Politics Politics Politics

After several days of panic in the markets, the Dow Jones Industrial average is rebounding. Why? It seems as if the Liberation Day tariffs may be leading to new trade deals.The market swoon and lack of clarity has put the Trump administration in the wilderness. Is the goal to really bring all trade deficits to zero? Do we want our children screwing together iPhones as a career? Or is this just a set up for Trump to schedule a month long rose garden signing ceremony where world leaders line up single file to welcome American exports?Today, we talk to our logistics expert Big Jim and check in with J.D. Durkin to figure out whether Trump’s tariffs mark a shift toward isolation, or just a high-stakes negotiating move. Is this a reset of global trade, or just a pause before the next deal? We’re on the clock, because by the time this drops, the whole game might have changed.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:44 - Interview with Big Jim00:43:02 - Update00:45:09 - Supreme Court Decision Over Alien Enemies Act00:48:30 - June 14th Military Parade00:49:54 - House Democrat Seat Targets00:52:34 - Interview with J.D. Durkin01:35:18 - 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

“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.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro and Tariff Thoughts00:09:29 - Interview with Karol Markowicz00:25:00 - Update00:26:39 - Eric Adams Goes Independent00:30:10 - NSC Firings00:33:11 - Senate Republican’s Budget Plan00:37:28 - Interview with Karol Markowicz, continued01:06:13 - 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

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 MachineKamala 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 FellFight 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.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:20 - Fight Book Report and Analysis00:28:13 - Update00:29:35 - Marine Le Pen Sentenced, Fined, and Barred from Politics in France00:32:37 - Tuesday Special Elections Preview00:37:26 - Interview with Fight’s Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes01:11:43 - 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

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.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:00:20 - Elise Stefanik Asked to Withdraw00:08:03 - Interview with Michael Cohen00:25:41 - Update00:27:28 - Student Visa Deportations00:30:11 - HHS Job Cuts00:31:48 - MS-13 Leader Arrested00:35:47 - Interview with Michael Cohen, cont.01:19:12 - 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

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.Chapters00:00:00 - The Signal Scandal00:12:40 - Intro and Florida’s Special Election00:17:52 - Interview with Kirk Bado00:22:16 - Interview with Kirk Bado (post-sports talk)01:01:43 - Update01:02:34 - Congressional Republicans Facing Budget Standoff01:04:19 - Russia and Ukraine Navigational Agreements01:06:28 - Direction of USA Poll01:10:18 - Interview with Matthew Frank01:40:09 - 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

The biggest political story in America right now isn’t about a campaign, a scandal, or even a vote. It’s something far more fundamental: Donald Trump’s clash with the judiciary.It’s the kind of confrontation that doesn’t just make headlines — it shifts the tectonic plates of our democracy. It forces us to look hard at the limits of executive power, the independence of the courts, and whether the guardrails of our system are holding up or giving way.At the center of it all: Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, sending them to a supermax prison in El Salvador. One flight, carrying deportees, was already in the air when a judge ruled the move illegal. That flight didn’t turn around.That was the spark.Suddenly, it wasn’t just another Trump-era controversy. It was a constitutional crisis.What Happens When Trump Defies a Judge?The reaction was swift and furious. The noise from the media, legal scholars, activists, and political commentators reached a full roar. Was Trump defying the courts? Were judges overreaching their authority? Were we witnessing the collapse of the basic balance of powers in real time?Some folks lost their minds.And honestly, I get it. If you squint hard enough, this looks like the beginning of a genuine authoritarian slide. You’ve got Trump, once again, taking an aggressive stance on immigration — and this time, ignoring a judicial ruling in mid-flight. It feels dramatic. It feels dangerous.It also feels... familiar.Because this is a recurring theme of the Trump presidency: bold, legally provocative action, followed by legal pushback, followed by public outrage, followed by months of litigation.The difference now? Trump’s not just promising things. He’s delivering — aggressively.The Two Simplest TakesLet’s be real. There are two clean, simple, headline-ready narratives here.Narrative One: Trump is a lawless authoritarian. He’s ignoring the courts, trampling over civil liberties, and pushing the country toward dictatorship. Bannon’s out here musing about a third term. The plane that didn’t turn around? That’s not just a flight — it’s a red flag.Narrative Two: Trump is finally doing what America has been demanding for years. He’s cleaning up the streets, deporting violent criminals, and living up to his campaign promises. And if that pisses off elite judges or cable news pundits, so be it.Either of these takes will get you clicks. They’ll fire up your base. But both are missing the point.Here’s where I land. I don’t have a hot take. I don’t have a screed. I have some questions, some caution, and a long view.Let’s start with this:Even if you think these deportations are justified, you want due process. There’s a guy who says he was just a soccer player with tattoos, mistaken for a gang member and deported without a fair hearing. Maybe that’s a fluke. Maybe it’s not. But when you're using a rarely-invoked 18th-century law to fast-track deportations, you better be damn sure you’re right.At the same time, it’s impossible to ignore what’s happening politically.Trump is doing something that’s rarely seen in American politics: actually fulfilling campaign promises. That’s shocking. And for a lot of Americans — particularly in the Spanish-speaking communities that have been targeted by the Tren de Aragua gang — this isn’t authoritarianism. This is action.It also helps explain why Trump gained ground with minority voters in 2024. When crime is real, when gangs are active in your neighborhood, when you feel like no one is protecting you, then a president who acts decisively (even if controversially) doesn’t feel scary. He feels necessary.No One Should Be Too Certain Right NowSo where does this go? Honestly, we don’t know yet.Trump is pushing hard. The courts are pushing back. He says he’ll comply, but also defend his position tooth and nail. This is what the process looks like in a functioning democracy. The key word there is “process.”And if you’re one of the people passionately demanding that we respect the judiciary? I agree. But I’d also remind you: the Supreme Court has the final say. And this is the same Supreme Court that many on the left have called illegitimate. So if you’re praising judicial power now, be prepared to keep that same energy when the ruling comes down, because it may not go your way.For now? I'm watching. I'm waiting. And I’m staying cautious.Because what we’re witnessing isn’t just a legal fight or a partisan squabble. It’s a realignment. It’s a redefinition of how power is used, challenged, and ultimately judged in 21st-century America.And while the takes are hot, the only thing I know for sure is this:I got nothing.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:44 - Trump and the Courts00:11:41 - Update00:12:34 - Israel-Hamas Attacks Heating Up00:14:26 - Trump’s Dept. of Education Executive Order00:17:58 - George Glezmann’s Release from Taliban00:19:25 - Interview with Katy Stech Ferek00:58:39 - 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

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.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:03 - Schumer Facing Backlash and the Future of the Democratic Party00:03:55 - Interview with Isaac Saul00:50:53 - Update00:53:16 - Justice Roberts’ Comments on Trump00:56:00 - Trump and Putin’s Meeting01:01:00 - JFK Files To Be Released01:02:55 - Interview with Tara Palmeri01:25:53 - 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

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 RankingsS-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)Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:04 - Schumer Won’t Block Spending Bill00:03:43 - Ranking Winning Political Campaigns, Part 100:48:26 - Update00:49:21 - Mayor Pete Not Running For Senate00:52:45 - Probationary Federal Employees Rehired, Judge Says00:54:56 - Birthright Citizenship Battle00:59:00 - Ranking Winning Political Campaigns, Part 201:36:49 - 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 the intersection of politics and technology, few innovations have had as significant an impact as online donation platforms. ActBlue, the Democratic Party's premiere fundraising tool, has revolutionized small-dollar contributions since its inception in 2004. However, recent internal turmoil at the organization is raising serious questions about both its future and about the broader landscape of political donations.A Game-Changer for DemocratsActBlue was an early pioneer in digital fundraising, allowing Democratic candidates and progressive causes to tap into small-dollar donors efficiently. Through gamification and mobile accessibility, the platform made it easy for supporters to donate with just a few clicks, contributing billions of dollars to campaigns over the years.By 2024, ActBlue played a crucial role in helping President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris amass over $1.5 billion in campaign funds, outpacing the Republican counterpart, WinRed, which raised $900 million for Donald Trump. The platform also helped Democrats dominate small-dollar fundraising in Senate races, with candidates like Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and John Tester (Montana) outraising their Republican opponents, despite ultimately losing their races.A Leadership Exodus and Rising ConcernsDespite its success, ActBlue is now facing a crisis. In February 2025, seven senior staff members resigned suddenly, including the organization’s chief legal officer, vice president for customer service, and a technical expert with 14 years of experience. This mass departure was alarming enough that two employee unions publicly voiced concerns, warning that confidence in the organization’s stability was eroding.This followed a December 2024 letter from over 140 political stakeholders — consultants, campaign staff, donors, and academics — urging ActBlue to implement stronger safeguards to prevent donor exploitation.One particularly cryptic development came when a newly appointed technical leader at ActBlue reminded employees of whistleblower protections, a warning that suggests internal concerns about potential misconduct.Allegations of Financial MisconductWhile ActBlue’s success has been attributed to its superior technology and network effect, some critics argue that there may be fraudulent activity behind its fundraising dominance.A GOP strategist, Mark Block, filed a racketeering lawsuit against ActBlue, alleging that his identity was stolen to make 385 fraudulent donations totaling $884. He claims that these small donations — each under $200 — were used to exploit a loophole in Federal Election Commission (FEC) reporting requirements.This practice, known as “smurfing,” is a form of money laundering that involves breaking large donations into smaller, untraceable amounts to avoid detection. Block’s lawsuit cites donation receipts from an old campaign email account, showing repeated micro-donations averaging just $3.24 each, many of which he did not authorize.Additionally, there have been reports of:* Elderly individuals discovering numerous small donations in their names without their knowledge.* Foreign nationals using surrogates to funnel money into U.S. elections, a violation of campaign finance laws.These allegations, combined with the sudden staff exodus, suggest that ActBlue could be facing a major financial scandal.The Potential FalloutIf these accusations are substantiated, the implications for ActBlue — and Democratic fundraising — could be severe:* Small donors may hesitate to contribute if concerns about fraud persist, resulting in a loss of trust in one or both parties.* The FEC or other watchdogs may launch formal investigations, leading to stricter oversight.* With ActBlue in turmoil, Democrats may struggle to replicate their past fundraising successes in upcoming elections.There is also speculation that WinRed, the Republican alternative, could face similar scrutiny. If both major fundraising platforms are found to have engaged in unethical practices, the entire online political donation system could be upended.Looking Ahead to 2028ActBlue’s situation is still unfolding, but one thing is clear: The Democratic Party’s dominant fundraising machine is in serious jeopardy. If ActBlue collapses or loses credibility, Democrats will need to quickly find an alternative — something that won’t be easy given the platform’s deep integration with campaign operations.With the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential race on the horizon, the future of small-dollar political fundraising is more uncertain than ever.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:05 - Interview with Matt Laslo00:21:00 - ActBlue Chaos00:32:22 - Update00:33:46 - US/Canadian Tariffs00:35:29 - Ukraine Ceasefire00:37:35 - Mahmoud Khalil’s Arrest00:40:17 - Interview with Jen Briney01:15:08 - 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 a Truth Social post on Thursday, President Donald Trump declared that "the golden age of America has just begun." He touted his administration’s early successes and emphasized that his newly assembled cabinet is focused on cost-cutting measures and staffing decisions, with the Department of Government Efficiency — colloquially known as "DOGE" — playing a central role.According to Trump, his administration will take a "scalpel rather than the hatchet" approach to reducing government waste. He praised Elon Musk and DOGE for their efforts in streamlining operations, stating that his team would be conducting biweekly meetings to assess and refine their approach.However, the speed and aggressiveness of the administration’s restructuring efforts have not gone unnoticed. Over the past 48 hours, there has been a discernible shift — a brake pumping, if you will — on the administration’s initial velocity. Reports suggest that Attorney General Pam Bondi recently presented Trump with binders labeled Epstein files, only for him to realize that most of the information was already publicly available. The implication? There may be an effort to control the chaotic rollout of these reforms.Behind the scenes, Chief of Staff Suzy Wiles appears to be taking on a stabilizing role. She remains largely unquoted in the press, but her influence is evident. While no one can dictate Trump’s decisions, if there is anyone capable of channeling his impulses into a more structured path, it is likely Wiles.The Challenge of Government ReformPolling data presents mixed signals for the administration’s strategy. While government reform remains broadly popular, Elon Musk himself does not poll particularly well. Moreover, while fiscal responsibility is a winning message, mass firings are unpopular, especially when they disrupt essential services.Some of the layoffs initiated by DOGE have drawn minimal public sympathy, such as the widely ridiculed case of a Yosemite employee responsible for bathroom keys. But other cuts have raised alarm, like the reported downsizing at the National Weather Service. This agency is crucial not only for routine weather forecasts but also for emergency alerts, particularly with tornado and hurricane seasons approaching in the coming months.If the administration is now signaling a more measured approach, it may be an acknowledgment that they have tested the limits of public tolerance for aggressive government downsizing. Silicon Valley's ethos values rapid iteration, but that approach does not always translate well to governance. In the tech world, listing a feature that doesn't yet exist isn’t necessarily misleading if it eventually becomes reality. However, in government, making sweeping announcements without a clear plan can create the perception of recklessness rather than innovation.This shift in tone suggests that the administration is attempting to move away from the narrative that it is slashing government with reckless abandon. Instead, the messaging now emphasizes precision: cutting waste while retaining key personnel and essential services. Whether this recalibration is enough to change the public perception is a question for another day.One clear indication of this shift is a new push in Congress. Senate Republicans are urging legislative action to codify DOGE’s spending cuts, following a court ruling that limits the department’s unilateral authority. While some lawmakers have praised Musk’s efforts, others, including Senator Rand Paul, have cautioned that major spending cuts should be handled through Congress rather than executive fiat. Senator Lindsey Graham, a supporter of DOGE, has acknowledged its flaws and has encouraged a more structured approach through legislative rescission.The Coming Battle Over RescissionOne term that is about to become more prominent in political discourse is rescission. While it may sound similar to reconciliation, the two are entirely different budgetary mechanisms. Rescission allows the president to formally request that Congress cancel previously approved federal spending.Here’s how the process works:* The president submits a rescission proposal to Congress, specifying funds to be cut.* Congress has 45 days of continuous session to approve the request. Importantly, approval only requires a simple majority in both chambers, meaning it bypasses the 60-vote Senate filibuster.* If Congress approves, the specified funds are canceled, preventing the executive branch from spending them. If Congress rejects or ignores the proposal, the funds remain intact.The significance of this approach is that it moves beyond the constitutional gray area of unilateral executive spending cuts. Instead of DOGE simply slashing budgets at the departmental level, rescission would put the matter before Congress, potentially giving the cuts more permanence.According to reports, Musk was convinced to support this approach after Lindsey Graham pointed out that any cuts made solely at the department level could easily be reversed by a future Democratic administration. A congressional rescission, however, would be far more difficult to undo.While this approach is unlikely to balance the budget overnight, it represents a strategic shift. It acknowledges the reality that sweeping cuts cannot be imposed without some level of congressional buy-in. The debate now moves to Capitol Hill, where budget hawks may find it difficult to oppose targeted spending reductions, even as Democrats push back.The Trump administration is attempting to walk a fine line: maintaining its image as bold reformers while avoiding the perception of recklessness. The rescission package will likely be controversial, and its success will depend on whether Trump and his allies can frame it as a necessary step toward fiscal responsibility rather than an indiscriminate assault on government programs.As this battle unfolds, the administration’s challenge will be proving that it can not only take risks but also manage them effectively. Whether that message resonates with the public — and with Congress — will determine the next phase of Trump’s government efficiency crusade.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:03 - Trump’s DOGE Post00:08:25 - Codifying Rescission00:12:36 - Update intro00:13:43 - Al Green’s Censure00:17:25 - Hunter Biden’s Financial Struggles00:21:13 - More Tariff Twists00:24:47 - Interview with J.D. Durkin00:58:34 - 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