Let’s talk about Liberation Day — and more importantly, how it’s going to end. Back in April, Trump rolled out what looked like a trade war on steroids: a flurry of tariffs aimed at countries big and small, with no clear structure except for one thing — disruption. It was pitched as a three-pronged strategy. First, if you want to sell into the U.S., we should be able to sell into your markets too. Second, we need to re-onshore American manufacturing. And third — and let’s be honest, this was the loudest part — Trump wins.

For a minute, it wasn’t clear whether this was a real attempt to fundamentally restructure trade or just a way to set the stage for a bunch of “deals” later. The tariffs went out, the clock started, and everyone was told they had until August to make a deal or face serious costs. And yet, here we are in mid-July with just two completed agreements: Vietnam and the UK. None of the big players — China, the EU, Japan, Canada, Mexico — are done. So the question becomes, what’s the endgame?

Here’s what I’ve been told: the White House is prepping a three-phase process that’s all about creating the appearance of momentum. Phase one is joint statements — political handshake documents, not legally binding deals. These are meant to say, “Hey, we’re working on it, don’t hit us with the tariffs yet.” It’s what they did with the UK, and it’s what they want from everyone else by early August. These aren’t trade agreements. They’re vibes.

Phase two is an interim agreement — maybe 40 to 50 pages, with some of the real trade language baked in. This is where you’ll start seeing things like rules of origin pop up — basically, making sure countries like China can’t skirt tariffs by routing goods through friendlier ports. It’s technical, it’s dry, and it takes time, but it’s a necessary step toward real enforcement.

And phase three, the big one, comes way down the road — probably after the midterms. These are the actual full trade agreements, hundreds of pages long, with all the boring but essential rules locked in. But here’s the twist: if you think countries will bother going through phase two and three after they’ve already locked in the tariff rate during phase one, you’re missing the enforcement tool — Section 232. The White House is making it clear: if you slack off, we’ll start making noise. We’ll investigate. We’ll embarrass you. Think Mexican tomatoes — everybody knows they’re breaking the rules, and we’ve just been letting it slide. But not anymore.

So when all these joint agreements start rolling out at the end of this month, remember what they are: theater. The deals are political stunts to buy time, stabilize markets, and let Trump declare victory. The real work — the real meat — comes later. And that’s how Liberation Day ends. Not with a bang, but with a bunch of bullet-pointed PDFs.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:05 - How does Liberation Day end?

00:16:24 - Interview with Jack Gamble

00:41:30 - Update

00:41:46 - Epstein Discharge Petition

00:50:44 - Virginia Polls

00:52:18 - Rescissions Package Passage

00:53:36 - Interview with Jack Gamble (con't)

01:15:25 - Wrap-up

Andrew Cuomo is still trying to matter.

That’s the clearest takeaway from his latest appearance — a campaign reboot so empty and unconvincing it bordered on parody. After blowing a 60-point lead in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor to Zohran Mamdani, Cuomo continues to operate as if he didn’t just have — and squander — his best shot. It wasn’t a close race. It wasn’t an upset. It was a humiliation, and it made Mamdani a star. Cuomo didn’t just lose; he handed the spotlight to the person who beat him.

What’s most baffling is Cuomo’s unwillingness to run as anything other than himself. His latest ad is a watered-down version of Mamdani’s campaign. Mamdani talked to people across the city about affordability — and even if his ideas were divisive, they were ideas. Cuomo’s pitch? Affordability. No vision. No contrast. Just a stale echo of a message he neither originated nor sharpened. If Cuomo wanted to offer something Mamdani couldn’t, he had options. He could’ve leaned into public safety, into the fear felt by many New Yorkers. He could’ve campaigned from a synagogue, framed himself as the candidate who would safeguard Jewish communities, and tied Mamdani to the left wing of the party in a way that forced a choice. Instead, we got nothing.

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

There’s no attack line, no clear point of differentiation. Cuomo could’ve said: this is de Blasio 2.0. He could’ve framed Mamdani as a performance artist backed by a failed administration. He didn’t. Instead, he gave voters a lifeless, mimicry-driven campaign with no policy edge. And that brings us to what he is actually running on: his name. For a sliver of voters — the “Cuomosexuals” who liked Mario, liked Andrew, maybe even liked Chris — that might be enough. But for everyone else, Cuomo looks like a man clinging to a legacy that no longer serves him.

This also highlights why “Stop ‘X’ Candidate” movements almost never work. Ego ruins coordination. Eric Adams isn’t dropping out — he’s the sitting mayor. Cuomo still acts like running is beneath him. Curtis Sliwa isn’t a serious enough contender to pull votes in a general election. And despite the specter of Mamdani's ideology frightening national Democrats, no consensus candidate has emerged. If there were a moderate Republican hedge fund type — pro-choice, socially liberal — that person could shake things up. But they don’t exist here. Not this cycle.

Ultimately, national Republicans are thrilled. They see Mamdani as a gift. Mike Johnson and Donald Trump will seize on his victory to cast New York as the face of socialism in America — a symbol of excess, decline, and failed progressivism. It’s a setup for the midterms. They’re ready to prey on any misstep, real or imagined. And unless something changes fast, the ‘Stop Zohran’ movement isn’t materializing. Not because it couldn’t — but because no one in the race knows how to make it happen. Cuomo had his chance. He whiffed.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:37 - Cuomo Stays in NYC Race

00:11:36 - Update

00:12:05 - Inflation Report

00:15:26 - Recissions Package

00:18:45 - Israel

00:19:55 - Interview with Emily Jashinsky

00:59:15 - Wrap-up

As the 2026 election cycle takes shape, three stories signal how the political terrain is shifting: the return of Iowa to early-state relevance, the emergence of an independent challenge in Nebraska, and the Republican Party’s willingness to get aggressive — fast.

Iowa Democrats are pushing to reclaim their first-in-the-nation status — and they’re doing it with or without national party approval. Senator Ruben Gallego is already promoting visits, and the message is clear: Iowa is back. For Democrats, this matters. The state has long served as a proving ground for insurgent campaigns, offering low costs, civic-minded voters, and a tight-knit media ecosystem. Barack Obama’s 2008 breakthrough began in Iowa for a reason. It rewards organization, retail politics, and real ground games.

The party’s 2024 decision to downgrade Iowa was framed as a gesture to Black voters in states like South Carolina and Georgia. In reality, it was a strategic retreat by Joe Biden to avoid a poor showing. That backfired when Dean Phillips forced an awkward New Hampshire campaign and Biden had to rely on a write-in effort. Now, Iowa’s utility is being rediscovered — not because it changed, but because the party's strategy failed. For candidates who want to win on message and mechanics, Iowa remains unmatched.

In Nebraska, Dan Osborne is trying to chart a different kind of path — not as a Democrat, but as an independent with populist instincts. Running against Senator Pete Ricketts, Osborne is leaning into a class-focused campaign. His ads channel a blue-collar ethos: punching walls, working with his hands, and taking on the rich. He doesn’t have to answer for Biden. He doesn’t have to pick sides in old partisan fights. He just has to be relatable and viable.

That independence could be Osborne’s biggest asset — or his biggest liability. His support for Bernie Sanders invites the question: is he a true outsider, or a Democrat in disguise? Sanders has always caucused with Democrats and run on their ticket. Osborne will have to prove he can remain politically distinct while tapping into a coalition broad enough to win in a deeply red state. Nebraska voters might give him a chance, but they’ll need a reason to believe he’s not just another version of what they already know.

And then there’s the tone of the campaign itself. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is already running attack ads that border on X-rated. A recent spot reads aloud hashtags from a sexually explicit tweet in a bid to link opponents with cultural extremes. The strategy is clear: bypass policy, bypass biography — go straight for discomfort. Make voters associate the opposition with something taboo. Make the election feel like a moral emergency.

These tactics aren’t about persuasion. They’re about turnout. They aim to harden the base, suppress moderates, and flood the discourse with outrage. The fact that it’s happening this early suggests Republicans see 2026 as a high-stakes cycle where no race can be taken for granted. And if this is how they’re starting, the tone by next summer could be even more toxic.

All of this — Iowa’s return, Osborne’s challenge, the NRSC’s messaging — points to a midterm cycle already in motion. The personalities are distinct. The tactics are evolving. But the stakes, as ever, are the same: power, perception, and the battle to define the political future before anyone casts a vote.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:01:56 - Midterm Ads

00:15:18 - Interview with Dave Levinthal

00:37:31 - Update

00:38:11 - Ken Paxton and the Texas Senate Race

00:43:02 - Congressional Districts

00:47:31 - Fed Chair

00:52:42 - Interview with Dave Levinthal (con’t)

01:11:22 - Wrap-up