Elon Musk just learned a very expensive lesson about American elections. Apparently, being one of the richest people on Earth doesn’t guarantee that voters will do what you want.

According to reports, Musk spent approximately $474 million supporting Republican candidates and conservative causes during the midterms. And what did he get for it? Democrats won the House and Senate, while Republicans suffered major defeats in races Musk had invested heavily in.

The results were apparently embarrassing enough that Musk began deleting election-related posts from X, including one encouraging Americans to vote Republican.

There is something amusing about spending nearly half a billion dollars trying to influence an election, watching your preferred candidates lose, and then quietly deleting your endorsements. But beyond the humiliation, the results raise serious questions about Musk’s political influence and his relationship with the federal government.

Texas delivers a devastating blow

One of the most remarkable developments came from Texas, where Musk has relocated major business operations and actively supported Republican politicians.

Despite those efforts, Republicans suffered stunning defeats. Ken Paxton lost his Senate race to Democrat James Talarico, while Governor Greg Abbott lost his reelection bid to Democratic challenger Gina Hinojosa.

The results were so significant that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis described them as an “extinction-level event,” warning that Republicans would be in serious trouble if they could no longer reliably count on Texas.

For Musk, who spent heavily supporting Republican candidates, the outcome was especially humiliating. His political spending, public endorsements, and enormous online platform were insufficient to deliver the results he wanted.

But the consequences for congressional oversight deserve considerably more attention.

Musk’s government relationships deserve scrutiny

For much of Trump’s second administration, Musk occupied an extraordinarily unusual position. He controlled companies receiving billions of dollars in federal business while simultaneously exercising influence within the government through the Department of Government Efficiency, better known as DOGE.

That arrangement should have raised serious questions from the beginning. Musk was involved in an initiative tasked with identifying waste, fraud, and abuse within the same federal government that maintained substantial financial relationships with his businesses.

With Democrats now controlling Congress, there is an opportunity to examine exactly what happened.

Congressional investigators should subpoena relevant records, review DOGE’s decisions, and determine whether Musk or his companies benefited financially from any actions taken by the initiative. Were there conflicts of interest? Were procurement rules followed? Was sensitive government information handled appropriately?

We should not assume Musk committed crimes simply because we disagree with his politics. Investigations should follow the evidence, and criminal charges should require actual violations of the law.

That is the standard Republicans have repeatedly demanded when calling for investigations into Democrats. Musk’s wealth and political connections should not exempt him from that same process.

Starlink, Epstein, and federal contracts

Another area deserving scrutiny involves SpaceX and Starlink, particularly their role in Ukraine’s defensive war against Russia. Initial reports suggested Musk had switched off Starlink during a proposed Ukrainian attack on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet near Crimea. Subsequent reporting clarified that coverage had never been enabled in that area, and Musk refused Ukraine’s request to activate it. That raises serious questions about why one billionaire can make decisions involving communications infrastructure that could influence the course of a war.

There are also legitimate questions surrounding Musk’s public statements about Jeffrey Epstein and his relationships with powerful individuals. Knowing Epstein does not establish criminal wrongdoing, but credible evidence deserves examination regardless of wealth or political connections.

Then there are Musk’s federal contracts. SpaceX and his other companies maintain substantial government relationships, and Congress should examine whether taxpayers are receiving appropriate value, procurement rules were followed, and political connections influenced any decisions.

If contracts are legitimate and necessary, they should continue. If investigators uncover legal violations or legitimate financial reasons for termination, those contracts should be reconsidered.

I do not want Democrats engaging in the same politically motivated retaliation I have criticized Trump for pursuing. The goal should be genuine accountability based on evidence, with consistent legal standards applied to everyone.

The limits of billionaire influence

For years, Musk has enjoyed extraordinary access to powerful people in the federal government. He has used his wealth to influence elections, his social media platform to promote political causes, and his business relationships to maintain a significant presence in government operations.

Now the political environment has changed.

Democrats control Congress, Republican candidates Musk supported have suffered major defeats, and congressional committees will have new opportunities to investigate his government relationships.

The irony is difficult to ignore. Musk reportedly spent $474 million trying to shape the political future of the country, only to help usher in a Congress that may now investigate his own conduct and business dealings.

There is an important lesson here about the limits of political spending. Billionaires can purchase advertising, fund political organizations, and even own major social media platforms. But they cannot guarantee that voters will agree with them.

Democrats now have an opportunity to demonstrate what legitimate congressional oversight should look like. That means examining government records, conducting transparent investigations, and pursuing consequences if actual wrongdoing is established.

After years of enjoying remarkable political access and influence, Musk may finally have to answer some very uncomfortable questions.

What do you make of all of this? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Musk's political spending, his government relationships, and what happens next.

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

Folks, what we witnessed last night was truly extraordinary.

Democrats won almost everything, and I don’t think we’ve seen an election night quite like this in a very long time. Going into Tuesday, there were plenty of signs that Democrats were headed for a strong performance, but I don’t think anyone was fully prepared for just how widespread these victories would be.

Democrats won the House, took control of the Senate, and picked up governorships across the country. But when you start looking at the individual races, the results become even more remarkable.

We’re talking about states that haven’t elected a Democratic senator in decades. Republican incumbents in traditionally red states who were supposed to be safe were defeated. And a Republican Party that entered election night controlling Washington is now facing the reality of losing both chambers of Congress.

Donald Trump is blaming Republicans. Republicans are blaming Trump. And Democrats are preparing to take control of Congress for the final two years of Trump’s presidency.

This was more than a blue wave. This was a blue tsunami.

A historic night in the Senate

The signs were there in the weeks leading up to Election Day. Polling continued moving toward Democrats, and election betting markets were increasingly pricing in the possibility of a Democratic Senate takeover. But even with that optimism, I don’t think many people were prepared for the geographic scope of what happened.

Take New Hampshire, where Democrat Chris Pappas defeated former Republican Senator John Sununu. As recently as August, Sununu was leading in the polls. By September, the race was essentially tied. But the numbers continued moving in Pappas’s direction, and by Election Day, he had established a substantial advantage.

Pappas won decisively, providing one of the first indications that Republicans were in for a very difficult night.

In Georgia, incumbent Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff defeated Republican Mike Collins by approximately 59% to 41%. That’s an 18-point victory in a state that has been one of the country’s most closely watched political battlegrounds. Ossoff wasn’t simply hanging on to his seat. He won overwhelmingly.

Then came South Carolina, where Democrat Annie Andrews defeated Republican Darline Graham.

Consider the significance of that result. Donald Trump won South Carolina by nearly 18 points in 2024, and Democrats hadn’t won a Senate election there since 1998. Now, a Democrat has won.

Graham was a particularly weak candidate who ended up in the position because she was the surviving sister of the late Senator Lindsey Graham. Her candidacy was an example of a broader problem Republicans faced this cycle: a number of terrible candidates running in an environment where voters were already deeply dissatisfied with Trump and the Republican Party.

And then there’s Texas.

Texas goes blue

James Talarico defeated Ken Paxton, becoming the first Democrat elected to the U.S. Senate from Texas since 1988.

Think about that. Nearly four decades of Republican victories in Texas Senate elections, and that streak has finally ended.

But Talarico’s victory wasn’t even the only extraordinary development in Texas.

Democrat Gina Hinojosa defeated incumbent Republican Governor Greg Abbott, despite Abbott’s enormous fundraising operation, the advantages of incumbency, and the support of Donald Trump and national Republicans.

Abbott has been one of the most prominent Republican governors in the country, and Texas has long been treated as a reliable Republican stronghold. The idea that Democrats could defeat both Ken Paxton and Greg Abbott in the same election would have seemed almost unimaginable not long ago.

And yet, here we are. Texas has gone blue.

Democrats break through across the country

The victories continued throughout the Midwest and beyond.

In Kansas, Democrat Adam Hamilton won a Senate seat in a state that hasn’t elected a Democratic senator since 1932. We’re approaching a century since the last time that happened.

In Iowa, our friend Josh Turek won his Senate race, while Democrat Rob Sand won the governorship. Michigan held its Democratic Senate seat with Abdul El-Sayed.

Ohio was another disaster for Republicans.

Former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown defeated Republican Jon Husted, returning to the Senate after losing his seat in 2024. And in the governor’s race, Democrat Amy Acton defeated Vivek Ramaswamy.

In North Carolina, Democrat Roy Cooper won his Senate race. And in Maine, longtime Republican Senator Susan Collins was finally defeated by Democrat Troy Jackson, who joined us on the show just a few days ago.

The list goes on.

Nevada elected Democrat Aaron Ford as governor, another candidate we’ve interviewed. And in Missouri’s second congressional district, Fred Wellman defeated longtime Republican Congresswoman Ann Wagner.

That district has been in Republican hands for over three decades. Fred, who was kind enough to have me on his podcast recently to discuss my book, managed to flip it. I congratulated him this morning, and I’m thrilled for him and the many newly elected Democrats who will be taking control of the House of Representatives.

Of course, Republicans did win some races. Pete Ricketts held off independent challenger Dan Osborn in Nebraska, and Byron Donalds narrowly defeated David Jolly in Florida’s gubernatorial election.

Even Florida’s Senate race, which Republican Ashley Moody won against Democrat Angie Nixon, was much closer than Republicans would have preferred. Moody finished with approximately 51% of the vote to Nixon’s 48%.

For years, the conventional wisdom has increasingly been that Florida is simply gone for Democrats. But a result like that should make people reconsider just how firmly Republican the state really is.

What this means for Trump

When you look at the entire picture, the most remarkable thing is how widespread these victories were.

Democrats didn’t narrowly win control of Congress because of one or two competitive races. They won in New England, the South, the Midwest, the Plains, and Texas. They defeated Republican incumbents, flipped seats that hadn’t been Democratic in generations, and won races that many people considered nearly impossible.

The political reality in Washington has changed overnight.

For the first two years of his second term, Donald Trump has enjoyed Republican control of Congress. Now, with Democrats taking control of both chambers, he faces an entirely different situation.

Democrats will have the ability to conduct investigations, hold hearings, issue subpoenas, and challenge an administration that has operated with relatively little congressional opposition.

Representative Robert Garcia, who is expected to lead the House Oversight Committee, has already offered a simple message to the incoming targets of Democratic investigations: Lawyer up.

And I suspect we’re going to hear quite a bit more of that in the coming months.

Now comes the hard part

There’s one final point I think is important to make about this election.

Not every Democrat who won last night is necessarily an extraordinary candidate. Some ran excellent campaigns, and others benefited enormously from the national political environment.

There were candidates who probably wouldn’t have had a realistic chance in a normal election year. But this wasn’t a normal election year.

Trump and the Republicans have spent the last two years alienating voters, failing to deliver on their promises, and running campaigns that offered very little to people who are frustrated with the direction of the country.

That created an environment where Democrats could win almost everywhere, including places that have been reliably Republican for decades.

And you know what? That’s fine. Those Democrats are getting into office, and now we’ll see what they can do.

The question going forward is how effectively Democrats use the power voters have just handed them. Winning control of Congress is an extraordinary achievement, particularly given the political map they were facing. But governing, holding the Trump administration accountable, and delivering results will be the next test.

What do you think Democrats should prioritize now that they’ve taken control of Congress? Should investigations into the Trump administration come first, or are there other priorities you think deserve more attention? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

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 has now reached the point where he is announcing that certain words will no longer be allowed because he personally doesn’t like them.

Yes, we are apparently at the stage of the Trump presidency where the president of the United States believes he can dictate which words Americans are permitted to use. And while the specific terminology involved in this latest controversy is almost comically ridiculous, the underlying issue deserves considerably more attention.

Controlling language has long been a feature of authoritarian governments. The ability to determine which words are acceptable, which descriptions are legitimate, and which people are considered enemies for refusing to comply is a powerful tool for shaping public discourse.

And Trump is now attempting to exercise that kind of control over something as ordinary as the term “artificial intelligence.”

Trump’s latest obsession with language

In a recent Truth Social post, Trump complained about The Wall Street Journal continuing to use the term “artificial intelligence,” which he described as inaccurate. He insisted that the technology should instead be called “super intelligence,” claiming that virtually everyone was already using his preferred terminology or soon would be.

Then came the remarkable announcement. Trump declared that his administration would be “officially banning” the term artificial intelligence from relevant government documents and other uses.

There are several problems here, beginning with the obvious fact that virtually nobody has adopted Trump’s preferred terminology. Artificial intelligence has been an established scientific term since the 1950s. It is used by researchers, technology companies, universities, journalists, and governments around the world.

Trump appears to have decided that the word “artificial” sounds negative, perhaps because it suggests something fake or inferior. So he prefers “super intelligence,” which presumably sounds bigger, better, and more impressive.

But the terminology actually matters in this field. Artificial intelligence describes a broad category of technologies capable of performing tasks associated with human intelligence. Super intelligence, meanwhile, generally refers to a hypothetical system that surpasses human intelligence across a wide range of capabilities.

These are two different concepts with two different meanings. Changing the terminology because the president likes one word better doesn’t make the underlying technology any different.

And yet, Trump has decided that his personal preference should become official government policy.

When using the wrong word makes you an enemy

The situation becomes more disturbing when we consider how Trump describes those who refuse to adopt his preferred language. Earlier this month, he reportedly declared that the White House considers people who continue using “artificial intelligence” instead of “super intelligence” to be enemies.

Think about that. A scientist, journalist, or programmer could be labeled an enemy simply for using an established scientific term.

According to The Independent, Trump has also signed an executive order directing the federal government to adopt his preferred terminology. While presidents can establish language guidelines for federal agencies, they cannot dictate what words private citizens, journalists, or businesses are allowed to use.

But Trump seems to expect everyone to fall in line, regardless of his actual authority. And those who refuse risk being branded enemies.

The authoritarian history of controlling language

There is a reason this kind of behavior should concern us, even when the immediate subject seems absurd.

George Orwell explored the relationship between language and political control in his novel 1984. One of the central concepts in the book is Newspeak, a deliberately restricted language designed to narrow the range of ideas people can express and, eventually, even think about.

The basic principle is that controlling language can become a means of controlling political thought.

History provides plenty of examples of authoritarian governments manipulating terminology to shape how the public understands events.

Nazi Germany employed euphemisms such as “special treatment” to conceal the reality of mass murder. The Soviet Union routinely characterized political opponents as “enemies of the people,” transforming disagreement with the government into a supposed betrayal of society itself.

The Chinese Communist Party continues to exercise extensive control over politically sensitive terminology and public discussion of historical events.

Obviously, Trump’s attempt to rename artificial intelligence is nowhere near equivalent to the atrocities or repression associated with those regimes. But the underlying authoritarian instinct, the belief that political leaders should determine which language is acceptable and punish those who refuse to comply, is recognizable.

And this has become a recurring feature of Trump’s political approach.

Journalists who ask difficult questions become enemies of the people. Elections that Republicans lose become rigged elections. Judges who rule against Trump become corrupt judges. Investigations into his conduct become political witch hunts.

Now, apparently, someone using a perfectly ordinary scientific term can also become an enemy.

The pattern is increasingly difficult to ignore. Trump wants to determine which descriptions of reality are legitimate, and he expects the public to accept his definitions.

Real problems are being ignored

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this entire controversy is that artificial intelligence presents enormous challenges that actually deserve presidential attention.

We are facing serious questions about how AI will affect employment, economic inequality, privacy, misinformation, national security, and public safety. Governments around the world are trying to understand how rapidly advancing technology should be regulated and what protections might be necessary.

These are complicated issues with potentially enormous consequences for millions of people.

And the president of the United States is spending his time arguing with The Wall Street Journal about an acronym.

Even the proposed replacement creates unnecessary confusion. Super intelligence already has an established meaning within the field, and the abbreviation “SI” is used in numerous other contexts.

None of that seems to concern Trump.

What appears to matter most is whether institutions will adopt his preferred language simply because he demands it. Accuracy becomes secondary to compliance, and a disagreement over terminology becomes another opportunity to test whether people will fall in line.

We have seen this dynamic repeatedly throughout Trump’s political career. He makes an extraordinary demand, his supporters defend it, and institutions are pressured to accommodate something that would have been considered completely unreasonable under almost any other president.

Eventually, the absurdity itself becomes normalized.

The danger of dismissing everything as Trump being Trump

I am increasingly tired of hearing that these incidents should simply be dismissed as Trump being Trump.

We are told that he is exaggerating, that he doesn’t really mean what he says, that he is trying to provoke liberals, or that everyone is overreacting to another outrageous social media post.

That explanation has become an excuse for avoiding serious scrutiny of presidential behavior.

We should be able to recognize that Trump’s proposed terminology change is ridiculous while also understanding that his broader desire to control public discourse is concerning.

Consider the different institutions over which Trump has sought greater influence. He wants control over the courts and judicial outcomes. He wants influence over federal prosecutions through the Justice Department. He attacks media organizations that publish unfavorable coverage. He challenges election results and seeks greater control over election administration.

He also wants to determine which journalists can question him, which questions are acceptable, and how the public should interpret his actions.

Now that same desire for control is extending to the words people use.

Each individual controversy can be treated as another strange episode in an already strange presidency. But taken together, they reveal a consistent approach to political power in which the president expects institutions, individuals, and even established facts to accommodate his personal preferences.

The concern is what happens when enough people begin treating those demands as normal.

The bigger picture

There is something almost surreal about the possibility that continuing to say “artificial intelligence” could be interpreted as an act of political resistance.

A term that has existed for roughly seven decades has suddenly become controversial because the president has decided he prefers something else.

But Americans have no obligation to pretend that Trump possesses authority over the English language. Scientists should continue using accurate scientific terminology. Journalists should continue describing the world as it exists. And private citizens should feel absolutely no pressure to adopt the president’s preferred vocabulary.

More broadly, we need to stop accepting the idea that every new attempt to expand presidential control is simply another personality quirk that should be laughed off.

There are meaningful limits to presidential authority, and those limits only remain effective when institutions and the public are willing to defend them.

With next week’s election approaching, voters have an opportunity to begin pushing back against the broader political environment that has allowed this behavior to become so routine.

Because if we reach a point where a president can declare ordinary words unacceptable and label people enemies for using them, we should be asking some serious questions about the direction of the country.

What do you think? Is this another ridiculous Trump distraction, or are we becoming too comfortable with a president who thinks he should get to decide what words we’re allowed to use?

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

That is an extraordinary sentence to have to write in the United States in 2026, but here we are.

We are talking about people with connections to the president discussing the use of military authority in response to an election they haven’t even lost yet. They are floating the possibility of seizing ballots, commandeering election equipment, and using emergency powers to interfere with the administration of elections.

And with the midterms just two weeks away, these conversations should be setting off alarm bells.

The martial law discussion is already happening

According to new reporting from Axios, a group of MAGA-aligned election activists held a video conference on September 30 to discuss what they anticipate will be widespread election fraud in November.

Now, there’s an immediate problem with that premise. We have not seen evidence of the kind of widespread election fraud these activists have spent years alleging. And yet, somehow, they’re already convinced the upcoming election will be rigged before a single vote has been counted.

Apparently, the evidence is so overwhelming that they don’t even need to wait for the election to happen.

Among the participants was Peter Ticktin, a childhood friend of Donald Trump and an attorney for Tina Peters, the former Colorado election official convicted of crimes connected to a breach of election equipment following the 2020 election.

This connection is particularly noteworthy because Ticktin and Peters visited Trump at the White House in June, and Peters has reportedly met with Trump again since then. These are people who have had direct access to the president.

During the September 30 call, Ticktin suggested that martial law might be necessary in the event of another supposedly rigged election. He also told Axios that ballots and election equipment might need to be commandeered and seized.

Another person on the call, Gregory Sandstrom, raised the possibility of pausing the election entirely over alleged security concerns. There was also discussion of Trump invoking emergency powers to force states to change their election procedures.

Think about what is being proposed here. An election takes place, Republicans potentially lose, and rather than accepting the outcome or pursuing legitimate legal challenges, activists connected to the president want him to intervene using extraordinary executive authority.

These are conversations about overriding the normal democratic process because one political movement might not like the outcome.

The Constitution doesn’t disappear because Republicans lose

There are established legal mechanisms for challenging election results. If there is credible evidence of fraud or irregularities, candidates can go to court, present that evidence, and seek appropriate remedies.

That process exists for a reason. Elections are complicated, mistakes can happen, and legitimate disputes deserve to be heard.

But the proposals being discussed by these MAGA activists go far beyond anything resembling a normal election challenge.

The president cannot unilaterally postpone congressional elections. States administer those elections under constitutional and federal legal frameworks. Donald Trump cannot simply declare martial law and take control of state election systems because he dislikes the results.

Emergency powers do not erase constitutional limits, regardless of how creatively the president’s allies might attempt to interpret them.

And it’s important to be precise about what we know. Trump has not publicly approved these specific proposals, and there is currently no evidence that he has decided to impose martial law following the election. His administration has maintained that its focus is on election security and counting legal votes.

But the fact that people with access to the president are openly discussing these possibilities is alarming on its own.

We have reached a point where extraordinary measures against the democratic process are being treated as reasonable subjects for political planning.

How authoritarianism becomes normalized

As we’ve discussed with experts who study authoritarianism, democratic institutions rarely disappear overnight. The process is gradual. Ideas that once seemed unthinkable become subjects of debate, then serious proposals, and eventually accepted political options.

Consider where we are today. Trump spent years promoting false claims about the 2020 election, and his allies are already predicting widespread fraud in November without evidence. Meanwhile, Heather Honey, who promoted false election claims, now holds a senior election integrity position at Homeland Security, and Peter Navarro continues pushing election conspiracy theories from within the administration.

Now, people connected to the president are openly discussing martial law in response to a potential Republican defeat. The message is increasingly clear: elections are legitimate when Republicans win, but when they lose, suddenly there’s a crisis requiring extraordinary intervention.

That is a dangerous precedent for American democracy.

The real test will be whether institutions hold

We don’t know whether Trump will embrace these proposals, but we do know how easily he can be influenced by those around him, particularly when they reinforce his existing grievances. And when those people are discussing martial law as a response to losing an election, there’s reason for concern.

The constitutional limits on presidential power are clear. The bigger question is whether those limits would be enforced if Trump attempted to exceed them. Would governors and state officials refuse unlawful demands? Would the courts intervene quickly enough?

These are questions we should never have to ask two weeks before an American election. Yet people with connections to the White House are openly exploring these possibilities anyway.

The strongest response is an overwhelming electoral victory

With the midterms approaching, voter registration efforts, election education, and legal preparations are underway to protect the process. But one of the strongest defenses against attempts to overturn the results is an overwhelming electoral victory.

If an election comes down to 11,000 votes, we know how Trump and his allies might respond. A victory by hundreds of thousands or millions makes it much harder to manufacture uncertainty or credibly challenge the outcome.

Of course, even a landslide can’t prevent false allegations or abuses of power. But as the possibility of significant Republican losses becomes more apparent, MAGA’s internal anxiety appears to be growing. And these discussions of martial law are unfolding against that very backdrop.

What happens when losing becomes unacceptable?

The timing of all this is revealing. The election hasn’t happened, no votes have been counted, and there’s no evidence of the widespread fraud these activists are already predicting. Yet people connected to Trump are discussing extraordinary measures to interfere with the process.

For years, Trump and his allies have encouraged supporters to treat electoral defeat as evidence of fraud. Now, some are considering increasingly extreme responses to the possibility of losing. We shouldn’t assume Trump will act on these proposals, but dismissing them simply because they’re unconstitutional would be a mistake.

The real test may come after the votes are counted, when we’ll see whether the institutions meant to protect democracy actually hold.

So what do you think? Are these martial law discussions an attempt to intimidate voters, or are Trump’s allies seriously preparing to challenge the election results by any means necessary?

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

We are just days away from the midterm elections, and newly released government documents have revealed something extraordinary about what Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been doing with American voter information.

According to documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, ICE’s investigative division has received more than 50 million voter records from the Department of Justice. These records are being collected as part of an effort to investigate supposed voter fraud, an issue that Donald Trump and his allies have spent years exaggerating despite the lack of evidence that noncitizen voting occurs at any statistically meaningful scale.

Before jumping to conclusions, we need to establish what these revelations do and do not tell us. Obtaining voter records does not mean ICE has changed anyone’s vote, deleted voter registrations, or interfered with ballots. We currently have no evidence that any of those things have happened.

But the documents raise some very serious questions about why an immigration enforcement agency is collecting information on tens of millions of American voters, what it intends to do with that information, and what safeguards exist to prevent misuse.

Given ICE’s recent track record, I don’t think Americans should simply be expected to take the agency’s word for it.

50 million voter records and a troubling list of states

The reporting comes from Jake Johnson at Common Dreams, based on documents obtained by the legal advocacy organization Democracy Forward through a Freedom of Information Act request.

According to those documents, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the investigative arm of ICE, obtained approximately 50.5 million voter roll records from the Justice Department. The agency also received roughly 26,000 additional records from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The documents identify several priority states: Texas, Pennsylvania, California, New Jersey, Minnesota, Michigan, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Ohio.

Take a moment to consider that list. Several of those states are home to some of the most consequential elections taking place in just weeks. Control of Congress could come down to a handful of closely contested races, and the federal government’s immigration enforcement apparatus is collecting voter information from states that will help determine the country’s political future.

Now, there is nothing inherently improper about investigating legitimate voter fraud. Noncitizens are prohibited from voting in federal elections, and if there is credible evidence that someone has violated that law, the government has every right to investigate.

But collecting 50 million voter records does not establish that there are 50 million suspicious voters, 50 million noncitizens on the voter rolls, or anything remotely approaching 50 million fraudulent votes.

The government is gathering an enormous amount of information about American voters, and the public has yet to receive a convincing explanation of what evidence justifies an investigation of this scale.

Voter registration organizations are also being investigated

The documents reveal another concerning development. ICE has considered deploying undercover agents to investigate nonprofit organizations that help people register to vote.

These are organizations whose purpose is to help eligible Americans participate in the democratic process. Voter registration assistance is a perfectly legal and important part of maintaining an accessible electoral system.

Of course, if a particular organization is suspected of criminal wrongdoing and there is evidence supporting that suspicion, an investigation may be warranted. But the information revealed so far raises questions about what exactly ICE believes these organizations have done.

One particularly revealing detail involves New Jersey, where ICE reviewed more than 40 nonprofit organizations and reportedly found zero derogatory information.

Zero.

In other words, that review produced no evidence of wrongdoing. Yet the broader investigative effort appears to have continued.

We should be asking why federal immigration investigators are devoting resources to scrutinizing organizations that register eligible voters, particularly when their own reviews have failed to uncover misconduct.

There is also a potential chilling effect worth considering. Organizations that help Americans register to vote should not have to wonder whether their perfectly legal activities could attract undercover scrutiny from an agency primarily associated with immigration enforcement.

The Palantir connection raises even more questions

Perhaps the most alarming detail involves the potential use of immigration surveillance technology.

According to the documents, certain state voter records were being considered for entry into Palantir’s ELITE system, technology used by ICE to identify and locate individuals for immigration enforcement.

Think about what that could mean.

Voter registration databases contain information about Americans who are exercising one of their most fundamental democratic rights. ICE, meanwhile, uses surveillance and data analysis tools to locate people for immigration enforcement purposes.

The possibility of combining those two systems deserves extraordinary scrutiny.

There is an important qualification here. Democracy Docket, the publication associated with election attorney Marc Elias, reported that as of July, the voter information was awaiting entry into ELITE. A source familiar with the matter subsequently said that the information was never actually integrated into the system.

So we do not have confirmation that ICE uploaded those voter records into ELITE, and we should be careful not to suggest otherwise.

Nevertheless, the fact that this integration was apparently being considered raises an obvious question: Why would voter registration information be contemplated for inclusion in a system designed to locate people for immigration enforcement?

What legitimate investigative purpose would that serve, and what protections would prevent such information from being used inappropriately?

Those are questions the government should be prepared to answer.

A familiar name from the 2020 election

There is another figure connected to this story who deserves attention: Heather Honey.

Honey previously promoted false claims surrounding the 2020 presidential election and now holds a senior position within the Department of Homeland Security.

According to Democracy Forward, ICE obtained approximately 48 million additional records from sources associated with Honey’s work.

Those records are separate from the roughly 50.5 million voter records obtained from the Justice Department, although we do not know how much overlap exists between the two collections. It would therefore be misleading to simply add those numbers together and claim the government has assembled nearly 100 million unique voter records.

Still, the scale of the information being collected is remarkable.

The documents also reference investigations involving voting machines and counties associated with the 2020 election results.

Remember, we are now approaching the 2026 midterms. The 2020 election took place six years ago, and the false claims surrounding that election have been repeatedly investigated, litigated, and debunked.

Yet we are seeing federal immigration enforcement resources directed toward voter databases, registration organizations, and matters connected to the election conspiracy theories that have consumed the Republican Party for years.

When someone who helped promote those false narratives now occupies a senior position in the agency overseeing this work, it is reasonable to demand a much more detailed explanation of the government’s objectives.

What is ICE planning for Election Day?

There is one more development that I find particularly concerning.

According to Democracy Docket, ICE is withholding portions of the documents that relate to the agency’s potential role at polling places in November.

Again, we need to be precise about what this means. Withholding those records does not establish that ICE agents will be deployed to polling locations. We do not have evidence that such deployments are planned.

But it does leave a significant unanswered question about whether the agency is contemplating some form of involvement at polling places.

And given the political environment surrounding this election, that uncertainty deserves attention.

The Trump administration’s stated justification for these efforts is election integrity, specifically investigating the possibility of illegal voting by noncitizens.

Fine. If that is the justification, then the administration should be able to explain what credible evidence supports collecting tens of millions of voter records, examining voter registration organizations, and considering the use of immigration surveillance technology.

What specific problems have investigators identified? Why is this volume of information necessary? Who has access to the records? How long will they be retained? And what safeguards prevent information collected for one purpose from being used for another?

These are basic accountability questions, and answering them should not require years of litigation or a Freedom of Information Act request.

Americans deserve answers before November

The stakes of the upcoming midterms are enormous.

Americans are about to decide which party controls the House of Representatives and the Senate, and whether Donald Trump spends the final two years of his presidency facing meaningful congressional opposition or continues with a Republican majority capable of advancing his agenda.

Against that backdrop, we are learning that ICE has been collecting massive amounts of voter information, examining organizations that help Americans register to vote, and considering whether election data could be incorporated into immigration enforcement systems.

There are legitimate reasons for government agencies to investigate violations of election law. But those investigations must be grounded in evidence, conducted within appropriate legal boundaries, and subject to meaningful oversight.

The public should not have to discover through advocacy organizations and FOIA requests that federal agencies are assembling enormous collections of voter information without a clear explanation of why that information is needed or how it will be used.

We should also be able to distinguish between what has been documented and what remains uncertain. There is currently no evidence in these revelations that ICE has altered votes, deleted registrations, or interfered with ballots. That is important.

But the absence of evidence of those specific actions does not eliminate the need to scrutinize the government’s collection and potential use of voter data.

With Election Day approaching, transparency becomes even more urgent. Americans deserve to know what their government is doing with their information, especially when the agency involved has traditionally had little to do with administering elections.

Whether the Trump administration will provide those answers remains to be seen.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on all of this, so let me know in the comments. And if you found this article valuable, please consider sharing it. The more people who are aware of what's happening, the better.

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

Pete Buttigieg recently said something Democrats should take very seriously heading into the midterms: winning may not be enough. The margin could matter almost as much as the victory itself.

The phrase being used is “too big to rig.” Taken literally, that can sound conspiratorial, so let’s be very clear about what we are talking about. There is no secret machine magically changing votes overnight. There is no evidence of some electronic switch that can simply flip an election from one party to another.

The concern is much more straightforward. Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly attacked the rules and institutions surrounding elections, and a close result creates opportunities for litigation, challenges, delays and disputes that a decisive result simply does not.

That is why the size of the victory matters.

The danger of a razor-thin margin

Imagine control of the House comes down to one or two seats. Or imagine control of the Senate depends on a single race.

Suddenly, one disputed election becomes enormously important. A lawsuit in one state matters more. A delayed certification matters more. A fight over a particular category of ballots matters more. One decision involving one seat could determine which party controls an entire chamber of Congress.

Now imagine Democrats instead win dozens of additional House seats.

The situation changes dramatically. Even if Republicans successfully challenge one race, or two races, or somehow manage to create chaos around a handful of contests, it does not change control of the chamber.

The same principle applies to the Senate. If everything hinges on whether one party has 50 seats or 51, a single disputed race carries extraordinary weight. If the margin is larger, there are fewer pressure points available to exploit.

That is the practical meaning of making an election “too big to rig.”

The groundwork is already being laid

None of this requires speculating about what Trump might secretly be planning. There is plenty happening out in the open.

Trump has called for Republicans to “nationalize” voting and take over elections in certain places, even though elections in the United States are primarily administered by state and local governments. His administration has also faced scrutiny over the possibility of federal agents appearing near polling locations. The administration has said there are no plans for a broad deployment, while Trump himself has declined to categorically rule out federal enforcement activity around the election.

Meanwhile, election officials around the country are preparing for potential legal disputes, federal intervention and misinformation surrounding the midterms.

The important point is that voters do not need to imagine some fantastical conspiracy. The fights over election administration are already happening publicly.

There is also a political permission structure being built before the votes have even been counted.

Question mail-in ballots. Question the voter rolls. Question how long counting takes. Suggest Democratic states cannot be trusted. Raise suspicions about noncitizen voting. Then, if Republicans lose, an explanation for the loss has already been prepared.

We have seen a version of this before.

We know what happened after 2020

After Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, he claimed the election had been stolen despite failing to provide evidence sufficient to substantiate that claim.

He pressured Georgia officials over the state’s results. His allies backed an effort involving alternate slates of electors. He pressured Vice President Mike Pence over certification.

That history matters because the closer an election is, the more consequential these kinds of challenges can become.

We also saw a much smaller example of the power of procedural delay with Representative Adelita Grijalva. After winning her special election in Arizona, her swearing-in was delayed for 50 days. The timing was particularly notable because a petition to force a House vote on the Epstein files sat just one signature short of the 218 needed to move forward, and Grijalva had pledged to be that final signature. Grijalva later introduced legislation intended to prevent similar delays in the future.

Now imagine something like that happening when control of the House depends on one or two members.

A disputed race here, a delayed seating there, a lawsuit somewhere else, and suddenly an election decided by millions of voters becomes a battle over a tiny number of pressure points.

A larger margin makes that strategy much harder.

Lawyers are good. Voters are better.

There will absolutely be lawyers ready to respond to election challenges. Voting rights groups should be prepared. Election officials should know the law and be ready for attempts to interfere with the process.

But there is another defense available to voters themselves: overwhelming participation.

Spending the final weeks before an election endlessly refreshing polls accomplishes nothing. Assuming someone else has the election covered accomplishes nothing. House races matter. Senate races matter. Governors matter. State legislatures matter.

The more decisive the result, the less leverage there is for anyone trying to manufacture doubt around a handful of races.

A one-seat margin creates an obvious target. A 30- or 40-seat margin creates a very different problem for anyone hoping to reverse control of Congress through individual challenges.

They can still claim the election was rigged. We already know election fraud allegations do not necessarily disappear simply because the evidence fails to support them. But claiming dozens of separate elections across the country were somehow manipulated becomes increasingly difficult to turn into an actionable strategy.

The ultimate backstop

Buttigieg also raised a broader question that is worth thinking about beyond 2026: What is the ultimate backstop for democracy?

Is it Congress?

Is it the courts?

Ultimately, democratic institutions function because enough people participate in them and insist that election results be respected.

Courts can enforce laws. Attorneys can challenge abuses. Election officials can follow procedures. Congress can certify results. All of those institutions matter enormously.

But voters determine how much ambiguity exists for bad actors to exploit in the first place.

If control of Congress comes down to a single contested race, that ambiguity can become incredibly powerful. If voters deliver a decisive result across dozens of races and multiple states, the number of plausible avenues for overturning the broader outcome shrinks dramatically.

That is the real argument behind “too big to rig.”

The goal should be an election result so decisive that attempts to manufacture uncertainty cannot realistically change who controls Congress.

So what do you think? How much does the possibility of post-election challenges change the way you’re thinking about the midterms?

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

The White House has done it again.

This time, they are attacking an independent journalist and creator whose work is not only incredibly important to what we do, but whose clips you have almost certainly seen on The David Pakman Show.

I’m talking about Aaron Rupar.

Aaron is a friend of the show, and we have used his work countless times over the years. He and his team do the painstaking work of watching Trump speeches, White House events, interviews, cable news appearances, and more, pulling out the important moments and making them easily accessible to the rest of us.

And I don’t think I can overstate how valuable that work is.

We produce five shows a week while also covering breaking news throughout the day. We simply cannot have someone watching every second of every Trump speech, every press conference, every cable news appearance, and every event involving this administration. People like Aaron make it possible for independent shows like ours to quickly find, analyze, and show you what the most powerful people in the country are actually saying and doing.

That is part of what makes what happened this week so striking.

I first want to walk you through exactly what happened. Then I’ll talk about why the White House going after someone who does the kind of work Aaron does should matter to anyone who values independent media.

What happened

For two consecutive days, the White House’s official Rapid Response account personally attacked Aaron on X. This account has been part of the White House’s official communications operation since January 2025.

On September 12, Aaron posted the following photo on X showing that White House aide Natalie Harp had traveled to Ireland with Trump:

Natalie has been at the center of online speculation in recent weeks, including allegations about the nature of her relationship with Trump. That context is important, because Aaron’s otherwise simple post prompted an extraordinarily personal response from the White House’s official Rapid Response account:

Aaron’s response? “The taxpayer-funded White House incitement account is now attacking me for [checks notes] being in my 40s”

The personal attack is the point. We’ll circle back to that in a moment, because there is more.

On September 13, Aaron posted this video to X that featured someone from Trump’s team shoving the media away during a press gaggle outside Air Force One.

The White House’s response? Another personal attack on Aaron:

For two consecutive days, an official White House communications account used its platform to personally attack an independent journalist.

And Aaron explained exactly what happens when the White House does this:

“When they do this it results in a flood of harassing and threatening messages,” he wrote.

That is where this becomes about something much bigger than a couple of nasty posts on social media.

Why Aaron’s work matters

To understand why I find this so striking, you have to understand what Aaron actually does.

Aaron and his team watch an enormous amount of political coverage so the rest of us don’t have to.

Trump speeches. White House events. Press conferences. Interviews. Cable news appearances. Social media posts. They watch and document all of it.

Those clips then travel everywhere. Journalists use them. Independent creators use them. Shows like ours use them. Millions of people who understandably cannot spend their entire day watching Donald Trump speak get to see what the president and his administration are actually saying.

And much of what Aaron publishes is remarkably straightforward.

If Trump says something noteworthy during a speech, Aaron posts the clip.

If something happens during a White House event, Aaron posts the video.

If Trump publishes something notable on social media, Aaron will post a screenshot.

And this work extends well beyond Trump. Aaron has spent years documenting political moments across administrations, campaigns, Congress, and the media. His account acts as a living, searchable archive of moments that might otherwise quickly disappear from public attention.

Aaron certainly has political opinions, and sometimes his captions are snarky. But the underlying material is right there for everyone to see in its original form.

That is precisely what makes this so striking.

Aaron doesn’t need to manufacture a Trump quote. Trump said it.

He doesn’t need to fabricate a bizarre moment from a press conference. The video exists.

His work gives millions of people easier access to what this administration is actually saying and doing.

The bigger picture

As many of you know, I was recently placed on the White House’s official “media offender” list. In fact, that is how many of you may have discovered me and my show. And this is why what is happening to Aaron should not be viewed in isolation. It is important to recognize the broader pattern in how this White House is treating independent media.

The relationship between accounts like Aaron’s and shows like mine has fundamentally changed how information reaches the public.

The barrier between a president saying something and the public seeing it has collapsed. Independent journalists and creators can take a moment from a presidential appearance and put it in front of millions of people within minutes.

That has transformed the political media landscape.

For decades, a relatively small number of enormous media organizations largely determined which moments from a presidential speech, press conference or interview reached the broader public.

That is no longer the case.

Someone like Aaron can document a moment. Independent shows like ours can analyze it. Millions of people can see it without waiting for a cable network or major newspaper to decide that it deserves their attention.

And that makes independent media incredibly valuable.

It also means that the people doing this work can themselves become targets.

When an official White House account singles out an individual creator, the power imbalance is obvious. And according to Aaron, these attacks don’t remain confined to a post from a government account. They result in a flood of harassment and threats directed at him personally.

Whatever the intention behind these posts, that consequence matters.

Why I’m telling you about this

Being placed on the White House’s “media offender” list did not make me want to cover this administration less. It reinforced for me why maintaining genuinely independent media is so important.

And when another independent creator is singled out by official White House accounts, I think it is worth telling you about it.

You should be able to see what your government is doing.

You should be able to hear what the president actually says.

And journalists and creators should be able to document those things without fearing that doing so could make them the next target of an official government communications account, followed by a flood of harassment and threats.

That is why I intend to keep covering these incidents when they happen, whether the target is this show, Aaron Rupar, or someone else.

And it is also why your support matters.

Independent media only remains independent if there is an audience willing to sustain it. Subscribing to this Substack, sharing our work, watching the show, and supporting the independent creators you value all help make that possible.

The best response when someone tries to make independent journalists quieter is to make sure their work continues to be seen.

Thank you, as always, for supporting the show and independent media.

—David

If you would like to support Aaron Rupar’s work, you can subscribe to his email newsletter right here on Substack: https://www.publicnotice.co/subscribe

You can also follow Aaron on X, BlueSky, and/or Threads.

The David Pakman Show is 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.

Let’s keep building.

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 just suffered a major legal defeat at the Supreme Court, and with the midterm elections only weeks away, the timing could hardly be more significant.

The Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s emergency attempt to impose sweeping new Postal Service requirements on mail-in voting for the November election. Lower courts had already blocked the rules, and the administration went to the Supreme Court hoping the justices would intervene at the last minute and allow them to take effect while the litigation continued.

The court said no.

For anyone concerned about changing election procedures when voting is already getting underway, this is very good news.

What Trump wanted to change

The administration’s plan would have fundamentally changed the way states use the Postal Service to send mail-in ballots.

Under the new rules, ballot envelopes would need specific features, including specialized barcodes unique to individual voters. States would also have to submit voter information to the Postal Service and have their ballot envelope designs approved.

The consequences for failing to comply were serious. Mail that did not meet the requirements could be rejected and returned to the state rather than delivered to the voter.

Think about what that means in practice. States have already designed their ballots and envelopes. Election officials have already established procedures. In some parts of the country, the voting process is already underway. Then, just weeks before Election Day, the federal government wanted states to overhaul major pieces of that system.

Election officials, including Republicans, warned that trying to implement an entirely new Postal Service system this close to Election Day could create delays, mistakes and confusion.

There is some irony there. Trump and his allies have spent years claiming that mail-in voting is plagued by exactly those problems. Their proposed solution would have created a very real risk of introducing them into an election already in progress.

The Supreme Court shuts the door for 2026

Lower courts blocked the rules from taking effect, so the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court for emergency relief.

The justices declined.

The majority said the government was “unlikely to succeed on the merits” of its challenge to the preliminary injunction and that the other factors necessary to justify emergency relief did not favor the administration.

That leaves the lower court injunction in place. For the 2026 midterms, the practical result is straightforward: the Postal Service cannot implement the system Trump wanted, and the existing process remains in place.

There is an important bit of nuance here because this ruling does not permanently settle every legal question surrounding the Postal Service and election mail.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately that he believes there is at least a possibility that the Postal Service has the statutory authority to create rules along these lines. But even Kavanaugh concluded that imposing them for the 2026 election would be arbitrary and capricious because state and local election officials simply do not have enough time to reasonably implement them.

I disagree with Kavanaugh on the broader question of Postal Service authority. Elections are administered by the states, and I do not believe the Postal Service should be inserting itself into state election administration in this way.

But on the immediate question, the conclusion is obvious. You cannot redesign a major component of election administration at the eleventh hour and expect 50 states, thousands of local election officials and millions of voters to simply figure it out.

Trump needed these rules now

The timing is also central to understanding why this defeat matters politically.

Trump’s immediate objective was to have these rules in place for the 2026 midterms. Whatever happens with the underlying litigation later, that opportunity is now essentially gone.

The ballots have been designed. The envelopes have been printed. The procedures are in place. Voting by mail is beginning in parts of the country.

Trump needed the Supreme Court to intervene immediately. He asked the justices to do exactly that, and they refused.

This was his last realistic opportunity to impose these requirements before November.

Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the administration should have been allowed to put the rules into effect while the case continued. They did not have enough votes.

So, practically speaking, the clock has run out.

The broader fight isn’t over

None of this means the underlying legal battle disappears after Election Day.

Future courts may still confront questions about how much authority the Postal Service has over election mail and where the boundary lies between legitimate postal regulation and federal interference with state-run elections. Those are consequential questions, and they will be worth watching even after the midterms are over.

But the immediate threat has been removed.

One potential source of chaos heading into November has been taken off the table. States will not suddenly have to redesign their mail-ballot systems weeks before an election. Voters will not have to wonder whether their ballot can be delivered because their state failed to satisfy a newly created federal requirement.

And Trump did not get the emergency intervention he needed from the Supreme Court.

Even if I disagree with parts of the reasoning offered by some of the justices, the outcome for this election is the right one. Election rules should not be rewritten at the last possible moment, particularly when election officials are warning that doing so could create the very confusion and disruption the administration claims it wants to prevent.

Trump can hurl ketchup at the walls until the cows come home. These rules are not going into effect for the 2026 midterms.

So what do you think? Was this simply the Supreme Court recognizing that it was far too late to overhaul the system, or does the Postal Service have no business playing this kind of role in elections in the first place?

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

I have a new mission for us.

My book, Pay Attention, comes out in less than two weeks. And I recently made the mistake of looking at the New York Times bestseller list, where I discovered that the number one book right now belongs to Ted Cruz.

Yes, Ted Cruz.

A repugnant, radical, repulsive figure who apparently thinks he is going to stand in our way.

So the mission has changed slightly. When Pay Attention comes out, wherever Ted Cruz happens to be on that bestseller list, I want us one spot above him.

There is obviously some fun in making this about beating Ted Cruz. But underneath that is something much bigger that I genuinely want to test. For nearly 20 years, I have been building something completely independent, and I want to see what this audience can do when we all show up together.

What independent actually means

There is no television network behind this show. There is no billionaire funding it, no political party financing it and no giant media corporation deciding which stories I am allowed to cover.

This audience was built one person at a time.

Millions of people over the years have decided to watch a video, subscribe to the show, become a member, share something with a friend or otherwise support independent media. That is the entire reason this operation exists today.

Pay Attention is an extension of that project.

The book is about how our attention has become one of the most valuable commodities in the world. Political movements, media companies and technology platforms are constantly competing to capture it, manipulate it and keep us engaged. Over time, those systems influence what we see, what we think about and ultimately what we believe matters.

I spent a long time working on this book because I believe understanding those forces is incredibly important in the political and media environment we are living in right now.

Now we get to test another idea: What can a genuinely independent audience accomplish?

The Ted Cruz advantage

Ted Cruz has access to an ecosystem that I simply do not have.

He is a United States senator. He has wealthy political networks, conservative media, donors, organizations and an entire infrastructure capable of promoting whatever he is doing.

I have you folks.

And I am completely serious when I say that I think it could be enough.

If enough people who were already thinking about getting Pay Attention pre-order a copy, I believe we have a real chance to make a statement when the book is released.

I don’t need anyone buying 10 copies. I certainly don’t need anybody buying 50 copies or doing anything ridiculous. One person, one pre-order.

The timing, however, really does matter.

Why pre-orders matter right now

If you have been planning to get the book, please pre-order it now rather than waiting until you happen to see it at a bookstore weeks after release.

Pre-orders count toward the book’s first week, which gives us the best opportunity to make an impact on the bestseller lists when Pay Attention is released.

And yes, that also gives us our best opportunity to knock Ted Cruz down a slot.

There are plenty of ways to get the book. There are signed copies, regular copies, the audiobook, Kindle and other formats. The point is simply that if you were already planning on buying it, doing it now gives that purchase significantly more impact during release week.

There is also another completely free way to help.

Call your local library and ask them to order Pay Attention by David Pakman. Libraries can order copies, and I already know of some where people are waiting to borrow the book. If your library does not have it yet, give them a call and ask.

Even if you have already pre-ordered your own copy, you can still request that your local library carry one.

A proof of concept

Of course I want the book to succeed because I believe in what it says. I think the message is important, particularly at a time when so many people feel overwhelmed by information while simultaneously having less control over what information actually reaches them.

But seeing Pay Attention succeed would mean something beyond the book itself.

It would be a proof of concept for independent media.

This show started with no connections, no pile of money and no institutional backing. Over the years, millions of people independently decided that this was something worth supporting. That collective decision is why the show exists today.

Now I want to see whether we can do the same thing with this book.

We have 12 days.

Ted Cruz is number one right now. We have no idea where his book will be by the time Pay Attention comes out.

Wherever he is, let’s try to land one spot higher.

If you’ve been considering getting Pay Attention, now is the time to pre-order. Signed copies, unsigned copies, audiobooks, Kindle editions and more are available at DavidPakman.com/attention.

And I want to hear from you: Can an independent media audience actually go toe-to-toe with the political and media machine behind someone like Ted Cruz? I think we’re about to find out.

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

Something strange is happening at the White House right now, and it could turn into a much bigger story than the departure of one press secretary.

Karoline Leavitt has left her position as White House press secretary. Her departure was announced on August 12 and Donald Trump still has not selected a replacement.

According to CBS News, the current plan is to rotate different administration officials through the briefing room rather than immediately install another permanent press secretary. That raises an interesting possibility: What if Trump simply decides he doesn’t need a traditional White House press secretary anymore?

That would be a significant change in how this administration communicates with the press and, by extension, with the American public.

The rotating briefing room

We have already gotten a preview of what this might look like.

When Leavitt was briefly out on maternity leave, the White House did not appoint an acting press secretary. Instead, different administration officials appeared before reporters depending on the day and the subject. JD Vance might speak. Marco Rubio could come out. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent might take questions.

At the same time, formal White House press briefings became less frequent.

Now Leavitt has left permanently, and there still appears to be no successor waiting to take over. The temporary arrangement may end up becoming the permanent one.

I have had plenty of criticisms of Leavitt. Her briefings were often filled with propaganda. She attacked journalists and routinely repeated Trump’s false claims. Nobody watching my show would mistake me for a Karoline Leavitt fan.

Still, eliminating the position entirely creates a different problem.

Whatever you think of the person occupying the job, a White House press secretary has a defined responsibility: stand in front of reporters and answer questions on behalf of the president and his administration.

Without that person, accountability becomes much easier to avoid.

A convenient way to dodge questions

Interestingly, some reporters have described a major difference between Leavitt’s public and private behavior.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins has said that despite their combative public relationship, Leavitt advocated for Collins to be allowed into press areas on multiple occasions, including during overseas trips when her access was in question. Other reporters have similarly described Leavitt as someone who could be responsive behind the scenes, providing information even while publicly battling with the media.

That isn’t praise for Leavitt. It illustrates what could disappear with the position.

Imagine how a rotating system works when an uncomfortable story breaks.

If the White House wants to discuss Iran, it can send Marco Rubio to the briefing room. Reporters ask about something involving Trump personally, and Rubio can simply explain that he is the secretary of state and cannot speak to it.

If the administration wants to discuss the economy, send Scott Bessent. Ask him about an unrelated controversy and he can say the same thing. He is the Treasury secretary. That issue isn’t his department.

Vance, Rubio, Bessent and other administration officials have their own jobs and their own portfolios. None of them would have the same responsibility to answer broadly for the president.

And if the White House really doesn’t want to talk about something, perhaps nobody comes out at all.

That is where this starts to become concerning.

An administration already hostile to the press

This would be happening within an administration that has already made traditional press access increasingly difficult.

Briefings have become more infrequent and spaced out. Trump routinely attacks the media. The White House has restricted access to some traditional outlets while giving favorable treatment to friendly media figures and outlets.

Removing the permanent press secretary would take that trend another step further.

There is also something unusual about the way Leavitt’s departure has unfolded. When other major Trump administration officials recently announced their departures, including Tulsi Gabbard, Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi, successors were announced immediately or relatively quickly.

Leavitt announced that she was leaving three weeks ago. Her departure is now here, and there is still no announced replacement.

Maybe Trump was blindsided. Maybe there was no larger plan. Maybe he simply hasn’t found somebody he wants.

There is also the possibility that finding someone sufficiently loyal who is willing to stand in front of reporters, lie, and defend whatever Trump said six minutes earlier is harder than it sounds.

Several names have floated around. Alina Habba was rumored to be a possibility. Anna Kelly would seemingly offer continuity after serving as Leavitt’s deputy. CNN conservative commentator Scott Jennings was also mentioned because his combative style would presumably fit what Trump wants from the position.

One by one, those possibilities seem to have faded from the conversation.

What happens if nobody gets the job?

Trump could announce a new press secretary tomorrow and make much of this speculation irrelevant.

But based on what we know right now, the administration appears prepared to operate without a permanent replacement and instead use a rotating cast of officials.

If that continues, Leavitt’s departure becomes the smaller story.

The bigger story would be a president deciding that the White House no longer needs a dedicated person responsible for regularly answering questions from the press on his behalf.

The press secretary is one of the most visible connections between the decisions made inside the White House and the people trying to understand those decisions outside of it. Reporters get an opportunity to ask what the president is doing, why he is doing it, and what his administration’s position actually is.

The answers may be evasive. They may be misleading. They may sometimes be outright false. But reporters at least have someone whose job requires them to show up and face those questions.

Take away that conduit and avoiding scrutiny becomes much easier.

An administration that genuinely valued transparency and communication with the American people would presumably be eager to make clear who is taking over such a prominent role. More than two weeks after Leavitt announced her departure, that clarity still hasn’t arrived.

Maybe Anna Kelly gets the job. Maybe Alina Habba reemerges. Maybe Scott Jennings decides he wants to trade his current media gig for the privilege of standing in the briefing room whenever the White House decides to hold a briefing.

Or maybe nobody gets it.

And if that happens, we should pay very close attention to what disappears along with the title.

What do you think? Is Trump eventually going to name another press secretary, or are we watching the traditional White House briefing slowly fade away?

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

There is a new debate happening on the left about something being called “woke 1.0” and whether it should be replaced by a more politically effective “woke 2.0.”

The terminology is admittedly vague, which is part of the problem. What exactly counts as woke 1.0? What would qualify as woke 2.0? Depending on who is speaking, these labels can describe everything from basic support for civil rights to some of the more extreme political slogans and cultural practices that emerged during the late 2010s and the COVID era.

The latest round of this debate took off after Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez repeated a line from a local council member who told her that “woke one was crazy.” During an interview with ABC’s Jonathan Karl, AOC was pressed about progressive positions from that period, including defunding the police. Her answer was considerably more nuanced than the viral line suggests.

AOC argued that the COVID period dramatically expanded the political Overton window. The country was shut down, unemployment soared, and people were suddenly willing to entertain ideas that previously would have seemed politically impossible. Some of those conversations were productive. Others clearly were not. Her broader point was that politicians and candidates should ultimately be judged on what they advocate today.

The problem with “woke 1.0”

Before deciding whether woke 1.0 was “crazy,” we need some agreement about what the term actually describes.

If woke 1.0 means recognizing that racism still exists, taking sexual harassment seriously, respecting gay and transgender people, reforming abusive policing, and examining discrimination within institutions, then calling the entire project crazy makes very little sense. Those were legitimate concerns then, and they remain legitimate concerns today.

There was, however, another political culture that developed alongside those ideas, particularly online and within certain left-wing organizations from roughly the mid-2010s through 2021 or 2022.

That culture could be extraordinarily counterproductive.

Disagreement over complicated political questions was sometimes treated as evidence of moral corruption. Finding exactly the right terminology could become more important than persuading ordinary people that the underlying policy was worthwhile. People were divided into increasingly specific identity categories, with perceived oppression sometimes determining whose opinion was supposed to carry greater authority.

Minor verbal mistakes could become grounds for public condemnation. Complicated policy disagreements became tests of whether someone was a good person. And slogans such as “defund the police” or “abolish prisons” gained traction without much agreement over what those phrases actually meant, much less whether the broader public supported them.

There were people on the left warning at the time that these habits were politically suicidal and intellectually unhealthy. In retrospect, those warnings deserve serious consideration.

I probably would not use the word “crazy” to describe the entire period. “Extraordinarily counterproductive” seems more accurate.

The right’s convenient rewrite of history

The problem with the right-wing response to all of this is that conservatives are now using the excesses of that era to discredit the underlying causes.

There is an enormous difference between saying some activists adopted destructive political tactics and saying the pursuit of racial equality itself was misguided.

Believing that people should be treated with dignity regardless of whether they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender is not crazy. Believing police officers should face accountability for misconduct is not crazy. Taking discrimination seriously is not crazy.

Yet the right has an obvious incentive to lump all of those things together with the least popular slogans and most ridiculous social media controversies of the era. If every progressive cause can be placed under one giant “woke” umbrella, conservatives never have to engage seriously with the underlying issues.

That is a dishonest substitution, and the left should not fall for it.

Admitting that some tactics failed does not require abandoning the moral progress that came with them.

What would “woke 2.0” actually look like?

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has also been asked about this debate, particularly because he has moved away from “defund the police.” His response was straightforward: people can change, develop and grow in their political beliefs. He has made clear that he does not support defunding the police and would not do so as mayor.

That seems like a useful starting point for whatever people want to call woke 2.0.

The strongest version would preserve the moral progress of the previous era while abandoning the political habits that alienated people.

That could mean emphasizing universal rights rather than constantly ranking people according to identity. It could mean focusing more heavily on material improvements involving health care, housing, wages and child care instead of chasing symbolic victories understood primarily by a tiny group of people on social media.

It would also require rediscovering a sense of proportion.

An awkward phrase can simply be an awkward phrase. A bad joke can simply be a bad joke. Someone disagreeing with you does not automatically make that person a bigot. People should generally be allowed to apologize, acknowledge a mistake, learn something and move forward without being permanently defined by their worst wording on their worst day.

A political movement that makes ordinary people afraid to speak honestly will eventually isolate itself. You cannot build a durable coalition if participation requires constantly worrying that one poorly phrased sentence will get you excommunicated.

Class matters, but it doesn’t explain everything

There is another temptation on parts of the left that is worth avoiding.

Economic inequality is enormously important. Health care, wages, housing affordability and economic security have direct effects on millions of lives, and any serious progressive political project has to address them.

But class cannot explain every social problem.

There are people who argue that racism, sexism and homophobia are fundamentally products of economic inequality. Improve people’s material circumstances enough, the theory goes, and many of these divisions will disappear.

That goes too far. Giving everyone health care would be an enormous achievement, but universal health care would not magically eliminate racism. Higher wages would not eliminate sexism. Affordable housing would not eliminate homophobia.

A successful political movement has to be capable of holding both ideas at once. Economic inequality demands aggressive action, and discrimination based on race, gender and sexuality remains real.

The left should be able to admit both

So, was woke 1.0 crazy?

I would frame it differently.

There were morally necessary ideas associated with that period that remain important today. There were also cultural and political practices that became destructive, isolating and deeply ineffective.

The left should be capable of acknowledging both without having an existential crisis about it.

You do not have to pretend every slogan from 2020 was brilliant in order to support racial equality. You do not have to defend every online pile-on to believe discrimination exists. And you certainly do not have to adopt the right’s position that because some progressive tactics were ridiculous, the underlying pursuit of equality was ridiculous too.

Justice ultimately requires persuasion, coalition building and political power. Having the morally correct position does very little if your political strategy makes everyone outside your immediate circle unwilling to listen to you.

Maybe that is the useful lesson buried underneath this entire woke 1.0 versus woke 2.0 debate. Keep the principles worth defending, learn from the tactics that failed, and build a political movement people actually want to join.

What do you think? Did parts of the left genuinely lose the plot during the “woke 1.0” era, or has the backlash become an excuse to throw out ideas that were worth fighting for all along?

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

It is worth occasionally reminding ourselves who Donald Trump has chosen to keep closest to him in the White House.

Rumors are growing about the nature of Donald Trump’s relationship with his 35-year-old assistant, Natalie Harp. To be clear from the beginning, we do not currently have evidence that Trump and Harp are having an affair or are romantically involved. There are rumors, there are unusual details about their relationship, and there are certainly questions worth asking. But none of that amounts to proof.

What we do know about Harp is arguably more consequential. She has become an extraordinarily devoted member of Trump’s inner circle, with remarkable personal access to the president and significant control over the information he sees. That raises questions that go well beyond whatever may or may not be happening in Trump’s personal life.

An unusually close relationship

Harp has become known as Trump’s “human printer” because she reportedly carries around a portable printer and prints out social media posts, articles and other material she believes Trump would like to see. She has also reportedly left him personal notes and expressed an extraordinary level of devotion, including assurances that she will never abandon him.

Trump appears to value that loyalty enormously. He has reportedly told staff that Harp is the only person who loves him as much as his wife and children, adding that while everyone else around him will eventually leave to make money, Harp will never leave him. Again, none of this proves a romantic relationship, but it does establish that this is not an ordinary president-staffer dynamic.

Another detail has added to the speculation. When Trump was secretly moved from Air Force One in Turkey because of an Iranian assassination threat, Harp was reportedly among the extremely small group of people taken with him. Cabinet officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, remained on the plane believed to potentially be at risk, while Harp accompanied Trump to safety.

Being chosen over the secretary of state for that extraordinarily limited group does not prove romance either. But taken together with everything else we know about Harp’s access and Trump’s comments about her devotion, it is understandable why people are starting to ask exactly what kind of relationship exists between these two.

The “human printer” has real power

For me, the possibility of another Trump affair is hardly the most consequential part of this story. Trump’s personal history is what it is, and another scandal involving his romantic life would not exactly represent a shocking departure from what we already know about him. Harp’s influence over a sitting president deserves much more attention.

By late 2025, Harp reportedly had enormous control over Trump’s Truth Social account. That is not an insignificant responsibility when Trump’s social media posts can influence markets, move political debates and affect foreign policy. She also reportedly plays an important role in determining what information reaches Trump in the first place, meaning her influence potentially extends from what the president consumes to what ultimately gets published under his name.

Think about the dynamic that creates. An aide whose relationship with Trump is defined by extreme personal loyalty is simultaneously helping curate the information presented to him. Harp is reportedly supplying flattering articles and social media posts while remaining close enough to fulfill requests whenever Trump wants something. For a president who has always placed extraordinary value on personal loyalty and praise, that arrangement deserves serious scrutiny.

Presidents inevitably rely on aides to filter an overwhelming amount of information. No president can personally read every report, article, intelligence assessment and political development. The people deciding what reaches the president therefore possess real power, even if most Americans have never heard their names. When one of those gatekeepers is also someone the president describes in intensely personal terms, questions about that person’s influence become entirely legitimate.

The hypocrisy problem

There is another aspect of this story that cannot be ignored. Trump’s political movement, particularly its evangelical wing, has spent years presenting itself as a defender of traditional morality and family values. Political opponents are routinely judged according to supposedly absolute moral standards involving marriage, sexuality and personal behavior.

Yet when those standards become inconvenient for Trump, they have an interesting tendency to disappear.

We still do not know whether there is anything romantic happening between Trump and Harp, and it would be irresponsible to present speculation as established fact. But even the reaction to these rumors tells us something about the political movement surrounding Trump. The possibility of behavior that would produce moral outrage if attached to a Democratic politician suddenly becomes something to explain away, ignore or treat as irrelevant when Trump is involved.

That has been one of the defining characteristics of Trump’s relationship with many evangelical supporters. Personal morality often functions less like a consistent principle and more like a political weapon. The standard is enforced against opponents while exceptions are continually made for the leader.

The questions we can already answer

We may eventually learn more about Trump and Harp’s personal relationship. Perhaps there is a completely ordinary explanation for their closeness. Perhaps additional reporting will reveal something else. Until there is evidence, speculation should remain speculation.

We do not need to speculate, however, about whether Harp has extraordinary access to Donald Trump. We know she does. We do not need rumors to establish that Trump places tremendous value on her personal devotion to him. His own reported comments demonstrate that. And we do not need an affair to make her influence over the information reaching the president worthy of scrutiny.

That is the part of this story I find most consequential. Donald Trump has placed enormous trust in someone whose defining characteristic appears to be unwavering personal loyalty to Donald Trump. She helps determine what he sees, reportedly exercises substantial control over what appears on his social media account, and has become close enough to accompany him during an extraordinary security situation when even senior cabinet officials did not.

Maybe the rumors ultimately amount to nothing. The documented relationship is already unusual enough to warrant attention.

So what do you think? Are the rumors about Trump and Harp a distraction from the bigger issue, or does the unusually personal nature of their relationship make her influence over the president even more concerning?

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 have just tipped his hand about what he is considering for the November election.

And what is incredibly troubling is that millions, if not tens of millions, of Americans probably have no idea this conversation is even happening.

Trump appeared this week on The Wayne Allyn Root Show, where he was presented with a remarkable proposal: If Congress does not pass the election legislation he wants, declare a national security emergency and use it to impose new voting rules from the White House.

Root suggests Trump can simply require photo ID, require proof of citizenship, limit mail-in ballots, restrict early voting, and do it regardless of what state law says.

Trump could have immediately shut this down. He could have said the president does not have the authority to do that. He could have said election laws cannot simply be rewritten by presidential decree.

Instead, Trump responded with what sounded very much like a wink and a nod.

“Let me just say that stranger things have happened. Okay, I’ll leave it at that.”

That response deserves far more attention than it is getting, because Trump is being encouraged to use emergency powers to interfere with the November election, and rather than rejecting the idea, he appears to be entertaining it.

We have become so desensitized to the insanity of American politics that it is tempting to hear something like this and think, Yeah, yeah, Trump is threatening to do another crazy thing. Give me a break.

But look at what is actually being proposed here.

Root was not asking Trump to support a bill changing federal election law. Congress is already debating the SAVE America Act, legislation that would impose new documentary proof-of-citizenship and photo-ID requirements for federal elections. The House passed the legislation earlier this year, but it has stalled in the Senate.

Root was suggesting that if Congress does not give Trump what he wants, Trump should go around Congress.

Forget the legislative process. Forget state election laws. Forget governors and state attorneys general. Just declare an emergency and start imposing election rules from Washington.

That is an extraordinary power grab.

And when Trump was given the opportunity to shut the door on the idea, he left it very conspicuously open.

His answer had the unmistakable feel of a trial balloon: I’m thinking about it. Keep talking about it. Let’s see how people respond.

That is often how radical ideas become normalized. Someone floats the proposal. Political allies repeat it. Supporters start debating whether it might actually be necessary. Before long, the conversation has moved from This would be outrageous to Well, it is certainly one option.

Trump’s response helps move that process along.

The president does not get to rewrite election law

There is a fairly important obstacle to this plan called the Constitution.

For congressional elections, the Elections Clause gives states the initial responsibility for determining the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections while expressly giving Congress the power to alter those regulations. The president is conspicuously absent from that arrangement.

A presidential emergency declaration does not magically transfer that constitutional authority to the Oval Office.

Trump can declare emergencies that activate powers Congress has already granted to the executive branch. He cannot simply announce an emergency and invent an entirely new presidential power to dictate how states administer elections.

We have already seen courts push back against Trump’s attempts to do this through executive action. His administration has pursued orders involving citizenship verification and mail-in voting, and federal courts have blocked portions of those efforts on the grounds that the executive branch does not possess the authority it is claiming. As recently as this week, a federal judge again blocked the administration from implementing parts of an executive order aimed at restricting mail-in voting.

If Congress wants to change federal election law, Congress can pass legislation. Trump does not get to take that power because he used the word “emergency.”

An illegal order can still create chaos

Here is where this gets more concerning. An unlawful presidential order can still create enormous confusion.

Imagine Trump sitting in the Oval Office shortly before Election Day and announcing that because of some supposed national security threat, he is imposing new restrictions on voting or attempting to postpone some part of the election.

Legally, saying it does not make it so.

But politically and practically? Now you have emergency lawsuits. Election officials are trying to determine what they are supposed to do. Trump-aligned state officials may decide they want to follow his directive even if they are not legally obligated to. Voters suddenly have competing messages about whether the rules have changed.

The resulting chaos could itself damage confidence in the election.

And I can absolutely imagine some Republican attorney general somewhere saying, “Maybe the president can’t force us to do this, but we agree with him, so we’re going to try.”

That is the danger of a president publicly entertaining powers he does not actually possess.

How an extreme idea starts sounding reasonable

There is another piece of this that connects directly to something I have been talking about for years, including in my forthcoming book, Pay Attention.

Most people do not actively choose everything they learn about politics.

Algorithms watch what gets your attention, what makes you angry, what scares you, and what you share. Then they give you more of it.

They are not optimizing for constitutional law. They are optimizing for engagement. And that creates wildly different information environments.

Someone watching my show has probably heard repeatedly that Trump and people around him have been discussing aggressive federal intervention in the 2026 election. They have heard the warnings. They know this conversation is taking place.

Millions of other Americans may encounter an entirely different story.

Their feeds might be filled with stories about undocumented immigrants, sensational crime videos, and claims of widespread illegal voting. They may hear very little about Trump’s allies simultaneously encouraging him to seize powers presidents do not have.

Then imagine Trump actually declares an election emergency.

To someone living inside that information environment, the announcement may suddenly sound logical.

Of course he had to do it. Look at everything I’ve been seeing.

Meanwhile, someone consuming a completely different set of information sees the same presidential announcement and thinks, This is exactly the authoritarian power grab we were warned about.

Same country. Same president. Same announcement. Completely different perceived realities. That is an incredibly dangerous environment in which to conduct an election.

The warning is happening now

The easiest time to recognize an abuse of power is after it happens.

The harder and more important time is while the idea is still being tested.

That is where we are.

Trump has not declared a national election emergency. He has not successfully seized control of state elections. The legal framework still puts election administration primarily in the hands of states, subject to congressional authority over federal election rules.

But someone close to the MAGA information ecosystem just went on the air and encouraged the president of the United States to use emergency powers to circumvent that framework.

Trump could have responded with five simple words: I cannot legally do that.

Instead, he told the audience, “Let me just say that stranger things have happened. Okay, I’ll leave it at that.”

That deserves attention now, rather than the morning after some attempted executive order throws election administration into chaos.

Because once everyone is arguing about injunctions, emergency Supreme Court filings, conflicting instructions to election officials, and whether some Republican state is going along with Trump’s decree, we will already be several steps further down the road.

Being informed is step one.

So what do you make of Trump refusing to shut this idea down? Do you see this as another Trump trial balloon that will disappear, or something Americans should be taking very seriously before November? Tell me your thoughts in the comments.

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

I have a quick favor to ask.

Over the last couple of months, I’ve mentioned my upcoming book, Pay Attention, on the show a number of times.

Many of you have already pre-ordered it, and I’m incredibly grateful!

If you’ve been thinking about pre-ordering, now is as good of a time as ever and I’d appreciate the support.

Pre-orders have an outsized impact in publishing. They help determine how many copies bookstores stock, whether retailers give a book more visibility, and whether it has a chance of landing on bestseller lists during its first week. Those early signals matter far more than most people realize.

This book is the culmination of years of thinking about a question that has become impossible to ignore: How did it become so difficult for millions of people to agree on basic facts?

Every day on the show, we talk about politics. But politics doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It flows through social media platforms, recommendation algorithms, financial incentives, outrage-driven business models, and an information ecosystem that rewards attention over accuracy.

That’s what Pay Attention is about.

It’s not a book about memorizing political events or reliving every headline from the last decade. It’s about understanding the systems that shape what we see, what we don’t see, and why so many of us can look at the same world and come away with completely different realities.

I think it’s the most important book I’ve written.

Many of you have supported this show for years through memberships, Substack subscriptions, sharing videos, or simply watching and listening. Every one of those things has helped us continue building independent media at a time when it’s more important than ever.

Right now, pre-ordering the book is the best way to support that work.

The larger this book’s launch becomes, the more people these ideas will reach. That’s good for the book, but it’s also good for the broader conversation about media, misinformation, and the attention economy.

If you’re planning to pick up a copy anyway, ordering it before release would make a meaningful difference.

For a limited time, we’re also offering signed copies while supplies last.

Thank you for reading, thank you for watching, and thank you for making this community what it is. I genuinely couldn’t do this without you.

If you’d like to pre-order your copy of Pay Attention, you can do so here:

Pre-Order Now

Let’s keep building.

—David

With fewer than 100 days until Election Day, most of the political conversation is understandably focused on Washington. Control of Congress is on the line, with one-third of the Senate and every House seat on the ballot. The outcome of those races will have enormous consequences for the remainder of Donald Trump's presidency.

But governors’ races deserve far more attention than they often receive.

Governors have enormous influence over everything from healthcare and education to election administration and voting rights. They can serve as a check on federal policy, shape the direction of their states for years, and in some cases determine how future elections are conducted.

I recently had the opportunity to discuss the upcoming 2026 election with Meghan Meehan-Draper, Executive Director of the Democratic Governors Association (DGA). We talked about why this year’s governors’ races matter, which contests she’s watching most closely, and what’s at stake as we head into the final stretch before Election Day.

Below is our conversation.

Q: We’re now under 100 days from Election Day. Why should people who are primarily focused on Washington also be paying attention to governors’ races this November?

Meghan Meehan-Draper: I get why there is a focus on DC, but in reality, Democratic governors are the last line of defense against Donald Trump and Republicans’ cost-raising agenda. Democratic governors represent 60% of the U.S. population including in 7 states Trump won in 2024. And while Trump and Republicans are sowing chaos nationwide, Democratic governors are fighting back to lower costs and protect the people in their states. Whether that’s eliminating medical debt like Gov. Katie Hobbs in Arizona, or fixing a collapsed bridge in just 12 days like Gov. Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania, or taking direct action toward stopping Trump’s Medicaid cuts like Gov. Andy Beshear in Kentucky, Democratic governors are getting stuff done.

Q: When people hear “governors’ race,” they often think about state politics. But what are the national stakes of these elections?

Meghan Meehan-Draper: The national stakes of governors’ races are extremely high, especially when it comes to ensuring we have free and fair elections. It feels like every day I’m reading about how Republicans and Trump are finding new ways to attack our voting rights, but Democratic governors have enormous power to stop them, from vetoing rigged maps to expanding access to voting.

This year in particular, there are election deniers running for governor in key swing states like Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Michigan who supported Trump trying to steal the election in 2020 and now are hoping to have more power to do their party nominee’s bidding in 2028. Democratic governors and the DGA are not going to let that happen.

Q: How much has Donald Trump shaped this year’s gubernatorial races? Are these races becoming referendums on his agenda, or are voters looking at something different?

Meghan Meehan-Draper: We know that lowering costs is top of mind for voters in every corner of our country. And that’s a direct result of Trump driving up costs and starting reckless wars that are making everything more expensive. Republicans running for governor have to own this disastrous agenda, and we’re going on offense to hold them accountable at every opportunity.

That being said, Democratic governors have won in purple and red states like Kansas and Kentucky by staying laser-focused on the issues that impact people every day in their states, like creating jobs, funding public schools, and fixing the roads. This year is no different, and our Democratic candidates are on the campaign trail sharing their own positive visions that fit the biggest issues in each of their states.

Q: If you had to narrow it down, which gubernatorial races are you watching most closely, and why?

Meghan Meehan-Draper: We are all-in on re-electing our ten incumbent governors and holding onto our Democratic-led states, but we’re also really excited to go on offense to flip swing and red states. In particular, we see a big opportunity to flip states like Georgia, Nevada, Iowa, and Ohio, where polls show dead-heat races. It won’t be easy, but if anyone can do it, it’s our fantastic candidates Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, Attorney General Aaron Ford, State Auditor Rob Sand, and Dr. Amy Acton.

Q: Is there one race that isn’t getting enough national attention but probably should be?

Meghan Meehan-Draper: I know I just mentioned it, but I don’t think enough people are paying attention to Nevada. Republican Governor Joe Lombardo is the most vulnerable incumbent governor up for re-election this November, and recent polls have the race completely tied, despite Lombardo and his allies already spending tens of millions of dollars to try to hold onto this seat.

Notably, a poll from just last week showed that voters are seriously concerned about Lombardo’s refusal to stand up to Trump and his cost-raising agenda, yet he continues to closely align himself with the president – even calling him his “commanding officer” in recently revealed audio. And if you haven’t seen this viral video of Lombardo abusing the power of his office to get out of a traffic ticket, it’s a must watch to see just how out of touch he is with hardworking Nevada families.

Q: How can my audience learn more about the DGA? And in what ways can they best support candidates running for governor?

Meghan Meehan-Draper: Everyone should go to democraticgovernors.org to learn more about how to sign up to volunteer and donate to our 36 races across the country! And of course, follow us here on Substack @DemGovs to stay up to date on our races!

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.

That should concern everyone, regardless of party.

This week, New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman appeared on Fox Business and confidently declared that Democrats would try to steal the election. He spoke about funding “ballot security,” recruiting thousands of volunteers, and preparing to stop supposed “dirty tricks.”

There was just one problem. He offered no evidence.

No specific plot. No named individuals. No criminal investigation. No court filings. No whistleblowers. Just another sweeping claim that Democrats are preparing to rig an election months before a single ballot has been counted.

The remark reflects a political strategy that has become increasingly recognizable. We’ve watched this playbook develop over the last six years.

First, claim in advance that the election is likely to be fraudulent.

Next, portray ordinary election procedures as suspicious. Mail-in ballots, vote counting that continues after Election Day in close races, and certification timelines suddenly become evidence that something must be wrong.

Then, if Republicans lose, declare that the loss itself proves the election was stolen and demand that courts, election officials, or government agencies intervene.

The conclusion is built into the premise.

If Republicans win, the election was secure. If Republicans lose, the election must have been stolen.

It’s an argument that cannot be disproven because every possible outcome is treated as confirmation.

Conspiracy theories often work this way. The absence of evidence is reframed as proof that someone successfully covered everything up. At that point, the conspiracy becomes impossible to falsify because any contradiction simply becomes part of the alleged cover-up.

The irony, of course, is that the most significant effort to overturn an American presidential election did not come from Democrats.

Donald Trump lost the 2020 election.

His campaign filed dozens of lawsuits that failed to produce evidence capable of changing the outcome in any state. He pressured state officials to “find” votes, promoted fake electors, attempted to persuade Vice President Mike Pence to block certification, and ultimately watched as a mob attacked the Capitol in an effort to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

Those events are well documented.

Yet instead of confronting that history, many Republicans have spent years accusing Democrats of doing what Trump actually attempted.

Now the rhetoric is beginning even earlier.

What makes this more concerning is that it isn’t happening in isolation.

Alongside the rhetoric, there have been real efforts to reshape election administration before November. Legal battles over mail-in voting rules continue. The administration has sought broader authority over aspects of election administration, while other proposals would expand the ability of local officials to challenge or refuse election certifications. Some of those efforts have already been blocked by federal courts, while others remain ongoing.

The broader pattern matters more than any single proposal.

The political messaging prepares supporters to distrust the outcome before the election even happens. Administrative changes create additional uncertainty. Then, if the preferred candidate loses, both can be cited as justification for refusing to accept the result.

That has consequences beyond politics.

Election workers have already faced harassment and threats in recent years. Public confidence in democratic institutions has declined. Millions of Americans have been conditioned to believe that any Republican defeat is inherently suspicious.

That makes future disputes far more dangerous than they otherwise would be.

If Bruce Blakeman or anyone else has credible evidence that Democrats are organizing election fraud, they should present it immediately. Law enforcement should investigate it, and anyone responsible should be prosecuted.

But making sweeping accusations without evidence doesn’t protect elections.

It undermines them.

Democracy depends on something very basic: candidates accepting the will of the voters, even when they lose.

As the midterms approach, the greatest challenge may not be widespread voter fraud. It may be the growing willingness of political leaders to convince their supporters that defeat is impossible unless the election itself was illegitimate.

That is a far more dangerous idea than the conspiracy theories being used to justify it.

Leave me a comment and let me know what you think. Are these repeated claims simply campaign rhetoric, or do they pose a broader threat to public confidence in future elections?

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

There is growing unrest inside Donald Trump’s political coalition, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Some of the loudest voices who spent years defending Trump are now openly accusing him of betraying one of the central promises of the America First movement. Alex Jones has gone so far as to call for Trump’s removal from office, floating impeachment, invoking the 25th Amendment, and arguing that Congress should reclaim its constitutional authority over war powers.

To be clear, Alex Jones is not suddenly a reliable source of information. Much of what he says about an imminent draft, government takeovers, and elaborate conspiracies remains unsupported or outright detached from reality. But his turn against Trump tells us something important about the state of the America First coalition.

The movement is no longer speaking with one voice.

The constitutional argument buried inside the conspiracy

Jones’ commentary quickly veers into familiar conspiracy theories. One moment he is making a recognizable constitutional argument, and the next he is talking about government plots, AI replacing the population, and other claims that belong in the world he has spent decades creating.

That doesn’t mean every point should be dismissed simply because it came from Alex Jones.

Congress does have constitutional authority over war. If the United States is moving beyond a limited military operation and toward sustained combat with Iran, Congress cannot simply look the other way. The War Powers Resolution exists for exactly these situations. Members of Congress should be forced to debate the issue publicly and vote on whether military action should continue.

That is not a fringe position. It is a basic question of constitutional oversight.

The promises are colliding with reality

For years, Trump marketed himself as the president who would keep America out of endless Middle East wars.

His supporters contrasted him with Democrats and traditional Republican foreign policy hawks. They argued Trump alone would resist another generation of military entanglements overseas. That message became one of the defining pillars of the America First movement.

Now many of the same personalities who sold that message are accusing Trump of abandoning it.

Tucker Carlson has openly criticized the administration. Candace Owens has turned against Trump’s handling of the conflict. Even Steve Bannon, while remaining broadly supportive of Trump, has questioned the direction of the war.

Alex Jones has simply taken that frustration several steps further by arguing Trump should be removed from office altogether.

Whatever happens next, this is no longer a disagreement coming from Trump’s political opponents. It is a rebellion coming from people who helped build his political brand.

No rehabilitation required

None of this should be mistaken for redemption.

Alex Jones spent years promoting lies, conspiracy theories, and narratives that helped radicalize parts of the Republican base. He played a meaningful role in constructing the movement that ultimately elevated Trump. One disagreement over Iran does not erase that history.

But politics is often about recognizing changing incentives.

If people who spent years defending Trump are now applying pressure because they believe he has crossed a line, that pressure matters regardless of who is applying it. Every additional voice questioning a broader military escalation increases the political cost of continuing down that path.

Welcoming criticism of Trump’s actions is not the same as rehabilitating the people delivering it.

What happens politically from here?

Now that the coalition appears to have fractured, the important question is whether this changes voter behavior.

Foreign policy has traditionally ranked well below the economy when voters decide how to cast their ballots, particularly during midterm elections. Inflation, wages, grocery bills, and household finances consistently dominate those conversations.

That does not mean this issue is irrelevant. It means Democrats and Trump critics will have to determine how this fits into a broader argument about competence, accountability, and leadership.

Some Republican voters may decide to vote differently. Others may simply stay home. In a midterm election, either outcome has political consequences.

What once looked like a unified America First movement increasingly resembles a coalition arguing with itself. Whether that remains an online dispute or becomes something larger at the ballot box is one of the biggest political questions heading into the midterms.

So what do you think? Is this the beginning of a genuine fracture inside Trump’s coalition, or will these critics eventually fall back in line once the headlines fade?

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

For years, Trump’s youngest son, Barron, has mostly avoided the political spotlight. He’s generally remained on the sidelines of the Trump family political circus. But this week, that seems to be changing.

Barron Trump is now being pulled into an investigation surrounding Andrew and Tristan Tate, and Donald Trump is reportedly furious.

Before getting into the details, we have to start with something that often gets lost in these conversations: Barron Trump is an adult.

Whenever anyone connected to Donald Trump faces questions, we hear the familiar refrain that “the children” should be left alone. But Barron is no longer a child. He is an adult who has reportedly played meaningful roles in both Trump’s political operation and the family’s business ventures. Once you move into that territory, you are no longer automatically shielded from public scrutiny simply because your last name is Trump.

Barron has become part of the political operation

Barron Trump has not been a passive observer of his father’s political career.

Reports have credited him with encouraging Donald Trump to appear on podcasts that reached younger male audiences during the 2024 campaign. Whether it was Joe Rogan, Lex Fridman, or other influential online personalities, those appearances proved to be smart political strategy. I’ve said that before, and I still believe it.

Barron has also reportedly been influential in steering Donald Trump toward cryptocurrency, an industry that has become enormously profitable for the Trump family. Whatever anyone thinks about those ventures, they demonstrate that Barron has become involved in both the political and financial ecosystem surrounding his father.

That is an entirely different situation from an adult child who stays outside government and campaign affairs.

Why Congress is interested

The latest controversy centers on a request from Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari, who is urging House Oversight Chairman James Comer to investigate connections between the Trump orbit and Andrew and Tristan Tate.

This is where precision matters, and I want to be very clear about what is happening. Barron Trump has not been charged with a crime. There is no public evidence that he committed one. No indictment exists, and there has been no accusation that he personally directed government policy.

What Ansari is requesting is Barron Trump’s testimony as part of an investigation into whether people close to Donald Trump had communications or relationships that could be relevant to questions surrounding the Tate brothers and their legal situation.

Those are two very different things. Investigations often begin with questions, not conclusions.

Andrew and Tristan Tate are facing extraordinarily serious allegations in the United Kingdom, including rape and sex trafficking charges, all of which they deny. The broader question lawmakers want answered is whether politically connected individuals attempted to use access to the Trump administration to influence matters involving the brothers.

Andrew Tate has publicly claimed he knows members of the Trump family, including Barron. Reporting has also described apparent communications involving Barron Trump and Andrew Tate, although those reports remain disputed and some aspects have not been independently confirmed.

That is precisely why testimony exists. If someone has information that could be relevant to an investigation, Congress can ask questions under oath. If there is nothing improper, that becomes part of the public record.

Being asked to testify is not proof of guilt. It is part of how investigations are supposed to work.

The double standard is difficult to ignore

What makes this situation especially striking is the contrast with recent history. Republicans spent years investigating Hunter Biden, holding months of congressional hearings, subpoenaing witnesses, and even displaying his private photographs during committee proceedings. The justification throughout was that any potential connection to presidential influence deserved thorough public scrutiny, regardless of whether criminal charges ultimately materialized.

Now the suggestion that an adult member of the Trump family might answer questions is being portrayed as an outrageous attack.

Those two standards cannot comfortably coexist.

Either adult relatives of presidents can be investigated when there are legitimate oversight questions, or they cannot. The rule should not depend on which political party controls Congress or whose family is involved.

The political reality

James Comer is unlikely to pursue this investigation. House Republicans have shown very little interest in examining matters connected to Donald Trump, and there is little reason to expect that to change.

The larger question is what happens after the midterm elections.

If Democrats regain control of the House, they would regain subpoena power. That could significantly expand congressional oversight into connections involving the Tate brothers, members of the Trump family, and others inside Trump’s political orbit.

Whether those investigations ultimately uncover anything meaningful is impossible to know today.

What is clear is that Barron Trump’s status has changed. He is no longer simply the president’s son staying outside public affairs. He has reportedly played roles in campaign strategy and business ventures that place him much closer to the center of Trump’s political world.

His last name should not make him automatically guilty of anything.

It also should not make him automatically untouchable.

So what do you think? Once an adult family member becomes actively involved in a president’s political and business operations, should they be subject to the same congressional scrutiny as anyone else, or do presidential families deserve a different standard? Let me know in the comments.

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

There is a difference between a politician responding to criticism and a government trying to raise the cost of being a critic.

The Trump White House appears to have decided that criticizing the president should come with consequences. And increasingly, those consequences aren’t limited to responding with words. They involve publicly targeting critics, encouraging coordinated attacks, and raising the cost of speaking out.

Over the last several months, I’ve been targeted by the White House’s so-called “media offenders” list. There have been attempts to interfere with my first book, what I believe are attempts to undermine my forthcoming second book, and public smears amplified by figures including Donald Trump Jr., Karoline Leavitt, and Steven Cheung.

I don’t want to spend time relitigating each individual incident. Focusing only on the latest outrage risks missing the larger story. The concern is the system that appears to be taking shape around these attacks.

Raising the cost of dissent

It often starts with identifying a public enemy.

Once someone is labeled as disloyal, dangerous, or somehow outside the acceptable boundaries of public discourse, that label travels far beyond politics. Millions of supporters see it. Businesses see it. Publishers see it. Advertisers see it. Tech platforms see it.

The message doesn’t have to be explicit. The implication is enough: this is someone you may not want to associate with.

The next step is to attach something more sinister to the target. Maybe they’re accused of being communist. Maybe they’re called anti-American. Maybe they’re portrayed as sympathetic to terrorists or guilty of treason. The specific accusation is almost secondary. Accuracy isn’t the objective. Creating hesitation is.

If enough people begin wondering whether it’s worth the risk to work with someone, the campaign has already accomplished much of what it set out to do.

Fear does the work

One of the most effective forms of censorship doesn’t require banning speech.

Instead, people begin censoring themselves.

A journalist may decide not to pursue a story. A publisher may think twice before signing an author. A guest may decline an interview. A creator may soften criticism because the personal and professional costs suddenly seem much higher than they were before.

The government never has to issue a formal prohibition if enough people conclude that staying quiet is simply easier.

History offers plenty of examples of this process. In Vladimir Putin’s Russia, independent journalists have been branded as “foreign agents” before legal and financial pressure followed. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán’s government has marginalized critical media while directing state resources toward friendly outlets, gradually reshaping the information landscape in its favor.

The United States has stronger institutions than many of those countries. But institutions remain strong only if people recognize these warning signs before they become normalized.

Authoritarianism rarely arrives all at once

People often imagine democratic backsliding as a single dramatic event. The reality is more similar to a long series of smaller decisions.

More often than not, this happens through accumulation. It starts with a blacklist. Then comes economic pressure. Maybe there's a questionable investigation or a threatening legal letter that forces someone to spend time and money defending themselves. Layer enough of those tactics together, and critics inevitably begin asking themselves whether speaking out is really worth the cost.

Each individual step may appear manageable. Together, they can fundamentally change how freely people feel they can express themselves.

That is why these moments deserve attention before they become routine.

Support independent voices before they disappear

This isn’t just about me.

I certainly hope people support my work, subscribe to this program, and preorder my upcoming book. But the principle extends far beyond any one creator.

Independent journalists, local reporters, authors, whistleblowers, and smaller creators often don’t have teams of lawyers or millions of followers to absorb coordinated attacks. They are usually the most vulnerable when political pressure begins to build.

If there is one way to discourage these tactics, it is to make them backfire.

When independent voices are attacked, they should gain readers rather than lose them. Their books should sell more copies. Their reporting should reach larger audiences. Their communities should become stronger instead of retreating.

Making intimidation ineffective is one of the strongest defenses against it.

Don’t wait until it’s obvious

One of the ideas I explore in my new book is how propaganda and information overload make it difficult to recognize these patterns while they are unfolding. By the time many people realize what has happened, the landscape has already changed.

It’s easy to look back years later and wonder how a country drifted so far from its democratic norms. The harder challenge is recognizing those incremental changes while they are still happening.

That’s why these conversations matter now, not years from now.

So I’ll leave you with this: At what point do attacks on critics stop looking like ordinary political fights and start looking like an attempt to discourage criticism itself? And how should the public respond before that line is crossed?

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

The U.S. eliminated measles. Politics brought it back.Trump said he would break records, and it seems that was true. Unfortunately, one of the records the United States is now setting has nothing to do with the economy, immigration, or any of the campaign slogans we heard. It is a record number of measles cases, a disease that the United States had effectively eliminated more than two decades ago.

That should stop all of us in our tracks.

Scientists still know exactly how to prevent measles. What has changed is public confidence in vaccines, eroded by politicians and public figures who found political value in promoting distrust. Now that rhetoric has real-world consequences, and children are paying the price.

The United States has already recorded nearly 2,300 measles cases this year, the highest annual total in 35 years, and we’re only in July. We’ve already surpassed last year’s numbers with 5 months still to go. More than 90 percent of infections have occurred in people who were unvaccinated or whose vaccination status is unknown.

The consequences are serious. Many hospitalized patients require IV fluids because of severe dehydration. A majority need oxygen. Nearly one-third develop pneumonia. This is not the harmless childhood inconvenience that anti-vaccine activists often portray.

These are the predictable outcomes of declining vaccination rates.

The politics behind the outbreak

Donald Trump has spent years amplifying vaccine skepticism while personally receiving vaccines himself. That contrast is difficult to ignore. Public messaging and private behavior have not always matched, but politically, questioning vaccines has become useful.

Then Trump elevated Robert F. Kennedy Jr., perhaps the country’s most recognizable vaccine skeptic, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

Kennedy has spent decades promoting the repeatedly debunked claim that vaccines may cause autism. Could scientists investigate that possibility? Of course. In fact, they have. Repeatedly. The overwhelming body of evidence has found no causal link.

That is how science works. Claims are tested, challenged, replicated, and either supported or rejected by evidence. The problem is that in today’s political environment, many people no longer treat evidence as the deciding factor.

When misinformation reaches the doctor’s office

One of the more revealing examples involves comments Trump made suggesting parents separate the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine into individual shots.

There’s just one problem.

Those separate vaccines are not available in the United States.

Pediatricians now describe parents arriving at appointments asking for exactly what Trump suggested, only to learn that the standard MMR vaccine is the approved, safe, and available option. A political talking point has become a real conversation happening in exam rooms across America.

Doctors shouldn’t have to spend valuable appointment time correcting misinformation that originated in campaign rhetoric.

Vaccination isn’t only about you

One of the most persistent misunderstandings about vaccines is the idea that they are simply a matter of personal choice.

Personal decisions do not exist in isolation when it comes to highly contagious diseases.

Someone carrying measles into a pediatrician’s office can expose a six-month-old infant who is too young to be vaccinated. They can expose a child undergoing chemotherapy. They can expose someone whose immune system cannot mount an adequate response even after vaccination.

Those people never agreed to accept that risk.

Community immunity only works when enough people participate. Once vaccination rates fall below that threshold, outbreaks become inevitable.

The backwards standard of proof

There is another striking feature of modern anti-vaccine politics.

Vaccines that have been safely administered hundreds of millions of times are expected to answer every hypothetical concern anyone can imagine. Every rumor, every speculative question, every viral Facebook post becomes grounds for endless skepticism.

Meanwhile, a YouTube video, a Facebook meme, or a thoroughly discredited claim from years ago is treated by some as sufficient evidence to reject decades of medical research.

It’s an extraordinary reversal of how evidence is supposed to work.

The irony many people miss

Perhaps the most frustrating argument is that measles is no longer especially dangerous because relatively few Americans die from it today.

That is true precisely because vaccines worked.

Before the measles vaccine became available in 1963, the disease infected between three and four million Americans every year. Roughly 50,000 people were hospitalized annually. About 1,000 developed brain swelling that could cause permanent neurological damage, and roughly 500 people died each year.

Vaccination reduced cases by more than 99 percent, and measles was declared eliminated in the United States in 2000.

Using today’s lower death rate as an argument against vaccination is like arguing that seatbelts are unnecessary because fewer people are being thrown through windshields. The reason those tragedies became less common is because the safety measure worked.

Politics is never as distant as it seems

People sometimes tell me they aren’t interested in politics because they don’t think politics affects their daily lives.

This story is a reminder that it absolutely does.

Elections determine who leads public health agencies. They determine who oversees disease surveillance, vaccine policy, emergency response, and scientific communication. Those decisions eventually find their way into doctors’ offices, emergency rooms, classrooms, and family kitchens.

The consequences are not abstract.

Children are being hospitalized with a disease that the country had largely defeated a generation ago. The United States now risks losing its measles elimination status because public confidence in one of medicine’s greatest achievements became another front in the culture wars.

That is what happens when misinformation escapes the internet and becomes public policy.

So here’s my question for you: Where should the line be between free political speech and accountability for its real-world consequences? Should public officials be held accountable when misinformation contributes to measurable public health harm? I’d love to hear what you think in the comments.

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