In a Truth Social post on Thursday, President Donald Trump declared that "the golden age of America has just begun." He touted his administration’s early successes and emphasized that his newly assembled cabinet is focused on cost-cutting measures and staffing decisions, with the Department of Government Efficiency — colloquially known as "DOGE" — playing a central role.

According to Trump, his administration will take a "scalpel rather than the hatchet" approach to reducing government waste. He praised Elon Musk and DOGE for their efforts in streamlining operations, stating that his team would be conducting biweekly meetings to assess and refine their approach.

However, the speed and aggressiveness of the administration’s restructuring efforts have not gone unnoticed. Over the past 48 hours, there has been a discernible shift — a brake pumping, if you will — on the administration’s initial velocity. Reports suggest that Attorney General Pam Bondi recently presented Trump with binders labeled Epstein files, only for him to realize that most of the information was already publicly available. The implication? There may be an effort to control the chaotic rollout of these reforms.

Behind the scenes, Chief of Staff Suzy Wiles appears to be taking on a stabilizing role. She remains largely unquoted in the press, but her influence is evident. While no one can dictate Trump’s decisions, if there is anyone capable of channeling his impulses into a more structured path, it is likely Wiles.

The Challenge of Government Reform

Polling data presents mixed signals for the administration’s strategy. While government reform remains broadly popular, Elon Musk himself does not poll particularly well. Moreover, while fiscal responsibility is a winning message, mass firings are unpopular, especially when they disrupt essential services.

Some of the layoffs initiated by DOGE have drawn minimal public sympathy, such as the widely ridiculed case of a Yosemite employee responsible for bathroom keys. But other cuts have raised alarm, like the reported downsizing at the National Weather Service. This agency is crucial not only for routine weather forecasts but also for emergency alerts, particularly with tornado and hurricane seasons approaching in the coming months.

If the administration is now signaling a more measured approach, it may be an acknowledgment that they have tested the limits of public tolerance for aggressive government downsizing. Silicon Valley's ethos values rapid iteration, but that approach does not always translate well to governance. In the tech world, listing a feature that doesn't yet exist isn’t necessarily misleading if it eventually becomes reality. However, in government, making sweeping announcements without a clear plan can create the perception of recklessness rather than innovation.

This shift in tone suggests that the administration is attempting to move away from the narrative that it is slashing government with reckless abandon. Instead, the messaging now emphasizes precision: cutting waste while retaining key personnel and essential services. Whether this recalibration is enough to change the public perception is a question for another day.

One clear indication of this shift is a new push in Congress. Senate Republicans are urging legislative action to codify DOGE’s spending cuts, following a court ruling that limits the department’s unilateral authority. While some lawmakers have praised Musk’s efforts, others, including Senator Rand Paul, have cautioned that major spending cuts should be handled through Congress rather than executive fiat. Senator Lindsey Graham, a supporter of DOGE, has acknowledged its flaws and has encouraged a more structured approach through legislative rescission.

The Coming Battle Over Rescission

One term that is about to become more prominent in political discourse is rescission. While it may sound similar to reconciliation, the two are entirely different budgetary mechanisms. Rescission allows the president to formally request that Congress cancel previously approved federal spending.

Here’s how the process works:

* The president submits a rescission proposal to Congress, specifying funds to be cut.

* Congress has 45 days of continuous session to approve the request. Importantly, approval only requires a simple majority in both chambers, meaning it bypasses the 60-vote Senate filibuster.

* If Congress approves, the specified funds are canceled, preventing the executive branch from spending them. If Congress rejects or ignores the proposal, the funds remain intact.

The significance of this approach is that it moves beyond the constitutional gray area of unilateral executive spending cuts. Instead of DOGE simply slashing budgets at the departmental level, rescission would put the matter before Congress, potentially giving the cuts more permanence.

According to reports, Musk was convinced to support this approach after Lindsey Graham pointed out that any cuts made solely at the department level could easily be reversed by a future Democratic administration. A congressional rescission, however, would be far more difficult to undo.

While this approach is unlikely to balance the budget overnight, it represents a strategic shift. It acknowledges the reality that sweeping cuts cannot be imposed without some level of congressional buy-in. The debate now moves to Capitol Hill, where budget hawks may find it difficult to oppose targeted spending reductions, even as Democrats push back.

The Trump administration is attempting to walk a fine line: maintaining its image as bold reformers while avoiding the perception of recklessness. The rescission package will likely be controversial, and its success will depend on whether Trump and his allies can frame it as a necessary step toward fiscal responsibility rather than an indiscriminate assault on government programs.

As this battle unfolds, the administration’s challenge will be proving that it can not only take risks but also manage them effectively. Whether that message resonates with the public — and with Congress — will determine the next phase of Trump’s government efficiency crusade.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:03 - Trump’s DOGE Post

00:08:25 - Codifying Rescission

00:12:36 - Update intro

00:13:43 - Al Green’s Censure

00:17:25 - Hunter Biden’s Financial Struggles

00:21:13 - More Tariff Twists

00:24:47 - Interview with J.D. Durkin

00:58:34 - Wrap-up

Last night, Donald Trump delivered a speech that, while technically a joint address to Congress, carried all the hallmarks of a campaign-style event filled with made-for-TV moments, emotional appeals, and strategic messaging. Let’s break down what happened.

Trump’s Optimistic Tone: A Departure from "American Carnage"

One of the most surprising takeaways from the speech was Trump's notably optimistic tone. Historically, Trump has thrived on highlighting crises, framing America as a nation in peril, in need of his leadership to "fix it." This time, however, there was a shift. He painted a picture of a country that was on the verge of a new golden era, offering solutions rather than just grievances.

While still aggressive in his direct call-outs — pointing at specific politicians and criticizing their policies — Trump's rhetoric was more forward-facing. Whether one believes his words or not, the tone of his message was clear: We’re going to be okay, and here’s why.

The Democrats' Disjointed Strategy

If Trump’s address was an exercise in tight, focused messaging, the Democratic response was anything but. There appeared to be an internal divide on how to handle the moment. Leadership suggested a visual strategy, having members bring a “plus one,” specifically fired federal workers, to highlight job losses under Trump. But instead of a powerful display, the execution was lackluster.

What Democrats mostly did was hold up small signs with messages like “False”, “Protect Medicaid”, and “Fire Musk.” These signs echoed previous protest tactics, like Rashida Tlaib’s “War Criminal” sign when Netanyahu spoke. However, instead of appearing unified and strong, it made them look like they were following a playbook set by a single faction of the party rather than presenting a broad, compelling counterargument.

Al Green’s Yelling and the Optics Battle

The lack of a coherent Democratic strategy was further highlighted when Rep. Al Green (D-TX) stood up mid-speech and began yelling, though it was unclear what he was yelling about. The 77-year-old congressman was eventually escorted out, but the visual of an elderly man angrily shouting and then leaving quietly did little to make an impact.

Trump, anticipating resistance, built a line into his speech about how Democrats would refuse to stand or cheer for anything he said. True to form, many Democrats remained seated during moments that, at least on camera, appeared universally positive. The optics of the party looking grumpy and disengaged while Trump supporters clapped and cheered was, at best, a missed opportunity.

Policy Highlights: Inflation, Tariffs, and Open Borders

Trump’s speech hit several key policy points, starting with inflation, a topic polling shows as a top voter concern. His approach? Blame Biden and promise that lowering fuel costs through increased drilling would lower overall prices.

He also reaffirmed his stance on tariffs, arguing that protectionist policies would bring jobs back to America. However, as Justin pointed out, this messaging could be tricky. If tariffs are seen as inflationary, they could directly contradict his economic promises.

Immigration was another focus, with Trump highlighting border security as one of his administration’s major successes. While migration levels have significantly decreased, he took full credit for the decline, presenting it as a unilateral victory.

The Made-for-TV Moments

This address will likely be remembered more for its emotional and strategic moments than for its policy substance. Trump repeatedly leaned into personal stories, putting everyday Americans in the spotlight. Among the most notable:

* A Mother of a Murdered 12-Year-Old – Trump honored a grieving mother whose son was killed by gang members, announcing the renaming of an animal sanctuary in her child’s honor.

* A Young Female Athlete and Transgender Sports Debate – He highlighted a female volleyball player who suffered a head injury from a transgender opponent, a move that played directly into the right’s ongoing cultural battles over women's sports.

* A Cancer Survivor Turned Secret Service Member – In a surprise moment, Trump announced that a 13-year-old pediatric cancer survivor was being made an honorary Secret Service agent, prompting an emotional response.

* A Military Legacy Continues – A young man from a military family was told, on stage, that he was being accepted into West Point — yet another moment of surprise designed for maximum emotional impact.

* Afghanistan and ISIS-K – Perhaps the biggest bombshell was Trump’s announcement that the mastermind behind the ISIS-K attack that killed 13 U.S. service members in Afghanistan had been captured and was being extradited.

Polling and Public Perception

In the immediate aftermath, polling suggested the speech played well. A CNN snap poll showed 69% of speech watchers viewed it positively. A CBS YouGov poll reported that 68% of respondents felt “hopeful” after the speech, while only 16% felt “angry.” These numbers suggest that even some Democrats who tuned in didn’t find the address entirely off-putting.

However, the real test will come in the weeks ahead. Trump’s messaging was disciplined and effective, but whether it translates into a meaningful shift in public opinion remains to be seen.

Final Thoughts: The Democrats' Strategic Void

Trump may have dominated the night, but the bigger question is: What is the Democratic strategy? Right now, it seems like their approach is to hope Trump makes mistakes. But hope isn’t a plan, and as Justin Young notes, failing to engage effectively in key political moments like this could spell trouble in November.

As the 2024 election approaches, one thing is clear: If Democrats don’t sharpen their messaging, Trump is going to keep winning the optics battle.

Chapters

00:00 - Intro

08:19 - Trump’s Opening Remarks and Al Green’s Removal

16:02 - Trump’s Relationship with Democrats and Biden

19:39 - Trump’s Comments on Inflation

22:04 - DOGE and Open Borders

33:23 - Made-for-TV Moments

41:19 - Abbey Gate, Ukraine, and the Democrats’ Reactions

48:39 - Final Thoughts

The United States has officially imposed broad tariffs on two of its largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico, marking one of the most aggressive trade measures in recent history. With potential economic fallout looming, world leaders, economists, and businesses are scrambling to assess the impact of President Donald Trump’s latest move.

From Trade Deals to Trade Wars: How We Got Here

During Trump’s first term, his administration took a mixed approach to tariffs. While he aggressively targeted China with import duties — many of which remain under President Biden — his strategy with Canada and Mexico was more nuanced. Initial tariffs on specific industries such as lumber, steel, and aluminum eventually gave way to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a revised version of NAFTA that stabilized trade relations.

However, with Trump back in the White House, he has revived concerns over trade imbalances, particularly with Canada and Mexico. On January 20th, Inauguration Day, Trump signed an executive order launching a review of USMCA, with findings due in April. But before that process could unfold, he moved forward with major tariff increases.

On February 1st, Trump announced two executive orders imposing sweeping tariffs. Canadian imports now face a 25% tariff, with a lower 10% tariff on energy exports like oil and gas. Mexico has been hit with a flat 25% tariff on all imports. Though negotiations initially delayed the tariffs by 30 days, they have now gone into full effect, shaking up a $1.3 trillion annual trade relationship.

To justify the tariffs, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a legal framework typically used for sanctions. He linked the move to national security concerns, specifically citing fentanyl trafficking and illegal immigration.

Sweeping Tariffs Hit North America Hard

The response from Canada and Mexico has been swift and severe. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau condemned the tariffs as "absolutely unacceptable" and unveiled a $30 billion retaliatory tariff package, with plans for an additional $125 billion in tariffs within 21 days if the dispute is not resolved. Several Canadian provinces have announced bans on U.S. products, pulling American wine, beer, and liquor off store shelves.

In Mexico, President Claudia Sheinbaum issued a sharp protest but has not yet outlined a formal retaliation. However, Mexican officials have signaled that they may target key U.S. industries, including soybeans, pork, and beef exports.

Domestically, the tariff decision has sparked significant economic concern. Stock markets tumbled following the announcement, and major retailers like Target and Best Buy have warned that prices on imported goods will rise sharply, with businesses passing the cost onto consumers.

Economists overwhelmingly predict inflationary pressure, warning that tariffs could lead to a U.S. recession and further damage trade relations. The automotive industry is expected to see major price hikes, as will sectors reliant on steel and aluminum, energy resources, agriculture, and consumer goods such as electronics, clothing, and household appliances.

Trump’s Endgame: Tough Negotiation or Economic Gamble?

These tariffs will likely be felt most harshly by Canada and Mexico, as the United States is their largest export market. Seventy-five percent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., while for Mexico, that number is even higher at 80%. By limiting these exports, Trump is exerting maximum pressure on both countries, but the strategy raises significant questions.

Is he using tariffs as leverage to renegotiate USMCA? Does he expect Canada and Mexico to cave under economic strain? Or is this a broader shift toward economic protectionism, despite warnings from economists?

Trump’s decision could make or break his administration. While his supporters may see the move as a strong stance against unfair trade practices, rising prices and economic downturns could alienate voters — especially those who supported him for his stance on inflation control. The coming months will reveal whether these tariffs are a negotiation tool or a long-term policy shift. For now, both the U.S. and its North American neighbors brace for an economic showdown.

Chapters

* 00:00:00 - Introduction

* 00:02:39 - Ukraine Mineral Deal Fallout

* 00:06:35 - The Impact of Tariffs on Trade Relations

* 00:17:22 - Consequences of Tariffs on the Economy

* 00:22:15 - Interview with Bill Scher

* 00:58:09 - Update introduction

* 01:00:13 - J.D. Vance’s European Controversy

* 01:03:02 - GOP Government Funding Bill

* 01:04:48 - Democrats’ Plans to Protest Trump’s Speech

* 01:08:00 - Interview with Katie Harbath

* 01:45:25 - Outro

In a dramatic turn of events last Friday, an Oval Office press conference meant to signal unity between the U.S. and Ukraine spiraled into an unanticipated disaster. What was supposed to be a step toward solidifying a peace negotiation framework with Russia instead resulted in the unraveling of a crucial minerals-for-aid deal. The fallout has raised pressing questions about the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations, President Trump’s foreign policy, and Ukraine’s ability to sustain its war efforts.

The Lead-Up: A Fragile Partnership

To understand the significance of last Friday’s debacle, it’s essential to examine the events leading up to it. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a seasoned political operator, has long been reliant on U.S. support. Despite initial tensions, particularly regarding Biden’s approval of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, the Ukraine-U.S. relationship strengthened in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion. The Biden administration’s vocal support and military aid were critical in keeping Ukraine afloat.

However, Zelenskyy has never shied away from playing hardball in the American political arena, a strategy that has at times put him at odds with U.S. leaders. His aggressive advocacy for Ukraine, including his willingness to publicly challenge U.S. decisions, set the stage for what would become a deeply consequential clash with the Trump administration.

The Minerals-for-Aid Deal: A Shaky Foundation

One of the most underreported aspects of Friday’s breakdown was the origins of the proposed minerals-for-aid agreement. Contrary to some portrayals, this wasn’t a Trump-led shakedown—it was an idea first floated by Zelenskyy himself in October 2024. His proposal sought to leverage Ukraine’s vast rare-earth mineral reserves, essential for advanced technology and defense systems, in exchange for long-term U.S. and European support.

The Trump administration seized on this idea, seeing it as a way to justify continued investment in Ukraine while securing critical materials. However, negotiations faltered. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and a delegation, including Senator JD Vance and Marco Rubio, attempted to finalize the agreement in multiple rounds of talks. Zelenskyy, at one point, appeared ready to sign—only to later insist on additional approvals from Ukraine’s parliament, frustrating Trump and his team.

The Press Conference Meltdown

The diplomatic strain reached its breaking point at the White House. The stage was set for Zelenskyy and Trump to present a united front and sign the minerals deal. Instead, what followed was an unexpectedly confrontational exchange that unraveled months of negotiation.

The first warning signs appeared when Zelenskyy openly bristled at Trump’s references to Russian casualties, signaling an underlying frustration with the framing of the discussion. Tensions escalated when Zelenskyy, rather than using the platform to solidify the agreement, engaged in an impromptu challenge to JD Vance regarding U.S. support for Ukraine.

Key moments included:

* Trump’s unexpected commitments: Despite accusations that his administration is soft on Russia, Trump pledged continued arms shipments to Ukraine and even left the door open for U.S. troops participating in a peacekeeping force.

* Zelenskyy’s misstep: His attempt to push for additional reparations from Russia, while politically sound, was ill-timed given the fragile state of negotiations.

* The breaking point: A contentious back-and-forth between Zelenskyy and Vance, initiated by Zelenskyy, derailed the proceedings. Within hours, the deal was dead.

The Fallout: A Win for Moscow?

The failure to secure an agreement is a major setback for Ukraine. Without a clear U.S. commitment, European nations may hesitate to maintain their full-throated support, wary of straining relations with Washington. Meanwhile, Russia stands to benefit from any cracks in the Western alliance’s stance on Ukraine.

For Trump, the incident may not be the political liability that critics assume. Polling suggests that a majority of Americans remain skeptical of prolonged foreign military commitments. His stance, which aligns with a broader shift toward isolationism within the Republican Party, is unlikely to cost him significant political capital.

What Happens Next?

Despite the disastrous turn of events, all hope is not lost. The underlying incentives for a deal remain strong—Ukraine needs U.S. support, and the U.S. has a strategic interest in securing rare-earth minerals.

* Will Zelenskyy make amends? His best course of action may be to reopen negotiations, perhaps even making a direct appeal to Trump at Mar-a-Lago.

* Can Europe fill the gap? In the immediate term, European leaders, including France and the UK, are trying to reassure Ukraine, but their ability to replace U.S. support remains in question.

* Will the Trump administration re-engage? The White House has signaled that the door is not entirely closed. Treasury Secretary Bessent has expressed confidence that an agreement can still be reached.

Friday’s Oval Office debacle was a textbook case of diplomatic miscalculation. Zelenskyy, known for his sharp political instincts, overplayed his hand at a critical moment, while Trump’s characteristic unpredictability added to the chaos. The result was a self-inflicted wound for Ukraine at a time when it can least afford uncertainty.

In the coming weeks, the world will watch closely to see if this was a temporary setback or a turning point in the war. One thing is certain—Ukraine cannot afford another misstep.

Chapters

* 00:00:00 - Introduction

* 00:02:28 - The Build-Up to Friday’s Trump-Zelenskyy Meeting

* 00:20:20 - The Meeting at the Oval Office

* 00:59:04 - Reactions and Fallout

* 01:10:39 - Wrap-up

Trump-Zelenskyy Takes:

* Zelensky Has Behaved Honorably. He Should Now Resign. - Richard Hanania's Newsletter

* Trump and Zelensky: How We Got Here - Gabe Fleisher

* Zelensky's White House meltdown - Michael Tracey

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi recently released a set of documents titled the Epstein Files: Phase One, which were expected to shed new light on the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s extensive network and illicit activities. However, the heavily redacted documents primarily contained information already available to the public, leading to significant criticism.

Following the document release, Bondi sent a stern letter to FBI Director Kash Patel, accusing the FBI’s New York field office of withholding thousands of pages of additional records related to the Epstein investigation. She stated that despite assurances that all Epstein-related files had been provided, she quickly learned of the existence of more material.

Bondi demanded the release of all remaining records—documents, audio, and video—by 8 a.m. on February 28th. Additionally, she announced an internal investigation into the handling of these files and instructed Patel to propose personnel action within two weeks.

The document release quickly turned into a social media firestorm. Several influencers, including Libs of TikTok owner Chaya Raichik, Mike Cernovich, Jessica Reed Kraus of House Inhabit, and Chad Prather, were photographed at the White House holding binders labeled Epstein Files Phase One.

This sparked outrage, with many questioning why these influencers had early access to the files while they were not made publicly available online. Others, particularly those who have long followed the Epstein case, downplayed the release, arguing that these files contained little new information.

The controversy extended beyond social media, as members of Congress expressed frustration over the handling of the files. The House Judiciary Committee mocked the situation by posting a fake link to the Epstein files—only to rickroll their audience. Meanwhile, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who is involved in declassifying public secrets, stated that she had not been provided access to the documents before their release, raising concerns about poor coordination within the Justice Department.

The release of Phase One has left more questions than answers. While Bondi insists that additional documents exist and must be made public, the disorganized rollout has fueled skepticism. Some remain hopeful that new, previously unknown details about Epstein's network will eventually surface. For now, the public is left with confusing and frustrating news—but potentially more revelations on the horizon.

Chapters

* 00:00:00 - Introduction

* 00:03:00 - Stephen A. Smith’s Potential Presidential Run

* 00:16:12 - Keir Starmer

* 00:19:51 - The Epstein Files Debacle

* 00:24:10 - USAID Fallout

* 00:25:55 - Interview with Claire Meynial on CPAC, Europe, and Ukraine

* 01:02:09 - Wrap-up

Sixteen years ago, CNBC commentator Rick Santelli stood on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and delivered an impassioned rant against federal plans to bail out struggling homeowners. “Do we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages?” he shouted, calling for a “Chicago Tea Party” to protest government intervention.

That moment became the rallying cry for a movement that would reshape conservative politics, define opposition to the Obama presidency, and eventually evolve into the MAGA movement that has since won the White House twice.

Lately, the Tea Party has been on my mind because of the way political movements are often dismissed by their opponents. In liberal circles, one word was frequently used to wave off the Tea Party: astroturf.

“This isn’t a grassroots movement,” critics insisted. “It’s funded by billionaires to look like a populist uprising.” After all, it started on CNBC—hardly a blue-collar favorite.

But that’s not the whole story. And now, in 2024, astroturfing accusations are being hurled in the opposite direction.

Last week, Republican Rep. Rich McCormick of Georgia faced a hostile crowd at a town hall in Roswell. The moment (captured in a widely circulated video) showed Democrats in his district voicing their frustration, pushing back forcefully against GOP policies.

In response, conservatives dismissed the backlash as manufactured outrage, a coordinated effort by the so-called “deep state” to rattle the Republican establishment.

Sound familiar?

To understand whether today’s Democratic anger is real or manufactured, it’s worth looking back at how the Tea Party took shape.

While Santelli’s on-air rant is widely credited with sparking the Tea Party, grassroots opposition to Obama’s policies had already begun. Keli Carender, a blogger in Seattle, organized an anti-stimulus protest even before Santelli’s speech. Her February 2009 demonstration—dubbed the “Porkulus Protest”—drew about 100 people.

But once Santelli’s rant went viral, Tea Party protests exploded across the country. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter helped coordinate events, and by April’s Tax Day, an estimated quarter-million people took to the streets in organized demonstrations.

Conservative media played a crucial role in amplifying the movement. Fox News hosts like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity championed Tea Party causes, helping grow its ranks. Soon, prominent Republican figures lent their support, though the movement remained largely decentralized.

By the summer of 2009, as Obamacare made its way through Congress, Tea Party activists shifted their strategy. Instead of street protests, they flooded town halls, confronting Democratic lawmakers with fiery opposition. Videos of these clashes—angry constituents challenging their representatives—became a defining image of the movement.

And electorally, the Tea Party had teeth. While it failed to topple the Republican establishment entirely (Mitt Romney still won the 2012 nomination), it helped flip House seats and push the GOP further to the right.

What does the Tea Party teach us about today’s Democratic opposition?

* It’s never too early to be angry. Santelli’s rant came barely a month after Obama took office. Right now, Trump’s disapproval ratings are rising, but Democrats haven’t yet rallied around a singular issue.

* Movements can make an impact—especially in the House. The Tea Party didn’t need to control the White House to change the political landscape. A handful of flipped seats can shift the balance of power.

* Dismissing protests as ‘astroturf’ is risky. If the same kind of town hall showdowns seen in McCormick’s district begin happening elsewhere, they could turn into a trend.

The Tea Party was fueled by a raw, pent-up anger over fiscal conservatism. Many conservatives felt betrayed by their own party—George W. Bush had campaigned on balanced budgets, only to expand deficits through wars and bailouts. Obama’s presidency, with its ambitious government programs, only amplified those frustrations.

The question for Democrats now is: What’s their version of that anger?

If it’s simply opposition to Trump, that’s not enough. Even figures like Elon Musk—despised by many progressives—aren’t sustainable political villains. “Musk sent another email” isn’t a battle cry that will mobilize voters in the long run.

That’s why Democratic strategists should be tickled by what just happened in the House. They (impressively) passed a budget that, while avoiding direct mention of Medicaid, includes $880 billion in cuts overseen by the Energy and Commerce Committee—which just happens to control Medicaid.

Why the cuts? Because fiscal hawks in the House need a way to offset the Trump tax cuts.

For Democrats, that’s a classic, politically potent message: Republicans are cutting your Medicaid to give tax cuts to the rich.

If they can harness that into a movement—one that gets people angry enough to show up at town halls, knock on doors, and vote—then history might just be repeating itself.

Podcast Chapters & Timecodes

* 00:00:00 – Introduction

* 00:01:58 – The Tea Party’s Legacy and Lessons for Democrats

* 00:14:55 – Dan Bongino Becomes FBI’s Second-in-Command

* 00:19:15 – MSNBC’s Prime-Time Shake-Up & Network Struggles

* 00:22:58 – NYC Mayor Eric Adams’ Re-Election Challenges

* 00:26:27 – Interview with Brian Sack on Ukraine & DEI Policies

* 01:05:28 – Wrap-Up

One down, 47 to go.

With Donald Trump’s first month in office coming to a close, we are seeing something that feels a bit more familiar. According to three recent polls, his approval rating is now underwater—meaning more people disapprove of him than approve.

This is still essentially the same conversation we were having before. There are deeply entrenched beliefs on both sides, with some convinced he is doing a terrible job and others believing he is performing tremendously.

Keep Politics Politics Politics alive! Get two bonus episodes each week! Upgrade to paid!

The numbers reflect this divide. A CNN SSRS poll shows Trump’s approval at 47% with 52% disapproving. Similarly, a Reuters Ipsos poll reports 44% approval and 51% disapproval, while Gallup’s latest survey records a 45% approval and 51% disapproval. I have seen other numbers where he remains above 50% and in net positive territory, but the general trend suggests that the more people hear his name, the less they seem to like him.

Sound familiar?

At the heart of this, however, is the same issue that contributed to Joe Biden’s defeat: the economy. Economic fears and anxieties remain high, and now that people are reminded of both the speed and the sheer volume—both in quantity and loudness—of the Trump administration, there’s a sense of, “Ah, okay, here we go again.” If the economy rebounds, Trump could find himself in a very strong position. But if it does not, whatever mandate he might have had will quickly evaporate.

It’s worth noting that we still have the majority of Trump’s first 100 days ahead of us, though you’d be forgiven for forgetting that as it feels like he’s been in office for six months.

Chapters

02:06 - Trump Approval Rating Down

04:46 - Evan Scrimshaw on Why Canada Hates The US

51:53 - Mitch McConnell Retirement

54:05 - Kash Patel Confirmed

57:37 - Zelenskyy To Sign Mineral Deal With US

01:03:12 - Kevin Ryan

Wait, what?

What just happened?

To who? When?

And it just flipped when it landed? A 13th kid with a fourth woman?

Does that have anything to do with the other thing? You know, the one that just happened. Or maybe that was last week…

The first month of Trump 47 has felt more like 47 weeks than it has four, with a relentless barrage of executive orders, personnel decisions, and, let’s say, charitably unconventional accounting procedures that have kicked ant piles both foreign and domestic. And with all of that, much of what you read on social media, Substack, or in your podcast feed is likely very, very hyperbolic—or, if you’re on the conservative side of the aisle, particularly gleeful.

My goal, however, is to ask a simple question every day: What actually matters?

On this episode of the show, we’re going to talk to two people with vastly different perspectives on the political system. First, we have Gabe Fleisher, who writes the Wake Up to Politics newsletter and, even as a fresh college graduate, has probably forgotten more about political history and minutiae than the average voter has ever cared to learn. On the other end of the spectrum, we have John Teasdale, an entrepreneur and co-creator of The Contender card game, who intentionally disconnected himself from politics for the past year and has only just returned stateside.

“Sure, Justin, I’ll enjoy both of those conversations. But what about me? What does that give me as a framework to understand what’s happening right now?”

Well, to help with that, I want to dust off something that doesn’t usually get brought out in the political realm, but given the breakneck pace of news, I think it’s worth it. In 2013, WNYC’s On the Media program put out a helpful infographic titled the Breaking News Consumer Handbook. You’ve probably seen it during major events like shootings or tragedies, but with the flood of headlines right now, I think it’s worth revisiting its five core tenets and applying them to this moment.

In the immediate aftermath of any major event, most news outlets will get it wrong.

This is crucial to remember because, amid the deluge of information, you owe it to yourself to slow down. Wait a few days, maybe even a week, before getting worked up about something. Half-truths, gossip, and rumor fly out of every orifice in Washington, and with time, further context often clarifies the situation—or at least reveals whether it’s even newsworthy. Don’t you deserve the full set of facts before being led around by the nose by the outrage machine? I think you do.

Don’t trust anonymous sources.

Case in point: as I was recording, a story broke from NBC News stating that U.S. intelligence indicates Vladimir Putin isn’t interested in a real peace deal. The sources? Four anonymous sources—two congressional aides and two intel sources, presumably provided by those aides. The article essentially asserts that while Putin may negotiate with Trump, he’s not deterred from taking Ukraine in the long run.

To which I say: da-doi.

Unless you genuinely believed that Putin was going to apologize for invading Ukraine and promise never to do it again, this “news” adds no value. It doesn’t outline the parameters of a peace deal, Russia’s red lines, or any concrete details. It simply reiterates that Putin remains an authoritarian thug, which, let’s be real, even MAGA supporters acknowledge. The end of war is not a morality play—it’s about making decisions that stop people from dying. This story is calorie free by making a stupid point and not even using named sources to do it.

Don’t trust stories that cite other media outlets as sources.

This is a favorite trick of churn-media articles, particularly those designed to game Facebook’s algorithm. If you mostly get your news from social media, you’re consuming content optimized for engagement, not accuracy. These outlets often regurgitate information from elsewhere, making their legitimacy dubious at best.

Fourth, and this one is more relevant to shootings, but still applicable…

There is almost never a second shooter.

In a broader sense, Occam’s razor applies—sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. While plenty of conspiracy theories have turned out to be true (COVID lab leak, Hunter Biden’s laptop, etc.), not everything that pops up on social media is exactly what it seems, especially when it comes to government spending. Right now, people are combing through federal expenditures, uncovering what might appear to be scandals. Give it time. Wait a few days before reacting and hitting retweet.

Pay attention to the language the media uses. Phrases like “we are getting reports” could mean anything. “We are seeking confirmation” means they don’t have confirmation. “The news outlet has learned” means they have a scoop or are going out on a limb.

Stick to fundamental journalism: a compelling lead, a nut graph that clearly outlines the news, and at least three on-the-record sources directly involved in the situation. If those elements aren’t there, take the story with a grain of salt. In truth, there isn’t as much actual news as the fire hose of content would suggest. There’s plenty of gossip, innuendo, and hot takes, and that’s before you get to people in the arena yelling at each other on social media. But real, capital-N news? That’s much rarer than it seems.

Chapters

00:00:00 : Introduction and Overview

00:01:20 : Political Analysis and Current Events

00:02:04 : Breaking News Consumer Handbook

00:11:04 : Interview with Gabe Fleischer

00:51:14 : Update on Ukraine-Russia Peace Deal

00:57:02 : New York Mayor Eric Adams' Administration Turmoil

01:00:03 : Elon Musk and Fort Knox Investigation

01:01:51 : Interview with John Teasdale

01:25:38 : Show Wrap-Up and Listener Support

I can think of no more romantic way for you to spend a quiet moment alone with your partner on this Valentine's Day than drawing a warm bath, throwing in some scented oils, and reading aloud the latest Politics, Politics, Politics post.

"Great point, Justin," you can say to each other as you make longing eye contact and renew your commitment to one another.

But it is in that spirit of passion that I tell you: somebody's gonna get f***ed — either the House or the Senate.

This is a Republican problem, and we are in strange days. Normally, the People's House, which has a far higher headcount, operates with majorities of 10, 15, 20, maybe even 30 seats, at least in a bygone, un-gerrymandered era. In those situations, you could craft policy where some members of your own coalition wouldn't have to vote for it.

The Republicans don’t have that luxury.

Right now, the House majority is two.

Two people.

And reinforcements aren’t coming until April with the Florida special elections. We have no idea when the New York special election to replace Elise Stefanik will happen. The House wants to pass one big, beautiful bill with all of Donald Trump's agenda in it. The Senate doesn't want that. They would rather pass two bills. Over the last few days, as Lindsey Graham moved a budget bill out of the Senate, the message has been clear: if the House can't act, the Senate will.

Meanwhile, the House, constantly scrapping for power because of its easily divided nature, is saying, "No, we're sending you one bill. You figure it out." And here’s the inside sauce on it: the reason the House wants one bill, many House Republicans don't like massive bills crammed with everything at once. They prefer voting on things individually. But Republicans can't afford to do that right now. They need members to vote against what they’ve pledged to vote for, and the only way they believe they can achieve that is by bundling multiple things together including some things that fussy members can’t not vote for.

For example? Budget hawks who won’t raise the debt by one penny… are you not going to vote for border funding? Same for Border Warriors who want every illegal migrant out tomorrow along with their whole family… are you going to be an all-or-nothing puritan and not green light the tax cuts?

The Senate sending two bills to the House is a problem for Republicans. The first bill, likely the border package, would pass easily. But when the second bill—probably tax cuts—comes around, budget hawks will balk. And if the House, Senate, and White House are all in Republican hands but fail to pass Trump's legislative agenda, that would be a disaster.

The Senate's noise has some in the White House thinking the House is a lost cause. Yesterday, the House finally released a budget, and sources inside the chamber are unhappy. “The numbers are bad, campaign promises are broken, and member priorities are ignored,” As one source put it. "We need a speaker with big balls. In fact, I’d take (Elon’s) Big Balls over Mike Johnson’s any day."

Which brings us to Speaker Johnson, the Hudsucker Proxy speaker.

If you’ve never seen that movie, Tim Robbins plays a mailroom worker who gets unexpectedly elevated to CEO by a scheming board looking for a patsy. The movie ends with Robbins proving himself to be an exceptional CEO. Johnson would love for that to be his story. But the speakership in this situation is an impossible job. He can only afford to lose two votes, and one of them is already Thomas Massie. He got this job because, after Kevin McCarthy was ousted, every other candidate had at least four enemies. Johnson? He was just well-liked enough to slip through. Now, he's at the center of the storm.

The House budget committee has angered members, and things are bleak. This doesn't mean the end, but it does mean they might have to split into two bills. If that happens, tax cuts might take a long time—or not happen at all. That’s a problem because tax cuts are a kitchen table issue. If Trump’s cuts aren’t in place by next year, it would be a massive failure. The number one reason people voted for Trump was to get inflation under control. If taxes go up, it’s a disaster.

And the issue here is that there is no legislative North Star. Paul Ryan isn’t walking through that door. He was a legislative guy, a wonk. Right now, there’s no one like that in the House. And there’s certainly no one like that in the White House.

And that’s where we land now. The big question? Considering all the noise that has been made by DOGE, does the idea of those savings factor into any of these budget talks?

If not, then get ready for a bumpy ride with the first test being the expiration of government funding on March 14th.

Chapters:

- 00:00:00 - Introduction and Overview

- 00:00:50 - Valentine's Day Special Opening

- 00:01:19 - Discussion on House vs. Senate Republican Strategies

- 00:02:38 - The House's Push for a Single Comprehensive Bill

- 00:04:38 - Challenges in Passing Trump's Legislative Agenda

- 00:07:27 - Interview with Matt Laszlo on Congressional Dynamics

- 00:10:12 - Democrats' Internal Struggles and Strategy

- 00:20:22 - Potential Government Shutdown and Democratic Response

- 00:32:00 - Republicans' Legislative Challenges and Budget Issues

- 00:39:00 - Lobbying Efforts to Influence Trump's Immigration Policies

- 01:00:00 - Interview with Dave Leventhal on Lobbying and Immigration

- 01:24:00 - Closing Remarks and Additional News Updates

Donald Trump's second term does not look like his first.

In his Super Bowl interview with Brett Baier, Trump admitted that back in 2017, he was a New York guy, a novice to Washington, D.C., and all but confessed that he stepped on every rake in sight. He appointed the wrong people, got caught up in the wrong traps, and was unable to effectively govern.

To the casual observer, it may seem like not much has changed—Trump was causing chaos then, and he's causing chaos now. But this show understands the difference: Previously, chaos happened to him; now, he is the one orchestrating it.

His agenda is taking direct aim at the centers of government he believes he was sent back to reform. Agencies long targeted by conservatives are now being affected—slashed, possibly shuttered. This is a direct assault on the structure of the federal government as it has been known, something many have promised but only Trump has aggressively pursued.

If we can’t compare what we’ve seen over the last month to any prior sitting president, what historical precedents can we look to? I submit to you the year 1992 and three figures whose political strategies echo what we see in Trump today: Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, and Bill Clinton.

First, Buchanan. No one brought the conversation about immigration into the modern presidential sphere quite like him. Though his 1992 challenge to incumbent George H.W. Bush was short-lived, his influence endured. Buchanan’s rhetoric on immigration laid the groundwork for the hardline stance Trump would take in 2016. One of his biggest issues was the interpretation of the 14th Amendment regarding birthright citizenship, arguing that the phrase "under the jurisdiction thereof" meant only legal citizens should have offspring automatically granted citizenship. Now, Trump is doing something Buchanan only talked about: actively challenging birthright citizenship.

Next, Ross Perot. If there is one historical figure whose message about government size and spending echoes through Trump’s current actions, it is Perot. Running as an independent in 1992, Perot famously railed against the national debt, which then stood at $4 trillion—a fraction of today’s $34 trillion. His colorful metaphors, like calling the debt a "crazy aunt we keep in the basement," helped him connect with voters who felt Washington was bloated and inefficient. He championed the idea of running the government like a business—sound familiar? Both men also shared a deep distrust of federal agencies. Perot famously quit his campaign in 1992, alleging that the CIA had infiltrated his operation, convinced that President George H.W. Bush, a former CIA director, was behind it. One can only imagine a President Perot would have pursued intelligence reforms as aggressively as Trump is now targeting the Justice Department and FBI.

Perot, however, never won. Nor did Buchanan. But one man did in 1992: Bill Clinton. Initially, I planned to focus on just Buchanan and Perot, but our friend Michael Cohen recently made a compelling case for why Trump’s current approach also parallels Clinton. While Clinton focused on large-scale economic policies, he also knew how to capture public attention with wedge issues—ones that were more symbolic than substantive but extremely popular. In 1996, he championed the V-chip, a device to block violent content on TV, and pushed for school uniforms to combat youth violence. Neither policy had a significant impact, but they polled above 70%, making them politically beneficial.

Trump is using a similar playbook. His recent executive orders—banning men from women’s sports and bringing back plastic straws—affect relatively few people in practical terms, yet they are wildly popular. These 70-30 issues serve as the sugar that makes the medicine go down, keeping the public engaged while larger, more complex reforms take shape. They also bait his political opponents into fighting battles where he holds the high ground— Obi-Wan style.

At its core, Trump’s approach today mirrors Clinton’s in how it connects emotionally with voters. Is there really much of a difference between “Make America Great Again” and “I feel your pain”?

Chapters

00:00:00 – Intro

00:02:17 – Trump's Second Term: Chaos or Competence?

00:04:12 – 1992 as a Parallel to Trump’s 47th Presidency

00:15:30 – Update

00:17:53 – Judicial Roadblocks Against Trump’s Agenda

00:21:31 – International News: Ukraine and Gaza Updates

00:26:12 – Guest Interview: Kirk Bado from National Journal

00:31:36 – The Looming Government Shutdown

00:39:52 – The Media’s Role and Chilling Effects

00:46:07 – Nancy Mace: Political Calculations or Genuine Outcry?

01:16:45 – Closing Remarks