Welcome to with a deep dive. You know, today
we're going to hand you this like curated stack
of recent info, right? It's like your shortcut
to understanding what's really going on out there,
you know, without getting bogged down in endless
details. We're diving into three key areas, the
things you really need to know about. Like, first
we've got this fresh economic snapshot and it's
painting a somewhat confusing picture. Then there's
this political scandal and it has some pretty
big ramifications. And lastly, some surprising
developments in the world of elections and key
political figures out there. Our goal here is
to... extract the really crucial insights for
you, understand their potential impact, you know,
and just keep it all clear and concise. Exactly.
We've done all the heavy lifting for you, right?
Sorting through all that data and the headlines,
all that. We're looking for those underlying
signals, and more importantly, trying to figure
out why any of this should even matter to you.
Okay, so let's jump right into it, huh? This
economic review. from around March 21st, 2025.
It really feels like we're getting these mixed
messages. You know, like, February retail sales,
they edged up, right? 0 .2%. But that was quite
a bit below what everyone was expecting, like
0 .6%. And then, to top it all off, January's
figures got revised. Down to a pretty significant
month ago, 1 .2%. I don't know about you, but
it's enough to make me scratch my head. Yeah,
it does. But what's really interesting to think
about here, right, is that... even with that
slower February, overall retail sales, they're
still up by like 3 .1 % compared to this time
last year. And that's actually a faster pace
than the latest inflation numbers, which were
at 2 .8%, as measured by the CPI, the Consumer
Price Index. So while the month -to -month growth
was a little bit sluggish the year over your
picture, it suggests that consumers, at least
in general, they might still have some purchasing
power. Yeah, that's a key point about the real
purchasing power. And it gets even more nuanced
when you look at what's called the retail sales
control group. OK. This is like a specific subset
of that data. Gotcha. It excludes things like
car purchases and gas, things that can change
quite a bit each month. So looking at the control
group gives us a clearer picture of underlying
consumer demand for other goods. That figure,
it actually jumped. by a solid 1 % in February.
That was way stronger than the 0 .2 % that was
expected. So it's almost like two totally different
parts of the economy are telling two different
stories. If the control group is so strong, then
what do you think explains that weaker headline
number? Could it be a specific sector that's
really struggling out there? Yeah, that's a really
crucial question. And this difference, you know?
It highlights how consumer behavior, it's not
like one big uniform thing. The pullback we're
seeing in things like motor vehicles, maybe that's
because of higher interest rates, right? Making
it more expensive to finance those purchases.
Or maybe that pent up demand from earlier, it's
been satisfied. The strength we're seeing in
that control group though, it reflects spending
on a whole bunch of different goods. So it suggests
that that fundamental consumer appetite, it isn't
necessarily going down across the board. It really
could be pointing to a more segmented economic
picture out there where some areas are holding
up better than others. Okay, now let's switch
gears here a little bit. Sure. Let's look at
the housing market. Yeah. We saw a pretty big
rebound in housing starts in February, a jump
of 11 .2%. Wow. That brings the annualized rate
to 1 .501 million. OK. That comfortably beat
expectations, which were only around $1 .385
million. So that surge, that's definitely something
that catches your eye. What's really interesting
about it is that it was driven by increases in
both single -family and multi -family housing
starts. So both types of housing are contributing
to that growth. OK. However, if we kind of zoom
out a bit, right? Even with that really strong
February overall housing starts are still down
by 2 .9 percent compared to a year ago So you
have this positive short -term trend, but the
longer term picture it suggests that there's
there's still some Moderation happening in the
construction sector. I see I see and we also
saw that building permits which can be a good
indicator of Future construction they dipped
a little bit like by 1 .2 percent. But they did
still narrowly beat expectations. Feels like
the housing market's just like trying to decide
its next move. Yeah. You know? Yeah. That's a
good way to put it. And you know, the report,
it does mention a possible factor here, something
that could be influencing those numbers. January's
unusually cold weather, you know, that could
have put a temporary halt to some construction
projects. So that would make February's rebound
look even more significant, right, as those projects
get back on track. Exactly. Okay, so moving on
to the Federal Reserve now, they decided to keep
the main policy interest rate steady in that
4 .25 % to 4 .50 % range, which wasn't a huge
surprise, but they released a statement. And
Chairman Powell, he spoke afterwards, and it
gave us some insight into their thinking. What
stood out to you from their assessment of the
economy? Well, they said that, quote, economic
activity has continued to expand at a solid pace
and labor market conditions remain solid. Which,
you know, on the surface, that sounds pretty
positive, right? But the really important part
is that they still believe inflation remains
somewhat elevated. That's still their biggest
concern. And, you know, if we consider Powell's
press conference, I think the overall tone was
more what we call hawkish, right? So even though
they didn't raise rates this time, it felt like
they're getting a little less tolerant of inflation.
Maybe their target for inflation is creeping
up a bit. and their outlook for economic growth,
maybe that's become a little more subdued, right?
It signals that they're still laser -focused
on bringing inflation down, even as that means
potentially accepting slower economic growth
to get there. So how did the markets react to
all this economic news, all these different things
going on? It seems like, despite those underlying
concerns, for the week ending March 21st, 2025,
we actually saw positive returns across all those
major US stock indices, the Dow Jones, it actually
led the way with a gain of 1 .21%. That's right.
And it wasn't just those big established companies
either. Right. Mid cap and small cap stocks,
they also performed well during that week. And
then if you look at developed international equities
those continue to have these like really impressive
gains for the year so far and even the fixed
income market saw some positive movement you
know interest rates dipped just a bit probably
because of those those consumer spending concerns
that we were talking about earlier it seems like
the markets reacting in this in this kind of
nuanced way, right? They're acknowledging that
growth might slay down, but they're still finding
opportunities out there. So bringing it all together,
what's the main takeaway for us from this whole
economic snapshot? I think I think the analyst
perspective that really gets to the heart of
it, you know, that somewhat disappointing retail
sales data. It's creating some worries about
how fast the economy will grow in the future.
This concern about consumer spending may be weakening.
That could actually become a bigger story than
the Fed's decision to just hold rates steady.
It really sets the stage for maybe a more cautious
outlook on the economy over the next few months.
OK, let's shift gears completely now. OK, let's
move over to the political arena. We've got to
dive into this teapot signal scandal, this thing
involving the Trump administration. And it's
as of March 26, 2025. This one's really grabbed
people's attention. And at its core, it seems
to be about this really significant last in judgment.
Yeah, I think what's so striking is the the apparent
casualness, you know, the way this really sensitive
information was handled. We're talking about
details about an upcoming military attack and
they were accidentally shared with the editor
of the Atlantic using the signal messaging app.
That could have some huge consequences for national
security and, you know, for international trust
in the U .S. Absolutely. And the the immediate
aftermath of this whole thing. It's been like
watching a textbook example of a blame game.
Right? You know, at first, it seemed like NSA
Mike Waltz, he was taking the brunt of the criticism,
supposedly because he accidentally added Jeffrey
Goldberg to a group chat. But the report we looked
at, it emphasizes that the real issue isn't about
who got added. It's the fact that these really
important, really sensitive discussions, they
were happening on an app that wasn't secure.
Right. It sounds like multiple officials, including
Secretary of Defense Pete Hecsef, he was in the
hot seat too. Maybe they were all... operating
outside of the proper security protocol. Yeah,
and Walt's, his response was really interesting.
It was like this non -apology apology. You know,
he said he takes some responsibility, but then
he immediately goes on the attack. Calling Goldberg
a scum, it's a strange way to address such a
serious security issue. And what's even more
interesting is there are these reports of a lot
of anger. among Republicans behind the scenes,
apparently a lot of them already had doubts about
Waltz, and now people are comparing this to Mike
Flynn's dismissal back in the day, suggesting
that maybe Waltz's position in the administration,
it might be shaky. Yeah, and these security concerns
about using signal, they're really raising red
flags. You know, Representative Don Bacon, he's
a Republican, right, with a background in intelligence.
He said, pretty confidently that Russia and China,
they're actively listening in on communications
happening on personal cell phones. Yeah. That
warning from Rep. Bacon, it's pretty stark, you
know? It underscores the inherent risks of using
these communication channels that haven't been
approved by the government for sensitive discussions.
And then we have this anonymous IT expert, right?
They've got tons of experience in federal law
enforcement. They pointed out that Signal It's
not Fed -ramped. That means it hasn't gone through
this really rigorous security check that's required
for anything the federal government uses, especially
when they're handling really sensitive information.
And this directly contradicts something that
CIA Director John Ratcliffe apparently claimed.
So this raises some serious questions about how
well they understand and apply those security
protocols, even at the highest levels of government.
And this IT expert, they also emphasize that
Even if people were using their personal phones,
you know, official government devices, they have
way better security, way harder to hack. Exactly.
And then there's that report that Signal itself
might have been hacked by Russia. Right, right.
Which just adds another layer of risk to using
it for sensitive communications. Yeah, it's not
just a theoretical weakness anymore. Right. There's
actual reporting that says... Hey, maybe this
has already happened. But then you have this
more cynical take, you know, the idea that maybe
they use signal on purpose. to avoid creating
official records of these conversations, to avoid
oversight. Which, if that's true, opens up a
whole new set of problems about transparency
and accountability in the administration. And
we know that Congress has been holding hearings,
they're trying to do damage control, and the
administration seemed to be saying, look, no
classified information was actually shared. But
that defense, you know, no classified information,
it creates this Catch -22. Yeah. Because if it
wasn't classified, then the Atlantic's editor,
Jeffrey Goldberg, he could probably release those
text messages, right? Right, right. But if the
administration tries to stop him or maybe even
tries to sue him, well, then they'd basically
be admitting that the information was classified,
right? And that would contradict everything they've
said publicly. And it could even lead to accusations
of perjury against those who testified under
Ove. And the report really emphasizes how likely
it is that details about an upcoming military
strike that would be automatically classified
right from the start. So. If Goldberg, you know,
if he goes ahead and releases the info because
the administration saying it's not classified
and then it turns out there are classified details
in there. Well, the administration is going to
look really bad. Like they not only misled the
public, but they also, you know, they potentially
let classified information get out there just
to try to manage this scandal. It's a it's a
mess with some serious legal and political consequences.
And as you might expect, those comparisons to
Hillary Clinton's emails, those have started
popping up again. Especially in, you know, right
-leaning media. Right, her emails. But, you know,
the report does a good job of explaining the
key differences between these two situations.
In Clinton's case, they did all these investigations,
right? And they didn't find any evidence that
anyone unauthorized got into her private server.
And only a tiny fraction of those emails, they
were actually deemed classified. And a lot of
times they were classified after the fact or
they were about stuff that was already public
knowledge You know like news reports about drum
strikes and things like that right this signal
thing though. It's different We're talking about
a real -time conversation right about a military
operation That's about to happen and it's all
happening on this insecure app something anyone
can download it's a much more immediate risk
and Potentially way more serious. Yeah, the consequences
for international relations could be huge. Absolutely
The report asked this really important question,
you know? How can any country share anything
sensitive, anything important with the U .S.
right now? This whole thing, it makes the US
look careless. They don't care about intelligence
security, even at the highest levels of government.
And that destroys the trust that's so important
for sharing intelligence and cooperating on defense.
It really increases instability around the world.
And while we don't know yet what will happen
to the individuals involved domestically, there's
no doubt that this scandal shines a really bad
light on how sensitive information is being handled.
at the very top of the administration. Absolutely.
OK, so shifting gears again. There's another
major political development we need to talk about.
It's this executive order from President Trump
focused on, quote, election integrity. Dated
March 26 2025. Okay, so this order it seems to
be trying to address a lot of those Concerns
that Republicans have had for a long time about
how secure our elections are But it sounds like
it's running into some roadblocks when it comes
to Actually putting it into practice and even
questions about whether it's legal. What's really
interesting here is is just how much this executive
order tries to do. It wants to require proof
of citizenship for anyone registering to vote,
stop the counting of any ballots that come in
after election day, ban non -citizens from working
as poll workers, make the federal government
oversee election security, and give the feds
the main role in prosecuting election fraud.
But as the report accurately points out, the
U .S. Constitution pretty much gives states the
power to run their own elections. So a lot of
what this executive order says, it's more like
a symbolic gesture than something that can really
be enforced. Exactly. Even that part about proof
of citizenship, which has gotten a lot of attention,
it mainly tells the Election Assistance Commission,
the EAC, to change the federal voter registration
form. But the EAC, it's designed to be independent
and bipartisan, so it's not clear if they'll
even go along with it. that. And even if the
federal form changes, states have their own forms
and processes for registering voters. So it wouldn't
really matter what the federal form says. And
saying they might withhold federal funding to
force states to comply, that seems like it would
just lead to a bunch of lawsuits. For sure. That
would probably be seen as an overreach in federal
power, totally unconstitutional. And it would
be illegal to hold back those funds that Congress
has already approved. The report calls this order
performative. And I think that's a good way to
put it. It's probably meant to reassure a part
of the Republican base, make them feel like something's
being done about election security, even though,
you know, the order might not have any real legal
standing or any way to actually make it happen.
All right. Well, let's look at some actual election
results now, specifically this Democratic upset
in the Pennsylvania special election for State
Senate District 36. Also. As of March 26, this
was a real shocker. It really was. This district,
it leans Republican, you know, by a lot, like
15 points, according to the Partisan Voter Index.
Trump won there by a similar margin back in 2024.
And it's been held by Republicans for over 40
years. So for Democrat James Malone to win here,
that's a pretty big deal. And it wasn't even
close. He won by over 500 votes. And for a special
election, the turnout was surprisingly high.
They even quoted a local voter in the report
who said that the Republicans didn't really campaign
much before the election. Maybe they thought
their candidate was a shoo -in or maybe there
wasn't much enthusiasm. Yeah, that kind of local
perspective is really valuable. And it wasn't
just this one race either. Democrats also won
the special election for House District 35, although
that district leans more Democratic anyway, and
their win there was by a bigger margin. But what's
interesting is that in both of these races, the
Democrats got way more votes than anyone expected,
like about 14 .5 percentage points more. And
in districts that usually vote Republican, that
kind of swing, you've got to pay attention to
that. That is a huge difference. The report suggests
that maybe this is an early sign of people turning
against Trump, you know, a backlash. Yeah. Especially
because Malone, his campaign even had this anti
-Elon Musk theme, which could really resonate
with certain voters. Definitely something to
watch. The Wisconsin Supreme Court election that's
coming up and the special elections in Florida,
those will be key to see if this trend keeps
going or if those Pennsylvania results were just
a fluke. Even Governor DeSantis, he made a surprising
comment recently saying that Republicans might
not do as well as expected in the Florida. So
maybe the GOP is sensing that things are changing.
politically. Okay, let's move on to another area
of political activity now. Yeah. A lawsuit filed
by some staff and students at Columbia University
against Trump administration policies. This is
also from March 26. Okay. This lawsuit, it makes
some pretty serious claims saying that constitutional
rights are being violated. This lawsuit's alleging
violations of the First and Fifth Amendments,
specifically when it comes to the administration's
policies on deportation. They say these policies
are being used to target students and faculty,
those who aren't U .S. citizens, if they've criticized
Israel or said they support the Palestinians.
The lawsuit claims that this is unconstitutional
because it's based on what people are saying,
their political views. And it says that these
actions are creating a climate of fear that's
stopping people from speaking freely and having
academic freedom. Yeah, and the lawsuit gives
specific examples. Like they talk about the alleged
unlawful seizure of someone named Mahmoud Khalil.
And it mentions reports that the administration
is keeping these lists of students who have been
sent to universities as a way to keep tabs on
them and maybe target those who have pro -Palestinian
views. It sounds like they're saying the administration
is going around the established legal process
when they decide that certain speech, certain
things that people say should be grounds for
kicking them out of the country. And there are
reports of people being scared to speak out and
self -censorship among members of the AAUP, the
American Association of University Professors.
And it's directly because of these policies and
because people feel like they're being targeted
for their political views. The people who filed
this lawsuit, they're asking for a legal order
to block. those executive orders and stop them
from being enforced. It's interesting that Columbia
University itself, they're not part of the lawsuit.
Probably because they want to protect all that
federal funding they get, right? But the legal
challenge is still going ahead without them.
Lastly, let's talk about the news. that Monmouth
University, they're shutting down their polling
operation. Officially, they said it was because
the costs were too high and the benefits weren't
worth it. They said, you know, fewer students
are participating and they're not getting good
PR from it anymore. But the report we looked
at, it suggests that there might be more to it
than that. What's interesting is the idea that
maybe pressure from the Trump administration
played a role. We know that President Trump,
he's been very public about criticizing pollsters,
even attacking them sometimes, especially if
their polls show him doing badly. Sometimes he's
sued them or even, you know, hinted that their
funding might be in danger. Right. So for a university
polling operation like Monmouth, which might
already be struggling financially, that kind
of pressure combined with the fact that their
polls were probably going to show Trump in a
bad light anyway, that could have been a big
reason for them to shut down. It really makes
you wonder if this is having a chilling effect
on independent polling, you know, making people
afraid to do it. Absolutely. OK, so for our last
topic today, let's take a look at Representative
Jasmine Crockett and the way she seems to be
using these tactics that we usually associate
with, you know, the right wing, especially people
like Donald Trump. The report starts by talking
about Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene's
attack on Representative Alexandria Ocasio -Cortez,
and it calls this obnoxious jerkiness. And it
asks a really good question, you know, can a
politician on the left really succeed by using
that same kind of aggressive personal style of
attack that we see so much on the right. The
report doesn't seem to think so. They say it's
because the two major parties, they have totally
different cultures, different voters. What works
for one side might not work for the other. They
mentioned a few examples of people on the left
who tried to do this and didn't become really
popular or get very far politically, like Kanye
West, Mayor Eric Adams, Senator John Fetterman,
people like that. And now they're looking at
Representative Jasmine Crockett from Texas as
like a newer example of this performative politics.
Her focus recently has been very critical of
Texas Governor Greg Abbott. Which, you know,
that's normal political stuff, considering their
different views. But the way she's going about
it, it's caused a lot of controversy. She's been
mocking Governor Abbott's disability, calling
him Governor Hot Wheels over and over. Which,
for those who don't know, Hot Wheels is, you
know, it's a toy car brand. Right? And in this
context, it's a really insensitive way to make
fun of the fact that he uses a wheelchair. The
report really condemns this, you know? calling
it beyond the pale and saying it's just like
those personal attacks and mockery that we saw
from Trump in the past. Crockett hasn't apologized
and her excuse for saying it wasn't very convincing.
This is a clear example of a politician just
resorting to insults instead of talking about
actual policy. And even though Representative
Crockett's district is very safe for Democrats,
so she's probably not going to lose her seat
over this, the report argues that this kind of
behavior, it's not going to help her get ahead
politically, especially in a state like Texas,
where there are voters from all different backgrounds,
and they don't think she's going to become a
big star on the left -wing media, like Marjorie
Taylor Beane has on the right. They say that
people like Representative Alexandria Ocasio
-Cortez are a better example of how to do left
-wing politics effectively. effectively and ethically.
So to wrap up this whole deep dive, we've really
covered a lot. We've seen this complicated economic
picture with all its mixed signals. We dug into
a big political scandal that raises some really
serious questions about national security and
trust. And we looked at some important changes
in election results and how politicians are changing
their tactics. Right. It's clear that all these
different things, they're all connected and they
give us this, you know, this fascinating but
sometimes unsettling, look at what's going on
in the world right now. What's really striking
is how all these different threads we've talked
about, right? The economic uncertainty that's
still out there, that erosion of trust that's
highlighted by the signal scandal, the fight
between federal and state power that we saw in
the election integrity debate and the Columbia
University lawsuit, and the way political discourse
is changing. All of that contributes to this
feeling that our society is in a state of tension
and that it's going through this really big transformation.
That's a great point. And it makes me think about
something. You know that surprise Democratic
win in that Pennsylvania State Senate district?
That was historically Republican, right? And
then you have that lawsuit from Columbia University.
Those staff members challenging federal policies.
What does that tell us about how politics might
be shifting at the local level? And can institutions
really push back against what the federal government
is doing? These are questions we're thinking
about as we watch all these changes happening
around us. Thanks for joining us on the Deep
Dive today. Keep exploring these topics and see
what other connections and implications you can
find. Absolutely. And we'll see you next time.