Washington state Democrats have passed a new 9.9 percent income tax on millionaires, the first income tax in the state’s history. The measure now heads to the governor’s desk and represents a major shift in a state long known for its lack of personal income taxes.

But the policy debate is already colliding with economic reality. Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has announced he is relocating to Florida, a state with no income tax. That move underscores a longstanding pattern in American economics: high earners often respond to aggressive tax policies by moving to lower-tax jurisdictions. If more states pursue similar policies, the migration of wealthy taxpayers to places like Florida, Texas, and Tennessee could accelerate.

The broader question is what happens if that migration significantly shrinks the tax base in high-spending states. European countries experimented with wealth taxes for years before many rolled them back after wealthy residents simply moved elsewhere. Washington may now be testing whether the same dynamic will play out inside the United States.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Filibuster Fight and the SAVE Act

Meanwhile, a new institutional battle is brewing in the Senate. Senator Ron Johnson is pushing for a vote to begin debate on ending the legislative filibuster, at least in its current form. The immediate catalyst is the House-passed SAVE America Act, which focuses on citizenship-based voter registration and voting ID requirements.

Republicans do not currently have the 60 votes needed to pass the legislation under existing Senate rules. That reality has revived calls to weaken the filibuster by shifting to a “talking filibuster,” forcing senators who want to block legislation to continuously hold the floor rather than simply signaling opposition.

Institutionalists in both parties warn that such a move could be the beginning of the end for the Senate’s 60-vote threshold entirely. Supporters argue the change is inevitable anyway and that the current rules simply prevent major legislation from passing. Either way, the vote could force senators to go on record about how much they value the chamber’s traditional rules.

Jim Clyburn and the Persistence of Incumbency

Finally, South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn has announced that he plans to seek reelection at age 85. First elected in 1992, Clyburn remains one of the most influential figures in Democratic politics and a central leader within the Congressional Black Caucus.

His decision highlights the enduring power of incumbency in American politics. While voters and activists often debate generational change, long-serving lawmakers frequently retain strong political machines and local loyalty that discourage serious primary challenges. For now, there is little sign that anyone in Clyburn’s district is preparing to challenge him.

Taken together, these developments offer a snapshot of the current political landscape: states experimenting with new tax policies, the Senate wrestling with its own rules of power, and long-time incumbents continuing to dominate the institutions they helped shape.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro on Iran and Elections

00:08:47 - Iran Breakdown with Ryan McBeth

01:07:54 - Update

01:08:14 - Washington State Tax

01:09:53 - Filibuster

01:13:30 - Jim Clyburn

01:14:37 - Oscar-Nominated Movie Talk with Jada Yuan

02:38:28 - Wrap-up

I’ve reached a point where the marketplace of ideas feels broken. The conversation around the Iran war, especially the discussion about oil prices and the Strait of Hormuz, has been less about understanding events and more about reacting to every twitch in the market.

This realization hit me last weekend when I watched otherwise smart commentators react breathlessly to oil futures spiking. Writers like Nate Silver and Derek Thompson framed the surge in prices as a potentially catastrophic moment for the Trump administration, a Rubicon that could permanently damage the president’s economic credibility.

That logic makes sense in theory. Gas prices are one of the most politically sensitive indicators in American life. If they rise sharply and stay elevated, the economic narrative can turn quickly against any administration. But what bothered me wasn’t the conclusion. It was how little anyone seemed to know about the mechanics behind the story.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which a massive share of the world’s oil flows, became the center of speculation. Could Iran shut it down? Had it ever been fully closed before? What would the United States do if shipping lanes were mined?

These are complex questions. Yet much of the discussion reduced them to the most basic possible analysis: oil prices go up, oil prices go down.

The Problem With Market Narratives and the Age of Info Slop

Over the course of a single night, I found myself obsessively researching the issue. I dug into the Iran–Iraq tanker wars of the 1980s, when both countries targeted shipping in the Persian Gulf. I looked at how mines were deployed in the Strait of Hormuz and how the United States eventually intervened to escort tankers and protect trade routes.

The historical lesson was clear. Even during the worst periods of that conflict, the strait never truly closed. Oil shipments slowed and risks increased, but global energy markets adapted.

By Monday morning, the markets themselves seemed to confirm the lesson. Oil prices surged, then dropped back below their previous levels. The panic narrative collapsed almost as quickly as it appeared.

What replaced it was not clarity but confusion. Rumors circulated that Iran was mining the strait. Other reports suggested ships were still passing through after turning off their transponders. At one point, a claim that the U.S. Navy had escorted a tanker through the strait briefly moved markets before the White House denied it.

This constant churn of speculation reveals a deeper problem: very few people actually know what is happening.

In theory, the modern information environment should make us better informed. Instead, it often produces the opposite result. Analysts extrapolate sweeping conclusions from tiny fragments of data, while social media amplifies every rumor until it looks like evidence.

The result is what I can only describe as “info slop.” Bits of partially verified information get passed along, combined, and reinterpreted until the original facts are almost impossible to distinguish from the speculation built around them.

In a normal news cycle, that dynamic is frustrating. But in a war, it is dangerous.

The Iran conflict carries enormous stakes. A prolonged fight could reshape the Middle East, disrupt global energy markets, or even trigger a wider geopolitical confrontation. Yet the public conversation about the war often resembles message-board debates rather than serious analysis.

We are arguing over rumors about oil shipments and naval escorts while the broader strategic picture remains murky.

Part of the problem is structural. During wartime, the actors with the most reliable information have strong incentives not to share it. Governments conceal details to protect military operations. Adversaries spread misinformation to manipulate perceptions.

Even seemingly straightforward facts become difficult to confirm. Was a school struck by a missile because of a U.S. attack, an Iranian malfunction, or something else entirely? Did Iran mine shipping lanes, or were markets reacting to a rumor?

In many cases, the honest answer is simply that we do not know.

And yet the conversation continues as if every piece of incomplete information carries definitive meaning.

Stepping Back From the Noise

For me, the lesson is simple. If the discourse is making you feel more confident about events you barely understand, it may not actually be informing you. It may simply be feeding the human instinct to fill gaps in knowledge with speculation.

The war with Iran could become one of the defining geopolitical events of this era. It could destabilize a region, reshape energy markets, or even trigger regime change inside Iran itself.

But right now, much of what passes for analysis is just noise layered on top of uncertainty. The healthiest response might be the hardest one: consume less of it. Read less news that pretends to provide clarity where none exists.

We don’t know what’s happening yet. And pretending otherwise doesn’t make us smarter.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:18 - Thomas Massie

00:06:24 - Iran Discourse

00:16:59 - Kirk Bado on Iran

00:32:36 - Update

00:33:36 - Oil

00:34:51 - SAVE America Act

00:40:41 - AI Hiring

00:42:49 - Kirk Bado on Iran, con’t

00:54:38 - Kirk Bado on Texas

01:13:09 - Steelers Talk

01:22:16 - Wrap-up

I didn’t expect the day’s biggest story to land before the show even got rolling, but the first major cabinet domino of the Trump administration has finally fallen. Kristi Noem is out as Secretary of Homeland Security.

The immediate cause appears to be a congressional hearing exchange that went sideways. During testimony before Sen. John Kennedy, Noem said that a $200 million ad campaign — one that prominently featured her — had been approved by the president. The White House later said it had not, and it’s that contradiction that seems to have been the final straw for Trump.

It’s no secret that the ground had been shifting under Noem for a while. Critical press coverage had been building, particularly around operational issues inside DHS. Some of it focused on headline controversies, but much of it involved the less glamorous details of running a department: delayed contracts, paperwork sitting unsigned, and basic administrative work that insiders say was slipping through the cracks.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Complicating matters was the presence of Corey Lewandowski, who had developed a reputation inside the department as a, let’s say, aggressive and polarizing figure. According to people around Washington, he made enemies across the bureaucracy, and those tensions ultimately became inseparable from Noem’s own standing within the administration.

Trump’s apparent choice to replace her is Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, a former MMA fighter who has built a reputation in Washington as a loyal Trump ally and a frequent presence on television.

In some ways, Mullin is a pragmatic pick. Replacing a cabinet secretary this late in a term can be politically tricky because any nominee must survive Senate confirmation. A sitting senator already has relationships and credibility inside the chamber, making it easier for colleagues to vote yes even if the appointment is politically uncomfortable.

That dynamic worked to the administration’s advantage when Marco Rubio moved into a cabinet role earlier in the term, and it could play out similarly here. Senators are often more willing to confirm someone they know than an unfamiliar nominee from outside Washington.

Noem’s departure also lands in the middle of a broader policy fight. DHS remains partially shut down due to a standoff between Democrats and the administration over immigration enforcement policies.

From my perspective, this moment could provide Democrats with a face-saving off-ramp. With Noem gone, they could claim a political victory and move toward reopening the department without appearing to capitulate entirely on their policy demands. The alternative — maintaining a shutdown while security risks mount — carries its own political dangers.

When federal security agencies operate without full funding, the political blame game gets complicated very quickly if something goes wrong.

Fallout from the Texas Primaries

Meanwhile, the ripple effects from the Texas primary elections are already shaping the next phase of the campaign cycle. Sen. John Cornyn and Attorney General Ken Paxton are heading toward a runoff, and President Trump has signaled he may intervene with an endorsement.

Paxton has already indicated he won’t automatically step aside even if Trump backs Cornyn, raising the possibility that the party’s internal fight could stretch out for weeks. Democrats, for their part, clearly prefer facing Paxton in the general election given his long history of scandals and investigations.

Another runoff will take place in Texas’s 23rd congressional district, where Tony Gonzalez is facing intense pressure after admitting he had an affair with a staffer.

The admission carries serious implications. Relationships between members of Congress and staff can trigger ethics violations, and Gonzalez now faces an ongoing investigation. Leadership within the Republican caucus is reportedly signaling that even if he wins the runoff, he could still face consequences in Washington.

In other words, his political future may already be decided regardless of how the voters rule.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:01:01 - Kristi Noem

00:08:07 - Markwayne Mullin

00:11:19 - Interview with Jennifer Doleac

00:33:22 - Update

00:33:54 - Cornyn/Paxton

00:36:47 - Tony Gonzales

00:39:36 - Mullin’s Senate Replacement

00:41:36 - Interview with Jennifer Doleac, con’t

01:00:14 - Wrap-up

The fight between Anthropic and the Pentagon goes deeper than a simple contract dispute. In some ways, it’s the culmination of a tech rivalry that’s been simmering since the early days of OpenAI.

Anthropic wasn’t some scrappy outsider that stumbled into national security. It’d already had top secret clearance, working with the CIA for years, and had seemingly made peace with the idea that its models would be used inside the American intelligence apparatus. So let’s dispense with the notion that this is a company discovering government power for the first time. The rupture didn’t happen because the Pentagon suddenly knocked on the door. The door had been open.

The disagreement came down to terms. Anthropic wanted to draw lines beyond the law. No mass surveillance of civilians. No autonomous weapons without a human in the loop. Not “we’ll follow U.S. statute.” They wanted something stricter, something moral, something aligned with Dario Amodei’s effective altruist worldview. The Pentagon’s response was blunt: we obey US law, but we don’t sign up to a private company’s expanded terms of service.

That’s where the temperature rose.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Because this isn’t just any company. Dario left OpenAI over exactly this kind of philosophical divide. He believed OpenAI was becoming too commercial, too focused on product, not focused enough on safety and existential risk. So he built Anthropic as the safety lab. The kinder, gentler, crunchier alternative. But ironically, Anthropic was already cashing government checks while telling itself it was the adult in the room.

From the Pentagon’s perspective, the risk was operational. If you’re going to integrate a model into defense infrastructure, you can’t have the supplier yank the API mid-mission because the CEO decides the vibes are off. There were even reports that during negotiations, Pentagon officials asked whether Anthropic would allow its technology to respond to incoming ballistic missiles if civilian casualties were possible. The alleged answer, “you can always call,” wasn’t reassuring to people whose job is to eliminate hesitation.

And hovering over all of this is Sam Altman.

Because while Anthropic was sparring with the Department of Defense, OpenAI was in conversation. The rivalry here isn’t new. The effective altruist faction at OpenAI once helped push Altman out of his own company before he managed to return days later. Anthropic ran a Super Bowl ad that took thinly veiled shots at OpenAI’s commercialization. So when Anthropic stumbled, OpenAI stepped in and secured its own defense agreement.

Then came the nuclear option talk: labeling Anthropic a “supply chain risk.” In Pentagon language, this is the category you reserve for companies like Huawei, for hostile foreign hardware, for entities you believe can’t be trusted inside American systems. Most people inside and outside the tech landscape agree that goes too far. Anthropic may be principled. It may be stubborn. It may even be naive. But it isn’t malicious.

Meanwhile, something fascinating happened in the market. Claude, Anthropic’s consumer product, exploded in downloads. It became a kind of digital resistance symbol, a signal that you weren’t with the war machine. The company that once insisted it didn’t care about consumer dominance suddenly found itself riding a consumer wave, experience mass traffic it hadn’t planned to account for.

What this entire episode reveals is that AI isn’t a lab experiment anymore. It’s infrastructure. It’s missile defense. It’s geopolitical leverage. And when you build something that powerful, you don’t get to exist outside power structures. You either align with them, fight them, or try to morally outmaneuver them. Anthropic tried the third path. The Pentagon reminded them that in wartime procurement, ambiguity isn’t a feature.

Cooler heads may yet prevail. Right now, the Pentagon’s got bigger problems than a Silicon Valley slap fight. But this was the moment when AI stopped being a culture war talking point and became a live wire in national security. And once you plug into that grid, there’s no going back.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:25 - Texas Primary Final Predictions

00:15:20 - The Pentagon vs. Anthropic, Explained

00:40:30 - Update

00:40:52 - Iran

00:45:41 - Clintons

00:49:08 - Kalshi

00:52:19 - Interview with Kenneth Lowande

01:18:03 - Wrap-up

The United States is now in open conflict with Iran after a joint U.S.–Israeli operation killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the opening hours of what the White House has dubbed Operation Epic Fury. The geopolitical aftershocks are already reshaping the Middle East, and could upend the fate of the midterms come November.

Over the weekend, American and Israeli forces launched a coordinated campaign targeting Iranian military infrastructure and senior leadership. The United States focused on equipment and strategic assets. Israel targeted personnel. Among the dead: Ali Khamenei, former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and multiple layers of senior command.

What we saw was the clearest expression yet of what I would describe as Trump’s second-term regime change playbook. First, engage in extended negotiations, regardless of whether the other side is stalling. Second, quietly position overwhelming military force within striking distance. Third, execute a rapid, highly choreographed strike that immediately removes the head of state.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

It is ruthlessly efficient. It is high risk. And unlike Iraq in 2003, the primary target was eliminated in the opening salvo. There will be no years of grainy bunker videos from Tehran. The symbolic center of power is gone.

But speed does not guarantee stability. The immediate question is not whether the operation succeeded militarily. It did. The question is what comes next.

Regional Realignment and the Oil Chessboard

One of the most striking developments has been the reaction across the region. Missiles were fired from Iran into the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Both countries then moved rhetorically closer to the American position. Even the Palestinian Authority condemned the Iranian strikes.

If Saudi Arabia was quietly supportive of regime change, as some reporting suggests, then the long arc of the Abraham Accords may be bending toward a new regional bloc: Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar acting as economic and security anchors. Iran, long positioned as the ideological counterweight, now faces a vacuum.

Then there’s China. Iran exports roughly 90 percent of its oil to Beijing at discounted rates. If a post-Khamenei Iran stabilizes and reenters broader markets, China’s leverage shrinks. Add to that Venezuela’s instability and potential changes to Russian oil flows, and Beijing’s energy calculus becomes far more complicated.

Energy is not just economics. It’s military capacity. Constrain oil, and you constrain strategic freedom of movement. That dynamic remains very much in play.

Washington Divides

Domestically, the political fallout is already taking shape. Republicans argue the strike was legal and necessary, pointing to congressional briefings and framing the action as a decisive blow against a long-standing adversary. Democrats are coalescing around a familiar and potent message: anti-war restraint. Senators like Chris Murphy and Chris Coons have questioned both the legality and the long-term strategy, warning of destabilization and regional blowback.

This is where the midterm implications become real. The MAGA coalition includes a significant anti-war faction shaped by Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of those voters supported Trump precisely because he promised to avoid prolonged Middle Eastern entanglements. A swift strike is one thing. A sustained conflict is another.

Three American service members are already confirmed dead, with five seriously wounded. That fact alone changes the tone. Nothing shifts public opinion faster than a body count.

Democrats are often most effective when opposing war. Republicans, meanwhile, are betting that decisive action will project strength. But without an appetite for prolonged conflict in the Middle East, any success in November for Trump very much remains up in the air.

The Off-Ramp Question

The key variable to when this all wraps up is time. If the United States transitions operational control to regional partners quickly and avoids prolonged occupation, Trump can argue this was a targeted regime decapitation, not a nation-building project. If American forces remain engaged beyond a short window, the political calculus shifts dramatically.

Iran is not Venezuela. There was no extraction of a leader for prosecution. There was a killing. What fills the vacuum matters enormously.

I have said before that a regime collapse in Iran would be the most consequential geopolitical event since the fall of the Soviet Union. We may now be living through that moment. Whether it becomes a strategic triumph or a prolonged quagmire will depend on decisions made in the coming days, not the strikes already executed.

For now, the clock is ticking. And both the Middle East and American voters are watching.

Chapters

00:00 - Intro

02:26 - Justin’s Thought on Iran

14:52 - What’s Happened So Far

19:14 - Republican Response

30:03 - Democrat Response

35:59: Abandoned Diplomacy

46:53: What Happens Next?

53:45: Wrap-up

We are officially in the phase of a campaign where decency gets tossed aside and the opposition research file is emptied directly into a 30-second spot.

One local ad targeting Cook County Commissioner Samantha Steele opens with footage from her DUI arrest and the now-infamous line, “I’m an elected official.” The ad’s structure is ruthlessly efficient. Lead with the footage. Transition from self-importance to alleged abuse of power. Tie it together with a tagline about rules not applying to her. On the nasty scale, it earns high marks. It is disciplined, rhythmic, and unforgiving.

Then there is the Texas Senate Republican primary, where the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Sen. John Cornyn are going directly at Attorney General Ken Paxton. Divorce. Allegations of infidelity. Wealth accumulation during scandal. Even insinuations about cultural issues designed to rile the base. It is the kind of ad that signals panic or confidence. Sometimes both.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Contrast that with Paxton’s softer spot featuring his daughter speaking about him as a grandfather. It is the standard counterpunch to a scandal narrative: humanize, slow down, soften the edges. When campaigns spend that kind of money on family-centered messaging, it usually means they are trying to cover something sharp underneath.

The larger point is simple. As we approach primary day, the gloves are off.

Tariffs, Courts, and the $133 Billion Question

Beyond campaign warfare, the Trump administration is wrestling with the fallout from the Supreme Court striking down its sweeping tariff regime. Roughly $133 billion in collected duties now sit in limbo.

Officials are reportedly exploring ways to discourage refund claims, stretch out litigation, or even reimpose tariffs under new legal authorities. Trade lawyers argue the government previously committed to repayment with interest and that courts will scrutinize any attempt to sidestep that obligation.

This is less about ideology and more about arithmetic. If companies want their money back, they are likely to get it. The administration may find voluntary compliance from firms seeking goodwill, but legally, the leverage is limited. This is the bargaining phase after a judicial loss.

The Epstein Depositions Begin

Hillary Clinton was deposed behind closed doors in Washington as part of the House Oversight Committee’s work on the Epstein files. She maintained that she had no knowledge of wrongdoing involving Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell.

Democrats are pushing for a full, unedited transcript release to prevent selective leaks from shaping the narrative. Tensions flared when Rep. Lauren Boebert leaked an image of Clinton during the deposition, briefly halting proceedings.

Next comes Bill Clinton. For those with long political memories, that sense of history repeating itself is unavoidable. Whether anything explosive emerges remains to be seen, but the optics alone ensure sustained attention.

Transactional Politics in Real Time

Perhaps the most revealing political maneuver of the week came from New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. In an unscheduled trip to Washington, he reportedly presented President Trump with specific names of detained individuals and requested their release. One Columbia-affiliated detainee was subsequently freed.

The broader lesson is something I have observed for years. With Trump, flattery and direct engagement can yield tangible results. Politics is transactional. If you give him a headline he likes or a symbolic win, you may get policy movement in return. Mamdani appears to understand that dynamic.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:27 - Nasty Political Ads

00:10:52 - Interview with Kevin Ryan

00:51:33 - Update

00:51:47 - Tariffs

00:53:13 - Clintons

00:54:57 - Mamdani and Trump

00:59:13 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, con’t

01:38:33 - Wrap-up

I sat down with Capitol Hill reporter Juliegrace Brufke to unpack the explosive allegations surrounding Rep. Tony Gonzalez and his reported relationship with a former district staffer, whose tragic death last year has sent shockwaves through Texas politics and beyond. We walk through the timeline of the affair, the emergence of explicit text messages, claims of coercion, the husband’s response, and Gonzalez’s shifting public defense, including allegations of blackmail. Beyond the personal tragedy, we also examine the political fallout, from calls for Gonzalez’s resignation and the potential for an expulsion vote to the razor-thin House majority and what this scandal could mean for the upcoming Texas primary.

Disclaimer: This episode contains graphic descriptions of sexual misconduct and self-harm.

Follow Juliegrace Brufke on X/Twitter.

Chapters

00:00 - Intro and Disclaimer

03:25 - The Tony Gonzales Case with Juliegrace Brufke

07:16 - What We Know and Background

14:51 - New Details of the Case and Gonzales’, Local, and Congressional Responses

28:59 - Sealed Files, Endorsements, and Other Fallout

37:26 - Gonzales’ Relationships in Congress and Blackmail Allegation Details

41:53 - Wrap-up

President Trump says he will decide within 10 to 15 days whether to continue diplomatic efforts with Iran or authorize military action. On paper, talks in Geneva have been described as “positive.” In practice, the military posture tells a more urgent story. Significant naval assets are in place, including carrier strike groups positioned to project air power quickly.

What stands out is the operational framing. The buildup appears geared toward air and naval strikes, not large-scale ground deployments. Bombs in, not boots in. That distinction matters politically and strategically. A rapid, targeted operation is easier to message and easier to contain. A prolonged engagement is not.

I have no inside knowledge of what comes next. But the reporting suggests that every preparatory step short of execution has been taken. That does not guarantee action. It does mean the window for decision is real. If a strike happens, the political fallout will depend almost entirely on duration. Days are one thing. Weeks are another.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Prince Andrew and the Epstein Fallout

Across the Atlantic, the Epstein document releases are producing consequences that are less sensational but more legally concrete than many expected. Andrew Montbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office and later released. The scrutiny centers not on lurid allegations alone, but on claims that confidential trade documents may have been shared with Jeffrey Epstein during Andrew’s tenure as a trade envoy.

That is the pattern emerging from the latest tranche of disclosures. The most actionable material involves documents, authority, and institutional misuse, not the more speculative narratives that dominate online conversation. Trade secrets and official privilege are prosecutable. Rumor is not.

If these allegations hold, the implications extend beyond Andrew personally. They could destabilize broader political relationships in the United Kingdom and intensify scrutiny of other high-profile Epstein associates. The sensational headlines grab attention, but it is the paper trail that moves prosecutors.

DHS Funding and Pre–State of the Union Brinkmanship

Back home, the Department of Homeland Security funding fight remains stalled. Democrats are demanding immigration enforcement reforms, including stricter warrant requirements, ending certain patrol practices, and unmasking field agents. Republicans have labeled those proposals red lines and accuse Democrats of leveraging the shutdown for political positioning ahead of the State of the Union.

Nothing substantive is likely to move before the president addresses Congress. The incentives run the other way. Democrats want to be seen as fighting. Republicans want to frame the impasse as obstruction. In the meantime, DHS operates in partial shutdown conditions, with essential personnel continuing work but long-term uncertainty hanging over the department.

The broader dynamic is familiar. Shutdowns are blunt instruments. They energize bases but rarely deliver maximal outcomes. Eventually, one side cuts a deal and angers its most committed supporters. The only open question is who blinks first and how much rhetorical damage accumulates before they do.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:11 - Dave Levinthal on Dems’ Midterm Fundraising

00:27:24 - Update

00:29:00 - Iran

00:33:30 - Former Prince Andrew Arrested

00:35:10 - DHS Funding Talks

00:38:20 - Karol Markowicz on Republican Vibes

01:21:35 - Wrap-up

The Iran situation remains murky. President Trump says he will be indirectly involved in renewed nuclear talks in Geneva, describing them as “very important,” while simultaneously ordering a significant military buildup in the Persian Gulf. A second aircraft carrier. Additional F-35s. Diplomacy and deterrence running in parallel.

I am genuinely unsure what the endgame is here. Is this Venezuela-style pressure, where decapitation and economic realignment are the model? Or is this about crippling missile capacity and nuclear infrastructure? Iran is not Venezuela. It has ideological cohesion in ways Caracas did not. It has true believers.

What confuses me most is timing. If there was a moment of peak internal pressure inside Iran, it may have passed. Now we are left with talks that may or may not be sincere, layered on top of military posturing that may or may not be a prelude to action. I would not be shocked by a strike. I would not be shocked by a deal. That is not analysis. That is honest uncertainty.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The DHS Shutdown and Democratic Leverage

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security remains in shutdown limbo. Senate Democrats blocked a stopgap funding bill demanding tighter warrant requirements, unmasking of agents, expanded body camera usage, and changes to patrol tactics after controversial shootings. Republicans argue ICE funding continues under prior legislation and most DHS workers are deemed essential anyway.

So far, public disruption has been limited. But if TSA agents and other DHS personnel miss paychecks long enough, pressure will build. My priors here are consistent: Democrats believe they are in a popular posture standing up to Trump. They are, at least rhetorically. But at some point, the government has to reopen fully. And any deal negotiated from the minority will disappoint the activists who demanded maximal reform.

That is the trap of shutdown politics. You escalate to energize your base. Then you have to compromise to govern.

Jesse Jackson and a Bygone Era

Finally, Reverend Jesse Jackson died at 84. Whatever your partisan perspective, he was a towering figure in American political history, a bridge between the civil rights movement and modern Democratic presidential politics. He changed what was imaginable in national campaigns. His influence on leaders like Barack Obama is undeniable.

The era he represented feels distant now. The fights are different. The coalitions are different. Even the tone is different. But history has long shadows, and Jackson cast one.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:04:35 - Uncle Luke Running For Congress

00:07:51 - Polymarket Odds for Texas Senate Primaries

00:26:04 - Update

00:26:18 - Jesse Jackson

00:28:52 - Iran

00:32:44 - DHS Shutdown

00:36:56 - Polymarket Odds for California, Maine, and Michigan

01:02:03 - Wrap-up

Over the past couple of weeks, Senate Republicans have come up with this plan to bring back the talking filibuster, all in an effort to pass the SAVE America Act. On paper, it is clever. Force Democrats to physically hold the floor to block voter ID legislation that polls as an 80-20 issue. Make them read the phone book. Make them look unserious. Put Jon Ossoff and other swing-state Democrats on the record defending a position that is wildly unpopular nationally.

I actually think it would be smart politics. It’s also never going to happen.

The reason is simple: Senate institutionalists. John Thune does not want to be the Republican leader who weakened the filibuster, even in a limited way. The Senate sees itself as the “august deliberative body,” not the truck stop chaos of the House. No one wants on their résumé that they chipped away at the 60-vote threshold. The irony is that nothing in the rules prevents a talking filibuster. It simply fell out of use. But reviving it would still be seen as escalation.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

And escalation is not what senators do to each other lightly. They are there for six years. They share committee rooms and green rooms. They nurse grudges quietly. They do not enjoy public humiliation.

So while conservatives may draw up elaborate procedural roadmaps, this one caps out at tradition. And tradition, in the Senate, wins more often than base energy.

The Shutdown Nobody Wins

Meanwhile, we are entering an actual shutdown this weekend because Senate Democrats blocked a Department of Homeland Security funding bill after the House had already left town. Democrats escalated their demands from a handful of changes to what is effectively a multi-point overhaul. The problem is not moral clarity. The problem is math.

When you shut down the government, history suggests you rarely get what you want. Often, you get nothing. The Trump White House already has a blueprint from the last shutdown: keep the pain manageable, move money around where possible, and wait for pressure to build. If that pressure intensifies, especially around TSA delays, FEMA responses, or spring break travel, Democrats will face the same brutal reality every minority party faces during a shutdown.

Just like in the fall, they will have to cut a deal.

And when they do, their base will not celebrate incremental concessions. They will accuse leadership of caving. The drawdown of ICE activity in Minneapolis, which could have been framed as a win condition, has already been overtaken by new demands.

That is the trap. You negotiate past your leverage point because your base expects maximalism. Then you are left explaining why the maximalist outcome was never achievable in the first place.

A State of the Union Circus

All of this sets up a February 24th State of the Union that looks increasingly like a circus. Some House Democrats are openly discussing protests, despite Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries urging restraint.

We have seen these moves before. Last year’s disruptions did not damage Trump. If anything, they made him look calmer by comparison. When the visuals are heckling and signage next to moments crafted for television, the protest becomes the spectacle, not the message.

The deeper issue is control. Neither Mike Johnson nor Hakeem Jeffries appears to have ironclad command over their conferences. The margins are thin. The base pressure is intense. And Trump remains such a polarizing figure that restraint feels like betrayal to some members.

So expect noise. Expect moments engineered for viral clips. And expect very little institutional discipline.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:04:03 - Talking Filibuster DOA

00:18:06 - Update

00:18:33 - Shutdown

00:22:36 - ICE in Minnesota

00:25:50 - Democrats SOTU Plans

00:28:55 - Interview with Stella Tsantekidou on UK Politics and Epstein

01:13:06 - Wrap-up

Jasmine Crockett has a new ad, and it’s everything you’d expect out of 2026 so far. It’s a TV ad utilizing an anime style — and potentially some AI. It is inventive, loud, and undeniably designed to cut through clutter. In a vacuum, it might even be smart. Anime specifically has real cultural traction, especially with younger and Black voters, and the ad signals energy in a race where attention is scarce.

The problem is context. Crockett is getting creative on television very late in the game, after being outspent roughly 19 to 1, and amid reporting that suggests her campaign lacks clear leadership and strategic direction. The theory of the campaign seems to be that message intensity can compensate for organizational weakness. That is a risky bet. Strong words without disciplined execution rarely scale, especially statewide.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

What turned this race from messy to combustible was Colin Allred’s response to an influencer claim that James Talarico privately referred to him as a “mediocre Black man.” Allred did not hedge. He endorsed Crockett, appeared with her, and went on television saying Talarico refused to apologize. That escalated the race instantly.

At this point, Crockett’s campaign is no longer merely contrasting policy or style. It is prosecuting a character case aimed directly at Black voters. If there were any functional party leadership involved, they would be trying to de-escalate this immediately. Burning Talarico to the ground may help Crockett in the primary, but it risks destroying a Democrat many believed could be viable in future statewide races. Instead, the attacks have intensified, and Talarico’s response has been uneven at best.

His ads have not helped. They feel staged, overly cinematic, and oddly reverential, as if he is preaching rather than connecting. Authenticity is supposed to be his calling card, yet his campaign keeps placing a layer of polish between him and voters. That disconnect is now showing up in the data.

A University of Houston poll taken in late January shows Crockett up nine points on Talarico, despite her spending disadvantage. That is a flashing warning sign. It suggests Talarico is not breaking through, and that Democratic primary voters are responding more to confrontation than caution.

On the Republican side, the implications are enormous. If Crockett emerges as the nominee, the GOP path depends heavily on who survives its own primary. John Cornyn remains the establishment preference, backed by Trump’s former campaign leadership, but recent polling shows Ken Paxton leading. If Paxton is the nominee, Republicans will have to spend aggressively in a race they would normally ignore. If Cornyn is the nominee, the race likely snaps back to lean Republican.

That is why this primary matters beyond Texas Democrats. A Crockett win followed by a Paxton nomination would force Republicans to defend ground they assumed was safe. If Texas flips, even into wave watch territory, it will not be because demographics finally arrived. It will be because campaigns failed, misjudged, or overreached at exactly the wrong moment.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:09 - Texas Dem Senate Primary

00:17:26 - Update

00:17:47 - DHS Funding

00:20:27 - Epstein

00:25:44 - Susan Collins

00:26:41 - Tom Merritt on AI’s Impact on the Midterms

01:07:49 - Wrap-up