Joe Biden has aggressive prostate cancer. That news dropped as we were getting ready to record today’s show, and it immediately redefined everything I had planned for this episode. The White House says he found out late last week. But after everything we’ve seen — after everything we now know — I just don’t buy it. Not on its face. Not without skepticism. And certainly not from a team that has serially misled the public about this president’s health.

This isn’t partisan. This isn’t about political advantage. It’s about trust. And the Biden White House has burned every ounce of trust it ever had on the question of Joe Biden’s mental and physical condition. We were told he was sharp. We were told he was healthy. We were told the only concerns were conspiracy theories. Now we’re told he has bone-level prostate cancer and just found out a few days ago. The story does not add up.

We’ve known — not speculated, but known — that Biden’s team actively suppressed signs of his decline. It’s the core premise of the new book Original Sin by Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper. In it, we learn the White House doctor predicted Biden would be wheelchair-bound in a second term. We hear about the memory lapses, the failures to recognize people close to him, the moments that were carefully hidden or brushed aside. The story isn’t new — it’s just finally being told with names attached. And that’s the part that stings.

Because for those of us who were watching this unfold in real time, the media’s about-face is galling. Take Jake Tapper. He’s now co-author of the book and the face of its rollout — doing long, self-congratulatory segments on CNN about the secrets he’s finally exposing. But these weren’t secrets to people who were paying attention. Fox News ran segments on Biden’s decline all throughout 2023 and 2024. Clips went viral. The press dismissed them as “cheap fakes.” And now Tapper’s shocked — shocked — to find out the emperor has no clothes?

That’s what grates. Not just the cover-up, but the theater around its unmasking. The same people who waved it away are now acting like they cracked the case. And worse, they’re treating the rest of us like we weren’t there watching them do it. CNN actually responded to a viral clip reel of Tapper’s past dismissals by calling it “disingenuously edited.” The same playbook they criticized the White House for using. You can’t gaslight people and then write a book about how gaslighting is wrong.

And now we get to the real question: what did they know, and when did they know it? Did Biden already have this diagnosis when he decided to run for reelection? Did his inner circle? Did the press? These aren’t cynical questions — they’re essential ones. Because if the answer is yes, then everything about 2024 shifts. Every calculation, every debate, every moment the press refused to ask harder questions — it all changes. Because this wasn’t about a stutter or a slip of the tongue. This was about a man with a potentially terminal illness running for the most demanding job on the planet.

The cleanest way for Biden to bow out was always going to be health-related. I said it on this show more than once. If he ever had to step aside, cancer would be the story. Not scandal, not defeat — just a body failing a man who still wanted to fight. I didn’t think he’d actually get cancer. But now that he has, the question isn’t whether he should drop out. The question is whether he was ever in the race honestly to begin with.

We deserve the truth. Not just out of respect for the office, but because the American people shouldn’t be the last to know that their president is unwell. And certainly not after being lied to for years about how well he was.

Chapters

00:00 - Intro

01:26 - Joe Biden’s Cancer Diagnosis

13:04 - Jake Tapper’s CNN Broadcast

27:17 - Wrap-up

The Big Beautiful Bill is finally past the quiet phase. The behind-the-scenes negotiations have spilled into the open, and now we’re in the bloodletting. Speaker Mike Johnson wants this out of the House by Memorial Day, which means committee votes need to happen, and fast. But right now, the Budget Committee is a problem. Hardliners are balking — Ralph Norman, Josh Brecheen, and Chip Roy are all leaning no. They’re not satisfied with the Congressional Budget Office’s timeline for a cost estimate, and they’re worried the Medicaid changes could pressure red states into expanding coverage.

Mike Lawler and Marjorie Taylor Greene are fighting on Twitter over SALT deductions — state and local tax breaks — and that fight is not going away. There’s talk of raising the cap from $30,000 to $40,000 or adjusting the phase-out thresholds. But this is exactly why they’re doing one big bill instead of multiple smaller ones. Everyone knew it was going to be painful. Nobody wanted to go through this kind of battle again and again for every policy item.

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

Still, I’m bullish. It’s ugly right now, but that doesn’t mean it’s doomed. The usual sign of failure — a flood of press conferences from members declaring the bill dead — hasn’t happened. Republicans aren’t holding cameras. They’re texting reporters. They’re venting in group chats. But they’re not going on record saying they’ll tank Trump’s agenda. That’s a big difference. This isn’t like other bills I’ve seen die. It still feels like something they’re going to get through — just barely.

The key players are all doing what they need to do. Trump is overseas for now, but his influence is still real. He got Johnson the speaker’s gavel. He’s kept this whole thing moving. When he’s back, the pressure campaign ramps up. Meanwhile, JD Vance is already starting his Senate charm offensive to get reconciliation done once it clears the House. They know they’ll lose a few senators, but they’re planning for that. The goal is to get something — anything — through.

And here’s what’s actually in it: no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on Social Security for anyone making under $150,000. Yes, those provisions sunset in four years, but let’s be honest — once they go into effect, they’re not going anywhere. Nobody’s going to vote to take those benefits away from working people. Republicans used to hate that logic — the “give a mouse a cookie” approach to entitlements — but now they’re writing the cookies themselves. And they’re going to love running on them.

This bill is messy. It’s jammed with contradictions. It’s being held together with string and prayers. But I still think it passes. And if it does, the Trump administration gets to claim a huge legislative win — not just a headline, but real, sticky policy that people will feel in their paychecks. That’s the ballgame.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:52 - Big Beautiful Bill Progress

00:15:51 - Interview with Bill Scher

00:39:39 - Update

00:40:23 - Inflation

00:43:36 - Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship

00:45:44 - Iran Nuclear Deal, "Sort Of"

00:47:57 - The News Sheriff

00:53:03 - Interview with Bill Scher (con't)

01:18:02 - Wrap-up

Donald Trump is rumored to have a plan to receive a $400 million plane from Qatar, retrofitted to serve as Air Force One. On its face, it’s a straightforward diplomatic gift to the United States, meant to replace aging presidential aircraft. But the controversy kicked into overdrive with reports that this plane could eventually end up in Trump’s hands personally, via his presidential library. That’s where things get murky.

Let’s start with facts. The two current Air Force One planes have been flying since the George H.W. Bush era. They’re overdue for replacement, and Boeing was contracted to deliver new ones. But Boeing’s been a mess—delays, scandals, technical issues. Trump, frustrated with the pace, toured a Qatari 747-8 already fitted for luxury use. This plane is 13 years old, but still valued around $400 million.

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

Now, Qatar is a massive buyer of American military hardware. We’re talking $26 billion in purchases over the past decade. In that context, a $400 million jet as a gesture of goodwill isn’t shocking. What makes this different is the personal angle. According to ABC’s original report, Trump’s library would receive the plane by January 1, 2029 — before Trump’s successor takes office, and potentially before Boeing’s replacements are ready. If true, that would mean Trump gets to keep a retrofitted Air Force One for personal use, while the next president is stuck with the old models.

For me, that’s the red line. If Trump forces his successor to downgrade because he took the new plane for himself, that’s blatant self-dealing. If the plane stays in the rotation until Boeing delivers, and only then moves to his library, it becomes more of a vanity project — still unusual, but not unprecedented. Reagan’s old Air Force One is parked at his library, after all. You can even see it in some of Trump’s old debates, the ones held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

But Reagan’s plane wasn’t transferred to him personally right after his presidency. It stayed in service until Clinton’s term ended before being disassembled and reassembled in Simi Valley. Trump’s timeline — if ABC’s reporting holds — would be far more aggressive, and far more self-serving.

The frustrating part is how little clarity we’ve gotten. Most coverage fixates on whether it’s “appropriate” for Qatar to give the U.S. a plane. That’s not the interesting question. The real issue is when Trump plans to take personal control of it. That’s what determines whether this is normal diplomatic horse-trading — or brazen corruption.

Until we get a straight answer on that, this story stays in limbo. Potential scandal or overblown noise — we just don’t know yet.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:55 - Qatari Plane Deal

00:18:10 - Update

00:21:19 - John Fetterman

00:24:52 - David Hogg

00:27:13 - Inflation

00:31:11 - Interview with Matt Laslo

01:17:52 - Wrap-up

Brian Kemp is out. No Senate run in 2026, and that shifts the entire field. Kemp was the Republican Party’s best shot at flipping the Georgia seat currently held by Jon Ossoff — and he knew it. He didn’t just flirt with the idea. He let it hang out there long enough for donors, strategists, and journalists to start treating it as likely. So when he made it official this weekend, it sent shockwaves through the Georgia GOP and national Republicans hoping for a clean, high-profile pickup in a battleground state.

Let’s be clear: Kemp would’ve been a problem for Ossoff. He’s a two-term governor with a reputation for competency, no Trump baggage, and enough distance from the MAGA wing to appeal to suburban voters. He beat Stacey Abrams twice. He stared down Trump in 2020 and walked away stronger. There are few Republicans who can claim that kind of profile. Without him, the bench gets thin — and fast.

Ossoff is already pulling in national dollars, and now he doesn’t have to spend the next 12 months preparing for a Kemp-style challenge. That gives him time to build narrative, define the race early, and lock down coalitions that might’ve been vulnerable in a high-turnout, split-ticket election. Democrats don’t have to win Georgia by a landslide — they just need to hold it. And in a cycle that’s already looking rough for Republicans in other swing states, the GOP needed Georgia to be easy. It’s not.

Now the question becomes whether Republicans want to rally around a moderate and play defense, or roll the dice with a firebrand and try to rally the base. Either option carries risk. A moderate might not excite anyone. A MAGA pick might turn the whole race into a referendum on January 6 or Trump loyalty. And the problem with a crowded primary isn’t just messaging — it’s money. Ossoff gets to hoard his resources while Republicans knife each other in the dark.

It’s early, but the GOP just lost its best card. And unless something big changes — a surprise retirement, a shocking recruit, a sudden scandal — this race has quietly shifted from “toss-up” to “lean blue.” Not because Ossoff is invincible. But because the Republican bench is looking thin, the calendar is ticking, and Brian Kemp just said, “No thanks.” Heck, if Marjorie Taylor-Greene steps in, it might just be Ossoff +7. And it will not be for lack of news coverage.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:48 - Brian Kemp Not Running for Senate

00:06:18 - Interview with Aubrey Sitterson

01:14:20 - Wrap-up

May 2025 might go down as the most pivotal month of Donald Trump’s second presidency. The post-Liberation Day disruption gave him room to play the chaos card — but that only lasts so long. Now it’s time to deliver. And according to what the White House is telling Congress behind closed doors, a lot is in motion. Sixty countries are either actively negotiating trade terms or exchanging paperwork with the administration. Congress is being told these deals won’t require their approval, which Congress, for the record, does not agree with. But this is Trump we’re talking about — when has he ever waited for a vote?

Still, the big names you’d expect — China, Canada, Mexico — aren’t in the mix. China’s radio silent, Mexico and Canada are being folded into existing USMCA renegotiations. That leaves three countries reportedly close to a deal: the United Kingdom, Australia, and most importantly, India. India isn’t just geopolitically important — it’s the key to rewriting how America competes with China. A deal there could shift the entire narrative.

Why India Matters More Than You Think

India is the crown jewel of this effort. There's personal chemistry between Trump and Modi, which helps. JD Vance just visited India, and his family ties only reinforce the good vibes. But this isn’t just a soft power thing. India offers cheap manufacturing, which Trump badly needs to offset Chinese trade disruption. If you’re going to tell a story about reindustrializing America and cutting reliance on Beijing, India is where you start.

There’s also the intellectual property angle. India doesn’t have the same IP hang-ups as China, which means Trump could insert protections into this deal and claim it as a model for future negotiations — including, eventually, with China. It’s the kind of pivot that’s both symbolic and real. Add in niche export wins — like bourbon or Harley-Davidsons, which have demand in India but face big trade hurdles — and suddenly you’ve got tangible proof of progress.

Fast Deals, Reversible Wins

Here’s the catch: none of these deals are expected to go through Congress. They’re handshake deals. That means they can be reversed at any moment — by Trump himself. And that’s kind of the point. Trump wants to touch every single part of the negotiation. No detail moves without his approval. That gives him the power to declare victory on anything, even if the actual text doesn’t amount to much.

So the real question isn’t whether Trump can get a deal. It’s whether he can get one that’s meaningful — and fast. Because right now, the administration needs wins. Not headlines. Not vibes. Wins. The stock market is shaky, the trade war with China is frozen, and the White House knows it’s currently heading into the midterms with a record that still feels unsettled. India might be the win they’ve been waiting for. But if it doesn’t land soon, the window to define this presidency might close a lot faster than anyone expects.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:00:15 - Tariff Negotiations

00:10:11 - Worst State Party Draft, part one

00:41:37 - Update

00:42:36 - Mike Waltz Goes to the U.N.

00:44:48 - Alien Enemies Act Ruling

00:48:55 - Ukraine Mineral Deal

00:51:55 - Worst State Party Draft, part two

01:34:53 - Wrap-up

Late last night, the news finally came in: the Liberal Party of Canada pulled off the upset and held onto parliamentary power. It wasn’t pretty. It wasn’t dominant. But they survived — and a few months ago, that seemed almost impossible. They had everything working against them: more than a decade in power, a deeply unpopular former prime minister they had to jettison, and an electorate that looked ready for change. Yet when the votes were counted, the Liberals were still standing.

And you can’t tell this story without talking about Donald Trump. Trump has been a thorn in Canada’s side since his first term — publicly antagonizing Justin Trudeau, calling Canada the "51st state," and slapping brutal tariffs on Canadian goods. That lingering resentment became part of the political terrain in Canada. The Liberal candidate, Mark Carney, didn’t just have to run against Peter Poilievre and the Conservative Party — he got to run against the memory of Trump, and against the uncertainty that conservatives couldn't fully distance themselves from.

Poilievre never figured out how to adapt. He spent too much time running a traditional opposition campaign and not enough time answering the deeper question a lot of Canadian voters were asking: would a Conservative government just invite more chaos with Trump? Carney seized on that. He didn’t have to make it the centerpiece of his campaign, but it was always there in the background. Steady hand versus risk. Familiarity versus volatility.

And while some Conservatives are already spinning this as a "moral victory" because of how tight the race was, that’s not how elections work. A win is a win. In a parliamentary system, survival is everything. The Liberals get to control the agenda, pick the cabinet, and frame the narrative going into the next few years. That’s not moral victory — that’s real, tangible power. And for a party that looked like it was about to lose everything, it’s a remarkable political save.

Now, the Liberals may still need a coalition with the NDP to govern effectively. It’s razor-thin. But that’s a separate conversation. The scoreboard is the scoreboard. And right now, the score says the Liberals survived. Trump’s shadow loomed large over this race — and in the end, it helped save the very people he’s spent years antagonizing.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:01:28 - WHCA Substack Party

00:11:27 - Interview with Kevin Ryan

00:28:46 - Update

00:29:08 - Canadian Election Results

00:31:38 - Big Beautiful Bill’s July 4th Deadline

00:35:46 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, con’t

00:57:28 - Wrap-up

David Hogg, the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, announced he’s spending $20 million through his group, Leaders We Deserve, to primary sitting Democratic incumbents. He’s targeting safe-seat veterans, mostly older members, and it’s kicking off a full-blown internal fight.

DNC chair Ken Martin isn’t having it. He’s proposing a rule that would ban DNC leaders from participating in partisan primaries — meaning Hogg would either have to step down or drop the activist role. The rule’s set to be debated at the DNC’s August meeting, and Hogg’s already digging in, saying he’ll fight to stay. Martin’s also announced a $1 million-a-month allocation to state parties, saying the DNC needs to decentralize. The real translation? Tension is so high they’re trying to buy unity.

But here’s the thing — I actually think Hogg is right. The Democratic Party would benefit from some turnover. There are plenty of incumbents who have grown comfortable, complacent, and maybe even a little out of step. At the same time, that’s only half the issue. Because the problem with tossing out incumbents is you need to replace them with winners. These older Democrats have won election after election, and that’s not something you just replicate by parachuting in a 24-year-old with a TikTok following and a podcast. Safe seats aren’t invincible. Primaries can backfire. And while I’m all for change, I’m also for winning.

The larger problem here is that you can’t be both the referee and the quarterback. If you’re helping to write the rules for how the party operates, you don’t get to break them for your own political goals. It’s not about silencing voices — it's about basic conflict of interest. If the DNC is supposed to be the governing body that creates a level playing field, its leaders can’t be in the middle of bloodying that field themselves.

Hogg was already a controversial pick. He’s got detractors inside and outside the party. He’s drawn criticism not just from Republicans or centrists, but even from fellow gun control activists. The fact that this move feels more like a campaign than a strategic plan doesn’t help. It feels loud. It feels disruptive. And in a moment when Democrats are trying to project unity — especially heading into an election where every House seat could make or break their control — it feels reckless.

The reality is that American politics is in a narrow-band era. Gerrymandering, polarization, and party-line voting mean that major swings are less likely. Which makes every seat even more valuable. We’re not in a 60-seat blowout environment anymore. We’re in a +5, -5, maybe +15 cycle. That means replacing a proven vote-getter with someone untested — even in a “safe” district — can be dangerous.

So yeah, I think Hogg is right that the party needs to evolve. But I also think he’s wrong to do it this way. Because if it leads to chaos, to even a few avoidable losses, he’s not just risking some outdated Democrats — he’s risking the whole agenda. And if he’s not willing to see that, then maybe Ken Martin’s rule isn’t such a bad idea after all.

Check out Gabe’s reporting at The Free Press!

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:01:55 - DNC Confusion

00:05:43 - Interview with Gabe Kaminsky

00:25:39 - Update

00:25:58 - Ukraine Peace Deal

00:29:42 - Voter ID

00:31:24 - Canadian Election

00:36:40 - Interview with Gabe Kaminsky, continued

01:03:33 - Wrap-up

There’s a civil war happening inside the MAGA coalition, and unless you’re really in the weeds, you probably haven’t heard much about it. It’s not being covered seriously, either by the traditional media or the independent press. And that’s a shame — because it pits two foundational visions of conservatism against each other. On one side, you have Grover Norquist and his ironclad “no new taxes” pledge. On the other, you have Steve Bannon and his populist charge to eat the rich.

Norquist has spent decades making sure no Republican dares raise taxes. His philosophy is clear: low taxes are good for everyone, rich or poor, and raising them is political suicide. He’s survived every GOP iteration — from neocon war hawks to MAGA populists — by keeping that line firm. But now, Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” may include a tax hike on the wealthy. Norquist is sounding the alarm, warning that breaking this promise would be as foolish as George H.W. Bush’s infamous “read my lips” moment.

Meanwhile, Bannon doesn’t just want to raise taxes — he wants to send a message. He sees MAGA as a working-class movement, and taxing the rich is part of proving that Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the GOP’s old donor class no longer control the party. It’s the clearest philosophical fault line we’ve seen on the right in years. If the GOP embraces even a modest tax hike on the wealthy, it could mark the end of a Reagan-era consensus that has defined Republican politics for half a century.

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

And yet, barely anyone is talking about it. Not because it isn’t interesting, not because it isn’t important, but because media — mainstream and independent — is stuck on one setting: “trouble for Trump.” It’s a framing device. Every Trump story must either confirm that he’s a danger to democracy or a bumbling fool. Anything else? Not interesting enough to cover.

Steve Bannon, who’s all over mainstream shows like Real Time with Bill Maher and Stephen A. Smith’s podcast, is out here advocating a radical repositioning of the Republican tax platform — and the headlines are all about whether Trump should run for a third term. And I get it, that’s the clickier angle. But it’s also lazy. We’re watching tectonic plates shift, and we’re still playing with bumper stickers.

That’s not just a mainstream media problem, by the way. It’s an independent media problem too. There are great voices on Substack and elsewhere that have done real work to break free from traditional narratives. And yet, over the last few weeks, I’ve seen far too much content boil down to one question: “Is this an outrage? Yes or no?” And when the answer is always “yes,” you’re not informing anymore — you’re reinforcing.

My goal isn’t to register my opinion on every current thing. My goal is to give you something that still feels relevant five years from now. Something you can remember discovering here before it hit the mainstream. I’m not always going to say the thing that fits into someone’s ideological slot. That’s going to disappoint people sometimes. I get that. But I hope the tradeoff is worth it. Because if you’re giving me your time and maybe even your money, I owe you something rare. Something original.

Something honest.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:01:58 - MAGA’s Secret Civil War

00:19:35 - Update

00:21:05 - Signalgate 2.0

00:27:14 - Pope Francis

00:30:51 - Student Loan Debt Collection

00:34:50 - Interview with Dave Leventhal

01:13:34 - Canadian Election with Evan Scrimshaw

01:27:11 - Wrap-up