Politics Politics Politics

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

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

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

The Prop 50 Messaging BlitzProposition 50 is one of the most nakedly strategic plays in this cycle. It exists for one purpose: to eliminate California’s independent redistricting board so Democrats can gerrymander five seats back — a direct response to Republicans doing the same in red states. That’s the whole game. Strip away the messaging, and it’s a power move. The ads hitting the airwaves now make it clear how the campaign is going to run: targeted, segmented, and intensely focused on turnout.Gavin Newsom’s out front, naturally. The first ad is just him — classic ego-forward strategy. The second ad is aimed squarely at the Bay Area and Los Angeles liberal base, the same model they used to win his recall election. It’s all about maximizing favorable turnout in deep blue pockets. They’ve run this play before, and they know it works — but back then, they had a longer runway. This time, they’re racing the clock.Then there’s the third ad. That one’s for the independents, and its existence tells you everything. The campaign knows that gutting an independent redistricting board is a tough sell outside the bubble. They say it’s temporary. I don’t buy that. Nobody gives up control once they get it — not in politics. The only way this doesn’t work is if moderates see through the language and call it what it is. That last ad shows they’re worried that might happen.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Jerry Nadler’s Long ExitJerry Nadler is stepping down after more than 30 years in Congress and 50 years in public office. He’s one of those figures who’s always just sort of been there — a Manhattan political mainstay who most recently made headlines during Trump’s first impeachment. That might end up being his most lasting national footprint. He barely held onto his seat after being redistricted into a brutal primary with Carolyn Maloney. He survived that one, but it felt like the end of something.Now he’s officially retiring. He says it’s time to pass the torch, and he’s backing his former aide, Michael Lasher, to take over. That makes sense. It’s a controlled handoff. The district will stay blue. The torch will stay in the family. Nadler might not have been the flashiest member of Congress, but he was consequential — particularly in the Judiciary Committee, where he held the gavel through some of the most heated partisan fights of the Trump era.He stepped aside from that leadership role after Jamie Raskin challenged him, and that felt like the start of the wind-down. There wasn’t really a lane left for him in this current version of the Democratic Party. He’s not the TikTok-friendly progressive, and he’s not the compromise-seeking centrist. He’s just an old-school liberal from New York. And now, like a lot of others in his generation, he’s finally closing the book.Virginia Foxx and the Epstein FilesRepresentative Virginia Foxx, chair of the House Rules Committee, announced she won’t use her panel to block Thomas Massie’s discharge petition demanding the release of the Epstein files. That’s a big move — maybe even a signal. The Republican leadership has been slow-rolling this whole thing, not wanting to get too close to whatever comes out of those documents. But Foxx just let it breathe.Massie’s move has bipartisan cover — he’s working with Democrat Ro Khanna — and it’s gaining momentum. Speaker Mike Johnson says he supports “maximum disclosure,” but that there need to be protections for victims. That’s the dodge. That’s how they’re all trying to walk this line — publicly in favor of transparency, privately praying it doesn’t land on their doorstep.The buzz on the Hill is that DOJ will release just enough of the Epstein files to make the issue go away. Maybe that works. Maybe not. But one thing’s clear: the discharge petition isn’t just symbolic anymore. It’s a real threat. And the fact that leadership isn’t moving to squash it says a lot about how much weaker those levers of control have gotten. Foxx’s choice here wasn’t just about process — it was a quiet acknowledgment that the old rules don’t apply. Not with this. Not anymore.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:25 - Interview with Dillon Fleharty00:45:49 - Update00:48:02 - Prop 50 ads00:53:05 - Jerry Nadler00:55:08 - Virginia Foxx00:56:47 - Interview with Dillon Fleharty, con’t01:35:24 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The Democratic National Committee just wrapped up its meeting in Minneapolis, and one of the big ideas floated behind closed doors was a midterm convention. The logic is clear. Democrats are dealing with a brand problem. They want to reset, energize, and show that the party still has fresh faces and energy. That means television time. That means spectacle. So: midterm convention. And I’m all for it. I would love to cover one. I love conventions. Give me a big show with music, lights, messaging — I’m there.I don’t know if Trump caught wind of this plan early or just read it when the story dropped, but it’s clear what happened next. He jumped on Truth Social and declared that the Republican Party would also hold a midterm convention. Because if the Democrats are getting a big TV moment, then he’s going to get one too — and he’s going to make it better. That’s how Trump operates. If you’re doing a spectacle, he’s doing a bigger one. The man knows television, and conventions are made-for-TV moments. So now we might have two of them.What would those look like? For the Democrats, expect the same tightly-scripted, ultra-managed production they’ve always delivered. Nobody does a convention script like the Democratic Party. For all their other dysfunctions, they know how to build a prime-time political package. The Republicans? Expect a Trump rally — but bigger, glossier, and even more overloaded with segments, guests, and applause lines. Multiple nights, probably. A celebration of Trumpism that looks less like a traditional political event and more like an awards show.The Path to a Shutdown is ClearMeanwhile, Axios also reported that Democratic leaders in Congress have landed on their key demand to avoid a government shutdown: the reversal of Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill. And this is where things get interesting. Because while I’m not here to defend either side — I come from media, not partisanship — I can tell you that this is exactly the kind of story that drives conservatives crazy. This is what fuels the belief that the media covers these fights with blinders on. Because here’s the reality: Democrats want to shut down the government. They are choosing this. They want a shutdown — not because they think it will solve something, but because they think it’s a strong midterm frame.That frame is Medicaid cuts. Specifically, Medicaid cuts for rural hospitals. That’s the message. Not the whole bill, not the fiscal fight — just the healthcare piece. That’s the issue they believe will mobilize their base and let them go on offense. So everything that happens next, from press statements to floor speeches, is about setting up that narrative. The Republicans will try to pass a continuing resolution. Democrats will have to decide: do they agree, or do they shut it down?I don’t think Schumer or Jeffries can survive politically if they don’t let their caucus go through with this. That’s the point we’ve reached. The shutdown is happening, and this is why. The date to watch is September 30 — that’s when the funding runs out. And unless a miracle happens, we’re going to see this showdown play out just like they’ve mapped it. And the messaging is already here. Elizabeth Warren said, “If Republicans want Democrats to provide votes to fund the Trump administration, they can start by restoring the health care they ripped away to finance more tax handouts for billionaires.” That’s the line. That’s the campaign.It’s already baked in. Democrats sent a letter to Speaker Johnson and Senator Thune saying this has to be bipartisan — while knowing full well that their demands are nonstarters. It’s the same dynamic we’ve seen from Republicans in the past: throw out a demand that won’t be met, use the denial to justify the shutdown. The only difference is that Democrats usually don’t do this. But this isn’t the same Democratic Party as it used to be, now is it?Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:06:42 - Midterm Conventions00:09:35 - Dems Shutdown Plan00:15:34 - Update and Minneapolis Shooting00:18:28 - Epstein00:22:56 - CDC00:24:33 - Mark Teixeira00:27:01 - Interview with Howard Mortman01:04:10- Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

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

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

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

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

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