Advertise on podcast: Politics Politics Politics

Republicans are running out of places to redraw the map, and Florida is quickly becoming their last real shot to claw back seats before the midterms. The pressure is now squarely on Ron DeSantis to deliver a map that could net a handful of gains, but even inside the party there is real disagreement about whether that is possible. The risk is not just that the effort fails, but that it backfires, turning carefully engineered districts into competitive ones if turnout does not break the right way. That is the core problem with aggressive redistricting at this stage. The more you try to maximize advantage by packing and slicing districts, the more you rely on your own voters showing up consistently. If they do not, those same districts can flip. That is why some Republicans are warning that what looks like a smart map on paper could end up being a “dummymander” in practice, especially in an environment where Democratic voters appear more motivated. In fact, this is starting to look risky, it might be more accurate to call this year’s elections “dummyterms,” a phrase I’m committed to making stick come hell or high water. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. At the same time, the conflict with Iran is entering a more volatile phase. New mines in the Strait of Hormuz and an expanded U.S. naval response signal that this is no longer just posturing. It’s a pressure campaign with real global stakes, especially given how much of the world’s oil supply runs through that corridor. The situation is starting to look less like a slow escalation and more like a standoff that will force a decision sooner rather than later. What makes it even more unpredictable is the internal instability within Iran itself. Leadership shakeups, reports about the Supreme Leader’s health and — seriously — facial disfigurement, and a broader power struggle all suggest that there is no single, unified voice making decisions. That kind of vacuum makes negotiation harder and escalation easier, because different factions may be pulling in different directions at the same time. The timeline here is being driven by economics as much as politics. With exports constrained and storage capacity nearing its limit, Iran will eventually have to decide whether to halt production or find another way around the blockade. Neither option is easy, and both come with significant costs. That’s why this moment feels compressed, with pressure building toward some kind of near term resolution. Finally, a different kind of competition is playing out between the United States and China, this time over artificial intelligence. The Trump administration is accusing China-backed actors of effectively copying American AI systems by extracting outputs and using them to train rival models. It is a technical fight, but the implications are strategic, especially if it allows competitors to replicate advanced systems without the same investment or safeguards. That accusation fits into a broader pattern of technological rivalry, where innovation, security, and economic advantage are all intertwined. If these claims are accurate, it raises serious questions about how U.S. companies can protect their models and whether current safeguards are enough. With a high stakes meeting between Trump and Xi on the horizon, this issue is likely to become part of a much larger negotiation over trade, security, and global influence. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:02:16 - Gabe Fleisher on the White House Press Corps and the Supreme Court 00:22:41 - Redistricting Fights 00:27:31 - Iran 00:33:14 - China and AI 00:36:29 - Gabe Fleisher on the Permanence of the Trump Administration 01:08:56 - 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

Congress is in the middle of a rare moment where members are actually being forced out, and it is happening on both sides at once. Eric Swalwell and Tony Gonzales are already gone, both stepping down before they could be expelled, and now the pressure is shifting to others who are caught up in their own scandals. It is not subtle. This is a full blown house cleaning, and it is moving faster than Congress usually moves on anything involving its own members. The fallout from Swalwell is still spreading, especially for Ruben Gallego, who had been one of his most vocal defenders just days before everything collapsed. Now he is stuck trying to explain what he knew and how close he really was to someone whose behavior is suddenly under a microscope. His answer, calling Swalwell “flirty,” lands awkwardly and undercuts the whole “normal guy” image that made him politically effective in the first place. It sounds like a line that was workshopped instead of something real, and that is exactly the kind of thing that voters tend to pick apart. At the same time, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick is staring down what looks like an inevitable expulsion vote over allegations that she funneled millions in COVID relief money into her campaign. The details are serious enough that even Democrats do not seem eager to defend her, and the lack of public support from party leadership says a lot. There might have been a time when members circled the wagons, but this feels different. The appetite to protect colleagues at all costs is not what it used to be. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. All of this points to a broader shift in how Congress is handling its own scandals. When four different members, tied to both financial and personal misconduct, are all facing consequences at the same time, it suggests that the internal pressure has reached a point where inaction is no longer politically safe. Members are not being pushed out because Congress suddenly became more ethical. They are being pushed out because keeping them has become more dangerous. Meanwhile, the administration is dealing with its own turbulence as Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer exits under the cloud of an inspector general investigation. The official explanation is that she is leaving for the private sector, but the timing and the surrounding allegations make it clear that this was not a clean departure. Reports of inappropriate relationships, questionable travel, and internal complaints created enough heat that the White House appears to have decided it was easier to move on than fight it out publicly. The pattern shows up again with FBI Director Kash Patel, who is now suing The Atlantic for defamation over a story that paints him as erratic and prone to heavy drinking. The lawsuit is massive in dollar amount, but legally it faces long odds, especially given the standard required for public figures. More than anything, it reads like an attempt to push back on a narrative that is already taking hold, one that questions both his professionalism and his control over the agency. Taken together, all of this feels like a moment where institutions are trying to clean themselves up in real time, but only because the pressure to do so has become unavoidable. Congress is ejecting members, the administration is cycling out officials, and public fights over reputation are playing out in the open. It is not orderly, and it is not coordinated, but it is very clearly a system reacting to its own instability. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:02:43 - Virginia Redistricting 00:05:34 - Congress Cleans House 00:16:23 - Update 00:17:00 - Lori Chavez-DeRemer 00:22:09 - Reconciliation 00:25:36 - Kash Patel 00:32:20 - Tom Merritt on Politics, Tech, and AI 01:27:13 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Israel and Lebanon have agreed to a ceasefire after talks in Washington, with President Donald Trump saying it would take effect at 5 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday. He said he spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, and plans to bring both to the White House for what he called a major step in relations between the two countries. The agreement is supposed to set up a longer-term framework for stability along the border and touch on broader security issues in the region. But it’s landing in a situation where fighting, pressure, and political signaling are all still active in the background. Trump also floated the idea that this could connect to a wider regional deal, including Lebanon’s relationship with Hezbollah, the Iran-backed group that plays a major role inside the country. That ties into the bigger question hanging over all of this: Iran. U.S.–Iran talks recently fell apart without a deal, though the White House is still leaving the door open to more negotiations. Nothing is settled there, but it sits underneath almost every other move in the region. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. In Washington, there’s a pretty straightforward way this is being read. Hezbollah’s strength in Lebanon is tightly linked to Iranian support. If that support weakens, the balance in the region shifts. If it doesn’t, then agreements like this stay limited in what they can actually change. At the same time, Trump has been talking about possible Supreme Court vacancies and new nominees if openings come up, including around Justice Samuel Alito. Nothing has officially changed, but the speculation is already part of the political environment. Any vacancy would go through a Republican-controlled Senate and could lock in the court’s current 6–3 conservative split for years. In Congress, a vote to block the sale of military bulldozers to Israel failed, but 40 Democratic senators supported it anyway. Another vote on restricting bomb transfers also picked up support from Democrats. These votes don’t change policy on their own, but they show a clear split opening up inside the party over military aid to Israel. That split isn’t total, but it’s real. Democrats are still generally aligned on Israel, but fewer of them are treating support as automatic, especially as the conflict continues and public pressure builds. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:03:58 - RFK Jr. 00:05:43 - Religion and Trump’s Pope Feud 00:07:43 - Kevin Ryan on the Pope and Trump 00:54:33 - Update 00:54:49 - Israel-Lebanon 00:58:25 - Supreme Court Appointments 00:59:59 - Israel and Democrats 01:02:31 - Dave Levinthal on ActBlue 01:31:41 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The fall of Eric Swalwell feels less about the details of any single allegation and more about how quickly everything around him collapsed once those allegations hit. The shift is immediate. He goes from being a serious political figure, running for governor and active in Congress, to someone who is suddenly on the defensive, apologizing for “mistakes in judgment” while also denying the most serious claims. That tension sits at the center of everything he says. What stands out to me is how he is trying to hold two positions at once. On one hand, he is saying the major allegations are completely false and that he will fight them. On the other hand, he is acknowledging past behavior that he regrets. That creates a gray area that is hard to interpret, because it leaves open the question of what exactly he is admitting to versus what he is rejecting outright. It feels like an attempt to limit the damage without fully conceding anything that could end his career immediately. I also notice how quickly the political consequences stack up. He suspends his campaign, faces pressure to resign, and loses support almost in real time. There is not much of a waiting period here. Once multiple accusations are out in the open, the system moves fast, especially within his own party. It reflects how little tolerance there is for uncertainty in situations like this, even before anything is formally proven. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. At the same time, there is an effort from him to frame the timing as suspicious, pointing out that this is happening close to an election where he was in a strong position. That argument is clearly meant to introduce doubt, to suggest that there could be political motivations behind the accusations. Whether or not that lands, it shows that he understands the only real path forward is to challenge the credibility of what is being said about him. What I find most telling is that, regardless of what is true or not, the damage is already done politically. Even his own statement separates his personal fight from his campaign, which is basically an acknowledgment that the campaign cannot survive the situation. At that point, it becomes less about winning and more about managing fallout. By the end of all of this, I’m left thinking the process matters as much as the outcome. The allegations still have to be investigated, and nothing is settled legally, but in political terms, the consequences move much faster. Once that momentum starts, it is very hard to reverse. It’s a rapid unraveling. Not necessarily a final conclusion, but a point where everything changes direction at once, and there is no clear way back to where things were before. And as for who’s the next governor of California, well… We might be looking back towards Brat Summer for some inspiration. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:02:12: - Eric Swalwell Resigns 00:19:53 - Update 00:20:35 - Canada 00:22:20 - Israel-Lebanon 00:24:26 - Housing Market 00:27:56 - Juliegrace Brufke on Eric Swalwelll and Congress 00:54:33 - Wrap-up (and Dianna Russini 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

Just how absurd does the word ceasefire sounds when nobody actually stops firing? We’re calling it a ceasefire, we are acting like it is a ceasefire, but the reality on the ground does not match the label. Missiles are still being launched, ships are still being threatened, and the Strait of Hormuz is effectively shut down despite whatever was signed on paper. That disconnect makes me question what kind of agreement was actually reached in the first place. If Iran agreed to open the strait and then immediately went back to restricting access and intimidating shipping, then either they never intended to follow through or they cannot enforce their own decisions. Neither option is particularly reassuring. When your main leverage is control over a critical global shipping lane, giving that up even briefly would be a major concession, so the reversal almost feels inevitable. I keep coming back to how much of this hinges on internal dynamics within Iran. The delegation that is set to meet with the United States this weekend includes both more moderate figures and hardliners tied to the Revolutionary Guard. That alone tells me that whatever comes out of those talks is going to be complicated. If the people at the table are not the same people controlling the missiles, then any agreement is going to have gaps. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. At the same time, the stakes are getting higher because the economic effects are no longer abstract. Oil prices are climbing again, shipping is disrupted, and you have thousands of people effectively stuck waiting for this situation to resolve. Iran’s ability to pressure the global economy through the Strait of Hormuz feels like its most important card, and right now they are playing it as aggressively as they can. Back in Washington, the dysfunction is not helping anything. The DHS funding situation is still unresolved, and the Republican plan to split funding into separate reconciliation bills sounds shaky at best. The idea that lawmakers would pass a smaller bill now with promises about a larger one later, especially after the midterms, feels like something that is much easier to propose than to actually execute. It comes across as a sign that leadership does not have a clean path forward. There is also a broader sense that neither party is really in control of the moment. Republicans are struggling to deliver on basic governing tasks even with power, while Democrats are throwing out ideas like invoking the 25th Amendment in ways that do not seem grounded in how the process actually works. It creates this environment where everyone is reacting, but nobody is clearly leading. Stretching into the middle of April, the war is still active, negotiations are uncertain, and political systems on both sides are showing strain. You have to wonder what all of this leads up to. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:02:03 - Congress 00:07:22 - Iran 00:10:37: Zineb Riboua on the Iran War and China 00:30:16 - Update and Melania Trump 00:33:11 - DHS Shutdown and TSA Funding 00:35:32 - 25th Amendment 00:38:20 - Interview with Zineb Riboua, con’t 00:59:46 - 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

Trump’s borderline-genocidal threats towards Iran from Tuesday morning are no doubt unsettling — and depending on whether this war keeps escalating after this episode is published, “unsettling” could be an understatement. The idea that civilization might be over feels hyperbolic, but it captures the uncertainty of the moment. We are sitting here waiting on a deadline tied to Iran, and even before anything happens, the rhetoric coming from Donald Trump is already at a level that feels historically aggressive. Honestly, I don’t know how else to process Trump’s post other than to take it seriously on its face. Presidents have said strong things before, but that kind of language feels different. It isn’t just tough talk or positioning. We’re talking about raising the stakes in a way that makes everything else around it feel more volatile. Even if it is meant as leverage, it is the kind of leverage that can spiral if it is misunderstood or taken literally. Part of me thinks that wording did not come out of nowhere. There was that open letter from the Iranian president talking about their country as one of the oldest continuous civilizations in history, and it feels like Trump is almost mirroring that language in a much more threatening way. That tracks with how he communicates. He tends to grab onto a phrase and then amplify it into something louder and more confrontational. But when the subject is this serious, that amplification hits differently. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. What really complicates things for me is the question of who actually speaks for Iran right now. Even if there are people inside the government who want to negotiate or deescalate, it isn’t clear they have control over the parts of the system that are actively carrying out military actions. The Revolutionary Guard seems to operate with its own momentum, and there have already been examples where official statements from leadership did not match what was happening on the ground. That makes any potential deal feel shaky before it even starts. At the same time, there are signals that nobody really wants this to go all the way. Regional players like Saudi Arabia and Israel seem to prefer a scenario where enough damage is done to force a change in behavior without triggering total collapse. The idea is to hit hard enough that the current path is no longer viable, but not so hard that everything spirals into something uncontrollable. That’s a very narrow lane to try to stay in, especially when the rhetoric is this intense. Then there’s Trump himself, and I just keep coming back to the sense that he wants out. He talks about bringing people home with a win, but also hints at more aggressive options that would be far more complicated in reality. There is always that tension between the dealmaker instinct and the willingness to escalate. Right now it feels like both are present at the same time, and it’s anything but clear which one is going to win out. So I end up sitting with a lot of uncertainty, like a lot of people seem to have right now. The timeline suggests something is supposed to happen soon, but these situations have a way of stretching out or changing shape at the last minute. When the conversation ends on a line like an entire civilization potentially disappearing, it leaves me in a place where the only honest answer is that we are going to find out in real time what any of this actually means. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:02:19 - Trump’s Escalating Threats on Iran 00:16:00 - Kirk Bado on the Winners and Losers of the DHS Shutdown 00:40:02 - Update and Sanctuary City Airports 00:43:24 - Bill Gates 00:45:34 - Kalshi 00:49:53 - Interview with Kirk Bado, con’t. 01:16:42 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Pam Bondi is out as attorney general, and even though the official line is that she is moving on to something else, it really feels like a firing that had been building for a while. This is the first moment in this version of the administration where it feels less controlled and more like the old pattern, where someone becomes a liability and is shown the door. Looking back at her tenure, it’s hard for me to see it as anything other than turbulent from the beginning. She came in aggressive, especially on the Epstein files, making big public claims about what she had and what was coming. That created expectations that were never met, and when the follow through did not match the buildup, it turned into a credibility problem that never really went away. Once that narrative took hold, it felt like everything else she did was judged through that lens. The bigger issue seems to have been execution. There was clearly an effort to go after people seen as political adversaries, but the cases kept falling apart. Whether you think those targets were justified or not, the reality is that they did not hold up in court. That points less to ideology and more to process, and from what I can tell, there were real concerns inside legal circles that the work coming out of her office as AG just was not up to the typical standard. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. At the same time, there’s the performative side of the job, and that might’ve been worse. This administration expects its officials to be fighters in the Trump mold, and not everyone can pull that off. When she tried to lean into that style — especially in hearings — it often came off as forced or awkward. That matters more than it probably should, because presentation is a big part of how this White House measures effectiveness. What makes this moment stand out to me is how it fits into the broader mood inside the administration. There are signs of tension, more shakeups, and a general sense that things are not running smoothly. When firings start to happen in that environment, it is usually not just about one person. It is about an administration trying to correct course while dealing with political pressure, falling poll numbers, and a complicated international situation. There’s also a noticeable difference in how these exits are handled compared to the first Trump term. This time, there is less public trashing on the way out. Bondi is not being turned into a villain in the same way guys like Steve Bannon were. It feels more managed, at least on the surface, which suggests there is an effort to keep things from looking chaotic even when they are. In the end, I see Bondi’s departure as less about a single failure and more about a combination of missteps that added up over time. Big promises that did not land, legal efforts that did not stick, and a style that never quite fit the role all contributed. When you add that to an administration that is already under pressure, it becomes easier to understand why she is the one who ends up out. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:03:22 - Pam Bondi Out 00:11:24 - Jason Levin on Memetic Warfare 00:34:37 - Trump’s Primetime Iran Speech 00:43:12 - DHS Funding and Mike Johnson 00:44:59 - Hegseth and Gen. Randy George 00:46:51 - Interview with Jason Levin, con’t. 01:15:42 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

On the surface, the question of whether Donald Trump can actually force Congress back to Washington to deal with the DHS shutdown sounds simple and dramatic. The Senate is gone, the House is gone, and yet, the problem is sitting there unresolved. Trump, Mike Johnson, and some Republicans are saying they should come back and fix it. The reality is a lot less cinematic. Right now, the Senate is technically in session but only barely. They are holding what are called pro forma sessions, which is basically the minimum effort required to say they are still working. One senator shows up, gavels in, gavels out, and everyone else stays wherever they already are. That setup is not an accident. It is designed specifically so nobody has to come back and take uncomfortable votes, even if there is business that could be handled quickly. There is a constitutional argument floating around that Trump could intervene. Article II, Section 3 gives the president the authority to convene Congress on extraordinary occasions, and some legal interpretations say that power is fairly broad. At least on paper, that sounds like a path. If this is a crisis, then call them back and make them deal with it. But Congress has always pushed back hard on that idea because it cuts directly into their independence, and the courts have generally sided with Congress when it comes to controlling their own schedule. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. That is why, in practical terms, I don’t think Trump can force anything here. Even if he tried, it would turn into a political and possibly legal fight that would take longer than the shutdown itself. The Senate is a body that moves when it wants to move, and it prides itself on being slow, deliberate, and resistant to pressure. That is a polite way of saying they are not going to be bullied into flying back to DC because the White House tells them to. What actually matters is not the Constitution, it is the pressure. If the situation gets bad enough, senators will come back because they have to, not because they are ordered to. The key variable here is not a legal memo, but TSA lines. If airports turn into a disaster heading into a major travel weekend — you know, like Easter — then the political heat spikes immediately. That is when you start to see movement, because now voters are directly affected in a way they cannot ignore. Trump seems to understand that, which is why he moved to get TSA agents paid through executive action. It’s not a long term fix, but it might be enough to keep things from melting down. If the lines stay manageable, the urgency fades, and Congress can ride out the recess without much consequence. If the lines explode and people start missing flights in large numbers, then suddenly everyone has a reason to get back on a plane to Washington. So in the end, this is less about whether Trump can bring Congress back and more about whether circumstances will force Congress to bring itself back. My guess is that if the immediate pressure stays low, they will stay exactly where they are: in Disney World. If it doesn’t, though — if the public starts feeling the pain in a visible way — then the same lawmakers who left town will find a way to suddenly return to town very quickly. Chapters * 00:00:00 - Intro * 00:03:32 - Can Trump Call Congress Back to DC? * 00:17:28 - Riley Blanton on Iran and the Military Community’s Response * 00:43:50 - Update * 00:44:13 - Gas Prices * 00:47:21 - Trump’s Poll Numbers * 00:51:57 - Birthright Citizenship * 00:57:30 - Interview with Riley Blanton, con’t. * 01:35:38 - 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 I recorded this episode, the Department of Homeland Security has been unfunded for more than 40 days, and the consequences are no longer abstract. TSA lines are stretching into hours at major airports, and with spring break and Easter travel ramping up, the strain is only getting worse. What stands out to me is the timing. The Senate appears ready to leave town for a two-week recess without resolving the standoff. That means lawmakers are effectively betting that the disruption will not reach a breaking point while they are gone. I am not so sure that is a safe bet. At the center of the dispute is funding for ICE enforcement operations. Democrats see this as a winning political issue and are holding firm. Republicans, meanwhile, are warning that the visible fallout, especially at airports, could become a liability for everyone involved. I keep coming back to one scenario that still feels unlikely but no longer impossible. If staffing shortages hit a critical level, you could see airport operations significantly disrupted or even halted. It would likely take something that dramatic to force lawmakers back to Washington. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. From where I sit, Democrats are doubling down on an issue they believe energizes their base. But there is a risk in focusing on something that is not dominating headlines in the present moment. TSA delays are happening right now. This is a present problem, not something abstract, and ICE policy debates are not leading the news cycle in the same way. I also think leadership dynamics are playing a role. Chuck Schumer appears to be navigating pressure from within his own party, especially during primary season. There is a real possibility that he is waiting for public sentiment, including among Democratic voters, to shift enough to justify a compromise. At some point, though, there is usually a moment where a deal becomes the only viable option. The question is how much disruption it will take to get there. Donald Trump is expected to step in with an executive action aimed at addressing the TSA situation. The details are still unclear, but one possibility involves reallocating funds to keep operations running. That underscores a broader dynamic. Republicans increasingly see the shutdown as politically risky, while also betting that Democrats will not agree to a broader funding deal. The White House, for its part, continues to argue that fully funding DHS is the simplest solution. From my perspective, any executive fix is likely temporary. The underlying political fight is not going away. Chapters 00:00 - Intro 02:47 - DHS Shutdown 13:05 - Ruy Teixeira, The Liberal Patriot, and Update 19:18 - Iran 22:01 - Voter ID 23:56 - Anthropic and the Pentagon 27:09 - AI Framework with Andy Beach 56:12 - 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

The push to resolve the Department of Homeland Security shutdown through reconciliation is running into a hard reality in the Senate. What looks like a procedural workaround is, in practice, a much narrower path than many Republicans are publicly suggesting. At first glance, the strategy sounds clean. Fund most of DHS through a bipartisan deal, then use reconciliation to push through the rest, specifically ICE funding and pieces of the SAVE Act. No 60-vote threshold. No Democratic buy-in required. Problem solved. But the deeper I look at it, the less I think that path actually works. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The issue is the Byrd Rule, which is the guardrail on reconciliation. If it is not directly tied to the budget, meaning spending or revenue, it does not survive. And while ICE funding clearly qualifies, voter ID requirements and proof of citizenship mandates do not neatly fit into that category. That is why there is so little real enthusiasm behind the scenes for this plan. Publicly, it sounds like leverage. Privately, it looks like a stretch. From Trump’s perspective, the calculation is straightforward. He wants the SAVE Act, and he wants it tied to reopening DHS. That is the leverage. If Republicans split the two, they lose their biggest bargaining chip. That is why he initially rejected the idea of funding DHS first and handling ICE later. It weakens the negotiating position and turns a must-pass moment into a maybe-pass later. But the pressure is building. TSA lines are growing. The shutdown is visible. And some Republicans want to move on, not because they think they are losing politically, but because this fight is burning time they need for other priorities. A Theoretical Workaround There is, at least in theory, a way to thread this needle. If Republicans paired voter ID requirements with federal funding to provide free identification and proof of citizenship, you could argue that the policy has a direct budgetary impact. That would be the hook to survive reconciliation under the Byrd Rule. It would also undercut one of the central Democratic arguments, that voter ID laws function as a poll tax. If the IDs are free, that argument becomes harder to sustain. But even then, this is not a slam dunk. The Senate parliamentarian has wide discretion, and reconciliation rules have been stretched before, but not without limits. So where does that leave things? In my view, reconciliation is less of a solution and more of a talking point right now. It gives Republicans a way to signal that they have a plan to get everything they want. But the actual mechanics of the Senate make that plan far more difficult to execute than it sounds. Which means we are likely headed back to the same place most shutdown fights end: a negotiated deal that neither side fully likes, followed by both sides claiming victory. Because for all the talk of procedural maneuvers and legislative strategy, the simplest truth still applies. At some point, the government has to reopen. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:02:00 - DHS, SAVE Act, and Reconciliation 00:14:05 - Oklahoma Senate Seat 00:15:50 - Iran War Negotiations 00:23:53 - Georgia’s Daylight Saving Time Bill 00:26:10 - Interview with Juliegrace Brufke 01:01:14 - 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 Iran war is entering a more dangerous phase, not because of troop movements, but because energy infrastructure is now a target and the price tag is starting to match the escalation. At the same time, artificial intelligence is emerging as the next political battlefield, shaping both policy debates and the broader information environment. What stood out to me immediately is how the war is evolving. We are no longer just talking about missile launches and leadership strikes. Energy infrastructure has become fair game. Iran hitting a liquefied natural gas facility in Qatar, after Israel struck Iranian gas fields, is a complete and total shift in what counts as a legitimate target. Once you start targeting gas fields and LNG infrastructure, you are no longer just fighting a regional war. You are influencing global markets, allies, and supply chains all at once. Energy itself is global. That is usually the phase where conflicts either spiral or move toward negotiation. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. My instinct is that this is the point where talks at least become more likely. Not guaranteed, but more likely. Because once energy becomes the battlefield, the costs stop being theoretical. Then you get to the update, and this is where things get real. The Trump administration is reportedly preparing a $200 billion supplemental request for the Pentagon. That number doesn’t match the messaging. You don’t ask for $200 billion if this is a clean, four-to-six week operation. That’s a number that suggests duration just as much as it suggests uncertainty. It suggests that, whatever the original plan was, the current expectation is something longer and more complicated. And politically, that is where the ground starts to shift. Democrats are obviously not going to support that. But more importantly, there are plenty of Republicans who will not put their names behind this action either — epecially the faction that already believes this war risks turning into another Iraq-style commitment. So now the question is not just “are we winning?” It is “how long are we staying?” And those are very different political questions. Militarily, the signals are still positive for the United States and Israel. There have been clear tactical wins. Iran has taken significant damage. There are even hints of internal instability within the regime. But strategically, it’s still murky. We do not know how close the regime is to collapsing. We do not know whether continued strikes accelerate that collapse or entrench resistance. And we do not know whether the administration actually wants regime change or just behavioral change. That gap between battlefield success and strategic clarity is where wars tend to get complicated. And when you pair that with a nine-figure funding request, that’s how skepticism starts to grow — and fast. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:02:09 - Senate Draft Begins 00:04:13 - 2026 Senate Draft Round One 00:28:39 - Iranian Negotiations 00:30:50 - White House AI Framework 00:32:35 - 2026 Senate Draft Round Two 00:49:34 - 2026 Senate Draft Round Three 01:04:19 - 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 of the most striking developments during the Iran war has been the reappearance of something that used to define American media a century ago: yellow journalism. Historically, the term referred to sensationalized reporting that prioritized outrage and emotion over accuracy, often using thin sourcing and dramatic narratives to mobilize public opinion. The Spanish–American War, famously fueled by headlines like “Remember the Maine,” is the classic example. Today the structure is different, but the incentives are remarkably similar. Instead of a handful of powerful newspaper publishers driving the narrative, the modern system is decentralized. Social media users, influencers, and coordinated networks can amplify stories through algorithms until traditional outlets feel compelled to cover them simply because they are trending. All of this results in feedback loop. A rumor or distorted piece of information circulates online, gets boosted within a particular political community, and eventually becomes a topic of mainstream reporting. At that point the original claim, even if false, has successfully entered the public conversation. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The Five Tribes of the Iran War This dynamic is especially powerful because the online political ecosystem is already divided into ideological “tribes” that interpret events through their own narratives. On the left, there is what might be called the new resistance, Democrats who see every development in the war primarily through the lens of whether it helps or hurts Donald Trump politically. Alongside them sits the progressive anti-war faction, deeply skeptical of Israel and convinced the conflict validates their warnings about American interventionism. On the right, the divide is just as sharp. One faction could be described as the Gnostic MAGA movement, a group of populist conservatives who believe Trump has betrayed the movement’s core promises by engaging in foreign conflict. In contrast, another faction believes Trump is right about everything, arguing that the war’s early results show his strategy is working and that critics are panicking too early. Then there is a final group: the “maybe this time Trump” neoconservatives, longtime critics of the former president who nevertheless support aggressive action against Iran and therefore find themselves, temporarily, aligned with his policy. These communities overlap in complicated ways, but each one is primed to amplify certain narratives that confirm its worldview. How a Rumor Becomes “News” The mechanics of modern yellow journalism often begin with a small piece of truth that can be exaggerated or distorted. Once it is framed in a way that triggers emotional reactions inside one or more of these ideological tribes, the story spreads rapidly through reposts, commentary, and algorithmic amplification. Eventually, the rumor becomes so widely discussed that major media outlets cover it, sometimes simply to debunk it. But by that point the narrative has already achieved its goal: it has entered mainstream awareness and eroded trust in competing sources of information. In wartime, this dynamic becomes even more powerful. Governments themselves may benefit from confusion, exaggeration, or competing narratives. The battlefield isn’t just physical territory, but also public perception. The deeper challenge is that the modern information ecosystem has no central referee. In the past, editors at major newspapers could decide what was credible enough to print. Today, social media algorithms and online communities perform that role collectively, often rewarding the most emotionally compelling stories rather than the most accurate ones. That means the burden increasingly falls on individuals to filter information themselves. If a story makes people furious or ecstatic instantly, that reaction is often a sign to pause before sharing it. A New Information Era The Iran war may eventually be remembered not only for its military consequences but also for what it revealed about the way modern media operates. The sensationalism that once drove early twentieth-century newspaper empires has reappeared in a decentralized, digital form. Yellow journalism never disappeared — it’s just changed and evolved to keep up with modern times. And in the middle of a war, its power to shape public perception may be greater than ever. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:02:14 - Susie Wiles 00:03:38 - DHS Shutdown 00:04:33 - Yellow Journalism in the Iran War Era 00:29:10 - Iranian Security Chief Killed 00:33:15 - Joe Kent 00:39:29 - Texas AI Ad 00:41:32 - Reese Gorman on Texas and Oklahoma 01:12:27 - 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

Washington state Democrats have passed a new 9.9 percent income tax on millionaires, the first income tax in the state’s history. The measure now heads to the governor’s desk and represents a major shift in a state long known for its lack of personal income taxes. But the policy debate is already colliding with economic reality. Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has announced he is relocating to Florida, a state with no income tax. That move underscores a longstanding pattern in American economics: high earners often respond to aggressive tax policies by moving to lower-tax jurisdictions. If more states pursue similar policies, the migration of wealthy taxpayers to places like Florida, Texas, and Tennessee could accelerate. The broader question is what happens if that migration significantly shrinks the tax base in high-spending states. European countries experimented with wealth taxes for years before many rolled them back after wealthy residents simply moved elsewhere. Washington may now be testing whether the same dynamic will play out inside the United States. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The Filibuster Fight and the SAVE Act Meanwhile, a new institutional battle is brewing in the Senate. Senator Ron Johnson is pushing for a vote to begin debate on ending the legislative filibuster, at least in its current form. The immediate catalyst is the House-passed SAVE America Act, which focuses on citizenship-based voter registration and voting ID requirements. Republicans do not currently have the 60 votes needed to pass the legislation under existing Senate rules. That reality has revived calls to weaken the filibuster by shifting to a “talking filibuster,” forcing senators who want to block legislation to continuously hold the floor rather than simply signaling opposition. Institutionalists in both parties warn that such a move could be the beginning of the end for the Senate’s 60-vote threshold entirely. Supporters argue the change is inevitable anyway and that the current rules simply prevent major legislation from passing. Either way, the vote could force senators to go on record about how much they value the chamber’s traditional rules. Jim Clyburn and the Persistence of Incumbency Finally, South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn has announced that he plans to seek reelection at age 85. First elected in 1992, Clyburn remains one of the most influential figures in Democratic politics and a central leader within the Congressional Black Caucus. His decision highlights the enduring power of incumbency in American politics. While voters and activists often debate generational change, long-serving lawmakers frequently retain strong political machines and local loyalty that discourage serious primary challenges. For now, there is little sign that anyone in Clyburn’s district is preparing to challenge him. Taken together, these developments offer a snapshot of the current political landscape: states experimenting with new tax policies, the Senate wrestling with its own rules of power, and long-time incumbents continuing to dominate the institutions they helped shape. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro on Iran and Elections 00:08:47 - Iran Breakdown with Ryan McBeth 01:07:54 - Update 01:08:14 - Washington State Tax 01:09:53 - Filibuster 01:13:30 - Jim Clyburn 01:14:37 - Oscar-Nominated Movie Talk with Jada Yuan 02:38:28 - 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

I’ve reached a point where the marketplace of ideas feels broken. The conversation around the Iran war, especially the discussion about oil prices and the Strait of Hormuz, has been less about understanding events and more about reacting to every twitch in the market. This realization hit me last weekend when I watched otherwise smart commentators react breathlessly to oil futures spiking. Writers like Nate Silver and Derek Thompson framed the surge in prices as a potentially catastrophic moment for the Trump administration, a Rubicon that could permanently damage the president’s economic credibility. That logic makes sense in theory. Gas prices are one of the most politically sensitive indicators in American life. If they rise sharply and stay elevated, the economic narrative can turn quickly against any administration. But what bothered me wasn’t the conclusion. It was how little anyone seemed to know about the mechanics behind the story. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a massive share of the world’s oil flows, became the center of speculation. Could Iran shut it down? Had it ever been fully closed before? What would the United States do if shipping lanes were mined? These are complex questions. Yet much of the discussion reduced them to the most basic possible analysis: oil prices go up, oil prices go down. The Problem With Market Narratives and the Age of Info Slop Over the course of a single night, I found myself obsessively researching the issue. I dug into the Iran–Iraq tanker wars of the 1980s, when both countries targeted shipping in the Persian Gulf. I looked at how mines were deployed in the Strait of Hormuz and how the United States eventually intervened to escort tankers and protect trade routes. The historical lesson was clear. Even during the worst periods of that conflict, the strait never truly closed. Oil shipments slowed and risks increased, but global energy markets adapted. By Monday morning, the markets themselves seemed to confirm the lesson. Oil prices surged, then dropped back below their previous levels. The panic narrative collapsed almost as quickly as it appeared. What replaced it was not clarity but confusion. Rumors circulated that Iran was mining the strait. Other reports suggested ships were still passing through after turning off their transponders. At one point, a claim that the U.S. Navy had escorted a tanker through the strait briefly moved markets before the White House denied it. This constant churn of speculation reveals a deeper problem: very few people actually know what is happening. In theory, the modern information environment should make us better informed. Instead, it often produces the opposite result. Analysts extrapolate sweeping conclusions from tiny fragments of data, while social media amplifies every rumor until it looks like evidence. The result is what I can only describe as “info slop.” Bits of partially verified information get passed along, combined, and reinterpreted until the original facts are almost impossible to distinguish from the speculation built around them. In a normal news cycle, that dynamic is frustrating. But in a war, it is dangerous. The Iran conflict carries enormous stakes. A prolonged fight could reshape the Middle East, disrupt global energy markets, or even trigger a wider geopolitical confrontation. Yet the public conversation about the war often resembles message-board debates rather than serious analysis. We are arguing over rumors about oil shipments and naval escorts while the broader strategic picture remains murky. Part of the problem is structural. During wartime, the actors with the most reliable information have strong incentives not to share it. Governments conceal details to protect military operations. Adversaries spread misinformation to manipulate perceptions. Even seemingly straightforward facts become difficult to confirm. Was a school struck by a missile because of a U.S. attack, an Iranian malfunction, or something else entirely? Did Iran mine shipping lanes, or were markets reacting to a rumor? In many cases, the honest answer is simply that we do not know. And yet the conversation continues as if every piece of incomplete information carries definitive meaning. Stepping Back From the Noise For me, the lesson is simple. If the discourse is making you feel more confident about events you barely understand, it may not actually be informing you. It may simply be feeding the human instinct to fill gaps in knowledge with speculation. The war with Iran could become one of the defining geopolitical events of this era. It could destabilize a region, reshape energy markets, or even trigger regime change inside Iran itself. But right now, much of what passes for analysis is just noise layered on top of uncertainty. The healthiest response might be the hardest one: consume less of it. Read less news that pretends to provide clarity where none exists. We don’t know what’s happening yet. And pretending otherwise doesn’t make us smarter. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:02:18 - Thomas Massie 00:06:24 - Iran Discourse 00:16:59 - Kirk Bado on Iran 00:32:36 - Update 00:33:36 - Oil 00:34:51 - SAVE America Act 00:40:41 - AI Hiring 00:42:49 - Kirk Bado on Iran, con’t 00:54:38 - Kirk Bado on Texas 01:13:09 - Steelers Talk 01:22:16 - 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 didn’t expect the day’s biggest story to land before the show even got rolling, but the first major cabinet domino of the Trump administration has finally fallen. Kristi Noem is out as Secretary of Homeland Security. The immediate cause appears to be a congressional hearing exchange that went sideways. During testimony before Sen. John Kennedy, Noem said that a $200 million ad campaign — one that prominently featured her — had been approved by the president. The White House later said it had not, and it’s that contradiction that seems to have been the final straw for Trump. It’s no secret that the ground had been shifting under Noem for a while. Critical press coverage had been building, particularly around operational issues inside DHS. Some of it focused on headline controversies, but much of it involved the less glamorous details of running a department: delayed contracts, paperwork sitting unsigned, and basic administrative work that insiders say was slipping through the cracks. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Complicating matters was the presence of Corey Lewandowski, who had developed a reputation inside the department as a, let’s say, aggressive and polarizing figure. According to people around Washington, he made enemies across the bureaucracy, and those tensions ultimately became inseparable from Noem’s own standing within the administration. Trump’s apparent choice to replace her is Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, a former MMA fighter who has built a reputation in Washington as a loyal Trump ally and a frequent presence on television. In some ways, Mullin is a pragmatic pick. Replacing a cabinet secretary this late in a term can be politically tricky because any nominee must survive Senate confirmation. A sitting senator already has relationships and credibility inside the chamber, making it easier for colleagues to vote yes even if the appointment is politically uncomfortable. That dynamic worked to the administration’s advantage when Marco Rubio moved into a cabinet role earlier in the term, and it could play out similarly here. Senators are often more willing to confirm someone they know than an unfamiliar nominee from outside Washington. Noem’s departure also lands in the middle of a broader policy fight. DHS remains partially shut down due to a standoff between Democrats and the administration over immigration enforcement policies. From my perspective, this moment could provide Democrats with a face-saving off-ramp. With Noem gone, they could claim a political victory and move toward reopening the department without appearing to capitulate entirely on their policy demands. The alternative — maintaining a shutdown while security risks mount — carries its own political dangers. When federal security agencies operate without full funding, the political blame game gets complicated very quickly if something goes wrong. Fallout from the Texas Primaries Meanwhile, the ripple effects from the Texas primary elections are already shaping the next phase of the campaign cycle. Sen. John Cornyn and Attorney General Ken Paxton are heading toward a runoff, and President Trump has signaled he may intervene with an endorsement. Paxton has already indicated he won’t automatically step aside even if Trump backs Cornyn, raising the possibility that the party’s internal fight could stretch out for weeks. Democrats, for their part, clearly prefer facing Paxton in the general election given his long history of scandals and investigations. Another runoff will take place in Texas’s 23rd congressional district, where Tony Gonzalez is facing intense pressure after admitting he had an affair with a staffer. The admission carries serious implications. Relationships between members of Congress and staff can trigger ethics violations, and Gonzalez now faces an ongoing investigation. Leadership within the Republican caucus is reportedly signaling that even if he wins the runoff, he could still face consequences in Washington. In other words, his political future may already be decided regardless of how the voters rule. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:01:01 - Kristi Noem 00:08:07 - Markwayne Mullin 00:11:19 - Interview with Jennifer Doleac 00:33:22 - Update 00:33:54 - Cornyn/Paxton 00:36:47 - Tony Gonzales 00:39:36 - Mullin’s Senate Replacement 00:41:36 - Interview with Jennifer Doleac, con’t 01:00:14 - 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