The New Realist Podcast

Yesterday, Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) spoke with Joe Mathieu and Kailey Leinz on Bloomberg’s “Balance of Power” about a bill he introduced to protect American workers at risk of being replaced by AI.

Speaking on the Senate floor about the “Make AI Work for Americans Act,” Kelly explained that the goal of the legislation is to ensure “workers aren’t left behind” and “Big Tech pays their fair share” by paying into a fund for workers displaced by AI. Specifically the bill calls for the establishment of an “AI Horizon Fund” financed by technology companies that are reaping the benefits of AI models. The fund would be used for training, transitioning and benefitting workers experiencing job loss and displacement due to automation.

“The alarms are sounding,” Kelly concluded. “The signals are clear. No one else is coming to the rescue. Mr. President, it has to be us.”

The data supports this, over the last few months Americans have increasingly sounded the alarm about AI and its potential impact on the labor force. In August, for instance, a Pew Research Center poll found that more than 7/10 Americans believe AI will result in fewer jobs in the U.S. - a double digit increase from 2024. Likewise, a NBC New poll earlier this month reported that 70% of Americans are concerned about AI taking jobs; concern is even greater amongst younger Americans, aged 18-29. Similarly, Gallup said the number of U.S. workers fearing new technology will make their jobs obsolete has increased to a historic 27%.

Kelly has yet to announce cosponsors for the bill, but it will be interesting to see whether he is able to cobble together a bipartisan set of cosponsors like he did last year when he worked with Senators Jim Banks (R-IN) and Todd Young (R-IN) on a bill entitled “Artificial Intelligence Data Authorization and Transparency Act (AI DATA).”

One group that Kelly reported have been supportive of his proposal are tech leaders and executives. In some ways, this may be surprising considering that the proposed legislation calls for additional taxes on their companies. On the other hand, for over ten years these same tech leaders have been sounding the alarm as it pertains to the impact of this new technology on jobs and several have supported calls for robust policies that address the displacement. Among the most popular ideas they have flirted with is Universal Basic Income (UBI). Among its earliest proponents going back several years are Dario Amodei, CEO Anthropic, Sam Altman, CEO Open AI, Marc Benioff, CEO Salesforce, Jack Dorsey, former CEO Twitter, Demis Hassabis, CEO Google DeepMind, Elon Musk, CEO xAI, SpaceX, Tesla, and Mark Zuckerberg, CEO Meta.

As Amodei noted not long ago:

“Some new and stranger thing will be needed, and that it’s something no one today has done a good job of envisioning. It could be as simple as a large universal basic income for everyone.”

Some, such as Altman, have called for and poured millions into studying UBI, only to “fall out of love” with the idea later on. Others, such as Hassabis, have continued to call for something ”like universal high income, or some way of distributing all the additional productivity that AI will produce in the economy.”

UBI is generally defined as “a cash transfer given to all members of a community on a recurrent basis regardless of income level and with no strings attached.” As Rebecca Hasdell notes, most versions of this increasingly popular policy share four characteristics, the programs are (a) Universal (paid to every one regardless of need) (b) Unconditional (involve no set conditions) (c) Periodic (as opposed to a one-off grant) and involve (d) Cash payments to an individual (versus a household).

By comparison, Kelly’s ‘fund’ proposal is much skinnier, more limited and arguably manageable. Instead of a periodic, universal and unconditional cash transfer - he is calling on those ‘winning’ the AI race to help fund those being left or pushed out.

These are not the only proposals of this kind and while still a long way off, they are welcome if only because they underscore how far we have come on this issue. It was just a decade ago that a colleague and I published an article in which we called on the government and elected officials to “help American workers prepare for a future in which the labor force is going to be forever changed by accelerating technological developments.” At the time, almost no candidates were talking about what they would do to assist workers in danger of losing jobs to automation; instead they continued to promise to return jobs to the U.S. and bring about a “manufacturing renaissance.”

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

So You Want to Be A Dictator: A Supreme Leadership Guide for the Aspiring Authoritarian is a dark comedy, pseudo-leadership guide for budding autocrats written by C.T. Jackson. The guidebook has come to mind several times in the last few days as our political lives have begun to imitate satire.

First was President Trump’s announcement that he is banning three major media outlets from the White House. It is an act that not only mirrors the tactics of authoritarian leaders such as the former Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán and Russian President Vladimir Putin, but it could have come directly from the pages of this guidebook.

As the President arrived at the United Nations (U.N.) yesterday there was a surreal moment when he began berating Kaitlin Collins, a reporter from CNN, one of the ousted outlets. “You should not be here,” he bellowed. “You should not be here covering me,” he continued as Collins tried to explain the network was granted access by the U.N.

Then there was his speech which followed. It was his sixth address to the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) and for those who have followed his speeches over the years, it was hard to imagine how he would top his fifth UNGA address during which he told world leaders their “countries are going to hell.”

Somehow, though, he managed to outdo himself. This time, telling the audience that he is weighing whether to commit a war crime by annihilating Iran or making a deal with them.

“I have a big decision to make,” he said speaking from the rostrum, either to make a deal with Iran or “annihilate the Islamic republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again.”

It was stunning to hear anyone, particularly the president of the United States, stand on the podium in front of the U.N.G.A. and threaten to destroy an entire civilization.

And there is more, with the former leader of Venezuela sitting in jail a few miles away, Trump celebrated the invasion that led to his ouster. He did so despite the fact that the U.S.’s military action is one which most legal experts agree was a clear violation of international law.

Perhaps this helps explain why Trump also used time during the speech to call the International Criminal Court (ICC) a “rogue institution” and say its members should resign. There is nothing new here, his administration has been going after the ICC for some time and earlier this year sanctioned several of its leaders. As Trump told the New York Times earlier this year, he has no need for the ICC or international law, all he needs is his “own morality…[and] own mind.”

Trump not only boasted about the military action in Venezuela, but stated “to the victor belong the spoils”; a clear reference to the fact that since removing and jailing Maduro the U.S. has taken control of a large amount of the Latin American nations oil reserves. If anyone was unclear as to the motivation behind the action - Trump said the quiet part out loud - it was not to pursue and spread democracy, freedom, liberty, or anything of the sort, it was for material gain - in this case, oil.

Finally, as Cuba worked to restore power after a sixth major blackout this year due to the U.S. energy blockade, Trump predicted from the dais that the government would fall shortly. It was at that point the Cuban delegation stood up and walked out of the speech.

Life imitating satire? As it states on the jacket of Jackson’s guidebook: “So You Want To Be A Dictator? Well, dear leader, now’s your time! Democracy is so last century.”

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

President Trump has been launching broadsides against the press since he was elected in 2016. During his first term, for instance, he revoked press credentials for CNN’s Jim Acosta and Playboy reporter Brian Karem. He also continued a practice he engaged in repeatedly on the campaign trail, referring to the news media as “fake news” and “enemy of the people,” while encouraging attendees at his rallies to boo the reporters assembled.

Since coming back into office in 2025, however, these attacks have intensified. In just the last two years he has overseen an administration which has:

* Excluded the Associated Press (AP) from the press pool because it refused to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.

* Fired the editor, publisher and a reporter from Stars and Stripes for reporting on poor conditions on USS Abraham.

* Banned members of the Pentagon press pool unless they sign an oath promising to only report authorized news.

* Continued to blame the media for suppressing the administration’s accomplishments and highlighting its missteps

* Rescinded Justice Department policies that protected journalists’ phone records from government searches, making it easier to investigate leaks.

* Used regulatory powers to investigate and attempt to intimidate broadcast networks critical of the president, including encouraging the suspension of comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show on ABC.

* Filed lawsuits against outlets whose coverage the president opposed

* Threatened to revoke TV broadcast licenses.

* Raided the homes of reporters such as Hannah Natanson from the Washington Post; a raid conducted under the direction of FBI Director Kash Patel as part of a national security leak investigation.

* Subpoenaed New York Times journalists and their family members after the outlet published articles revealing that an Air Force One jet gifted by Qatar was unsafe.

The latest in this litany was among the most startling - Trump’s announcement that the White House was banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, as well as revoking the press credentials of its reporters as a result of unfavorable coverage.

Several outlets are reporting that Trump made the decision at the prodding of his controversial close aide Natalie Harp, after she showed him negative media coverage. The ban also appears to have been a surprise to many of the presidents other aides, including his Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, who was out of the White House when the announcement was made.

As a result, the impacted outlets joined together and filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia arguing the ban constitutes view point discrimination and retaliation in violation of their First Amendment right to free press; as well as a violation of their Fifth Amendment right to Due process because the decision was made without notice, standards, or a chance to appeal.

The outlets are requesting that the Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) blocking the ban and restoring their access. In a joint statement they wrote:

“Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference. The government does not decide what the press reports or publishes.”

The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee who in 2018 ordered the president to return the credentials of CNN’s Acosta. The attorney who represented Acosta, Theodore "Ted" Boutrous Jr., is also representing the news outlets in the current case. The judge is expected to rule on the TRO on Wednesday after a hearing today.

The ban was met not only with this lawsuit, but a show of solidarity by the media writ-large. Just yesterday the TV networks who are part of the White House pool - ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox - took the unprecedented collective step of acting in concert to suspend pool video coverage of Trump until the impacted media outlets credentials are restored.

Several legal scholars, including Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley, have predicted the ban will not survive legal scrutiny. There is no certainty on this because while the courts have ruled the government cannot arbitrarily ban journalists or revoke their press credentials based on the content of their reporting or their viewpoints, there are exceptions.

First, on the major legal points working in the media’s favor.

* Judge Kelly who is hearing the case previously ruled against the Trump administration in a case with similar hallmarks (i.e., the 2018 case involving CNN’s Jim Acosta).

* In the 1977 case Sherrill v. Knight the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the White House press area is a “nonpublic First Amendment forum” as a result, access cannot be denied arbitrarily, and the government must provide explicit, compelling reasons (such as legitimate national security threats) to deny a pass. This case set the precedent that once the White House is open to the press generally, it cannot exclude specific journalists or outlets based on “viewpoint discrimination” (i.e., ban them simply because the administration dislikes their coverage).

* Federal courts have also ruled that the White House has to abide by the Fifth Amendment right to “due process” before banning a journalist or media outlet. This means, among other things, giving the media advance notice, clearly stating the grounds in writing, and allowing time to appeal. We saw this in CNN v. Trump (2018), as well as two years later in Karem v Trump (2020).

Despite this, recent court rulings have distinguished between general press facilities and highly restricted presidential areas. The so-called ‘restricted spaces’ exception was referenced most recently by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2025. When issuing a preliminary ruling in the AP case, the Court held that highly restricted presidential spaces are not open First Amendment forums. As a result, the White House has the discretion to determine who is admitted for any reason, viewpoint or otherwise.

The so-called ‘restricted spaces’ exception may help explain why, when attempting to defend the administration, Vice President JD Vance said the action was not a restriction on free speech but rather a denial of "special access." While Vance appeared to be trying to place the facts in the current case within the Courts exception, he was immediately contradicted by Trump who once again called the action a "ban” and dismissed the notion it was merely a diminishment of “special access.”

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

Emerson College just released a poll showing Adam Hamilton, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Kansas, is narrowly leading incumbent Republican Senator Roger Marshall.

The fact that this seat is now a potential pick-up for the Democrats is stunning. After all, Kansas

* voted for Trump by 16 points in 2024, 15 points in 2020, and 21 points in 2016.

* has not sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate since 1932

In short, this is a very red state.

Moreover, anytime an incumbent is vulnerable is big news because the incumbency re-election rate is high. In the modern era, on average 75-90% of incumbents are re-elected.

Kansas is vulnerable to the same environmental factors we are seeing in the midterm writ large. Kansans are frustrated by the state of the economy, rising costs, higher interest rates and inflation, an unpopular war with Iran, an equally unpopular tariff regime, a particularly jarring trade was with Canada which threatens many jobs in the state (see the previous post in these pages “Trump Threatens Canadian Company that Employs 3500 Americans”), and a president whose overall approval rating and approval rating on his ability to manage the economy have plummeted to historic lows.

In this instance, however, the blame is not Trump’s alone. It is also the case as the old election adage goes, candidates matter and in this instance, the Democratic Party has nominated an attractive first time candidate, who also happens to be a United Methodist Pastor, Adam Hamilton. To win a state like Kansas, this is exactly the type of candidate Democrats need to put forward. Also noteworthy, Democrats have a candidate with a divinity background in Texas (James Talarico) who is making his state a potential pick up. Also, like Hamilton, Talarico is facing a very flawed candidate in Ken Paxton (R).

But back to Kansas and their incumbent Senator Roger Marshall, who in the past had campaigned as ‘Doc Marshall.’

This is the chant Marshall was met with at the Kansas State Fair debate the other day.

“Shame on you!” The calls were so loud the moderator had to repeatedly try to quiet the crowd.

The chant was a response to a stunning story on the front page of the New York Times which found that Marshall, a former obstetrician/gynecologist, had sued more than 700 of his former patients for outstanding bills ranging from $100-several thousands. The collection methods included wage garnishments and bank account garnishments, and an applied annual interest rate of 18%. In 81 cases, former patients - many of whom are indigent and from rural areas - were arrested after missing court dates; lawyers for Doc Marshall also sought arrest warrants in 13 additional cases. These efforts continued even after Marshall entered Senate in 2017.

Excerpt from Recommended Reading

A Doctor Sued 700 Patients for Debts; 81 Were Arrested. Now He’s a Senator,” By Sarah Kliff, New York Times, September 8, 2026

“It was Easter weekend in 2007 when a police car pulled up to Joe Vasquez’s home in rural Kansas.

A doctor had filed a lawsuit against him and his wife over an unpaid $4,561 bill from her emergency hysterectomy three years earlier. They had missed a court date, and the doctor’s lawyers asked the court to issue an arrest warrant.

The police took the couple into custody as their grandchildren prepared for an egg hunt, Mr. Vasquez said. They spent two days in jail before their son could borrow the money to post bond.

“We had no money to pay,” said Mr. Vasquez, now 68. At the time, his wife was working at a manufacturing plant and he was on disability, he said.

The doctor who sued the couple was Roger Marshall, now a senator from Kansas. Mr. Marshall, a Republican who is seeking re-election this fall, filed lawsuits against more than 700 patients with outstanding bills during his decades-long career as an obstetrician-gynecologist…”

During the debate Marshall repeatedly tried to defend his medical debt collection tactics as common and deflect responsibility to his lawyers. The crowd, however, was having none of it.

When the Senator asked ‘who do you want solving this and other problems’ the crowd chanted ‘not you.’

In addition to his harsh collection tactics targeting his former patients-turned-constituents, Marshall was charged with being a carpetbagger since he and his wife have a $1.2m home in Sarasota Florida; a residence that is far larger and more valuable than the $124,000 cabin he owns in Kansas. Marshall responded to these charges arguing they are “a social media myth created by social media Nazis.”

Marshall also defended Trump’s tariff program saying it is “working” even though recently Trump threatened to ban the sale of Canada’s Bombardier - a Canadian company that employs more than 3500 Americans including 12-1500 in Kansas alone.

The Senator also argued that the cost of gasoline is less under Trump than it was under Joe Biden - even though the price of a gallon of gas in Kansas was $2.81 when Biden left office and is now over $4.10.

Marshall is in so much trouble that this weekend the ever colorful Senator from Louisiana John Kennedy (R) is going to visit the state to rally support for his colleague. The other day Kennedy told reporters how stunned he was that Republicans had to spend time campaigning in red states like Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas:

"If you told me six months ago I was going to be having to spend my time in those three states, I wouldn't have believed you. Those oughta be fat guy layups for us. Now we're gonna win there. But the races are close."

At least in the case of Kansas, the President is not the only one who bears responsibility for the tightening race.

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 has made it clear he is strongly opposed to calls to limit, slow down or regulate AI. In comments and a series of social media posts he has dismissed warnings about AI as a "hoax" and a "scam," even going so far as to compare it to climate change and political investigations against him.

In making this case, he stands in stark contrast not only to tech CEOs such as Anthropic’s Dario Amodei, OpenAI’s Sam Altman and xAI's Elon Musk - all of who have recently voiced support for federal oversight frameworks; he also stands in opposition to the vast majority of Americans, the vast majority of his own MAGA supporters, and his own political advisors.

Consider, for instance, the following:

* A recent poll by Politico found that a majority of Americans believe there is a real risk AI may destroy humanity and a plurality support pausing development of AI technology.

* This aligns with most recent polling, including research by Semafor which found half of voters believe AI development is moving too quickly and almost 9/10 believe the absence of regulation is problematic.

* A study by the New York Times found that even on his own social media site, Truth Social, Trump’s postings in opposition to AI regulation are unpopular. “The number of comments disparaging A.I. and data centers outnumbered those supporting the technology by nearly four to one… Many of the comments criticizing the president came from users whose profiles suggested they were otherwise staunch Trump supporters and members of his MAGA movement.”

* A Memo written by Trump’s pollster, Tony Fabrizio on September 14 and reported in Axios, begins with the following warning: “Unqualified support for building more AI data centers is a losing position. Voters oppose additional construction by 41 points—65% opposed to 24% in favor—and intensity runs the same way.”

* Fabrizio is not the only Trump ally to make this case, just yesterday Steve Bannon joined with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I -VT) at the Pro-Human Assembly to call for curbs on AI. Speaking of the ‘tech-titans’ Bannon said “we aren't gonna give these guys carte blanche. Their arrogance is overwhelming."

These and other warnings to the contrary, Trump has maintained that if the U.S. engages in regulation we risk losing the global AI tech race to China.

At his Doonbeg golf resort in Ireland, for instance, Trump told reporters: “We’re leading China in AI, we’re the most sophisticated country in the world, and frankly, I want to keep it that way because whoever wins AI, wins.”

On Monday he made the same case more explicitly on Truth Social:

“The only control or “guardrails” that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades! We already have tremendous CRIMINAL and REGULATORY power over these companies! There is a SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China. WHOEVER WINS AI, WINS! We are leading China, and all others, and will continue to do so. Conspiracy Theorists, Treasonists, Traitors, and Leakers, BEWARE!”

His repeated warnings that regulation means the U.S. will lose the competition with China on AI are puzzling, however, when you consider that last year he suspended some AI export controls and allowed Chinese AI companies to buy a powerful semiconductor chip called H200 (with the U.S. government taking a cut of sales). This was done despite repeated warnings that this is the very chip China needs to further its AI ambitions and poses a security risk for the U.S.. Moreover, since returning to office, Trump has struck deals that involve U.S. technology and include building data centers in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both of which have strong trade and commercial ties with China.

If Trump is so committed to winning the AI race against China, why sell China the technology they need to move faster on AI? Moreover, why do so in the face of multiple warnings about the dangers of making this technology available to our adversary/competitor?

The reasons Trump has given for his opposition to AI regulation and his record of making deals which help China move forward faster in building this technology contradict and beg the question, what is the real reason Trump he opposes AI regulation?

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

Two moments from the Republican Midterm Convention in Dallas this week stand out - President Trump’s efforts to bribe voters and his excoriation to his supporters to vote in November even if it means they need to “cheat like hell.”

We spoke about the convention on Bloomberg News as it wrapped up, but it is this two moments that I want to underscore below because they show how cognizant Trump is of the dire situation he and his party are in. They also depict the level of desperation he is feeling.

During his keynote address on the first night of the convention, Trump stunned many, even in his party, by promising to send $5,000 to every adult American if Republicans retain control of Congress.

Not only is this ideologically inconsistent from the leader of a party that is focused on painting the Democrats as big spending, big government socialists, but it makes little sense strategically, fiscally, legally, politically, ethically or in any other way - as many in his own party have noted.

Joe Lonsdale, a Republican donor, criticized the proposal, writing on X, “I am hugely in favor of winning the midterms, and love much about this (administration) but am strongly against bread and circus bribes.” Likewise, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis dismissed the plan saying it would “lead to more debt and more inflation.” Rep. Ralph Norman expressed similar concerns about the fiscal sanity of the move. Meanwhile others, including Rep’s. Thomas Massie and Chip Roy expressed outrage at the notion that the party would engage in vote buying. As Massie wrote:

"Frankly, I’m insulted by the notion that my vote this November could be bought for 5k"

Speaking with Trump, Fox News host Laura Ingraham pressed him about the plan on two grounds: the fiscal implications and the timing. Echoing the concerns of many, she noted the country is facing a $40T debt and challenged Trump on how this plan - at a cost of $1.3+T - would be paid for? Second, she asked about the timing - if this is not a ‘bribe’ or quid-pro-quo, as Trump has contended - why not distribute the money now? After all, Republicans control Congress and he controls the White House.

On night two, Trump made an equally outrageous statement when he closed out the convention by asking those in attendance to stand, raise their hand and pledge to vote in the midterm, even if it means they and their family members need to “cheat like hell.”

“Please raise your right hand,” Trump told supporters in the room, “I pledge to the greatest president in the history of the United States that loves us so much he can’t even breathe, that I will go out with my family, my friends. I don’t care if I’m registered or not. I’m going to try and cheat like hell like they do. There’s never been bigger cheaters. I don’t care, I am going to go out and I am going to get my friends, my family, and we are going to vote on Nov. 3rd or we are going to vote before that.”

For someone who has spent years accusing Democrats of election fraud and vote stealing, and tried desperately to push through legislation to enact strict Voter ID on the grounds our elections are not secure, the idea that he would call for his supporters to cheat at the polls is the height of hypocrisy.

But if he could only be charged with duplicity or ‘making bad jokes’ (as some have suggested) that would be far less concerning than what we are seeing - which is Trump acknowledging publicly the level of desperation he is feeling about how his party will fare in the election. And as we know from January 6, he is not likely to accept a loss at the polls lying down. Since retaking office, Trump has taken several steps to insure the midterm results go in his party’s favor - this includes pushing red states to engage in mid-decade redistricting, attempting to pass the SAVE Act, threatening to deploy federal agents to polling sites, issuing an EO limiting mail-in balloting and asserting federal control over elections, amongst other things.

His reckless convention talk just weeks before the midterm is an acknowledgment that despite all these efforts, his party remains in dire straits. What more he might do in the weeks ahead to insure his party retains its grip on power should be of concern to all who lived through January 6 and witnessed the lengths to which he will go first-hand.

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

Missourians are in the midst of one of the messiest midterms in history. We spoke about the madness going on in the ‘show-me’ state on Bloomberg a few days ago. You can hear that in both of these videos.

Since then, however, a lot more has happened. This following is some background and latest developments in what is shaping up to be an election fiasco in the mid-west.

What Happened in Missouri

Shortly after reassuming office, President Trump began urging red states to redraw their maps. One red state that heeded this call was Missouri. Governor Mike Kehoe called for a special legislative session to redraw the states maps and the Republican led congress responded by passing a map so aggressively gerrymandered that almost 60% of the voters in Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s (D) redrawn district were new.

This is a textbook case of gerrymandering (i.e., drawing election maps to favor particular outcomes) because in direct contrast to the way representative democracy should operate - in these cases elected officials are picking their voters, not the other way around.

As the side-by-side comparison below shows, under the ‘old’ (2024) map the state had 6 Republican and 2 Democratic seats. Under the newly redrawn (2026) map Republicans gained an additional seat (7 Republican and 1 Democratic seat).

Missourians did not take any of this lying down. Led by an organization called People Not Politicians (PNP) they collected more than 300,000 signatures to force the new map to a statewide referendum. The petition was sent to Missouri’s Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins in December of last year, but he sat on it for months until August 4 - Primary Election Day in the state - when he finally rejected the petition on the grounds that the state Constitution “does not authorize a referendum on congressional redistricting plans passed by the General Assembly.”

Given the timing of his decision, the primary was held under the new ‘GOP’ map.

Undeterred, Richard von Glahn and PNP immediately filed a lawsuit challenging the decision. While Hoskins ruling was upheld in the lower courts, the Missouri Supreme Court sided with Glahn/PNP arguing the petition they filed was legally sufficient and timely, and the Secretary erred in rejecting it. Moreover, the conservative/Republican led court argued that the new map could not go into effect until it was voted on by the people. As the Court found:

“The plain language of … the Missouri Constitution authorizes a referendum as to ‘any act of the general assembly’ and no exception applies.” Because the petition was, “legal, sufficient, and timely,” the new map could not be put into practice “unless and until approved by the voters at the November 2026 general election.”

Outraged by his state Supreme Court’s ruling, Hoskins appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing the state was “genuinely unsure whether it can switch its governing congressional map in time to run a timely federal election.” Moreover, he asked them to find that the ruling violates the elections clause in Article I, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution which gives state legislatures, not voters, the power to prescribe the “Times, Places, and Manner” of federal elections.

Whatever you think of Hoskins argument, there is merit to his concern about whether a state can switch their congressional map between a primary and general election, and the impact of doing so on both voters and candidates.

Despite this, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is the designated justice overseeing emergency applications from the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sided with the state Supreme Court, rejecting Hoskins appeal and allowing the old map to be used in the upcoming midterm.

The Latest from Missouri

That might have brought the conflict to an end, but it did not. In just the last few hours this fast moving fiasco picked up even more steam.

Hoskins Contempt Hearing This Morning

After the Missouri Supreme Court ruling last week, Hoskins defied their order to use the old map. Instead, he emailed local election officials instructing them to use the new map. As a result, the Missouri Supreme Court ordered the Secretary to appear in person before the Court this morning to defend himself against contempt charges.

State Lawmakers Threaten Justices With Impeachment Last Night

The decision to hold the contempt hearing prompted Missouri Republican lawmakers to submit a letter late last night threatening to impeach the state Supreme Court justices if they refuse to drop the charges.

Another Appeal to the US Supreme Court Late Yesterday

In the wake of Justice Kavanaugh’s decision to let the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision stand, U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark jumped into the fray issuing a competing ruling which orders the state to use the new map. Clark’s ruling was upheld by the 8th Circuit prompting Glahn/PNP to ask the US Supreme Court again. In response, Kavanaugh ordered Missouri officials to submit their written responses.

As of this writing, the Supreme Court has not ruled, but it may do so at any time.*

Update: *Moments after this posting (Thursday morning), the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned order blocking Missouri from using its new ‘2026' map in the midterm (see order below). The decision is a blow to the president and Republicans in their attempts to hold the House.

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

After trade negotiations between the US and Canada broke down in late August, President Trump imposed a 50% tariff on $20B of Canadian goods. A few days later, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced "dollar-for-dollar" retaliatory counter-tariffs on $20B worth of American goods to go into effect a few weeks later (September 8).

In the interim, Carney announced that Canada was willing to resume negotiations once the Trump administration dispensed with the outlandish memes, theatrics, and barrage of insults.

That never happened.

Instead Trump and members of his administration, continued to post aggressively on social media and make statements to the press designed to disparage, mock and humiliate our neighbor to the North.

This is a small sample of just a few of these posts and statements":

* Trump posted an AI-generated cartoon showing himself taunting Carney on the ice rink with the caption "Get up, governor," to mock Canadian sovereignty and revive his frequent comment that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state.

* Trump shared a meme featuring a North American map covered in stars and stripes. The graphic included Canada, Mexico, Greenland, and the Caribbean under the words “United States of America,” implying a U.S. takeover of its neighbors.

* Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent appeared on Fox News last weekend and compared Canada’s approach to the trade dispute to a “little yippy dog” barking at a large German Shepherd.

* Not to be outdone, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth took time out of the hot war with Iran to post the following photo with a caption featuring a Canadian flag and the word “This is Real.” The post was widely interpreted as an attempt to body shame two young Canadian cadets.

All of this comes, on top of the President signing an executive order to rename Lake Ontario to “Lake America,” posting an AI-generated video of armed birds with his hairstyle guarding it, and calling Canadians “nasty people.”

This is not only insulting and juvenile conduct that is beneath the dignity of the office of the presidency, it is the behavior with real and long term consequences. Just one example pertains to another one of Trump’s posts which included a threat to ban the sale of Canada’s Bombardier.

NO MORE SELLING BOMBARDIER IN THE UNITED STATES! Their products aren’t good enough!” he posted on Monday. “If they want our Market, they must build here, and stop treating America like a ‘piggybank.’

The post, made on Labor Day, targeted a Canadian company that employs more than 3500 Americans in states ranging from Indiana, Texas, Arizona, and Florida to Kansas and Connecticut. In Kansas alone Bombardier employs 12-1500 - a reality which was enough to get even the states’ two Republican Senators to push back on Trump’s outlandish threat.

“This afternoon, I reached out to the Trump administration to make certain the President is aware of the significant contributions of Bombardier to Kansas and the importance of its presence in Wichita to many Kansas workers at Bombardier and in the Bombardier supply chain. I will continue working to see that Bombardier’s manufacturing operations not only remain in Kansas but continue to grow and create American jobs,” Senator Jerry Moran posted on X.

Likewise, Senator Roger Marshall, promised to fight the proposed ban: "I’ve already taken that concern inside the Oval Office," he said. Bombardier has ​3,500 jobs in the U.S., more than 40% of which are in Wichita, Kansas.

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

After all the talk amongst Democrats about generational change, three incumbents over the age of 70 successfully fended off challenges by much younger competitors during yesterday’s primary election in Massachusetts.

This includes, octogenarian Senator Ed Markey, who at age 80, not only defeated 47-year-old Rep. Seth Moulton but did so by more than 30%. At age 71, Rep. Stephen Lynch won a more competitive race against 39 year old Patrick Roath, clinching his 14th nomination for the 8th Congressional District. Likewise, Rep. Richard Neal, age 77, defeated 39 year old high school teacher Jeromie Whalen 54-46%.

There are a number of factors that help explain these victories, including the fact that all three of the winners are incumbents up for re-election. Congressmen and women get a lot of heat, but one thing they tend to do well is constituent service, hence the consistently high incumbency re-election rate in the U.S. House and Senate.

As David Hubert notes and the date below show, over the “past twenty years, the lowest reelection rate for the House of Representatives was 85 percent, and the mean reelection rate is more than 94 percent. Reelection rates in the U.S. Senate are a bit lower, but still impressive.” All of which points to one of the many paradoxes of our system, while American’s do not give Congress high marks overall, they tend to approve of the job their own representative and senators are doing.

Setting aside the benefits of incumbency and the role of money in these campaigns,* both of which can explain victories such as these, is the issue of generational change to contend with. Like Joe Kennedy III before him, Moulton assumed Markey might be vulnerable given his advanced age, as well as the fact he had been in office since before either he or Markey’s previous primary opponent Kennedy, was born. As a result, Moulton focused little time on defining the Senator or differentiating the two on the issues. Instead, he chose to make the entire race about generational change and ended up getting clobbered in the polls.

*Note: Moulton outspent Markey on the air by at least two to one in the Democratic primary

The decision was an obvious strategic blunder. It also reflects a profound misunderstanding as to what many voters are looking for. Even in the wake of the 2024 debacle when age has been very much on the minds of so many Democratic voters, as the results in Massachusetts last night suggest, for many it is not primarily about the candidates age. Instead, it is about whether they share the concerns of younger generations, whether they are prepared to push hard for the issues they believe in, and whether they have the energy and vitality to take this fight to Washington?

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

After noon today, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced the U.S. military “began striking Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) targets in Iran.” CENTCOM said the strikes were in response to recent “attacks by the IRGC against commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and against American service members deployed to the region.”

Moments later, President Trump confirmed the strikes on Truth Social, writing “The United States is, as we speak, striking Iranian Targets near the Strait of Hormuz. The strikes are large and powerful… If the failed Nation of Iran retaliates for this very justified attack, they will be hit again at a much harder and higher level.”

The attacks are not surprising. The U.S. and Iran are likely to continue to engage in intermittent military action back and forth, at least for the foreseeable future. None of this changes the reality that there is on military solution to this war of choice.

What is surprising, however, is what was happening in the Department of Defense and White House in the hours just prior to the strikes. Late yesterday, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, the service's highest-ranking civilian leader, resigned after eighteen months on the job. This followed a number of clashes with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth over issues ranging from personnel decisions - including his purge of senior military staff and efforts to block promotions for women and people of color - to army readiness and transformation.

Driscoll’s departure leaves the U.S. with out an Army Secretary in the middle of a war. As retired Major General Randy Manner told CNN last night, there are ‘only five four-star generals in Army right now and ten open slots… we have a B- team leading us right now.’ We are “weaker under Hegseth than we were pre-911.”

While all this was going on, the U.S. Secretary of Defense took the time last night to post a picture on X about Canada’s cadet program - an offensive post which outraged many.

All of this comes in the wake of a recent report in the Washington Post that Hegseth has hired several conservative influencers with big online followings to promote his agenda and attack Trump administration critics. This includes retired Air Force Colonel Rob Maness and retired Army Colonels Kurt Schlichter and Thomas Anderson. All three have received official civilian email accounts and been assigned to the office of Pentagon personnel chief Anthony Tata who is reported to be focusing on “culture-war issues” and “woke” ideology.

Perhaps most alarming is reporting from The Atlantic which suggests that the President was “surprised and concerned” about the number of military leaders fired, pushed out or passed up for promotion under Hegseth. According to The Atlantic, this was one of many things Driscoll shared with Trump in a meeting prior to his resignation. That the President could have been caught unaware, particularly at a time of War, with munition stockpiles running low, and increasing questions about our readiness to defend ourselves at home and abroad is as alarming as Hegseth’s tenure at Defense.

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