The New Realist Podcast

The Trump administration has managed to seize defeat from the jaws of victory.

This is the way the administration’s handling of immigration, the major issue that secured them the White House in 2024, has been described for months. And it’s an even more apt descriptor in the wake of the killing of VA nurse Alex Pretti this weekend. Pretti’s shooting marked the second time ICE Agents in Minnesota gunned down a peaceful protestor on the street in a matter of weeks. The first was another Minneapolis resident, poet and mother of three, Renee Good.

Setting aside the constitutional, legal, humanitarian, and policy questions, from a political perspective none of this makes sense. Even a political novice would recognize this and the Trump administration is not headed by a neophyte. All of which begs the question why?

Why is the White House pursing a strategy that is costing the president and his party support with key aspects of its base on an issue that won them the election? These losses are well documented in the public polling, with the latest Realclearpolling average showing the president is 6% underwater on immigration. As a recent headline from Axios showed, it is also evident in the White House’s private polling as well: “Trump’s immigration erosion worries his team.”

Why in the hours after the Pretti killing did seasoned officials from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem to FBI Director Kash Patel, Border Chief Greg Bovino, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and more go on the air and blame the victim, describe him as an assassin, a domestic terrorist, call into question his legal possession of a firearm, and more? It is impossible to imagine they are not schooled in the appropriate response to such a tragedy which is some version of, ‘what happened was horrific, we are very sorry for the loss of life and will withhold judgment while we await results of a thorough and transparent investigation.’

Why, just days before government funding runs out and a deal is ready to move through the Senate, would the White House risk another government shutdown? A shutdown that was all but off-the table last Friday? And while it still may be averted, it looks increasingly likely as most Democrats have now said they will not fund DHS without significant changes to ICE’s operations.

Why would the White House continue to pursue a path on immigration that has alienated so many of their supporters? Even before the killings polls showed the administration was losing support among key constituents and individuals, including stalwarts such as Joe Rogan, who not long ago equated ICE’s tactics to those of the gestapo. Now, in the wake of the killings, we have seen other prominent members of the GOP call for a reevaluation of ICE’s operations, investigation and deescalation, including Sen. Bill Cassidy (LA), Rep. James Comer, Gov. Kevin Stitt (OK), Sen. Dave McCormick (PA), Sen. Tom Tillis (NC), and many others. The same is true of prominent companies and organizations, from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and National Basketball Association (NBA) Players Association to CEOs from major Minnesota companies, including Target.

It gave some people solace when, speaking with theWall Street Journal late Sunday, President Trump took a slightly less vitriolic tone than most of his aides and Cabinet members. Likewise, Monday when he took to Truth Social to announce he had a “good call” with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, they were “on a similar wavelength” and he was sending Tom Homan to Minnesota.

Yet not minutes later, speaking to reporters in the White House, his Spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt, defended ICE operations, criticized anti-ICE protesters, and blamed Democrats for incitement.

In the decade since Trump took to the national stage one thing has become clear, he understands politics. That is why if he or his team does something that does not appear on its face to be in his political interests there must be a reason. And generally, there are only two potential reasons for this.

First, a member of his team has gone off the reservation, at which point he will fire, remove or replace them. This has not happened yet in the case of DHS/ICE but it still may, particularly as it pertains to Noem. Regardless, what does not track here is that this is not just one White House official who has gone rogue, this is a team effort.

A far more likely reason is that members of his staff are doing his bidding. And while the president understands how politically detrimental this is (and he tries to take steps to mitigate the damage, hence the Wall Street Journal interview, call with Walz, etc) he is doing it serve another critical interest.

What interest could he have in normalizing the deployment of armed, masked, federal agents on the streets of major, particularly blue cities and purple/blue states serve? It's a classic authoritarian move that we have seen in the playbook of almost every autocrat in history concerned about an impending loss of power.

In ten months Trump is facing an election that even he is saying is not likely to go in his favor. The president, never shy about speaking his mind, has been making this clear since he assumed office last year, but here are just a few recent examples:

* In a January 6 speech to Republican members of Congress, he made clear if he loses the midterm he will likely be impeached

* Speaking to the New York Times on January 11 the president mused that he should have had the National Guard seize voting machines in the 2020 election

* During a January 16 interview with Reuters Trump said he thinks the US should not even have an election; something which Leavitt later said was just a joke

These are just three recent examples showing that no one is more aware of the potential losses he is facing in the midterms and the stakes for him and his legacy if he does. Of course, we hardly needed him to verbalize that after the administration spent so much time last year trying to convince red states from Texas to Indiana to engage in mid-decade redistricting for the sole purpose of staving off major losses in November and keeping the GOP in charge of Washington.

Politicians seldom act against their own interests. And when they do, there is almost always a reason and that reason is usually that they are serving another, even more critical, interest. This is especially true in the case of a shrewd politician like Trump.

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

Today is day 362 of Trump’s second term. It is that time of year when public pollsters release data assessing his first year back in office. The news is not good.

While Trump’s overall approval rating is largely unchanged, his ratings on the economy and immigration, his two signature issues have plummeted.

As it pertains to the economy, the President is -15% underwater – 56% of Americans on average disapprove of his handling and 41% approve.

Likewise, on immigration 51% disapprove while 47% approve – and this is largely before the killing of Renee Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis.

It is not just the public polls, Axios reports the administration’s private polling is showing much the same. The two most concerning aspects of this data are (a) he is underwater on issues (i.e., the economy and immigration) that helped usher him back into the White House and (b) the president is losing support, not among those on the right (who remain largely supportive) or the left (who were never supportive) but the all-important moderates and independents in the middle who were critical to his 2024 victory.

All of this, on top of the fact that the GOP cannot count on “Trump voters” to get out to vote when Trump is not on the ballot, puts the President and his agenda at risk in the upcoming midterm.

No one knows this better than Trump. Over the last few weeks he has made this clear. Speaking to Republicans in Washington DC last week, he warned that if the GOP loses the House in November, he will likely be impeached.

“You got to win the midterms, because if we don’t win the midterms, it’s just going to be — I mean, they’ll find a reason to impeach me. I’ll get impeached. We don’t impeach them. You know why? Because they’re meaner than we are.”

Days later, he told reporters from the New York Times that in 2020 he should have ordered the National Guard to take the machines to find evidence of fraud. Later, speaking to Reuters, he mused about canceling the midterm election. Something that White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later dismissed as “simply” a joke.

The comments should be concerning because one thing we know about Trump is that he tends to say the quiet part out-loud and his musings often become reality.

The comments are also a sign that Trump is well aware of his party’s predicament this Fall. But with ten months to go before the election, Democrats should also be keenly aware that he can still turn these numbers around.

Trump knows what has turned off independent/Moderate/’24-Trump voters and that is chaos. The fact that every where they turn from foreign policy (i.e.,Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran, Greenland, etc.) to domestic politics (i.e., DOGE, Liberation Day, ICE agents roaming the streets of middle America in masks and demanding papers, etc.) - all they see is chaos. This, coupled with the fact that the president seems more intent on bulldozing the White House, creating a ballroom, hanging out with elites in Davos, and so on, has left them asking – what does any of this have to do with my ability to buy groceries, pay for health care, own a home, and insure I have a job going forward (and my child can get one), particularly in the era of AI.

It is not unusual for an administration to overread their mandate, it is a classic problem and one this White House is guilty of. Voters wanted the president to secure the border, not inflict chaos on the streets of Minneapolis. They wanted him to grow the economy and make their lives more affordable, not to raise taxes in the form of tariffs, tell them to restrict the number of dolls they buy for their children, or to recommend eating $3 Depression meals.

Trump will work hard to remake how moderates and independents see the party he leads going into the Midterm, he has already started by trying to co-opt big components of the Democratic left’s populist economic agenda.

Democrats must counter this by remaining hyper-focused on the economy, lowering costs, and making life more affordable for all Americans. No matter what the president and GOP say going forward, they must counter with the reality that moderates and independents are feeling - despite all the hot air, Trump’s primary contribution to American life this last year has not been security or affordability, but rather chaos.

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

Forget about a tariff rollback, price gouging ban or investment in research and development, the Trump administration has another recipe for making groceries affordable. According to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, Americans can save money if they eat one piece of chicken, broccoli, a corn tortilla, and one other thing. According to Rollins, on our dime her department has run over 1,000 simulations to come up with this suggestion, a nutritious meal that will cost just $3.

As she told News Nation in an interview on Wednesday:

“We’ve run over 1,000 simulations. It can cost around $3 a meal for a piece of chicken, a piece of broccoli, corn tortilla and one other thing. And so, there is a way to do this that actually will save the average American consumer money.”

Despite her boss saying the day before that inflation has been defeated, Rollins made this “Depression meal” suggestion on national television with a straight face.

She was not the only cabinet secretary to careen wildly off-message while making the media rounds yesterday.

Health & Human Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was also out on the stump, speaking with Katie Miller, wife of Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. When she is not predicting the imminent US takeover of Greenland, Miller hosts top administration officials and MAGA supporters on her podcast. During his appearance, Kennedy riffed about the president’s “unhinged diet” and questioned how, given his consumption of “really bad food,” he is still “alive.”

“The interesting thing about the president is that he eats really bad food, which is McDonald’s, and, you know, candy and Diet Coke. He drinks Diet Coke at all times. He has the constitution of a deity. I don’t know how he’s alive.”

This might be all fun and games if Trump was approaching 50 or even 60, but he is entering his 80th decade in just a few months. As a result, many on his team have been working hard to make the case that he is healthy and vibrant. They have likewise dismissed concerns about his health, shutting down talk about how he shuffles, his recent MRI, his tendency to doze off during meetings and the bruising on his hands. Given all of this, it is hard to imagine the White House wanted the person in charge of the nation’s health publicly ruminating about what a wonder it is that he is still alive.

Speaking of the president and nation’s health, all this while despite promising to release a framework to lower healthcare costs this week, the administration has yet to do so. Nor has the president expressed any real interest in extending Obamacare subsidies or engaging much with GOP Senators involved in bipartisan health care talks on Capitol Hill. This is likely why congress is no where close to a deal on the subsidies that lapsed at the end of December, leaving millions either uninsured or unable to pay the exorbitant costs. Instead of reaching a deal, the Senate is leaving town for the long weekend, just as open enrollment for the marketplace ends.

All that really difficult to address policy-making aside, it seems to me Trump is on solid ground if he chooses to push back on Kennedy. After all, where does someone who just put out an inverted food pyramid with meat at the top, get off criticizing anyone for having a cheeseburger?

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

Today Secretary of Defense (“War”) Pete Hegseth visited SpaceX marking the third speech of his tenure and the continuation of his so-called “Arsenal of Freedom” tour. While visiting Starbase, Hegseth was scheduled to appear alongside Elon Musk, marking the first time since his break with Donald Trump that Musk has appeared on stage with a high ranking member of the administration.

In a press release announcing the speech, the War/State Department underscored Hegseth’s commitment to growing the defense industrial base.

“For too long, Pentagon bureaucracy has hindered the speed and might of our manufacturing base, obstructing innovation and warfare solutions from companies like SpaceX and Lockheed Martin”

The visit comes just two days after the U.S. Space Systems Command (SSC) awarded SpaceX a $739 million contract award for launching satellites with “missile warning and missile tracking capability.” That follows a $714m deal for launches in October for a company that since 2008 has received from than $22b in federal contracts.

All of this comes in the wake of the President’s recent call for a 50% increase in the defense budget to a mind-boggling $1.5 Trillion. A suggestion that makes little sense from a variety of perspectives, including the fact that in December the Pentagon failed its audit for the 8th year in a row! This makes it the only one of the governments twenty-four major agencies not to successfully pass an audit since they were mandated by Congress in 2018.

This hardly sounds like a Department worthy of receiving a 50% increase in its budget. Moreover, the President made this suggestion at a time when the U.S. is growing in debt - over $38T - which makes the national debt one of the greatest threats to our security.

The president has continued to suggest that all of this will be resolved by the revenue taken in as a result of the tariffs he has imposed. Today on social media, however, even he did not sound confident about this coming to fruition. “If the Supreme Court rules against the United State of America on this National Security bonanza,” he wrote in reference to the tariffs case, “WE’RE SCREWED!”

Long before Hegseth arrived, the Department made a mess of its weapons acquisition process which can only be described as a disaster at this point. The Department does need to clean up its fiscal house, as does the country. That is what Hegseth should be working on and detailing specifically in his speech in Texas. So far, however, that has not been the focus of his “Arsenal of Freedom” tour.

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

Earlier today President Trump moved markets when he posted on Truth Social that he is issuing an Executive Order banning “large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes. “People live in homes,” he added “not corporations.”

Trump is correct that home owning, a critical part of the American Dream, is now out of reach for most people. It is likely his proposal to ban institutional investors from purchasing will play well with not only his populist base but most Americans

The question is, how well will the idea play with Republicans and amongst conservative legal scholars who have long supported the notion of corporate personhood.

The Supreme Court has recognized corporations as “persons” entitled to certain Constitutional rights—such as free speech and due process—for a long time and supported the notion most recently in cases such as Citizens United v FEC (2010) and Burwell v Hobby Lobby (2014); both decisions that were widely applauded by conservatives and condemned by liberals.

While there are limits to corporate personhood rights (ie., they cannot vote, run for office, etc.) it will be interesting to see if conservatives line up behind the idea that they cannot purchase property? And if they do, why stop there, why not ban them from contributing to campaigns as well?

This is also the first in what is likely to be a series of proposals on affordable housing this year, something that Trump teased last month when he promised to put forward the “most aggressive housing reform plans” in US history. Likewise, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said that homeownership was a “top priority for President Trump’s affordability agenda.”

The ban follows Trump’s brief flirtation with a 50-year mortgage and portable mortgages, proposals he floated - and then seemed to walk away from quickly - after much criticism.

Trump promised more details on the ban during his Davos speech in two weeks. In the meantime, on the news, Blackstone stocks fell as did those of other Wall Street investors so watch for pushback amongst this crowd and a lot of constitutional handwringing about the longstanding principle that corporations are people.

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

How is Venezuela going to play with Trumps America 1st Base?

It is a question that makes Jon Stewart livid. And one he has pleaded with the news media not to ask.

As this clip from The Daily Show demonstrates, his request has fallen on deaf ears.

Note: the clip – as well as the entire episode – are worth watching for that reason; as well as the fact that Balance of Power host Joe Mathieu is featured in the clip (and even Rick Davis and I make a very brief cameo - it’s a blink and you’ll miss it moment for sure, so just in case, capturing it below).

You know who is in violent agreement with Stewart on this point? Trump.

When asked how his base will respond to the military action in Venezuela, particularly given he ran three times on an “America First” platform and promised to end wars, not start them, Trump said none of it – the discrepancies, contradictions etc - matter to his supporters.

“MAGA loves it. MAGA loves what I’m doing. MAGA loves everything I do. MAGA is me. MAGA loves everything I do, and I love everything I do, too.”

It’s the same thing he told The Atlantic earlier last year

“Considering that I’m the one that developed ‘America First,’ and considering that the term wasn’t used until I came along, I think I’m the one that decides that. For those people who say they want peace—you can’t have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon. So for all of those wonderful people who don’t want to do anything about Iran having a nuclear weapon—that’s not peace.”

So far, he has proven to be right. Only one former MAGA loyalist and now ex-member, of Congress, Marjorie Taylor Greene, has publicly challenged the incursion, tweeting

“This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”

Likewise, before the holiday break and prior to the US intervention, the House held a vote calling for congressional oversight in Venezuela and Taylor Greene was one of only three members of the GOP to support it.

Nevertheless, I break with Stewart and Trump on this - never say never!

While the president’s base has been more open to foreign intervention than his previous rhetoric suggested, there are limits to this support and unless this was a one and done scenario, which Trump, Stephen Miller et al say it’s not, schisms will emerge among the MAGA faithful. We already know what some of the ping points will be. Consider the following

How will MAGA feel...

(1) if this is not one and done, but an open-ended US commitment to Venezuela, requiring an influx of US tax money and putting American personnel in harms way?

(2) if the president continues to pay far more attention to foreign rather than domestic issues? This was something even his Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles said just a few weeks ago is a real concern as affordability remains the number one issue to most Americans.

(3) the administration’s rationale for the intervention keep shifting – one day its fentanyl, the next day its cocaine, (even the presidents own DEA says neither of those explanations make any sense), later its freeing the Venezuelan people from a dictator, and now its oil.

(4) if the intervention in Venezuela is prolonged, involves boots on the ground (which the president said he is open to) and risks the lives of American soldiers and other personnel?

(5) if the interventions extend beyond Venezuela, to other countries in the Southern hemisphere and beyond. Something which the president and Miller have suggested in recent days – specifically naming Greenland, Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, Iran, Nigeria, etc.

Blake Neff, co-host of The Charlie Kirk Show summed up the thinking of the base at this early juncture, noting “I think right now, the vibe is very good — and the vibe is very good because it was easy. There were no losses, they got their guy, they got out.”

That does not mean, however, that the base will remain supportive going forward.

“Is Cuba next? Is Mexico next? Is Colombia next? Should we just forcefully seize Greenland? I would say, make sure Venezuela is actually a success before you start looking for new things to do,” Neff cautioned.

Thanks for reading The New Realist! This post is public so feel free to share it.

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

I am including a couple of clips from over the last several days of interviews on Bloomberg regarding the U.S. intervention into Venezuela, along with a few key points below.

First, There is no legal or constitutional justification for the Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela. They are forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, law, the U.N. Charter (to which we are a party) and international law.

Under Article I section 8 clause 11 and Article II sections II of the Constitution, only Congress can declare war and, in the case of Venezuela, Congress was not informed in advance, nor did it consent. This was not a law enforcement operation; it was an invasion of a sovereign nation to seize its head of state and take control of its assets. That is an “act of war” that requires prior congressional approval.

Also, under the Constitution and laws of the U.S., any treaty the US signs are obligations of national law. The US ratified the UN Charter in 1945 and Article II, section 4 of that document is clear – countries must not use “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.”

Likewise, this was a violation of one of the first and most important principles of international law which requires that all countries respect their neighbors borders and sovereignty.

Second, none of the above will matter in the short term, however, unless Congress reasserts its constitutional authority as a co-equal branch of government and holds the president and the administration accountable for its actions in Venezuela.

That is unlikely, at least in the short term, for several reasons, including:

* The Track Record of the 119th: As Carl Hulse writes, “during the first year of the second Trump administration... Republican leaders in both chambers largely declined to check a president unconstrained by law or custom.” There are no signs that as they return to Washington in the new year that this has changed.

* Statements by Republican Leaders: On the question of the whether the President needed prior authorization from Congress to go into Venezuela over the weekend, Mike Johnson (R), Speaker of the House, said “This is an operation that did not require prior consent of Congress [or] prior authorization of Congress.” Likewise, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R): “I was comfortable with the notification I had. They didn’t tell me ahead of time, but I think there’s a reason why, like I said before, notification of Congress in the hands of really critical and hypersensitive missions to me, seems ill-advised anyway.”

Third, what can change this trajectory? In the short term, only one thing – Trump voters. Particularly those from red states and districts. These voters would need to contact their members and make clear that they do not support the administrations actions in Venezuela. That they voted for Trump based on his promise to focus on the U.S., to Make America Great Again, to address the economy, the cost of healthcare and groceries, affordability, technological advancements that are threatening our jobs, and the like - not to take over and run another country. They agreed with him when he called out President George W. Bush for getting the nation involved in the War in Iraq. They believed him when he said over three election cycles that he was “not going to start... [but] stop wars.”

In the absence of that, Congress will continue to do what it has been doing since Trump re-entered office in 2025, accept his exertions of Executive Authority without question or pushback.

At least until the midterms and, only in that case, if enough voters decide that they want to elect members of Congress who are willing to check Trump.

Fourth, timing matters. The midterm is not until November and the 120th Congress will not be sworn in until early January 2027.

In the interim, the president and top administration officials have made it clear that the U.S. takeover of Venezuela is not an anomaly and indeed may just be the first of many.

Here’s what the President said about other countries in the administration’s crosshairs in the last few days:

Colombia: “Colombia is very sick, too. Run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States, and he’s [Colombian President Gustavo Petro] not going to be doing it very long.”

Mexico: “You have to do something with Mexico... We’re going to have to do something. We’d love Mexico to do it, they’re capable of doing it, but unfortunately the cartels are very strong in Mexico.”

Cuba: “Cuba is ready to fall. Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall. I don’t know if they’re going to hold out.”

Greenland: “We need Greenland, from the standpoint of national security.”

Iran: “If they start killing people [protestors] like they have in the past, I think they’re going to get hit very hard by the United States.”

More ominous, his top aide Stephen Miller, who told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Monday night that Greenland rightfully belonged to the US and that the Trump administration could seize the territory if it wanted.

“Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland...We live in a world, in the real world... that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”

This followed a post by his wife, Katie Miller, who in the hours after the U.S. went into Venezuela posted an altered image of the Danish territory on her X feed along with a single word: “SOON”.

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

This week in Washington was supposed to be all about Epstein and healthcare. We are still waiting on the Epstein files and the prospect of a bipartisan deal on healthcare remains as farfetched as ever.

What no one expected was that the ‘grown-up’ in the White House, the one person in the administration who shies away from microphones and cameras, would become the story this week. Yesterday we learned that the President’s politically savvy Chief of Staff (COS), Susie Wiles, had participated in not just one or two, but eleven interviews over several months with Vanity Fair reporter and ‘COS’-whisperer Chris Whipple.

The two part blockbuster included multiple gems from Wiles on a variety of White House personnel which give the series a sort of “burn book” vibe (you’d have to have seen “Mean Girls” to get that reference). Among other things Wiles says the following of her colleagues:

* President Trump is a leader with an “alcoholic’s personality” who is intent on “retribution” against his perceived enemies

* Vice President JD Vance has been “a conspiracy theorist for a decade”

* Former head of DOGE, Elon Musk is “an odd, odd duck,” an “avowed ketamine” user who “sleeps in a sleeping bag in the EOB [Executive Office Building] in the daytime”

* Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought is a “right wing absolute zealot”

* Attorney General Pam Bondi “whiffed” in her handling of the Epstein files

Wiles also lets us behind the curtain as it pertains to critical policy issues. In the process, she managed to contradict both the president and the administration’s public statements on a variety of critical issues:

* Economy & Tariffs: it is an area that Wiles says she wishes the president would get back to, a comment which amounts also to an admission from inside the West Wing that Trump has not had his eye on “bread and butter issues.” She also acknowledged “huge disagreements” over Trump’s reciprocal tariffs and admitted the entire tariff process has been “painful.”

* Venezuela: Wiles confirms what we already suspected, that the boat attacks off the coast of Venezuela are not about stopping the drug trade but regime change: “He [Trump] wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle”

* USAID: She describes being “initially aghast” at Musk’s dismantling of USAID, “because I think anybody that pays attention to government and has ever paid attention to USAID believed, as I did, that they do very good work.”

* J6 Pardons: Wiles praised the FBI’s investigation into J6 and advised Trump not to pardon all 1,500+ defendants because the list included violent offenders, a suggestion he ignored

* Deportations: On Trump’s signature issue, immigration, she conceded “we’ve got to look harder at our process for deportation” noting that errors had been made. She added that in one instance mistakes were made when ICE arrested and deported two mothers and their American children, one of whom was being treated for Stage 4 cancer, to Honduras. “I can’t understand how you make that mistake, but somebody did.”

* Israel: Wiles said she was concerned after Trump praised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “war hero.” “I’m not sure he fully realizes that there’s an audience here that doesn’t love it,” she added.

Immediately on publication, the White House circled the wagons. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, for instance, tweeted that Wiles, “has helped President Trump achieve the most successful first 11 months in office of any President in American history.”

Wiles herself took to social media for the first time since October 2024 to denounce the piece and argue her words were taken out of context. The problem for Wiles is Whipple has stated publicly that all the interviews were taped and neither Wiles nor the White House has contested that.

For decades various high level officials in administration after administration, including Trump 1.0 and Biden, would sit down with legendary journalist Bob Woodward. Whipple, who literally wrote the book on WH COS’s, may be the new Woodward. Even without his stunning prose, the glossy photo spread that accompanied the piece and includes so many Trump administration officials speaks volumes.

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

Last night the Democratic Party capped off a year of impressive electoral victories with Eileen Higgins double digit win as Mayor of Miami. This marks the first time a Democrat has been elected to the position in 30 years.

While it is dangerous to read too much into any one race, the string of victories that Democrats have had this year is remarkable; they include wins in the Virginia and New Jersey Governors races, the Virginia Lt. Governor and Attorney General, the Georgia Public Service Commission, the state legislatures in Virginia and New Jersey, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and state legislative seats in Iowa, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, and Georgia, where just last night Eric Gisler beat a Republican in a district Trump won by double digits. This does not even include victories at the municipal level where Democrats have won mayoral seats in cities from New York and Omaha to Detroit, San Antonio, and now Miami.

Arguably the main issue that has helped push Democrats to victory is the economy - or to use Trump’s least favorite word, affordability. The President’s virulent distaste for the term was on full display in Pennsylvania last night where he once against described it as a Democratic “hoax.” So far, however, his attempts to shift blame have fallen flat. Today the Realclear polling average has him 15 points under water on the economy.

The economy is not the only issue that he is underwater on. According to Realclear, Americans also disapprove of Trump’s handling of immigration (50-47%). This is notable because it is a change from where he was just a few months ago and it is an issue on which he has traditionally been strong. Moreover, as the Miami race underscores, the impact of his sagging numbers on immigration is starting to be felt down-ballot.

In Miami, Mayor-Elect Higgins made the ICE raids central to her campaign. She described the Trump administration’s treatment of immigrants as inhumane and a scourge on her community. As she said of the ICE raids occurring in her Hispanic-majority city, “there’s a level of fear, and I have never experienced that before.”

What has hurt Trump most on immigration is the ruthlessness and inhumanity of the ICE raids which many voters see not only as unnecessary and unprecedented but also as a violation of his promise to focus on the “worst of the worst.” Even ICE’s own data shows that more than half of those arrested in raids this year have no criminal record - instead these are our friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc.

This is also confirmed by horrifying stories, such as that of 19 year old Babson College student, Any Lucia Lopez Belloza who was detained and shackled at Boston airport when she was trying to fly home to visit her parents in Texas over the Thanksgiving break.

It is also supported by reports, such as the one released by Amnesty International this week. Entitled “Torture and Enforced Disappearances in the Sunshine State, Human Rights Violations at Alligator Alcatraz and Krome in Florida,” it details harrowing stories of human rights violations, abuse, cruel conditions, and in some cases torture. As Amnesty notes:

The research concluded that people arbitrarily detained in “Alligator Alcatraz” are living in inhuman conditions… People reported being always shackled when they were outside their cage. Other treatment those detained have endured amounts to torture, including being put in the “box”, described as a 2×2 foot cage-like structure people are put in as punishment – sometimes for hours at a time exposed to the elements with hardly any water – with their hands and feet attached to restraints on the ground.

These types of stories are not without consequence and the results are just beginning to be seen in the polls and at the ballot box.

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

In early September I wrote a piece on the first lethal strike on a small boat in the Caribbean carried out by the U.S. entitled “On the Presidents Orders, We Blew it Up.” The administration released grainy video of the attack as officials, including the President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense (War) celebrated the event as a success. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth went on Fox News the morning after the attack, proudly stating:

I watched it live. We knew exactly who was in that boat. We knew exactly what they were doing, and we knew exactly who they represented.

Eleven people, declared without confirmation or evidence by the administration to be narco-terrorists, were killed in the strike.

Since then, despite numerous questions about the legality, constitutionality, and efficacy of these actions, the strikes off the coast of Venezuela have continued unabated.

As of today there have been a reported 20 strikes by the US military that have killed 83 people. As the death toll has grown, the questions I raised in my September 7 piece have mounted, as have calls for more transparency from the administration.

Thanks to the good work of The Washington Post and The Intercept, additional details regarding these attacks have emerged recently. This includes evidence which suggests that Hegseth may (this is unsubstantiated as of yet) have played a role in ordering the second, lethal strike against survivors clinging to rafts in the ocean water.

If so, legal experts argue this constitutes a war crime (even if you accept the administration’s suggestion we are at war with Venezuela, which I do not) and the penalties for it are serious, life in prison or death. If like me, you do not accept that these are enemy combatants, and even if they were criminals doing exactly what the administration has said (without proof at this point) it is murder under both US and international law. In the US we do not use lethal force to kill suspected drug runners, particularly those floating defenselessly in the water. As noted in my previous column, we do not attack first than ask questions later for many reasons, including the fact that data shows 25% of the time our information regarding who is on a boat is wrong. Sometimes those on the boats are innocent civilians. This is why, as a law abiding country, we have follow procedures to stop and search suspected vessels, which allows us to take action if anything illicit is uncovered.

Since these serious questions have been raised, Hegseth - a father/step-father of seven children - has responded defiantly; including on social media where on Sunday of Thanksgiving weekend he turned to a popular children’s book character to defend his and the administrations actions.

In response, the Toronto-based Kids Can Press which publishes the Franklin books released a statement condemning the post. Franklin, the wrote is a

beloved Canadian icon who has inspired generations of children and stands for kindness, empathy and inclusivity. We strongly condemn any denigrating, violent or unauthorized use of Franklin’s name or image, which directly contradicts these values.

As questions have mounted and the Republican led House and Senate have promised an investigation into the strike, both Trump and Hegseth have tried to minimize their roles in and knowledge of the attack. During a cabinet meeting yesterday, Hegseth said he left for a meeting before the second attack occurred and that the person responsible for the strike was Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, the commanding officer who oversaw the mission.

I watched that first strike live, as you can imagine, at the Department of War, we got a lot of things to do, so I didn’t stick around ... a couple of hours later, I learned that that commander had made ... the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat… [I ] did not personally see survivors, the thing was on fire and exploded. This is called the fog of war.

Bradley - a respected Admiral who many say is being scapegoated by the White House and Secretary - is scheduled to give his side of the story to House and Senate investigators when he speaks with them this week.

In the meantime and in addition to exercising its important oversight function, Congress should also put a stop to all boat strikes off the coast of Venezuela until they get answers regarding the strike in early September, as well as those carried out subsequently. This was made all the more important this weekend when it was learned that at the same time we were attacking boats as part of a drug war, the president was busy issuing a pardon for one of the most notorious drug runners in the Western hemisphere, the former President of Honduras, who had been sentenced to 45 years in jail for “creating a cocaine superhighway to the United States.”

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