Politics Politics Politics

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...

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...

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...

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...

The fight between Anthropic and the Pentagon goes deeper than a simple contract dispute. In some ways, it’s the culmination of a tech rivalry that’s been simmering since the early days of OpenAI. Anthropic wasn’t some scrappy outsider that stumbled into national security. It’d already had top secret clearance, working with the CIA for years, and had seemingly made peace with the idea that its models would be used inside the American intelligence apparatus. So let’s dispense with the notion that this is a company discovering government power for the first time. The rupture didn’t happen because the Pentagon suddenly knocked on the door. The door had been open. The disagreement came down to terms. Anthropic wanted to draw lines beyond the law. No mass surveillance of civilians. No autonomous weapons without a human in the loop. Not “we’ll follow U.S. statute.” They wanted something stricter, something moral, something aligned with Dario Amodei’s effective altruist worldview. The Pentagon’s response was blunt: we obey US law, but we don’t sign up to a private company’s expanded terms of service. That’s where the temperature rose. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Because this isn’t just any company. Dario left OpenAI over exactly this kind of philosophical divide. He believed OpenAI was becoming too commercial, too focused on product, not focused enough on safety and existential risk. So he built Anthropic as the safety lab. The kinder, gentler, crunchier alternative. But ironically, Anthropic was already cashing government checks while telling itself it was the adult in the room. From the Pentagon’s perspective, the risk was operational. If you’re going to integrate a model into defense infrastructure, you can’t have the supplier yank the API mid-mission because the CEO decides the vibes are off. There were even reports that during negotiations, Pentagon officials asked whether Anthropic would allow its technology to respond to incoming ballistic missiles if civilian casualties were possible. The alleged answer, “you can always call,” wasn’t reassuring to people whose job is to eliminate hesitation. And hovering over all of this is Sam Altman. Because while Anthropic was sparring with the Department of Defense, OpenAI was in conversation. The rivalry here isn’t new. The effective altruist faction at OpenAI once helped push Altman out of his own company before he managed to return days later. Anthropic ran a Super Bowl ad that took thinly veiled shots at OpenAI’s commercialization. So when Anthropic stumbled, OpenAI stepped in and secured its own defense agreement. Then came the nuclear option talk: labeling Anthropic a “supply chain risk.” In Pentagon language, this is the category you reserve for companies like Huawei, for hostile foreign hardware, for entities you believe can’t be trusted inside American systems. Most people inside and outside the tech landscape agree that goes too far. Anthropic may be principled. It may be stubborn. It may even be naive. But it isn’t malicious. Meanwhile, something fascinating happened in the market. Claude, Anthropic’s consumer product, exploded in downloads. It became a kind of digital resistance symbol, a signal that you weren’t with the war machine. The company that once insisted it didn’t care about consumer dominance suddenly found itself riding a consumer wave, experience mass traffic it hadn’t planned to account for. What this entire episode reveals is that AI isn’t a lab experiment anymore. It’s infrastructure. It’s missile defense. It’s geopolitical leverage. And when you build something that powerful, you don’t get to exist outside power structures. You either align with them, fight them, or try to morally outmaneuver them. Anthropic tried the third path. The Pentagon reminded them that in wartime procurement, ambiguity isn’t a feature. Cooler heads may...

The United States is now in open conflict with Iran after a joint U.S.–Israeli operation killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the opening hours of what the White House has dubbed Operation Epic Fury. The geopolitical aftershocks are already reshaping the Middle East, and could upend the fate of the midterms come November. Over the weekend, American and Israeli forces launched a coordinated campaign targeting Iranian military infrastructure and senior leadership. The United States focused on equipment and strategic assets. Israel targeted personnel. Among the dead: Ali Khamenei, former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and multiple layers of senior command. What we saw was the clearest expression yet of what I would describe as Trump’s second-term regime change playbook. First, engage in extended negotiations, regardless of whether the other side is stalling. Second, quietly position overwhelming military force within striking distance. Third, execute a rapid, highly choreographed strike that immediately removes the head of state. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. It is ruthlessly efficient. It is high risk. And unlike Iraq in 2003, the primary target was eliminated in the opening salvo. There will be no years of grainy bunker videos from Tehran. The symbolic center of power is gone. But speed does not guarantee stability. The immediate question is not whether the operation succeeded militarily. It did. The question is what comes next. Regional Realignment and the Oil Chessboard One of the most striking developments has been the reaction across the region. Missiles were fired from Iran into the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Both countries then moved rhetorically closer to the American position. Even the Palestinian Authority condemned the Iranian strikes. If Saudi Arabia was quietly supportive of regime change, as some reporting suggests, then the long arc of the Abraham Accords may be bending toward a new regional bloc: Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar acting as economic and security anchors. Iran, long positioned as the ideological counterweight, now faces a vacuum. Then there’s China. Iran exports roughly 90 percent of its oil to Beijing at discounted rates. If a post-Khamenei Iran stabilizes and reenters broader markets, China’s leverage shrinks. Add to that Venezuela’s instability and potential changes to Russian oil flows, and Beijing’s energy calculus becomes far more complicated. Energy is not just economics. It’s military capacity. Constrain oil, and you constrain strategic freedom of movement. That dynamic remains very much in play. Washington Divides Domestically, the political fallout is already taking shape. Republicans argue the strike was legal and necessary, pointing to congressional briefings and framing the action as a decisive blow against a long-standing adversary. Democrats are coalescing around a familiar and potent message: anti-war restraint. Senators like Chris Murphy and Chris Coons have questioned both the legality and the long-term strategy, warning of destabilization and regional blowback. This is where the midterm implications become real. The MAGA coalition includes a significant anti-war faction shaped by Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of those voters supported Trump precisely because he promised to avoid prolonged Middle Eastern entanglements. A swift strike is one thing. A sustained conflict is another. Three American service members are already confirmed dead, with five seriously wounded. That fact alone changes the tone. Nothing shifts public opinion faster than a body count. Democrats are often most effective when opposing war. Republicans, meanwhile, are betting that decisive action will project strength. But without an appetite for prolonged conflict in the Middle East, any success in November for Trump very much remains up in the air. The Off-Ramp Question The key...

We are officially in the phase of a campaign where decency gets tossed aside and the opposition research file is emptied directly into a 30-second spot. One local ad targeting Cook County Commissioner Samantha Steele opens with footage from her DUI arrest and the now-infamous line, “I’m an elected official.” The ad’s structure is ruthlessly efficient. Lead with the footage. Transition from self-importance to alleged abuse of power. Tie it together with a tagline about rules not applying to her. On the nasty scale, it earns high marks. It is disciplined, rhythmic, and unforgiving. Then there is the Texas Senate Republican primary, where the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Sen. John Cornyn are going directly at Attorney General Ken Paxton. Divorce. Allegations of infidelity. Wealth accumulation during scandal. Even insinuations about cultural issues designed to rile the base. It is the kind of ad that signals panic or confidence. Sometimes both. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Contrast that with Paxton’s softer spot featuring his daughter speaking about him as a grandfather. It is the standard counterpunch to a scandal narrative: humanize, slow down, soften the edges. When campaigns spend that kind of money on family-centered messaging, it usually means they are trying to cover something sharp underneath. The larger point is simple. As we approach primary day, the gloves are off. Tariffs, Courts, and the $133 Billion Question Beyond campaign warfare, the Trump administration is wrestling with the fallout from the Supreme Court striking down its sweeping tariff regime. Roughly $133 billion in collected duties now sit in limbo. Officials are reportedly exploring ways to discourage refund claims, stretch out litigation, or even reimpose tariffs under new legal authorities. Trade lawyers argue the government previously committed to repayment with interest and that courts will scrutinize any attempt to sidestep that obligation. This is less about ideology and more about arithmetic. If companies want their money back, they are likely to get it. The administration may find voluntary compliance from firms seeking goodwill, but legally, the leverage is limited. This is the bargaining phase after a judicial loss. The Epstein Depositions Begin Hillary Clinton was deposed behind closed doors in Washington as part of the House Oversight Committee’s work on the Epstein files. She maintained that she had no knowledge of wrongdoing involving Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. Democrats are pushing for a full, unedited transcript release to prevent selective leaks from shaping the narrative. Tensions flared when Rep. Lauren Boebert leaked an image of Clinton during the deposition, briefly halting proceedings. Next comes Bill Clinton. For those with long political memories, that sense of history repeating itself is unavoidable. Whether anything explosive emerges remains to be seen, but the optics alone ensure sustained attention. Transactional Politics in Real Time Perhaps the most revealing political maneuver of the week came from New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. In an unscheduled trip to Washington, he reportedly presented President Trump with specific names of detained individuals and requested their release. One Columbia-affiliated detainee was subsequently freed. The broader lesson is something I have observed for years. With Trump, flattery and direct engagement can yield tangible results. Politics is transactional. If you give him a headline he likes or a symbolic win, you may get policy movement in return. Mamdani appears to understand that dynamic. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:03:27 - Nasty Political Ads 00:10:52 - Interview with Kevin Ryan 00:51:33 - Update 00:51:47 - Tariffs 00:53:13 - Clintons 00:54:57 - Mamdani and Trump 00:59:13 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, con’t 01:38:33 -...

I sat down with Capitol Hill reporter Juliegrace Brufke to unpack the explosive allegations surrounding Rep. Tony Gonzalez and his reported relationship with a former district staffer, whose tragic death last year has sent shockwaves through Texas politics and beyond. We walk through the timeline of the affair, the emergence of explicit text messages, claims of coercion, the husband’s response, and Gonzalez’s shifting public defense, including allegations of blackmail. Beyond the personal tragedy, we also examine the political fallout, from calls for Gonzalez’s resignation and the potential for an expulsion vote to the razor-thin House majority and what this scandal could mean for the upcoming Texas primary. Disclaimer: This episode contains graphic descriptions of sexual misconduct and self-harm. Follow Juliegrace Brufke on X/Twitter. Chapters 00:00 - Intro and Disclaimer 03:25 - The Tony Gonzales Case with Juliegrace Brufke 07:16 - What We Know and Background 14:51 - New Details of the Case and Gonzales’, Local, and Congressional Responses 28:59 - Sealed Files, Endorsements, and Other Fallout 37:26 - Gonzales’ Relationships in Congress and Blackmail Allegation Details 41:53 - 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

President Trump says he will decide within 10 to 15 days whether to continue diplomatic efforts with Iran or authorize military action. On paper, talks in Geneva have been described as “positive.” In practice, the military posture tells a more urgent story. Significant naval assets are in place, including carrier strike groups positioned to project air power quickly. What stands out is the operational framing. The buildup appears geared toward air and naval strikes, not large-scale ground deployments. Bombs in, not boots in. That distinction matters politically and strategically. A rapid, targeted operation is easier to message and easier to contain. A prolonged engagement is not. I have no inside knowledge of what comes next. But the reporting suggests that every preparatory step short of execution has been taken. That does not guarantee action. It does mean the window for decision is real. If a strike happens, the political fallout will depend almost entirely on duration. Days are one thing. Weeks are another. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Prince Andrew and the Epstein Fallout Across the Atlantic, the Epstein document releases are producing consequences that are less sensational but more legally concrete than many expected. Andrew Montbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office and later released. The scrutiny centers not on lurid allegations alone, but on claims that confidential trade documents may have been shared with Jeffrey Epstein during Andrew’s tenure as a trade envoy. That is the pattern emerging from the latest tranche of disclosures. The most actionable material involves documents, authority, and institutional misuse, not the more speculative narratives that dominate online conversation. Trade secrets and official privilege are prosecutable. Rumor is not. If these allegations hold, the implications extend beyond Andrew personally. They could destabilize broader political relationships in the United Kingdom and intensify scrutiny of other high-profile Epstein associates. The sensational headlines grab attention, but it is the paper trail that moves prosecutors. DHS Funding and Pre–State of the Union Brinkmanship Back home, the Department of Homeland Security funding fight remains stalled. Democrats are demanding immigration enforcement reforms, including stricter warrant requirements, ending certain patrol practices, and unmasking field agents. Republicans have labeled those proposals red lines and accuse Democrats of leveraging the shutdown for political positioning ahead of the State of the Union. Nothing substantive is likely to move before the president addresses Congress. The incentives run the other way. Democrats want to be seen as fighting. Republicans want to frame the impasse as obstruction. In the meantime, DHS operates in partial shutdown conditions, with essential personnel continuing work but long-term uncertainty hanging over the department. The broader dynamic is familiar. Shutdowns are blunt instruments. They energize bases but rarely deliver maximal outcomes. Eventually, one side cuts a deal and angers its most committed supporters. The only open question is who blinks first and how much rhetorical damage accumulates before they do. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:02:11 - Dave Levinthal on Dems’ Midterm Fundraising 00:27:24 - Update 00:29:00 - Iran 00:33:30 - Former Prince Andrew Arrested 00:35:10 - DHS Funding Talks 00:38:20 - Karol Markowicz on Republican Vibes 01:21:35 - 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 situation remains murky. President Trump says he will be indirectly involved in renewed nuclear talks in Geneva, describing them as “very important,” while simultaneously ordering a significant military buildup in the Persian Gulf. A second aircraft carrier. Additional F-35s. Diplomacy and deterrence running in parallel. I am genuinely unsure what the endgame is here. Is this Venezuela-style pressure, where decapitation and economic realignment are the model? Or is this about crippling missile capacity and nuclear infrastructure? Iran is not Venezuela. It has ideological cohesion in ways Caracas did not. It has true believers. What confuses me most is timing. If there was a moment of peak internal pressure inside Iran, it may have passed. Now we are left with talks that may or may not be sincere, layered on top of military posturing that may or may not be a prelude to action. I would not be shocked by a strike. I would not be shocked by a deal. That is not analysis. That is honest uncertainty. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The DHS Shutdown and Democratic Leverage Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security remains in shutdown limbo. Senate Democrats blocked a stopgap funding bill demanding tighter warrant requirements, unmasking of agents, expanded body camera usage, and changes to patrol tactics after controversial shootings. Republicans argue ICE funding continues under prior legislation and most DHS workers are deemed essential anyway. So far, public disruption has been limited. But if TSA agents and other DHS personnel miss paychecks long enough, pressure will build. My priors here are consistent: Democrats believe they are in a popular posture standing up to Trump. They are, at least rhetorically. But at some point, the government has to reopen fully. And any deal negotiated from the minority will disappoint the activists who demanded maximal reform. That is the trap of shutdown politics. You escalate to energize your base. Then you have to compromise to govern. Jesse Jackson and a Bygone Era Finally, Reverend Jesse Jackson died at 84. Whatever your partisan perspective, he was a towering figure in American political history, a bridge between the civil rights movement and modern Democratic presidential politics. He changed what was imaginable in national campaigns. His influence on leaders like Barack Obama is undeniable. The era he represented feels distant now. The fights are different. The coalitions are different. Even the tone is different. But history has long shadows, and Jackson cast one. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:04:35 - Uncle Luke Running For Congress 00:07:51 - Polymarket Odds for Texas Senate Primaries 00:26:04 - Update 00:26:18 - Jesse Jackson 00:28:52 - Iran 00:32:44 - DHS Shutdown 00:36:56 - Polymarket Odds for California, Maine, and Michigan 01:02:03 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Over the past couple of weeks, Senate Republicans have come up with this plan to bring back the talking filibuster, all in an effort to pass the SAVE America Act. On paper, it is clever. Force Democrats to physically hold the floor to block voter ID legislation that polls as an 80-20 issue. Make them read the phone book. Make them look unserious. Put Jon Ossoff and other swing-state Democrats on the record defending a position that is wildly unpopular nationally. I actually think it would be smart politics. It’s also never going to happen. The reason is simple: Senate institutionalists. John Thune does not want to be the Republican leader who weakened the filibuster, even in a limited way. The Senate sees itself as the “august deliberative body,” not the truck stop chaos of the House. No one wants on their résumé that they chipped away at the 60-vote threshold. The irony is that nothing in the rules prevents a talking filibuster. It simply fell out of use. But reviving it would still be seen as escalation. Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. And escalation is not what senators do to each other lightly. They are there for six years. They share committee rooms and green rooms. They nurse grudges quietly. They do not enjoy public humiliation. So while conservatives may draw up elaborate procedural roadmaps, this one caps out at tradition. And tradition, in the Senate, wins more often than base energy. The Shutdown Nobody Wins Meanwhile, we are entering an actual shutdown this weekend because Senate Democrats blocked a Department of Homeland Security funding bill after the House had already left town. Democrats escalated their demands from a handful of changes to what is effectively a multi-point overhaul. The problem is not moral clarity. The problem is math. When you shut down the government, history suggests you rarely get what you want. Often, you get nothing. The Trump White House already has a blueprint from the last shutdown: keep the pain manageable, move money around where possible, and wait for pressure to build. If that pressure intensifies, especially around TSA delays, FEMA responses, or spring break travel, Democrats will face the same brutal reality every minority party faces during a shutdown. Just like in the fall, they will have to cut a deal. And when they do, their base will not celebrate incremental concessions. They will accuse leadership of caving. The drawdown of ICE activity in Minneapolis, which could have been framed as a win condition, has already been overtaken by new demands. That is the trap. You negotiate past your leverage point because your base expects maximalism. Then you are left explaining why the maximalist outcome was never achievable in the first place. A State of the Union Circus All of this sets up a February 24th State of the Union that looks increasingly like a circus. Some House Democrats are openly discussing protests, despite Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries urging restraint. We have seen these moves before. Last year’s disruptions did not damage Trump. If anything, they made him look calmer by comparison. When the visuals are heckling and signage next to moments crafted for television, the protest becomes the spectacle, not the message. The deeper issue is control. Neither Mike Johnson nor Hakeem Jeffries appears to have ironclad command over their conferences. The margins are thin. The base pressure is intense. And Trump remains such a polarizing figure that restraint feels like betrayal to some members. So expect noise. Expect moments engineered for viral clips. And expect very little institutional discipline. Chapters 00:00:00 - Intro 00:04:03 - Talking Filibuster DOA 00:18:06 - Update 00:18:33 - Shutdown 00:22:36 - ICE in Minnesota 00:25:50 - Democrats SOTU Plans 00:28:55 - Interview with Stella Tsantekidou on UK Politics and Epstein 01:13:06...