A short update this week while I’m on the road. Trump will join European leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, for an emergency virtual summit Wednesday ahead of his Friday meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska. The talks, organized by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, will focus on pressuring Russia, addressing seized Ukrainian territory, securing guarantees for Kyiv, and sequencing peace talks. Merz insists on a ceasefire before any negotiations or land swaps, and Europe is pushing for stronger sanctions on Russia’s banking sector. Three sessions will bring together EU leaders, NATO chief Mark Rutte, Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Ukraine’s military backers. I’ve been struck by how closely Europe and NATO are aligned with Trump here — but we’ve been down this road with Putin before. He’s not a trustworthy guy. My bet is Zelensky ends up in the summit, and Trump pushes for a wrap-up.

Meanwhile, the Teamsters Union, long a Democratic stronghold, is broadening its political giving under President Sean O’Brien, donating to Republicans as well. It’s a big story — a sign that Democrats’ hold on organized labor’s money and loyalty is eroding, and it’s going to be something we need to watch as we move forward.

Finally, a judge denied the DOJ’s request to unseal grand jury material in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, saying the public would learn little new. The DOJ’s handling — including interviewing Maxwell, transferring her to a less restrictive prison, and not notifying victims — has sparked outrage. The public want more answers, but it’s unclear what new revelations could satisfy that demand. Would naming names in exchange for a pardon be worth it? That’s the moral trade-off now on the table.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:00 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, pt. 1

00:30:00 - Update

00:34:24 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, pt. 2

00:57:46 - Wrap-up

Netanyahu’s latest move isn’t subtle. He wants Israel to take full control of the Gaza Strip — dismantle Hamas, free hostages, and install a non-Hamas civilian government. On paper, it sounds like a decisive endgame. In practice, it’s a minefield. The UN, the UK, and even some of Israel’s own military leaders are warning this could be catastrophic, both humanitarian and legal. We’re talking about tens of thousands of troops pushing into Gaza City, uprooting a million residents to the south, and expanding a controversial aid network that’s already replacing the UN in distribution.

I can’t say I’m shocked. From the moment October 7th happened, this was always one of the plausible end states — Hamas removed from power entirely. What I didn’t anticipate was Iran’s weakened state factoring into the timing, or the fact that Israel might see that as a green light to act more aggressively. The trouble is, any operation that moves into the areas where hostages are held risks killing them outright. That’s going to split Israel politically, because it forces a brutal question: if you were willing to risk their deaths now, why didn’t you do it immediately after the attack?

And that’s before you even get to the problem of what comes after. Hamas leaders can’t make a deal and then just go live quietly in Gaza. They’d have to leave. But where? You don’t walk away from martyrdom rhetoric on Monday and spend Tuesday at Mario World in Orlando. Gaza under Hamas isn’t just a state — it’s a criminal syndicate, and that makes any negotiated exit almost impossible. Which means, if this plan goes forward, it’s going to be bloody, messy, and controversial from the start.

Trump’s Putin Play

Trump’s continuing to signal he’ll meet with Putin “very soon,” possibly in the UAE. Early talk was that Zelensky would be part of a three-way summit, but Trump has apparently dropped that stipulation. Predictably, the Kremlin is treating this like a win, while critics warn it could legitimize Russia’s aggression and undermine NATO. That’s the Beltway framing.

From what I’m hearing, it’s not that simple. Trump has actually been harder on Putin lately than some people realize — moving nuclear subs into range, green-lighting sanctions, and generally signaling that he’s done being strung along. This isn’t 2018 Helsinki. It might be Trump testing whether Putin will only make a deal after feeling genuine pressure.

None of this means a breakthrough is coming. It probably isn’t. But it does mean Trump wants to own the narrative — that he’s the guy who ends wars through direct negotiation. And until Ukraine or Gaza is resolved, his foreign policy record will feel incomplete. I think he knows that, and I think that’s why this meeting’s on the table at all.

FBI Assisting in Locating Texas Dems

In Texas, the Democratic walkout drama is back, with Senator John Cornyn confirming the FBI is helping locate them. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker is playing host, calling the state’s collection of Democrats “refugees,” which is absurd. They’re not refugees. They’re political props in his own long-term campaign plans.

Here’s the thing — if you believe in what you’re doing, you should want to get arrested. That would make this story bigger, not smaller. It’s the most potent form of protest they’ve got. Instead, they’re hiding out in hotels, funded by Beto O’Rourke’s PAC, doing nothing to energize the very voters they’re supposedly defending.

They could be knocking on doors in the districts that are about to be carved up, rallying people who are about to lose representation. If they got dragged back to Austin by Texas Rangers in the middle of that, it’d be front-page news. Instead, we’ve got photo ops in Chicago. It’s the same mistake they made in 2021 — swapping a real fight for a symbolic one, and then acting surprised when nothing changes.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:48 - Interview with Michael Cohen and Tom Merritt

00:21:29 - Update

00:21:57 - Gaza

00:29:30 - Trump and Putin

00:32:41 - Texas Dems

00:36:07 - Interview with Michael Cohen and Tom Merritt (con't)

01:01:12 - Wrap-up

Texas is right outside my window. I live just a short drive away from the statehouse, and yet, I’m physically closer to it than most of the Texas Democratic Party right now. Because while redistricting votes are going down, they’ve skipped town. Some are in Chicago, some in New York, some who-knows-where. They’re avoiding quorum on a vote that could give Republicans five more congressional seats in the next midterms. That might sound dramatic, but the stakes are that high. This isn’t about making a point. This is about shaping the entire balance of the House.

Let’s set aside the tired talking points about whether gerrymandering is good or bad, or whether California and Illinois are just as guilty. I don’t want to have that conversation right now. I want to talk about the Democrats in this state — the ones who keep losing, keep retreating, and somehow keep thinking that symbolic resistance is a strategy. It’s not. It’s performance. And worse, it signals to Texas liberals that their party isn’t willing to stand and fight. Not even in the state they claim to want to flip.

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

Texas doesn’t see itself as part of a broader movement. It sees itself as Texas. It doesn’t think of itself like the South, and it sure as hell doesn’t take cues from New York or Illinois. If you want to win here, you have to respect that. You have to show up and deliver for voters — on Texas terms. And skipping town because you’re mad about a vote doesn’t read like courage. It reads like cowardice. It says you don’t believe in the fight enough to have it on home turf.

Democrats did the same thing back in 2021 over a voting rights bill. They went to D.C., got tons of national media, and nothing changed. In fact, they lost ground. Their already thin hold in the statehouse got thinner. Republicans strengthened their grip. So this idea that leaving the state is some kind of protest with teeth is pure fantasy. It’s been tried. It failed. And now they’re doing it again — not with new tactics, not with a new message, just the same tired escape hatch.

What could they have done instead? I’ve got an idea. Take those same 50 Democrats and spend 72 hours barnstorming the neighborhoods that are about to be gerrymandered out of blue representation. Knock doors. Shake hands. Livestream the whole thing. Go to Frisco, Plano, East Houston, McAllen, Pflugerville, the Fifth Ward, and tell people what’s happening. Tell them they’re losing their voice in the Texas legislature. Register voters on the spot. Raise money. Make noise. Make it impossible to ignore you because you’re in Texas, not because you fled it.

You want a viral image? Try getting hauled back to the Capitol in a Texas Ranger squad car. That’s real drama. That’s a story that cuts through. And it puts a spotlight on the very system you're protesting. But instead, we get hotel bar selfies in Albany — and no movement on the map that’s about to tilt the state even further red. The public doesn’t want passive resistance. They want a fight. And Texas voters — especially liberals — want to believe that their side still knows how to throw a punch.

It’s not enough to blame the system. You have to build a response that feels real, rooted, and local. Texas is a massive media market. It’s expensive to campaign here. But if you don’t make Republicans spend, if you don’t at least make it look like a fight, they’ll never take you seriously, and they’ll never pay the price. Right now, all the Democrats have shown is that they’re not even willing to lose the right way.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:00 - Texas

00:13:46 - Update

00:14:29 - Treasury Secretary

00:19:36 - Gaza

00:24:36 - Moon-based Nuclear Reactor

00:26:31 - Interview with Kirk Bado

01:23:11 - Wrap-up

Georgia’s back in play, and this time it’s John Ossoff’s seat on the line. Everyone remembers how both Senate seats flipped blue in 2020, arguably the biggest down-ballot upset of that cycle. Now Ossoff is up for re-election, and while a lot of people in Democratic circles have high hopes for him, I’m not one of them. I think he’s competent, but in a low-turnout election, he’s vulnerable — especially against a Republican who can straddle the MAGA base and suburban swing voters. And the one guy who could have done that with ease? Brian Kemp. But Kemp says he’s out.

That opens the door to speculation — and apparently, to Derek Dooley. I didn’t believe it at first. Dooley is a football coach. He’s never held elected office, never coached a team in Georgia, and hasn’t been politically active in any public sense. But people in Kemp’s orbit kept saying his name. Supposedly, he’s a close family friend. That’s fine. It just doesn’t make him Senate material. Especially not in a race where Georgia Republicans need a serious contender to take out an incumbent Democrat.

Meanwhile, Buddy Carter and Mike Collins have both declared. Of the two, Collins has more momentum. People I talk to say Kemp World isn’t enthusiastic about rallying behind Dooley, and they’re not thrilled about having to realign with someone new. Collins could benefit from that vacuum — especially if he secures Trump’s endorsement. And if Kemp doesn’t step back in or offer a viable replacement, Collins may very well end up the nominee.

The tension between Trump and Kemp adds another layer. These two have never been close — their feud goes back to Georgia’s certification of the 2020 election and the high-profile primaries that followed. Trump tried to run challengers against both Kemp and Brad Raffensperger, and they destroyed them. So if Trump goes all-in on Collins, and Kemp World is still wandering around trying to sell people on Dooley, it’s going to be a messy primary.

But let’s game it out. If Dooley fizzles and Collins gets hot, then by the fall, we might be looking at Mike Collins versus Jon Ossoff in a high-stakes Senate race. Collins will make Ossoff answer for the border, for crime, and for culture war issues like trans athletes — all while wrapping himself in the Lake and Riley Act. That law, named after a murder victim killed by an undocumented immigrant, is going to be the core of his messaging. It’s brutal. It’s effective. And it could work.

Still, there’s one wild card left: Brian Kemp himself. He made his announcement back in April, but if the economy is strong and the polling is tight come Thanksgiving, could he reconsider? Stranger things have happened. And Kemp is the only Republican in Georgia with a proven statewide machine, broad appeal, and a serious shot at clearing the field. If he’s still lurking in the background, this race isn’t over. In fact, it hasn’t even started.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:40 - Georgia Senate Race

00:20:32 - Update

00:20:54 - Kamala Harris

00:24:06 - South Korea Trade Deal

00:26:24 - Trump’s White House Ballroom

00:28:07 - Interview with Josh Jennings

01:18:15 - Wrap-up

Trump signed an executive order last week that could fundamentally reframe the way the federal government deals with homelessness. Titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets,” the order pivots away from housing-first strategies and toward public safety and mandatory treatment. That includes prioritizing funding for states and cities that ban urban camping, loitering, and open drug use, and it supports civil commitment — involuntary hospitalization for those with severe mental illness or addiction. Harm reduction programs are effectively defunded under this order, and treatment becomes a prerequisite for federal help.

This didn’t get a lot of attention in the media. That’s a mistake. Homelessness is one of the most visible problems in American cities, and it’s not going away. I’ve lived in Oakland, San Francisco, and Austin — three cities that have all struggled mightily with this issue. San Francisco in particular is the worst I’ve seen. It’s not hyperbole to say that its homelessness crisis overshadows the city’s stunning architecture and rich culture. Visitors walk away talking about tents, not the Golden Gate Bridge.

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

This isn’t a lecture about policy. I don’t think there’s an easy solution. From everything I’ve read and seen, roughly half of people living on the streets are there because of financial collapse — bad luck, bad decisions, and no safety net. The other half, though, don’t want to reenter society. Some of them are dangerous, many are mentally ill, and addiction is everywhere. That’s especially true in places like the Bay Area, where cheap or even free drugs are plentiful, and the spiral from one substance to the next ends in death more often than we acknowledge.

Even in liberal cities, the political lines are shifting. When I moved to Austin in 2021, the city had rescinded its ban on urban camping. The results were immediate: tents on sidewalks, more street homelessness, and public parks taken over. A citywide referendum eventually reinstated the ban — not because Austin became more conservative, but because people across the political spectrum wanted cleaner streets. They didn’t necessarily care how it happened. That’s the political space Trump’s executive order moves into.

It’s controversial, yes. And there are real concerns about forcing treatment and stripping funding from programs that do help some people. But the public mood is changing. People are frustrated. They want their cities back, and they’re running out of patience for ideological purity tests. Trump, love him or hate him, is filling a leadership vacuum here. I don’t know if his order will work — or if it’ll be implemented at all in places that oppose him. But I do think it’s a sign that this issue is far from settled, and it’s about to get a lot more attention.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:09 - Trump’s Homelessness Plan

00:14:56 - Update

00:15:18 - EPA Rollbacks

00:20:09 - North Carolina

00:23:12 - Epstein

00:26:58 - Interview with Dan Turrentine

00:59:56 - Wrap-up

I just spent three hours watching Hunter Biden, and I have a lot of thoughts. The interview, done by Andrew Callahan for Channel 5, is something like a confessional crossed with a stand-up set crossed with a Twitter thread that never ends. It’s raw, it’s chaotic, and weirdly, it’s compelling. If you’re a politics junkie, a media analyst, or just curious about the human side of scandal, there’s a lot to pick apart.

First off, the man is online. Not just vaguely aware of what’s being said about him — he’s terminally online. He knows the jokes, the subtext, the usernames. I’m convinced he has burner accounts. He’s tracking how people talk about him in real time, and it bleeds through every answer. He’s got a list — Tapper, the Pod Save crew, Alex Jones, Stephen Miller, and on and on. He names names, and he torches them. It’s Seth Rollins with a flamethrower.

But what’s interesting is how seriously he talks about addiction, sobriety, and crack — yes, crack specifically. He draws lines between drugs, dives into the stigma, and explains how being labeled a “crack addict” shaped public perception of him. These are by far the most honest and lucid parts of the interview. And they reveal someone who’s done the work of recovery — while still slipping into the old reflexes of deflection when the political heat turns up.

He has this quote about “an evil symbiosis between money and power” — and I couldn’t help but think, does he hear himself? He’s talking about systems he’s literally a product of. And yet, he stays focused on everyone else’s money. When he brings someone up, it’s almost always first by how rich they are. Soros, Tapper, Bannon — doesn’t matter who it is, the cash comes first. There’s this constant undercurrent of scorekeeping.

He also confirms, in his way, that the laptop is real — then turns around and champions the “hallmarks of Russian disinfo” letter like it was gospel. The tension never resolves. He owns up to some things, skirts others, and delivers just enough contradiction to keep everyone debating. Even when he talks about Burisma, he says the quiet part out loud: “I had connections.” That’s the trick, the real reason he was on that board. And he knows it.

What stuck with me, though, was his resentment. Not anger — that’s expected — but a deep, lingering bitterness toward the people he feels used him, abandoned him, or dismissed him. It gives the whole interview a kind of edge that goes beyond politics. When he talks about the media, about Democrats who’ve distanced themselves, or even about his father, there’s a tension. Like he’s still waiting for someone to publicly say they screwed him over. He wants vindication as much as he wants attention.

And that’s where it lands. This wasn’t an attempt to reset the narrative — it was a live demo of the very chaos people accuse him of embodying. He wants to be understood, but not too clearly. He wants to admit things, but only on his terms. He wants to lash out, but still come off sympathetic. It’s maddening, self-aware, and oddly human. If anything, the interview shows us who Hunter Biden is — and exactly why nobody in the Democratic Party knows what to do with him.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:01:09 - Epstein

00:05:56 - Hunter Biden

00:32:18 - Update

00:33:34 - NC Senate Race

00:36:40 - Wisconsin Gov. Seat

00:38:19 - Florida Redistricting

00:39:08 - Interview with Mary Ellen Klas

01:17:30 - Wrap-up

We’re heading into another potential government shutdown, and the maneuvering is already underway. Schumer is strategizing with his caucus on how to handle the September 30 deadline. It’s a familiar script: Democrats want Republicans to commit to avoiding additional rescissions and to agree on the broader budget process before Democrats give their votes. The ask isn’t outrageous — a few basic guarantees in exchange for the seven Democratic votes Republicans would need to hit the 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

The tension, of course, is baked in. Some Democrats want to force a shutdown, not avoid one. They think it’s time to show their base that they’ll stand up to Trump and his agenda. But Schumer doesn’t want to lose the optics war. If Democrats are the ones who initiate a shutdown, he knows they’ll never be able to claim the high road again when Republicans try the same play. That framing matters — especially in an election year.

Meanwhile, Republicans are eager to push another round of budget cuts. They already passed an $8 billion rescissions package and want more. That’s what Schumer is trying to block, while also keeping his own party from turning a funding debate into a loyalty test. It’s a messy balancing act, and the countdown has already started.

Public Media Hits a Wall

Edith Chapin stepping down from NPR is getting attention, but the real story is the billion-dollar rescission Congress just passed — a cut directly targeting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That’s the pot of money that gets divided among outlets like NPR and PBS. Chapin insists her departure isn’t related, and maybe that’s true. Thirteen years is a long run. Still, the timing speaks volumes.

For years, public media has downplayed its reliance on federal dollars. They’d argue they only receive about 1% of their funding from the government, so budget cuts shouldn’t matter. But now that Congress has actually slashed that funding, the narrative changes. If they’re not publicly funded in any meaningful way, how do they survive? And if they are, then why haven’t they done a better job of building public goodwill to protect that funding?

I don’t think the model holds up much longer. If you rely on taxpayer money, you have to make your case — constantly. You have to give people something they can see, something they can repeat. You can’t just be vague and institutional and assume the funding will continue. It’s not the ’90s anymore. The party’s ending, and there’s a new bartender who’s ready to close the tab.

UNESCO and the American Pullback

And then there’s UNESCO. Trump is pulling the U.S. out of the UN’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — again. It’s a reversal of a reversal from his first term. He says it’s too “woke,” too biased, too ineffective. Whatever the justification, it fits a larger pattern: the U.S. retreating from its role as primary funder of global institutions.

There’s always a debate about whether this kind of move opens the door for China to step in and fill the void. That argument has merit. But I’ll say to UNESCO what I said to public media: if you depend on the American public — directly or indirectly — for your funding and relevance, then you have to win public support. You have to tell your story well, and often. You have to make people care.

Some of these global organizations got comfortable. They assumed the checks would keep coming, and the U.S. would always foot the bill. But now they’re running out of room. The music’s fading. And if they can’t answer why they matter in plain language, they’ll find themselves cut off without much fanfare.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:01:25 - Justin’s BART Experience

00:08:52 - Interview with Michael Tracey

00:39:40 - Update

00:40:17 - Gov’t Shutdown?

00:43:32 - NPR

00:45:09 - UNESCO

00:47:35 - Interview with Michael Tracey, con’t

01:18:40 - Wrap-up

Let’s talk about Liberation Day — and more importantly, how it’s going to end. Back in April, Trump rolled out what looked like a trade war on steroids: a flurry of tariffs aimed at countries big and small, with no clear structure except for one thing — disruption. It was pitched as a three-pronged strategy. First, if you want to sell into the U.S., we should be able to sell into your markets too. Second, we need to re-onshore American manufacturing. And third — and let’s be honest, this was the loudest part — Trump wins.

For a minute, it wasn’t clear whether this was a real attempt to fundamentally restructure trade or just a way to set the stage for a bunch of “deals” later. The tariffs went out, the clock started, and everyone was told they had until August to make a deal or face serious costs. And yet, here we are in mid-July with just two completed agreements: Vietnam and the UK. None of the big players — China, the EU, Japan, Canada, Mexico — are done. So the question becomes, what’s the endgame?

Here’s what I’ve been told: the White House is prepping a three-phase process that’s all about creating the appearance of momentum. Phase one is joint statements — political handshake documents, not legally binding deals. These are meant to say, “Hey, we’re working on it, don’t hit us with the tariffs yet.” It’s what they did with the UK, and it’s what they want from everyone else by early August. These aren’t trade agreements. They’re vibes.

Phase two is an interim agreement — maybe 40 to 50 pages, with some of the real trade language baked in. This is where you’ll start seeing things like rules of origin pop up — basically, making sure countries like China can’t skirt tariffs by routing goods through friendlier ports. It’s technical, it’s dry, and it takes time, but it’s a necessary step toward real enforcement.

And phase three, the big one, comes way down the road — probably after the midterms. These are the actual full trade agreements, hundreds of pages long, with all the boring but essential rules locked in. But here’s the twist: if you think countries will bother going through phase two and three after they’ve already locked in the tariff rate during phase one, you’re missing the enforcement tool — Section 232. The White House is making it clear: if you slack off, we’ll start making noise. We’ll investigate. We’ll embarrass you. Think Mexican tomatoes — everybody knows they’re breaking the rules, and we’ve just been letting it slide. But not anymore.

So when all these joint agreements start rolling out at the end of this month, remember what they are: theater. The deals are political stunts to buy time, stabilize markets, and let Trump declare victory. The real work — the real meat — comes later. And that’s how Liberation Day ends. Not with a bang, but with a bunch of bullet-pointed PDFs.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:05 - How does Liberation Day end?

00:16:24 - Interview with Jack Gamble

00:41:30 - Update

00:41:46 - Epstein Discharge Petition

00:50:44 - Virginia Polls

00:52:18 - Rescissions Package Passage

00:53:36 - Interview with Jack Gamble (con't)

01:15:25 - Wrap-up