Politics Politics Politics

We’re heading into another potential government shutdown, and the maneuvering is already underway. Schumer is strategizing with his caucus on how to handle the September 30 deadline. It’s a familiar script: Democrats want Republicans to commit to avoiding additional rescissions and to agree on the broader budget process before Democrats give their votes. The ask isn’t outrageous — a few basic guarantees in exchange for the seven Democratic votes Republicans would need to hit the 60-vote threshold in the Senate.The tension, of course, is baked in. Some Democrats want to force a shutdown, not avoid one. They think it’s time to show their base that they’ll stand up to Trump and his agenda. But Schumer doesn’t want to lose the optics war. If Democrats are the ones who initiate a shutdown, he knows they’ll never be able to claim the high road again when Republicans try the same play. That framing matters — especially in an election year.Meanwhile, Republicans are eager to push another round of budget cuts. They already passed an $8 billion rescissions package and want more. That’s what Schumer is trying to block, while also keeping his own party from turning a funding debate into a loyalty test. It’s a messy balancing act, and the countdown has already started.Public Media Hits a WallEdith Chapin stepping down from NPR is getting attention, but the real story is the billion-dollar rescission Congress just passed — a cut directly targeting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That’s the pot of money that gets divided among outlets like NPR and PBS. Chapin insists her departure isn’t related, and maybe that’s true. Thirteen years is a long run. Still, the timing speaks volumes.For years, public media has downplayed its reliance on federal dollars. They’d argue they only receive about 1% of their funding from the government, so budget cuts shouldn’t matter. But now that Congress has actually slashed that funding, the narrative changes. If they’re not publicly funded in any meaningful way, how do they survive? And if they are, then why haven’t they done a better job of building public goodwill to protect that funding?I don’t think the model holds up much longer. If you rely on taxpayer money, you have to make your case — constantly. You have to give people something they can see, something they can repeat. You can’t just be vague and institutional and assume the funding will continue. It’s not the ’90s anymore. The party’s ending, and there’s a new bartender who’s ready to close the tab.UNESCO and the American PullbackAnd then there’s UNESCO. Trump is pulling the U.S. out of the UN’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — again. It’s a reversal of a reversal from his first term. He says it’s too “woke,” too biased, too ineffective. Whatever the justification, it fits a larger pattern: the U.S. retreating from its role as primary funder of global institutions.There’s always a debate about whether this kind of move opens the door for China to step in and fill the void. That argument has merit. But I’ll say to UNESCO what I said to public media: if you depend on the American public — directly or indirectly — for your funding and relevance, then you have to win public support. You have to tell your story well, and often. You have to make people care.Some of these global organizations got comfortable. They assumed the checks would keep coming, and the U.S. would always foot the bill. But now they’re running out of room. The music’s fading. And if they can’t answer why they matter in plain language, they’ll find themselves cut off without much fanfare.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:25 - Justin’s BART Experience00:08:52 - Interview with Michael Tracey00:39:40 - Update00:40:17 - Gov’t Shutdown?00:43:32 - NPR00:45:09 - UNESCO00:47:35 - Interview with Michael Tracey, con’t01:18:40 - 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

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.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:05 - How does Liberation Day end?00:16:24 - Interview with Jack Gamble00:41:30 - Update00:41:46 - Epstein Discharge Petition00:50:44 - Virginia Polls00:52:18 - Rescissions Package Passage00:53:36 - Interview with Jack Gamble (con't)01:15:25 - 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

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.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:37 - Cuomo Stays in NYC Race00:11:36 - Update00:12:05 - Inflation Report00:15:26 - Recissions Package00:18:45 - Israel00:19:55 - Interview with Emily Jashinsky00:59:15 - 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

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.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:56 - Midterm Ads00:15:18 - Interview with Dave Levinthal00:37:31 - Update00:38:11 - Ken Paxton and the Texas Senate Race00:43:02 - Congressional Districts00:47:31 - Fed Chair00:52:42 - Interview with Dave Levinthal (con’t)01:11:22 - 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

In this conversation, journalist Juliegrace Brufke delves into the fallout from the Justice Department's closure of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and discusses its implications for the Trump administration. She highlights the precarious position of Pam Bondi, Trump's Attorney General, amid internal conflicts and media scrutiny. The discussion also touches on Elon Musk's entrance into third-party politics and the challenges of establishing a new political party, alongside the evolving narrative surrounding economic issues and upcoming legislative battles.

Zohran Mamdani didn’t just beat Andrew Cuomo — he buried him. In a race many expected to be tight or favor Cuomo through ranked-choice tallies, Mamdani delivered a knockout in the first round. The final numbers weren’t close: Mamdani pulled in 545,000 votes to Cuomo’s 428,000. That’s a blowout. And it happened despite Cuomo once polling at an absurd 80%. This wasn’t just a campaign upset — it was the end of Cuomo’s delusion that he could waltz back into New York politics on name recognition alone.Mamdani’s campaign was sharp and technically sound. He mastered ranked-choice mechanics — building coalitions, securing second-choice support, and locking in endorsements from the Working Families Party and key progressive organizers. But he didn’t just activate the left. He reached across neighborhoods and demographics, putting in real ground work. His message wasn’t just ideological; it was practical and local — housing, transit, jobs. The kind of politics that wins you quiet votes in places people don’t usually canvass.Now, Mamdani becomes a national proxy whether he wants to or not. Republicans will make him the new face of the Democratic Party, using his self-identified socialism as a scarecrow in swing states. But that spotlight also comes with opportunity. He’s proven he can organize, message, and win. If Mamdani survives the general — and with Eric Adams now backed into a defensive fight, that’s looking more likely — he could emerge as a new progressive standard-bearer not just for New York, but for the left nationwide.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Trump and DeSantis, Reunited AgainDonald Trump and Ron DeSantis appeared together this week, publicly touring the new Alligator Alcatraz immigration facility in the Everglades. This was their first real moment of unity since a brutal 2024 GOP primary season. On the surface, they were aligned — joking, praising one another, presenting a strong front on immigration.Behind the smiles, though, Florida politics remains deeply tribal. There’s always more going on under the surface. This wasn’t just a unity photo-op; it was a strategic pivot. With the media focused on deportation centers and immigration enforcement, Democrats’ messaging about Medicaid cuts and policy substance is being drowned out. Whether this is 5D chess from Trump or just savvy instinct, the outcome is the same — the right is driving the conversation.And here’s my hunch: DeSantis is bound for a Trump administration role. Maybe not immediately, but certainly toward the end of his term. I don’t know the exact position, but his re-alignment with Trump suggests he’s looking for a path forward that keeps him in the national conversation.Allred’s Return and the Uphill Battle in TexasColin Allred is back, launching another Senate bid in Texas, likely against Ken Paxton. His opening ad leans heavily on anti-corruption themes, clearly aimed at Paxton’s scandals and ethical baggage. It’s a smart choice if Paxton is the nominee. Voters don’t forget public messes involving mistresses, real estate ties, and abandoned staff.That said, I’m not sold on Allred. His ad doesn’t connect — it’s too heavy on biography and too light on vision. People watching already know who he is. They’re asking what he’s going to do differently this time. He had a respectable run against Ted Cruz, but he didn’t break through. And in a state like Texas, breaking through isn’t optional — it’s the baseline requirement.Texas Democrats face a structural problem. The party’s progressives dominate primaries but struggle to produce general election winners. Allred’s strength as a former football player was undercut by the trans sports issue. He doesn’t read as a football guy, and he doesn’t read as the kind of candidate who can split the difference between national party expectations and Texas voter realities. I’ll be watching this race, but my expectations are tempered.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:03 - Interview with Kirk Bado00:29:16 - Update00:29:53 - Final NYC Mayoral Primary Results00:33:57 - Trump and DeSantis Reunite00:37:29 - Colin Allred for Texas Senate00:45:05 - Interview with Kirk Bado (con’t)01:07:04 - Steelers Talk01:19:13 - Bonus Politics Question01:19:52 - 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

Zohran Mamdani just reshaped New York politics — and maybe the national conversation too. I was on the fence going into the NYC mayoral primary. Mamdani’s campaign had energy, ideas, and a clear message, while Andrew Cuomo’s felt like a dusty rerun nobody asked for. But I still assumed Cuomo’s name, connections, and donor base would carry him through. I shouldn’t have. Mamdani didn’t just win — he torched the field in the first round. Cuomo saw the writing on the wall and didn’t even wait for ranked-choice voting to play out. He conceded outright.Now Mamdani isn’t just a local story — he’s a national one. Republicans have already started holding him up as the new face of the Democratic Party, especially in swing districts. He’s a self-described socialist who just beat one of the most recognizable Democratic names in the country. That’s political catnip for the right. Trump himself mentioned Mamdani on Truth Social. Conservative influencers are hammering him daily. Whether Mamdani likes it or not, he’s been drafted into a larger culture war — and every policy, every quote, every tweet is going to be scrutinized at the national level from here on out.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.And it’s not just Republicans reacting. Democrats are watching closely too, especially younger progressives who now see a viable path forward in big-ticket races. Mamdani ran a campaign that wasn’t afraid of bold ideas — rent freezes, public banking, and fare-free transit — but he didn’t couch it in academic jargon. He went neighborhood to neighborhood, meeting people where they were, and speaking plainly. That’s going to be studied. That’s going to be copied. And in a party that often struggles to translate left-wing policy into real-world messaging, Mamdani may have just written the playbook.The irony is that Mamdani’s win might breathe new life into Eric Adams — the guy the establishment tried to sideline. After the FBI raid and months of bad headlines, Adams looked like political toast. The party scrambled to swap in Cuomo as the “safe” option. But now that Cuomo’s been humiliated, the same centrists who cast Adams aside are lining up to support him in the general. That’s politics — ruthless and fast-moving. Expect a soft-focus profile in the New York Times Magazine before the fall: “Still Here: Why Eric Adams Never Gave Up on New York.”What makes this even more fascinating is that Mamdani’s campaign actually had real working-class appeal. He didn’t just preach to the progressive base. He campaigned across the entire city, even in neighborhoods where he was bound to lose. He framed his message in economic terms that resonated across ideological lines. That’s not something many on the left do well. If Mamdani can sustain that balance — if he can speak to both the base and the broader public — he may become more than a lightning rod. He could become a blueprint. But first, he’s got to win the general. And now that Adams is back in the game, the gloves are coming off.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:21 - Zohran Mamdani00:10:13 - Interview with David Litt00:34:49 - Update00:35:32 - Big Beautiful Bill Push00:39:47 - Elise Stefanik Gov. Race00:41:42 - Planned Parenthood Supreme Court Ruling00:45:06 - Interview with David Litt, con't.01:10:12 - 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

World War III is canceled — at least for now. That’s where we are after one of the most dramatic weeks I can remember. The United States bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israel followed up with its own strikes. Iran responded with missile attacks on CENTCOM in Qatar. And somehow, through all that, we’ve landed at a ceasefire. It felt like this was going to spiral — like this was going to be Qasem Soleimani times ten. Instead, it fizzled. Iran’s missile strikes were calibrated, coordinated with the Qataris, coordinated even with us. They hit the sand, not American soldiers. It was more about sending a message back home than actually escalating the conflict.And that’s the strange brilliance of it all. Trump took the boldest action — destroying Iran’s nuclear program — and managed to walk away looking like the peacemaker. The people who warned that this would unleash chaos — Tucker Carlson predicting tens of thousands of dead Americans, Steve Bannon talking about gas at $30 a gallon — they look like they overshot. Gas prices are lower. No Americans killed. And Trump’s using this moment to reframe himself. He’s not just the guy who kept his promise to stop Iran’s nukes. He’s the guy who did it without dragging America into another endless war. That’s going to matter politically. It gives him an argument the MAGA base and the suburbs can both live with.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Israel’s role here is important too. Make no mistake — this was their mission. They wanted Iran’s nuclear capacity gone. Trump signed off on a limited U.S. role, but Rising Lion was an Israeli operation at its core. Their goal was never just to set the program back a few years. It was to shake the regime. You can see it in the name — Rising Lion, the symbol of Iran before the Islamic Revolution. They’re trying to turn the clock back. And they knew this was their window. Iran’s economy is fragile, its proxies are weakened, and Trump was willing to greenlight the hits. The question now is whether this creates the cracks in the regime they’ve been waiting for — or just rallies Iranians around the flag.The domestic political fallout has been fascinating. Never Trump Republicans who’ve trashed Trump for years — Bolton, Christie, Kinzinger, even Jeb Bush — lined up to praise him. And that’s made MAGA a little uneasy. They didn’t sign up for regime change wars. They signed up for America First. And now they’re watching Trump get applause from the same people who cheered on Iraq. Meanwhile, Democrats are trying to resurrect the war powers debate, framing this as executive overreach. It’s the rare moment where anti-war Republicans and Democrats are kind of saying the same thing. But for now, Trump’s riding high. He promised strength without entanglement — and for the moment, he’s delivered.The NYC Mayoral Primary: Cuomo Stumbles, Mamdani SurgesOver in New York City, the Democratic mayoral primary has become the most interesting race in the country. Andrew Cuomo should have been cruising. He had the name recognition, the machine, the donor network. But his campaign has been a disaster. He looks old, angry, and out of step. His message is all negative — all about why Mamdani is dangerous, not why Cuomo is right for the job. And the voters can feel that. It’s a re-run of 2021 for Cuomo: defensive, brittle, uninspired. Meanwhile, Mamdani is doing what progressives often struggle to do. He’s selling a vision. He’s making people feel like the future could actually look different.Mamdani’s campaign has been relentless. He turned a 14-mile walk from the bottom to the top of Manhattan into a social media juggernaut. TikToks. Instagram reels. Everywhere you look, there’s Mamdani, talking to voters, talking about his ideas, looking like he actually wants the job. His policy platform is ambitious — some would say reckless — rent freezes, city-owned grocery stores, free public transit. But it’s positive. He’s offering something, not just fighting against something. That matters, especially in a city where voters are tired of politics as usual.The ranked choice system adds another layer of drama. Mamdani doesn’t have to win outright on the first round. He just has to stay close enough that the second- and third-choice votes break his way. And given how much Cuomo is disliked even by his own side, that’s very possible. The big donors are starting to notice. If Mamdani wins the primary, they’ll flood Eric Adams with money for the general. They’ll do it out of fear — fear that a Mamdani mayoralty would upend the city’s power structures in ways they can’t predict or control. And they’re probably right.But even if Mamdani falls short, this race is a marker for where the Democratic Party is going. The fact that he got this far, this fast, tells you something about the appetite for progressive politics in urban America. Cuomo thought he could coast on his name and his record. Instead, he’s found himself outworked, outmessaged, and outmaneuvered. And the rest of the party is watching. Because if Mamdani can do this in New York, somebody else can do it somewhere else. The future is up for grabs.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:39 - Iran-Israel Ceasefire00:17:53 - NYC Mayoral Primary00:28:00 - Update00:29:04 - Tariff Inflation00:31:18 - Big Beautiful Bill Voting00:34:48 - Trade Deals00:38:02 - Interview with Sam Feist01:11:11 - 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

Andrew Heaton, a frequent guest and co-host of We're Not Wrong, dives into serious geopolitical tensions regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions. He predicts a potential strike on the Fordo facility, citing Iran's need for nuclear power to maintain its regime. The discussion takes a turn to immigration, with Heaton proposing the Neighbor Asylum Program as an innovative path for reform, emphasizing accountability and creativity in addressing the plight of 'Dreamers.' The episode cleverly balances heavy topics with humor, making for an engaging listen.

This is one of those moments where it feels like something fundamental is shifting. The MAGA coalition — that mix of influencers, voters, and operators who’ve been the core of Trump’s political power — looks like it’s fracturing. I’m not saying it’s done, I’m not saying the whole thing comes crashing down, but I’ve never seen this kind of strain. Not since Trump came down the golden escalator in 2015. And it all comes down to two issues: immigration and foreign intervention. The two things that defined Trump as a candidate. The two things that made him stand out in a crowded Republican field. The two things that made him president — twice.Immigration and the First CrackWe’ve talked for years about how immigration shaped MAGA. It took what had been a fringe issue and turned it into the centerpiece of Republican politics. Build the wall. Deport the illegals. It was simple, powerful, and resonated in ways that shocked the establishment. Trump was the first in a generation of Republicans to put his full weight behind it, and he changed the party forever. That’s why what happened last week matters so much. Trump told his government not to conduct ICE raids at hotels, farms, and meatpacking plants. That’s not a small adjustment — that’s a major walk-back from the hardline stance that’s been central to MAGA identity. And it didn’t take long for the backlash to hit. MAGA influencers — the same folks who gave Elon the cold shoulder when he crossed Trump — came out swinging. This time, they were swinging at Trump.Trump reversed himself pretty quickly. But the damage was done. That moment — that decision to pause the raids — showed a crack in the coalition. It revealed a gap between what the base expects and what Trump is willing to deliver when faced with real-world pressures. He doesn’t want grocery prices to spike. He doesn’t want vacationers complaining about hotels. And so he blinked. That’s what happened. And even though he tried to patch it up, the fact that it happened at all is what matters.Iran, Fordo, and the Intervention DilemmaThen there’s foreign policy — the other pillar of Trump’s MAGA appeal. Trump ran against the Iraq war. He ran against regime change. He ran against endless wars. And for four years, he mostly delivered. No new boots on the ground. When he struck, it was fast and targeted — think Soleimani, not Baghdad. But now, here we are, staring down the barrel of something that looks a lot like Iraq all over again. The question on the table: does America bomb Fordo, Iran’s underground enrichment facility, for Israel? And if we do, what comes next?Trump believes Iran can’t be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Tulsi Gabbard, his own director of national intelligence, says Iran isn’t close. That’s daylight between the president and his intel team. And MAGA sees it. They see the build-up. They see the echoes of Iraq. And they’re scared. Scared that Trump is about to cross the one line they thought he never would. Scared that this isn’t just about Fordo — that this is the start of something bigger. Something with boots on the ground. Something that breaks the promise of America First.MAGA’s Nightmare ScenarioIf you asked MAGA voters their nightmare scenario, this would be it. Regime change in the Middle East. A war that drags on. A betrayal of the core principles that brought them to Trump in the first place. The immigration reversal shook them. The Iran situation is terrifying them. And if Trump does decide to hit Fordo, that might be enough to fracture the coalition for good — at least for some.Trump’s legacy on foreign policy could go one of two ways. If Fordo is hit and that’s the end of it, maybe he walks away stronger, having prevented Iran from going nuclear without a long war. But if this spirals — if we get drawn into regime change, nation-building, boots on the ground — it could end his presidency before the next election even starts. MAGA was built on promises. And right now, those promises are under stress like never before.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:40 - The End of MAGA?00:23:15 - Update00:24:40 - Minnesota Dem Assassination Arrest00:33:11 - SALT00:37:27 - Israel-Iran00:43:44 - The Px3 Focus Group (with Matt Donnelly and Paul Mattingly of Ice Cream Social)01:30:44 - 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