The New Realist Podcast

Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself

This advice, often attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, has a long history. While its actual origins are contested, the lesson is one that every one involved in politics should heed; this is especially true for Democrats as they head into President Trump’s first State of the Union (SOTU) of his second term.

Last year when Trump gave his State of the State address six weeks after re-entering office, Democrats were still reeling from big losses in the 2024 election. Never in their wildest dreams could they have imagined that in just one year the picture would look so different. Yet as we await Trump’s address tonight things look somewhere between bleak and abysmal for the president in particular and the GOP more broadly. If things remain relatively unchanged for the next nine months, Democrats have a real chance of picking up the House (and maybe making headway in the Senate).

The reason things look so dreadful for the president has less to do with anything Democrats have done than everything Trump has done over the last twelve months. From the executive power grabs, to overseas interventions, a lack of focus on the economy, DOGE, tearing down part of the White House to build a ballroom, taking over the Kennedy Center, dispatching ICE to cities across the country, allowing enhanced Obamacare subsidies to lapse while giving millionaires a tax break, this and more has resulted in presidential poll numbers that are hovering near January 6 lows. The numbers are so bad that just yesterday during a White House event, Trump suggested that the polls were ‘fake’ and part of an effort to destroy his presidency:

“You know, when you get a fake poll, I get them today, I saw one today that I’m at 40% 40% I’m not at 40% I’m at much higher than that. The thing I can’t understand is why the press isn’t more supportive. They’re so dishonest.”

Just how bad are the numbers for Trump? According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, when it comes to his overall approval rating, he is -13 points underwater; and on the two issues that got him re-elected, the economy and immigration, he is -15 points and -9 points underwater respectively.

This all gets worse when you look underneath the hood of these polls which one after the other show the president losing support among key constituencies including, independents, Latinos, and young people.

The most important number in predicting how a party will do in the midterms is the president’s net approval rating and Trump’s is, in one word, abysmal. That is the case today and it’s a long time until November so a lot can change. As the opposition, the Democrats should make sure they don’t do anything to take the spotlight off the president and put it on themselves (it is worth pointing out that Democrats are not doing much better poll-wise).

As they go into the SOTU tonight and the midterms in the coming days (voting starts in Texas and North Carolina in a week), Democrats should adhere to the Napoleonic mantra ‘do no harm,’ in addition to reminder voters what a Trump and GOP Washington DC has wrought - the 3 C’s, cost, chaos, and corruption. If they stick to this playbook their goal of taking the House will remain within reach.

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

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

Months ago President Trump announced that the U.S. military had “obliterated Iran’s nuclear program.

Why then are we on the brink of war with Iran today?

Why as we sit here today, has the U.S. assembled the largest number of U.S. military forces in the Middle East in years? This includes two aircraft carrier strike groups, more than one-hundred cargo planes, refueling tankers, fighter jets, and over 35,000 troops?

Why last week did Trump give Tehran a deadline of 10 to 15 days to make a deal or face “really bad things”?

Why, over the weekend, did the administration describe the negotiations in Geneva between the U.S. and Iran as a “last-ditch” effort to avoid a military confrontation?

Why is a president who was elected on a promise to not get America involved in endless wars on the verge of attacking Iran?

After all, in the months since Trump announced “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,” not much has changed on the ground in Iran. There is nothing new in terms of their nuclear capacity, ballistic missiles or the activities of their proxies. The only thing that has intensified is the degree of regime repression.

As we sit on the brink of what may be the most important foreign policy decision in years, Americans have a right to answer to key questions, including: why is this in our interest? What is the end-goal (regime change, a nuclear deal, protection of Iranian protestors, oil, something else)? What does the administration hope to achieve? Is it worth the lives of our military men and women?

The U.S. is at a foreign policy cross-roads with huge stakes of the administration’s (and specifically President’s) own making. Before we sleepwalk into a war in the Middle East, the president owes it to the American people to explain what he hopes to achieve and to brief Congress on his intentions.

He should begin this process with the American public tomorrow night during the State of the Union and with key members of Congress immediately.

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

Many members of the GOP are breathing a sigh of relief, high-fiving each other behind the scenes and quietly thanking the Supreme Court for doing something they couldn’t, stopping the president from pursuing a wildly unpopular tariff agenda.

Despite Trump’s decades long commitment to tariffs, his repeated declarations of ‘tariffs’ as his “favorite word” and his tendency to rely on them as a tool in economic and foreign policy, they remain unpopular with most of the American public. A recent New York Times/Siena poll showed that a majority of Americans and 58% of independent voters oppose his tariffs. Likewise, a Fox News survey in late January found more than 6/10 registered voters disapprove of Trump’s handling of tariffs, making trade one of his weakest issues.

In an April 2025 survey, 76% of Americans said they believe tariffs will increase costs. In the wake of the Court’s Friday decision, a YouGov poll found that a majority of Americans strongly or somewhat approve of the ruling (60%). The same poll found this is because 66% of respondents believe that Trump’s tariffs have increased prices by a lot or slightly; by contrast, only 5% of Americans said Trump’s tariffs have lowered prices.

This is why in the wake of the ruling, a small but vocal group of Congressional Republicans praised the decision, including Sen’s. Mitch McConnell (KY), Chuck Grassley (IA), Rand Paul (KY), Jon Curtis (UT), Susan Collins (ME), as well as Rep’s Mike Turner (OH) and Kevin Kiley (CA). While others, particularly those from swing states and districts have not made public statements, they are quietly relieved because unlike the President, who went to Georgia the day before the ruling and said that he had “solved” the affordability crisis and that “tariffs” have played a major role in helping him do that, they know this sentiment is not shared by most of their constituents.

Except for those at the top of this K-shaped economy, most Americans are feeling the pinch, struggling to pay insurance, health care, child care, for groceries, gas, everyday goods and the like. We know this because despite what the president has said, according to the latest RealCearPolitics average of polls, he is 15 points under water on his handling of the economy - with 56% of Americans disapproving and just 40% approving. Numbers like these don’t bode well for Republicans on the ballot in November and they know it.

As a result, they are hoping to put as much distance between themselves, their party, and tariffs as they can. Nevertheless, the President seems determined not to allow that to happen. Just hours after the Court issued its finding in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump stating that the president’s use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping global tariffs was unconstitutional, Trump announced he would instead use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose new tariffs.

Initially, the President said he would raise tariffs 10% but this morning he took to Truth Social to announce he is raising this to 15%

These tariffs are set to take effect on 12:01 am Tuesday, February 24, the same day Trump is going to Congress to deliver his State of the Union address. Under the statute, these tariffs are limited to 150 days unless Congress votes to extend them. Given the political environment that seems unlikely, but it does set up quite an interesting tableau on Tuesday night.

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

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

Hours after the Wall St. Journal’s bombshell article that detailed chaos in the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] under her watch (i.e., allegations of firing a Coast Guard pilot for forgetting her blanket and having a personal relationship with Corey Lewandowski, among other things) Kristi Noem made a last minute trip to Arizona to talk about “election security.”

To say that the Murdoch owned paper was critical of Noem, her leadership and that it painted an unflattering picture of her reign is an understatement. Among other things, the article described Noem as a politician focused on burnishing “her personal stardom at every turn,” carrying out “confrontational operations over the objections of longtime immigration officials who warned such flashy displays would discredit the department’s ultimate mission,” and posing in a flak-jacket with a gun all the while having her “eye to her style, with TV-ready hair and makeup.”

The report also detailed a rivalry between Noem and President Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, who he sent to Minnesota a few weeks ago after an outraged public took to the streets to protest the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens (Renee Good and Alex Pretti) by federal agents under Noem’s control. According to the Journal, “Noem routinely berated staff if she saw Homan on TV and kept track of both their appearances to make sure she was on TV more than him.”

That is only the tip of the iceberg and the report is worth reading in its entirety.

As the world was learning more about the chaos being sown inside DHS, Noem made an unexpected trip to Arizona. There, to the dismay of many state election officials and without a hint of irony, she held a hastily arranged press conference and lambasted Arizona officials for failing to fulfill their duties.

She described Arizona’s election processes and procedures as being in need of “more improvement” than any other state.

“Your state has been an absolute disaster on elections. Your leaders have failed you dramatically, by not having systems that work, by disenfranchising Americans who wanted to vote, that had to stand in lines for hours, because machines failed or software failed.”

In response, state officials condemned her remarks and accused her of spreading misinformation. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes charged Noem with “grandstanding” and “spreading misinformation.” While Calli Jones, a spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s Office said, “don’t come into Arizona there from Washington, D.C., and tell us how to run our elections… We’re doing just fine without you, thank you very much.”

Setting aside the audacity of charging others with mismanagement while her own department is in chaos (not to mention the falsity of the claims), it should not be lost on any of us that her visit followed increasing calls from Trump for a federal takeover of the U.S. election system ahead of the midterm. In just the last few weeks, he has called on Republican’s to nationalize voting, urged them to “take over” voting in 15 specific districts, threatened to issue an Executive Order requiring photo identification for the midterms, and pushed for an end to mail-in ballots.

All of this comes as his poll numbers continue to reach new lows and a majority of voters say they prefer Biden to Trump. As CNN’s Harry Enten said:

“I don’t understand how this works out well for the president of the United States. When you are 27 points below water, underwater, with the center of the electorate, with independents, you lose. Your party loses.”

Trump is seeing the same polls we are, he knows he is way under water and that November looks grim (to put it kindly). This explains not only his persistent calls to federalize the election, but his willingness to stick with Noem despite the fact that she has made a mess of his signature policy initiative.

Trump knows that he is facing a massive loss and, if he cannot turn things around, he is going to try what he did the last time he lost - sow doubt in people’s minds about the results. To do this, he is going to once again need lieutenants like Noem; people who are willing to go to swing states, criticize state election officials, cry foul, election insecurity, and ‘chicanery’ despite the fact that when pressed by reporters they are unable to cite even a single case of ‘election fraud.’

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

As tributes to Rev. Jesse Jackson pour in on the news of his passing at the age of 84, it is fair to say that he lived the American dream. As he said so often, he was the child of a teenage mother, who herself was the child of a teenage mother. He grew up in the segregated South and on the strength of his intellect, oratorical skills, hard work, and dedication, found himself - a young man in his mid-20s - working for Rev. Martin Luther King; and later, standing next to him on the balcony that fateful day when he was gunned down.

Jackson would go on to continue King’s work, run for president twice, and later serve as a global peacemaker, among many other things. By many accounts he single-handedly inspired a number of people who are serving in public office today; many of whom note his often recited poem “I am - Somebody” played a key role in inspiring their own careers in public service.

In these and so many other respects, he not only changed the lives of countless individuals, communities, and the nation itself, but the party whose nomination he sought twice and the U.S. presidency as well. The latter part of his legacy is not as well known. It often goes unheralded given the breadth of his work, but it shouldn’t, because the reforms he championed in the Democratic party had far-reaching impacts.

It is often said that in the absence of the organizing Jackson did for his long-shot 1984 presidential campaign, the Democrats would have never soared to victory two years later in the 1986 midterm. It also paved the way for Jackson’s even more serious presidential bid in 1988. That year he came in second in the Democratic primary to Michael Dukakis. In doing so, he beat out heavyweights, Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Gary Hart, and others.

Even more importantly, these campaigns proved to be a pivotal part of the Democratic Party’s move away from the “winner-take-all” approach to delegate allocation; an approach which had for years disadvantaged minority candidates. Jackson pushed for reforms, calling for a proportional delegate allocation system to insure candidates who received at least 15% of the vote received a proportional share of delegates. The party ultimately implemented this change in 1992 and it proved critical in paving the way for the election of Barack Obama several cycles later,

The 2008 campaign pitted underdog candidate Obama against establishment-favorite Hillary Clinton. The changes Jackson pushed for allowed Obama to accumulate delegates even in states he did not win outright. While that cycle, Clinton won the popular vote narrowly, Obama was, as a result of the reforms Jackson advocated, able to rack up enough delegates to secure the nomination.

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

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

President Trump’s poll numbers are cratering. This is the only conceivable read of the numbers we are seeing as three new polls show that more Americans today say they prefer Joe Biden to Donald Trump (Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll, Rasmussen poll, YouGov/EconomistPoll).

If that didn’t sting badly enough, a majority of Americans disapprove of the job he is doing, many with an intensity that rivals his poll numbers following the January 6 attack. According to the Realclearpolitics average of polls when it comes to his overall approval, Trump is -13% under water, with 55% of Americans disapproving of how he is handling his job and 42% approving.

On the most important issue to most voters, the economy, the numbers are even more brutal. Only 40% of Americans approve of how Trump is handling the economy, while 55% disapprove. According to a recent AP-NORC poll, only 37% of Americans approve of how Trump is handling the economy, while 62% disapprove. Likewise, more than half of Americans say that when it comes to the economy, they are worse off today than they were when he took office.

The numbers are not any better when it comes to other issues that helped get Trump elected. As a recent Axios report shows, Trump is underwater on everything from the economy and foreign policy, to immigration and Venezuela.

These across the board losses are driven by key constituencies who have soured on Trump since he was sworn in, particularly Latino voters, independent voters, GenX voters, and non-college educated whites. The latest YouGov/Economist poll shows a stunning 51% swing in support for Trump among 18-29 year olds. We have also seen significant slippage when it comes to his support amongst white working class voters who are particularly frustrated with the economy, cost of living and inflation.

What accounts for these brutal numbers are the 3C’s - costs, chaos, and corruption. The first of those is the most important because it is the issue most voters have on their mind when they head to the polls in November. During a recent campaign speech, Senator Jon Ossoff made this clear when he described the President and his cabinet as part of the “Epstein class.”

“This is the Epstein class, ruling our country. They are the elites they pretend to hate… Trump was supposed to fight for the working class; instead, he’s literally closing rural clinics and hospitals to cut taxes for George Soros and Elon Musk.”

Evidence of this abounds, but one recent example is stunning. As so many Americans cannot afford health care, child care, groceries, oil and gas, the president’s confidante and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick went on the air to explain why, just months ago, he said he cut off ties with Jeffrey Epstein in 2005 and then had to back track on that when the files showed that was not the case. In trying to explain his visit to Epstein Island years later, Lutnick told Senators:

“My wife was with me, as were my four children and nannies. I had another couple — they were there, as well with their children. And we had lunch on the island. That is true, for an hour, and we left with all of my children, with my nannies and my wife.”

Setting aside the fact he maintained a relationship with Epstein and then was not forthcoming about that is the fact that like so many of his class he goes on vacation with nannies, plural. aAt the same time so many Americans cannot afford childcare this, like the Gatsby themed parties, the gold plated White House, the fact the president calls affordability a hoax and so much more, helps explain why the President’s support overall and on the economy particularly has plummeted.

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

It is hard to call the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing today anything but an explosive fiasco, farcical and embarrassing. The United States top law enforcement official, Attorney General Pam Bondi, not only refused to answer serious questions from lawmakers, but attacked members in the most personal terms.

During a back-and-forth with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) she accused him of being a “failed politician,” “hypocrite” and having “Trump derangement syndrome.” All the while ignoring his pointed questions about the DOJ’s refusal to get justice for Epstein’s victims.

Likewise, she referred Ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) as a “washed-up lawyer” and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), who has served in congress for two-decades, as “lacking experience.”

Oversight hearings have never been immune from theatrics, but this was shameful at a whole new level. In response to a question from Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) about a lack of transparency in the Epstein files, Bondi responded by pulling out unrelated opposition research from her Burn Book: “I find it interesting she keeps going after Donald Trump. She doesn’t say how much money she took from Reid Hoffman.”

Try as Bondi might, however, not even the circus-like behavior could distract from the serious issues at hand, which include everything from the killing of two American protestors on the streets of Minneapolis, her insistence on bringing multiple cases against Trump’s enemies that Grand Jurors continue to reject, as well as her Department’s mishandling of the Epstein files.

Seated prominently behind Bondi during the spectacle today were several of the more than 1200 Epstein survivors. Women who were victimized as girls and young women in the most horrific of ways. Just hours before the hearing, twenty-four of the survivors signed an open letter to Bondi pleading with her to answer 15 questions.

Bondi not only refused to answer, but she also would not turn to face and apologize to the survivors when given the option.

In their letter to Bondi, the survivors stated:

“We must be clear: this release does not provide closure. It feels instead like a deliberate attempt to intimidate survivors, punish those who came forward, and reinforce the same culture of secrecy that allowed Epstein’s crimes to continue for decades.”

They also posed 15 questions, the first being:

“Who approved the release of the documents that exposed survivors’ names and identifying information?”

[The entire letter is well worth reading in full]

“The world has never,” as Jennifer Weiner writes, “been kind to women who accuse powerful men of sex crimes.” The Epstein survivors have been heroic throughout this two-decade long ordeal and they have long deserved far better than they have gotten. They deserved far better today as well; and that is what makes the theatrics of the hearing and the way in which their questions and concerns were left unaddressed, all the more shameful.

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

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

The Arab Spring (2010-11) is often described as the first mass protest that went ‘viral.’ Previous protests had been caught on camera, but what made the events in Tahrir Square, Egypt and across Syria unique was the events were captured not by professionals, but citizens using mobile devices who were able to share the events in real time.

The Arab Spring laid the groundwork for the numerous other ‘viral’ protests that followed around the world, including the Ferguson Protests in 2014, Arab Spring 2.0 in 2019, George Floyd/BLM protests of 2020, No Kings Movement in 2025, Iran 2025-26 uprisings, and many others.

These cases demonstrate how impactful real-time documentation by the ‘person on the street’ can be in shaping public opinion, our collective futures, and governmental policy.

We have seen this most recently in the Anti-ICE demonstrations, particularly the imagery coming out of Minneapolis. Prior to the horrifying video of Alex Pretti’s murder, there was certainty in Washington DC that Congress would fund the government by the January 30 deadline. That all changed after video of Pretti’s killing at the hands of ICE agents was made public, following - as it did - just weeks after similarly horrifying video of the killing of Renee Good.

It was only after these videos went viral that congressional Democrats announced they would not fund ICE unless it was reformed. In an effort to keep the government open, Democrats agreed to work with Republicans to pass the eleven other appropriations bills and fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees ICE, on a two-week continuing resolution (CR).

The new deadline for funding DHS is this Friday. Democrats have released their ‘ICE reform demands,’ but there is little agreement between the two sides. As of today, it seems unlikely an agreement will be reached. This leaves Congress with two options (a) pass another CR to keep DHS open past Friday or (b) begin another partial government shutdown.

Whatever happens it is clear that the Trump administration has been overwhelmed by imagery of what a mass deportation crackdown actually looks like. As a result, their previous focus on border security has been replaced by images of American citizens being killed, protestors being ill-treated, government agents committing constitutional violations, and ICE agents raiding places of employment, worship, and schools.

Perhaps nothing signified the horrors of mass deportation than the pictures of little five year old Liam Ramos who was picked up by ICE agents as he returned home from school with his knapsack and bunny-hat on.

Like so many other images, the images of Liam speak to the human cost of this policy. As a result, they have been instrumental in not only temporarily freezing DHS funding but also providing Democrats with the ammunition they need to demand much needed reforms.

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

Groundhog Day 2026 can only mean three things:

(1) Punxsutawney Phil predicts 6 more weeks of winter

(2) the government shutdown continues

and

(3) President Trump is threatening another law suit

After staying up late to watch the Grammys (which he described as “virtually unwatchable!”) Trump took to Truth Social threatening to send his “lawyer to sue” host Trevor Noah over a joke. What upset Trump was not the countless celebrities wearing “ICE OUT” pins or the multitude of winners who took to the stage to denounce his administration’s immigration policy.

This includes the big winner of the evening Bad Bunny who used his time on stage to speak out against the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

“Before I say thanks to God,” Bad Bunny said, “I’m going to say ‘ICE out. We’re not savage, we’re not animals, we’re not aliens. We are humans, and we are Americans.”

But it wasn’t that which sent Trump to Truth at 1 am threatening legal action, it was something he is far more sensitive about - being tied to Jeffrey Epstein.

When Billie Eilish won the Grammy for song of the year she too denounced ICE. Once again Trump seemed to pay little attention, but became enraged when Noah followed Eilish’s statement with an Epstein joke:

“That is a Grammy that every artist wants almost as much as Trump wants Greenland,” Noah said “which makes sense because Epstein’s island is gone, he needs a new one to hang out with Bill Clinton.”

Trump’s response? A Truth Social post denying that he spent any time on Epstein Island, charging Noah with defamation and threatening to “sue” him “for plenty $.” “Get ready Noah,” he ended his post “I’m going to have some fun with you!”

This follows the Department of Justice’s release late last Friday of millions of files related to the government’s investigation into Epstein. Based on a search of the latest batch of files, the New York Times reported “more than 5,300 files contain[ed] more than 38,000 references to Mr. Trump, his wife, his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, and other related words and phrases.”

Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and as recently as Saturday told reporters that the latest batch of files “absolves” him of any wrongdoing in the matter.

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

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

Change requires not just replacing those at the top, but changing the structure, system, and culture of an organization. This is the philosophy of Management guru’s Peter Drucker, W. Edwards Deming and others skilled at operational management and it’s a critical lesson to keep in mind in the context of the horrors that have occurred in Minneapolis and around the country at the hands of ICE, Homeland Security [DHS], and Border Patrol.

Deming famously estimated that 94% of performance issues are caused by systems and only 6% by individuals. This is why changing people without changing the system they work in is futile. It is also why President Trump’s attempts to change the narrative by replacing Greg Bovino with Tom Homan are not nearly enough. Likewise, even if going forward he decides to demote, fire, or move DHS Secretary Kristi Noem elsewhere, or if Congress impeaches her, none of that is enough; and it should not detract from the need for fundamental cultural, structural, operational, and systemic change in these organizations.

In return for funding ICE, Democrats (and sensible Republicans) in Congress must demand substantive reform of these agencies. Among the changes already discussed are mandatory body cameras, requiring ICE use judicial as opposed to administrative warrants, developing and implementing proper hiring and training procedures, sending Border Patrol agents back to the border to do the work they were trained to do, requiring federal officials to work in concert with local and state officials, avoiding sensitive locations such as hospitals, schools, daycares, places of worship, etc., conducting thorough and transparent investigations into the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, as well as all other incidents of potential excessive use of force, and more.

Anyone culpable of wrongdoing from the agents on the ground to those at the top, should be held responsible (legally and otherwise). That is not, however, enough to fix what is ailing either these agencies or us as a nation. Addressing these organizations requires real policy, structural, cultural, operational reform, but it does not end there. At the same time we have to ask how we got here in the first place? How did our immigration system become so broken in the first place? Why, after decades of crises at the border and in the system writ large, has our government - beginning with Congress - been unable to fix our broken immigration system? Are we at a point where the changes that need to occur are not just restricted to particular agencies but the structure and operation of the federal government overall?

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