Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine, known for his outspoken advocacy, teams up with former U.S. President Donald Trump to dissect a recent Oval Office debacle that unraveled a crucial minerals-for-aid deal. They dive into the turbulent U.S.-Ukraine relationship, highlighting nostalgia for past support amid Russia's aggression. Tensions between Zelenskyy's hardball politics and U.S. foreign policy emerge, raising urgent questions about military aid and peace negotiations. Can they navigate these treacherous waters to secure stability?

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi recently released a set of documents titled the Epstein Files: Phase One, which were expected to shed new light on the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s extensive network and illicit activities. However, the heavily redacted documents primarily contained information already available to the public, leading to significant criticism.Following the document release, Bondi sent a stern letter to FBI Director Kash Patel, accusing the FBI’s New York field office of withholding thousands of pages of additional records related to the Epstein investigation. She stated that despite assurances that all Epstein-related files had been provided, she quickly learned of the existence of more material.Bondi demanded the release of all remaining records—documents, audio, and video—by 8 a.m. on February 28th. Additionally, she announced an internal investigation into the handling of these files and instructed Patel to propose personnel action within two weeks.The document release quickly turned into a social media firestorm. Several influencers, including Libs of TikTok owner Chaya Raichik, Mike Cernovich, Jessica Reed Kraus of House Inhabit, and Chad Prather, were photographed at the White House holding binders labeled Epstein Files Phase One.This sparked outrage, with many questioning why these influencers had early access to the files while they were not made publicly available online. Others, particularly those who have long followed the Epstein case, downplayed the release, arguing that these files contained little new information.The controversy extended beyond social media, as members of Congress expressed frustration over the handling of the files. The House Judiciary Committee mocked the situation by posting a fake link to the Epstein files—only to rickroll their audience. Meanwhile, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who is involved in declassifying public secrets, stated that she had not been provided access to the documents before their release, raising concerns about poor coordination within the Justice Department.The release of Phase One has left more questions than answers. While Bondi insists that additional documents exist and must be made public, the disorganized rollout has fueled skepticism. Some remain hopeful that new, previously unknown details about Epstein's network will eventually surface. For now, the public is left with confusing and frustrating news—but potentially more revelations on the horizon.Chapters* 00:00:00 - Introduction* 00:03:00 - Stephen A. Smith’s Potential Presidential Run* 00:16:12 - Keir Starmer* 00:19:51 - The Epstein Files Debacle* 00:24:10 - USAID Fallout* 00:25:55 - Interview with Claire Meynial on CPAC, Europe, and Ukraine* 01:02:09 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Sixteen years ago, CNBC commentator Rick Santelli stood on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and delivered an impassioned rant against federal plans to bail out struggling homeowners. “Do we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages?” he shouted, calling for a “Chicago Tea Party” to protest government intervention.That moment became the rallying cry for a movement that would reshape conservative politics, define opposition to the Obama presidency, and eventually evolve into the MAGA movement that has since won the White House twice.Lately, the Tea Party has been on my mind because of the way political movements are often dismissed by their opponents. In liberal circles, one word was frequently used to wave off the Tea Party: astroturf.“This isn’t a grassroots movement,” critics insisted. “It’s funded by billionaires to look like a populist uprising.” After all, it started on CNBC—hardly a blue-collar favorite.But that’s not the whole story. And now, in 2024, astroturfing accusations are being hurled in the opposite direction.Last week, Republican Rep. Rich McCormick of Georgia faced a hostile crowd at a town hall in Roswell. The moment (captured in a widely circulated video) showed Democrats in his district voicing their frustration, pushing back forcefully against GOP policies.In response, conservatives dismissed the backlash as manufactured outrage, a coordinated effort by the so-called “deep state” to rattle the Republican establishment.Sound familiar?To understand whether today’s Democratic anger is real or manufactured, it’s worth looking back at how the Tea Party took shape.While Santelli’s on-air rant is widely credited with sparking the Tea Party, grassroots opposition to Obama’s policies had already begun. Keli Carender, a blogger in Seattle, organized an anti-stimulus protest even before Santelli’s speech. Her February 2009 demonstration—dubbed the “Porkulus Protest”—drew about 100 people.But once Santelli’s rant went viral, Tea Party protests exploded across the country. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter helped coordinate events, and by April’s Tax Day, an estimated quarter-million people took to the streets in organized demonstrations. Conservative media played a crucial role in amplifying the movement. Fox News hosts like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity championed Tea Party causes, helping grow its ranks. Soon, prominent Republican figures lent their support, though the movement remained largely decentralized.By the summer of 2009, as Obamacare made its way through Congress, Tea Party activists shifted their strategy. Instead of street protests, they flooded town halls, confronting Democratic lawmakers with fiery opposition. Videos of these clashes—angry constituents challenging their representatives—became a defining image of the movement.And electorally, the Tea Party had teeth. While it failed to topple the Republican establishment entirely (Mitt Romney still won the 2012 nomination), it helped flip House seats and push the GOP further to the right.What does the Tea Party teach us about today’s Democratic opposition?* It’s never too early to be angry. Santelli’s rant came barely a month after Obama took office. Right now, Trump’s disapproval ratings are rising, but Democrats haven’t yet rallied around a singular issue.* Movements can make an impact—especially in the House. The Tea Party didn’t need to control the White House to change the political landscape. A handful of flipped seats can shift the balance of power.* Dismissing protests as ‘astroturf’ is risky. If the same kind of town hall showdowns seen in McCormick’s district begin happening elsewhere, they could turn into a trend.The Tea Party was fueled by a raw, pent-up anger over fiscal conservatism. Many conservatives felt betrayed by their own party—George W. Bush had campaigned on balanced budgets, only to expand deficits through wars and bailouts. Obama’s presidency, with its ambitious government programs, only amplified those frustrations.The question for Democrats now is: What’s their version of that anger?If it’s simply opposition to Trump, that’s not enough. Even figures like Elon Musk—despised by many progressives—aren’t sustainable political villains. “Musk sent another email” isn’t a battle cry that will mobilize voters in the long run.That’s why Democratic strategists should be tickled by what just happened in the House. They (impressively) passed a budget that, while avoiding direct mention of Medicaid, includes $880 billion in cuts overseen by the Energy and Commerce Committee—which just happens to control Medicaid.Why the cuts? Because fiscal hawks in the House need a way to offset the Trump tax cuts.For Democrats, that’s a classic, politically potent message: Republicans are cutting your Medicaid to give tax cuts to the rich.If they can harness that into a movement—one that gets people angry enough to show up at town halls, knock on doors, and vote—then history might just be repeating itself.Podcast Chapters & Timecodes* 00:00:00 – Introduction* 00:01:58 – The Tea Party’s Legacy and Lessons for Democrats* 00:14:55 – Dan Bongino Becomes FBI’s Second-in-Command* 00:19:15 – MSNBC’s Prime-Time Shake-Up & Network Struggles* 00:22:58 – NYC Mayor Eric Adams’ Re-Election Challenges* 00:26:27 – Interview with Brian Sack on Ukraine & DEI Policies* 01:05:28 – Wrap-Up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

One down, 47 to go.With Donald Trump’s first month in office coming to a close, we are seeing something that feels a bit more familiar. According to three recent polls, his approval rating is now underwater—meaning more people disapprove of him than approve. This is still essentially the same conversation we were having before. There are deeply entrenched beliefs on both sides, with some convinced he is doing a terrible job and others believing he is performing tremendously.Keep Politics Politics Politics alive! Get two bonus episodes each week! Upgrade to paid!The numbers reflect this divide. A CNN SSRS poll shows Trump’s approval at 47% with 52% disapproving. Similarly, a Reuters Ipsos poll reports 44% approval and 51% disapproval, while Gallup’s latest survey records a 45% approval and 51% disapproval. I have seen other numbers where he remains above 50% and in net positive territory, but the general trend suggests that the more people hear his name, the less they seem to like him.Sound familiar?At the heart of this, however, is the same issue that contributed to Joe Biden’s defeat: the economy. Economic fears and anxieties remain high, and now that people are reminded of both the speed and the sheer volume—both in quantity and loudness—of the Trump administration, there’s a sense of, “Ah, okay, here we go again.” If the economy rebounds, Trump could find himself in a very strong position. But if it does not, whatever mandate he might have had will quickly evaporate.It’s worth noting that we still have the majority of Trump’s first 100 days ahead of us, though you’d be forgiven for forgetting that as it feels like he’s been in office for six months. Chapters02:06 - Trump Approval Rating Down04:46 - Evan Scrimshaw on Why Canada Hates The US51:53 - Mitch McConnell Retirement54:05 - Kash Patel Confirmed57:37 - Zelenskyy To Sign Mineral Deal With US01:03:12 - Kevin Ryan This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Wait, what? What just happened? To who? When? And it just flipped when it landed? A 13th kid with a fourth woman? Does that have anything to do with the other thing? You know, the one that just happened. Or maybe that was last week… The first month of Trump 47 has felt more like 47 weeks than it has four, with a relentless barrage of executive orders, personnel decisions, and, let’s say, charitably unconventional accounting procedures that have kicked ant piles both foreign and domestic. And with all of that, much of what you read on social media, Substack, or in your podcast feed is likely very, very hyperbolic—or, if you’re on the conservative side of the aisle, particularly gleeful. My goal, however, is to ask a simple question every day: What actually matters? On this episode of the show, we’re going to talk to two people with vastly different perspectives on the political system. First, we have Gabe Fleisher, who writes the Wake Up to Politics newsletter and, even as a fresh college graduate, has probably forgotten more about political history and minutiae than the average voter has ever cared to learn. On the other end of the spectrum, we have John Teasdale, an entrepreneur and co-creator of The Contender card game, who intentionally disconnected himself from politics for the past year and has only just returned stateside.“Sure, Justin, I’ll enjoy both of those conversations. But what about me? What does that give me as a framework to understand what’s happening right now?” Well, to help with that, I want to dust off something that doesn’t usually get brought out in the political realm, but given the breakneck pace of news, I think it’s worth it. In 2013, WNYC’s On the Media program put out a helpful infographic titled the Breaking News Consumer Handbook. You’ve probably seen it during major events like shootings or tragedies, but with the flood of headlines right now, I think it’s worth revisiting its five core tenets and applying them to this moment.In the immediate aftermath of any major event, most news outlets will get it wrong. This is crucial to remember because, amid the deluge of information, you owe it to yourself to slow down. Wait a few days, maybe even a week, before getting worked up about something. Half-truths, gossip, and rumor fly out of every orifice in Washington, and with time, further context often clarifies the situation—or at least reveals whether it’s even newsworthy. Don’t you deserve the full set of facts before being led around by the nose by the outrage machine? I think you do. Don’t trust anonymous sources. Case in point: as I was recording, a story broke from NBC News stating that U.S. intelligence indicates Vladimir Putin isn’t interested in a real peace deal. The sources? Four anonymous sources—two congressional aides and two intel sources, presumably provided by those aides. The article essentially asserts that while Putin may negotiate with Trump, he’s not deterred from taking Ukraine in the long run. To which I say: da-doi. Unless you genuinely believed that Putin was going to apologize for invading Ukraine and promise never to do it again, this “news” adds no value. It doesn’t outline the parameters of a peace deal, Russia’s red lines, or any concrete details. It simply reiterates that Putin remains an authoritarian thug, which, let’s be real, even MAGA supporters acknowledge. The end of war is not a morality play—it’s about making decisions that stop people from dying. This story is calorie free by making a stupid point and not even using named sources to do it.Don’t trust stories that cite other media outlets as sources. This is a favorite trick of churn-media articles, particularly those designed to game Facebook’s algorithm. If you mostly get your news from social media, you’re consuming content optimized for engagement, not accuracy. These outlets often regurgitate information from elsewhere, making their legitimacy dubious at best. Fourth, and this one is more relevant to shootings, but still applicable…There is almost never a second shooter. In a broader sense, Occam’s razor applies—sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. While plenty of conspiracy theories have turned out to be true (COVID lab leak, Hunter Biden’s laptop, etc.), not everything that pops up on social media is exactly what it seems, especially when it comes to government spending. Right now, people are combing through federal expenditures, uncovering what might appear to be scandals. Give it time. Wait a few days before reacting and hitting retweet.Pay attention to the language the media uses. Phrases like “we are getting reports” could mean anything. “We are seeking confirmation” means they don’t have confirmation. “The news outlet has learned” means they have a scoop or are going out on a limb. Stick to fundamental journalism: a compelling lead, a nut graph that clearly outlines the news, and at least three on-the-record sources directly involved in the situation. If those elements aren’t there, take the story with a grain of salt. In truth, there isn’t as much actual news as the fire hose of content would suggest. There’s plenty of gossip, innuendo, and hot takes, and that’s before you get to people in the arena yelling at each other on social media. But real, capital-N news? That’s much rarer than it seems.Chapters00:00:00 : Introduction and Overview00:01:20 : Political Analysis and Current Events00:02:04 : Breaking News Consumer Handbook00:11:04 : Interview with Gabe Fleischer00:51:14 : Update on Ukraine-Russia Peace Deal00:57:02 : New York Mayor Eric Adams' Administration Turmoil01:00:03 : Elon Musk and Fort Knox Investigation01:01:51 : Interview with John Teasdale01:25:38 : Show Wrap-Up and Listener Support This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

I can think of no more romantic way for you to spend a quiet moment alone with your partner on this Valentine's Day than drawing a warm bath, throwing in some scented oils, and reading aloud the latest Politics, Politics, Politics post. "Great point, Justin," you can say to each other as you make longing eye contact and renew your commitment to one another. But it is in that spirit of passion that I tell you: somebody's gonna get f***ed — either the House or the Senate. This is a Republican problem, and we are in strange days. Normally, the People's House, which has a far higher headcount, operates with majorities of 10, 15, 20, maybe even 30 seats, at least in a bygone, un-gerrymandered era. In those situations, you could craft policy where some members of your own coalition wouldn't have to vote for it. The Republicans don’t have that luxury.Right now, the House majority is two. Two people. And reinforcements aren’t coming until April with the Florida special elections. We have no idea when the New York special election to replace Elise Stefanik will happen. The House wants to pass one big, beautiful bill with all of Donald Trump's agenda in it. The Senate doesn't want that. They would rather pass two bills. Over the last few days, as Lindsey Graham moved a budget bill out of the Senate, the message has been clear: if the House can't act, the Senate will. Meanwhile, the House, constantly scrapping for power because of its easily divided nature, is saying, "No, we're sending you one bill. You figure it out." And here’s the inside sauce on it: the reason the House wants one bill, many House Republicans don't like massive bills crammed with everything at once. They prefer voting on things individually. But Republicans can't afford to do that right now. They need members to vote against what they’ve pledged to vote for, and the only way they believe they can achieve that is by bundling multiple things together including some things that fussy members can’t not vote for.For example? Budget hawks who won’t raise the debt by one penny… are you not going to vote for border funding? Same for Border Warriors who want every illegal migrant out tomorrow along with their whole family… are you going to be an all-or-nothing puritan and not green light the tax cuts?The Senate sending two bills to the House is a problem for Republicans. The first bill, likely the border package, would pass easily. But when the second bill—probably tax cuts—comes around, budget hawks will balk. And if the House, Senate, and White House are all in Republican hands but fail to pass Trump's legislative agenda, that would be a disaster. The Senate's noise has some in the White House thinking the House is a lost cause. Yesterday, the House finally released a budget, and sources inside the chamber are unhappy. “The numbers are bad, campaign promises are broken, and member priorities are ignored,” As one source put it. "We need a speaker with big balls. In fact, I’d take (Elon’s) Big Balls over Mike Johnson’s any day."Which brings us to Speaker Johnson, the Hudsucker Proxy speaker. If you’ve never seen that movie, Tim Robbins plays a mailroom worker who gets unexpectedly elevated to CEO by a scheming board looking for a patsy. The movie ends with Robbins proving himself to be an exceptional CEO. Johnson would love for that to be his story. But the speakership in this situation is an impossible job. He can only afford to lose two votes, and one of them is already Thomas Massie. He got this job because, after Kevin McCarthy was ousted, every other candidate had at least four enemies. Johnson? He was just well-liked enough to slip through. Now, he's at the center of the storm.The House budget committee has angered members, and things are bleak. This doesn't mean the end, but it does mean they might have to split into two bills. If that happens, tax cuts might take a long time—or not happen at all. That’s a problem because tax cuts are a kitchen table issue. If Trump’s cuts aren’t in place by next year, it would be a massive failure. The number one reason people voted for Trump was to get inflation under control. If taxes go up, it’s a disaster.And the issue here is that there is no legislative North Star. Paul Ryan isn’t walking through that door. He was a legislative guy, a wonk. Right now, there’s no one like that in the House. And there’s certainly no one like that in the White House. And that’s where we land now. The big question? Considering all the noise that has been made by DOGE, does the idea of those savings factor into any of these budget talks?If not, then get ready for a bumpy ride with the first test being the expiration of government funding on March 14th. Chapters:- 00:00:00 - Introduction and Overview- 00:00:50 - Valentine's Day Special Opening- 00:01:19 - Discussion on House vs. Senate Republican Strategies- 00:02:38 - The House's Push for a Single Comprehensive Bill- 00:04:38 - Challenges in Passing Trump's Legislative Agenda- 00:07:27 - Interview with Matt Laszlo on Congressional Dynamics- 00:10:12 - Democrats' Internal Struggles and Strategy- 00:20:22 - Potential Government Shutdown and Democratic Response- 00:32:00 - Republicans' Legislative Challenges and Budget Issues- 00:39:00 - Lobbying Efforts to Influence Trump's Immigration Policies- 01:00:00 - Interview with Dave Leventhal on Lobbying and Immigration- 01:24:00 - Closing Remarks and Additional News Updates This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Donald Trump's second term does not look like his first. In his Super Bowl interview with Brett Baier, Trump admitted that back in 2017, he was a New York guy, a novice to Washington, D.C., and all but confessed that he stepped on every rake in sight. He appointed the wrong people, got caught up in the wrong traps, and was unable to effectively govern. To the casual observer, it may seem like not much has changed—Trump was causing chaos then, and he's causing chaos now. But this show understands the difference: Previously, chaos happened to him; now, he is the one orchestrating it. His agenda is taking direct aim at the centers of government he believes he was sent back to reform. Agencies long targeted by conservatives are now being affected—slashed, possibly shuttered. This is a direct assault on the structure of the federal government as it has been known, something many have promised but only Trump has aggressively pursued.If we can’t compare what we’ve seen over the last month to any prior sitting president, what historical precedents can we look to? I submit to you the year 1992 and three figures whose political strategies echo what we see in Trump today: Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, and Bill Clinton.First, Buchanan. No one brought the conversation about immigration into the modern presidential sphere quite like him. Though his 1992 challenge to incumbent George H.W. Bush was short-lived, his influence endured. Buchanan’s rhetoric on immigration laid the groundwork for the hardline stance Trump would take in 2016. One of his biggest issues was the interpretation of the 14th Amendment regarding birthright citizenship, arguing that the phrase "under the jurisdiction thereof" meant only legal citizens should have offspring automatically granted citizenship. Now, Trump is doing something Buchanan only talked about: actively challenging birthright citizenship.Next, Ross Perot. If there is one historical figure whose message about government size and spending echoes through Trump’s current actions, it is Perot. Running as an independent in 1992, Perot famously railed against the national debt, which then stood at $4 trillion—a fraction of today’s $34 trillion. His colorful metaphors, like calling the debt a "crazy aunt we keep in the basement," helped him connect with voters who felt Washington was bloated and inefficient. He championed the idea of running the government like a business—sound familiar? Both men also shared a deep distrust of federal agencies. Perot famously quit his campaign in 1992, alleging that the CIA had infiltrated his operation, convinced that President George H.W. Bush, a former CIA director, was behind it. One can only imagine a President Perot would have pursued intelligence reforms as aggressively as Trump is now targeting the Justice Department and FBI.Perot, however, never won. Nor did Buchanan. But one man did in 1992: Bill Clinton. Initially, I planned to focus on just Buchanan and Perot, but our friend Michael Cohen recently made a compelling case for why Trump’s current approach also parallels Clinton. While Clinton focused on large-scale economic policies, he also knew how to capture public attention with wedge issues—ones that were more symbolic than substantive but extremely popular. In 1996, he championed the V-chip, a device to block violent content on TV, and pushed for school uniforms to combat youth violence. Neither policy had a significant impact, but they polled above 70%, making them politically beneficial.Trump is using a similar playbook. His recent executive orders—banning men from women’s sports and bringing back plastic straws—affect relatively few people in practical terms, yet they are wildly popular. These 70-30 issues serve as the sugar that makes the medicine go down, keeping the public engaged while larger, more complex reforms take shape. They also bait his political opponents into fighting battles where he holds the high ground— Obi-Wan style.At its core, Trump’s approach today mirrors Clinton’s in how it connects emotionally with voters. Is there really much of a difference between “Make America Great Again” and “I feel your pain”?Chapters00:00:00 – Intro00:02:17 – Trump's Second Term: Chaos or Competence?00:04:12 – 1992 as a Parallel to Trump’s 47th Presidency00:15:30 – Update00:17:53 – Judicial Roadblocks Against Trump’s Agenda00:21:31 – International News: Ukraine and Gaza Updates00:26:12 – Guest Interview: Kirk Bado from National Journal 00:31:36 – The Looming Government Shutdown00:39:52 – The Media’s Role and Chilling Effects00:46:07 – Nancy Mace: Political Calculations or Genuine Outcry?01:16:45 – Closing Remarks This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

It’s a DOGE-eat-DOGE world.Before I get into my thoughts on DOGE—and I have quite a few—the reason I haven’t written much about it (we did touch on USAID in Wednesday’s update) is that I’m still wrapping my head around it.There’s a lot of noise surrounding DOGE, and beyond the clatter, it’s unclear exactly what’s happening. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is in the valley. They lost a big election, have no effective power in government for at least the next two years, and have been throwing a lot of spaghetti at the wall. Chuck Schumer was parading around with a Corona and lime when it looked like we were going to hit Mexico with 25% tariffs, and now, the focus of the last 72 hours has been Elon Musk and DOGE.Because DOGE sits at the center of a political noise machine, I tend to be cautious about jumping in while everything is still in motion.That being said, DOGE is a significant development. What they’re doing is something every Republican candidate in my lifetime has promised—and it may very well be illegal. We don’t know if they’re actually cutting the budget in the way they claim, nor do we know if anything they’re doing is truly unlawful. But the fact that both of those questions exist simultaneously is reason enough to take a deeper look.Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency—DOGE—was conceived during Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign and made official on January 20, 2025, the first day of Trump’s second term. However, it is not a formal cabinet department. Instead, it began under the U.S. Digital Service, which was rebranded as the U.S. DOGE Service, before being placed under the Chief of Staff’s office—likely to avoid transparency requirements. The stated goal of DOGE is to modernize federal technology and software to maximize government efficiency, with Musk claiming they aim to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget. Musk has admitted that if they say $2 trillion, they might actually cut $1 trillion, but the ambition remains.DOGE operates out of the Eisenhower Executive Building next to the White House with a small headquarters of about 20 people. Rather than a traditional hierarchy, it functions as a task force embedded across government agencies, with small teams of DOGE operatives placed inside agencies to audit systems and pursue efficiency measures. Musk himself serves as a special government employee, a temporary advisory role that grants him broad access while allowing him to bypass disclosure requirements that apply to full-time officials. This is especially notable given Musk’s extensive business interests in China—something so controversial that a bipartisan group of lawmakers banned TikTok last year.Key figures in DOGE include Steve Davis, CEO of The Boring Company and a longtime Musk confidant, who allegedly leads day-to-day operations. Then there are the so-called “DOGE Kids”—young adults, typically aged 19 to 24, from elite universities with backgrounds in Musk companies or the Peter Thiel machine. Some, like Luke Farritor, gained fame for achievements like using AI to decode ancient Roman scrolls. Others, like Marko Elez, have already faced controversy. Ellis resigned after the Wall Street Journal uncovered racist posts he made in 2024, including advocating for eugenic immigration policies and saying he would never marry outside his ethnicity.In its first 80 hours, Musk tweeted that DOGE had canceled $420 million worth of federal contracts. Get it. The issue? DOGE doesn’t technically have the authority to cancel contracts. That power belongs to Congress and the departments that administer the funds. So the real question is whether DOGE is canceling these contracts or simply recommending their termination, with the speed of the Trump administration making it appear as though they’re acting unilaterally.DOGE’s aggressive approach has already ruffled feathers. On inauguration day, Musk’s team assumed control of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) headquarters, installing sofa beds in the director’s office and working around the clock. Within days, they cut off career OPM staff from internal systems, effectively giving Musk’s team exclusive control over federal HR records. Two OPM employees filed a lawsuit in late January, alleging that DOGE unlawfully installed a private server on the agency’s network.Things escalated further when DOGE turned its attention to the U.S. Treasury Department’s payment system, which processes $5 trillion annually, handling everything from Social Security checks to federal salaries. When David Liebrich, a top Treasury official, refused to grant DOGE access, he was reportedly forced out. By January 31, Trump’s new Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, approved DOGE’s access. Soon after, a DOGE tech aide obtained unrestricted access to the payment system’s code base and began making changes with minimal supervision—an alarming development that has raised red flags in Congress.And then there’s USAID. Musk tweeted, “We’re shutting it down,” referring to the agency responsible for international aid. But does Musk actually have the authority to do that? Or is he merely advising Marco Rubio, who, as head of the State Department, technically oversees USAID?If Musk is making these decisions, it’s illegal. If Rubio is doing it, it’s just an unusually fast-moving government operation. The speed and opacity of DOGE make it difficult to tell the difference.Meanwhile, DOGE has brought a renewed focus on federal spending. Social media has been ablaze with revelations about who benefits from government funds. Bill Kristol, a Never Trump figure, was found to have received money through USAID-funded organizations. More controversially, it was revealed that Politico received $8.2 million in federal funding last year. While some jumped to the conclusion that this was a Democratic subsidy for favorable coverage, the truth is more complicated. The money was for Politico Pro, a premium service used by government officials and lobbyists for networking and policy tracking. However, everyone I talked to in pulling this together told me Politico Pro sucks. Specifically compared to competitors like Bloomberg Government, raising questions about why agencies chose it over better alternatives.So how does this end? At some point, DOGE will hit a regulatory or legal wall that slows its momentum. They need enough public goodwill to sustain them when that happens, or the entire operation could grind to a halt.There’s already evidence that Musk’s influence is waning. A YouGov poll from November 2024 showed that 47% of Republicans wanted Musk to have significant influence in government. That number has since dropped to 26%, with 43% now preferring that he have only limited influence. Among all Americans, only 13% want Musk to have a lot of influence, while 46% want him to have none.DOGE’s speed and disruption are unprecedented, but whether they represent true reform or reckless overreach remains an open question.All that… plus Jen Briney gives me her Doge thoughts and our final assessments of the confirmation hearings. Karol Markowicz joins the show to discuss Trump’s musings on Gaza and the GOP infighting in Florida over immigration.Chapters00:00 Intro00:56 Let's Talk DOGE24:02 Jen Briney on DOGE and Confirmation Hearings40:18 Jen Briney on Confirmation Hearings01:10:02 UPDATE01:19:06 Karol Markowicz This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Trump might get his cabinet after all.It was never going to be easy, many of them pulled from the Deep MAGA reserves doomed to offend the old guard who are developing carpel tunnel holding their nose through Trump’s second administration. Others are lifelong Democrats who helped over the finish line but still inspire a stink eye from lifelong Republicans.Some confirmations were easy—Elise Stefanik sailed through, and Marco Rubio was unanimous. Others more controversial, like Pete Hegseth, who barely squeaked by. But throughout it all, two nominees had the lowest odds of making it through, Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. That’s because neither of them are Republicans, and in a Senate where the GOP holds a 53-47 edge, blocking a nomination means peeling off Republican votes, not relying on Democratic opposition. The Democrats could stomp their feet all they wanted—it didn’t matter. But on this Tuesday, both have made it out of committee, thanks to key endorsements from influential figures within the GOP they both look to be on a narrow but assured path to the executive branch where they will serve at the pleasure of the president.Politics Politics Politics is free twice a week. Does it LOOK like news is only breaking twice a week? C’mon dude, get the two bonus episodes.Tulsi GabbardHer confirmation was boosted by Susan Collins, a senator unafraid to buck the Trump administration. Representing Maine—a state that's far from a deep-red stronghold—Collins' support was critical. It was enough to push Gabbard through committee on strict party lines. Beyond Collins, outreach from newly installed CIA Director John Radcliffe and Senator J.D. Vance helped smooth over concerns that arose during her confirmation hearing. The main sticking point? Her stance on Edward Snowden. Gabbard made it clear that she viewed Snowden as a criminal and would not recommend a pardon, but she stopped short of calling him a traitor. This led to a bizarre debate over whether she was sufficiently condemning Snowden, as some seemed to argue that unless she said the magic “traitor” word she was unqualified. Gabbard's confirmation has brought together one of the strangest coalitions I’ve seen on the right—far-right Republicans like Tom Cotton, staunch Never Trumpers like Meghan McCain, and figures like TuringPoint’s Charlie Kirk. McCain even appeared on Kirk’s radio show Monday to announce they’d team up to primary anyone who voted against Gabbard. That looks like it might not be necessary.RFK Jr. Unlike Gabbard, his confirmation hearing was messier. While Gabbard kept her composure, RFK Jr. approached it like a Kennedy: arrogantly. Democrats took their best shot, mostly by hammering him on vaccines, though their efforts were, frankly, ineffective. They made a lot of noise but didn’t seem genuinely committed to blocking him. In the end, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a Republican who voted to impeach Trump, decided he was comfortable enough with RFK Jr. to push him through committee.With that, Trump's cabinet is nearly complete. There’s one more potential hurdle: a labor secretary nominee who previously supported the PRO Act and has drawn skepticism from Republicans. But compared to Tulsi and RFK, this is a much lower-profile battle.At the end of the day, this confirmation process has been tougher than what Trump faced in his first term, but his team has handled it deftly. The Democrats? They put up almost no real defense.Was that on purpose? I don’t know. I suspect they don’t either.Chapters00:00 Intro02:50 Tulsi and RFK safe?12:42 USAID21:04 Waffle House Raises Egg Prices25:46 Senate Takes Charge on Reconciliation Bills32:38 Chris Cillizza This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The ongoing confirmation hearings for RFK Jr., Kash Patel, and Tulsi Gabbard have been largely predictable. But as always, the real story isn’t the grandstanding—it’s in the quiet calculations happening behind the scenes.This was RFK Jr.'s second day facing the Senate, and the discussion largely revolved around his past statements on vaccines. But if you’re looking for movement in the room, there wasn’t much. Coverage focused on explosive exchanges between Democrats and the nominees, but that’s irrelevant. The Democrats can all vote no, and it won’t change a thing. What matters is what Republicans are saying—and there’s little indication that they are going to vote against RFK Jr.RFK Jr. remains politically resilient for two reasons:* The Kennedy name still holds value with a broad swath of Americans.* His skepticism of Big Pharma and Big Agriculture resonates with a coalition that includes both libertarians and "crunchy moms"The main Republican angle of attack was always going to be abortion. RFK Jr. has been pro-choice his entire life, but now he’s taking orders from a pro-life president. How does that play out? He faced questions about the abortion pill but gave answers that were lukewarm at best.My assumption: He’s moving forward.Kash Patel’s hearing was predictably contentious, with heated exchanges involving Adam Schiff and Amy Klobuchar. But, again, those don’t matter. He also had solid support from Republican lawmakers, which means his confirmation is essentially a done deal.If Matt Gaetz was a non-starter because of his long list of enemies, Patel should have had similar problems—he’s burned plenty of bridges. The difference? Patel has a history in law enforcement, whereas Gaetz does not. That seems to be enough to push him through.This is where things get interesting. Unlike RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard doesn’t have the built-in advantage of a famous name. Unlike Patel, she lacks a Republican establishment safety net. And unlike both of them, she has a real opposition force: the intelligence community.Tulsi has been one of the most vocal critics of the intelligence agencies, particularly regarding FISA Section 702, which she argues enables domestic surveillance. She’s also expressed support for Edward Snowden—a major red flag for the very institutions she’d be overseeing as Director of National Intelligence.Her hearing featured a bipartisan focus on one specific issue: Would she call Snowden a traitor?She wouldn’t.She acknowledged that Snowden broke the law, that there were other ways he could have exposed government overreach. But she refused to use the word “traitor.” And that, oddly enough, might be the line that sinks her.It speaks to a deeper issue of symbolic politics. It wasn’t enough to condemn Snowden’s actions—she needed to emotionally brand him as a traitor. Her refusal to do so is revealing because it suggests that there are Republicans who may see her as too much of a risk to intelligence operations.Looking at prediction markets like Polymarket:* Kash Patel is sitting comfortably at 95%.* RFK Jr. has dipped slightly from 78% to 75%, but still strong.* Tulsi Gabbard is now underwater at 44%.That’s not a good place to be.Gabbard’s nomination has created one of the strangest coalitions in modern politics—hardcore MAGA figures lining up alongside Tom Cotton and Meghan McCain. But if Trump’s team is going to throw its weight behind any nominee, it’ll likely be her. The next 72 hours will tell us if she has the votes or if this is where the process stalls.Not a ton of surprises overall, but one question remains: Will the Trump administration go all in on Tulsi?We’ll see.In this episode we also have a great chat with Michael Tracey who makes his Px3 debut. I wanted to talk to him about current events but we wound up spending the whole hour rehashing the 2024 campaign. Chapters00:00 Intro02:30 Confirmation Hearing Chaos: Tulsi Looks Wounded14:17 UPDATE: Potomac Crash and Vivek Monster Ohio Numbers23:34 Michael Tracey This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe