Transcript:The race to throw dirt on former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent’s allegations about the Iran war has a “disturbingly familiar” feel, according to one former top official from the Department of Homeland Security. Kent punctured President Donald Trump’s public reasons for the Iran war while resigning from his post. Kent’s resignation letter said that Iran “posed no imminent threat,” making Trump into a liar over his statements that the U. S. was acting in self-defense. “A president must demonstrate that the danger was real, urgent and left no time for deliberation,” said an iPaper analysis from Miles Taylor, a former chief of staff at the U. S. Department of Homeland Security. “That’s why, hours after the (Iran) offensive began, Trump quickly released a statement saying his objective was “eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.”Trump predictably tried to downplay Kent’s contrary statements, saying that he found him to be “weak on security.” But as Taylor writes, “you don’t diffuse a bomb by insulting it.” At some point, investigators, prosecutors and congressional committees will dig into the Kent allegations. They will have reason to ask the question that eventually brought down Richard Nixon in the Watergate era: “What did the President know and when did he know it?”The question may get its first airing during the congressional committee asking U. S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard questions. She will have to state under oath whether there was indeed an imminent threat. Taylor posed other questions that will emerge at some point: “What did the President know about Iranian intentions and capabilities before the first strike? What did his intelligence community tell him about the timeline of any threat? Did he ignore or override assessments that contradicted a decision he’d already made? Did he knowingly mislead Congress?”Meanwhile, Kent will not go away quietly. He is set to hit the podcasting circuit, which will keep his allegations in the news. Taylor anticipates what the White House reaction will be. “I know something about how this President handles inconvenient truths. I served in the first Trump administration as his chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, and I resigned in protest because of what I saw. On matters of life and death, I encountered a president whose national security decision-making was ad hoc, impulsive and often recklessly indifferent to facts that complicated his preferred course of action.”Trump “didn’t weigh options,” Taylor adds. “He made decisions and then demanded justifications after the fact, including when policies were foreseeably unlawful.”That formula and the attacks on Kent look “disturbingly familiar,” Taylor writes. He predicts others will join in “what is beginning to look like a fracturing dam.” “Aides to the President will continue to attack Kent and limit the fallout,” Miller writes. “In reality, they’re terrified of what comes next. In the first term, when people like me started resigning in protest, it wasn’t an aberration. It became a wave. And that wave swept Trump out of the White House.”s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:President Donald Trump's second term is "sinking fast," according to his one-time biographer Michael Wolff, as failure after failure has seen him turn "a political crisis to a political catastrophe."Wolff is a veteran reporter and author, best known for his 2018 book Fire & Fury, which used insider sources to document the chaos of Trump's first term in the White House. During the latest episode of his Daily Beast podcast, "Inside Trump's Head," Wolff lambasted the current state of Trump's presidency, arguing that it was in dire shape before the start of the Iran war, which made everything severely worse. "I think the wheels are coming off in so many ways," Wolff told co-host Joanna Coles. "Even before the war in Iran started, politically, he was in a very complicated position, more and more and more. Minneapolis, the economy that won’t budge, his inability to read the room when it comes to putting his name on buildings.”Trump's decision to join Israel in a joint military campaign against Iran has been broadly unpopular, with The Daily Beast citing a Reuters/Ipsos poll finding that less than a third of voters supported the conflict. The move has been especially unpopular with segments of Trump's MAGA base, who believed his promises about avoiding foreign conflicts. The conflict is also further alienating voters by causing gas prices to skyrocket. As of this week, the average cost for a gallon of gas was around 3.80 dollars, up from 2.94 dollars from a month ago. According to a New York Times average, Trump's approval rating on Wednesday was 40 percent, compared to a 55% disapproval rating, putting him 15 points underwater.“I mean, his own numbers, terrible,” Wolff added. “Sinking. Sinking fast. And then the war comes along, so we’re gonna go from a political crisis to a political catastrophe.”He concnluded: “That’s where we are now in the second year of the second Trump term. We’re getting to the point . because it’s the second term . in which he’s not going to be able to recover.”s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:President Donald Trump’s administration was blasted by a judge for potentially ruining a man’s career based on his tenuous allegations that he is in America illegally, a “shockingly cavalier” attitude toward the man’s future. District Judge Jorge Luis Alonso granted Radule Bojovic's request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Trump administration late on Tuesday, according to a report by Law and Crime. In his decision Judge Alonso said the Department of Homeland Security is not allowed to restrict Bojovic's employment with the Hanover Park Police Department while his immigration case proceeds through the courts. Bojovic, who is from the small southeastern European country Montenegro, entered America in 2014 with his family, which then filed an "Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal" including Bojovic. For more than a decade the application has remained in a pending status, during which time Bojovic repeatedly received employment authorizations from the U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and began working with the Hanover Park Police Department. The local agency even released a statement shortly before the Trump administration’s actions that he was scheduled to start an "intensive 15 weeks of field training and evaluation as he continues preparing to serve the Hanover Park community."Then, in October, Bojovic was arrested by the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Bragging about it at the time on their official website, the Trump administration claimed Bojovic “violated our nation’s laws and was living ILLEGALLY in the United States for 10 years. what kind of police department gives criminal illegal aliens badges and guns?”They added, “It's a felony for aliens to even possess a firearm. A so-called law enforcement officer who is actively breaking the law. Under President Trump and Secretary Noem ICE is restoring law and order. Criminal illegal aliens have NO PLACE in our communities, especially on our police forces.”The federal agency’s statement included a blast at Illinois Gov. J. B. Pritzker, a Democrat and frequent critic of the president."This is just the latest instance of Governor JB Pritzker's continued refusal to abide by federal laws, jeopardizing the welfare of Illinois residents," an ICE press release claimed. In December Bojovic received a "Notice of Intent to Revoke" (NOIR) regarding his employment authorization, despite the authorization’s previous renewal, and one month later it was revoked, "stating that he had not responded to the NOIR and reiterating that he had been removed from his father's asylum application on December 3, 2025." Bojovic responded that he did respond punctually and through FedEx, with Judge Alonso concluding that this "correctly explained that the factual basis for revocation asserted in the NOIR was incorrect." A status hearing on Bojovic’s case is scheduled for Thursday morning. Former Representative Joe Walsh , Republican from Illinois, an erstwhile Trump supporter who has since turned on the president, wrote in February that immigration policies like those which targeted Bojovic are hurting the Republican Party’s brand.“This is the biggest reason why Trump and Republicans in November are gonna get their a. - handed to them” Walsh explained for his Substack at the time. “I've been saying this for a year now. One word: cruelty.”Even some immigration enforcement workers are speaking out against the Trump administration’s policies.“If they gave child exploitation cases a fraction of the attention, funding, resources, personnel, analytical support, et cetera that they’re now giving immigration enforcement, we could do so much good,” one investigator said about the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement.s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:In a biting article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on March 17, journalist Andrew Egger described "the Trump doctrine" as a pattern in which U. S. President Donald Trump berates and insults longtime allies . many of them members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) . only to turn around and demand their military help during his war against Iran. Trump, Egger argued, is burning bridges left and right yet wondering why those he is alienating are unreceptive to him. Trump's foreign policy is drawing a lot of criticism from other NATO countries, including his proposal to annex Greenland (a colony of founding NATO member Denmark) and his push for Canada to become "the 51st state" . which Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is adamantly opposed to. And the Iran war, according to The Atlantic's Adam Serwer, is driving even more of a wedge between the U. S. and other major democracies. Serwer, in an article published on March 18, emphasizes that the U. S. is becoming increasingly isolated during wartime."After a decade of trashing American allies as freeloaders," Serwer explains, "President Trump is begging for their help in opening the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway adjacent to Iran sometimes referred to as the 'jugular' of the world economy. Those allies aren't exactly jumping at the chance to join Trump's war on Iran . not a single one has taken the offer. That leaves the president trapped in a needless war of choice that he started and is unable to finish. Iran's leverage over the global economy is increasing as oil prices rise and the strait remains closed to the U. S. and its allies. Now, basically anyone could have told Trump that spending the past few years antagonizing allies with aggressive tariffs, belligerent arm-twisting, and imperial dismissiveness would hurt him when the time came to ask those same allies for help."Serwer continues, "But this isn't a simple strategic miscalculation or even a typical Trumpian incompetence . it's the result of a particular ideological fantasy of American independence from foreign alliances, one that is oblivious to how those alliances long served American interests. Americans are learning the hard way that the economic costs of the autarky pursued by Trump are far worse than those of the 'globalism' he opposes."The "fantasy of complete independence," according to Serwer, is a "longstanding part of American culture" but doesn't hold up during a crisis like a war or a pandemic."This distorted strain of American individualism came to the fore during the coronavirus pandemic but was present earlier as well," Serwer observes. "If nothing else, the pandemic revealed how dependent we are on others . and a lot of people didn't like that…. Now, the United States is at war, the global economy will face disaster if the strait remains closed indefinitely, American allies are reconsidering their reliance on the U. S., and Iran's previous theocratic leader has been replaced by an even more hardline successor. The outcome of the conflict itself cannot be known yet, but one thing is certain: Most all of us will be affected, one way or another. Society is a lot like reality. It exists whether you believe in it or not."s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Law and Crime reports a federal court of appeals upheld a series of lower court orders barring the Trump administration from enforcing a "sweeping and unprecedented categorical" spending "freeze.”In one 58-page opinion, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit took a group of "consolidated appeals" of several different orders and mostly rejected the White House’s argument in favor of continuing the freeze. Judges found the Trump administration’s arguments unconvincing in one case and utterly ignored the administration’s argument in another.“In one order from March 2025, the lower court extended a pause on the spending freeze – enjoining myriad federal agencies from slashing funds and directing them to pay out ‘awarded grants, executed contracts, or other executed financial obligations,’” reports Law and Crime. In an additional two orders from April 2025, the lower court enforced the preliminary injunction against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and then denied a reconsideration and stay requested by the Trump administration. With this slate of decisions, the appellate court has joined a legion of courts dismantling President’s Donald Trump’s executive orders and policies, and it further complicates Trump’s effort to starve certain nonprofits and research. One of the lawsuits against Trump, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, alleged the spending freeze violated several tenets of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), federal laws and the U. S. Constitution, which mandates the distribution of congressionally-appropriated funds. James, who has won a landmark case against Trump for fraud, welcomed the 1st Circuit's opinion."This decision is a clear reminder that the president cannot treat congressionally-approved funding like a switch he can flip on and off," James said. “For more than a year, the Trump administration has repeatedly tried to freeze critical funding that states rely on to serve their communities, and once again the courts have rejected that unlawful power grab."s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:One of President Donald Trump's allies might soon depart the administration after a recent court loss revealed that the "wheels are coming off," according to one author. On Monday, a federal judge in Boston overturned some of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Junior's most controversial policies, like revising the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's list of recommended vaccines and changing the vaccine schedule for children. Journalist Michael Wolff, who has written four books about Trump, argued in a new podcast interview that the court loss could cause Trump to think twice about keeping Kennedy around. "I don't think anything looks good. it's not a good look," Wolff told Joanna Coles on a new episode of "Inside Trump's Head." "And that's what Trump is going to start to say. That's the thing that's going to start to go around in his head."Wolff also argued that the court ruling against Kennedy showed the "wheels are coming off" of the second Trump administration. "The wheels are coming off ... in so many ways," he said. "And even before the war in Iran started, politically, he was in a very complicated position ... His inability to read the room when it comes to putting his name on buildings. I mean, his own numbers are terrible. Sinking. Sinking fast. And then the war comes along. So we're going to go from a political crisis to a political catastrophe.""That's where we are now, in the second year of the second Trump term," he added. "We're getting to the point, because it's the second term, in which he's not going to be able to recover."Our Analysis:The Real Story Behind the ScandalIn a recent swirl of media coverage, President Donald Trump's administration, particularly Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Junior, has come under fire following a federal court ruling in Boston. The court overturned some of Kennedy's most controversial policies, including changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) recommended vaccine schedule for children. Journalist Michael Wolff, leveraging his history of covering Trump, suggests this legal setback may prompt Trump to reconsider Kennedy's position within the administration. This analysis aims to dissect the layers of institutional power, decision-making, and narrative framing that underpin this situation.Institutional Power and Decision-MakingAt the heart of this controversy are two primary actors: President Donald Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Junior As President, Trump holds the ultimate executive authority in the administration, responsible for appointing cabinet members like Kennedy and setting the broader agenda for his administration. Kennedy, as Health Secretary, wields significant power over health policy, including the authority to revise public health guidelines and recommendations.The court's decision to overturn Kennedy's policies indicates a check on his authority by the judicial branch, highlighting the balance of power inherent in the U. S. political system. However, the decision-making power in this scenario clearly rested with Kennedy, who initiated the controversial changes to the vaccine schedule.Framing of ResponsibilityThe article’s narrative, as shaped by Wolff’s commentary, places a heavy emphasis on the political repercussions for Trump, suggesting that Kennedy's legal defeat reflects poorly on the administration as a whole. While it is true that the actions of cabinet members can impact the public perception of a presidency, it's critical to differentiate between the roles and responsibilities within the administration.Kennedy's decisions regarding vaccine policies are his own, albeit likely aligned with the administration's broader health policy objectives. The framing of the article, however, risks misdirecting responsibility by implying that Trump's potential reconsideration of Kennedy's position is a direct consequence of the court ruling, rather than a complex interplay of legal, political, and public health considerations.Misplaced Criticism and ScapegoatingWolff's analysis hints at a broader critique of the Trump administration, mentioning unrelated issues such as the president's popularity and the onset of a war with Iran. By linking these disparate elements to Kennedy's court loss, the article muddles the specific issue at hand with general criticisms of the administration. This conflation risks creating a scapegoat out of Kennedy for the administration's wider challenges, diverting attention from the nuanced and multifaceted nature of governance.ConclusionThe controversy surrounding Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Junior's court loss and its implications for the Trump administration demands a nuanced understanding of institutional power and decision-making. While Kennedy's policies and their judicial review are at the core of this issue, the broader narrative crafted by commentators like Michael Wolff may misdirect responsibility and foster misconceptions about the dynamics at play. It is imperative to critically assess the roles of different actors within the administration and avoid conflating individual policy outcomes with broader political narratives.s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:"CBS Evening News" crashed back below the dreaded 4 million viewer threshold following its MAGA-friendly makeover, a red line that previously triggered major shake-ups at the network, Variety reported Tuesday. For the week ending March 13, the program drew just 3.83 million viewers, with a measly 468,000 in the advertiser-coveted 25-54 demographic, according to Nielsen data. The stark freefall comes after anchor Tony Dokoupil's start in January, when he debuted with 4.17 million viewers. Shortly thereafter, he brought in 4.6 million. Meanwhile, the competition is lapping CBS. ABC's "World News Tonight" commanded an average 8.48 million viewers, while NBC's "Nightly News" pulled 6.51 million. In the key demographic, both networks crushed CBS with 1.03 million and 946,000 viewers, respectively."Quarter to date as of March 12, 'CBS Evening News' has shed 15% of its viewership in the critical 25-to-54 demo, the audience coveted by advertisers in news programming, over the year-earlier period. In comparison, NBC’s 'NBC Nightly News' is up 8% in the demo, while ABC’s 'World News Tonight' is off 4%," the report said. Former "CBS Evening News" anchor Norah O'Donnell, meanwhile, ended her tenure in 2024 with an audience of nearly 5.4 million. New CBS News editor in chief, Bari Weiss, has faced widespread criticism from observers across the political spectrum since her installation and the network's MAGA-friendly coverage.Our Analysis:The Misdirection in Viewer Metrics: A Closer Look at CBS's StrategyAs CBS Evening News witnesses a concerning drop in viewership, the narrative quickly shifts towards the network's recent editorial changes and the supposed MAGA-friendly makeover. However, to understand the true dynamics at play, we must dissect the situation through the lenses of institutional power, decision-making, and the accuracy of the blame placed by the narrative.Institutional PowerThe institutional power in this scenario lies with the CBS News hierarchy, specifically with the new editor in chief, Bari Weiss. Weiss's editorial direction and decisions significantly influence the content and tone of the news. This power to shape the narrative and potentially alter the target audience is crucial in analyzing the outcome.Decision-MakingThe decision to adopt a MAGA-friendly approach was presumably made to capture a broader or different segment of viewers. This strategic pivot, led by Weiss and her team, aimed at revitalizing the program's viewership. The introduction of Tony Dokoupil as the anchor and the subsequent editorial changes were calculated moves within this strategy.Misdirected Blame?The article frames the viewership decline as a direct consequence of the MAGA-friendly makeover. However, this oversimplifies and potentially misdirects responsibility. Several factors must be considered:Audience Fragmentation: The media consumption landscape is increasingly fragmented, with audiences dispersing across cable news, streaming platforms, and digital news. This broader trend affects all traditional news broadcasts, not just CBS.Competitive Positioning: The comparison with ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" highlights a significant viewership gap. However, it fails to account for long-standing viewer loyalty and the distinct market positions of each network. CBS's strategy may be an attempt to carve out a unique space in a competitive market, rather than a direct cause of the decline.Short-Term versus Long-Term Effects: Strategic shifts in media often result in short-term losses before any potential long-term gains can be realized. Immediate declines might not accurately reflect the effectiveness or eventual outcome of the new editorial direction.External Factors: The article does not account for external factors such as news cycles, major events, or changes in viewer behavior that might influence ratings independently of CBS's editorial choices.ConclusionWhile CBS Evening News's drop in viewership is concerning, the narrative that exclusively attributes this decline to a MAGA-friendly makeover oversimplifies the situation. It places undue blame on the editorial direction while ignoring broader industry trends, competitive dynamics, and the inherent risks of strategic realignment.Criticism of Bari Weiss and the network's editorial choices may hold merit but must be contextualized within the complexities of the media landscape. It is essential to question whether the framing of the situation misdirects responsibility toward actors with limited control over broader viewer trends and preferences.In assessing blame or praise, a nuanced understanding of the decision-making processes, the influence of institutional power, and the potential for narrative misdirection is crucial. Only by acknowledging these factors can we have a comprehensive and fair analysis of CBS Evening News's current predicament.s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:A Pennsylvania Trump supporter expressed sharp regret during an NBC News interview, stating that voting for President Trump three times was "my bad" . and declaring she is "apparently an idiot."Amanda Robbins, interviewed by NBC News senior politics reporter Jonathan Allen in Millersburg, Pennsylvania, was asked what she would say to Trump if he were listening. Robbins responded directly: "You are a worthless pile of s--t."When Allen asked how many times she had voted for Trump, Robbins answered, "Three times. That was my bad. Apparently, I'm an idiot!"Robbins represents a shift in sentiment among some Trump supporters, angry at U. S. involvement in Iran combined with a high cost of living. The conflict, started on February 28 alongside Israel, has generated considerable domestic backlash. However, other Millersburg residents expressed support for Trump's military actions. Mike Purcell characterized the combat operations as a "great decision" and stated he is willing to "pay a little more" for gas. Resident Jim Matter supported Trump's approach, stating: "In the long run, it's going to help us out, because if they get nuclear weapons, you know, we might not even be here in a couple of years. I think that [Trump's] done a good job."Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz on March 2 has driven dramatic economic consequences. Daily shipping traffic in the critical trade corridor has declined to approximately two vessels, down from an average of 60. American consumers have experienced significant impacts. Gasoline prices have surged to an average of 3.80 dollars per gallon, increasing nearly one dollar from 2.94 dollars one month prior. The military toll has also mounted. Within three weeks of the conflict's start, 13 American service members have been killed and more than 200 wounded or injured, according to U. S. Central Command. Six personnel died following an Iranian drone strike on a mobile operations center in Kuwait, while another six were killed when a KC-135 refueling aircraft crashed in Iraq. Millersburg is located in Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District, a closely contested area that elected ultraconservative Representative Scott Perry in 2024. Perry faces a rematch against former news anchor Janelle Stelson in the upcoming midterms. Stelson lost the previous contest by only 5,133 votes. The White House did not immediately respond to requests from NBC for comment regarding Robbins' criticism.Our Analysis:Unpacking Voter Regret and the Real Culprits Behind U. S. Foreign Policy MovesIn a recent NBC News interview, a Pennsylvania Trump supporter, Amanda Robbins, expressed deep regret for supporting Donald Trump, particularly in light of recent U. S. military involvement in Iran. This narrative, while compelling, invites a broader analysis of responsibility, decision-making, and the misdirection of blame.Institutional Power and Decision-MakingAt the core of this situation are decisions that have led to U. S. involvement in Iran, resulting in significant economic and human costs. The decision to engage militarily with Iran, including the consequential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, rests not with individual voters like Robbins but with the highest levels of U. S. governance – primarily the President, advised by senior officials and, to some extent, influenced by Congressional support or opposition.President Trump, as Commander-in-Chief, holds primary responsibility for military actions. Yet, the framing of Robbins' regret, while humanizing, subtly shifts the focus away from institutional actors who made and supported these decisions, toward the electorate's choice. While voter accountability is a pillar of democracy, it is critical to distinguish between the decision to vote and the decisions made by those elected to office.The Role of Congress and the MediaThe U. S. Congress, particularly individuals like Representative Scott Perry from Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District, also plays a role in shaping U. S. foreign policy. Congress has the power to authorize military action and influence foreign policy through legislation and oversight. The support or opposition of Congress members can significantly impact the administration's actions and strategies abroad.Moreover, the media's role in framing these issues cannot be understated. The focus on individual voter regret, while certainly newsworthy, can overshadow the need for critical analysis of policy decisions and the accountability of those who make them. It is essential for media narratives to challenge and scrutinize the decisions of those in power, rather than implicitly absolving them by emphasizing voter remorse.Misdirected Responsibility?While Robbins' expression of regret is genuine and reflects a broader sentiment among some voters, the article's framing potentially misdirects responsibility. The emphasis on individual voter choices, rather than on the institutional dynamics and decisions that lead to military conflict and its domestic repercussions, risks oversimplifying complex issues of governance, policy, and power.Conclusion: A Call for Focused AccountabilityIn dissecting the narrative of voter regret surrounding U. S. involvement in Iran, it becomes clear that the focus should remain on those who hold the reins of power. Voters, like Robbins, operate within a system that relies on the promises and decisions of their elected officials. While the electorate's choices are indeed consequential, the ultimate responsibility for military and foreign policy decisions lies with the President, advised by his administration, and supported or checked by Congress.Critiques of U. S. foreign policy and its domestic impacts must directly confront those in institutional positions of power. This involves a rigorous examination of policy decisions, the motivations behind them, and their far-reaching consequences. Only through such focused accountability can the discourse move beyond individual regret to meaningful dialogue and action on U. S. foreign policy and its implications for both the global stage and the domestic front.s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:The SAVE ACT that Donald Trump is desperate to pass through in time for the upcoming midterms could actually be a huge help to the Democratic Party, a New York Times columnist warned the president Wednesday. Trump has said the number one priority for the Republican Party should be pushing through the bill. If passed into law, it would mean U. S. citizens would require voter ID at the ballot box, and mail-in votes would be hindered massively. This could affect millions of voters, according to The New York Times' Jamelle Bouie . who suggests those hindrances of voter ID could be more of a problem for the GOP's voter base than the Dems'. Bouie wrote, "Far from neutering the Democratic Party, the SAVE Act might improve its ability to win big in this year’s midterms as a result of education polarization and a stark difference in enthusiasm between the two parties."But Trump and his allies think otherwise, and intent matters. The point of the SAVE Act, for them, is to use a ginned-up panic over noncitizen voting to disenfranchise the tens of millions of Americans who oppose the president and who have, as a result, been placed outside the political community. "The SAVE Act embodies Trump and the Republican Party’s astonishing contempt for the idea that a fair election is one where you can vote without being hassled by the state."Bouie went on to explain that, despite the GOP being hot on the prospect of passing the bill into law, it would actually hinder the voters who may place their vote in the Republican Party's column."The SAVE Act would go beyond simple voter ID to impose a national citizenship requirement. Consider too the millions of American women who, upon marriage, took their husband’s last name and may need to get a new birth certificate to register to vote."Now, if we step back and look at the composition of the American electorate, the reality is that the SAVE Act might work against the Republican Party. Married women, and especially those who have taken their husband’s last names, are a Republican-leaning group. So are Americans without passports, who tend not to have college degrees. "And those Americans most likely to lack the personal or civic resources to obtain documentation on short notice are the low propensity voters that put Trump over the top in 2016 and 2024 . the same voters that Republicans need in November."Our Analysis:The Misguided Strategy Behind the SAVE ActThe political landscape is often a battleground of strategies and counter-strategies, with each party attempting to leverage legislation to its advantage. However, the road to political dominance is fraught with miscalculations and unintended consequences. The SAVE Act, championed by former President Donald Trump, serves as a case study in how political maneuvers can backfire, especially when the architects of such strategies misread the electorate's composition and voting behaviors.Who Holds Institutional Power?Firstly, it's essential to identify the power dynamics at play. The push to pass the SAVE Act is spearheaded by Donald Trump and his Republican allies within Congress. This group holds significant political influence, particularly within the Republican Party, and their support for the legislation underscores its importance to their midterm election strategy. However, the actual power to enact the bill lies with Congress, which means its fate depends on the legislative process, subject to the dynamics and debates within this institution.Decision Makers and Their MotivesThe decision to prioritize the SAVE Act emerges from Trump and his closest political allies. Their motive, ostensibly, is to secure the integrity of elections by imposing stricter voter ID laws and curbing mail-in voting. Yet, as the article suggests, the underlying intent appears to be the disenfranchisement of voters perceived to be against Trump's political agenda. This strategic decision, while aimed at consolidating Republican power, is fraught with risks and may be based on a misinterpretation of the voter landscape.Misdirection and MisunderstandingThe framing of the SAVE Act by its proponents as a necessary measure for election security cleverly misdirects from its potentially disenfranchising effects. However, the article posits that this strategy might inadvertently harm the Republican voter base more than it would the Democrats'. This assertion is grounded in the demographics likely to be affected by the stringent requirements of the SAVE Act. married women who have changed their names, individuals without passports, and those lacking the means to quickly obtain necessary documentation are highlighted as groups that have traditionally leaned Republican.A Strategic Miscalculation?The analysis provided by Jamelle Bouie in the New York Times challenges the conventional wisdom that voter ID laws uniformly benefit the Republican Party. By highlighting the specific provisions of the SAVE Act and their potential impact on Republican-leaning demographics, Bouie suggests that the legislation could be a strategic miscalculation. Instead of disenfranchising Democratic voters, the act might hinder a significant portion of the Republican base, thereby complicating the party's path to victory in the midterms.Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale of Political HubrisThe SAVE Act represents a vivid example of how political strategies, especially those predicated on disenfranchisement and voter suppression, can backfire. The belief that such measures will exclusively harm the opposition neglects the complex and varied nature of the American electorate. Furthermore, it underscores a troubling contempt for democratic principles. namely, the right to vote without undue hassle from the state.In the final analysis, the push for the SAVE Act by Trump and his allies reveals a potent mix of misplaced confidence and a misunderstanding of the electorate. Rather than a masterstroke of political maneuvering, it may well prove to be a self-inflicted wound, demonstrating that the quest for power, when pursued without regard for the foundational values of democracy, can lead to unexpected and undesired outcomes.s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:President Donald Trump's war in Iran has split his MAGA base, and MS NOW's Joe Scarborough agreed that has presented a "massive problem" for Republicans going forward. The 79-year-old president's counterterrorism chief Joe Kent resigned Tuesday over the war, saying the joint U. S.-Israel military operation was unjustified because Iran posed no serious threat to national security. The Dispatch's David Drucker told MS NOW's "Morning Joe" that Republicans were worried about the political fallout."Republicans on the Hill and the people in the trenches working campaigns knew that this was a tough midterm election for Republicans to begin with as we rounded the corner from last year into this year," Drucker said. "There was initially some thinking in the late summer, early fall, that this Trump presidency, from a political standpoint, was unfolding a little bit differently than the first term. Some of the numbers suggested that, and then with concerns about affordability, the cost of living, and then, now the mass deportation program, things really began to unravel.""We're now in a place where Republicans that I talked to are talking openly about the Senate majority being in play," he added, "not that it's necessarily on its way out in the same way that the House of Representatives majority is on its way out, likely, but that it's in play, and that's a new development."Republicans have been worried about the Iran war's impact on voter turnout in the fall, but Drucker suggested the conflict would have far-reaching consequences for the GOP."When I talked to Republicans, this could surely impact voter turnout for Republicans in terms of getting the full element of the Trump coalition out in 2026," he said. "But I think what this really portends is difficulty for the next Republican nominee to reconstitute the Trump coalition in 2028, because Trump's a unique figure. Obviously, a lot of people have issues with him, but on the Republican side, you know, as I like to say, and as the numbers show, he's just normal enough for the normies and he's just out there enough for the populists and the conspiracy theorists and the people who think everything's rigged, to get them to show up . and they normally don't show up because they just think there's no point in showing up because all politicians are the same.""How do you recreate that coalition in 2028?" Drucker asked. "This is where these splinters, to me, are very significant, and it's sort of similar to what we saw with Barack Obama and the Democratic coalition. Once he was no longer a candidate, the Democrats had a hard time, you know, putting together his coalition."Scarborough agreed, saying that Trump remains incredibly popular among Republicans . but that popularity was no more transferable than Obama's was to another Democratic candidate or Ronald Reagan's was with another GOP candidate." JD Vance just, he's completely disappeared because this obviously is the antithesis of everything he said during the campaign that he and Donald Trump would be doing together, and so it is a fascinating time," Scarborough said."The danger here is that Donald Trump, in 2016 and 2024, was able to energize people that didn't usually get out and vote," he added. "Those people are American firsters. They hate wars, they hate, you know, they're the people that were shouting the loudest about the Epstein files. "You have all of these things that are not going to show a massive collapse in polls for wars during the middle of a war from Republicans. But those are the people who stay home midterms. It's not about who gets out to vote so often. It's who's depressed, who's disappointed in their party in power and who stays home, and right now that seems to be a massive, massive problem on the horizon for Republicans." - YouTube youtu. beOur Analysis:The Real Story Behind the Trump Administration’s Iran ConflictThe recent article on President Donald Trump's controversial military engagement in Iran and its fallout within the Republican Party skates dangerously close to misrepresenting the complex dynamics at play. By focusing heavily on the political ramifications within the GOP and the potential for a fractured voter base, the piece glosses over critical aspects of decision-making, accountability, and the framing of military actions in a political context. Let's dissect the narrative to separate the wheat from the chaff.Institutional Power and Decision-MakingAt the core of the Iran conflict under Trump's administration is the exercise of presidential authority in military affairs. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, holds significant power over the U. S. military and its operations. However, this power is not unchecked. The decision to engage militarily in Iran, described by the article through the lens of political fallout rather than policy analysis, should prompt a deeper investigation into how such decisions align with national security interests and the legal frameworks governing military action, such as the War Powers Resolution.Joe Kent's resignation as counterterrorism chief over the war's justification shines a light on the internal disagreements within the administration and raises questions about the decision-making process that led to the conflict. This dissent within the ranks of those tasked with national security suggests a complex scenario that transcends mere political loyalty or strategy.Misdirected Responsibility?The framing of the article suggests a direct line between Trump's decision to engage in Iran and the resultant discord within the Republican base. While it's true that the President's decisions have far-reaching implications, attributing the political fallout solely to Trump’s actions oversimplifies the narrative. It neglects the role of Congress in foreign policy and military oversight, the influence of international allies and enemies, and the multifaceted nature of national security threats.Furthermore, by focusing on the political consequences rather than the foundational reasons for the military action, there's a risk of misdirecting responsibility. The primary concern should be whether the decision to engage was in the best interest of the United States' national security, followed by an assessment of how well the action was executed. The political ramifications, while significant, are secondary to these crucial assessments.Political Ramifications and Voter SentimentThe discussion on the potential impact on voter turnout and the GOP's future electoral prospects is noteworthy but frames the issue in a way that could be misleading. It suggests that political considerations might outweigh substantive policy debates on military engagement. The unique coalition Trump has managed to assemble, characterized by a mix of traditional conservatives and more populist elements, indeed faces a test in light of the Iran conflict. However, the loyalty of these voters to Republican ideals beyond Trump's persona remains an open question.JD Vance's mentioned disappearance from the political conversation post-election, as highlighted by Joe Scarborough, underscores the tension between campaign promises and governing realities. This disconnect speaks to a broader issue within American politics: the challenge of translating populist rhetoric into actionable and sustainable policy.ConclusionThe article in question, while providing a surface-level analysis of the political implications of Trump's Iran conflict, fails to adequately address the deeper issues of governance, accountability, and the intricate balance of power that defines U. S. foreign policy decision-making. As observers and commentators, it's critical to look beyond the immediate political drama to understand the long-term implications of such decisions on the country's strategic posture and moral standing on the world stage.In dissecting the Trump administration's handling of the Iran conflict, let's not lose sight of the need for a principled approach to foreign engagement that transcends partisan politics and focuses on the enduring interests and values of the United States.s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com