“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

Elise Stefanik, once considered a front-runner for Donald Trump’s vice presidential slot and more recently tapped as the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, has been asked to withdraw from the nomination. The directive came directly from Donald Trump, urging her to return to the House of Representatives — a move that has left many observers puzzled, especially since Stefanik had already begun a farewell tour of her district.

This surprise reversal raises questions about the strategic reasoning behind Trump’s decision. The timing, the political stakes, and the looming legislative calendar all appear to be key components in a much larger game of congressional chess.

A central concern appears to be a special election in Florida. Polling data from Fabrizio Ward — helmed by Trump’s trusted pollster Tony Fabrizio — shows the Republican candidate with only a three-point lead in a district that Trump carried by 30 points in the last election. The narrowing margin is attributed not just to candidate quality, but also a significant financial disparity: Democrats have outspent Republicans by over $8 million. This disparity has translated into heavier air traffic and visibility for the Democratic challenger.

Speculation suggests Trump may be trying to protect the Republican majority in the House, fearing it could be further weakened by Stefanik’s departure. But some political watchers — myself included — argue that this explanation is too simplistic and out of step with Trump’s usual political instincts.

A more intricate and possibly more compelling reason involves legislative mechanics in New York. Stefanik has not officially resigned from the House. If she had, Governor Kathy Hochul — who, as a Democrat, has little incentive to rush — would have 90 days to call a special election. Starting that clock now would push any vote into late June, possibly beyond the key reconciliation package deadline. That seat, currently held by Stefanik, could be unavailable during crucial legislative moments.

Further complicating the issue, a proposed bill in the New York State legislature would allow the governor to delay special elections until the next general election. If passed, this would effectively remove Stefanik’s seat from the House until 2026, robbing Republicans of a vote not only for the rest of this year but most of next year as well.

This development underscores how thin the Republican majority truly is. Stefanik stepping away — even temporarily — represents a potentially significant loss in the vote count. With both the House and Senate reportedly aligning this week on legislative priorities, every vote counts more than ever.

Stefanik, having exited Republican leadership and publicly prepared for her transition to the UN role, now finds herself in a politically awkward position. She will likely need a face-saving path back into House leadership — an effort that could trigger even more internal headaches for the GOP.

Whether this pivot was prompted by a cold read of Florida polling numbers or a strategic maneuver to preserve legislative power, the consequences are clear: political timing and control of congressional votes are dictating decisions at the highest levels of Republican leadership.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:00:20 - Elise Stefanik Asked to Withdraw

00:08:03 - Interview with Michael Cohen

00:25:41 - Update

00:27:28 - Student Visa Deportations

00:30:11 - HHS Job Cuts

00:31:48 - MS-13 Leader Arrested

00:35:47 - Interview with Michael Cohen, cont.

01:19:12 - Wrap-up

This week, something truly surreal happened — or was revealed to have happened — thanks to, of all people and places, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic. He was added to a Signal group chat that included essentially all of the national security members from Donald Trump’s cabinet. It’s one of the most Veep-like scandals we've seen in a long time. I even saw one joke online that the person who added him must have thought he was Jonah from Veep.

Now, I’ve got one big point to make, and then a few smaller ones. Here’s the big one upfront: Mike Waltz screwed up. Badly. This isn’t just an oopsie — you don’t create a Signal group discussing bombing the Houthis in Yemen and accidentally add someone like Jeffrey Goldberg. You don’t add your mom. You don’t add your college roommate. And you absolutely do not add Jeffrey Goldberg.

If you’re not familiar with Goldberg, he’s a longtime media figure who played a pretty colorful role in the lead-up to the Iraq War and has since become one of the most vocal Trump antagonists in mainstream media. The Atlantic — once a home for serious feature writing — is now almost entirely a laundering house for anti-Republican takes. So when you add that guy to your Signal group, you should never be trusted with a phone again. Seriously.

That’s the main takeaway. But I’ve got three smaller points that I think are worth diving into.

First, let’s talk about Jeffrey Goldberg himself. If you’ve ever felt misled in the lead-up to the Iraq War, you might want to revisit some of his early work — he was one of the people laying down those breadcrumbs. And in this latest piece for The Atlantic, where he reveals the Signal chat — including screen grabs of Pete Hegseth, JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Scott Bessent, Stephen Miller, and others — he goes dark on the details when it comes to what he describes as military plans.

He claims they discussed confidential strategies about striking the Houthis in Yemen, and if this had come from anyone else, I might believe it. But it’s Jeffrey Goldberg. So, I don’t know. The fact that it was him added to the group is what gives the Trump camp’s defense — that there was no classified info shared — any credibility. Still, how does this even happen? And if someone was dumb enough to add Goldberg, were they also dumb enough to drop classified intel in an unsecured chat? Possibly.

Second, let’s talk about Signal. It’s an encrypted messaging app, popular with journalists and hackers for a reason. It’s end-to-end encrypted, meaning messages are harder to intercept. But security depends on the user. MG, an InfoSec expert and a listener of this show, had a great thread on X explaining how to actually use Signal securely. It involves checking secure keys to verify identities — something that clearly wasn’t done here.

Then there’s Ryan McBeth, who made a solid point in a recent video: secure systems are only as effective as the people using them. If secure lines are too clunky or inconvenient, people won’t use them correctly. His take? Issue secure smartphones to everyone dealing with national secrets. Using consumer apps like Signal just isn’t enough.

Lastly, and this is the closest thing to original reporting I have on this: Signal is the app of choice for Trump-world. Everyone I know who’s interacted with the Trump campaign or administration did so over Signal. So it’s no surprise that this chat happened there.

That’s what I’ve got on this whole Signal debacle. We’ll see where it all goes from here.

Chapters

00:00:00 - The Signal Scandal

00:12:40 - Intro and Florida’s Special Election

00:17:52 - Interview with Kirk Bado

00:22:16 - Interview with Kirk Bado (post-sports talk)

01:01:43 - Update

01:02:34 - Congressional Republicans Facing Budget Standoff

01:04:19 - Russia and Ukraine Navigational Agreements

01:06:28 - Direction of USA Poll

01:10:18 - Interview with Matthew Frank

01:40:09 - Wrap-up

Chuck Schumer is in hot water with progressives after supporting a GOP stopgap funding bill aimed at preventing a government shutdown. Many on the left see this as a strategic blunder, arguing that he surrendered leverage to Trump. Progressive groups like Indivisible have publicly called for Schumer’s resignation, and moderate Democrats, such as Charlotte Clymer, have led donor boycotts, amassing over 25,000 signatures.

Schumer’s defense? He argues that preventing a shutdown was the "lesser of two evils," protecting the party from greater damage under Trump. However, his attempts to quell the outrage — including appearances on CBS Morning News and The View — have done little to shift the narrative. His decision to cancel book tour events amid protests underscores just how serious the backlash has become.

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

The biggest problem? His critics don’t appear to have a clear plan for what comes next. If Democrats truly want Schumer out, they must follow through — otherwise, they risk looking weak and divided at a critical political moment.

Polling numbers paint a bleak picture for Democrats. Both CNN and NBC report that the party’s approval rating sits between 27% and 29%, a stark decline from previous cycles. With about 40% of the country identifying as Democrats, that means at least 11-13% of them are unhappy with their own party.

Data analyst David Shor’s research further complicates the narrative. His analysis of the 2024 election challenges the idea that low voter turnout hurt Democrats. Instead, Shor suggests that even with maximum turnout, Trump still would have won by nearly five points — a sobering reality for the left.

The party’s problems are multifaceted: Independents aren’t sold on the Democratic agenda, progressives feel sidelined, and moderates are frustrated with leadership. Right now, the party’s best hope appears to be waiting for Trump to wear out his welcome with the American public. But that’s not a strategy — it’s wishful thinking.

The most surprising shift in this political moment? Donald Trump’s growing appeal to economic progressives. Recent discussions in leftist circles highlight Trump’s stances on issues like the carried interest loophole (a tax policy long criticized by progressives), trade protectionism and tariffs, and economic populism.

Journalist Batya Ungar-Sargon even went on Bill Maher to declare herself a “MAGA leftist,” arguing that Trump has done more for the progressive economic agenda than Democratic politicians have. While many on the left may dismiss this claim, the fact remains: Trump is successfully appealing to disaffected progressives, a major threat to Democrats who rely on that voter base.

Meanwhile, JD Vance, a key figure in Trump’s political circle, is emerging as an heir apparent, pushing an even more economically populist agenda. If Democrats don’t reclaim these issues, they risk ceding major ground in 2026 and beyond.

At the heart of this moment is a clear message: Democrats must decide whether they are serious about their internal fights. Whether it’s Schumer’s leadership or a broader strategic pivot, they can’t afford half-measures. If they challenge Schumer, they must see it through. If they oppose Trump’s growing influence, they must present a compelling alternative — not just react to him.

Every second spent in an intra-party squabble is a moment not spent rallying the country behind a clear vision. And as Democrats bicker, the house is on fire.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:03 - Schumer Facing Backlash and the Future of the Democratic Party

00:03:55 - Interview with Isaac Saul

00:50:53 - Update

00:53:16 - Justice Roberts’ Comments on Trump

00:56:00 - Trump and Putin’s Meeting

01:01:00 - JFK Files To Be Released

01:02:55 - Interview with Tara Palmeri

01:25:53 - Wrap-up

Schumer blinked. House Democrats are furious. But there will be more on that tomorrow.

While the dust settles, I’m joined by returning guest ettingermentum to dive deep into the best and worst winning presidential campaigns. We rank every campaign from 1964 to 2024: Who ran the best campaigns, who completely fumbled, and which elections had the biggest long-term impact. Ettingermentum previously put together a two-part series ranking these campaigns, and I, naturally, had to make his own. So, we go back and forth, comparing notes, debating rankings, and making the case for why certain campaigns deserve more credit (or less).

Justin’s Rankings

S-Tier:

* 2008 (Obama)

* 1984 (Reagan)

A-Tier:

* 1992 (Clinton)

* 2024 (Trump)

B-Tier:

* 1972 (Nixon)

* 1996 (Clinton)

C-Tier:

* 1968 (Nixon)

* 1980 (Reagan)

* 1976 (Carter)

* 2000 (Bush)

D-Tier:

* 1964 (Johnson)

* 1988 (Bush)

* 2004 (Bush)

* 2012 (Obama)

F-Tier:

* 2016 (Trump)

* 2020 (Biden)

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:01:04 - Schumer Won’t Block Spending Bill

00:03:43 - Ranking Winning Political Campaigns, Part 1

00:48:26 - Update

00:49:21 - Mayor Pete Not Running For Senate

00:52:45 - Probationary Federal Employees Rehired, Judge Says

00:54:56 - Birthright Citizenship Battle

00:59:00 - Ranking Winning Political Campaigns, Part 2

01:36:49 - Wrap-up