The New Realist Podcast

Iran’s parliament speaker and chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf went on X yesterday to accuse President Trump of “theater diplomacy.”

Ghalibaf’s post came not long after Trump once again called off strikes, arguing that “the perimeters of a deal” had already been agreed to; something there is no evidence of and something that Tehran continues to push back on.

As of early June, CNN reported that Trump had said we were close to a deal at least 38 times - as of today the number is now closer to 45. The most recent time was yesterday when he said the war “is going very well!” and will end “pretty soon.”

For all the president’s statements about a ‘deal,’ the only negotiations that seem to be moving forward are between Iran and Oman. The two countries have, by some accounts, reached a preliminary deal to partially re-open the Strait of Hormuz. This would seem to be welcome news, but we have few details and the US stance on the agreement, our involvement in the negotiations, and so forth remain painfully unclear. Whatever the deal entails, there is no question Iran will come out of it stronger than they were before the war when the Strait operated as an open, international waterway. Most reports suggest that at the very least, the deal will leave Iran with much more control of Hormuz than it had prior to late February.

Trump’s continued threats to ‘bomb’ Iran into submission are also falling flat because numerous reports show that we have a munitions shortage, particularly when it comes to precision and defensive weapons. A shortage the president has not only denied but responded to by accusing the journalists who have reported it of committing ‘treason.’ This munitions shortage, confirmed by many sources, is another in a long line of reasons Tehran is empowered. If the U.S. follows through with Trump’s threats to escalate the war, Iran will strike back and with a shortage of defensive weapons we will be left unable to defend ourselves, our service members, our allies and our interests in the region. We could escalate using dumber weapons but that would entail our military aircraft and service members getting closer to Iran and increase the possibility of a ground war, something there is little appetite for in the U.S. and something that we have little prospect of winning against a nation of 93m people that is three time larger than Iraq.

Our best bet now is to accept the Omani/Iranian deal as the best of several bad options, give Iran some sanctions relief if necessary, get the Strait reopened as far as possible, and get the oil and other goods flowing. In the meantime, the focus should be investing in other means to move oil and goods that leave us less dependent on the Strait and serious nuclear talks with Iran; in addition to addressing our munitions shortage, as well as our frayed alliances around the world.

With the Iran War, Trump has gotten himself into a quagmire of precisely the kind he said he abhorred and would avoid. Trump spoke in the past about the need to end the war to avoid “economic catastrophe” - that remains true. He also needs to end the war to avoid weakening the U.S. on the world stage any further.

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

Thoughts on Dr. Abdul El-Sayed’s narrow victory (<15k votes) over Representative Haley Stevens in the Democratic primary in Michigan

* The polls were way off, Realclearpolitics average of polls, for instance, had El-Sayed up +10, Emerson had him up +15, etc. The truth is, polling primaries is very difficult in part because turn out tends to be much lower than in general elections.

* The polls raised expectations of a blow-out that did not occur, but that should not take away from the fact this is a big win for El-Sayed and progressives overall. If last year anyone suggested a progressive could beat a strong, well-funded, and widely supported Rep. Stevens in Michigan few would have bet on it.

* El-Sayed was one of just three wins for progressives in Michigan last night, the others were District #7 where William Lawrence won and will now face off against Republican Rep. Tom Barrett and District #13 where Donavan McKinney defeated incumbent Rep. Shri Thanedar.

* Up to this point, the establishment Democrats have been able to say that progressives can only win in blue states like NY and Colorado. El-Sayed’s victory in purple Michigan gives lie to this argument. Of course, now he has to prove he can win the general election versus Republican Mike Rogers, which will not be an easy task.

* That said, establishment/moderates scored big victories not just last night but throughout this primary election season as well. In the much watched rematch between Cori Bush and Democratic Rep. Wesley Bell in Missouri District #1, for instance, the more moderate Bell came out ahead of Bush once again.

* Democratic turnout in Michigan was much higher than Republican turnout, suggesting as we have seen in the specials and primaries so far - Democrats are enthusiastic and engaged, something that should bode well for the party’s nominees in November.

* Not only do we have our nominees in Michigan, but we know what we are likely to hear for the next 3 months from both.

>El-Sayed will paint Rogers as a Washington insider, a corporate sell-out who is beholden to the big special interests he made millions from after leaving office, a carpet bagger who resides in Florida, someone who is ideologically conflicted as he moves between the Neo-cons and MAGA wings of the party, and an individual who, if elected, would use his time in office to do Trump’s bidding. Don’t forget, he was in line to serve as Trump’s FBI Director during his second term, but lost out to K. Patel.

>Rogers will argue that El-Sayed is an “extremist” and an “anti-American” radical, he will focus on painting him as a Democratic Socialist and argue that he supports the most objectionable parts of the DSA’s platform, including - the abolition of ICE, de-funding the police, etc. He will try to call attention to his own background in security and intelligence by claiming El-Sayed will make Michigan less safe and less affordable and that he is beholden to voices of the far left wing, such as Hasan Piker. He will also avoid talking about national issues and try to make the race as local as possible.

* During his victory speech this morning, El-Sayed challenged Rogers to 5 televised debates. So far, Rogers has not responded.

Crib Notes on Senate Races to Watch this Election Cycle

* 33 U.S. Senate seats are up for election this November, including the Michigan seat.

* Republicans currently hold a 53–457 majority in the Senate (this includes the 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats).

* On November 3, Democrats need to gain a NET of 4 seats to win the majority, Republicans can lose no more than 2 seats to retain the majority.

* In addition to Michigan, the Cook Political Report has listed just 3 seats as toss up’s:

>Alaska - Sen. Dan Sullivan (R) vs/. Mary Peltola (D)

>Maine - Sen. Susan Collins (R) vs/. Troy Jackson (D)

>Ohio - Sen. Jon Husted (R) vs/. Sherrod Brown (D)

* While Michigan is an Open Seat, the other three toss up races all feature incumbent Republicans on the ballot.

* In addition to the 4 toss up races, Cook lists 4 races as leaning or likely Democrat (Georgia, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and North Carolina) and 4 races leaning or likely Republican (Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas).

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

Polling primaries is notoriously difficult, that said pre-election polling in the Democratic primary for the Michigan Senate showed Dr. Abdul El-Sayed leading Representative Haley Stevens. The latest Emerson tracking poll from July, for instance, showed El-Sayed up +15, 54-39%.

Whatever the outcome, this race should be a wake up call to the Democratic Party for the following reasons:

* DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS DON’T WANT TO TREAD WATER: IF El-Sayed wins it shows that Democratic voters, not just in blue states like New York and Colorado, but purple state states like Michigan are no longer willing to tread water and make the safe bet in these elections, instead they want to stir things up.

* STEVENS HAS ALL THE ADVANTAGES BUT STILL RUNNING BEHIND: Even if Stevens wins (and given the amount of institutional support and monetary advantage she has, she should) it nevertheless should be concerning that she ran behind El-Sayed right up until the end.

* GENERATIONAL GAP: While both El-Sayed and Stevens are of similar age (early forties), according to the Emerson poll, when it comes to those under 50, El-Sayed by +42, while Stevens leads amongst those over 60 by +14. This type of startling division shows that younger Democrats are looking for someone to shake up the party and Washington DC. They do not want to ‘play it safe.’ Instead, they want candidates who are not just running against Donald Trump, but who are offering a positive vision of the future and promising not just to oppose Trump and Republicans, but change the system.

* DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S BRAND IN SHAMBLES: The view of these younger Democrats is in keeping with what we know about how the vast majority of Democrats feel about the party - its broken, its brand is no longer attractive; it is a party that is regularly and repeatedly - from Maine to Michigan, New York to Colorado to California - being challenged by an insurgency from the left that it has no real answer for. None of this is new - Bernie Sanders won Michigan in 2016 and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates or candidates that are DSA adjacent have been winning ever since - including this year.

* BAD YEAR FOR DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENTS: In this primary cycle, at least 7 Democratic incumbents have lost re-election. Some of this is due to mid-decade redistricting but the trend is troubling and another sign that the party is undergoing an enormous shift - not unlike the one the Republican Party has gone through over the last 20 years at the hands of the tea-party, freedom caucus and now MAGA wing.

* ANOTHER WAY TO BEAT TRUMPISM AND THE GOP IN PURPLE STATES?: While Stevens and Gov. Whitmer (who, along with the rest of the Michigan establishment, have endorsed Stevens) were the darlings of the 2018 cycle, after a devastating loss in 2016, they showed Democrats how to beat Republicans and Donald Trump in purple states. That was then, however, now we may be looking at a new path to beating Trumpism in purple states. El-Sayed ran in 2018 and lost in the primary to Whitmer - but that was 8 years ago. Now things in Michigan and around the country have changed and he has a shot to capture the nomination.

* MONEY ISN’T EVERYTHING: A staggering amount of money has been poured into this race, much of it coming from American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and AIPAC aligned groups who have spent more than $30 million on behalf of Stevens. While its still the case that the better funded candidate almost always wins, as we witnessed with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016, likewise Trump and Kamala Harris in 2024, that isn’t always the case. Charismatic candidates like Trump and NYC Mayor Mamdani are sometimes able to use earned (AKA ‘free’) media to their advantage. This is what a monetarily disadvantaged El-Sayed tried to do in this race and as the media landscape continues to change, we may see more of this on the left and right.

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

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche struck a deal two GOP holdouts (Sen’s. J Cornyn and T. Tillis) that will allow his nomination to get voted out of the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote tomorrow. Once his nomination gets to the floor, Republicans can only lose two Senators (given Sen. M. McConnell remains out of the Senate). The Senators to watch are Sen’s. S. Collins, L. Murkowski and B. Cassidy.

Considering every one of President Trump’s nominees that has made it to the Senate floor has been confirmed, history suggests Blanche will as well. Moreover, even with the reservations they have expressed, all three of these Senators (Collins, Murkowski, and Cassidy) have also indicated that if Cornyn - a lawyer, former Attorney General of Texas, and judge - is satisfied his concerns have been addressed, they are likely to follow suit.

All of the drama surrounding Blanche’s nomination and Cornyn/Tillis’ decision to backdown is a farce because:

* The agreement struck between Trump and the federal government concerning the $1.776B anti-weaponization fund and his sweetheart immunity deal with the IRS was a deal between the government and Trump the private citizen. Pg. 4 of that agreement stipulates that both parties must agree to pull out of the agreement. Yesterday just one - the federal government, as indicated by AAG Blanche/DOJ, pulled out. That leaves the other party - Trump - who has not agreed to the order in writing.

* Trump’s failure to sign off on ending the agreement is critical, as is the fact he has made no bones about his continuing support for the fund. Hours before Blanche released the order and Cornyn/Tillis capitulated, Trump told reporters on Air Force One that the fund is necessary to compensate individuals unfairly targeted by President Biden’s DOJ. He claimed these people, were “destroyed” by federal investigations, and the fund was necessary to reimburse them “for the pain that they suffered.” (note: the individuals he is talking about are those who participated in the riots on January 6, broke into the capitol, assaulted police officers, and tried to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power).

* If Cornyn, Tillis and any of the myriad of other Senators who have expressed concern about the fund and immunity deal were really invested in putting an end to it, they would use the power of Congress to pass legislation to that end. This - and via the power of the purse - are the two major ways congress exerts its authority and power (see Federalist #78).

* For all the attention the fund/immunity deal have received, they have also served to divert attention from other issues that should impede Blanche’s confirmation. This includes the fact he was Trump’s personal attorney, that he mishandled the Epstein files, that he has not treated the Epstein’s victims and survivors well, according to them, that he has weaponized the DOJ to go after Trump’s enemies, that he continues to treat the DOJ as Trump’s personal law firm rather than a Department doing the important and sacred business of the American people.

Beyond Blanche’s confirmation saga, the real issue here is whether action needs to be taken to insure the DOJ is insulated from the president to a larger degree than it currently is. As usual in Washington what is shocking often times is not what is illegal or unconstitutional, but what is not.

Addressing the independence of the DOJ will be difficult from a constitutional perspective, but there are some efforts underway to at least enhance the DOJ’s independence. This includes a bill introduced by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer entitled The Anti-Corruption Bureau Creation Act, as well as a bill introduced by Senator Ben Ray Luján called The No Trump Immunity Act that aims to restrict political favoritism within federal law enforcement and targets the DOJ’s authority by prohibiting it from granting special legal immunity deals to a sitting president, vice president, or their families.

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 the war in Iran rages and gas prices soar over $4/gallon, oil companies are reporting the 2nd quarter has been its most profitable in years. Exxon Mobil, for instance, announced it earned $14.53B, twice as much as it did in the same quarter last year. Likewise, Chevron reported earning more than $12B - up from <$2.5B the year prior; while Shell reported earnings of $10B.

In response, Democratic lawmakers are seeking both information from the companies and urging congress to take steps to address the windfall. This includes: Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Elizabeth Warren who sent letters to seven major oil companies seeking information on how they profited from the war while ordinary Americans have been hit at the pump; Rep. Ed Ed Markey who asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate potential market manipulation and anti-competitive pricing; and Senators from Ron Wyden and Chuck Schumer to Whitehouse who are amongst several members who are pushing for legislation to address the situation - this includes a windfall profits tax (Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act) and stock buybacks tax (Taxing Buybacks from Big Oil Windfalls Act).

In response, the oil industry - represented by the American Petroleum Institute (API) - has argued that this type of legislation violates free-market principles.

This response, however, creates a political problem for Republicans today. The problem is both environmental and philosophical. At a time when gas prices are rising - along with everything else, including inflation and mortgage rates, economic growth is slowing, jobs are increasingly difficult to get and the economy favors millionaires and billionaires over working Americans the political environment makes it difficult for the GOP to defend big oil or big corporations of any kind.

Philosophically, they have another problem in that the Republican Party is no longer the party of small government and free markets that it once was. Instead it is a party that is growing the national debt at an alarming rate ($39T and counting as of today), pushing for historic spending in the military ($1.5T for next year, a 50% increase and more than ever spent in history), and supporting the nationalization of private industry.

We have seen the public takeover of private companies already in the case of Intel, and just the other day to little fanfare, Trump’s Department of Commerce announced that “it will designate more than $870 million in federal incentives for semiconductor manufacturing in exchange for a minority equity stake in seven companies.”

All of this from a party that is intent on running against the far left of the Democratic Party by painting them as ‘socialists’ and ‘communists’ (the so-called ‘Red Scare’ tactic).

While the push back from the GOP and API regarding free market principles may have worked in the Reagan era, the argument falls flat under this ‘populist’ Trump party. Big oil companies should be required to answer how they are profiting at a time when average Americans continue to suffer at the pump and congress should take steps to address their massive windfalls if corruption is found. While the GOP may have pushed back on this tactic in the past by hiding behind Friedmanesque arguments about free markets, that is increasingly hard to do in an environment when nationalization is the watchword of your own Commerce Department and your president’s approach to one of the nations most important sectors.

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

Last night the Senate confirmed Jay Clayton as Director of National Intelligence by a party line vote (51-47), with all Democrats voting against him.

As of this writing, the nomination of Todd Blanche to serve as Attorney General remains in limbo because two Republican Senators - Senators John Cornyn (TX) and Todd Tillis (NC) - refuse to vote for him unless he confirms in writing that Trump’s $1.8B anti-weaponization fund is dead.

In both cases, the nominations have been hobbled by questions regarding President Trump’s long running obsession with the 2020 election. As a result and playing to an audience of one, during his confirmation hearing Clayton refused to acknowledge that Joe Biden won the election. This led some Democrats who initially favored him to sour on his nomination.

Blanche’s nomination has likewise remained stalled because he oversaw the creation of a controversial fund which would have allowed payouts to those convicted of J6 crimes. The fund also included a controversial addendum barring the IRS from conducting audits against Donald Trump and his family members.

Cornyn and Tillis, both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Blanche their support for his nomination hinges on whether the DOJ states in writing that the fund is dead and cannot be resurrected. So far the DOJ has not been willing to offer the Senators this assurance.

When he is sworn in, Clayton will inherit not only all 18 intelligence agencies but Trump’s fixation with the 2020 election.

Blanche may still get confirmed but even if he doesn’t, he will remain Acting AG for the rest of Trump’s term. This is thanks in part to a precedent set in the Biden administration when his Labor Secretary Julie Su could not get confirmed by the Senate but remained in the role of Acting Secretary for 22 months regardless.

It is worth noting that for all the focus on the 2020 election and the $1.8B weaponization fund, one thing that has not held up Blanche’s nomination is the way he mishandled the Epstein case. According to his predecessor, Blanche was in charge of the case and disastrous roll-out of the files - many of which remain sealed; and while he met with Ghislaine Maxwell hours before she was transferred to a low security prison, he consistently refused to meet with Epstein survivors until during his confirmation hearing when Tillis pushed him to do so. Even then, he met with them reluctantly leading the victims and their families to described the meeting as not only brief but “a dismissive, patronizing, and highly performative ‘box-checking’ exercise.”

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 1996 Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed into law, the Line Item Veto Act. The act, which passed with bipartisan support, codified the power of the president to strip pork and wasteful spending from legislation passed by congress.

Two years later, in Clinton v City of New York, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 the act was unconstitutional because it violated the Presentment Clause found in Article I , Section 7 of the Constitution. The Court interpreted the clause to give the president the power to approve or reject a bill passed by Congress, not the ability to amend it by ‘crossing out’ certain portions, before signing the rest into law. As a result, the Court ruled the act was a violation of separation of powers.

Today, following former Senator Lindsey Graham’s funeral, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will meet with Senators on Capitol Hill to advocate for a bill the Senator favored that gives the president the power to impose tougher sanctions on Russia. The bill, which has been renamed the ‘Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026,’ has 62 co-sponsors, 22 of whom are Democrats, and is expected to pass by a wide-margin.

The bill is not, however, without controversy. Among Democrats who oppose it, one of the primary concerns is that the bill is a Trojan Horse. For a time, Trump resisted Graham’s pressure to introduce secondary sanctions on those countries who purchase Russian oil and gas. Graham, and the bills supporters, were able to sweeten the deal by insuring the language in the bill allows the president expansive tariff authority.

As Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), noted, the bill is so broad and vague that the president may be able to abuse it and potentially increase tariffs on other partners and allies. Likewise, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oreg.) and Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) wrote that “it is extremely dangerous to give Trump massive new tariff powers, particularly after we’ve seen the disastrous impacts of his corrupt, chaotic, and inflationary tariff spree.”

There are other valid concerns about the legislation, including the fact the bill is unprecedented to the extent it marks the first time Congress has authorized the use of tariffs as a geopolitical weapon to punish secondary countries (India, China, etc.) rather than as a means to address trade issues.

In the 1990s, Congress tried to cede a substantial part of their power to legislate to the president. If the Court hadn’t intervened , the president would likely retain this power.

If Congress today outsources a substantial part of its responsibility for trade and tariffs to the president, it is not clear the Court will intervene in the same way. They may, after all, not long ago they curbed his power to impose tariffs in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. This 6-3 decision, however, should be a reminder to lawmakers about how critical it is that legislation is carefully written and tailored to insure that in trying to support Ukraine, and in remembrance of a colleague, they do not end up stoking a more significant constitutional crisis.

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

Just as President Trump's temporary 10% tariffs expired at 12:01 a.m. today, they were replaced with new 10-12.5% duties. The new round of tariffs were imposed on more than 59 countries, plus the 27 nations that make up the European Union [EU]. Trump did this under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1947, citing concerns about forced labor.

In reporting the news today, most outlets accurately noted that far from having real concerns about forced labor, this was in fact a “work-around” drummed up by the White House; a “sham” effort to end-run around the Supreme Court (which stripped him of his broad tariff authority earlier this year) and Congress (which under has the sole power to tax under Article I).

So far, the administration has not produced evidence of force labor practices in these nations, many of which are sensitive to these types of issues.

Just hours after the tariffs went into effect, Trump took to Truth Social and proposed another reason for imposing tariffs on the EU countries. Instead of focusing on forced labor, he announced a Section 301 investigation into the fines the EU imposed on U.S. tech-companies such as Apple, Meta, Amazon, Google. He argued that if they are not reversed, “substantial tariffs” will be placed on EU countries as soon as possible.

The fines he is referencing were imposed by the European Commission which is the primary antitrust enforcer of the EU. The penalties were levied under EU antirust rules and the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Google, for instance, was fined for favoring its own services over competitors in search results and the Google Play store.

Section 301 allows the U.S. to investigate unfair or discriminatory foreign trade practices and apply tariffs if they are evidenced. The fines Trump is referencing regarding these companies have nothing to do with unfair trade practices, they have to do with anti-trust.

In the meantime, we are still waiting to see evidence of forced labor in the supply chains of the almost 80 countries (including the EU) tariffed early this morning.

Anytime we talk about tariffs it is important to underscore that they are not paid by the countries in question, they are taxes imposed on Americans. Moreover, they are taxes Americans will be forced to pay at a time when large majorities are already frustrated by the higher cost of everything from gas to groceries.

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

Yesterday in the House, 205 Democrats joined together to vote against the National Defense Authorization Act [NDAA]. Just 6 Democrats crossed party lines to vote with Republicans, allowing the bill to pass narrowly by a vote of 216-212.

This follows a unified vote by Senate Democrats on July 14 to block the 2027 NDAA from coming up for consideration. Because the bill needed 60 votes, Democrats were able to successfully block it.

As a result, Republicans are accusing Democrats of ‘playing politics’ with the NDAA. This was the case Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) made when he appeared on Balance of Power this afternoon.

I was asked to respond to Budd’s charge of Democratic ‘politicization.’ My response is included in the video at the top of the page, along with a few additional talking points for Democrats on the receiving end of this charge:

* The NDAA was first enacted for in 1961 and has been passed every year since.

* This, however, is not a normal year.

* The Trump administration is requesting $1.5T in defense/military spending next year. This is the most ever requested in U.S. history; at a time when the U.S. already spends more on defense than any other nation in human history.

* They are asking for this much without off-sets at a time when the national debt is almost $40T.

* The debt now exceeds 139% of the U.S. (GDP).

* Funding a $1.5 trillion military budget would add an estimated $500 billion to $600B to an already ballooning debt

* Moreover, they are asking for this much at a time when the U.S. is in a war of the president’s choosing that we are not winning against an adversary that spends far less on its military?

* The Iran War is both unauthorized and wildly unpopular.

* Democrats are right to be concerned that supporting the NDAA would amount to giving President Trump a blank check to continue the war without congressional authorization and almost no public support.

* The charge of politicization is designed to focus attention away from critical issues such as those above.

* Speaking of the charge of politicization, the bill as currently written includes many ‘poison pills’ such as restricting transgender healthcare, making it easier to carry private firearms on military bases, and voter citizenship mandates from the SAVE America Act.

* Section 219 of the bill establishes the U.S.-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative that deepens military entanglement between the two nations without substantial congressional and/or public debate

The FY 2027 NDAA may yet pass, but in standing against it, Democrats are on the right side of history.

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

This afternoon, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee to defend the Trump administration’s $87B supplemental spending request.

The request includes $67B to cover the increasing costs of the Iran War. A War which, Hegseth said has cost $37.5B so far.

Their testimony comes after a weekend when American’s witnessed the deaths of three service members, bringing the death toll of American military personnel in this conflict to 17, not to mention the injuries of countless more. Those killed this weekend include: 19 year old Pfc. Isabella Gonzales, of Texas; 25 year old 1st Lt. Tyler Feehan from Hawaii; and 30 year old Army Sgt. Michael Emmanuel Swinton of North Carolina. Their bodies are scheduled to be returned to Dover Air Force Base tomorrow.

Prior to the hearing, I spoke on Bloomberg’s Balance of Power about the request being made by the Trump administration for additional funding. The conversation turned in part to a question of (1) whether we are ‘winning’ this war and (2) whether the Iranian stranglehold on the Strait could have been predicted?

(1) Are we winning the war? No

In the wake of the deaths of the fallen, Trump has repeated that Iran has “lost everything almost militarily”; an idea repeated by Hegseth during his testimony today. It is a mantra the administration has repeated numerous times since the war began (i.e., ‘Iran no longer has offensive capability,’ ‘Iran’s navy has been decimated,’ etc.) If we obliterated Iran, how is it possible they have retained the capacity to kill American soldiers, lash out at our Gulf allies, and hit so many US military structures?

(2) Could Iran’s control of the Strait have been predicted? Yes

Since the Iranian Revolution, every US president until Trump has resisted the pressure to go into Iran in part because their ability to disrupt traffic in the Strait has been well known for decades. Moreover, Article V of the MOU that the US signed and the President, Vice President, and Defense Secretary touted (and which has now imploded) included language which provided Iran with a legal and operational foothold in the Strait.

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