened to him; now, he is the one orchestrating it.
His agenda is taking direct aim at the centers of government he believes he was sent back to reform. Agencies long targeted by conservatives are now being affected—slashed, possibly shuttered. This is a direct assault on the structure of the federal government as it has been known, something many have promised but only Trump has aggressively pursued.
If we can’t compare what we’ve seen over the last month to any prior sitting president, what historical precedents can we look to? I submit to you the year 1992 and three figures whose political strategies echo what we see in Trump today: Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, and Bill Clinton.
First, Buchanan. No one brought the conversation about immigration into the modern presidential sphere quite like him. Though his 1992 challenge to incumbent George H.W. Bush was short-lived, his influence endured. Buchanan’s rhetoric on immigration laid the groundwork for the hardline stance Trump would take in 2016. One of his biggest issues was the interpretation of the 14th Amendment regarding birthright citizenship, arguing that the phrase "under the jurisdiction thereof" meant only legal citizens should have offspring automatically granted citizenship. Now, Trump is doing something Buchanan only talked about: actively challenging birthright citizenship.
Next, Ross Perot. If there is one historical figure whose message about government size and spending echoes through Trump’s current actions, it is Perot. Running as an independent in 1992, Perot famously railed against the national debt, which then stood at $4 trillion—a fraction of today’s $34 trillion. His colorful metaphors, like calling the debt a "crazy aunt we keep in the basement," helped him connect with voters who felt Washington was bloated and inefficient. He championed the idea of running the government like a business—sound familiar? Both men also shared a deep distrust of federal agencies. Perot famously quit his campaign in 1992, alleging that the CIA had infiltrated his operation, convinced that President George H.W. Bush, a former CIA director, was behind it. One can only imagine a President Perot would have pursued intelligence reforms as aggressively as Trump is now targeting the Justice Department and FBI.
Perot, however, never won. Nor did Buchanan. But one man did in 1992: Bill Clinton. Initially, I planned to focus on just Buchanan and Perot, but our friend Michael Cohen recently made a compelling case for why Trump’s current approach also parallels Clinton. While Clinton focused on large-scale economic policies, he also knew how to capture public attention with wedge issues—ones that were more symbolic than substantive but extremely popular. In 1996, he championed the V-chip, a device to block violent content on TV, and pushed for school uniforms to combat youth violence. Neither policy had a significant impact, but they polled above 70%, making them politically beneficial.
Trump is using a similar playbook. His recent executive orders—banning men from women’s sports and bringing back plastic straws—affect relatively few people in practical terms, yet they are wildly popular. These 70-30 issues serve as the sugar that makes the medicine go down, keeping the public engaged while larger, more complex reforms take shape. They also bait his political opponents into fighting battles where he holds the high ground— Obi-Wan style.
At its core, Trump’s approach today mirrors Clinton’s in how it connects emotionally with voters. Is there really much of a difference between “Make America Great Again” and “I feel your pain”?
Chapters
00:00:00 – Intro
00:02:17 – Trump's Second Term: Chaos or Competence?
00:04:12 – 1992 as a Parallel to Trump’s 47th Presidency
00:15:30 – Update
00:17:53 – Judicial Roadblocks Against Trump’s Agenda
00:21:31 – International News: Ukraine and Gaza Updates
00:26:12 – Guest Interview: Kirk Bado from National Journal
00:31:36 – The Looming Government Shutdown
00:39:52 – The Media’s Role and Chilling Effects
00:46:07 – Nancy Mace: Political Calculations or Genuine Outcry?
01:16:45 – Closing Remarks
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
It’s a DOGE-eat-DOGE world.
Before I get into my thoughts on DOGE—and I have quite a few—the reason I haven’t written much about it (we did touch on USAID in Wednesday’s update) is that I’m still wrapping my head around it.
There’s a lot of noise surrounding DOGE, and beyond the clatter, it’s unclear exactly what’s happening. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is in the valley. They lost a big election, have no effective power in government for at least the next two years, and have been throwing a lot of spaghetti at the wall. Chuck Schumer was parading around with a Corona and lime when it looked like we were going to hit Mexico with 25% tariffs, and now, the focus of the last 72 hours has been Elon Musk and DOGE.
Because DOGE sits at the center of a political noise machine, I tend to be cautious about jumping in while everything is still in motion.
That being said, DOGE is a significant development. What they’re doing is something every Republican candidate in my lifetime has promised—and it may very well be illegal. We don’t know if they’re actually cutting the budget in the way they claim, nor do we know if anything they’re doing is truly unlawful. But the fact that both of those questions exist simultaneously is reason enough to take a deeper look.
Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency—DOGE—was conceived during Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign and made official on January 20, 2025, the first day of Trump’s second term. However, it is not a formal cabinet department. Instead, it began under the U.S. Digital Service, which was rebranded as the U.S. DOGE Service, before being placed under the Chief of Staff’s office—likely to avoid transparency requirements. The stated goal of DOGE is to modernize federal technology and software to maximize government efficiency, with Musk claiming they aim to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget. Musk has admitted that if they say $2 trillion, they might actually cut $1 trillion, but the ambition remains.
DOGE operates out of the Eisenhower Executive Building next to the White House with a small headquarters of about 20 people. Rather than a traditional hierarchy, it functions as a task force embedded across government agencies, with small teams of DOGE operatives placed inside agencies to audit systems and pursue efficiency measures. Musk himself serves as a special government employee, a temporary advisory role that grants him broad access while allowing him to bypass disclosure requirements that apply to full-time officials. This is especially notable given Musk’s extensive business interests in China—something so controversial that a bipartisan group of lawmakers banned TikTok last year.
Key figures in DOGE include Steve Davis, CEO of The Boring Company and a longtime Musk confidant, who allegedly leads day-to-day operations. Then there are the so-called “DOGE Kids”—young adults, typically aged 19 to 24, from elite universities with backgrounds in Musk companies or the Peter Thiel machine. Some, like Luke Farritor, gained fame for achievements like using AI to decode ancient Roman scrolls. Others, like Marko Elez, have already faced controversy. Ellis resigned after the Wall Street Journal uncovered racist posts he made in 2024, including advocating for eugenic immigration policies and saying he would never marry outside his ethnicity.
In its first 80 hours, Musk tweeted that DOGE had canceled $420 million worth of federal contracts. Get it. The issue? DOGE doesn’t technically have the authority to cancel contracts. That power belongs to Congress and the departments that administer the funds. So the real question is whether DOGE is canceling these contracts or simply recommending their termination, with the speed of the Trump administration making it appear as though they’re acting unilaterally.
DOGE’s aggressive approach has already ruffled feathers. On inauguration day, Musk’s team assumed control of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) headquarters, installing sofa beds in the director’s office and working around the clock. Within days, they cut off career OPM staff from internal systems, effectively giving Musk’s team exclusive control over federal HR records. Two OPM employees filed a lawsuit in late January, alleging that DOGE unlawfully installed a private server on the agency’s network.
Things escalated further when DOGE turned its attention to the U.S. Treasury Department’s payment system, which processes $5 trillion annually, handling everything from Social Security checks to federal salaries. When David Liebrich, a top Treasury official, refused to grant DOGE access, he was reportedly forced out. By January 31, Trump’s new Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, approved DOGE’s access. Soon after, a DOGE tech aide obtained unrestricted access to the payment system’s code base and began making changes with minimal supervision—an alarming development that has raised red flags in Congress.
And then there’s USAID. Musk tweeted, “We’re shutting it down,” referring to the agency responsible for international aid. But does Musk actually have the authority to do that? Or is he merely advising Marco Rubio, who, as head of the State Department, technically oversees USAID?
If Musk is making these decisions, it’s illegal. If Rubio is doing it, it’s just an unusually fast-moving government operation. The speed and opacity of DOGE make it difficult to tell the difference.
Meanwhile, DOGE has brought a renewed focus on federal spending. Social media has been ablaze with revelations about who benefits from government funds. Bill Kristol, a Never Trump figure, was found to have received money through USAID-funded organizations. More controversially, it was revealed that Politico received $8.2 million in federal funding last year. While some jumped to the conclusion that this was a Democratic subsidy for favorable coverage, the truth is more complicated. The money was for Politico Pro, a premium service used by government officials and lobbyists for networking and policy tracking. However, everyone I talked to in pulling this together told me Politico Pro sucks. Specifically compared to competitors like Bloomberg Government, raising questions about why agencies chose it over better alternatives.
So how does this end? At some point, DOGE will hit a regulatory or legal wall that slows its momentum. They need enough public goodwill to sustain them when that happens, or the entire operation could grind to a halt.
There’s already evidence that Musk’s influence is waning. A YouGov poll from November 2024 showed that 47% of Republicans wanted Musk to have significant influence in government. That number has since dropped to 26%, with 43% now preferring that he have only limited influence. Among all Americans, only 13% want Musk to have a lot of influence, while 46% want him to have none.
DOGE’s speed and disruption are unprecedented, but whether they represent true reform or reckless overreach remains an open question.
All that… plus Jen Briney gives me her Doge thoughts and our final assessments of the confirmation hearings. Karol Markowicz joins the show to discuss Trump’s musings on Gaza and the GOP infighting in Florida over immigration.
Chapters
00:00 Intro
00:56 Let's Talk DOGE
24:02 Jen Briney on DOGE and Confirmation Hearings
40:18 Jen Briney on Confirmation Hearings
01:10:02 UPDATE
01:19:06 Karol Markowicz
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 might get his cabinet after all.
It was never going to be easy, many of them pulled from the Deep MAGA reserves doomed to offend the old guard who are developing carpel tunnel holding their nose through Trump’s second administration. Others are lifelong Democrats who helped over the finish line but still inspire a stink eye from lifelong Republicans.
Some confirmations were easy—Elise Stefanik sailed through, and Marco Rubio was unanimous. Others more controversial, like Pete Hegseth, who barely squeaked by.
But throughout it all, two nominees had the lowest odds of making it through, Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. That’s because neither of them are Republicans, and in a Senate where the GOP holds a 53-47 edge, blocking a nomination means peeling off Republican votes, not relying on Democratic opposition. The Democrats could stomp their feet all they wanted—it didn’t matter.
But on this Tuesday, both have made it out of committee, thanks to key endorsements from influential figures within the GOP they both look to be on a narrow but assured path to the executive branch where they will serve at the pleasure of the president.
Politics Politics Politics is free twice a week. Does it LOOK like news is only breaking twice a week? C’mon dude, get the two bonus episodes.
Tulsi Gabbard
Her confirmation was boosted by Susan Collins, a senator unafraid to buck the Trump administration. Representing Maine—a state that's far from a deep-red stronghold—Collins' support was critical. It was enough to push Gabbard through committee on strict party lines.
Beyond Collins, outreach from newly installed CIA Director John Radcliffe and Senator J.D. Vance helped smooth over concerns that arose during her confirmation hearing. The main sticking point? Her stance on Edward Snowden. Gabbard made it clear that she viewed Snowden as a criminal and would not recommend a pardon, but she stopped short of calling him a traitor. This led to a bizarre debate over whether she was sufficiently condemning Snowden, as some seemed to argue that unless she said the magic “traitor” word she was unqualified.
Gabbard's confirmation has brought together one of the strangest coalitions I’ve seen on the right—far-right Republicans like Tom Cotton, staunch Never Trumpers like Meghan McCain, and figures like TuringPoint’s Charlie Kirk. McCain even appeared on Kirk’s radio show Monday to announce they’d team up to primary anyone who voted against Gabbard.
That looks like it might not be necessary.
RFK Jr.
Unlike Gabbard, his confirmation hearing was messier. While Gabbard kept her composure, RFK Jr. approached it like a Kennedy: arrogantly.
Democrats took their best shot, mostly by hammering him on vaccines, though their efforts were, frankly, ineffective. They made a lot of noise but didn’t seem genuinely committed to blocking him. In the end, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a Republican who voted to impeach Trump, decided he was comfortable enough with RFK Jr. to push him through committee.
With that, Trump's cabinet is nearly complete. There’s one more potential hurdle: a labor secretary nominee who previously supported the PRO Act and has drawn skepticism from Republicans. But compared to Tulsi and RFK, this is a much lower-profile battle.
At the end of the day, this confirmation process has been tougher than what Trump faced in his first term, but his team has handled it deftly. The Democrats? They put up almost no real defense.
Was that on purpose? I don’t know. I suspect they don’t either.
Chapters
00:00 Intro
02:50 Tulsi and RFK safe?
12:42 USAID
21:04 Waffle House Raises Egg Prices
25:46 Senate Takes Charge on Reconciliation Bills
32:38 Chris Cillizza
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 ongoing confirmation hearings for RFK Jr., Kash Patel, and Tulsi Gabbard have been largely predictable. But as always, the real story isn’t the grandstanding—it’s in the quiet calculations happening behind the scenes.
This was RFK Jr.'s second day facing the Senate, and the discussion largely revolved around his past statements on vaccines. But if you’re looking for movement in the room, there wasn’t much. Coverage focused on explosive exchanges between Democrats and the nominees, but that’s irrelevant. The Democrats can all vote no, and it won’t change a thing. What matters is what Republicans are saying—and there’s little indication that they are going to vote against RFK Jr.
RFK Jr. remains politically resilient for two reasons:
* The Kennedy name still holds value with a broad swath of Americans.
* His skepticism of Big Pharma and Big Agriculture resonates with a coalition that includes both libertarians and "crunchy moms"
The main Republican angle of attack was always going to be abortion. RFK Jr. has been pro-choice his entire life, but now he’s taking orders from a pro-life president. How does that play out? He faced questions about the abortion pill but gave answers that were lukewarm at best.
My assumption: He’s moving forward.
Kash Patel’s hearing was predictably contentious, with heated exchanges involving Adam Schiff and Amy Klobuchar. But, again, those don’t matter. He also had solid support from Republican lawmakers, which means his confirmation is essentially a done deal.
If Matt Gaetz was a non-starter because of his long list of enemies, Patel should have had similar problems—he’s burned plenty of bridges. The difference? Patel has a history in law enforcement, whereas Gaetz does not. That seems to be enough to push him through.
This is where things get interesting. Unlike RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard doesn’t have the built-in advantage of a famous name. Unlike Patel, she lacks a Republican establishment safety net. And unlike both of them, she has a real opposition force: the intelligence community.
Tulsi has been one of the most vocal critics of the intelligence agencies, particularly regarding FISA Section 702, which she argues enables domestic surveillance. She’s also expressed support for Edward Snowden—a major red flag for the very institutions she’d be overseeing as Director of National Intelligence.
Her hearing featured a bipartisan focus on one specific issue: Would she call Snowden a traitor?
She wouldn’t.
She acknowledged that Snowden broke the law, that there were other ways he could have exposed government overreach. But she refused to use the word “traitor.” And that, oddly enough, might be the line that sinks her.
It speaks to a deeper issue of symbolic politics. It wasn’t enough to condemn Snowden’s actions—she needed to emotionally brand him as a traitor. Her refusal to do so is revealing because it suggests that there are Republicans who may see her as too much of a risk to intelligence operations.
Looking at prediction markets like Polymarket:
* Kash Patel is sitting comfortably at 95%.
* RFK Jr. has dipped slightly from 78% to 75%, but still strong.
* Tulsi Gabbard is now underwater at 44%.
That’s not a good place to be.
Gabbard’s nomination has created one of the strangest coalitions in modern politics—hardcore MAGA figures lining up alongside Tom Cotton and Meghan McCain. But if Trump’s team is going to throw its weight behind any nominee, it’ll likely be her. The next 72 hours will tell us if she has the votes or if this is where the process stalls.
Not a ton of surprises overall, but one question remains: Will the Trump administration go all in on Tulsi?
We’ll see.
In this episode we also have a great chat with Michael Tracey who makes his Px3 debut. I wanted to talk to him about current events but we wound up spending the whole hour rehashing the 2024 campaign.
Chapters
00:00 Intro
02:30 Confirmation Hearing Chaos: Tulsi Looks Wounded
14:17 UPDATE: Potomac Crash and Vivek Monster Ohio Numbers
23:34 Michael Tracey
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 wolves are out for two of the Trump administration’s most unconventional cabinet picks.
Can Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. survive their hearings this week?
Let’s start with Bobby.
Caroline Kennedy has publicly stated her opposition to RFK Jr.‘s appointment. Caroline is deeply embedded in the power structure of the modern Democratic Party—she has served multiple times as an ambassador and was one of the first major endorsers of Barack Obama back in 2008. So, make of that what you will. RFK Jr., the black sheep of the family, is now stepping into a Republican administration, a move that surely raises eyebrows.
Though, if we’re speculating, old Joe Kennedy probably wouldn’t have had much of a problem with it.
Then there’s Tulsi Gabbard. A recent New York Times article titled “A Vatican Meeting Added Scrutiny of Tulsi Gabbard’s Foreign Travels” befuddled me. If you remember Gabbard’s complaints about being placed on a TSA watch list, this article confirms it—but oddly enough, it doesn’t treat that as the headline. Instead, the focus is on why she was put on the list, with government sources leaking that it stemmed from her attendance at a Vatican conference organized by a man who was reportedly on a terror watch list.
The Times knows this man’s name but chose not to publish it because they couldn’t verify why he was on the list. Essentially, the government gave the reporters a briefing, naming this individual as the reason Gabbard was flagged, but when pressed on why he was on the list, they refused to elaborate. And yet, the Times still ran with the story.
The article tacks on another odd claim—an intelligence briefing reportedly revealed that two Hezbollah members once mentioned Gabbard in a conversation that was passed on to US intelligence. During Gabbard’s controversial trip to meet with Bashar al-Assad she also met with “the big guy,” according to the Hezbollah fighters.
My first thought? She met with Joe Biden? No, apparently, “the big guy” in this case was either a Hezbollah leader or a Lebanese government official with ties to Hezbollah, which, given the region, isn’t exactly uncommon.
But what’s the real takeaway here? The way this story is framed makes little sense. If the government comes to you with information about a public figure, I understand reporting on it. But why not fold it into a larger piece digging deeper into the actual process behind it? Why not talk to Gabbard directly? Why not investigate the TSA’s reasoning in more detail? Instead, this piece presents her as suspicious without providing substantial evidence.
And knowing now that the government proactively brought this information to the Times, it only raises more red flags. That’s a weak justification for placing a high-profile critic of the current administration on a TSA watch list. It’s probably a bad thing to do in general. It’s even worse that they felt the need to leak it to the media.
But, of course, the real motive is clear—they don’t want her confirmed. There’s no other reason for the government to hand this story to the Times unless they’re trying to sink her nomination.
Chapters
00:00 Introduction
01:34 Why didn’t I Cover The J6 Pardons More?
17:02 UPDATE: MI Senate Race Heats Up, Trump Funding Pauses, Buyouts?
34:23 Previewing Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. Hearings with Jen Briney
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 -
President Donald Trump, on his first day back in office, issued pardons and commutations to over 1,500 individuals involved in the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack. This action nullified the efforts of the Justice Department’s extensive investigation and prosecution of the events. 
The clemency measures included full pardons for the majority of those convicted, effectively erasing their criminal records. Additionally, sentences for 14 prominent figures, such as Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, were commuted to time served, leading to their immediate release. 
La Pointe reporter Claire Meynial has been covering the trials and incarcerations of many of these cases and joins us to talk about the reality of the cases and we guess about the political fallout.
Also:
* The vibe inside congress during the indoor inauguration.
* A plea for digital services like YouTubeTV to carry C-SPAN
Chapters
* (00:00:01) Introduction
* (00:01:22) The Battle for C-SPAN’s Future
* (00:07:06) Update: Hegseth Secured? Ratcliffe Confirmed. JFK Files Declassified
* (00:15:57) Claire Meynial on J6 and Inauguration
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
Donald Trump is the president of these United States again.
And with it comes a flurry of executive orders that could reshape America.
It’s officially Joe-ver for Biden.
But before it was over he reshaped the concept of American presidential pardon power.
We discuss all of it LIVE from Washington DC with Jen Briney.
Politics Politics Politics relies entirely on your donations to travel the country and cover national politics. Join us, won’t you?
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 -
Very happy to be joined on the show today by Ricardo Fernandez a doctor from Chicago who happened to become close friends with former President Jimmy Carter.
We discuss:
* Life after the presidency
* Obama’s campaign refusing to let him speak at the 2008 DNC
* How he reacted to his grandson recording Mitt Romney’s “47%” quote
And much more!
Politics Politics Politics is a good show. Subscribe for free right here or upgrade to paid!
Episode Chapters
* [00:00:01] Opening Remarks
* [00:01:19] Introduction to Jimmy Carter Special
* [00:02:00] Ricardo Fernandez
* [00:23:03] TikTok Ban News
* [00:24:46] Joe Biden's Farewell Address
* [00:29:57] Midterm Polling and Other News
* [00:39:59] Jimmy Carter's Final Days
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 -
Pete Hegseth is your next Secretary of Defense.
Nothing from Tuesday’s contentious hearing will likely pluck GOP votes away from him. If anything the histrionics of the Democrats on the panel will make it harder for skeptical Republicans to stray.
The way you collapse a nominee when you are in the minority is you give them enough rope to hang themselves. Ask cordial questions that elevate in complexity and hope they screw something up. That is the most likely possibility with Trump’s slate who are being painted as unready and unprepared.
They did not do that.
Instead we got screeds on Hegseth’s personal history, financial management and his opinion of women.
What standing does a Republican Senator have if he is on the side of Sen. Tim Kaine taking the moral high road on infidelity?
That being said, even if the Democrats had played a more strategic hand it looks like the GOP had effectively closed ranks. The lynchpin of a potential washout was Iowa’s Joni Ernst and she spent the first portion of her time discussing the importance of a Pentagon audit (the upside of finding someone from outside the traditional drafting grounds for SecDef since DoD has routinely failed audits) and then played home run derby pitcher on the subject of women in the military.
Yesterday, Hegseth was the most vulnerable of Trump’s nominees. Today, betting markets pin that honor on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard.
But if the Republicans are on the same page the Democrats are going to take this seriously, then I would bet on the full slate sailing through.
Also, on the this podcast…
Jen Briney, host of Congressional Dish, joins to discuss the stakes of these hearings and the ideological divides within Trump’s coalition.
Dave Levinthal, the money man, is back to discuss Kamala Harris 24 continuing to charge donors months after losing.
Chapters
* 00:00:00 - Episode Introduction and Live Show Announcement
* 00:01:35 - Pete Hegseth's Confirmation Hearing Analysis
* 00:10:17 - Breakdown of Trump’s Coalition Cabinet
* 00:21:00 - Marco Rubio’s Focus on Foreign Policy
* 00:30:00 - Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel: Challenges and Prospects
* 00:43:10 - Upcoming Events and Political Updates
* 00:52:49 - Dave Levinthal
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 -
Best I can tell there are two emerging Democratic Lanes in our post-Obama era world…
Progressive + Border Hawk
In a bygone era, Bernie Sanders got an “A” rating from the NRA and believed increased immigration was a corporatist scheme to drive down union wages. While, he has yet to reload on his 2A cred, he is now back to beating the drum on the economic costs of immigration. I would suspect that progressives will feel more comfortable consciously uncoupling from positions and groups calling for a decriminalized border.
New Blue Dogs
Arf! Arf! John Fetterman sees a lot of Trump signs when he drives through the state of Pennsylvania. So why should he fight tooth and nail to keep Pete Hegseth from the Pentagon? If he wants to keep his seat in a state that is trending rightward then maybe picking and choosing his battles with the MAGA agenda is smarter than diametric opposition. Maybe it makes more sense to make face in Mar-A-Lago than to march in defiance.
—
Either way we have a lot of spaghetti being thrown at the wall and our friend Jeff Maurer is here to help make sense of it. Including whatever the hell Chris Murphy is up to.
Chapters
4:30 Jeff Maurer
35:05 UPDATE - Carter Funeral, Fetterman to MAL, Trump First Executive Orders
48:51 Kirk Bado
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 -
Justin Trudeau, Canada’s long-standing Prime Minister, announced his resignation this week, marking a seismic shift in the nation’s political landscape. Trudeau’s departure comes after nearly a decade as Prime Minister and thirteen years as leader of the Liberal Party. His resignation was not entirely unexpected but has sparked a wave of introspection within Canadian politics.
Here is what you need to know if you don’t care about Canada unless they’re playing hockey or changing heads of state as told to us this episode by Evan Scrimshaw.
The Breaking Point: Why Trudeau Resigned
Trudeau’s decision to step down was a culmination of mounting pressure from within his party and worsening public opinion. In recent months, his leadership faced escalating dissent. A pivotal moment was the resignation of the finance minister, which signaled deep fractures within the Liberal Party. Over the holiday season, Trudeau faced an ultimatum from his caucus—resign or face a vote of no confidence.
Several factors contributed to Trudeau’s plummeting support:
* Declining Poll Numbers: Trudeau’s approval ratings had been steadily eroding, with the Liberal Party polling over 20 points behind the opposition Conservative Party.
* Special Election Defeats: Losing in traditionally strong Liberal ridings signaled waning public support.
* Policy Disconnect: While many of Trudeau’s policies were popular in principle, his personal brand had become a liability. Voters who liked Liberal initiatives often dismissed them outright when they were linked to Trudeau.
Trudeau’s tenure will be remembered as one of bold progressive initiatives juxtaposed with ethical controversies. On the positive side, his government achieved significant reductions in child poverty, lowered carbon emissions, and introduced affordable childcare programs. Yet, his administration was marred by scandals, including:
* Ethics Violations: Pressure on the attorney general to favor a Quebec-based company, SNC-Lavalin, during a corruption probe.
* Conflicts of Interest: Controversies surrounding contracts awarded to organizations with personal ties to Trudeau’s family.
* Housing Crisis: Critics argue Trudeau’s inaction exacerbated Canada’s housing affordability crisis, with rents and mortgage rates soaring during his leadership.
As Scrimshaw put it, Trudeau’s administration embodied “reckless disregard” for ethical boundaries. While these issues might have been survivable individually, collectively, they eroded trust in his leadership.
Trudeau’s resignation has thrown the Liberal Party into a leadership race. He will remain interim Prime Minister until March, with no parliamentary sittings until then. Key contenders for his replacement include:
* Chrystia Freeland, the current finance minister and one of Trudeau’s closest allies.
* Mark Carney, former Bank of Canada and Bank of England Governor.
* Anita Anand, Minister of National Defence.
* Other candidates, including Francois-Philippe Champagne, Dominic LeBlanc, and former B.C. Premier Christy Clark.
The party faces a critical choice: selecting a leader who can halt its decline and prepare it for the next general election. Scrimshaw warns that without decisive leadership, the Liberal Party risks being overtaken by the New Democratic Party (NDP) or marginalized altogether, as seen historically with the UK’s Liberal Party being replaced by Labour.
As Trudeau exits, the Conservative Party, led by Pierre Poilievre, appears poised to seize power in the next election. Poilievre, a pragmatic and relatively moderate conservative, has maintained focus on fiscal discipline while distancing himself from extreme social conservatism. The scale of the Conservative victory—whether narrow or overwhelming—will shape the trajectory of Canadian politics for years to come.
Trudeau’s political obituary is one of contrasts. He entered office as a symbol of youthful energy and progressive ideals, but over time, his administration became a cautionary tale of hubris and ethical lapses. His departure offers an opportunity for renewal within the Liberal Party and Canadian politics at large. Yet, the path forward is fraught with challenges, as the party grapples with its identity and viability in a rapidly shifting political landscape.
Chapters
Opening and Introduction (00:00:00–00:00:45)General overview of topics, including Trudeau’s resignation, Zuckerberg’s changes at Meta, and upcoming political discussions.
The Revival of Government (00:00:45–00:01:25)Commentary on the return of political activity in the House and the Trump administration’s cabinet hearings.
Justin Trudeau Resigns (00:01:25–00:08:45)A detailed discussion of Trudeau’s resignation, his legacy, and the future of the Liberal Party.
Global Political Trends and Liberal Party Risks (00:08:45–00:12:15)Insights into parallels between Canadian and UK politics, the Liberal Party’s identity crisis, and risks of being overtaken by the NDP.
Future Leadership of the Liberal Party (00:12:15–00:14:22)Breakdown of potential leadership candidates and their implications.
Conservatives' Prospects and Pierre Poilievre (00:14:22–00:21:57)Analysis of Poilievre’s leadership style and the Conservative Party’s likely dominance in the next election.
Discussion with Tom Merritt on Meta (00:39:00–00:41:07)A conversation with Tom Merritt on the implications of Meta's changes for political and social discourse.
The Trump Administration’s Strategy (00:26:23–00:29:56, 00:42:00–00:49:20)Overview of Donald Trump’s legislative plans, reconciliation tactics, and the challenges facing the House and Senate.
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 - Visa fler
