This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

A roster tied to Patriot Front leaked out, and it paints a picture that should make everybody stop pretending this is some fringe problem. Hundreds of members. Spread across basically the entire country. And the part that matters most isn’t the number on the page — it’s the pipeline behind it: how a movement like this keeps finding new recruits in ordinary towns, over and over again.

Here’s how they do it. They don’t lead with swastikas and “blood and soil.” They lead with belonging. They wrap the hate in fitness, “brotherhood,” discipline, matching outfits, flags, clean visuals — a whole cosplay of purpose and masculinity. Researchers and reporting have been saying this for a while: Patriot Front operates less like the stereotypical backwoods militia and more like a media-and-recruitment machine built to pull in young men who feel isolated, angry, and invisible.

If you’ve ever worked cases that involve recruitment—gangs, crews, trafficking networks—you recognize the pattern immediately. The front door is always something that feels like community. The ideology comes later, once leaving would mean losing the only “team” that finally noticed you. That’s why these leaks matter. They don’t just expose “monsters.” They expose how regular people get turned into threats.

So no, the answer isn’t just “arrest them all” and move on. We need pressure on elected officials and law enforcement leadership to treat domestic extremism like the sustained threat it is, not a headline they can ignore until something explodes. And we need communities paying attention to the recruitment tactics — the flyers, the “training clubs,” the sanitized branding — because that’s where this starts, long before it ends up in the streets.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit michaelfanone.substack.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

They kicked in the door of a house in Ashburn, Virginia and found a literal Bond-villain stash: 303 gold bars, $2 million in cash, and 35 luxury watches — most of them Rolex. The guy sitting on it? A senior CIA officer, David Rush. And the gold wasn’t “his.” It was U.S. government property.

Here’s the part that should stop you cold: this wasn’t some petty theft. Rush allegedly requisitioned gold and foreign currency through internal CIA paperwork over a period of months — signatures, approvals, the whole “official” process — then moved it into a storage space he controlled and out into his home. The CIA didn’t flag it until a later check found the storage area empty. That’s not just one crooked employee. That’s an institutional failure so big it should trigger hearings on its own.

And then there’s the connection nobody wants to linger on: reporting indicates Rush had prior contact/history with Stephen Feinberg — the billionaire private equity guy Trump put in as Deputy Secretary of Defense — through Feinberg’s prior role advising on intelligence and his interest in the very CIA directorate Rush worked in. I’m not saying Feinberg helped him steal forty million dollars. I’m saying when a CIA officer can walk out with this kind of value and the oversight systems don’t scream until months later, every relationship and every pipeline around that unit deserves sunlight.

Because the real question isn’t just “how did he do it?” The real question is what else could walk out the door when the guardrails don’t work — money, tech, sources, names, methods. If this is the kind of “accountability” we have inside the most secretive agency on earth, imagine how much is breaking in the agencies that don’t live behind a classified wall.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

Here is the story you have been told about American politics: trust is gone, both parties have failed, and the Washington Post calls it a symmetrical crisis of confidence in the system. The polling backs them up. Americans really have lost faith in Republicans and Democrats alike, and more people now identify as independents than as members of either major party.

That framing is also doing real damage, because the distrust is not symmetrical. Pretending it is helps the people who built the crisis in the first place.

I’ll say what most political analysts won’t. One party is actively dismantling democratic institutions. The other party is standing by with strongly worded press releases. That is not the same failure. Treating it as the same failure is exactly how we got here.

Look at the actual data the Post collected. Americans say politicians care more about power than people, that they’re out of touch, that they don’t deliver on promises. The deeper signal in the polling is something the reporting almost names and then walks away from. Americans aren’t just frustrated with gridlock. They’re watching one party systematically erode the rule of law while the other party debates the proper procedural response.

Under the current administration, we’ve watched the weaponization of the Justice Department, the purging of career civil servants, and the installation of loyalists in key positions across the federal government. That is not partisan politics. That is the authoritarian playbook, and anyone who has read a history book recognizes the moves.

The Republican Party has become a vehicle for dismantling accountability itself. They obstruct investigations, install loyalists, declare victory, and run the cycle again. They are not governing. They are capturing institutions and using them for personal and political gain.

Meanwhile, Democrats are still running 2008’s playbook. They think they can fact-check their way out of institutional capture. They are following parliamentary procedure while the other side burns the rulebook. They are showing up to a knife fight with a brief.

This is why Americans have lost faith. Not because both parties are equally bad, but because one party is actively breaking the system while the other pretends the system still works.

The Post’s reporting brushes up against this and then refuses to name it. It quotes Americans saying politicians only care about themselves. It cites frustration with investigations that go nowhere. It documents the collapse of trust in institutions. What it will not do is connect the dots out loud.

Here is the pattern Americans actually see. Republicans break norms and laws. Democrats launch investigations. Republicans obstruct and delay. Democrats move on to the next crisis. Nothing ever lands, no accountability arrives, and the cycle repeats until everyone is exhausted. Exhaustion is the point.

In my twenty years as a law enforcement official, when someone repeatedly violated the law and faced no consequences, we called that a broken system. When institutions failed to hold powerful people accountable, we called that corruption. That is what Americans are watching in real time, and they are not wrong to call it what it is.

The polling shows Americans want accountability more than they want partisan victories. They want politicians who face consequences when they break the law. They want institutions that actually function. They want a system where your last name and your party affiliation don’t determine whether you’re above the law.

But accountability requires two things the Democratic establishment seems allergic to: urgency and confrontation. You cannot restore trust in institutions by politely asking bad actors to please stop breaking them.

This administration has turned corruption into performance art, and the opposition keeps buying tickets to the show instead of shutting it down.

The deeper problem is institutional capture. When one party controls the narrative about accountability itself, they can reframe every investigation as partisan theater. They can delay every consequence until it loses relevance. They can exhaust the public’s attention span until people just give up. That is not a political strategy. That is the systematic destruction of democratic norms, and it works because the other party keeps playing by rules that don’t exist anymore.

I am not a Democrat. I don’t have a team here. I’m not interested in defending an institution that has spent the last decade losing because it refused to fight. But right now, the Democratic Party is the only functioning opposition to what’s happening. That makes it the only viable vehicle for the accountability Americans say they want, which also makes the Democratic Party’s strategic failures a national emergency.

Here is the part the Post will not write. This is not sustainable. When institutions lose legitimacy, people stop following them voluntarily. When accountability disappears, people stop believing in the system itself. When both parties look captured, democracy becomes a hollow shell that someone with bad intentions will eventually crack open.

The solution is not finding a middle ground between corruption and accountability. It is not both-sidesing our way out of institutional capture. It is demanding that our representatives actually represent us instead of their donors and their own power. It is supporting primary challenges against Democrats who prioritize civility over consequences. It is backing candidates who understand that democracy is not a debate club.

Americans aren’t wrong to distrust both parties. One has abandoned democracy entirely. The other treats its destruction as a policy disagreement. Until that changes, until accountability returns, until real consequences exist for corruption and norm-breaking, this trust deficit will only deepen.

The question isn’t whether Americans have lost faith in their political system. The question is whether the system deserves it back. Based on the evidence in front of us, the answer right now is no.

If this hit, share it with someone who still thinks this is normal political dysfunction. Drop a comment and tell me whether either party actually represents your interests. And if you want this kind of analysis in your inbox every week, subscribe.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

Sponsored by Ground News

An 82-year-old woman took Donald Trump to court, twice, and beat him in front of two juries. Then he ran it up to the appeals court, twice, and six federal judges looked at the whole thing and sided with her every single time, with not one of them writing a word in his favor. She did everything right. She used the system exactly …

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

Imagine, for a second, that a foreign military blew up a small boat off the coast of Florida and killed three Americans. They never told anyone who the dead were. They never produced any evidence the boat had been doing anything wrong. They posted a 19-second video of the explosion to social media and walked off.

We’d be at war. There would be hearings. There would be funerals on the front page of every newspaper in the country.

The United States military has done exactly that, 58 times, since September. The death toll is 194 people. And almost no one is talking about it.

The most recent strike happened this week in the eastern Pacific. One person killed. Two survivors left floating in open water. The Mexican Navy was asked to go find them. We don’t know their names. We don’t know if they’re alive. What we know is that the U.S. military put them there, on the order of a four-star Marine general, based on intelligence the administration refuses to show anyone, against a target the administration won’t even identify.

The Pentagon posted the video like a highlight reel. A boat moving across open water, an explosion, a column of fire on the surface. No context, no names, no charges, no court. The press release throws around the phrase “designated terrorist organization” the way a magician throws around the word abracadabra. Say it, and the rules disappear.

I want to be specific about something. In 56 of these 58 strikes, there were no survivors. The Pentagon’s term for what happens to the people who jump off the boats before the missile hits is “lost at sea.” Read that as drowned. Or read it the way I read it, which is that we should be asking a lot harder questions about what happens out there when the cameras are off.

Because we already know what happened on the very first strike, back on September 2nd of last year. The military hit a boat. People survived the initial blast. They were clinging to wreckage in the water. And the U.S. military sent a second strike in to finish them off. CNN reported it. The Pentagon’s never denied it. That is, by definition, a war crime. And it’s what makes anyone who survives one of these strikes so vulnerable in the hours that follow.

The four-star who ordered this latest strike is General Francis Donovan, the Marine running Southern Command. Donovan says the Coast Guard has been notified to conduct Search and Rescue. The Mexican Navy is actually doing the searching. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about whether the institution that destroyed the boat is the institution you want trusted with saving the people who lived through it.

Go back to the thought experiment I opened with. A foreign military doing this off the coast of Florida. Ask yourself why your gut reaction was so different from the way you probably felt when I told you it was the U.S. doing it in the Pacific. That difference is the entire reason the administration has gotten away with this 58 times.

The public justification for blowing up these boats is fentanyl. Stopping the drugs that are killing Americans. That’s what the President says, what Pete Hegseth says, and what JD Vance said when he called this “the highest and best use of our military.”

Here’s what the President’s own Drug Enforcement Administration says, in writing, in its 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment: fentanyl is manufactured in Mexico, moved into the United States overland, through legal ports of entry, hidden in passenger vehicles, driven by American citizens. In fiscal year 2023, 86 percent of the people sentenced in federal court for trafficking fentanyl were U.S. citizens, moving the drug across legal border crossings in cars and trucks. The Venezuelan boat is a fiction.

Now look at a map. These Pacific strikes are happening roughly 2,600 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border. The Caribbean strikes off Venezuela are thousands of miles from where fentanyl is actually produced and trafficked. The Coast Guard’s own interdiction reports from those waters don’t show fentanyl. They show cocaine, marijuana, occasionally heroin. The geography doesn’t work, the drug doesn’t match the route, and the story falls apart the second you look at a map.

And here’s the kicker. If this campaign were actually about reducing the flow of drugs, you’d expect to see results. Customs and Border Protection just reported that fentanyl seizures on land are down 45 percent compared to last year, and seizures over air and sea are down 49 percent. Either drugs are getting through at a higher rate than ever, or there were never as many drugs on these boats as the administration claimed. Either way, the policy has failed on its own stated terms. The response from the administration is to keep blowing up boats.

So if this isn’t about drugs, what is it about?

Look at the scale of the deployment. Roughly 15,000 troops in the region. A carrier strike group. Military aircraft. That isn’t a counter-narcotics posture. The DEA does counter-narcotics with badges and warrants and informants. You don’t need a carrier to interdict a fishing boat. You need a carrier when you’re preparing for something else.

This is about precedent. It’s about establishing that the President of the United States, on his own personal authority, with no vote from Congress and no review from any court, can order the military to kill specific people in international waters based on intelligence he refuses to show anyone. That is a power no president has ever claimed before in this way, against this kind of target. And once a president has it, every president after him has it too.

This isn’t a partisan analysis. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky and chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, calls these strikes extrajudicial killings. Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, calls them illegal. The Senate held a war powers vote last fall to try to stop them. It failed. Most Republicans voted against it. A handful crossed over. The administration kept going.

Human Rights Watch calls them extrajudicial killings under international human rights law. Dozens of former U.S. government attorneys, the people who spent their careers writing the legal opinions that authorized counterterrorism strikes under Bush, Obama, and the first Trump administration, have publicly said these strikes have no legal foundation. The consensus is overwhelming. It cuts across the entire political and legal establishment of this country.

And it hasn’t mattered.

The reason it hasn’t mattered is that the dead don’t look like us, don’t speak our language, and don’t have names in our newspapers. The first strike was front-page news. The fifteenth was buried inside the paper. The thirtieth was a paragraph on a wire service. The 58th cracked the news cycle only because someone was still alive to be found. That isn’t journalism failing. That is the strategy working.

In my twenty years as a law enforcement official, I locked up people I was certain in my bones were guilty and watched some of them walk free because a judge ruled a search was bad or a warrant was thin. It was infuriating. It was also the system working exactly the way it’s supposed to work. The alternative, the thing on the other side of due process, is what we are watching the U.S. government do in the Pacific Ocean right now. It is the government deciding that some lives aren’t worth the inconvenience of evidence.

And the thing nobody in Washington wants to say out loud is that powers like this never stay where you put them. They start with people far away who don’t look like us and don’t speak our language and whose names we’ll never know. They end somewhere else. They always do.

One last thing. The Pentagon explained the three-week pause before this latest strike by saying they’d been delayed by “bad weather.” Sit with that phrase for a minute. Bad weather. As if killing strangers in international waters is a recreational activity that the rain interferes with. As if the only thing standing between the U.S. military and another funeral in another country is the forecast.

We don’t know the names of the people we killed. We don’t know the names of the people who survived. We don’t know what they were carrying, because the administration won’t tell us, and we have no reason to take their word for it after 57 previous strikes where they also wouldn’t tell us.

What we know is this. If three Americans had died this week off the coast of Florida the way three strangers died this week off the coast of Mexico, the country would have stopped what it was doing. Instead, the boats keep getting hit, the bodies keep going into the water, and the only thing slowing the next strike down is the forecast.

Keep counting. It’s the only thing the people running this operation can’t survive.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

When six inmates died at Cook County Jail in Chicago in 2023, investigators initially had nothing. No needles. No pills. No powder. Nothing you’d recognize as contraband. What they eventually found in the cells — the thing they eventually traced back to the overdoses — was rolled-up paper.

Ordinary paper. The kind that comes in an envelope.

The New York Times published an investigation this week on what is, in my view, one of the most alarming developments in the American drug crisis in years. And I spent twenty years as a law enforcement official with the D.C. Metropolitan Police, so I want to be precise about what I mean by that.

The Weapon

Drug trafficking networks have learned to dissolve synthetic compounds into a liquid solution, apply it to paper, let it dry, and mail it directly into correctional facilities as regular correspondence. Letters. Greeting cards. Legal briefs. Books. Anything the mail system carries.

Once inside, a single page sells for up to $10,000.

In 2024, Cook County officers seized one sheet of paper and sent it to a lab. It came back positive for ten separate chemical compounds: synthetic opioids, depressants, cannabinoids, stimulants, all on one page. Some of those compounds included protonitazene, a synthetic opioid that can be up to twenty times more potent than fentanyl, and xylazine, the animal tranquilizer the streets call “tranq” — engineered specifically to evade standard drug screening tests.

By the time investigators knew what they were looking for, six people were already dead.

The Gap They Found

I want to be precise about why this is so difficult to counter, because I think people underestimate it.

Paper is a constitutional right in American jails. Courts have recognized for decades that incarcerated people have a protected interest in written communication with their families, their lawyers, their children. You cannot simply ban all mail. To do so would sever one of the only human connections available to people in custody.

The traffickers understand this. They did not break through a wall. They found a door that cannot be locked, and they walked right through it.

Cook County’s lead investigator put it plainly to the Times: when you are carrying a bag of heroin, you have to hide it. But if you are carrying a manila folder full of paper, nobody is going to give it a second look.

That is the entire business model, in one sentence. The concealment is built into the object itself.

Who’s Making This

The networks moving this product are not improvising from a garage. The synthetic compounds being used are manufactured in overseas labs, primarily in China, by operations that understood the fentanyl distribution model and iterated on it. Novel chemicals. Faster synthesis. Harder to detect. Engineered to stay ahead of the test kits law enforcement already uses.

By the time a jurisdiction calibrates a field test for one compound, two new variants are already in circulation. The traffickers are always running the clock. That is not a metaphor. It is the operational strategy.

Beyond the Walls

The investigator at Cook County told the Times his biggest concern is that this method migrates beyond prison walls entirely. A manila folder of drug-laced paper passes a traffic stop without raising an eyebrow. It can be mailed to a house. Dropped at a handoff point. Handed to someone who has no idea what they are carrying.

That last part is already happening. A Houston defense attorney told investigators he was deceived into bringing laced paper into Harris County Jail. A librarian in Massachusetts was arrested in 2025 for allegedly running a $65,000 operation smuggling the same product into a facility in Dartmouth. Kansas changed its prison newspaper subscription policies because laced print material was getting in through publications.

Sixteen states have now prosecuted people for this. We are not talking about a Chicago problem. We are talking about a national crisis operating, almost entirely, in plain sight.

What This Demands

Those six men who died at Cook County were in state custody. Whatever brought them to that facility, the state assumed responsibility for their physical safety the moment the doors closed. The state, through the mail it allowed through its own mailroom, handed them what killed them.

No corrections officer intended that. No policy document authorized it. It happened in the gap between constitutional obligation and operational capacity.

That gap is where the modern drug crisis lives. Not at the border. Not at some single, definable chokepoint where the right policy lever fixes everything. It lives in the constitutional mailroom. In the lab in a country we have no jurisdiction over. In the novel compound that does not yet have a name on a test kit. It moves, and it moves faster than we do.

Facilities are piloting photocopying all incoming mail and destroying the originals, delivering only the copy. It is a reasonable adaptation. But it is a patch, and the networks will find the next gap in that patch. They always do.

What this moment requires is an honest conversation about what the drug crisis actually is in 2026. For years the political debate has centered on the border. And border enforcement matters. But the synthetic drug problem is not primarily a border interdiction problem. It is a chemistry problem, a logistics problem, and increasingly a mail problem. The people running these networks are adaptive and well-capitalized, and they will always find the path of least resistance.

Right now, that path is a piece of paper.

The question is whether this finally changes the conversation about what fighting this crisis actually requires. I don’t think we are there yet. But we should be.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

My grandfather Tony came to this country from Italy to escape fascism. He worked the steel mills of western Pennsylvania for decades. When the mills closed, he opened a restaurant. When that wound down, he started a landscaping business. My father worked those same mills in the summers before going on to become a prominent Washington attorney.

That is the American story. You arrive with nothing. You work. You adapt. You climb. And the next generation goes further than you did.

I want to tell you what that town looks like today.

Sharon, Pennsylvania

Sharon has more fentanyl rehabilitation facilities than 7-Elevens, more patrol cars than kids playing outside, and a row of half-empty churches Tony’s generation built with their own hands. The schools are underfunded. The unspoken promise that if you show up and work hard you’ll be okay has stopped operating there in any meaningful way. In my twenty years as a law enforcement official, I watched up close what happens when the economic structure of a community collapses and nothing replaces it. Sharon is the late stage of that process.

That is what happens when the floor drops out and nobody builds a new one. That is what we let happen.

And I’m writing about it now because yesterday Pope Leo XIV released the most important document on artificial intelligence most Americans will never read, and it is a direct warning that we are about to do this again on a scale that makes what happened to Sharon look like a preview, including to people who spent their whole lives believing they were too educated, too credentialed, too valuable to end up in that story.

The document is called Magnifica Humanitas. It came out on May 25, 2026. I was raised Catholic but I haven’t been to Mass in years, and this isn’t a religious pitch. It’s a diagnosis of something this country is actively failing at right now, and Tony’s story is the case study in both what we used to get right and what we have stopped bothering to protect.

Why a Pope Named Leo Wrote This Document

Pope Leo XIV is an American, the first in the 2,000-year history of the Catholic Church. He chose the name Leo deliberately. In 1891, Pope Leo XIII issued an encyclical called Rerum Novarum in direct response to the first Industrial Revolution. Factories were replacing human labor. Workers were being treated as interchangeable parts. Wages were set to extract maximum output at minimum human cost. Rerum Novarum said stop. Workers are people. Capital must serve human labor, not the other way around.

Tony was exactly the person that document was written for. He came here because this country, at its best, had a floor: a legal and moral structure that said your effort means something, that you could not simply be discarded when you became inconvenient to the people profiting from your labor.

The mills closed anyway. Politicians on both sides told us the market would sort it out. It didn’t. You can measure exactly how badly it didn’t by standing in Sharon today and counting the rehab centers.

What’s Different This Time

Here is what I need you to understand. Tony’s path — work the mill, build a small business, grind your way to stability through sheer determination — still existed when the mills closed because there was enough economic room left for a resourceful person to find a foothold. There were sectors to move into. There were services to provide. There was still a country that, however imperfectly, maintained enough structure that individual resilience could find purchase.

That room is closing.

AI is not just automating the mill floor. It is automating the restaurant, the landscaping business, the law practice, the accounting firm, the medical office. Every sector Tony or his children could have pivoted to is now facing simultaneous disruption, and it is happening faster than any policy response is being built to meet it.

For the first time, blue-collar and white-collar disruption are happening at the same time, in the same communities, on the same timeline.

My father worked the mills in the summers and built a career at the top of his profession. His life spanned the whole ladder, from the mill floor to a law office in Washington, and that distance was the proof that the country worked. AI is now cutting through both ends of that ladder at once, and nobody is building a new one.

The Argument America Forgot

At the core of what Leo XIV is arguing is something this country used to believe about itself.

America is supposed to stand for two things at once: the value of the individual, and the responsibility of the community to protect that value. The tension between personal freedom and collective obligation is the founding argument. It is what made Tony’s choice to come here make sense. The individual had room to build. The country had a responsibility to keep that room open.

We have abandoned both sides of that equation. We let the floor drop out of communities like Sharon without intervention. We are letting the people who control the technology shaping the next economy operate without any accountability to the common good. Individual dignity and the common good have been abandoned together, in the same towns, on the same timeline.

The Pope names the logic driving this with precision. He writes that when efficiency becomes the ultimate measure of value, human beings begin to see themselves as projects to be optimized rather than as people with inherent worth. He calls it an anti-human vision. Tony left a country where a version of that vision had taken over the government. He came here because the alternative existed here. That alternative is now under pressure from a different direction, not from the state, but from concentrated private power that is accountable to no one.

The Pope is also direct about who benefits and who pays. AI amplifies the power of those who already possess economic resources, expertise, and data. Then he says this: a more moral AI is not enough if that morality is determined by a few. The people building these systems are not going to protect the floor. They never have. It has always required legal intervention, organized political will, and public pressure. Always.

Leo XIV sat next to a co-founder of one of the most powerful AI companies in the world to release this document. That is more substantive engagement with AI accountability than Congress has produced in two years.

What We Actually Do

Three things, starting now.

Mandate labor impact assessments before large-scale AI deployment. We require environmental impact assessments before you build something that could poison a community. Require the same before you deploy something that can eliminate one. If a company is about to wipe out a category of work, the public has a right to know what that looks like before it happens, not after.

Build a worker transition program on the scale of the GI Bill. Real income support, real education access, real runway, for the warehouse worker and the paralegal and the radiologist together, because this disruption is not sorted by income or credential. It is coming for all of it.

Enforce antitrust on AI infrastructure concentration. A handful of companies now control the foundational models, the computing capacity, and the data pipelines the entire economy is becoming dependent on. That is a level of concentrated power over essential infrastructure this country has never permitted in any other sector without legal intervention. It cannot be permitted now.

What Tony Came Here For

Tony didn’t cross an ocean and work those mills for decades so his grandchildren could grow up in a country that stopped believing it owed people a fighting chance.

Sharon is the answer to what happens when we stop believing that. The market doesn’t build floors. People build them, through laws and through organized political will.

AI is the most powerful economic force this generation will face. We can build something with it that honors what Tony came here for, or we can run the same play the mill owners ran and then act surprised when the next Sharon shows up, this time in neighborhoods that thought they were insulated from that story.

The full encyclical is linked below. Read it. Then ask the people who want your vote what their plan is. Because we have already seen what happens when there isn’t one.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

Ninety dollars.

That is how much Congresswoman Julie Johnson of Texas says she made on her Palantir stock trade. Not nine thousand. Not nine hundred. Ninety bucks. A nice dinner for two if you skip dessert.

I do not care about the ninety dollars. Neither should you. What I care about is that a sitting member of the United States Congress, with access to information you and I will never see, bought stock in a data analytics company that is currently helping the Trump administration build out a domestic surveillance apparatus. And her defense is essentially that the trade was too small to matter.

That is the defense. Not “I did not do it.” Not “It was held in a blind trust.” Just “Relax, it was only ninety dollars.”

This is the state of the Democratic Party in 2026. Trying to make the case to American voters that Donald Trump is corrupt while members of its own caucus are out here defending themselves with “but it was only a little corruption.”

It is not going to work. And the people in the party who think it will are going to lose the midterms. And I say that as someone with no team jersey to wear here. I do not identify with a party. I never have. But right now in this country there is exactly one functioning political party capable of stopping what Donald Trump is doing to American democracy, and it is the Democrats. So when they screw up, I am going to say so. Because the stakes are too high to pretend they have not.

The Johnson-Allred runoff in Dallas this Tuesday is not a one-off. The same fight is happening in primaries across the country, and it is one of the more honest things Democrats have done in a long time.

In Utah, a state senator named Nate Blouin is hammering a former congressman for holding equity in a data center firm. In New York, the former city comptroller Brad Lander is hammering Dan Goldman, a quarter-billionaire heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, for using his own inherited wealth to flood his reelection campaign. In Los Angeles, Brad Sherman, a guy who actually supports a stock trading ban, is being primaried because he inherited three stocks from his dead grandmother. And in San Francisco, the race to fill Nancy Pelosi’s seat has turned into a referendum on whether being personally rich before you ran for office disqualifies you from being clean while you serve.

Some of these fights are legitimate. Some of them are stretched thin. All of them are happening because Democratic primary voters are sick of watching politicians on both sides of the aisle treat congressional service as a portfolio management opportunity.

And they are right to be sick of it.

Here is a fact that should make every American taxpayer break something.

The STOCK Act has been on the books since 2012. It is the law that is supposed to stop members of Congress from insider trading and force them to disclose their stock trades within 45 days. Every year, members get caught violating it. Every year, they shrug.

The fine for getting caught? Two hundred dollars.

You read that right. A sitting member of the United States Congress can fail to disclose a stock trade in a company they directly regulate, get caught, and pay a fine smaller than a parking ticket in some neighborhoods of DC. I have written checks bigger than that for a busted taillight.

Then there is this. A group called the Political Integrity Project started up last year. They have a simple pledge. Do not trade stocks while you serve in Congress. Do not take corporate PAC money. Do not cash in as a lobbyist after you leave. The “I am a functioning human being with values” pledge.

So far, ninety challengers have signed it. Ninety people who want to come to Washington. How many sitting members of Congress have signed it?

Seven.

Seven out of 535.

All of them Democrats. Zero Republicans. So if anyone wants to come at me for being too hard on Democrats here, save it. At least their seven exist. The Republicans put up a goose egg.

But seven is also pathetic. Seven is a rounding error. Seven is the number of people willing to give up their portfolio for the privilege of serving the American public. The other 528 looked at that pledge and said no thank you, I would rather keep my E*TRADE account active.

I know what you’re thinking. “Mike, you keep talking about Democrats. What about Trump?”

You are absolutely right. Let’s go.

Donald Trump ran in 2016 on draining the swamp. Lock her up. The system is rigged against the little guy. He sold that story to working-class Americans, and a lot of them bought it. Including some of my friends. Including, if I am being honest, some members of my own family before they saw what came next.

What came next is the largest pay-to-play operation in modern American presidential history. It is not even close.

The Trump meme coin. World Liberty Financial. The crypto ventures laundering hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign sources into the personal accounts of the President’s family while he sits in the Oval Office signing executive orders that affect those same industries. The Mar-a-Lago dinners where foreign nationals pay seven figures for face time with the most powerful man on earth. The Don Jr. and Eric Trump tour of the Gulf states, cutting billion-dollar real estate and crypto deals while their father controls American foreign policy toward those same countries.

This is not the swamp. This is the swamp wearing a gold watch and laughing at you.

And here is the kicker. Trump himself, at his own State of the Union, looked into the camera and blessed the bipartisan congressional stock trading ban. Said yeah, do it, sounds great, ban that thing. The bill died within weeks. Crickets from the White House. No phone calls. No pressure. Nothing. Because Trump did not actually want it to pass. He wanted the applause line.

That is who we are running against. A man who has turned the presidency into a family enterprise and who counts on Americans being too exhausted, too cynical, or too distracted to notice.

So back to the Democratic primaries. Back to the ninety-dollar Palantir trade. Back to the in-fighting that has the smart-set pundits clutching their pearls.

I am here to tell you it is good.

It is good because you cannot make the corruption argument against Donald Trump with dirty hands. Democrats cannot stand on a debate stage in October of 2026 and accuse the President of self-dealing if their own caucus is full of members who traded defense contractor stocks the week before a committee vote. The voters can smell that. They have been smelling it for forty years. It is why so many of them tuned out of politics in the first place.

The Democratic Party that wants to win this November and beyond has to walk in clean. That means signing the pledge. That means passing a real ban with real teeth. Not a two-hundred-dollar fine. Real teeth. Expulsion. Forfeiture of trading profits to the Treasury. Criminal referrals.

It means ending the joke that is the STOCK Act and replacing it with something that actually scares people. It means making blind trust the actual minimum standard of service, not a punchline that politicians hide behind while their spouses make miraculous trades.

And it means having uncomfortable conversations within their own ranks. Yes, Julie Johnson, including you. Yes, Dan Goldman, including you. Every single member of Congress who looked at that ninety-challenger pledge and decided a portfolio mattered more.

Painful. Ugly. Necessary.

I was a cop for twenty years. I have seen what corruption looks like from the bottom up. It is not always a briefcase full of cash. Most of the time it is a thousand small accommodations. A stock trade here. A relative on a payroll there. A vote that conveniently lines up with a donor’s interest. Nobody ever thinks they are the corrupt one. Everybody has a reason. Everybody managed their conflict. Everybody had a financial advisor. Everybody had a blind trust.

And every single time, the American people get the bill.

We are at a moment in this country where trust in institutions is at a generational low. I do not have a team here. I am an American, and I am paying close attention to which party is going to act like the adults in the room while the other one openly auctions off the federal government to the highest bidder. The way back is not for Democrats to circle the wagons and protect their own. The way back is to be the party that actually does the thing they keep promising. Show, don’t tell. Sign the pledge. Pass the ban. Walk in clean.

Then go after Donald Trump for the swamp he has built around himself and his children. With heads high and hands empty.

That is how Democrats win in November. That is how anyone actually drains a swamp.

In that order.

P.S. Hit the like button if this one fired you up. Drop a comment and tell me where you land on a full congressional stock trading ban. Yes or no. No fence-sitting. And if you are not subscribed yet, what are you waiting for. Paid subscribers keep this independent operation running and let me say what I actually think without an editor changing it to mush. See you next time.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

The Trump administration is quietly dismantling six decades of federal firearm law. Donald Trump Jr. stands to profit. And Americans will pay for it.

This story is about making it easier for the wrong people to get guns, and making sure the right people get rich off it.

I want to be clear about where I am coming from before I lay this out. I support the Second Amendment. I own firearms. I carried one for the better part of two decades as a law enforcement officer in Washington, D.C. I have also worked enough crime scenes and written enough shooting reports to understand what actually happens when guns move through the wrong hands. This is not an argument about gun rights. This is an argument about corruption, and about who gets to decide how dangerous that corruption is allowed to be.

In the weeks following a shooting near the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, while the news cycle churned through everything else this administration was generating, the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives quietly released a package of proposed regulatory changes that most people never saw. On the surface, the proposals read like bureaucratic maintenance. Updated identity verification standards. Revised firearm transaction forms. Expanded permit exemptions. New shipping rules.

Taken together, they point toward something far more significant: the systematic dismantling of the legal framework that has governed American gun commerce since 1968, restructured in ways that benefit a specific industry, at a moment when a member of the President’s family holds a substantial financial stake in that industry.

In 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald ordered the rifle he used to assassinate President John F. Kennedy through a mail-order advertisement. He used a fake name. The weapon was shipped across state lines and delivered to a Dallas address. No store. No dealer. No one looking him in the eye or asking a single question.

Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968 in direct response. The law established a foundational principle: firearms transactions should occur face-to-face, at a licensed dealer, with a real human being checking your identification, running a background check, and applying judgment. The logic was not complicated. Dealers can observe behavior. They can spot red flags that a database cannot. They generate traceable paper records. They create friction that makes anonymous acquisition harder.

That system has held for nearly 60 years. The Trump administration is now taking it apart, quietly, one regulatory proposal at a time.

The first change involves digital identity verification. The proposed ATF rule would allow federally licensed firearm dealers to complete sales using remote or digital identity verification rather than physical, in-person examination of identification documents. It would also authorize electronic submission of Form 4473, the federal firearm transaction record, without requiring the buyer to be present.

The practical result: a dealer could sell a firearm online, verify the customer remotely, complete all paperwork digitally, and transfer the weapon without the buyer ever entering a store. That is not a modernization of a bureaucratic process. It is the removal of the only human checkpoint in the transaction.

In-person dealers do something that software cannot fully replicate. They observe whether a buyer seems coached or nervous. They notice when someone’s behavior doesn’t match their documentation. They spot the person who is clearly buying on behalf of someone else. That observational capacity is not incidental to the law. It is one of the reasons the law was written the way it was.

The second change involves Brady Act permit exemptions. Under federal law, certain state-issued firearm permits can substitute for a real-time FBI background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The ATF has historically applied narrow standards for which permits qualify. The proposed rules would expand those standards significantly, meaning a much larger share of gun buyers could bypass NICS entirely.

For anyone trying to operate a large-scale online firearms business, this is the missing operational piece. Background check delays create logistics problems. Delayed results require follow-up. The system periodically goes offline. Broader permit exemptions eliminate most of those frictions and make high-volume, fast-turnaround online sales dramatically more viable.

The third change is the one that should generate the most scrutiny.

Since 1927, federal law has prohibited mailing handguns through the United States Postal Service. The restriction exists because firearms moving through licensed dealers generate documentation. That documentation is what law enforcement uses to trace weapons recovered at crime scenes back through the chain of custody. Disrupt that chain and you disrupt the ability to investigate trafficking networks and build criminal cases.

The proposed USPS rule would allow handguns to be mailed, treat them comparably to rifles and shotguns, and reportedly permit individuals to mail firearms to themselves or to another person in another state for lawful activities. The proposal does not appear to require background checks for the recipient, dealer processing, or standard inventory logging.

Stripped to its operational meaning: a handgun could move across state lines through the mail with no background check on the receiving end, no dealer in the loop, and no paper trail of the kind investigators depend on. The infrastructure that makes gun tracing possible would be significantly weakened.

GrabAGun is a Texas-based online firearms retailer that markets itself explicitly as the “Amazon of guns.” The company sells rifles, high-capacity magazines, suppressors, and tactical gear. Its entire strategy is built around a frictionless digital purchasing experience, designed for mobile users, targeting younger consumers. The company’s model becomes dramatically more valuable if the federal government constructs the legal framework for scalable residential gun delivery.

In 2025, Donald Trump Jr. joined GrabAGun’s prospective board of directors as the company prepared to go public through a SPAC merger. Under a consulting agreement filed with the SEC, he received 300,000 shares. GrabAGun’s own corporate filings warned investors that the business could suffer material harm if Trump Jr. stopped promoting the company. An associated financier described him as the company’s “avatar of the Second Amendment,” which is a candid acknowledgment that his value to the firm was political and reputational, not operational.

The alignment here is not subtle. A member of the President’s family takes a financial stake in a company whose growth depends on the federal government making it easier to buy guns online without the friction of in-person verification. The President’s administration then quietly proposes a series of regulatory changes that would accomplish exactly that.

Supporters will say Trump Jr. is a private citizen engaged in lawful commerce, and the regulatory changes simply update outdated rules. Those are fair arguments to put on the table. But the relevant question is not whether any of this is technically permissible. The question is whether the President of the United States is rewriting federal firearm law in ways that serve his son’s investment portfolio, packaged in regulatory language dry enough that most Americans will never read it.

I want to be specific about what law enforcement loses if these proposals move forward, because this tends to get abstracted into policy language that obscures the real-world impact.

When a gun is recovered at a crime scene, investigators trace it by following the documentation chain from manufacturer to distributor to dealer to buyer. Every licensed transfer creates a record. That record is how you identify trafficking networks, connect straw purchasers to criminal organizations, and build prosecutable cases. It is slow and imperfect, but it works.

Remote verification systems can authenticate documents. They cannot assess intent, observe behavior, or generate the layered paper trail that comes from a physical dealer transaction. Broader Brady exemptions mean fewer NICS checks, which means fewer records. A loosened USPS handgun rule means firearms moving across state lines with less documentation than currently required. Each of these changes individually represents a reduction in investigative capacity. Together, they represent a significant erosion of the infrastructure that makes gun trafficking investigations possible.

More guns moving faster through fewer checkpoints with less documentation does not produce better public safety outcomes. We do not need to speculate about that. We have evidence from the periods in American history when controls were weaker.

The full regulatory text for these proposals has not been publicly released. Legal challenges are likely. Law enforcement organizations and gun violence prevention groups will mount opposition. States with stricter laws will resist. None of those outcomes are guaranteed, and the final rules may look different from what has been floated.

But the direction of this administration is no longer ambiguous. The push is toward a world where firearms are treated as ordinary consumer goods, purchased online, verified remotely, and delivered to your door, and where a family with financial interests in that industry is positioned to benefit from every step of the transition.

The suppressor industry already built the blueprint for this model. Companies like Silencer Central pioneered systems for remote identity verification, electronic federal paperwork, and home delivery for NFA-regulated items. The proposed ATF rules appear designed to take that narrow, heavily regulated model and scale it across standard firearms commerce. The legal infrastructure is being assembled piece by piece, mostly out of public view.

I spent years working in a city where gun violence is not an abstraction. The shooting reports I wrote had names on them. The families I dealt with were not statistics. I understand what it means when the friction gets removed from the process of acquiring a weapon, and I understand what it means when the people making those decisions have a financial reason to get it wrong.

This is not a Second Amendment debate. This is a corruption story with a body count attached to it. The Trump family stands to profit. American communities will absorb the consequences.

Pay attention to this one. Most people are not.

Watch the full breakdown on YouTube. Subscribe here on Substack for deeper reporting on the stories that do not make the front page. If this is the kind of journalism you want to see more of, share it.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!