Welcome to another deep dive. You know, every
single day we're just swimming in this huge ocean
of information. Our goal here is really to be
your chart, kind of cut through that noise, and
pull out the essential bits of knowledge you
actually need to stay informed. Today we're plunging
into this really fascinating mix. We've got international
diplomacy, some high stakes domestic policy,
and the shifting sands of political power. We
spend a lot of time digging through headlines,
reports, analyses, trying to pull out the most
crucial insights for you. Yeah, what's really
exciting is just the range of stuff we're looking
at. I mean, everything from leaked plans to economic
projections, detailed polling data. We're going
to try and connect these dots for you. Hope you
see the bigger picture. Give you a shortcut,
really, to understanding these pretty intricate
issues. OK, so our mission for this deep dive.
Let's peel back the layers, uncover the surprising
connections, maybe the underlying strategies
playing out across these things that seem totally
separate. Let's jump in. All right, kicking off
with something pretty unexpected. Donald Trump
apparently got royal treatment recently from
an actual king. Now that's not something you
hear every day, right? How does a real monarch
fit into top level international diplomacy? Right,
so this all happened around the NATO meeting.
The chief, Mark Rett, you know, the very skilled
former Dutch PM, he came up with this, let's
say, unique strategy to handle Trump. The meeting
was in The Hague, where King Willem Alexander
of the Netherlands lives. Red apparently asked
the king to, you know, roll out the red carpet.
So Trump didn't just dine with the king and queen.
He actually stayed overnight in the palace. Wow.
Overnight. Yeah, it's apparently an incredibly
rare honor. First time ever a U .S. president
has been a house guest there. An honor denied
to Obama and Biden, interestingly. And reports
say the royal couple were told to flatter Trump
endlessly. Also, maybe not a coincidence, the
three young, attractive princesses. They weren't
home that night. OK, so why? Why go through all
that? Such an unusual, almost theatrical approach.
What was the strategic aim behind this royal
charm offensive? Well, the main goal seems to
have been softening Trump up for the tough part.
The talks on defense spending. Trump's really
pushing European countries to spend more on their
own defense. Now, many are willing, but the details
are tricky. Root's language to Trump is apparently
quite mushy. Vague on details, vague on the timeline.
Spain, for example, they're really pushing back
against Trump's 5 % goal. Prime Minister Sanchez
capped it at 2 .1%. Maybe they just don't feel
the Russian threat is that real for them. It
says geographically, maybe. Could be. And Macron,
the French president, he also gently brought
up Trump's tariffs, the trade war worries, the
economic damage. OK, so after all the royal treatment,
what's the bottom line? Did it actually work?
Did it achieve anything concrete or was it just,
you know, a clever diplomatic dance that didn't
change much? Well, reports say Trump got almost
everything he wanted, but the analysis is it's
probably not enough long term. The implication
is that Root, being this extremely skilled diplomat,
might have just cleverly told Trump what he wanted
to hear, you know, without really promising huge
changes. Oh, okay. manage the situation. Exactly.
Oh, and Trump also had a quick word with President
Zelensky of Ukraine while he was there. OK, now
shifting gears a bit, but related to international
tension, the recent bombing of Iran, here's where
things get really interesting politically back
home. Democrats, it looks like, are really struggling
to find a unified voice on this. Yeah, that's
a really striking point. And the data shows it.
Republican voters, it was amazing. Polls showed
they were strongly against bombing Iran, right
up until Trump did it. Then, boom, suddenly they
were for it. Total whiplash. But the Democrats
seem genuinely at a loss. No clear message. And,
adding to the confusion, reports are saying Trump's
claim that they obliterated Iran's nuclear capacity.
Just completely wrong. Really? So what did it
do? The analysis suggests it might have set back
Iran's program by at most a few months. A few
months. Yeah. After all that, that seems underwhelming.
It does. Almost ironic given the strong statements
made. And you can see that democratic disarray
playing out very publicly, right? Like Hakeem
Jeffries, the House Minority Leader, he says,
no president should unilaterally march us into
war. Right. With erratic threats and no strategy.
Strong words. But then. Almost immediately, Steny
Hoyer, the former number two Democrat, comes
out and calls the strike essential, directly
contradicting Jeffries. Exactly. And you had
Richie Torres kind of summing it up as widely
varied views and Chrissy Hulahan just saying,
this is a complicated one. You also heard Jim
McGovern saying, I don't think Trump has a clue
what the hell he's doing. I get whiplash. Even
Seth Moulton criticized the Republicans for their
disunity. But it really feeds that Democrats
in disarray narrative. Makes you think of that
old line, the duty of the opposition is to oppose.
Doesn't seem to be happening here. Right. And
this uncertainty around Iran, it creates a sort
of vacuum. And it's fascinating who's trying
to step into it, like the son of the former Shah.
He's apparently making moves. Yeah, Reza Pahlavi,
son of the Shah who fled back in 79. The Shah
himself, his legacy is... Complicated. Some remember
him as a brutal dictator, sure. But others credit
him with trying to modernize Iran, build the
economy, create jobs, pull people out of poverty.
And women's rights were different then, right?
Hugely different. Under the Shah, women didn't
need to be covered. They could drive, go to university,
have jobs. All that ended with the Ayatollahs.
But, you know, only people in their 70s or older
really remember his rule directly. Kind of like
the generational memory gap with someone like
Xi Jinping in China. So what's Pahlavi's pitch
now? How is he trying to appeal to Iranians today?
He's basically saying to Iranians, OK, if not
the Ayatollahs, then who? He's framing himself
as ready to lead this national transition, says
he has a clear plan. He even put something on
social media suggesting if the current regime
can't MIGA make Iran great again, maybe he should
give it a shot. MIGA, wow. Yeah. Now, the Ayatollahs
probably think great. Iran was 1 ,400 years ago
with Mohammed. Pahlavi's definitely thinking
more like Cyrus the Great, 2 ,600 years ago.
He definitely has a strong following among Iranians
living outside Iran, the diaspora. But here's
the key thing, right? For him to actually make
a comeback, the Iranian people themselves have
to rise up. You can't just depose the regime
with a B -2 bomber. Absolutely not. It has to
come from within. OK, so from those international
complexities, let's pivot back home. Domestic
policy. Huge internal challenges, divisions,
starting with this new plan for deportations.
Sounds significant. Yeah. CNN had an exclusive
on this. It's Donald Trump's new plan to really
speed up the deportation of hundreds of thousands
of immigrants. It's a big escalation. The specific
target is people who came in illegally and then
applied for asylum while already here. OK. Not
at the border crossing point. Exactly. That violates
the usual asylum protocol, which says you should
apply at a legal entry point. Apparently about
a quarter million people filed this way. And
because they filed paperwork, they're considered
relatively easy to find. So the plan is just
dismiss all their cases all at once, round them
up and deport them, even if they've been here
for years, haven't broken other laws. That seems
to be the proposal. Dismiss en masse, locate,
deport. What's the legal justification for that
kind of sweep? Well, the argument is he has a
legal leg to stand on because they have essentially
admitted to a felony by entering illegally when
they filed that paperwork. But, you know, people
like Conchita Cruz from the Asylum Seeker Advocacy
Project, they're arguing strongly against it.
They say every case deserves individual judicial
review based on its own facts. Trump's plan tries
to bypass that completely. And this focus seems
quite different from what some other reports
about ICE have been saying lately, right? Absolutely.
It's a stark contrast. CBS reported exclusively
that ICE is currently detaining 59 ,000 immigrants.
That's way over their official capacity of 41
,000. 59 ,000. Yeah. And here's the kicker. Half
of them have no criminal record. Half. So that
kind of contradicts the narrative about only
deporting violent criminals. Directly refutes
it. And then NBC had an exclusive last September.
ICE apparently told Congress that 13 ,000 detained
immigrants were known to have committed murder.
13 ,000 known murderers. Known, yes. But ICE
had only arrested 752 of them. That's just 6%.
It suggests maybe their enforcement focus hasn't
always been on the most violent offenders. So
if they're ramping up detentions like this, where
are they putting everyone? You mentioned capacity
issues. Right. Well, they're looking at converting
military bases like Fort Bliss and Texas into
big holding facilities. And then there's this
really controversial idea for a facility down
in the Everglades in Florida. They're calling
it Alligator Alcatraz. Alligator Alcatraz. Yeah.
Serious. Seriously. The charming idea is that
the gators would deter escapes. DHS Secretary
Kristi Noem is apparently providing funds for
it. Environmentalists are... understandably furious.
And the pace of arrest is definitely picking
up. Averaging $1 ,200 a day in June, sometimes
hitting over $2 ,000, reports say ICE agents
are becoming increasingly indiscriminate, trying
to hit Stephen Miller's target of 3 ,000 arrests
a day. 3 ,000 a day. That's the goal. And a new
trend is that many people are being picked up
deep inside the country now, not just near the
border, as agents scramble to meet those daily
quotas. OK, wow. So amidst all this, we also
have the one big, beautiful bill act, the OBB,
this huge Republican policy bill. Sounds like
it's hitting some serious roadblocks, not out
of the woods yet. Not even close, it seems. There
are two really big problems. First, the money.
The math just isn't working. The Senate version
is way more expensive than the House version,
hundreds of billions more. The Joint Committee
on Taxation, the JCT, says it costs $400 billion
more. 400 billion. Just the difference. Yeah.
And get this. If the Senate agrees to the House
idea of raising the salt deduction cap, to $40
,000. That's the state and local tax deduction.
Right. That alone would add another $350 billion
to the deficit. So suddenly, the Senate bill
is $750 billion more expensive than the House
one. Wow. That massive cost difference could
easily cause a few House Republicans to vote
no, and that would kill it right there. OK, so
the cost is one huge problem. What's the second?
The second and maybe even bigger problem, voters
absolutely hate the bill. Yeah. Poll after poll
shows deep opposition. And what's really telling
is that the more people learn about it, the less
they like it. That's not a good sign for proponents.
Not at all. Look at the numbers. Fox News poll.
38 % for, 59 % against. Independence, 22 % for,
73 % against. Quinnipiac, 27 % for, 53 % against.
KFF, 35 % for, 64 % against. The average across
the board is, well... pretty deeply underwater,
around 30 % support, 53 % oppose. That's really
strong opposition. So why? Why do people dislike
it so much? digging into those details as stuff
that maybe isn't getting the headlines. Absolutely.
That seems to be a huge factor. The bill is being
called epically regressive, basically a massive
giveaway to rich people at the expense of ordinary
people. When you crunch the numbers, the pattern
is stark. Top 20 % of earners, they gain about
4 % on average, bottom 20%. They lose about 4
% on average. So a direct transfer of wealth,
essentially. It's pretty much a straightforward
transfer from the bottom fifth to the top fifth.
And beyond that, there are these, let's call
them secret items that massively benefit the
super rich, stuff most people don't even know
is in there. OK, take the estate tax. It raises
the amount you can inherit tax -free from $11
million to $15 million for individuals and $22
to $30 million for couples. And it's indexed
to inflation. This literally only helps the richest
of the rich. We're talking the top 0 .1%. A couple
with an estate over $30 million, they save about
$3 .2 million in taxes because of this. $3 .2
million. Just for them. Just for them. Then there's
the pass -through -business income tax deduction.
This is for businesses like law firms, big medical
practices, where profits pass directly to owners.
The bill makes the current temporary 20 % deduction
permanent and bumps it up to 23%. And guess who
gets most of that? 70 % goes to the top 1 % of
tax filers. Wow. So those two things alone. Those
two unknown items. They're projected to save
the rich over a trillion dollars over 10 years.
A trillion dollars? Yeah. Plus, it makes the
current top tax rate of 37 % permanent instead
of letting it go back to 39 .6%. That benefits
couples making over $750 ,000 a year. And on
top of all that, Republicans are cutting IRS
funding. They're assaulting the IRS, which means
less enforcement against those shady tax shelter
type constructions. Who uses those? Wealthy people
with fancy lawyers. Right. And finally, there's
what's being called a whack at Obamacare, the
ACA. It makes it harder to use. Cut subsidies.
Projections show 10 to 16 million people could
lose their health insurance. Mostly low income
folks. OK, so connecting the dots. The message
seems to be getting out about who really benefits
and who loses. Is there resistance building within
Congress, too? Besides just the cost. Oh, yeah.
It's not just voters. Republican senators are
getting nervous. They've told Majority Leader
John Thune they're not ready to vote. Right.
Senator Tom Tillis from North Carolina. He wants
big changes to the Medicaid part. He estimates
his state could lose $38 billion. And he warned
this bill could cost Republicans both the House
and Senate in 2026. That's a stark warning from
within the party. Definitely. And Senator Susan
Collins from Maine is also worried about cuts
to payments from some health care programs. And
then in the House, you mentioned Thomas Massey.
He sounds like a real problem for Trump on this.
Yeah. Representative Thomas Massey from Kentucky.
He's known as a deficit hawk. He doesn't just
oppose the Senate bill's cost. He's also threatened
to introduce a resolution to limit the president's
war powers. Oof. Trump can't like that. Reports
say Trump is absolutely seething and he's apparently
going all out now to try and beat Massey in his
next primary. Can he? Has Massey faced him before?
He has. And he survived Trump challenges before.
What's fascinating about Massey, often painted
as this, you know, fire -breathing right -wing
dragon, is his background. Grew up in Appalachia,
Vanceburg, Kentucky. But then went to MIT, got
degrees in electrical and mechanical engineering.
MIT. Won prizes for inventions, raised $32 million
in venture capital for his tech startup, hired
70 people, holds 24 patents, sold the company
in 2003. He's definitely not a dumb hillbilly.
And his district, Kentucky's fourth. It's actually
the richest district in the state, 87 % white,
68 % urban. And it's R plus 18, very safely Republican.
Plus his strong pro -Israel. stance, brings in
outside money. So yeah, he won't be easy for
Trump to push over. OK, let's shift one more
time. Let's look at the overall political climate.
Some new polling data just came out, right? Gives
us a snapshot. Yeah, a fresh YouGov poll. And
this was taken partly after the Iran bombing.
It shows Donald Trump's approval rating is now
14 points underwater. 14 points. What are the
numbers? 40 % approve, 54 % disapprove. That's
his worst poll during Trump v2 .0. Worse than
most of his first term, actually. Wow. How does
that compare to Biden at this stage? It's 23
points lower than where Biden was at this point
in his presidency. And for Trump, it's a 19 point
drop in just five months. That's that's a significant
slide. Not a good trend for him at all. Did the
Iran bombing itself move those numbers or just
part of the trend? Well, the poll did break down
responses before and after the bombing. It really
shows that partisan split we talked about before
the bombing. Fifty seven percent of Republicans
approved of Trump's handling of the Iran Israel
situation after. jumped to 82%. Huge. But Democrats,
56 % did not want him to bomb Iran beforehand.
After he did, 74 % disapproved. So the action
itself just instantly hardened the partisan lines.
Interesting. The poll also found the split within
the Republican base itself. 48 % want America
active in world affairs, but 31 % lean isolationist.
Even though Trump mostly ran as an isolationist.
OK, so this brings up a bigger question about
how decisions might get made going forward. If
Trump has a philosophy guiding him, what exactly
is the Trump doctrine? Is there one? Well, JD
Vance tried to define it recently at a private
dinner, apparently. He put it in context with
other presidential doctrines, Monroe, Truman,
Nixon, you know. According to Vance, the Trump
doctrine has three parts. One. The president
clearly states an American interest like Iran
must not get nukes. Okay, clear interest. Two,
the president tries diplomacy first to solve
it. Diplomacy first, got it. Three, if diplomacy
fails, he uses overwhelming military power to
solve the problem and then gets the hell out.
Overwhelming force, then leave. Okay, but what
if step three doesn't work? Exactly. What if
the overwhelming military power doesn't solve
it? Like maybe the Iran bombing didn't really
wipe out the nuclear program. And what if getting
the hell out isn't actually possible after you've
used force? Yeah. Did Vance address that? That
is the critical question, isn't it? And no, reports
say that crucial part what happens when the doctrine
fails or when step three doesn't work as planned
was left unanswered. Right. That seems like a
pretty big gap. It does. OK, finally, let's touch
on how decisions like bombing Iran are informed.
Specifically, intelligence. Because there's news
about a controversial appointment by the Director
of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. Right.
D &I Gabbard has picked someone named Nicholas
Kass to be the acting chair of the National Intelligence
Council, the NIC. Cass is described as a former
spy and strong Trumpist. And the NIC, well, its
job is supposed to be analyzing intelligence
and giving nonpartisan objective advice to top
officials on national security. Super important
role. Supposed to be nonpartisan. So appointing
a strong Trumpist, that's raising concerns. Big
concerns. Many worry this could further pollute
the quality of intelligence. The fear is, officials
might just get told what they want to hear instead
of the truth. Like maybe being told bombing Iran
would wipe out its nuclear program. Even if the
real intelligence suggested otherwise. Exactly
like that. And this isn't the first time Gabbard's
actions at the NIC have raised eyebrows. Just
last month, she fired two Todd NIC officials.
Why? Apparently a report they produced undercut
Trump's immigration policies. Wow. OK. So why
Cass was his appeal to Gabbard? Well, besides
being a former spy, Cass has apparently written
articles intensely castigating Democrats. He
called Trump's 2024 win epic. And he talks a
lot about hating the deep state. Where he spent
the last 30 years of his career. Precisely. The
irony is pretty thick there. Does this position
need Senate confirmation? No. Crucially, it doesn't.
And it's not clear yet if Gabbard plans to make
him permanent or if this is just temporary. OK.
Well, this deep dive has really covered a lot
of ground. That intricate, almost theatrical
diplomacy dance. The stark divisions we're seeing
in domestic policy, even within the parties.
and these underlying currents shaping the whole
political scene. Yeah, to recap, we saw how personal
relationships like that royal visit can play
into global affairs. We saw those deep partisan
splits, even on something as major as going to
war. We dug into who really benefits from big
laws like the OBBB, the real financial impact,
and just that constant tension between political
stories and, well, the facts on the ground. So
here's a final thought to leave you with. We've
seen clear examples of conflicting realities
today, right? From those wildly optimistic economic
guesses for the OPBB to the very different stories
about how effective the Iran bombing actually
was. How do you, as someone trying to stay informed,
sort out the signal from all that noise? What
stories are you maybe trusting without realizing
it? And are they really helping you understand
what's going on? It really underscores the need
to keep questioning, keep looking at different
sources, and just keep thinking critically about
everything you hear. Absolutely. Well, thank
you for joining us on this deep dive. We definitely
encourage you to continue your own exploration
of these really important topics.