David Hogg, the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, announced he’s spending $20 million through his group, Leaders We Deserve, to primary sitting Democratic incumbents. He’s targeting safe-seat veterans, mostly older members, and it’s kicking off a full-blown internal fight.

DNC chair Ken Martin isn’t having it. He’s proposing a rule that would ban DNC leaders from participating in partisan primaries — meaning Hogg would either have to step down or drop the activist role. The rule’s set to be debated at the DNC’s August meeting, and Hogg’s already digging in, saying he’ll fight to stay. Martin’s also announced a $1 million-a-month allocation to state parties, saying the DNC needs to decentralize. The real translation? Tension is so high they’re trying to buy unity.

But here’s the thing — I actually think Hogg is right. The Democratic Party would benefit from some turnover. There are plenty of incumbents who have grown comfortable, complacent, and maybe even a little out of step. At the same time, that’s only half the issue. Because the problem with tossing out incumbents is you need to replace them with winners. These older Democrats have won election after election, and that’s not something you just replicate by parachuting in a 24-year-old with a TikTok following and a podcast. Safe seats aren’t invincible. Primaries can backfire. And while I’m all for change, I’m also for winning.

The larger problem here is that you can’t be both the referee and the quarterback. If you’re helping to write the rules for how the party operates, you don’t get to break them for your own political goals. It’s not about silencing voices — it's about basic conflict of interest. If the DNC is supposed to be the governing body that creates a level playing field, its leaders can’t be in the middle of bloodying that field themselves.

Hogg was already a controversial pick. He’s got detractors inside and outside the party. He’s drawn criticism not just from Republicans or centrists, but even from fellow gun control activists. The fact that this move feels more like a campaign than a strategic plan doesn’t help. It feels loud. It feels disruptive. And in a moment when Democrats are trying to project unity — especially heading into an election where every House seat could make or break their control — it feels reckless.

The reality is that American politics is in a narrow-band era. Gerrymandering, polarization, and party-line voting mean that major swings are less likely. Which makes every seat even more valuable. We’re not in a 60-seat blowout environment anymore. We’re in a +5, -5, maybe +15 cycle. That means replacing a proven vote-getter with someone untested — even in a “safe” district — can be dangerous.

So yeah, I think Hogg is right that the party needs to evolve. But I also think he’s wrong to do it this way. Because if it leads to chaos, to even a few avoidable losses, he’s not just risking some outdated Democrats — he’s risking the whole agenda. And if he’s not willing to see that, then maybe Ken Martin’s rule isn’t such a bad idea after all.

Check out Gabe’s reporting at The Free Press!

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:01:55 - DNC Confusion

00:05:43 - Interview with Gabe Kaminsky

00:25:39 - Update

00:25:58 - Ukraine Peace Deal

00:29:42 - Voter ID

00:31:24 - Canadian Election

00:36:40 - Interview with Gabe Kaminsky, continued

01:03:33 - Wrap-up

There’s a civil war happening inside the MAGA coalition, and unless you’re really in the weeds, you probably haven’t heard much about it. It’s not being covered seriously, either by the traditional media or the independent press. And that’s a shame — because it pits two foundational visions of conservatism against each other. On one side, you have Grover Norquist and his ironclad “no new taxes” pledge. On the other, you have Steve Bannon and his populist charge to eat the rich.

Norquist has spent decades making sure no Republican dares raise taxes. His philosophy is clear: low taxes are good for everyone, rich or poor, and raising them is political suicide. He’s survived every GOP iteration — from neocon war hawks to MAGA populists — by keeping that line firm. But now, Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” may include a tax hike on the wealthy. Norquist is sounding the alarm, warning that breaking this promise would be as foolish as George H.W. Bush’s infamous “read my lips” moment.

Meanwhile, Bannon doesn’t just want to raise taxes — he wants to send a message. He sees MAGA as a working-class movement, and taxing the rich is part of proving that Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the GOP’s old donor class no longer control the party. It’s the clearest philosophical fault line we’ve seen on the right in years. If the GOP embraces even a modest tax hike on the wealthy, it could mark the end of a Reagan-era consensus that has defined Republican politics for half a century.

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

And yet, barely anyone is talking about it. Not because it isn’t interesting, not because it isn’t important, but because media — mainstream and independent — is stuck on one setting: “trouble for Trump.” It’s a framing device. Every Trump story must either confirm that he’s a danger to democracy or a bumbling fool. Anything else? Not interesting enough to cover.

Steve Bannon, who’s all over mainstream shows like Real Time with Bill Maher and Stephen A. Smith’s podcast, is out here advocating a radical repositioning of the Republican tax platform — and the headlines are all about whether Trump should run for a third term. And I get it, that’s the clickier angle. But it’s also lazy. We’re watching tectonic plates shift, and we’re still playing with bumper stickers.

That’s not just a mainstream media problem, by the way. It’s an independent media problem too. There are great voices on Substack and elsewhere that have done real work to break free from traditional narratives. And yet, over the last few weeks, I’ve seen far too much content boil down to one question: “Is this an outrage? Yes or no?” And when the answer is always “yes,” you’re not informing anymore — you’re reinforcing.

My goal isn’t to register my opinion on every current thing. My goal is to give you something that still feels relevant five years from now. Something you can remember discovering here before it hit the mainstream. I’m not always going to say the thing that fits into someone’s ideological slot. That’s going to disappoint people sometimes. I get that. But I hope the tradeoff is worth it. Because if you’re giving me your time and maybe even your money, I owe you something rare. Something original.

Something honest.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:01:58 - MAGA’s Secret Civil War

00:19:35 - Update

00:21:05 - Signalgate 2.0

00:27:14 - Pope Francis

00:30:51 - Student Loan Debt Collection

00:34:50 - Interview with Dave Leventhal

01:13:34 - Canadian Election with Evan Scrimshaw

01:27:11 - Wrap-up

In a recent Oval Office meeting, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni sat across from Donald Trump as part of a European Union effort to navigate the ongoing trade turbulence. The meeting was cordial enough. Meloni emphasized transatlantic unity and expressed hope for deeper economic collaboration. Trump, however, was unmoved. He praised Meloni personally, but made his stance clear: the U.S. is not in a rush to finalize trade deals. According to him, tariffs are “making the United States rich,” and other countries want deals more than he does.

This exchange happened during the 90-day pause in Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs — a moment intended, at least in theory, to give global leaders time to negotiate. But what the meeting really signaled is that Trump views this pause as leverage, not compromise. Yes, he did lower EU import tariffs from 20% to 10%, but that move was largely a reaction to bond market jitters. When it comes to negotiating with Europe, he’s staying firm.

Meloni’s presence is notable. She’s a controversial figure in Europe — once derided by the American press as a far-right nationalist and compared to Mussolini. But in this moment, she’s being positioned as the EU’s Trump whisperer. She attended Trump’s inauguration. He’s reportedly fond of her. He even accepted an invitation to visit Rome. But none of that moved the needle in this meeting.

What Trump wants is access to European markets. But in European politics, protectionism isn’t just a policy — it’s a survival tactic. Leaders there know that anything perceived as selling out local interests could cost them their jobs. Italy, for example, has a trade surplus with the U.S., not because of anything shady, but because Americans genuinely love Italian exports: high-end fashion, food, luxury goods. We buy a lot from them. They don’t buy much from us. That’s not an imbalance that tariffs alone can fix.

So the real question is: what happens next? Trump has all but said he’s happy to wait everyone out. That leaves European economies in a holding pattern. It leaves small and medium U.S. businesses — especially those tangled up in international supply chains — in limbo. And it leaves Meloni with the unenviable job of being the friendly face of a negotiation that isn’t really moving.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:13 - Interview with Gabe Fleisher

00:23:00 - Update

00:23:36 - Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s Visit

00:27:44 - Birthright Citizenship Arguments

00:30:05 - FSU Shooting

00:31:47 - Interview with Gabe Fleisher, con’t

00:59:13 - Wrap-up

It was just last week when the Trump administration hit pause on its Liberation Day tariffs — except when it came to China. Not only were they excluded from the pause, they got slapped with additional hikes, escalating what had already started to look like an all-out trade war. Then came Saturday morning’s Customs and Border Patrol announcement, which seemed to undercut all of that: nearly 60% of Chinese exports, including smartphones, laptops, and semiconductors, were apparently exempt from the new tariffs.

So, what happened? Did the White House backtrack? Was this a walk-back in disguise? The administration scrambled to clarify. Their explanation: those goods are being set aside into their own “buckets” — alongside other key industries like cars and steel — for future, tougher action. These aren’t exemptions, they insist, just part of a long-term plan. The reason for the sudden PR push? According to Axios’ Mark Caputo, Trump simply doesn’t like the words “exemption” or “exception.” He felt too many were granted in his first term and didn’t want the headline suggesting he’d lost his edge.

But let’s be honest: This is hair-splitting. Whether you call them buckets or carveouts, the reality is a significant chunk of Chinese goods aren’t being hit right now, and the market knows it. The real question is whether the administration is buying time, recalibrating, or trying to thread the needle between tough-on-China optics and economic stability.

Saber Rattling, Delistings, and Peasant Talk

In the meantime, tensions are ramping up. The U.S. is now considering delisting nearly 300 Chinese companies from American stock exchanges — a move that’s part economic pressure, part political theater. The legal foundation? The Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, which requires financial transparency from foreign firms. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Senator Rick Scott are reportedly behind the push, with Trump expected to lean on executive orders to expedite the process if necessary.

Naturally, China isn’t taking this lightly. In response, they’ve begun blocking deliveries of Boeing jets, and the rhetoric has turned acidic. China's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office issued a statement saying, in part, “Let those peasants in the United States wail in front of five thousand years of Chinese civilization.” That’s not diplomatic posturing — that’s a full-throated nationalist flare-up, made more surreal by the fact that JD Vance himself had recently referred to Chinese laborers as “peasants” on Fox News.

And through all of this, both sides are playing the “we’re open to talks, but we won’t be the first to call” game. It’s juvenile, it’s geopolitical theater, and it’s exactly the kind of posture that leaves markets — and companies — dangling.

What Happens Next?

Here's where I land: I don’t think we’re going back to “normal” with China anytime soon. The issues the U.S. wants addressed — IP theft, forced joint ventures, restricted market access — aren’t things China’s going to give up easily, if at all. So yes, the tariffs might eventually get reshuffled or reduced. But the era of posturing, of economic nationalism, of strategic decoupling? That’s here to stay.

The polling shows Americans are broadly in favor of being tougher on China — until, of course, it hits them in the wallet. That’s where this whole thing could flip. For now, though, the administration seems fine dragging this out. Tariffs, carveouts, buckets, delistings — it’s all part of the same dance. And we’re still in the first few steps.

At least that’s this peasant’s opinion.

Chapters

00:00 - Intro

02:14 - US-China Trade War Continues

11:45 - Update

13:13 - AOC Fundraising Record

15:15 - Andrew Cuomo NYC Race

17:22 - Brian Kemp’s Senate Potential

22:22 - Interview with Tom Merritt

49:59 - Wrap-up

After several days of panic in the markets, the Dow Jones Industrial average is rebounding. Why? It seems as if the Liberation Day tariffs may be leading to new trade deals.

The market swoon and lack of clarity has put the Trump administration in the wilderness. Is the goal to really bring all trade deficits to zero? Do we want our children screwing together iPhones as a career? Or is this just a set up for Trump to schedule a month long rose garden signing ceremony where world leaders line up single file to welcome American exports?

Today, we talk to our logistics expert Big Jim and check in with J.D. Durkin to figure out whether Trump’s tariffs mark a shift toward isolation, or just a high-stakes negotiating move. Is this a reset of global trade, or just a pause before the next deal? We’re on the clock, because by the time this drops, the whole game might have changed.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:44 - Interview with Big Jim

00:43:02 - Update

00:45:09 - Supreme Court Decision Over Alien Enemies Act

00:48:30 - June 14th Military Parade

00:49:54 - House Democrat Seat Targets

00:52:34 - Interview with J.D. Durkin

01:35:18 - Wrap-up

“Liberation Day” has come and gone. The massive tariff announcement from the White House that landed just after markets closed on Wednesday. It’s a sweeping 10% universal tariff on all goods, effective Saturday, April 5th, with even higher rates for countries like China (34%), the EU (20%), Japan (24%), and an eyebrow-raising 46% for Vietnam. Cars assembled abroad? They’re getting hit with a 25% tariff starting May 3rd.

Put simply, the market didn’t take kindly to this. It’s been a financial bloodbath: the Dow fell 1,400 points (around 3.8%), with the S&P and NASDAQ down even more. Apple and Nvidia alone lost a combined $470 billion in value, and the dollar hit a six-month low. Investors are clearly spooked by what could be the beginning of a global trade war. I’m not an economist, and I plan to have some real-deal experts on the show next week to discuss this in more detail, but from where I sit, this feels like a high-stakes gamble.

Politically, this is an all-in move by Trump. If his critics are right, this could usher in financial ruin. But if the market recovers, prices stabilize, and jobs return, then maybe — just maybe — he’s onto something. The key indicators to watch: inflation and jobs. If grocery bills soar, he’s in trouble. If not, and if some manufacturing jobs make their way back to the U.S., this could be a paradigm shift.

We’re witnessing something that happens maybe once in a generation — one of America’s major political parties changing its stance on a foundational economic principle. The GOP, long champions of free trade, are now planting their flag in protectionist soil. I grew up associating tariffs with progressive, union-backed economic arguments. Yet here we are, with a Republican president pushing a policy that would’ve made progressives cheer in decades past.

Trump’s economic approach would have been seen as left-wing populism not too long ago. The idea that tariffs can be used to protect American jobs is not new, but seeing it come from the right is a dramatic turn. It makes this moment politically fascinating, even if it brings financial risk.

The big question remains: who’s right? Every economist I’ve ever read has warned against tariffs, citing global market efficiencies and the cost to consumers. But Trump is betting on a different equation — one where protecting American industries and reducing the trade deficit leads to long-term gains.

As I look at this from my seat, the numbers make me queasy. A 46% tariff on Vietnam because of a trade deficit calculation? That feels arbitrary at best. Aiming for a zero trade deficit with every nation doesn’t necessarily reflect economic reality. We’ll see how this unfolds, but for now, it’s a major inflection point in both economic policy and political identity.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro and Tariff Thoughts

00:09:29 - Interview with Karol Markowicz

00:25:00 - Update

00:26:39 - Eric Adams Goes Independent

00:30:10 - NSC Firings

00:33:11 - Senate Republican’s Budget Plan

00:37:28 - Interview with Karol Markowicz, continued

01:06:13 - Wrap-up

Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House is a detailed account of the unraveling within the Democratic Party, and it starts with a shocking reality: Co-authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes didn’t originally intend to write this book. The result is a work that skips over primaries but captures, in vivid detail, the implosion of Joe Biden’s re-election effort as 2024’s political battles came to a head.

Reading it, I was stunned at the depth of denial w ithin the Biden White House. The President’s mental decline — obvious in isolated public moments — was a constant behind the scenes. Everything from oversized fonts on cue cards to aides using Day-Glo tape to guide his steps in the White House painted a troubling picture. And no one, not even his closest confidants or family, could convince him to step aside.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive two bonus episodes a week, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

What emerges from Fight is a picture of a campaign built on delusion. Aides and strategists twisted themselves into knots to compensate for a candidate who was no longer capable of meeting the demands of the presidency. Biden's infamous “Where’s Jackie?” moment, where he searched for a deceased congresswoman, is only one of many jarring anecdotes.

Eventually, the dam broke. Chuck Schumer’s blunt conversation with Biden about waning Senate support coincided with Trump being shot in Butler — two seismic events on the same day. For all the chaos that defined the Biden campaign, that moment marked a pivot.

Kamala's Rise and the GOP Machine

Kamala Harris’s takeover of the Democratic ticket happened with surprising efficiency. Despite opposition from heavyweights like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, who preferred Gretchen Whitmer and wanted a mini-primary, Harris’s team moved quickly to shut down all challengers. They outmaneuvered everyone, including J.B. Pritzker’s billions, and solidified her position.

Still, old habits died hard. Many of the Biden-era staffers, including campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon, were kept on. It was a costly mistake. The same strategic paralysis that haunted Biden’s run persisted. One of the most telling moments? The botched attempt to land Kamala on Joe Rogan’s podcast — a micromanaged mess that ended with Trump getting the coveted spot instead.

In stark contrast, the Trump campaign is depicted as ruthlessly efficient. They knew their weaknesses (Trump’s tendency to force headlines) and their strengths (his appeal on unconventional platforms like Theo Von’s podcast). Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita emerge as the stars — people who knew how to play the game and win. Even a brief internal hiccup involving Corey Lewandowski was swiftly handled without much in the way of fallout.

The Scorecard: Who Rose, Who Fell

Fight functions as a political report card as much as a narrative. On the Democratic side, it's a tale of lost influence. Jen O'Malley Dillon, once considered a top operative, is portrayed as a non-responsive, bunker-minded leader. Barack Obama, too, takes a hit. Despite pulling the strings to push Biden off the ticket, he couldn’t get his preferred successor in place or move the needle on the campaign trail.

And that may be the most sobering takeaway. Obama, once the undisputed leader of the Democratic Party, couldn’t rally it. His influence is clearly waning — and the next Democratic president might not treat him with the reverence millennials once did.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, the power players are clear. Wiles and LaCivita are now kingmakers. Tony Fabrizio’s polling proved consistently accurate. Alex Bruesewitz reinvented Trump’s online presence for a younger generation. If Trumpism persists, these are the architects.

I strongly recommend Fight. Whether you’re a political junkie or just trying to make sense of how the 2024 election unfolded, it’s essential reading. Parnes and Allen provide not just insider details but clarity in the chaos.

Read it yourself. Then let me know what you think.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:01:20 - Fight Book Report and Analysis

00:28:13 - Update

00:29:35 - Marine Le Pen Sentenced, Fined, and Barred from Politics in France

00:32:37 - Tuesday Special Elections Preview

00:37:26 - Interview with Fight’s Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes

01:11:43 - Wrap-up