View this post on the web at [link removed]

I suppose one drawback of this format is that if you open the weekly mailbag on Thursday, and the deranged president tries to crash the global economy the following Wednesday, most readers won’t circle back to update their questions.
So I’ll just ask it myself: Brian, what do you think about the tariffs?
Glad you asked! They’re extremely stupid. They’re so dumb they have people genuinely wondering if Trump has some devious ulterior motive for being so destructive. Is he trying to wreck the economy so he and his billionaire buddies can buy up its valuables in a fire sale? Did Vladimir Putin tell him this would be a good idea? I guess I wouldn’t rule anything out, but I suspect the answer is much dumber. Trump likes to set up situations where he can snap his fingers and things change, it makes him feel powerful. It makes it so people who hold him in contempt nevertheless have to kiss his ring. He likes anything that gives him kind of leverage. He wants to be an autocrat, and this advances that goal, at least insofar as it doesn’t crater the economy and ignite a major popular and elite backlash.
But he’s also been obsessed with tariffs since way before he had real designs on the presidency. At the risk of peering into a deranged mind, my “too dumb to be true, but probably is” hypothesis is that he’s obsessed with the Gilded Age (though he may not even know the term, or that it’s derogatory) because that’s when they built all these ornate mansions and estates. When he says ahistorical nonsense, like that the U.S. was never richer than under William McKinley, I think he’s confused about what “national prosperity” means. The robber barons had all the money and built lavish properties, ergo the country was “rich.”
He lives in Mar-a-Lago, which was built by Marjorie Merriweather Post in the 1920s. And while she, as heiress to the Post Cereal fortune, was not a “robber baron” in the traditional sense of the word, that’s the vibe he likes. It’s what you’d expect in a “rich country.” He’s a bit like a townie who starts to talk, dress, and act like a mobster after watching The Godfather, because the Corleones seemed so strong, and had so much money. Not an uncommon interpretation of the movie, particularly among unthinking men! But the point is that it misses the point. And Trump isn’t playing dress-up. He’s causing immense damage to the world.
Politically, none of this would be possible without Republican obeisance. This is not how the law giving presidents immense discretion over tariffs was intended to function, and they could change it tomorrow, with veto-proof majorities. But they won’t, at least not until the pain becomes chronic and severe. This is one of the most straightforward cases I can recall where members of Congress will truly own and foot the bill for their president’s recklessness—they have no good answer for the public other than “we have to trust the president,” when they know full well he’s not to be trusted. If there’s a silver lining here, it’ll be watching bad, craven people squirm.
Now, on to the actual mailbag. If you have questions for next week, drop them in the comments. And if something insane happens next Tuesday or Wednesday, as it probably will, feel free to ask more!
Bruce Frigeri [ [link removed] ]: Why do you think Trump is so out front defending Hegseth, resorting to his greatest hits of "hoax" and "witchhunt" when even Fox News and Murdoch papers acknowledge the breach? I think he has big plans for Petey when large demonstrations begin and there isn't anybody else that he trusts enough to be that hammer. Thoughts?
I think your analysis is dead on, at least as it pertains to why Trump picked Hegseth in the first place: Hegseth looks the part (Trump is obsessed with “central casting”) and is a fanatic and a loyalist—someone who’d happily go along with an attempt to politicize the uniformed military. I think that’s a big reason why he’s keeping him around, too (he doesn’t have a “good” backup and thinks the Senate might not confirm a second, unqualified lickspittle). He and MAGA in general are also just obsessed with never conceding an inch (their actual justification for imposing no consequences for the Signal disclosures is that consequences would give the dreaded mainstream media a “scalp.”)
But I also think neither of these guys has given much thought to what enlisting the military in partisan politics would entail. Trump sees it (and Hegseth probably also sees it) as a top down thing. The guy on top gives the orders and the rank-and-file follow suit. They don’t imagine that earning trust and loyalty among the enlisted and officer corps would be an essential ingredient. And things like the Signal disclosures, the racism, and even the abusive discharging of trans service members all cut against that.
Aidan O'Shea [ [link removed] ]: What is your theory of change for your own work, for lack of a better term? I presume it’s not “Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries personally read my posts and are instantly convinced”, but as you write do you have in your mind’s eye a vision of the kind of person you think has influence and is open to your ideas?
For many, many years, my theory was indirect, but easy to track. I had a (relatively) small audience of fairly elite readers. So if I could get interesting information or ideas in front of, e.g., TV news producers, or hosts, or congressional aides, they might bubble up into realms where actual policy and strategy are made. I see that happen quite a lot. But over the past year or so, audience growth has been substantial enough that I can actually drive direct pressure on officials by mobilizing their constituents. I do think sometimes actual congressmen and senators read my work and take action based on it, but as you say it would be silly to pull that lever alone.
Adam G [ [link removed] ]: You've written prolifically and elegantly about the Democratic leadership's failure to plan - most tragically regarding the CR, perhaps the greatest point of leverage they had and will have for some time.
We're past that now, so what would you be planning in the next 3-9 months? Do you see points of leverage that either exist or could exist, based on changing events (like a plunging stock market, or a natural disaster in Louisiana, say, when FEMA has essentially been debilitated by cuts, or another "scandal" similar to Signalgate (which is, deplorably and unimaginatively, what we seem to be calling it))?
Most obviously, the CR runs out and Democrats will have another moment of leverage then.
How would you set up the opposition now to take advantage of these moments in the future?
The only obvious thing I see you missing is the debt limit. That’s going to have to be raised, likely quite soon, and it’s quite likely (though not certain) that Republicans won’t be able to do it without Democratic help. I talked at length about the three main ways this could go on this recent episode of [ [link removed] ]Politix [ [link removed] ]. But the gist is quite similar to the CR situation: Democrats should announce sooner than later that they will not provide debt limit votes in a context where Trump is ignoring Congress and preparing to sign a multi-trillion dollar regressive tax cut and tanking the economy. Maybe Republicans get it together and increase the debt limit on their own, through the budget-reconciliation problem. But they may not have the voters for that or the debt-limit deadline might arrive before the reconciliation bill is complete. In that case, Democrats can drive a very hard bargain. Same if Trump comes begging Congress for stimulus or to address some other economic emergency he creates. Obviously they should insist on blue-state, red-state disaster-relief parity, but natural disasters are more unpredictable than man-made ones.
A lot of damage has already been done, but in addition to using these leverage opportunities to put brakes on the tax-and-Medicaid cuts, Dems could demand a rescission of tariff authority, the shuttering of DOGE, and up-or-down votes on the cuts DOGE has already made (with the understanding that if Congress rejects the cuts, Trump will have to reverse his impoundments). I’d additionally like them to only give Trump short extensions—two or three months at a time—to insure compliance.
Hank Scheff [ [link removed] ]: Brian, you have discussed the idea of a “shadow cabinet” that can expose the horrors of the Musk/Trump Administration. What about building a shadow Justice Dept. so the next Democratic Administration is ready to prosecute these criminals on “day one”??? This would be a very productive project for those big law firms that are ready to resist Trump. Merrick Garland need not apply!
It’s essential. I think some groups are already doing this kind of work. American Oversight comes to mind. But beyond keeping close track and good records, Dems will (as you say) need aggressive appointees and a major purge of Trumpist line prosecutors if they intend to set things right. The bad news here is the pardon power. More on what Dems should do about that in a forthcoming piece. But suffice it to say, if the pardon power is unaltered in January 2029, then accountability for a lot of these people is going to have to run through channels other than the federal justice system.
Sara Frischer [ [link removed] ]: “Between the World and Me,” by Ta-Nehisi Coates came up in discussion last night. I think he’s a brilliant writer. Took my copy out to start re- reading it this morning. I hadn’t heard about the head of Amtrak ‘stepping down’. So many parts of our life are being disrupted-dismantled in clips. I am stretching here but context and our ability to see, hear, read a whole story is at stake right now. To understand and appreciate Ta-Nehisi you have to start at the beginning of his letters and read thru. It’s how life works. The way this administration is attacking society and it’s structure is an attempt to -in addition to everything else stifle thought. So like a clip pulled from Coates writings out of context they attempt to twist the meaning of everything. Here we are. Readers or writers people who are working at staying informed. How does everyone else cope when they don’t have the or inclination to see or understand or react and put things in context?
Here’s what I wrote in late January [ [link removed] ] about how to cope in a constructive, sustainable way. Unfortunately, a big part of it is to race through the stages of grief over all the damage these context-ignorant assholes are doing and will do to the state. They take the sources of their own prosperity for granted and thus don’t realize how precariously they all hang together. My friend Julian Sanchez compared [ [link removed] ] it to trust-fund kids blowing their inheritances, except its our collective inheritance. So we have to just make some degree of peace with ourselves that they’re going to cause immense damage. But that frees us up to plan ahead for a quick rebuilding. (Tim Walz picked up on this strategic approach [ [link removed] ], though unforgivably attributed it to Ezra Klein .
Beth M [ [link removed] ]: I feel as though we are treating all of this *waved arms around vigorously* as too much of a political exercise and not enough of a psychological/anthropological/sociological problem. Do you think we should start looking at the literature and research on abusive relationships and even parenting to start to understand more about the best ways to resist?
I think the analogy to living with an abuser is a great way to explicate the individual-level strife of living through the Trump era. Since I haven’t read much psychological or sociological literature about abusive relationships, I don’t know if it carries any worthy population-level insight. But I totally agree with you that good-faith public discourse in the Trump era is much too heavily driven by “normal” political analysis and practice. It’d be way, way better if Democrats and other resistance leaders spent less time seeking advice from strategists and pollsters and lawyers, and more time talking to historians, comparative political scientists, and (maybe most especially) mass psychologists. They’re going to have way more valuable insight into how authoritarianism seduces people, and how to resist it, than people who read polls and statutes.
Tom [ [link removed] ]: I think there’s a huge opportunity for a new generation of people to run for office as democrats. Setting aside that districts are somewhat different and compelling candidates can come from all quarters, I’m curious what you think the ideal candidate looks like to take advantage of this moment, e.g.: (1) should they skew younger (maybe under 50, or even under 40)?; (2) should they be running as an “outsider” (separately curious how you think these new dems should brand themselves collectively, such as the “blue dogs” branding that signaled participation in a larger movement); (3) how should they prioritize getting attention (social media, podcasts, tv, in-person organizing, etc.); (4) could there be some advantage in professional background (military, academia, organizing, media, etc.); (5) should they lean into or out of the cultural wedge issues of the past few years; (6) what kind of relationship they have with incumbent Dems and DNC apparatus (e.g., antagonistic, collaborative)?
Maybe put another way, what does the next gen dem who upsets the apple cart and wins a safe blue seat via primary, or contested red seat with a new formula, look like?
Under 50, check. Outsider, check, maybe even going so far as to run as independents who intend to caucus with Democrats. They should be flexible on policy, rather than doctrinaire progressives or centrists, both for electability purposes but also to underscore that the most urgent task at the moment is saving free society itself. I think it’d behoove them to treat the existing leadership and the outgoing Biden team as foils. They could call themselves the Fighting Democrats (which kind of reminds me of when Howard Dean bragged about being from the democratic wing of the Democratic Party). That alone would attract a lot of attention. I think people with a fighting mindset will take naturally to social media, but should be willing to make “good trouble” in real life, too.
Many such people. I would run one of these races myself if I didn’t live in the representation-free District of Columbia.
Liz [ [link removed] ]: 1. There appears to be a schism in the Democratic party that is not, contrary to popular belief, progressives versus moderates versus whatever. Rather, it's: try new things versus wait-and-see. Where do you see this leading?
2. As far as political culture is concerned, is there a way to get us back into the spirit of building? When you look back at founding documents, they're exciting. They talk about the world in this malleable way and governance as a series of experiments. I know that American history is rife with issues, but the project itself is so fun. Isn't there some way we can harness that and deploy it into Democrats' campaigning?
3. If you only had the bandwidth to change one things about the next few years with respect to getting Democrats back in power, what would it be? Would it even BE putting Democrats back in power or focusing on pro-democracy candidates wherever they might be?
This is what I call cheating, but I’ll answer all three.
It’s obviously creating a lot of tumult within the Democratic coalition. When it started, I felt pretty heartened to see it, and I still hope it leads to constructive change—old members learning how to fight, or getting replaced by new members who get it in their bones. But at the same time, I see the usual suspects trying to get the old gang back together again. The Senate Dem caucus rallied back around Chuck Schumer. The Democratic government in exile looks suspiciously like the one that just lost the country to Trump. Aspiring Dem leaders are looking for policy solutions to the Trump crisis. And I worry that they’ll pay lip service to the restive base juuust enough to retain control of the machine, then slip back into old failed ways.
Yes, yes, yes. This, more than anything, is what’s valuable about the abundance discourse. Not the extensive history of the rise of the liberal procedural state, but the idea that leaders should have big ideas for us to work on together, rather than outsource all of the vision for the country’s future to capital. My view is that there’s nothing special about red tape. It’s just one obstacle among so, so, so many. What you need is a party dominated by people who are committed to rallying the public behind big, exciting goals (cure cancer! three day weekends! whatever!) and then committing members to accomplishing them quickly. Yes in some cases that might mean exemptions from environmental review, but in others it might mean abolishing the filibuster or using eminent domain or expanding the Supreme Court. The point is to move, propelled by confidence in the vision. But a Democrat who won’t take on direct threats to their own power is not going to eagerly take on NIMBYs either.
New blood is obviously going to be important. Someone who looks and talks different. I’m not saying Dems can’t find a good leader among known quantities. AOC is a fireball (though like Sanders she did spend many years calling herself a socialist, which isn’t great in American politics). Cory Booker’s filibuster was genuinely moving and impressive. He’s holding lighting in a bottle right now. I think JB Pritzker has been a breath of fresh air. But I wouldn’t be terribly shocked if someone none of us had ever heard of or knew much about emerged and speedran his or her way into a takeover of the party. And I think something like that could be bracing and rejuvinating. But my bandwidth has little to do with that. I’ve written a bit about the value of something like Project 2029—a plan to rebuild quickly. It would entail a team of smart people tracking the destruction, and mapping out the broken government for the purposes of drawing up plans to (um) Build Back Better. I hope to do some work on that in the coming weeks and months. And as for my Off Message work, if I can help provide rank-and-file Dems new language and a new framework for thinking about political combat, I think it would have the important ancillary benefit of making the party more electable.
xaxnar [ [link removed] ]: The head of Amtrak stepped down (was pushed?) a few days ago - supposedly so the administration could put in new leadership.
Now Amtrak has taken a lot of cars out of service because of structural issues. This means shorter trains, and even canceled service on three routes. Elon Musk has said Amtrak should be privatized.
Under Biden, Amtrak was finally getting real funding and ready to expand. Now? If Amtrak is sold off and broken up, that pretty much means the end of a national passenger rail network. How do you think it’s going to play out?
I hesitate to predict, but I think basically everything Musk and Trump are sabotaging right now will end up in one of four categories: reversed in court, used as extortionate leverage, handed over to private-sector cronies, or eliminated permanently. I don’t know enough about law governing Amtrak to have a strong view on which way this will break, and even if I did, it’s hard to get into Trump’s mind. I suspect he wouldn’t want to damage interstate commerce too much, even though Amtrak disproportionately benefits blue-state city dwellers. So for instance, I don’t believe he’s cut service along the Acela corridor. I could imagine him threatening to do that in order to extort Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, say. I could imagine him trying to privatize it. Drawing the lens back a bit, I think Trump and Musk will find that many of the things they’ve pulverized are actually quite essential, and they’ll scramble to recreate them in the contracting space, where their friends can pocket a cut.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?