The New Realist Podcast

Trump said he is considering a “massive increase” in tariffs on imports from China, writing “There is no way that China should be allowed to hold the World ‘captive’” over rare earth exports. He also threatened to cancel his upcoming meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping.

Trump’s comments came after news that Beijing was expanding rare earth export controls ahead of talks between the two leaders in South Korea.

Currently the worlds largest rare earth producer, China announced it was adding new elements to its list of restricted rare earth exports, additional refining technology to its control list, as well as new compliance rules for foreign rare earth producers that use its materials.

The move, not scheduled to go into effect until November 8 – just before the 90-day US/China trade truce expires - appears designed to give leverage to China in its talks with the U.S. It also follows calls from by US lawmakers earlier this week to broaden the ban on exports of chip making equipment to China. Notably, some of Beijing’s regulations mirror rules imposed by the US to restrict other nations exports to semi-conductor related products to China.

While the markets reacted immediately to this news, with the Dow dropping 1.3%, the S&P 1.9% and the Nasdaq Composite 2.6%, it has had almost no reaction to the U.S. government shutdown which has now entered its tenth day; even on news out today that large numbers of federal workers are going to be laid off as a result.

While shutdowns have become par for the course in the US of late, they have real and long-term impacts on the US as it pertains to our economic health and our national security. This news today which so roiled markets is an important reminder that the US does not need to be dependent on China’s rare earth minerals, there are policy steps that should have been taken at the federal level and specifically in congress to ensure we are not – not only have those steps not been taken to date in a concerted way, one half of the US Congress is not even meeting to begin to address the issue now, leaving us more vulnerable in almost every way going forward.

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

Palestinians and Israelis took to the street to celebrate the end of the war in Gaza. Surrounded by his Cabinet, President Trump echoed their celebratory mood describing the deal to end the war as a “momentous breakthrough” that will lead to “lasting peace” in the region. A few hours later, Hamas’ chief negotiator Khalil al-Hayya went on television to announce that the two-year old war was over.

These celebrations and announcements came even before President Netanyahu secured formal approval of the plan from his own government; something that he managed to do Friday after midnight (Thursday evening EST).

This Phase 1 agreement is significant because it ensures (a) an exchange of hostages/prisoners, (b) a cessation of hostilities, (c) humanitarian aid, and (d) an Israeli military withdrawal. We are still waiting for details regarding each of these points, including: when will the hostages be released (Trump is saying Monday or Tuesday)? What Palestinian prisoners will be released and when? How will the cessation be guaranteed by the US and Qatar? How far is the IDF withdrawing? What is the agreed upon line for withdrawal and so on?

There is no question that the end of the war, destruction, killing, return of the hostages and resumption of humanitarian aid are welcome developments worth celebrating.

Still unaddressed, however, are the even more thorny issues that were part of Trump’s initial 20-point plan, specifically post-war governance and politics. As difficult as it was to achieve an agreement on the preliminary phase of the deal, these issues, which constitute phases 2 and 3, are far more contentious. Moreover, they are also critical to long term peace and security in the region.

Among the questions that need to be addressed as we move into Phases 2 and 3 are what happens when the fighting ends? What is next for Gaza? Who is going to govern the Gaza strip? Will Palestinians be granted the right to self-determination? How will their political and humanitarian rights be guaranteed? How will security in both Gaza and Israel be maintained?

On the second anniversary of October 7, as negotiators were meeting and just before Edan Alexander visited the White House, I spoke about these and other issues with Bloomberg’s Joe Mathieu.

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

“Blitz” is short for the German word Blitzkrieg (i.e., lightning war or a rapid, overwhelming, sudden attack). Americans generally associate the term with the eight month bombing campaign Germany engaged in against the United Kingdom during WWII.

When they first learned the term in history class, most Americans probably never imagined that it would be used by their own government to describe an operation being carried out in one of the nation’s biggest and most important city’s against the wishes of the people elected to represent its residents.

Yet in early September 2025, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proudly announced that Operation Midway Blitz had been launched in Chicago. According to CBS News Chicago, since that time “arrests, raids, and protests have become daily occurrences”. DHS officials have recorded hundreds of arrests, “but that has also included detention of U.S. citizens without cause of justification, the fatal shooting of a Mexican immigrant in Franklin Park by ICE agents, arrests of non-criminals” and more. All of which has been done without direct consultation with the Mayor or Governor and against their wishes.

Among the most concerning aspects of the operation is a raid which took place at a South Shore residential apartment. Witnesses reported that in the middle of the night of September 30, approximately 300 agents swarmed the building. Some “rappelled from helicopters onto the roof of the building…. [in the process] they kicked down doors, threw flash-bang grenades, and detained adults and children with zip ties.”

In the last few days Illinois and Chicago have filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop the deployment of the National Guard. The Judge in the case gave the government a few days to respond.

I spoke with Joe Mathieu and Michelle Jamrisko about the situation on Bloomberg’s Balance of Power just a few hours after President Trump took to Truth Social saying that Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker should be jailed.

As we wait for the Judge’s ruling, certain groups have spoken out about how dangerous and risky domestic deployments like these are, including a group of high-ranking former US Army and Navy officials. Notably silent have been most members of the GOP, including Congressmen and women, who just a few years ago would have found this type of overwhelming use of federal force on domestic soil anathema to everything they have long stood for as a party of smaller government and states’ rights.

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 part of his Most-Favored Nation (MFN) pricing plan to ensure Americans pay lower costs for drugs, President Trump announced a deal first of its kind deal with pharmaceutical giant Pfizer this week. On the face of it sounds like welcome news for Americans who have long paid much more for drugs than other people in other parts of the world. Pfizer, Trump announced from the White House, will voluntarily sell its drugs at lower prices to Medicaid patients. Moreover, then will do so on a new “direct to consumer” website operated by the federal government called “TrumpRx.”

It was a great moment (and PR) for Pfizer, but will it amount to real savings for consumers? When the announcement was made, I spoke with Joe Mathieu on Bloomberg’s “Balance of Power.”

Most experts agree that this will not lower drug costs for the average American because when it comes to direct to consumer sales, typically people pay out of pocket, rather than through their insurance. So while this was good PR for the company and White House, it will have only a limited impact on drug prices. Far more impactful would be for Trump to reconsider his broader policies on health care, including a threatened 100% tariff on drugs.

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

We have crossed a Rubicon. That was the reaction of some to the news late Thursday that former FBI Director James Comey had been indicted by the Department of Justice [DOJ].

After ordering this prosecution publicly on Truth Social (and presumably behind closed doors), pushing out US Attorney Erik S. Siebert, who refused to move forward with the case due to a lack of evidence, and replacing him with one of his personal attorneys, Lindsey Halligan, who has no prosecutorial background, Trump finally got what he has been after for some time - a two count federal indictment against Comey (albeit weak according to most legal experts).

On Friday, I spoke with Bloomberg’s Joe Mathieu and Mario Parker about whether this moment is a sign that we have crossed a Rubicon? If by that we mean an action from which there is no turning back, I hope not but at this point it is hard to refute the argument. What happened late last week is part of a larger pattern of deconsolidation of our democracy and one that has been in the works for some time, long preceding the arrival of Trump 2.0.

In Chapter 4 of How Democracies Die (2018) Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt describe in detail how “elected authoritarians shatter the democratic institutions that are supposed to constrain them.”

Step 1

Capture the Referees

Attempting to render ‘dependent’ previously neutral arbiters is precisely what has been happening in the context of the DOJ. This includes, for instance, pushing out Siebert and replacing him with a loyalist. Another case in point, the resignation of Asst. US Attorney Hagan Scotten, a conservative former law clerk of Chief Justice John Roberts, who refused to follow the administration’s orders to dismiss the case against NYC Mayor Eric Adams without prejudice. Scotten’s February resignation letter, which is well worth re-reading, says in part:

I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me.

Step 2

Sideline the Other Side

This is what the Trump administration is trying to do with Comey and so many others. On Friday, as legal experts discussed the Comey indictment, Trump stood before reporters and promised this was just the first of many indictments to come - among those in his crosshairs are: NY Attorney General Letitia James, former National Security Advisor John Bolton, former President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, member of the Federal Reserve Board Lisa Cook, Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA), liberal philanthropist George Soros, former CIA Director John Brennan, former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, and many others.

Of course, this comes just days after efforts to silence comedian Jimmy Kimmel and one day after signing an order promising to go after left wing groups and those who fund them, including Soros’ Open Society Organization. All of which are examples of the administration’s attempts to marginalize opposition.

There is a Step 3 in Levitsky and Ziblatt’s telling - rewriting the rules of the game to lock in their advantage. According to some scholars, we have not seen that emerge in the U.S. at this point. Others suggest mid-decade districting is an example. Regardless of where you stand on the question, nine months in to Trump 2.0, there is still time.

-----

References

Steven Levistky & Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die

McKenzie Carrier & Thomas Carothers “U.S. Democratic Backsliding in Comparative Perspective”

“Explainer: Understanding the mid-decade redistricting push in texas,” Harvard Kennedy School

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, President Trump took to Truth Social to rail against the United Nations for “three sinister events.” According to Trump, the U.N.’s malfunctioning escalator, teleprompter, and audio were the work of saboteurs who “should be arrested” and “A REAL DISGRACE.”

In the midst of ‘escalatorgate’ I spoke with Joe Mathieu, Host of Bloomberg’s Balance of Power about other aspects of the President’s visit to the U.N, including his '“Global Carnage” address. During his speech, the president warned world leaders that their “nations are going to hell,” said migration and renewable energy are ”destroying a large part of the free world,” claimed he only learned two weeks ago that our NATO allies are buying oil from Russia, and castigated countries like Brazil for over internal political decisions which he said justified a massive increase in tariffs. At the same time, however, he said little about his plans to end the Wars in Ukraine and Gaza, the UN’s place in the new multi-polar world, his approach to international relations, foreign policy, and our competitor nations, including China.

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

On Friday, President Trump announced a new $100,000 fee for H-1B (high-skill) visa holders starting midnight Sunday.

The announcement resulted in chaos as many current visa holders were warned to return to the U.S. by the deadline and those departing, not to leave for fear they may not be able to come back. Over the weekend, the White House tried to address the uncertainty surrounding the program by noting it does not apply to current visa holders, only new applicants.

Yesterday, I spoke with Bloomberg’s “Balance of Power” host Joe Mathieu about the implications of this change, both short and long-term.

While the visa program does need to be revised and has been subject to abuse, the administration took a hammer to what should be resolved with a scalpel. The result was the confusion we witnessed over the weekend but, more importantly, this change has enormous long term implications for US national and economic security, including our relations with critical allies such as India.

One of the many examples of these long-term implications is on our leadership in tech, science, and education – long the envy of the rest of the world and an example of critical soft power. Today, as the administration is working to strike a deal with China to buy TikTok it is worth remembering that this powerful and viral social media app is one of China’s most notable soft power successes in the modern era. China understands what the US has long known, soft power matters.

According to the late, great Joseph Nye,

soft power is the ability to affect others to obtain the outcomes one wants through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion or payment. A country’s soft power rests on its resources of culture, values and policies. A smart-power strategy combines hard- and soft-power resources.

To reduce the number of high skilled workers and students entering the U.S. in a period of intensifying competition with China around the world, the U.S. is creating a soft power vacuum that China is quickly filling.

For evidence of this, we don’t need to look further than China’s response to the Trump administrations new H-1B policy. Far from following the U.S. in reducing ‘high-skilled’ Visa’s, China is trying to attract young foreign talented international science and technology professionals with its new K visa. The K visa rolls out on October 1, just in time to “woo” talented young people being shut out of the U.S.

This is yet another example of China preparing for long term success and setting itself up to win the competition with the U.S. and a short-sided policy from the U.S. with real and long-term damaging implications.

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 FCC Chair’s comments regarding Jimmy Kimmel/ABC set off a firestorm of criticism, including from Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) who described Brendan Carr’s remarks as “dangerous as hell.” On 19 September, I spoke with Kriti Gupta on Bloomberg’s Balance of Power about whether Kimmel’s suspension and Carr’s comments were a violation of the 1st amendment.

Some basics to keep in mind

The Right to Free Speech & Press are...

· protected by the 1st amendment

· liberties or freedoms we enjoy from government; they protect us from governmental attempts to coerce or suppress (not private entities)

· NOT absolute (they are limited, for instance, you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater)

· subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court and that interpretation can change over time depending on the Court’s makeup and a host of other factors

What Happened following Charlie Kirk’s horrific killing:

· The following Monday, Kimmel went on his late night show and said “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” He then joked about President Trump’s response to a reporter who asked about how he was coping with Kirk’s killing.

· The backlash following Kimmel’s comments was swift, particularly on social media

· That Wednesday, FCC Chair Carr went on podcaster Benny Johnson’s show to denounce Kimmel’s comments and said : "We can do this the easy way or the hard way...These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead." Later Carr warned that others would follow Kimmel.

· Two of ABC’s largest affiliates, NextStar and Sinclair objected to Kimmel’s comments, saying they were offensive to many in their audience and as a result, they would pull his show from their airwaves. Later that day ABC, suspended Kimmel’s show indefinitely.

· The context in which this occurred is important. Last month NextStar announced its intention to acquire Tenga for $6B+, a purchase which would require both FCC approval and an FCC rule change (i.e., waiver or increase of the ownership cap).

· When asked about it on Friday in the White House, President Trump said he supported Carr’s comments

· But others in the GOP – such as Cruz – compared Carr’s actions to “mob tactics” and warned about the implications of government officials attempts to regulate content.

The Supreme Court’s view:

· In 1963 the Supreme Court decided Bantam Books v Sullivan, in which the question was whether a state commissions pressure on book distributors to remove “objectionable” material was a violation of the 1st amendment? In an 8-1 decision, Justice Brennan said that it was, arguing that while the government can try to persuade or encourage private entities to support its policy aims, it cannot use coercive methods to suppress speech.

· Since 1963 the Court has reaffirmed this decision

· Whether the Court continues to support this precedent going forward depends on several factors, including the makeup of the Court next time they grant cert in a challenge to Bantam

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 is the tenth video/column in a series in honor of the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the release of my most recent book, American Democracy in Crisis. If you have not had a chance to listen to (or read) the previous videos, I invite you to do that.

In part 9 I spoke about one of the repercussions of the divisions in the American political system – specifically the problem of responsiveness and I used immigration as a mini-case study to help make this point.

Today I am going to focus on another repercussion, the inability to deliver for the people.

As usual I begin with a quote, then say a few words about it.

A government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.

This quote comes from the American founder, who many people know of today as a rapper, Alexander Hamilton. The brainchild of the Federalist Papers, Hamilton wrote more papers than either of his co-authors (James Madison and John Jay), including the paper this quote comes from #70.

Another way to think of this is that performance - the ability to design, deliver, and effectively administer policies – matters. Moreover, it is a critical aspect of how we judge our system.

Someone I respect a good deal James MacGregor Burns once said

it is the failure of the American system to produce that has most alienated leaders and followers alike.

Whether this failure is in the past or present, such as the inability to deal with children brought into the country illegally, immigration more broadly, the problems of social justice in policing, gun violence in schools, healthcare, and so much more, the fact is that a good government is one that addresses societal woes in a timely manner and in the interest of the health, safety, well-being, and happiness of the people.

When the government cannot do that, it is not surprising that the people become frustrated, disenchanted, disillusioned.

One example of this in practice, another mini-case study of sorts concerns the protests that broke out after George Floyd was killed. On May 25th, 2020, Floyd, an unarmed black man, was killed at the hands of a white police officer in Minneapolis. Video of the killing provoked outrage across the country and led to massive protests, as well as calls to address centuries of systematic, structural racism inherent in our policing practices and society writ large.

Shortly after Floyd’s murder, National Public Radio (NPR) spoke to a former federal prosecutor Atty. Bains who had worked in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and co-authored the Department’s report on the Ferguson Missouri Police Department. That study was prompted by the death of another unarmed black man, Michael Brown, who was killed in Ferguson in 2014. Brown’s killing was the second to get a good deal of attention during the summer of 2014. Just weeks prior, Eric Garner was also killed at the hands of police officers in Staten Island, New York. Like Floyd’s killing, the deaths of Brown and Garner were viewed by many as part of a larger pattern of systematic racism.

In polls taken in the years prior to Floyd’s death, nine out of ten Americans (87%) described racial discrimination as a problem, while 65% described it as a “big” problem.

The 2015 Justice Department report Atty. Bains helped produce contained several recommendations for reform of the kind that might have helped prevent Floyd’s death but, as he told NPR after Floyd’s death, in the intervening years, none of the proposals had been adopted.

Given how the system operates, it is not surprising that little changed.

Nor is it surprising that, in response to this failure on the part of the government to act and take steps to address this issue, after Floyd’s death, millions of frustrated Americans took to the streets to demand action.

There are countless other examples or cases we could point to of the government not performing, producing or executing. This is a problem because as Hamilton noted, good government delivers and bad government does not.

Moreover, just like the problem of responsiveness I talked about in part 9, it is a problem which results in large part from the structural divisions the Framers built into our system.

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 I appeared on Bloomberg’s '“Balance of Power” with Joe Mathieu to discuss former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Dr. Susan Monarez’ testimony before a Senate Committee.

Monarez, who was joined by former Chief Medical Officer Dr. Debra Houry, testified about her brief stint as Director and what occurred in the days and weeks before she was fired by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The testimony of both Monarez and Houry was infused with dire warnings about the current state and future of public health in the U.S.

Monarez reiterated her previous claim she was ousted after she refused to fire career scientists without cause and would not commit to approve vaccination recommendations in advance. When asked how many people are left at the CDC who are not political appointees, in short doctors, scientists, career appointees, the answer was none.

The hearing took place one day before the newly configured Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meets in Atlanta. In June Kennedy fired all 17 of ACIP’s members and appointed 8 new members, some of whom have publicly questioned research on vaccines and immunizations.

In 2024 the CDC released a study which showed, among other things, that:

Among children born during 1994–2023, routine childhood vaccinations will have prevented

* approximately 508 million cases of illness

* 32 million hospitalizations

* 1,129,000 deaths

It also resulted in direct savings of $540 billion and societal savings of $2.7 trillion.

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