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

What on earth am I talking about? Well, I’ll tell you.

According to the latest YouTube rankings from Cluvio, The David Pakman Show is now the 26th most-viewed YouTube news account. Fox News sits at number 30. CNN is number 38.

To be clear, this ranking is specific to YouTube over a particular period of time. I’m not claiming that our operation is larger than Fox News or CNN as entire companies. They have television networks, websites, international bureaus, and resources that most independent creators could never dream of.

That’s exactly what makes this so remarkable.

Fox News is backed by one of the largest media empires in the world. CNN is owned by one of the biggest media conglomerates on the planet. They have enormous staffs, massive production budgets, marketing departments, and the ability to promote their YouTube channels across entire television networks.

We have none of that.

There was no billionaire who decided to fund years of losses while we built an audience. There was no corporate parent company steering viewers our way. We built this one video at a time, one conversation at a time, and one subscriber at a time.

Every person who watched an interview, shared a clip with a friend, subscribed on YouTube, became a member, or supported this newsletter helped make this possible.

That matters because it says something much bigger than where one channel happens to rank this month.

For years, the assumption was that independent media could exist alongside legacy outlets but would always remain smaller, with fewer resources and less influence. Increasingly, that assumption is proving to be wrong.

People are making a conscious decision to get their news somewhere else.

They’re looking for voices that aren’t filtered through corporate priorities or executive boardrooms. They’re looking for analysis that doesn’t begin with the question, “What will maximize shareholder value?”

That shift isn’t happening because someone handed independent media a shortcut. It’s happening because millions of people have decided they want something different.

What makes this milestone even more meaningful is when it arrives.

Over the last several months, the pressure on independent media has only intensified.

The Trump White House placed me on its official “Media Offenders” list. Donald Trump Jr. and Karoline Leavitt have amplified attacks against me. There have reportedly been efforts to interfere with the distribution of my previous book, and I fully expect similar attempts surrounding my upcoming book, Pay Attention.

The broader strategy is obvious. Smear independent voices. Convince audiences they can’t be trusted. Make it harder for critics to reach people.

The encouraging news is that it isn’t working.

In fact, while all of that has been happening, this show climbed sixteen spots in the rankings and moved ahead of both Fox News and CNN on YouTube.

That doesn’t happen because of algorithms alone.

It happens because viewers make deliberate choices.

Independent media doesn’t have a corporate safety net. If advertisers pull back, if platforms change their algorithms, or if powerful people decide they’d rather we disappear, there isn’t a parent company waiting to absorb the damage.

The audience is the safety net.

Every subscription, every membership, every shared video, every paid Substack subscription strengthens our ability to keep doing this work without asking permission from anyone.

That’s why this milestone belongs just as much to you as it does to me.

When you choose to support independent journalism, you’re doing more than helping one show grow. You’re helping build an alternative to a media system that, for too long, has been dominated by a handful of massive corporations.

We’re proving that another model can work.

And apparently, it can even outperform the old one.

So thank you.

Whether you’ve watched for years, recently discovered the show, shared an episode with a friend, become a member, or subscribed here on Substack, you’ve helped make this possible.

If you’d like to help us keep climbing, there are plenty of ways to do it. Subscribe on YouTube if you haven’t already. Share a clip that you found valuable. Consider becoming a member. And if you’re interested in the ideas behind everything we’ve been talking about, I’d also appreciate you preordering my new book, Pay Attention.

Every one of those actions helps ensure that independent media doesn’t just survive.

It grows.

And based on what we’ve seen over the last few months, that’s exactly what’s happening.

Let’s keep building.

—David

That sounds terrifying. It sounds authoritarian. It sounds like something pulled from the playbook of a country sliding away from democracy.

At the same time, it’s important to separate what is genuinely dangerous from what is legally possible. We should take the threat seriously without convincing ourselves that the president has powers he simply does not possess.

Why people are worried

Ty Cobb recently argued that Trump’s July 16 primetime speech was about more than rallying supporters. In his view, the speech was designed to create the justification Trump would later use to declare an emergency around the election.

That interpretation isn’t coming out of nowhere.

For years, Trump has insisted elections are rigged. He has attacked mail-in ballots, voting machines, voter registration systems, and repeatedly claimed widespread fraud without evidence. We have also heard discussions about federal agents near polling places, continued attacks on election officials, and Trump’s long-running obsession with seizing voting equipment dating back to his efforts after the 2020 election.

Taken together, those pieces create a pattern that deserves attention.

What an emergency declaration actually does

This is where it’s important not to let fear outrun reality.

Last week, voting rights attorney Mark Elias joined the program to explain something that often gets lost in these conversations: elections in the United States are run primarily by the states.

That means a president cannot simply declare an emergency and suddenly take over every ballot box in America.

The Constitution does not give the president authority to suspend state-run elections. Even declaring a national emergency does not magically create powers that do not already exist. States administer elections. State officials certify results. Local election workers count ballots.

Even during wartime, American elections have continued. Even in instances where martial law has been declared in parts of the country throughout history, presidents did not suddenly gain the ability to cancel elections nationwide.

Those constitutional guardrails still exist.

Chaos may be the real objective

None of this means there is nothing to worry about.

Trump could absolutely declare a national emergency. He could spend weeks flooding the public with conspiracy theories. He could encourage supporters to believe that any Democratic victory is fraudulent before a single vote is counted.

Federal agents could be deployed in ways designed to intimidate communities. Supporters could confront voters or election workers. Republican-controlled states could pursue restrictive voting policies, including proof-of-citizenship requirements or stricter voter identification rules that might affect turnout in competitive races.

Those scenarios deserve serious attention because they could influence close elections.

What an emergency declaration would not do is give Trump the legal authority to seize voting machines, discard ballots, or suspend elections across all 50 states.

To accomplish those outcomes would require illegal actions, not merely an emergency proclamation.

The system still depends on people

One of the most important points in all of this is that institutions are ultimately made up of individuals.

States can refuse unlawful directives. Courts can intervene. Election workers can continue counting ballots.

Federal law enforcement officers and members of the military still have an obligation to follow the law, not simply obey political orders.

Everything depends on how people respond if such a declaration is made. If enough people begin acting as though it changes the law, the consequences could be profound.

Constitutional crises develop when enough people decide to treat unlawful actions as lawful. One person may initiate the crisis, but it takes others choosing to go along with it for the crisis to take hold.

Democracy doesn’t run on declarations

If Trump ultimately crosses the line and attempts to use emergency powers to interfere with an election, it will not be the declaration alone that determines what happens next.

It will come down to governors, secretaries of state, attorneys general, judges, election officials, law enforcement, and ordinary citizens deciding whether they will follow the Constitution or follow one man.

That is why panic isn’t the appropriate response. Preparation is.

Lawyers like Mark Elias are already preparing for these possibilities. Election officials are preparing. States should be preparing. Voters should understand both the seriousness of the moment and the limits of presidential authority.

Trump can issue whatever declaration he wants.

The real question is whether the people around him choose to pretend that saying something makes it legally true.

So I’m curious what you think. Are our institutions strong enough to withstand that kind of pressure, or are you worried that enough people would go along with it to create real chaos? 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

What happens when access to presidential decisions becomes something that can be sold?

Because if the reporting is accurate, that is essentially what is being proposed.

Trump Media, the company behind Truth Social, has unveiled something called the “Truth API.” The idea is straightforward. Banks, hedge funds, and high-frequency trading firms would be able to receive posts from a group of influential Truth Social accounts, potentially including Donald Trump’s, faster than ordinary users.

According to Reuters, the company plans to charge as much as $100,000 per month for early access to those “Truths.”

At first glance, it might sound ridiculous. Truth Social is hardly the center of the social media universe. Why would anyone pay well over a million dollars each year just to see posts a little earlier than everyone else?

The answer is that, in modern financial markets, “a little earlier” can be worth an enormous amount of money.

Milliseconds can become millions

High-frequency trading firms operate almost entirely through automated computer systems. These systems are built to react to market-moving news almost instantly. That means a fraction of a second can be the difference between buying before prices jump or selling before prices fall.

Donald Trump has repeatedly used Truth Social to announce consequential government actions. Tariffs. Sanctions. Military developments. International negotiations. Markets often react immediately.

Think back to April 2025, when Trump announced on Truth Social that many tariffs would be paused for 90 days. Stocks surged almost immediately after the announcement.

Now imagine learning about that decision moments before everyone else and being able to place your trades before the public even knows what happened.

That is the product being marketed here.

Turning government power into private profit

The concern is not simply that Trump has access to valuable information.

The concern is that, as president, he creates the information that moves markets.

A presidential decision on tariffs, sanctions, trade, or military action can shift billions, sometimes trillions, of dollars in global markets. If a company tied to the president’s family is selling faster access to those announcements, it creates an extraordinary conflict of interest.

Trump’s revocable trust reportedly owns roughly 41 percent of Trump Media. His children oversee the trust, while Trump remains its beneficiary.

That means the company potentially profits because of decisions Trump makes as president, decisions that only he has the authority to announce. Decisions he is now putting behind a paywall, allowing Wall Street to buy an advantage.

This is not merely about owning stock in a company that benefits from favorable policies. It is about creating the market-moving event itself and then monetizing access to it.

The law may not have caught up

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this story is that it may not clearly violate existing law.

Ethics experts have pointed out that insider trading laws generally focus on material non-public information. Trump Media could argue that the information is technically available to anyone willing to pay for the service.

Likewise, many federal conflict-of-interest rules simply do not apply to the president in the same way they apply to other executive branch officials.

Sometimes the law fails because it cannot anticipate every future scenario.

Technology evolves. Business models change. New opportunities for abuse emerge before lawmakers ever imagine them.

That appears to be what may be happening here.

The legal framework was not necessarily written with the expectation that a sitting president would package official policy announcements into a premium commercial product.

The swamp wasn’t supposed to get VIP access

One of Trump’s defining campaign promises was to “drain the swamp” and confront the corrupt financial elite.

If this service launches as described, the opposite seems to be happening.

Wall Street firms with the resources to spend $100,000 every month would gain faster access to presidential announcements that could reshape financial markets. We still do not know who the customers are, and that matters. Some could be lobbying the administration. Others could be pursuing federal contracts or seeking favorable regulatory treatment.

The appearance alone raises obvious questions.

Government information is supposed to belong to the public.

It is difficult to defend a system where access to presidential decisions becomes another premium service available only to those who can afford the subscription fee.

The bigger issue

There is certainly value in debating whether laws should be updated to address situations like this.

But there is also a practical political reality.

If Congress is unwilling to create stronger guardrails while the same party controls both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, those reforms are unlikely to happen anytime soon.

That leaves another path: reducing the concentration of unchecked presidential power through elections, oversight, investigations, and institutional accountability.

Whatever reforms ultimately become necessary, the broader principle should not be controversial.

The presidency is a public office. It is not supposed to function as another revenue stream.

So here’s the question: if presidents can legally profit from selling faster access to their own policy announcements, where would you draw the line? Or do you think that line should have been impossible to cross 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

For years, Democrats have been stuck in a battle between two competing visions of what the left should become.

One vision says the answer is to be pragmatic, govern competently, avoid unnecessary controversy, and trust that voters will reward responsible leadership.

The other says the system is fundamentally broken, compromise is weakness, and anyone who isn’t fully aligned on every issue is part of the problem. Purity tests become the standard, ideological gatekeeping replaces persuasion, and politics turns into an endless competition over who can sound the most uncompromising.

I don’t believe either of those approaches represents the future of the left. In fact, I think we’ve already seen both of them fail in different ways. If Democrats want to build a durable governing majority and actually defeat Trumpism, they need to stop arguing over which version of a losing strategy deserves another chance.

Why the center-left stopped working

Let’s start with the center-left.

For decades, the center-left largely embraced a straightforward theory of politics: govern responsibly, expand opportunity around the margins, avoid unnecessary ideological battles, and voters will reward steady leadership.

That approach produced real accomplishments. Many center-left governments managed the economy competently and passed worthwhile legislation. But over time, competence by itself stopped feeling like enough.

Millions of Americans looked around and asked a very reasonable question: why does it still feel like I’m falling behind?

Housing became less affordable year after year. Healthcare costs continued climbing. College tuition exploded. Corporate consolidation accelerated regardless of who occupied the White House. Young people increasingly stopped believing they would enjoy the same or better standard of living than their parents did.

That wasn’t because the center lacked good intentions. In many cases, it governed responsibly. But somewhere along the way it stopped offering people a compelling vision of a significantly better future.

Stability is valuable, but stability without meaningful progress eventually stops inspiring people. Voters don’t simply want politicians to manage decline more competently. They want to believe tomorrow can actually be better than today.

The activist left made a different mistake

The activist left started from a number of observations that I believe are correct.

Corporate power really is too concentrated. Workers deserve stronger bargaining power. Climate change is an existential challenge. Those aren’t fringe ideas to me. They’re legitimate concerns that deserve serious policy solutions.

But somewhere along the way, persuasion gave way to purity. Instead of focusing on coalition building, parts of the activist left embraced ideological gatekeeping. Politics became less about assembling enough people to govern and more about proving who was morally pure enough to belong.

The emphasis shifted toward symbolic victories and ideological performance instead of asking the practical question that determines whether any movement succeeds: how do we build a governing majority? Republicans were more than happy to encourage those debates because they understood that every hour Democrats spent arguing among themselves was an hour they weren’t talking about housing costs, wages, healthcare, or corporate monopolies.

The assumption that people who disagreed weren’t merely mistaken but fundamentally immoral became deeply damaging. It made persuasion more difficult and coalition building almost impossible.

A different path forward

Most Americans aren’t waking up wondering whether their political tribe won yesterday’s argument on social media.

They’re wondering whether they’ll ever be able to buy a home. Whether raising children will remain financially possible. Whether they can retire someday, or whether one unexpected medical bill will throw their finances into chaos.

Those are the questions that actually determine elections. People want dignity and security. They want to know that if they work hard, they’ll be able to build a decent life for themselves and their families.

That’s why I don’t believe the future belongs to either cautious centrism or performative revolutionary politics.

I believe the future is social democracy.

That doesn’t mean socialism, and it certainly doesn’t mean unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism. It means embracing markets, entrepreneurship, innovation, and competition while recognizing that government has an essential role in making sure prosperity is broadly shared.

It means universal healthcare. Strong labor protections and healthy unions. Affordable housing. Aggressive antitrust enforcement against monopolies. Paid family leave. Wage growth that consistently outpaces inflation. A tax system that expects billionaires to contribute proportionally to their extraordinary wealth.

None of that is some radical experiment. In fact, when you look around the world at countries with the highest standards of living, healthier populations, stronger social mobility, and happier societies, they generally aren’t practicing pure free-market capitalism. They also aren’t socialist economies. Many of them have adopted versions of exactly this model.

The best way to defeat Trumpism

There’s another reason I think this matters.

Trumpism thrives when politics revolves around grievance, outrage, identity, and culture wars. It becomes much more difficult for movements like that to dominate when the political conversation centers on affordable housing, childcare, prescription drug costs, retirement security, wages, and concentrated corporate power.

The left doesn’t need to become more cautious, and it doesn’t need to become more radical. It needs to become more effective.

Instead of asking how to satisfy the loudest activists or how to avoid offending every possible swing voter, Democrats should be asking a much simpler question: how do we materially improve life for ordinary Americans?

If they can answer that question consistently and convincingly, I think they don’t just win elections. I think they also begin stripping away much of what gives Trumpism its political energy in the first place.

So I’m curious what you think. Has the Democratic Party spent too much time arguing over ideology instead of focusing on improving people’s everyday lives, or do you think one side of this debate has actually gotten it right? Let me know where you land 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

If you spend any amount of time on political social media, you’ve probably come across Adam James, better known as @epistemiccrisis. In fact, he’s been a guest on the show a couple times.

Adam built a massive audience discussing what he thinks is happening with Trump, Mitch McConnell, and other geriatric folks running our government. Whether you agreed with every conclusion or not, one thing was remarkably consistent: he presented his analysis as exactly what it was. His opinion.

He regularly reminded viewers that he wasn’t diagnosing anyone. He pointed to his more than 14 years of experience working in home healthcare with dementia patients, explained what he believed he was observing, and encouraged people to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

Now his TikTok account has been banned.

That should concern anyone who values independent media.

This isn’t really about whether you agreed with Adam’s analysis. It’s about the fact that a creator built an enormous audience, clearly framed his content as opinion, and then disappeared from one of the world’s largest platforms.

Maybe TikTok will reinstate the account. Maybe it won’t.

Either way, the message has already been sent.

For those of us who make our living creating independent content online, this is the reality we live with every day. We don’t own our audiences. We don’t own the platforms. Years of work can disappear because of a policy change, an opaque moderation decision, or pressure from people in positions of power.

Many of you know that I recently experienced my own version of this when the White House placed me on its so-called “media offender” list after I discussed Donald Trump’s health.

Now another creator whose content also focused heavily on Trump’s health has lost access to one of his largest platforms.

I’m not claiming those two events prove the same cause. But they point to the same underlying vulnerability: independent creators are increasingly dependent on platforms they don’t control.

Across all platforms, I now have nearly nine million followers. That sounds impressive until you remember one uncomfortable fact: none of those audiences actually belong to me.

If tomorrow a platform decides to suspend an account, change its recommendation system, or remove creators it no longer wants to amplify, years of work can vanish overnight.

That’s why I’ve spent so much time encouraging people to connect with independent creators in ways that don’t depend on social media algorithms.

If you’re reading this via email, you’ve already done one of the most important things by subscribing on Substack. No algorithm decides whether this email reaches your inbox, and that’s becoming more valuable every year. If you found this through the Substack app/website, make sure you become a free subscriber.

If you’re able to go one step further, becoming a paid Substack subscriber or a website member directly supports the work we do every day. It allows us to keep building an independent newsroom that isn’t dependent on the whims of social media platforms, shifting algorithms, or political pressure. You’ll also get access to the daily bonus show and the ad-free podcast.

And whether you choose to support financially or not, you can still make a real difference. Share our work. Comment on posts. Recommend this newsletter to someone who would appreciate it. Follow us across the platforms you use most often.

Independent journalism survives because people decide it’s worth supporting.

Thank you for being one of those people.

—David

Where to find The David Pakman Show:

Follow and leave us a review on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Follow on social media: Facebook, Instagram, Threads, TikTok, BlueSky, and X

And don’t forget to pre-order my upcoming book Pay Attention: https://bit.ly/m/attention

If you were a follower of Adam James on TikTok, you can find him at his new account here. And search for @epistemiccrisis on other social platforms.

Donald Trump has faced countless allegations over the years, but the latest one is notable because it centers on something surprisingly straightforward: where donor money was actually being sent.

According to a new report from Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee, donors who believed they were contributing to America 250, the congressionally chartered commission created to help commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary, may instead have been directed to send money to Freedom 250, a separate White House-backed initiative created under the Trump administration.

If those allegations are accurate, this is not simply a story about confusing names or sloppy administration. It raises questions about whether donors were intentionally misled about who was receiving their money and whether that conduct crosses the line into wire fraud or charitable solicitation fraud.

Two organizations that are not the same

Understanding the allegations requires understanding that these are two entirely different organizations.

America 250 is a bipartisan commission established by Congress years ago to coordinate the country’s semiquincentennial celebration.

Freedom 250 is something else entirely. It is an executive branch public-private partnership operating under the Trump White House. While both focus on America’s 250th anniversary, they are separate entities with separate leadership, separate missions, and separate fundraising operations.

That distinction becomes important because the House report alleges that Freedom 250 blurred those lines by using branding and messaging that created confusion among potential donors. According to the report, fundraising efforts allegedly relied on similarities between the organizations, making it difficult for contributors to know exactly where their money was going.

If someone intends to donate to one organization but, because of misleading instructions or branding, ends up funding another, that is precisely the type of situation charitable solicitation laws are designed to prevent.

Why the allegations matter

This is not simply about whether two logos looked alike.

Federal law generally expects charitable fundraising to be transparent. Donors are supposed to know who is asking for money, where that money is going, and what organization will ultimately receive it.

The report suggests that those basic expectations may not have been met.

There are also questions about who would bear responsibility if any wrongdoing occurred. Political organizations and fundraising operations often involve multiple consultants, vendors, and outside firms. Those layers can make it difficult to determine exactly who approved particular marketing materials or donor communications.

That does not make the underlying allegations less significant. It simply makes accountability more complicated.

A familiar pattern

One reason this story stands out is that it fits into a broader pattern that has followed Trump for years.

Again and again, critics have accused Trump and people around him of creating structures that blur lines between public initiatives, private interests, political branding, and fundraising.

Whether those allegations ultimately result in criminal charges is a separate question. Recent history has understandably made many Americans skeptical that powerful political figures will ever face meaningful consequences.

But legal outcomes are only one part of the story.

There is also the question of trust.

The political movement that frequently presents itself as standing up for ordinary Americans and rooting out corruption now finds itself facing allegations that its own supporters may have been misled while trying to donate.

If true, that is a remarkable irony.

Even the celebrations struggled

Perhaps the most surprising part of the story comes after the fundraising.

For all of the promotion surrounding Freedom 250, many of its signature events reportedly struggled to generate the kind of turnout that had been promised.

The state fair reportedly attracted roughly 200,000 visitors over sixteen days, averaging around 12,000 attendees per day. Even the heavily promoted fireworks celebration drew a crowd that was far smaller than the grand rhetoric surrounding the event suggested.

Politics often rewards spectacle. Big promises generate headlines. Massive celebrations create photo opportunities.

But impressive branding cannot guarantee public enthusiasm.

The bigger question

Whether investigators ultimately determine that laws were broken remains to be seen. Allegations are not convictions, and those accused deserve the opportunity to respond.

Even so, the allegations highlight something that should concern everyone regardless of political affiliation. When organizations with nearly identical names are fundraising at the same time, transparency is not optional. People deserve to know exactly who is asking for their money before they click “donate.”

If these allegations are proven true, what consequences would you expect to see? And do you think stories like this receive enough media attention? Let me know 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