Donald Trump posted a graphic threat to Iran on Truth Social, telling them to open the Strait of Hormuz or face hell, and included a “praise be to Allah” remark. Targeting civilian infrastructure would constitute war crimes.

Trump alternates between casual threats of war crimes and dismissing serious concerns about Iran, including the Strait of Hormuz. Republicans give inconsistent responses, with some avoiding a stance and others supporting military action.

Late last week, Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi, appointing his personal lawyer, Todd Blanche, as acting head of the Department of Justice. Despite claims of transparency, millions of Epstein-related documents remain unreleased, leaving survivors without accountability.

Vice President J.D. Vance’s wife, Usha, promoted a children’s story time show while subtly criticizing her husband in interviews. This highlights a striking disconnect between political image management and complicity in systemic harms affecting children.

Trump proposed the largest military budget in history at $1.5 trillion while reducing funding for education, housing, healthcare, and environmental protection. These policy choices increase hardship for Americans, while Democrats oppose additional military spending and advocate for social support.

Over the weekend, false rumors claimed that Donald Trump was dying, sparking discussion about his public absence. Paula White and Laura Trump praised his faith, but evidence of his religiosity remains weak.

Trump proposed over $377 million for White House ballroom renovations, funded partly through alleged private donations classified as mandatory spending. Meanwhile, essential domestic programs face cuts, and the administration is using distraction tactics like blaming vulnerable groups for issues.

Finally, former Holocaust Museum staff allege that lessons on racism and Nazi history were removed or renamed to avoid targeting by the Trump administration. This censorship reflects broader patterns of white supremacist signaling and media reluctance to call Trump’s racism by name.

On today’s bonus show:

Ted Nugent says kids these days are soft, Americans are struggling to get medical care, and much more...

Already a website member? Watch the bonus show here | Want to become a member? Sign up here

Don’t miss the full show with these stories and others, plus all of our analysis.

This episode is available completely free on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube.

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

If you are receiving this via email, you are already a Substack paid subscriber and have full access to the content below. If not, now’s the time: become a paid subscriber.

If you are a website member and would like to view the bonus show & ad-free episode through our site, log in here.

🎧 Full episodes are also available FREE with limited ads wherever you get your podcasts: Youtube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more

Leave a comment

Read more

Why does Donald Trump keep backing off his own decisions?

There’s a phrase that’s been circulating to describe it: “TACO,” short for “Trump Always Chickens Out.”

While the acronym may often be said in jest, this isn’t random. It’s a pattern. And once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

The cycle repeats over and over again. It starts with a big, confident announcement, sweeping promises, and total certainty.

Then confusion sets in, consequences emerge, and the inevitable walkback begins.

It’s not always a full reversal. Sometimes it’s softer language, sometimes policy tweaks, and sometimes a quiet rhetorical retreat.

But the pattern is consistent.

The pattern is not random

Let’s start with tariffs.

Trump announces massive, sweeping tariffs with total confidence. Markets react immediately. Businesses panic. And then, almost on cue, the carve-outs begin.

We’re going to pause some, reduce others. There are some exemptions. We’re negotiating. Actually, we’re escalating on China. But also de-escalating elsewhere.

It becomes on-again, off-again policymaking in real time.

Why? Because the economic consequences show up quickly. And when they do, the tough guy posture suddenly runs into reality.

The same thing plays out in foreign policy.

Look at the escalation with Iran: strikes are launched, markets react, oil spikes, gas prices rise, and global uncertainty kicks in.

Then almost immediately, the tone shifts.

“We’ve basically achieved our objectives. It’s almost done. Everything is under control!”

Except it isn’t. Because the escalation often continues even as the messaging pivots toward calm.

Within days, sometimes within hours, you get both escalation and de-escalation happening at the same time.

This has been happening for years

This ‘chickening out’ trend isn’t new either.

Let’s go back to healthcare.

Trump promised to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with something better. A plan was introduced that would have left tens of millions without coverage over time.

The reaction was immediate. Political pressure built. Then the entire effort collapsed.

No replacement. No follow-through. The promise just… disappeared.

Or take the so-called “Muslim ban.”

A sweeping announcement. Immediate legal chaos. Judicial challenges. Revisions. Scaling back. And more legal fights.

The same pattern again.

It was a big move with immediate consequences followed by a partial retreat.

Even with troop withdrawals, immigration policies, trade negotiations. The details change, but the structure stays the same.

Strategy or incompetence

So what is this? Is it a deliberate strategy, or is it disorganization?

The answer is both.

There is a level of impulsivity. Decisions are often made quickly, framed as instinct.

But “instinct” in this context often means reacting to whoever had the president’s attention last.

There’s also a lack of the kind of process you would normally expect..

In a typical administration, major decisions are tested before they’re announced. Legal reviews happen. Economic impacts are modeled. Political risks are assessed.

With Trump, the announcement often comes first and the consequences come second.

The real problem is what happens after

The biggest issue isn’t even the initial decision.

It’s what happens next.

When policy is announced before it’s fully thought through, the system ends up reacting in real time. Markets, courts, allies and businesses all react in real time.

Then the administration is forced into a position where it has to adjust on the fly which creates instability and confusion.

And this creates a situation where no one is entirely sure what the actual policy is at any given moment.

What you end up with is a style of governance that is reactive rather than deliberate.

Announce first, adjust later. Escalate, then soften. Project certainty, then quietly recalibrate.

And because this happens repeatedly, it stops looking like isolated incidents and starts looking like a governing approach.

One that prioritizes immediate impact over long-term consistency.

Why this matters

There’s a political dimension to this, but there’s also a structural one.

Markets don’t like uncertainty. Businesses don’t like unpredictability. Allies don’t like mixed signals.

When policy shifts rapidly, it becomes harder for anyone to plan around it.

And when the pattern repeats often enough, the credibility of the initial announcement starts to erode.

If every bold move is followed by a retreat, people begin to expect the retreat.

And that changes how the entire system responds.

The bottom line

This isn’t about one policy or one moment.

It’s about a recurring cycle.

Big announcement. Immediate fallout. Partial walkback.

Over and over again.

At some point, the question stops being, “Why did this happen this time?”

And becomes, “Why does this keep happening at all?”

Because once a pattern is established, it’s no longer a surprise.

It’s the system.

We’re reaching over 150 million people every month across YouTube, podcasts, Substack, and beyond. But algorithms can change. Platforms can fold. And when that happens, this newsletter is how we stay connected.

If you’re not yet a paid subscriber, please consider joining.
If you’re already paid on one platform, consider supporting us on both Substack and our website.

You can subscribe on our website and right here on Substack.

And if you’re really on fire, consider gifting a subscription—we’ve got thousands on our waiting list ready to read, watch, and fight back.

Let’s keep building.

—David

PS: Can’t contribute right now? No problem. You can support us for free by subscribing on YouTube, listening to our audio podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, or become a free subscriber to this very Substack. Every bit counts.

Subscribe now

Donald Trump may not get to choose his successor.

That’s a very different idea than the one that’s dominated political coverage for years. The assumption has always been that Trump, as the gravitational center of the MAGA movement, would eventually anoint the next leader. That there would be some clear passing of the torch.

But that’s not how this looks like it’s unfolding.

If you’re waiting for a dramatic break, a clean moment where the movement turns on Trump, you’re probably going to be waiting a long time. That kind of rupture is unlikely. What’s happening instead is slower, quieter, and arguably more important.

They’re preparing for a world without him.

The shift away from the center

For years, MAGA operated like a system with a single center of gravity.

Stay close to Trump, echo his messaging, align with his priorities, and you remained in orbit. That was the formula for political survival within the movement.

But something has changed.

The public displays of loyalty are still there. The rhetoric hasn’t disappeared. But underneath that surface, behavior is shifting.

Instead of full dependence on Trump, many of the key players are starting to hedge. They’re building their own bases, crafting their own identities, and testing whether they can stand on their own.

It’s less about breaking away and more about not being fully dependent.

Building lifeboats

What we’re seeing now is a kind of political risk management.

Figures within the movement are creating fallback plans. Alternative power structures. Independent lanes of influence.

Some are aligning with different donor networks. Others are experimenting with new ideological branding. Some are positioning themselves as the future of a “post-Trump” right, even if they’re not saying that out loud.

It’s a subtle but significant shift.

Instead of asking, “How do I stay in Trump’s orbit?” the question is becoming, “What happens to me when that orbit disappears?”

And importantly, they’re not waiting for permission to figure that out.

Competing visions of what comes next

What makes this moment even more interesting is that there isn’t a single obvious direction for the movement after Trump.

Different figures are carving out very different paths.

Some are leaning into a newer, more tech-aligned, ideological version of the right. Others are positioning themselves as more traditional, institutional Republicans. Still others are trying to blend Trump-style populism with something that feels more stable or electable.

There isn’t a consensus.

There isn’t even a clear frontrunner.

And that alone is a major departure from the last decade of Republican politics.

Trump’s waning influence

Two years ago, it would have been easy to assume that Trump would ultimately decide who leads the movement next.

That assumption is no longer safe.

There are several reasons for that. Political performance matters. If Republicans underperform in upcoming elections, Trump’s influence weakens. Age and visibility matter. The longer Trump is seen as less active or less effective, the more space opens up around him.

And then there’s the reality of being a lame duck.

A president in their final term always loses some degree of control. But in Trump’s case, that loss of influence could be more pronounced, especially if others are already preparing for the transition.

The result is a scenario where Trump is still present, still vocal, but no longer the sole decision-maker.

The policy world is moving on too

This shift isn’t just happening among candidates and media figures.

It’s happening in the policy space as well.

Think tanks and policy groups are already working on what a post-Trump Republican agenda might look like. That’s a significant development.

Because embedded in that effort is an assumption: the next phase of the movement will not simply be a continuation of Trump’s priorities.

Even more notable, these efforts are not being directed by Trump himself.

That’s a quiet but meaningful break from how things have operated.

A movement without a single sun

For a long time, MAGA functioned like a solar system with one sun.

Trump set the tone. He defined the priorities and determined which issues mattered and how they were framed.

Everything revolved around him.

But that gravitational pull may be weakening.

And when that happens, the system doesn’t necessarily collapse. Instead, parts of it start to drift. Some figures may try to establish their own centers of gravity. Others may move in entirely different directions.

The result could be fragmentation rather than succession.

What this means going forward

We don’t yet know what post-Trump MAGA will look like.

There may not be a single successor. There may not be a clean transition. It could be a contested, messy process where multiple figures compete to define what the movement becomes next.

What we do know is that the transition has already started.

Not through open rebellion, but through quiet preparation.

Not through rejection, but through independence.

And that may ultimately be more consequential than any dramatic break ever could be.

We’re reaching over 150 million people every month across YouTube, podcasts, Substack, and beyond. But algorithms can change. Platforms can fold. And when that happens, this newsletter is how we stay connected.

If you’re not yet a paid subscriber, please consider joining.
If you’re already paid on one platform, consider supporting us on both Substack and our website.

You can subscribe on our website and right here on Substack.

And if you’re really on fire, consider gifting a subscription—we’ve got thousands on our waiting list ready to read, watch, and fight back.

Let’s keep building.

—David

PS: Can’t contribute right now? No problem. You can support us for free by subscribing on YouTube, listening to our audio podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, or become a free subscriber to this very Substack. Every bit counts.

Subscribe now

Donald Trump’s influence over the Republican Party and his base is slowly eroding. MAGA voters and conservative audiences are increasingly frustrated with his inconsistent leadership. Allies are quietly preparing for a post-Trump world, and loyalty is no longer guaranteed.

Claims of widespread illegal voting are largely unsupported. Figures like Senator Mike Lee raise alarms without knowing the scale of the issue. Audits and court cases consistently find only minor errors. Yet, these claims often justify stricter voting laws, creating doubt without evidence of large-scale fraud.

Polling shows Trump’s approval among independents is historically low. This threatens Republicans heading into the midterms, as independents often decide elections. If Republicans lose the House, Trump’s influence will continue to decline.

A focused anti-corruption platform could attract disillusioned MAGA and Republican voters to the Democratic Party. Proposals like blind trusts, watchdogs, and whistleblower protections could force voters to choose between reform and corruption.

Tucker Carlson could plausibly enter politics. He denies interest, but his loyal audience gives him influence. Modern campaigns rely on emotional alignment more than policy expertise. He could win a congressional seat or even compete in a primary for president.

Being wrong no longer carries consequences because bold claims and repeated false predictions go unchecked. Attention and confidence now matter more than accuracy. The system needs accountability that revisits claims and makes errors visible.

Mike Pence’s claim that the GOP hasn’t changed is wrong. While he resisted Trump’s 2020 election overturn, the party is now reshaped around Trump’s style, priorities, and base. Traditional conservatives like Pence have been largely sidelined.

Finally, political outrage no longer shocks the public. A decade ago, gaffes or lies could end a career. Today, scandals barely register before the next headline. This desensitization lets officials act recklessly with little consequence.

On today’s bonus show:

Kristi Noem’s husband is caught up in a cross-dressing scandal, the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk cannot be affirmatively matched to the alleged rifle, Pete Hegseth will not investigate why Army helicopters flew near Kid Rock’s house, and much more…

Already a website member? Watch the bonus show here | Want to become a member? Sign up here

Don’t miss the full show with these stories and others, plus all of our analysis.

This episode is available completely free on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube.

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

If you are receiving this via email, you are already a Substack paid subscriber and have full access to the content below. If not, now’s the time: become a paid subscriber.

If you are a website member and would like to view the bonus show & ad-free episode through our site, log in here.

🎧 Full episodes are also available FREE with limited ads wherever you get your podcasts: Youtube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more

Leave a comment

Read more

There’s a new wave of anxiety spreading online, and if you’re under 42, you’ve probably seen it.

Posts warning that a draft is coming. Claims that the enlistment age increase is a setup to send Americans into a war with Iran. A sense that something bigger is quietly being put into motion.

Some of that concern is understandable. Some of it is getting ahead of the facts.

So let’s slow this down and separate what is actually happening from what is being speculated.

What is actually happening

There are a few real developments that are fueling all of this.

First, the United States currently has more than 50,000 troops in the Middle East. That is above the typical baseline. We’re seeing Marines deployed, naval forces positioned, and paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne in the region. That is not business as usual. It reflects a heightened military posture tied to the ongoing conflict with Iran.

Second, there are active discussions about what comes next. That could mean expanded operations, securing oil routes, or repositioning forces strategically. What we were initially told would be a short timeline is already shifting. The expectation of a three-to-four week operation is now giving way to something potentially longer and more involved.

Third, the Army has formally raised its maximum enlistment age to 42.

That last point is what has really set off alarm bells online.

The enlistment age panic

The internet version of this story goes something like this: raise the enlistment age to 42, expand the pool, and then use that expanded pool for a draft tied to the Iran conflict.

That’s the narrative spreading across social media.

The reality is more mundane, at least for now.

The Army says this policy has effectively been in place internally for years. Formalizing it is tied to recruitment challenges, an aging population, and the need for specific technical skills. In other words, this is not a sudden wartime policy created in response to Iran. It is the codification of an existing practice.

That matters.

But it does not fully eliminate the concern people are feeling.

Why people are connecting these dots

Even if the enlistment change is not directly about Iran, the broader context is what’s driving the anxiety.

We have more troops in the region than usual. We have an active and escalating conflict. We are already seeing timelines stretch beyond initial expectations. And we know the military has struggled with recruitment in recent years.

Put those pieces together and a logical question emerges: what happens if the current force is not enough?

At that point, expanding the eligible pool, whether for recruitment or something more serious, becomes relevant.

That does not mean a draft is imminent. There has been no announcement, no policy shift, and no current move toward conscription.

But it does explain why people are paying attention.

How drafts actually happen

There is another misconception worth clearing up.

Some assume that if a draft were coming, it would be announced early, before escalation. That is not typically how it works.

Historically, countries escalate using the military they already have. If that proves insufficient, then additional measures like conscription are considered.

So the absence of a draft right now is not, by itself, proof that one could never happen. It simply means we are not there yet.

The real risk

Right now, the claim that “Trump is about to draft you” is not supported by current policy.

But the underlying uncertainty is not irrational.

The concern is not just about troop levels or enlistment rules. It is about unpredictability. It is about a conflict that appears to be expanding. And it is about decision-making that often lacks transparency and consistency.

When you combine those factors, people start trying to read signals early.

Sometimes they read too much into them. Sometimes they connect dots that are not actually connected. But the instinct to watch closely is not misplaced.

Where this leaves us

If you are under 42, yes, you are now within the formal enlistment window. And theoretically, in a worst-case scenario, within the broader category of people who could be subject to a draft.

That is a statement about possibility, not policy.

There is no draft. There is no announcement. There is no confirmed plan to move in that direction.

But there is a growing military presence, a conflict with an uncertain trajectory, and an administration that has not been particularly predictable.

And that combination is what’s driving the conversation.

So the responsible takeaway is this: stay informed, separate confirmed facts from speculation, and pay attention to how the situation evolves.

Because right now, the story is not that a draft is coming. The story is that we are in a situation where people believe it could.

We’re reaching over 150 million people every month across YouTube, podcasts, Substack, and beyond. But algorithms can change. Platforms can fold. And when that happens, this newsletter is how we stay connected.

If you’re not yet a paid subscriber, please consider joining.
If you’re already paid on one platform, consider supporting us on both Substack and our website.

You can subscribe on our website and right here on Substack.

And if you’re really on fire, consider gifting a subscription—we’ve got thousands on our waiting list ready to read, watch, and fight back.

Let’s keep building.

—David

PS: Can’t contribute right now? No problem. You can support us for free by subscribing on YouTube, listening to our audio podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, or become a free subscriber to this very Substack. Every bit counts.

Subscribe now

Here’s what we’re talking about today.

This is a quick rundown of the topics we’ll be covering on today’s show. You can hit play to listen, or read the transcript below if that’s more your style.

Transcript:

There’s something bigger going on right now that a lot of people are missing, that I will be talking about today, and it is not about any one statement from any one administration official. Or it’s not another claim that has fallen apart on TV.

The system around this administration and around MAGA has started to change in some very real ways, where people in the base are questioning Trump. Republican politicians are pushing narratives they can’t even defend when asked basic questions, and polling that historically points to major election trouble ahead.

Now, at the same time, you’ve got a political environment where being completely wrong no longer really matters anymore. You can just be wrong, and then everybody moves on. And when a political movement loses internal confidence while acting in a way that there’s never a demand for accountability, things get quickly unstable.

We also are going to hear from Mike Pence, trying to pretend that the Republican Party is no longer the party of Trump and is sort of like the old Republican Party. That is very much not true, and unless Republicans face that reality, they are going to get crushed in November.

So today, we’re going to look at all of it.

Don’t miss the full show with these stories and others, plus all of our analysis.

🎧 Tune in at 3:00 pm Eastern on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube.

👉 Consider becoming a paid Substack supporter to support extras like these news episodes. Thank you.

Leave a comment

Early Democratic polling shows Kamala Harris, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Gavin Newsom with favorable numbers, but none unify the party. Each faces skepticism from different factions and winning both the primary and general election will require building a broad coalition.

Support for authoritarian leaders is driven more by identity, emotion, and charisma than policy. Supporters remain loyal because abandoning the leader would mean admitting they were wrong, making these movements difficult to break up.

Trump’s Republican allies are now hedging and reinterpreting Trump’s statements rather than fully endorsing them. Genuine respect appears to be declining. Many decisions seem driven by managing fallout rather than Trump’s direction.

Questions have emerged about who makes decisions when Trump is absent. Major actions sometimes occur while he is elsewhere. Figures like JD Vance appear to be taking more active roles, and decision-making appears fragmented across aides, cabinet members, and advisors.

Efforts to interfere with the 2026 election are already underway. Allies of Trump are promoting federal presence near polling places, stricter voting rules, and expanded authority for local officials to challenge results. While each action may seem minor, together they could reduce turnout and create confusion.

Trump often chickens out due to impulsivity, poor planning, and lack of follow-through. Bold announcements are made without testing feasibility. When reality hits through market reactions, legal challenges, or political pushback, he shifts or reverses course.

Finally, red state Trump supporters are facing the hardest impacts of his policy decisions. Promises of lower prices, stronger growth, and health care reform have largely failed. Tariffs, rising gas prices, and health care uncertainty hit working-class voters hardest, and some of their frustration is being directed toward Trump.

On today’s bonus show:

Trump vows to send Iran back to the Stone Age in an unhinged speech to the nation, and much more...

Already a website member? Watch the bonus show here | Want to become a member? Sign up here

Don’t miss the full show with these stories and others, plus all of our analysis.

This episode is available completely free on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube.

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

If you are receiving this via email, you are already a Substack paid subscriber and have full access to the content below. If not, now’s the time: become a paid subscriber.

If you are a website member and would like to view the bonus show & ad-free episode through our site, log in here.

🎧 Full episodes are also available FREE with limited ads wherever you get your podcasts: Youtube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more

Leave a comment

Read more

Donald Trump is now experiencing one of the sharpest polling collapses of any modern presidency, and it is by far the worst of his own political career.

According to new polling out of UMass Amherst, Trump’s approval rating has fallen to just 33 percent. That is not just low. It is the lowest of his presidency.

And the trend line is continuing to move in the wrong direction.

Last April, he was at 44 percent. By July, that dropped to 38 percent. Now he is at 33 percent. This is not a blip. This is sustained decline.

At the same time, his net approval has cratered to negative 17, making him the most unpopular president at this stage in office in the modern polling era.

This isn’t just polarization. It’s broad rejection.

There is always a baseline level of partisan opposition baked into American politics. That’s not what this is.

Once disapproval moves past 60 percent, you are no longer looking at simple partisan division. You are looking at a broad majority of the country that believes the president is failing.

And that is exactly where Trump is.

Seventy-one percent of Americans say he is failing on inflation. Sixty-one percent say he is failing on job creation. Sixty-four percent say tariffs have been a disaster. Ninety-two percent oppose putting boots on the ground in Iran.

Even immigration, historically one of Trump’s strongest issues, is now slipping away from him.

This is not just dislike of Trump as a person. This is rejection of the policies themselves.

The coalition is cracking

What makes this even more significant is where the erosion is happening.

Support is down among men. It is down among working-class voters. It is down among independents and moderates. Even non-MAGA Republicans are starting to peel away.

That matters.

Trump can remain popular within the MAGA base, but that group is not large enough to sustain national political success on its own. Once the broader Republican coalition begins to fracture, the electoral math changes quickly.

We are also seeing this play out in real time inside conservative media and political circles. Disagreements over the Iran conflict, economic dissatisfaction, and general disillusionment are no longer confined to the left. They are showing up within Trump’s own side.

When members of your own coalition start saying, “This is not what we signed up for,” that is when political damage accelerates.

Historically bad, historically consequential

To understand just how serious this is, it helps to look at history.

Presidents with approval ratings in the low 30s do not have good midterms. They get crushed.

Barack Obama faced a brutal midterm in 2010 with approval ratings in the mid-40s. Bill Clinton’s party suffered a wave election in 1994 under stronger conditions than Trump has now. Even Trump himself, during his first term, lost the House in 2018 while polling higher than he is today.

So what does it mean when Trump is sitting at 33 percent, with a negative 17 net approval, months before the midterms?

It means the warning signs are not subtle. They are flashing red.Midterms are about turnout, not persuasion

Presidential elections are often about persuasion. Midterms are different.

Midterms are about turnout.

If voters are enthusiastic, they show up. If they are discouraged, disappointed, or disengaged, they stay home.

Low presidential approval does not just hurt a party because people oppose the president. It hurts because it drains motivation from the president’s own voters.

If Republican voters feel that Trump is not delivering, they are less likely to turn out and support the candidates tied to him.

That is how midterm losses happen. Not through mass conversion of voters, but through uneven energy between the two sides.

This is no longer early-stage decline

At a certain point, you have to stop describing this as a temporary dip.

This is not early warning. This is not a rough week.

This is mid-stage political decline.

The numbers are bad, the direction is worse, and the structural conditions heading into the midterms are unfavorable.

Could things change? Of course. Approval ratings move. Events intervene.

But as of now, the trajectory is clear.

Trump’s support is shrinking beyond his core base, dissatisfaction is spreading across multiple issues, and the political consequences are beginning to take shape.

The opportunity in front of voters

If these trends hold, the implications are significant.

Control of the House is very much in play. And more than that, there is a real possibility of delivering a decisive electoral rebuke to the policies and decisions that brought the country to this point.

Elections are ultimately about choices.

And what the polling is showing right now is that more and more Americans are not just questioning those choices. They are rejecting them.

The question now is whether that sentiment turns into turnout when it matters most.

We’re reaching over 150 million people every month across YouTube, podcasts, Substack, and beyond. But algorithms can change. Platforms can fold. And when that happens, this newsletter is how we stay connected.

If you’re not yet a paid subscriber, please consider joining.
If you’re already paid on one platform, consider supporting us on both Substack and our website.

You can subscribe on our website and right here on Substack.

And if you’re really on fire, consider gifting a subscription—we’ve got thousands on our waiting list ready to read, watch, and fight back.

Let’s keep building.

—David

PS: Can’t contribute right now? No problem. You can support us for free by subscribing on YouTube, listening to our audio podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, or become a free subscriber to this very Substack. Every bit counts.

Subscribe now

Here’s what we’re talking about today.

This is a quick rundown of the topics we’ll be covering on today’s show. You can hit play to listen, or read the transcript below if that’s more your style.

Transcript:

The Democratic primary for 2028 is already taking shape. The people leading are strong, but they are not universally liked, even within the Democratic Party. That matters a lot.

We’re going to talk about why. This is about a lot more than who is polling well today. It’s really about who can build the coalition that’s big enough to actually win. There is not an obvious consensus right now.

At the same time, there’s something else going on that should concern you even more. The inner circle around President Trump is behaving increasingly differently. They are not getting any more loyal. They are getting less loyal. They’re hesitating to throw their support behind whatever Donald Trump does. They are reinterpreting what Trump says, and I believe that this is a sign that they are no longer following him. They are managing him.

And that raises a serious question: If Trump isn’t running things when he’s sundowning or at Mar-a-Lago, who is? We’re going to break that down.

Later, I will tell you about the groundwork to try to rig the 2026 election. Fortunately, there are things we can do to prevent that from happening. That’s the good news.

Don’t miss the full show with these stories and others, plus all of our analysis.

🎧 Tune in at 3:00 pm Eastern on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube.

👉 Consider becoming a paid Substack supporter to support extras like these news episodes. Thank you.

Leave a comment

Trump and his allies are openly willing to accept political, economic, and human costs as long as his agenda moves forward. Escalation in Iran, higher inflation, and risky policies are framed as necessary, even as ordinary Americans bear the brunt.

Betting markets show Republicans are likely to lose the House and maybe even the Senate in November. Trump never admits mistakes, so losses will be blamed on Democrats, disloyal Republicans, or the system. Big losses could fracture the party, forcing members to question their loyalty to Trump.

Billionaires and Trump allies frame higher prices and economic strain as necessary sacrifices for national security, even though they are insulated from the consequences. Ordinary Americans are told to accept rising costs “for their own good,” despite promises of lower prices and no new wars.

Karoline Leavitt struggled to defend Trump amid repeated contradictions and false claims. She leaned on talking points like “the American people know who to believe,” but the explanations increasingly fail. Trump’s statements conflict with reality, so Leavitt is left panicking to justify or deflect.

Mainstream media is raising concerns about Trump’s cognitive abilities. Polls show growing doubt, even among Republicans and independents. Trump’s false claims about meetings, people, and history make decision-making risky and erode credibility in the administration.

Trump is experiencing the worst approval collapse of his presidency. A UMass Amherst poll shows 33% approval and a net rating of –17, the lowest at this stage for any president. Disapproval spans independents, moderates, working-class voters, and some Republicans.

Jessica Tarlov exposed her co-hosts’ misunderstandings on Fox News’ The Five. She pointed out that Trump could have paid TSA agents all along. Tarlov went on to critique Republican spin and Trump’s obsession with fake polls.

Finally, conservative hosts like Megyn Kelly and Laura Ingraham portray Trump as either a genius or incapable of understanding complex decisions, depending on what fits their narrative; when they believe he succeeds, they applaud him, and when his Iran strategy falters, they claim he wasn’t fully briefed.

On today’s bonus show:

David discusses his upcoming trip to Argentina, and much more...

Already a website member? Watch the bonus show here | Want to become a member? Sign up here

Don’t miss the full show with these stories and others, plus all of our analysis.

This episode is available completely free on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube.

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

If you are receiving this via email, you are already a Substack paid subscriber and have full access to the content below. If not, now’s the time: become a paid subscriber.

If you are a website member and would like to view the bonus show & ad-free episode through our site, log in here.

🎧 Full episodes are also available FREE with limited ads wherever you get your podcasts: Youtube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more

Leave a comment

Read more

Most politicians don’t care about you.

I know that sounds harsh. It sounds cynical. And for a lot of people, it’s the kind of statement that makes them want to tune out of politics altogether.

But if we’re being honest about how the system actually works, it’s very difficult to argue with.

Every election cycle, every campaign speech, every polished piece of messaging is built around the same idea: they care deeply about your life, your future, your struggles.

In reality, most of them are primarily focused on something else entirely.

Getting elected and staying elected.

And once you understand that, a lot of what looks confusing in politics starts to make sense.

The incentive problem

Think about how often politicians seem to contradict themselves.

One week they hold a strong position. The next week, it shifts. Sometimes completely.

We see this constantly. Positions on war, on social issues, on economic policy. Statements that appear firm suddenly become flexible the moment polling changes.

If your primary goal is to win elections, then your guiding principle isn’t ideology. It’s what works, what resonates, and what gets votes right now.

That doesn’t mean there are no exceptions.

There are people in politics who genuinely believe what they’re saying and are trying to move policy in a direction they think is better. You can point to figures across the political spectrum who fit that description.

But the system itself doesn’t reward that nearly as much as it rewards adaptability.

And “adaptability” is often just a nicer way of saying: say what the audience wants to hear.

Voters are part of this too

There’s an uncomfortable truth here that doesn’t get talked about enough.

Voters say they want authenticity. They say they want consistency. They say they value honesty.

But in practice, many respond to messaging that simply feels good in the moment.

That creates a feedback loop.

Politicians test messages, run focus groups, analyze polling, and micro-target content. If something works, they lean into it. If it doesn’t, they pivot.

It becomes less about conviction and more about performance.

And over time, that performance becomes obvious. Even if people can’t quite articulate it, they start to sense that something is off.

Ironically, the politicians trying to appeal to everyone often end up feeling the least genuine.

The “everyone else is bad” illusion

Here’s another dynamic that tells us something important:

Congress, as an institution, has very low approval ratings. People broadly agree that politicians are disingenuous, self-interested, and out of touch.

At the same time, individual representatives often have much higher approval among their own constituents.

In other words, people tend to believe:

Most politicians are terrible.
My politician is one of the good ones.

But mathematically, that doesn’t really hold up.

It’s similar to how most people think they’re above-average drivers. The numbers don’t work, but the perception persists.

That gap between how we view the system and how we view our preferred individuals allows the broader problem to continue.

When consistency stops mattering

There was a time when contradictions and double standards could seriously damage a politician.

That’s much less true today.

For many voters, what matters most is whether a politician reinforces their worldview. If the messaging aligns with what they already believe, inconsistencies become easier to ignore.

This is part of why you see politicians take positions that would have been politically damaging in the past and suffer little consequence.

Being wrong doesn’t carry the same cost. Being inconsistent doesn’t carry the same cost.

As long as the messaging lands with the right audience, that’s often enough.

It’s not just politicians

This incentive structure doesn’t stop with elected officials.

It extends to the broader media ecosystem, especially online.

Content creators, commentators, and influencers are also operating within a system driven by engagement. Views, clicks, watch time, subscriptions.

If outrage performs, outrage gets amplified.

If fear performs, fear gets amplified.

There is a constant pull toward the most emotionally charged version of any story because that’s what the algorithms reward.

And just like with politicians, there are exceptions. There are people trying to be measured, honest, and accurate even when that approach doesn’t maximize engagement.

But the broader system pushes in the opposite direction.

Understanding the system

This is a harsh critique. It does not apply to everyone.

But it applies to enough people that it fundamentally shapes how politics operates.

Once you recognize that the primary incentive is power and attention, a lot of behavior that once seemed confusing becomes predictable.

Why politicians shift positions.
Why messaging feels inconsistent.
Why certain narratives get amplified while others don’t.

It’s not random.

It’s structural.

And understanding that doesn’t mean you disengage from politics. If anything, it should make you more discerning about the messages you’re receiving and the people delivering them.

So the real question is this:

Who do you think this applies to?

And just as importantly:

Who do you think it doesn’t?

We’re reaching over 150 million people every month across YouTube, podcasts, Substack, and beyond. But algorithms can change. Platforms can fold. And when that happens, this newsletter is how we stay connected.

If you’re not yet a paid subscriber, please consider joining.
If you’re already paid on one platform, consider supporting us on both Substack and our website.

You can subscribe on our website and right here on Substack.

And if you’re really on fire, consider gifting a subscription—we’ve got thousands on our waiting list ready to read, watch, and fight back.

Let’s keep building.

—David

PS: Can’t contribute right now? No problem. You can support us for free by subscribing on YouTube, listening to our audio podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, or become a free subscriber to this very Substack. Every bit counts.

Subscribe now

Here’s what we’re talking about today.

This is a quick rundown of the topics we’ll be covering on today’s show. You can hit play to listen, or read the transcript below if that’s more your style.

Transcript:

There’s a pattern that is starting to be impossible to ignore. Trump allies are now openly saying they’re willing to let things get worse. Higher prices, more instability, even losing in November, as long as Trump doesn’t back down.

They’re saying it directly. Inflation might go up, fine. Midterms might be lost, so be it. But we’re going to let Trump do what he wants in Iran.

At the same time, billionaires and politicians are basically saying they’ve decided you’re going to sacrifice. You’re going to pay more for gas, you’re going to pay more for food, more for everything. But that is a decision they have made for you.

And then you look at the polling and Trump’s collapsing. Approval in the low 30s, broad disapproval across all areas, cracks inside the coalition.

So we have a really simple question now: If this continues and Republicans get crushed in 2026, who gets blamed? Because we know Trump’s not going to take responsibility.

We will talk about all of that, and the latest out of Iran, and much more today.

Don’t miss the full show with these stories and others, plus all of our analysis.

🎧 Tune in at 3:00 pm Eastern on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube.

👉 Consider becoming a paid Substack supporter to support extras like these news episodes. Thank you.

Leave a comment

Concerns about a potential draft for Americans under 42 are circulating amid rising tensions with Iran. The U.S. has over 50,000 troops in the Middle East, and some are reading the Army’s decision to raise the enlistment age to 42 as a signal of draft preparation. The Army says the change is mainly to address recruitment shortfalls and technical skill needs.

Cracks are appearing within Trump’s closest circles over Iran. Ann Coulter accuses Fox News of spreading propaganda. Marjorie Taylor Greene calls the network fake news brainwashing supporters. Military contractor Erik Prince warns escalation could spiral out of control. These public criticisms signal unusual fractures in Trump’s movement.

The New York Times slammed Trump’s White House ballroom project. They point to massive design flaws, rushed construction, and costs estimated at $350 million. Stairs lead nowhere, views are obstructed, and proper oversight was ignored. Yet, Trump pushes forward, motivated by legacy and donor-funded ambition, claiming taxpayers won’t pay for it.

While gas prices climb above $4 per gallon amid the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict and tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, Trump continues to focus on promoting his White House ballroom and its Corinthian columns rather than addressing the economic and geopolitical challenges facing Americans.

Trump often portrays Joe Biden as out of touch, but his own presidency tells a different story. Trump frequently claims he is hearing about major events for the first time, avoids briefings, and fills large parts of his day with unstructured “executive time” watching TV, posting on social media, and golfing.

Tulsi Gabbard is following a familiar Trump World pattern: rise, orbit, praise, then distancing. Her cautious stance on Iran and nuclear weapons has shifted her standing. Trump calls her “a little soft” on Iran, signaling the start of potential distancing.

JD Vance suggested U.S. involvement in Iran could stretch from “three to four weeks” to “one to two years.” This breaks the administration’s controlled narrative, signaling either a slip or acknowledgment of reality. Expanding the timeline raises serious concerns about the human and economic costs of a prolonged war.

Finally, Rep. Sara Jacobs, Democrat from California's 51st district, joins us to discuss the No Kings protests, cost-of-living messaging, suspicious trading tied to Iran policy, and much more…

On today’s bonus show:

Soldiers are suspended after flying helicopters near Kid Rock's house, counterintelligence officials plan an Antifa summit, NASA sets up for the first moon mission in 53 years, and much more...

Already a website member? Watch the bonus show here | Want to become a member? Sign up here

Don’t miss the full show with these stories and others, plus all of our analysis.

This episode is available completely free on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube.

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

If you are receiving this via email, you are already a Substack paid subscriber and have full access to the content below. If not, now’s the time: become a paid subscriber.

If you are a website member and would like to view the bonus show & ad-free episode through our site, log in here.

🎧 Full episodes are also available FREE with limited ads wherever you get your podcasts: Youtube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more

Leave a comment

Read more

There was a narrative being pushed that Democrats were responsible for TSA agents not getting paid, for long airport lines, and for the chaos travelers experienced.

That narrative did not hold up even before TSA workers got their back pay.

And now, with new reporting confirming what happened after, it looks even weaker.

The admission that changed everything

Republican Senator John Kennedy went on Fox News and explained that there was a plan to end the shutdown and get TSA workers paid.

It was straightforward.

Reopen most of the government immediately, including the Department of Homeland Security, and deal separately with immigration funding through reconciliation. That second step would not require Democratic votes.

In other words, Republicans could have secured their immigration priorities while also restoring paychecks to TSA workers.

According to Kennedy, that plan was brought directly to Donald Trump.

Trump said no.

What we now know

The shutdown will eventually end. We are seeing the beginning stages now.

TSA workers were finally paid after 44 days.

But the new reporting makes something clear: the damage did not simply disappear once paychecks resumed.

Workers had already missed weeks of income. Financial strain had already set in. Some had called out. Some had left entirely.

And the system will not immediately recover.

The real-world consequences did not reset

Even after pay resumed, airports continued dealing with staffing shortages and operational strain.

That is the part that often gets lost.

Policy decisions do not just flip on and off like a switch. When you remove pay from thousands of workers for weeks, you create instability that lingers.

Missed paychecks lead to missed bills, stress, and in some cases, people leaving the job altogether.

That ripple effect doesn’t end the moment the shutdown ends or the direct deposit finally arrives.

This was not gridlock

This still is not a story about both sides being stuck.

There was a viable path to reopen DHS and pay TSA workers quickly. It was identified. It was explained. And then it was rejected.

That means the consequences we saw, and the aftereffects we are still seeing, came from a decision.

Not confusion or process. A decision.

The messaging versus reality gap

Despite all of this, the messaging remained the same.

“Democrat shutdown.”

But that claim runs into two separate problems now.

First, a Republican senator publicly described a solution that was rejected.

Second, we have the aftermath. Workers unpaid for weeks. Lingering disruptions. A system that did not simply snap back to normal.

At some point, messaging has to contend with outcomes.

Holding paychecks hostage

There is also the matter of what the shutdown has been tied to.

Trump pushed to link reopening the government to the Save America Act, a bill that did not have the votes to pass in the Senate.

So even as an alternative path existed, the chosen path depended on something that could not realistically clear Congress.

That is not leverage. This is nothing more than a delay tactic at the expense of federal workers.

What voters actually saw

This is where the political impact becomes clearer.

Travelers did not experience a talking point. They experienced long lines, delays, and uncertainty.

TSA workers did not experience messaging. They experienced missing paychecks.

And now, even after the checks cleared, the story did not resolve cleanly. The shutdown persists and the effects linger.

That makes it harder to rewrite.

The broader problem

This is about credibility.

When people are told one thing, but experience another, they notice.

When they then learn that there was an alternative that could have avoided the worst of it, that matters.

And when the consequences continue even after the official “end of the crisis,” it reinforces the reality of what happened.

Where this goes next

The consequences of this will be felt long-term.

That is the part that matters politically.

Because the next time voters are told to ignore what they are seeing and instead accept a cleaner, simpler narrative, they will be doing so with this example in mind.

The question is no longer just who caused the shutdown.

It is whether the explanation matches the reality people lived through.

We’re reaching over 150 million people every month across YouTube, podcasts, Substack, and beyond. But algorithms can change. Platforms can fold. And when that happens, this newsletter is how we stay connected.

If you’re not yet a paid subscriber, please consider joining.
If you’re already paid on one platform, consider supporting us on both Substack and our website.

You can subscribe on our website and right here on Substack.

And if you’re really on fire, consider gifting a subscription—we’ve got thousands on our waiting list ready to read, watch, and fight back.

Let’s keep building.

—David

PS: Can’t contribute right now? No problem. You can support us for free by subscribing on YouTube, listening to our audio podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, or become a free subscriber to this very Substack. Every bit counts.

Subscribe now

Here’s what we’re talking about today.

This is a quick rundown of the topics we’ll be covering on today’s show. You can hit play to listen, or read the transcript below if that’s more your style.

Transcript:

If you are under 42 years old, pay extra special attention to today’s show. There’s a story spreading about war and recruitment and the draft that may be of interest to you.

Also, we have people talking about the breakdown of decency under Donald Trump, and we’re connecting dots about what’s happening in Donald Trump’s own movement, which suggests that there is, I guess we would call it, dissent within the ranks, for lack of a better term.

We’re also going to talk sort of extensively about what is happening with that White House ballroom, as many of you have written in, saying, wait a second, is it a ballroom, or is it a military installation? Or is it both or neither? Is it even happening? Does Trump have any idea what is going on?

And does Trump have any idea what is going on is a growing question, as his schedule is increasingly restricted, even more than Joe Biden’s schedule was when supposedly he was completely unfit to serve.

We will also hear from some of the most bloodthirsty pro-war advocates who are saying, “Hey, listen, I’m as pro-war as anybody, but I don’t know about this Iran thing.”

So we’ve got a lot today. Great to see you. Great that you’re here. Let’s do it.

Don’t miss the full show with these stories and others, plus all of our analysis.

🎧 Tune in at 3:00 pm Eastern on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube.

👉 Consider becoming a paid Substack supporter to support extras like these news episodes. Thank you.

Leave a comment