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

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

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

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

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

One of the most striking developments during the Iran war has been the reappearance of something that used to define American media a century ago: yellow journalism. Historically, the term referred to sensationalized reporting that prioritized outrage and emotion over accuracy, often using thin sourcing and dramatic narratives to mobilize public opinion. The Spanish–American War, famously fueled by headlines like “Remember the Maine,” is the classic example.

Today the structure is different, but the incentives are remarkably similar. Instead of a handful of powerful newspaper publishers driving the narrative, the modern system is decentralized. Social media users, influencers, and coordinated networks can amplify stories through algorithms until traditional outlets feel compelled to cover them simply because they are trending.

All of this results in feedback loop. A rumor or distorted piece of information circulates online, gets boosted within a particular political community, and eventually becomes a topic of mainstream reporting. At that point the original claim, even if false, has successfully entered the public conversation.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Five Tribes of the Iran War

This dynamic is especially powerful because the online political ecosystem is already divided into ideological “tribes” that interpret events through their own narratives.

On the left, there is what might be called the new resistance, Democrats who see every development in the war primarily through the lens of whether it helps or hurts Donald Trump politically. Alongside them sits the progressive anti-war faction, deeply skeptical of Israel and convinced the conflict validates their warnings about American interventionism.

On the right, the divide is just as sharp. One faction could be described as the Gnostic MAGA movement, a group of populist conservatives who believe Trump has betrayed the movement’s core promises by engaging in foreign conflict. In contrast, another faction believes Trump is right about everything, arguing that the war’s early results show his strategy is working and that critics are panicking too early.

Then there is a final group: the “maybe this time Trump” neoconservatives, longtime critics of the former president who nevertheless support aggressive action against Iran and therefore find themselves, temporarily, aligned with his policy.

These communities overlap in complicated ways, but each one is primed to amplify certain narratives that confirm its worldview.

How a Rumor Becomes “News”

The mechanics of modern yellow journalism often begin with a small piece of truth that can be exaggerated or distorted. Once it is framed in a way that triggers emotional reactions inside one or more of these ideological tribes, the story spreads rapidly through reposts, commentary, and algorithmic amplification.

Eventually, the rumor becomes so widely discussed that major media outlets cover it, sometimes simply to debunk it. But by that point the narrative has already achieved its goal: it has entered mainstream awareness and eroded trust in competing sources of information.

In wartime, this dynamic becomes even more powerful. Governments themselves may benefit from confusion, exaggeration, or competing narratives. The battlefield isn’t just physical territory, but also public perception.

The deeper challenge is that the modern information ecosystem has no central referee. In the past, editors at major newspapers could decide what was credible enough to print. Today, social media algorithms and online communities perform that role collectively, often rewarding the most emotionally compelling stories rather than the most accurate ones.

That means the burden increasingly falls on individuals to filter information themselves. If a story makes people furious or ecstatic instantly, that reaction is often a sign to pause before sharing it.

A New Information Era

The Iran war may eventually be remembered not only for its military consequences but also for what it revealed about the way modern media operates. The sensationalism that once drove early twentieth-century newspaper empires has reappeared in a decentralized, digital form.

Yellow journalism never disappeared — it’s just changed and evolved to keep up with modern times. And in the middle of a war, its power to shape public perception may be greater than ever.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:14 - Susie Wiles

00:03:38 - DHS Shutdown

00:04:33 - Yellow Journalism in the Iran War Era

00:29:10 - Iranian Security Chief Killed

00:33:15 - Joe Kent

00:39:29 - Texas AI Ad

00:41:32 - Reese Gorman on Texas and Oklahoma

01:12:27 - Wrap-up

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

I’ve reached a point where the marketplace of ideas feels broken. The conversation around the Iran war, especially the discussion about oil prices and the Strait of Hormuz, has been less about understanding events and more about reacting to every twitch in the market.

This realization hit me last weekend when I watched otherwise smart commentators react breathlessly to oil futures spiking. Writers like Nate Silver and Derek Thompson framed the surge in prices as a potentially catastrophic moment for the Trump administration, a Rubicon that could permanently damage the president’s economic credibility.

That logic makes sense in theory. Gas prices are one of the most politically sensitive indicators in American life. If they rise sharply and stay elevated, the economic narrative can turn quickly against any administration. But what bothered me wasn’t the conclusion. It was how little anyone seemed to know about the mechanics behind the story.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which a massive share of the world’s oil flows, became the center of speculation. Could Iran shut it down? Had it ever been fully closed before? What would the United States do if shipping lanes were mined?

These are complex questions. Yet much of the discussion reduced them to the most basic possible analysis: oil prices go up, oil prices go down.

The Problem With Market Narratives and the Age of Info Slop

Over the course of a single night, I found myself obsessively researching the issue. I dug into the Iran–Iraq tanker wars of the 1980s, when both countries targeted shipping in the Persian Gulf. I looked at how mines were deployed in the Strait of Hormuz and how the United States eventually intervened to escort tankers and protect trade routes.

The historical lesson was clear. Even during the worst periods of that conflict, the strait never truly closed. Oil shipments slowed and risks increased, but global energy markets adapted.

By Monday morning, the markets themselves seemed to confirm the lesson. Oil prices surged, then dropped back below their previous levels. The panic narrative collapsed almost as quickly as it appeared.

What replaced it was not clarity but confusion. Rumors circulated that Iran was mining the strait. Other reports suggested ships were still passing through after turning off their transponders. At one point, a claim that the U.S. Navy had escorted a tanker through the strait briefly moved markets before the White House denied it.

This constant churn of speculation reveals a deeper problem: very few people actually know what is happening.

In theory, the modern information environment should make us better informed. Instead, it often produces the opposite result. Analysts extrapolate sweeping conclusions from tiny fragments of data, while social media amplifies every rumor until it looks like evidence.

The result is what I can only describe as “info slop.” Bits of partially verified information get passed along, combined, and reinterpreted until the original facts are almost impossible to distinguish from the speculation built around them.

In a normal news cycle, that dynamic is frustrating. But in a war, it is dangerous.

The Iran conflict carries enormous stakes. A prolonged fight could reshape the Middle East, disrupt global energy markets, or even trigger a wider geopolitical confrontation. Yet the public conversation about the war often resembles message-board debates rather than serious analysis.

We are arguing over rumors about oil shipments and naval escorts while the broader strategic picture remains murky.

Part of the problem is structural. During wartime, the actors with the most reliable information have strong incentives not to share it. Governments conceal details to protect military operations. Adversaries spread misinformation to manipulate perceptions.

Even seemingly straightforward facts become difficult to confirm. Was a school struck by a missile because of a U.S. attack, an Iranian malfunction, or something else entirely? Did Iran mine shipping lanes, or were markets reacting to a rumor?

In many cases, the honest answer is simply that we do not know.

And yet the conversation continues as if every piece of incomplete information carries definitive meaning.

Stepping Back From the Noise

For me, the lesson is simple. If the discourse is making you feel more confident about events you barely understand, it may not actually be informing you. It may simply be feeding the human instinct to fill gaps in knowledge with speculation.

The war with Iran could become one of the defining geopolitical events of this era. It could destabilize a region, reshape energy markets, or even trigger regime change inside Iran itself.

But right now, much of what passes for analysis is just noise layered on top of uncertainty. The healthiest response might be the hardest one: consume less of it. Read less news that pretends to provide clarity where none exists.

We don’t know what’s happening yet. And pretending otherwise doesn’t make us smarter.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:18 - Thomas Massie

00:06:24 - Iran Discourse

00:16:59 - Kirk Bado on Iran

00:32:36 - Update

00:33:36 - Oil

00:34:51 - SAVE America Act

00:40:41 - AI Hiring

00:42:49 - Kirk Bado on Iran, con’t

00:54:38 - Kirk Bado on Texas

01:13:09 - Steelers Talk

01:22:16 - Wrap-up

I didn’t expect the day’s biggest story to land before the show even got rolling, but the first major cabinet domino of the Trump administration has finally fallen. Kristi Noem is out as Secretary of Homeland Security.

The immediate cause appears to be a congressional hearing exchange that went sideways. During testimony before Sen. John Kennedy, Noem said that a $200 million ad campaign — one that prominently featured her — had been approved by the president. The White House later said it had not, and it’s that contradiction that seems to have been the final straw for Trump.

It’s no secret that the ground had been shifting under Noem for a while. Critical press coverage had been building, particularly around operational issues inside DHS. Some of it focused on headline controversies, but much of it involved the less glamorous details of running a department: delayed contracts, paperwork sitting unsigned, and basic administrative work that insiders say was slipping through the cracks.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Complicating matters was the presence of Corey Lewandowski, who had developed a reputation inside the department as a, let’s say, aggressive and polarizing figure. According to people around Washington, he made enemies across the bureaucracy, and those tensions ultimately became inseparable from Noem’s own standing within the administration.

Trump’s apparent choice to replace her is Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, a former MMA fighter who has built a reputation in Washington as a loyal Trump ally and a frequent presence on television.

In some ways, Mullin is a pragmatic pick. Replacing a cabinet secretary this late in a term can be politically tricky because any nominee must survive Senate confirmation. A sitting senator already has relationships and credibility inside the chamber, making it easier for colleagues to vote yes even if the appointment is politically uncomfortable.

That dynamic worked to the administration’s advantage when Marco Rubio moved into a cabinet role earlier in the term, and it could play out similarly here. Senators are often more willing to confirm someone they know than an unfamiliar nominee from outside Washington.

Noem’s departure also lands in the middle of a broader policy fight. DHS remains partially shut down due to a standoff between Democrats and the administration over immigration enforcement policies.

From my perspective, this moment could provide Democrats with a face-saving off-ramp. With Noem gone, they could claim a political victory and move toward reopening the department without appearing to capitulate entirely on their policy demands. The alternative — maintaining a shutdown while security risks mount — carries its own political dangers.

When federal security agencies operate without full funding, the political blame game gets complicated very quickly if something goes wrong.

Fallout from the Texas Primaries

Meanwhile, the ripple effects from the Texas primary elections are already shaping the next phase of the campaign cycle. Sen. John Cornyn and Attorney General Ken Paxton are heading toward a runoff, and President Trump has signaled he may intervene with an endorsement.

Paxton has already indicated he won’t automatically step aside even if Trump backs Cornyn, raising the possibility that the party’s internal fight could stretch out for weeks. Democrats, for their part, clearly prefer facing Paxton in the general election given his long history of scandals and investigations.

Another runoff will take place in Texas’s 23rd congressional district, where Tony Gonzalez is facing intense pressure after admitting he had an affair with a staffer.

The admission carries serious implications. Relationships between members of Congress and staff can trigger ethics violations, and Gonzalez now faces an ongoing investigation. Leadership within the Republican caucus is reportedly signaling that even if he wins the runoff, he could still face consequences in Washington.

In other words, his political future may already be decided regardless of how the voters rule.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:01:01 - Kristi Noem

00:08:07 - Markwayne Mullin

00:11:19 - Interview with Jennifer Doleac

00:33:22 - Update

00:33:54 - Cornyn/Paxton

00:36:47 - Tony Gonzales

00:39:36 - Mullin’s Senate Replacement

00:41:36 - Interview with Jennifer Doleac, con’t

01:00:14 - Wrap-up

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 yet prevail. Right now, the Pentagon’s got bigger problems than a Silicon Valley slap fight. But this was the moment when AI stopped being a culture war talking point and became a live wire in national security. And once you plug into that grid, there’s no going back.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:25 - Texas Primary Final Predictions

00:15:20 - The Pentagon vs. Anthropic, Explained

00:40:30 - Update

00:40:52 - Iran

00:45:41 - Clintons

00:49:08 - Kalshi

00:52:19 - Interview with Kenneth Lowande

01:18:03 - Wrap-up