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

As the United States celebrates its 250th anniversary, I found myself reflecting on what this country has meant to me.

I wasn’t born here. I came to the United States at 5 years old. This is where I grew up, built my career, started my family, and raise my children. Like millions of other immigrants, I have always viewed America less as a finished product than as an ongoing project. The country’s greatest strength has never been perfection. It has been the belief that tomorrow could be better than today.

That is why so much of what we’ve seen lately has left me feeling genuinely discouraged.

The conversation coming out of Washington feels almost entirely disconnected from the problems most Americans actually face. Instead of talking about how to lower housing costs, make childcare more affordable, improve healthcare, strengthen infrastructure, or help people build successful businesses, we find ourselves watching another weekend dominated by golf outings, political spectacles, social media feuds, and manufactured controversies.

The promise of “Make America Great Again” was that the country would become stronger, more prosperous, and more affordable. Yet much of the administration’s energy has instead gone toward political revenge campaigns, culture war battles, symbolic events that generate headlines but accomplish little, and policy choices that critics argue have increased costs while straining relationships with longtime allies.

Whether you agree with every criticism or not, it is difficult to escape the feeling that the country’s biggest challenges are no longer receiving the attention they deserve.

America’s greatest advantage has always been optimism about the future. People believed the country could solve problems, build new industries, and leave the next generation better off.

The United States invested in scientific research. It built world-class universities that attracted talent from around the globe. Entrepreneurs created companies that reshaped entire industries. Immigrants came believing their children would have opportunities they never had themselves. Government, at its best, helped create the conditions that made those things possible.

That sense of forward momentum mattered.

People believed the next decade could be better than the last.

Today, that confidence feels increasingly fragile.

Imagine if the primary conversation in Washington every day centered on making it easier to afford a home, improving public transportation, modernizing airports, investing in biotechnology and clean energy, strengthening public education, or making it simpler to start a business.

Those are the kinds of conversations that build stronger countries.

Instead, far too much of our national attention is consumed by political theater. Every outrage becomes another day’s news cycle, while many of the long-term challenges facing the country continue to grow.

As we prepare to celebrate America’s 250th birthday, I think the question worth asking is surprisingly simple:

Are we building a country that our children will be proud to inherit?

Not a country with the loudest slogans. Not the biggest political rallies. Not the most viral social media posts.

A country that gives the next generation more opportunity than the previous one.

That has always been the promise that drew people here from around the world. It certainly was for my family.

The United States still has extraordinary potential. Our talent, our institutions, our entrepreneurs, and our capacity for innovation remain unmatched in many respects.

But potential alone isn’t enough.

A government cannot spend all of its time looking backward, settling scores, or staging spectacles while neglecting the work of preparing the country for the future.

The 250th anniversary should not simply be an opportunity to celebrate America’s history.

It should be an opportunity to ask whether we are still building the kind of country worthy of its future.

The good news is that none of this is permanent.

Governments change. Priorities change. Countries change. One of the strengths of American democracy is that voters get the opportunity to decide whether the country is headed in the right direction.

As we celebrate 250 years this weekend, I hope you have the chance to relax, spend time with family and friends, and enjoy the holiday. I also hope you take a few minutes to think about where we are as a country and ask yourself what kind of country we should actually be building over the next 250 years.

Because the next opportunity to start answering that question comes this November.

Have a wonderful and safe holiday weekend. My team and I are grateful for your support of the show and of this Substack.

Leave me a comment and tell me what you’re looking forward to most, whether it’s enjoying the holiday weekend or what you hope America looks like in the years ahead.

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

A new report reveals what could be one of the most staggering conflict of interest stories of Donald Trump’s presidency.

Considering Qatar gave Trump a $400 million plane, that’s not a claim I make lightly.

According to a new investigation by The New York Times, companies tied to Donald Trump’s family and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s family are connected to mining projects that have either received or are seeking nearly $9 billion in federal support.

Sometimes a number is so large you have to read it twice. Not $9 million. We are talking about $9 billion.

If the reporting is accurate, this could become one of the biggest conflict of interest stories of Trump’s presidency.

And yet, it has received surprisingly little attention.

The issue isn’t the policy

Let’s start with what this story is not about.

The Trump administration has made securing critical minerals a major priority. On its face, that’s a perfectly legitimate policy objective. The United States depends heavily on foreign sources, particularly China, for minerals used in semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, military equipment, and other strategically important industries.

The broader conversation about reshoring supply chains and reducing America’s dependence on geopolitical rivals is a real one. We saw during the COVID pandemic how vulnerable supply chains can become when so much manufacturing happens overseas. Whether you’re talking about pharmaceuticals, computer chips, or critical minerals, there are legitimate national security arguments for producing more of these materials domestically.

None of that is the problem.

The concern begins when the companies positioned to benefit from those government priorities are connected to the families of the very officials making the decisions.

Why this raises ethical questions

According to the reporting, companies tied to Donald Trump’s sons, along with companies connected to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s family, are involved in mining and mineral projects that have either already received federal assistance or are seeking it.

The number attached to those projects is staggering: nearly $9 billion in federal funding.

It’s important to be careful about what is being alleged here. The reporting does not claim that these projects are fraudulent. It does not say that every dollar has been improperly awarded. It does not argue that critical mineral investments themselves are inappropriate.

The question is much more fundamental.

Why are the families of senior government officials financially connected to projects that depend on decisions being made by that same administration?

That is exactly the kind of situation ethics rules are supposed to prevent.

Even if every individual decision could ultimately be justified on its merits, the public should never have to wonder whether policy decisions are being made because they’re in the country’s best interest or because they also happen to benefit the investment portfolios of people connected to those making the decisions.

Government simply isn’t supposed to work that way.

The double standard we can’t ignore

It’s also worth asking how this story would be covered if the political parties were reversed.

Imagine for a moment that Barack Obama had overseen an administration directing billions of dollars toward companies connected to members of his family.

Or imagine if Hunter Biden had financial interests in companies seeking billions in federal funding while Joe Biden’s administration was negotiating the very deals that would benefit those companies.

Republicans would have treated that as one of the biggest scandals in modern political history. Fox News would have devoted wall-to-wall coverage to it. Congressional hearings would have been scheduled almost immediately. Calls for investigations and special counsels would have dominated the news cycle for weeks.

In fact, Republicans spent years making accusations about the Bidens with far less evidence than what is being described in this reporting.

Yet when questions involve Trump, many of those same voices suddenly argue that there’s nothing to see here.

That inconsistency shouldn’t surprise anyone anymore, but it should still concern us.

Ethics rules exist for a reason

Sometimes people hear the phrase “conflict of interest” and assume it means someone has already been proven guilty of corruption.

That’s not what it means.

Ethics rules exist because public confidence matters. They’re designed to prevent situations where personal financial interests and government decision-making become so intertwined that the public can no longer tell where one ends and the other begins.

Americans shouldn’t have to wonder whether taxpayer dollars are being allocated because they’re the best investment for the country or because they happen to align with the business interests of politically connected families.

Even the appearance of that conflict can undermine confidence in government.

And then there’s another consequence that’s easy to overlook: Imagine you’re a company competing for one of these projects. How confident would you be that the process is fair if another bidder has financial ties to the president’s family?

Whether those connections ultimately influenced any decision or not, the perception alone can distort competition and discourage trust in the marketplace.

That’s why ethics safeguards exist in the first place.

Why this story deserves more attention

The scale of this story is what makes it so remarkable.

We’re not talking about an official accepting an expensive dinner or violating a minor $25 gift rule. We’re not talking about thousands of dollars or even millions.

We’re talking about nearly $9 billion in federal funding connected to companies tied to the families of some of the most powerful officials in the federal government.

Under almost any previous administration, that would have been one of the defining political stories of the week.

Instead, it risks disappearing beneath the endless flood of headlines. One day it’s conflict of interest allegations. The next day it’s another international crisis, another political spectacle, another controversy demanding everyone’s attention.

Perhaps that’s become one of the defining characteristics of this political era. The volume of extraordinary stories is so high that even stories involving billions of taxpayer dollars and serious ethical questions struggle to break through.

So I’m curious what you think. Has the constant stream of controversies made stories like this easier for the public to overlook, or should this be receiving far more attention than it is? 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

One of the most anticipated Supreme Court decisions of the year is now in, and it represents a significant defeat for Donald Trump.

Trump attempted to end birthright citizenship through executive order, arguing that children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily should no longer automatically become American citizens.

The Supreme Court rejected that effort.

This case was about much more than immigration policy. It was about whether a president can simply decide that a constitutional protection no longer applies because he disagrees with it.

The Court’s answer was no.

That may sound obvious. It should be. But it is worth remembering that this case made it all the way to the Supreme Court in the first place, and three justices were prepared to side with Trump’s position.

That should give everyone pause.

Birthright citizenship is not some obscure legal loophole. It is established by the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Opponents of birthright citizenship often focus on that phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” arguing that it excludes children born to undocumented immigrants or to parents who are only temporarily in the country.

But that is not how the Constitution has been understood, nor how it has been applied.

The limited historical exceptions are well known. Children born to foreign diplomats, for example, are not automatically granted citizenship because diplomats are not subject to ordinary U.S. law in the same way everyone else is.

For virtually everyone else physically present in the United States, whether they are here permanently, temporarily, legally, or illegally, they remain subject to American law. They can be arrested, prosecuted, sued, and taxed. That is precisely why birthright citizenship has been understood to apply as broadly as it has for generations.

This is not a new legal question. The Supreme Court addressed it more than a century ago in United States v. Wong Kim Ark and affirmed that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are citizens.

Trump nevertheless attempted to accomplish something through executive order that would have fundamentally changed who qualifies as an American citizen.

There is a larger point here that extends beyond this particular issue.

If someone believes birthright citizenship should be changed, our system provides a way to make that argument. There are constitutional processes for changing the law. They are intentionally difficult because constitutional rights are not supposed to change based on the preferences of whichever president happens to occupy the White House.

What is not supposed to happen is a president attempting to rewrite constitutional protections with the stroke of a pen.

Trump wanted this victory badly. He even attended oral arguments before the Supreme Court, something presidents rarely do. The investment made clear how important this issue was to him politically.

He did not get the outcome he wanted.

Instead, shortly after the ruling, Trump shifted attention elsewhere, celebrating separate Supreme Court decisions while largely avoiding this loss.

This case is also another reminder of why Supreme Court appointments matter so much.

Presidents come and go but Supreme Court decisions can shape American law for decades.

Every election carries consequences that extend far beyond the next four years. Judicial appointments are among the most lasting of them.

Many voters understandably become frustrated with the choices presented during presidential elections. Some stay home. Some decide there is no meaningful difference between the candidates.

The composition of the Supreme Court is one of the clearest examples of why those decisions matter.

Constitutional rights do not exist in the abstract. Ultimately, they depend on courts willing to uphold them when they are challenged.

This time, the Court rejected Trump’s attempt to redefine one of the country’s most fundamental constitutional protections.

The next time, the outcome may depend on who had the opportunity to appoint the justices hearing the case.

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 much of Donald Trump’s second campaign and the early months of his presidency, there has been an expectation that the Republican Party’s future would largely be Trump’s to shape.

The thinking was straightforward: Trump wins in 2024, governs for four years, and eventually throws his support behind the candidate he wants to carry the movement forward.

Whether that would actually happen was always an open question. But over the last several weeks, Republicans have begun revealing something they would probably rather not emphasize publicly: there is no clear agreement about who inherits Trumpism once Trump is no longer on the ballot.

And perhaps more importantly, there is growing uncertainty about whether Trump will be able to settle that question himself.

JD Vance was supposed to be the obvious answer

For a long time, the conventional wisdom was that Vice President JD Vance was the heir apparent.

Trump chose him as his running mate. Members of Trump’s inner circle reportedly supported him. Vance positioned himself as a loyal defender of Trumpism and seemed to be following the familiar path from vice president to presidential frontrunner.

But lately, that picture has become much less clear.

Vance has increasingly been assigned some of the administration’s most politically difficult responsibilities. That is not unusual. Vice presidents are often handed assignments where success benefits the president and failure sticks to the vice president.

We’ve seen versions of this before. If things go well, the president takes credit. If things go poorly, someone else absorbs the damage. The arrangement is rarely complicated.

The risk of being the designated problem-solver

The recent negotiations involving Iran illustrate the challenge.

If negotiations succeed, the political rewards almost certainly flow upward. If they fail, attention shifts immediately to the person tasked with carrying them out.

That is exactly the position Vance finds himself in.

As criticism mounts from different factions within the Republican coalition, Vance is getting squeezed from multiple directions. Foreign policy hawks remain skeptical. Isolationists are not fully convinced either. Every controversial assignment creates another opportunity for criticism, and every stumble raises new questions about whether he is really the inevitable successor many assumed he would be.

The bigger issue is not any single diplomatic effort. The bigger issue is that inevitability is a fragile thing in politics. Once people start questioning it, it tends to disappear quickly.

Enter Marco Rubio

As doubts about Vance have grown, another name has started appearing more frequently in the conversation: Marco Rubio.

Rubio has been increasingly visible during major international events and administration initiatives. He often presents himself as a more traditional Republican figure, someone who appears competent, experienced, and familiar to establishment conservatives.

Different parts of the Republican coalition may be looking for different things after Trump, so Rubio’s distinction is even more clear.

Some donors appear interested in candidates who can maintain support among MAGA voters while also appealing to more traditional Republicans who never fully embraced Trump but remain within the party. Rubio potentially occupies that space in a way Vance may not.

Whether Rubio would actually succeed in pulling off that balancing act is another question entirely. But the fact that Republicans are openly discussing alternatives tells us something important.

The succession question is not settled.

History suggests Trump may not get the final word

One of the assumptions built into the MAGA worldview is that Trump will simply choose the next leader and everyone will follow.

History suggests it rarely works that way.

Presidents often discover that their influence weakens once everyone knows their time in office is limited. Political movements that seem disciplined and unified suddenly become much more independent. Governors, senators, donors, activists, media personalities, and party operatives all begin advancing their own preferred candidates.

The reality is that succession fights are usually messy because power attracts competition.

Everyone behaves as though there is a plan right up until the moment competing plans become impossible to hide.

The secret plan may be that there is no plan

This is why the most interesting possibility is also the simplest one. Because there may not be a secret successor at all.

There may not be a consensus candidate.

There may not even be agreement about what Trumpism should look like after Trump.

Instead, what we are seeing could be the early stages of a struggle that has already begun behind closed doors. Donors are making calculations. Political figures are positioning themselves. Different factions are imagining different futures. Publicly, everyone pretends the movement remains unified because admitting otherwise would reveal how much uncertainty exists beneath the surface.

But every time Vance struggles, every time Rubio gains visibility, every time another ambitious Republican starts testing the waters, that uncertainty becomes harder to conceal.

What happens after Trump?

One of the most persistent misconceptions in American politics is that everything automatically returns to normal once a dominant political figure exits the stage.

Political movements do not work that way.

The tensions inside today’s Republican Party will not simply disappear because Trump is no longer eligible to run. The factions, rivalries, competing ideologies, donor interests, and personality conflicts will still be there.

In some ways, the fight over who comes next may reveal more about the future of the party than Trump himself.

For Democrats, there may be political opportunities in that uncertainty. But before anyone starts planning for 2028, there is still a very consequential 2026 election to get through.

For now, the more interesting story is not who inherits Trumpism. It’s whether Trumpism can even agree on an heir.

And here’s the question: if Trump couldn’t personally choose the next Republican nominee, who do you think would emerge from the chaos, and would that person actually strengthen the party or expose even deeper cracks in it?

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

Under normal circumstances, this would simply be an exciting milestone.

What I did not anticipate was that the pre-order campaign would begin just weeks after the Trump White House placed me on its official “media offenders” list.

The timing is striking.

Yet the book’s focus extends far beyond any one politician or administration.

Pay Attention examines something much larger: how digital platforms shape what we see, what we believe, and ultimately how we understand the world around us.

The timing could not be more revealing

Independent media is facing increasing pressure from the Trump administration.

Shows like mine are becoming more influential because millions of people are looking for something they often cannot find in traditional media: direct analysis, accountability, and coverage that is not filtered through corporate interests or political relationships.

People in power have noticed.

As a quick recap, a few weeks ago, the Trump White House published an official list of what it called “media offenders” on WhiteHouse.gov. I was included by name and even given my very own page on the White House’s official website.

Not because I committed a crime.

Not because I got facts wrong.

Not because I violated any journalistic standard.

I was included because I criticize the administration and because there is no corporate owner or executive suite that can be pressured into silencing me. The only people who determine whether this show continues are the people who choose to watch it.

That independence is exactly what makes this model powerful. It is also what makes it threatening to those who prefer loyalty over scrutiny.

This isn’t the first time

Some newer viewers may not know that this has happened before.

When my last book, The Echo Machine, was released, individuals connected to the Trump administration reportedly pushed Amazon to stop carrying books by a number of left-leaning authors. My book was among those singled out.

The goal was never to debate the ideas in the book or challenge the arguments on their merits.

The goal was to prevent people from reading it in the first place.

History offers plenty of examples of movements that attempt to ban books, restrict access to information, or narrow the range of acceptable viewpoints. It is not the behavior of people confident in their ideas.

Authoritarians do not want competition in the marketplace of ideas. They want fewer voices, less scrutiny, and more obedience.

Nevertheless, The Echo Machine still debuted on the New York Times Best Sellers list, thanks in large part to the support you, my audience, gave in the lead-up to its release.

Why I wrote Pay Attention

Pay Attention examines the digital systems we interact with every day and the ways those systems shape our beliefs, behavior, and politics.

This book is about how algorithms work. It is about recommendation engines, engagement incentives, outrage cycles, and the economic forces that reward emotionally charged content over thoughtful analysis.

If you use social media, if you have children who use social media, or if you teach students who spend their lives online, understanding these systems is no longer optional.

Many people believe they are simply consuming information when they scroll through their feeds.

In reality, they are interacting with systems specifically designed to maximize attention, reinforce existing beliefs, and keep users engaged for as long as possible.

Those design choices affect culture, but they also affect elections, public opinion, and ultimately who gains and maintains political power. If you have watched the rise of Trumpism, the explosion of conspiracy theories, or the radicalization pipelines that have become so familiar in recent years, you have already seen the outcomes.

This book explains the mechanics behind those outcomes.

And as someone who has been creating content on YouTube since 2005, I have seen the evolution of this firsthand. For example, if we want YouTube to show you our content, we have to use hyperbolic titles and thumbnails, even when the video itself is a calm, thoughtful deep dive. We’ve tested less emotional titles and thumbnails for years and time and again, they always flop. These algorithmic forces shape behavior on both sides of the screen, pulling creators and audiences alike into attention-driven cycles.

Why pre-orders matter

I’ll be honest: I’m excited about this book, but I’m also nervous.

When The Echo Machine came out, I was barely on the Trump administration’s radar. I was not appearing on official lists. Senior Trump allies were not attacking me on social media.

And despite that, there were still efforts to limit the book’s reach.

This time is different. The attacks are louder, more coordinated, and coming directly from people with significant political influence.

The last thing propagandists want is for people to understand the systems being used to manipulate them.

That is exactly why pre-orders matter.

Pre-orders send a signal to publishers, retailers, bookstores, recommendation systems, and media outlets that there is demand for independent ideas and independent voices.

They influence how many copies bookstores stock, whether major retailers prominently feature a title, and whether a book has a chance to reach bestseller lists.

In many ways, this is a direct competition between people trying to expose manipulation and those who benefit from it.

If you’ve found value in my show, if you believe independent media matters, or if you want to better understand how modern political persuasion works, I’m asking for your support.

PRE-ORDER NOW

Donald Trump built much of his political brand on the promise that he could negotiate better deals than anyone else.

That promise was central to his decision to withdraw from the Obama administration’s Iran nuclear agreement in 2018. Trump called it a disaster. His supporters described it as a surrender. Republicans spent years arguing that America had been outmaneuvered and that a tougher approach would force Iran into a far better agreement.

Now, after months of military conflict, economic disruption, and repeated demands for “unconditional surrender,” we may finally be getting a glimpse of what Trump’s alternative looks like.

And if the details reported so far are accurate, it raises an uncomfortable question: What exactly was all of this for?

The emerging framework reportedly outlines a 60-day negotiation process rather than a finalized agreement. Even if the memorandum is signed, it would simply begin a new round of talks rather than conclude them.

Read the leaked letter

Much of what is currently known about the proposal comes from a leaked memorandum that has been circulating publicly.

Read the leaked letter ➡️ click here

Based on reporting about the document, the agreement under discussion appears to place fewer restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program than the Obama-era deal that Trump abandoned.

One example involves Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile.

The Obama agreement imposed strict limits on the amount of low-enriched uranium Iran could possess. Reports about the current framework suggest considerably softer language, stating that the issue would need to be “adequately addressed.” That may sound technical, but in international negotiations, wording matters. The difference between a concrete limitation and a vague future commitment can be enormous.

The same pattern appears elsewhere.

The Obama deal restricted Iran’s stockpile, limited the development of certain nuclear technologies, and created an extensive inspection regime that gave international inspectors significant access to Iranian facilities.

By contrast, key questions about inspections under the current proposal appear unresolved. Administration officials have offered conflicting answers about what inspection authority would ultimately look like and how compliance would be verified.

At the same time, reports indicate that the United States could lift sanctions, release billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds, and potentially support broader economic rehabilitation efforts.

That should sound familiar.

When the Obama administration released frozen Iranian assets as part of its agreement, Republicans treated it as a national scandal. The rhetoric was relentless. Critics argued that the administration was enriching a hostile regime and giving away leverage.

Now, many of those same voices appear far less concerned about similar provisions when they are attached to a Trump-negotiated agreement.

The double standard is difficult to ignore.

But the larger issue is not hypocrisy.

The larger issue is that the justification for abandoning the original deal was always that something dramatically better would replace it.

That was the promise.

Instead, after years of escalation, months of war, enormous financial costs, rising energy prices, damage to international relationships, and the loss of human life, the result appears to be a negotiation centered on many of the same concepts that existed before.

Restrictions on nuclear activity.

Sanctions relief.

Inspections.

Diplomatic agreements.

In other words, diplomacy.

The irony is hard to miss. Trump spent years insisting that the Obama agreement was unacceptable. Yet the framework now being discussed reportedly resembles that agreement far more than it differs from it.

The difference is that the earlier deal was already in place.

If the ultimate destination was another negotiated arrangement, Americans are justified in asking whether the detour was worth the cost.

That question becomes even more important when viewed through the lens of Trump’s own rhetoric.

This was not supposed to end with compromise. It was supposed to end with unconditional surrender. It was supposed to demonstrate overwhelming American leverage and produce a dramatically stronger agreement.

Instead, the administration now appears to be negotiating from a position shaped by political deadlines, economic pressure, and growing public exhaustion with conflict.

That is not what was promised.

And if a Democratic president had withdrawn from an existing agreement, presided over months of war, and then returned with a deal that looked weaker than the one they scrapped, there is little doubt what the reaction would be.

The criticism would be immediate and relentless.

The real test is whether the same standards apply when the president involved is Donald Trump.

Because beyond the partisan arguments, that is ultimately what this story is about: accountability.

If the Obama deal was unacceptable, then why is a weaker version of it acceptable now?

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