Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today we're really
getting into a stack of sources covering some
recent events, events that are being described
broadly as abuses of power. That's right. And
our mission here is to pull out the most important
bits of information, the key insights, help you
understand what's really going on beyond just
the headlines, hopefully spark some of those
aha moments. Absolutely. And these sources, they
really offer a fascinating look, don't they?
decisions, actions across so many different areas.
Like what specifically? Well, we're talking federalizing
a city, international trade, even university
governance. Wow. And also how numbers get presented,
how official data is handled, and even how private
wealth might be generated from public office.
OK. It's really about putting these diverse pieces
together, spotting those crucial patterns. All
right. Let's dive in. First topic. Right. The
nation's capital, Washington, DC. What's the
big news coming out of there, according to these
sources? Well, the source material really leads
with a intentionally striking headline. Trump
invades Washington, D .C. Invades? That's strong
language. It is. And the source says they actually
debated the wording, but they settled on invasion
because while their view was sending troops to
D .C. without any real justification is close
enough to qualify. OK, so what actions actually
led to that headline? What was the justification
given? Right. So after sort of teasing an announcement,
he declared an emergency in D .C. An emergency?
Yes. And then he used authority under the District
of Columbia Home Rule Act. Right, the Home Rule
Act. To take control of the Capitol Police and
deploy National Guard troops. And the reason?
The stated justification was that DC, and this
is a quote, has been overtaken by criminals and
drugged out maniacs and homeless people. The
press conference itself was described in the
sources as, well, rambling, even bringing up
things like trans girls playing high school sports,
seemingly unrelated. OK, but here's where it
gets interesting, right? The sources talk about
the reality versus those claims. What does the
data actually show about crime in DC? Yeah, this
is key. The sources state pretty clearly that
crime is not, in fact, out of control. Really?
There's actually been a consistent downward trend
for about 15 years. Crime is currently at a 30
-year low, with one exception. Which is? 2023.
There was a spike in 2023. But the sources suggest
that spike was almost certainly caused by the
pandemic. And they argue that this single year's
data, this outlier, was basically used to spin
that data as aggressively as is possible. even
though the administration likely knew it was
an exception. Wow. That's quite a claim. So why
DC? Why pick DC as the target for this kind of
action? Well, the sources lay out a few reasons
why DC makes, in their words, an excellent whipping
boy. Okay. First, it's the seat of government,
reportedly unpopular with his base. Right. Second,
it's very democratic, also unpopular with the
base, according to the sources. Makes sense.
Third, it's very black. The source notes much
of his base reportedly dislikes black people.
D .C. is actually one of only six cities in the
U .S., over 500 ,000 people, and over 40 % Black.
Interesting demographic point. Yeah. The sources
also bring up some specific incidents. The murders
of Israeli embassy staff, Yaron Lashinsky and
Sarah Milgram, an assault on Edward Koreshine,
saying these events, through confirmation bias,
wrongly reinforced that perception of D .C. being
crime -ridden. So, specific events feeding a
narrative. Exactly. And finally, DC's unique
status as a federal district just gives him more
power to, well, impose himself with less resistance
than he'd face in a state city. And the sources
also point out some inconsistencies. between
these actions and things he said before. Yes,
that's another important angle. During that press
conference, he said part of the reason for the
action was to make sure DC police are treated
with respect. Okay. But, as the sources note,
he just pardoned hundreds of people who beat
those very same police during the January 6 events.
That is quite a contradiction. And there's more.
Back in 2021 and again in 2024, he claimed that
Nancy Pelosi, the speaker at the time, was responsible
for not deploying the National Guard on January
6th. He said it was out of his hands. Right.
I remember that. Which is, as the source puts
it, a very different take on presidential power
than the one he's asserting now over D .C. Definitely
seems like a shift. So what do the sources predict
happens next for D .C. or maybe even other cities?
Well, legally, The emergency is supposed to only
last 30 days. Right. Now, it's possible they
could try to ignore that limit or maybe just
quietly back down, but the sources think a more
likely scenario is that he finds another city
to target when he needs a new distraction. Like
who? They hinted at places like New York, Chicago,
Los Angeles, basically using it as red meat for
the base. And isn't there a legal challenge already
happening related to the National Guard? Yes.
Good point. California is actually fighting him
in court right now over his use of the National
Guard there. And reportedly that case is going
poorly for the administration. Interesting. So
looking beyond the immediate 30 days, is there
a potential long -term consequence for D .C.
mentioned in the sources? There is, actually.
A potentially positive one for D .C., ironically.
The sources suggest that once Trump is out of
office, his quote, use and abuse of the district
will create serious momentum for statehood. Statehood
for DC. That's been talked about for years. Exactly.
And they argue it probably should already have
happened anyhow. No. But this whole situation
could. generate more sympathy for DC residents
and, you know, push it forward. But statehood
bills face the filibuster, right? Need 60 votes
in the Senate. Usually, yes. Yeah. But the source
points out it only takes 51 votes or 50 plus
the VP tiebreaker to create a specific carve
out for the filibuster rule. Oh, procedural move.
Right. And they think a carve out just for DC
statehood carries a relatively low risk of payback.
So these actions could inadvertently pave the
way fascinating. Okay, let's shift gears now
from DC to the global stage Let's talk economics
specifically China. What was going on with tariffs
recently, right? So the situation was that tariffs
on Chinese imports were apparently set to jump
way up how high The source mentions 145%. They
call it a comic book number. 145%. Wow. Yeah,
something that high would almost certainly trigger
some kind of financial crisis. Panic in the markets,
you know. OK, so what actually happened? Did
they go up? No. Instead, Trump decided to extend
the deadline for negotiations. How long? Another
90 days. Hmm. What's the strategy there? Especially
thinking about the relationship between the administration
and China. Well, the sources bring up a really
interesting cultural point here. OK. They describe
China as an honor shame culture, meaning things
like public image, avoiding humiliation, saving
face. Those are extremely important. Right. So
the thinking is Xi Jinping understands very well
that any sort of resolution will need to be structured
so that Trump can declare a win and save face.
Allow him to look strong, essentially. Pretty
much. The sources also note that Trump seems
somewhat leery of actually bringing the hammer
down on China. Any examples? They cite his reluctance
to force the sale of TikTok, even though Congress
gave clear orders to do so. It suggests maybe
a preference for the threat over the actual follow
through. So given all that, what did the sources
expect will happen with these negotiations? They
basically assume that, you know, Sometime in
the reasonably near future, Trump will announce
that he has secured a great trade deal with China.
A great deal. Yep. And the details will probably
involve a tariff rate much lower than that threatened
145 percent, plus maybe some vague promise of
investment from China. So a pattern of high threats
followed by a more moderate deal that can be
framed as a win. That seems to be the pattern
identified, yes, because he just did something
similar with Mexico, another 90 -day extension.
Right. So now that's two of the US's three biggest
trading partners, China and Mexico, getting these
extensions. Who's the third? Canada. And the
sources say things there are more tricky, possibly
due to personal dynamics with Prime Minister
Mark Carney. and his stance. OK, so a consistent
playbook, but with some variation. Let's pivot
again, this time from global trade back to domestic
institutions, universities. The sources talk
about universities being targeted. Why? What's
the underlying reason given for this hostility
towards education? Well, the sources put forward
a pretty stark argument. They say that if your
goal is to keep a population under your thumb,
then being hostile to education is a key tactic.
Why is that? Because, they argue, educated people
tend to see through the lies of autocratic regimes.
They can often project forward, guess the long
-term implications of policies, and they also
know about resistance. They provide historical
examples. They do. They mention leaders of major
slave rebellions in U .S. history being educated
black men. They talk about Mao Zedong targeting
intellectuals in China, and how regimes in Poland,
Turkey, Russia have all tried to control their
universities. OK, so that's a general theory.
How does it apply specifically to Trump, according
to these sources? The sources suggest Trump most
certainly aspires to exercise dictator -like
powers. And so targeting prominent universities
early on, what they call Trump v2 .0, serves
a few purposes. It's a direct challenge to a
potential power center that might oppose him.
And it also lets him, well, avenge his own personal
grievances. The source puts it bluntly. He hates
pointy -headed academics because they make him
feel stupid. Right. So which universities were
hit first, and why them? The initial targets
weren't too surprising, according to the analysis.
Harvard, first off. The big one. Exactly. The
absolute embodiment worldwide of elite academic
institution. The only big three US school, actually.
And the other. Columbia University, right in
New York City, America's biggest city. And Columbia
was prominent in the news recently. It was. It
was a major flash point for the Gaza protests.
And those protests provided the official justification
for the administration to put pressure on universities
using the label of anti -semitism. Okay, Harvard
and Columbia make sense based on that logic,
but the sources mentioned a delay with UCLA.
That seemed odd given UCLA's profile. Yeah, that's
a really interesting point the sources dig into.
UCLA, they say, checks an awful lot of boxes
for the administration. It's surprising it wasn't
in that first wave. What kind of boxes? Well,
it's definitely an elite institution, maybe just
a tier below the top ivies. It's world famous,
has huge name recognition. Especially in Asia,
Japan particularly. Licensing and things like
that. Huge. Apparently UCLA makes more money
from licensing its name than any other university.
You see movies filming there, big tourist groups.
Right. What else? It rakes in the research funds.
And research funding is the main lever the administration
is using here. The pressure point. Exactly. While
ivies get money, the sources note Johns Hopkins
is actually number one for research funding.
Why Hopkins? Because it hits all three big areas.
Serious medical research, sure, expensive. Two,
serious physics research, really expensive. And
three, a large student body and faculty. Lots
of people to apply for grants. UCLA is up there,
too, though. Okay, so elite, famous, lots of
research money. What else makes UCLA a target?
Like Columbia, it was also the site of high -profile
Gaza protests. It also has fairly new leadership.
Chancellor Julio Frank just started in January.
And the thinking is, inexperienced administrators
are more likely to misstep, maybe easier to intimidate.
Mm. Location matters, too. Big time. It's in
California, which the source calls the hated
state. Governor Gavin Newsom, a major Trump critic,
is even an ex -officio member of the UC Board
of Regents. Wow, direct connection. And it's
in Los Angeles, the hated city, which, as the
source notes, has already served as a punching
bag for Trump v2 .0. So a lot of reasons. The
delay is surprising, then. Very. So the shoe
finally dropped, as they say. What was the price
demanded from UCLA? Remember, they'd already
frozen about $500 million in UCLA's research
funds. The price revealed later was steep. A
fine of $1 billion. A billion dollars. Plus,
an agreement for significant changes to university
governance. How would they even pay that? The
deal proposed was an installment plan. $276 million
a year for three years, plus another $172 million
into a trust fund to settle lawsuits related
to the protests. Good grief. How does that compare
to what other schools agree to? And why would
any university agree to these terms? Well, Harvard
reportedly made a deal involving policy changes
and paying $500 million for vocational and educational
programs. Half a billion. Still huge, but...
Less than UCLA is fine. Right. And Columbia and
others agree to similar deals. The sources suggest
that university leaders, although they'd never
say it publicly, will probably make these changes
deliberately unenthusiastic. Go through the motions?
Sort of. And plan to reverse them later. As for
the money for vocational programs, the expectation
is creative bookkeeping. Like what? Like reclassifying
existing extension courses, things like photography,
cooking, real estate. as fulfilling that requirement.
OK, but still, why comply at all, especially
if, as the sources suggest, they think they'd
probably win in court? It comes down to a calculated
decision, a risk assessment. How so? They'd know
they'd almost certainly win in court. But almost
certainly isn't certainly, there's still risk.
And more importantly, if a major research project
loses its funding for a year or two while the
court case drags on, it probably dies. All the
work and money already invested. Exactly. Lost.
Plus, future funding jeopardized. So they pay
what the source essentially calls a bribe. A
bribe to avoid court. To avoid the long, expensive
court case, salvage future research funds, and
avoid potentially losing billions in partially
completed research. It's a pragmatic, if painful,
choice. And the administration has lost in court
sometimes? Yes. The source has mentioned they
actually lost a case just yesterday about arbitrarily
freezing allocated funds, even with a Trump -appointed
judge presiding. So the legal route isn't guaranteed
for the administration either. Are there key
differences in UCLA's situation compared to Harvard
or Columbia? The sources point out two big ones,
yeah. First, the sheer amount of money demanded
from UCLA that billion -dollar fine is way higher.
And UCLA, while wealthy, is not quite as well
-heeled as Harvard. Taking a nine - or ten -figure
hit is tougher for them. Makes sense. What's
the second difference? This one could be the
biggie. Governor Gavin Newsom. Ah, him again.
Unlike governors in other states, Newsom reportedly
plans to run for president in 2028. And he's
actively looking for every opportunity to burnish
his credentials as the Trump slayer. So he might
intervene. He might. And crucially, he's part
of U .C. governance as an ex officio regent.
Any settlement agreement would have to be approved
by the regents. And Newsom could block it. The
sources suggest he might well use his influence
to block that. It adds a whole other layer of
political complexity for UCLA. Definitely a wild
card. And there was one more kind of surprising
theory about why the UCLA action was delayed.
Yeah, sort of a speculative one, but interesting.
What is it? Unlike most elite academic schools,
UCLA is also an elite athletic school. Right,
big sports programs. And college football season
is just starting up. Ah. So the theory floated
is that maybe the White House waited to maximize
the attention it gets. Use the football spotlight?
Yeah, the idea being this extortion attempt,
as the source calls it, is likely to get mentioned
at least a few times during coverage of the football
team. It's a theory about leveraging media cycles.
That's... Quite the calculation, if true. Okay,
let's shift from targeting institutions to targeting,
well, reality itself. Numbers. The sources talk
about imaginary numbers. What's the issue there?
Well, connecting back to the point about educated
people. Another issue for autocratic leaders,
according to these sources, is that educated
folks tend to know what the real numbers are.
Or at least have a ballpark idea. Exactly. Or
roughly what they should be. So they can often...
sniff out fake numbers. Which is a problem if
you're trying to create your own reality. Precisely.
It's a problem for Trump, who is trying to create
his own economic and statistical reality, as
the source puts it. So how is this playing out
with government agencies that handle data, like
the Bureau of Labor Statistics? Well, the sources
report that he fired the head of the BLS, Dr.
Erica McIntarfer, who is described as actually
qualified. Fired her. And replaced her with whom?
He tapped an economist from the Heritage Foundation
named E .J. Antony. Heritage Foundation. OK.
What are Antony's qualifications, according to
the sources? Well, on paper, he has advanced
degrees in economics, master's and Ph .D., and
some public sector experience. Cluts. But the
sources note he only finished his Ph .D. in 2020.
So not exactly what you would call experienced.
Relatively new. And his degrees are from Northern
Illinois University. The sources make a point
of saying he very noticeably avoids mentioning
the name of his alma mater on his official bio.
Hmm. Anything else? Yes. The bigger issue highlighted
is his employer, the Heritage Foundation, described
as the same right -wing think tank that employs
Stephen Moore. Stephen Moore, the economist who
reportedly visited the Oval Office recently.
To spin fantasies about the employment numbers,
according to the source, yes. And before Heritage,
Antoni worked at another right -wing group. the
Texas Public Policy Foundation. So the implication
is clear. What do the sources advise about BLS
data going forward? Basically take anything that
comes out of BLS for the next three years with
multiple barrels of salt. Multiple barrels. Strong
warning. They suggest that Picking this lightly
qualified think tanker is exactly what you expect
if Trump couldn't get a more, quote, legitimate
candidate to behave corruptly. It raises serious
questions about data integrity. And it wasn't
just economic data, right? There was another
database issue mentioned. That's right. The White
House was also reportedly trying to make a database
private one that tracks federal spending. Why
would they do that? The source suggests the obvious
purpose here is to hide outlays on things that
might not be so popular and potentially also
to hide any illegal impoundment of funds, refusing
to spend money Congress allocated. Did they succeed?
No, they actually lost in court yesterday on
that issue. But as of the time the source was
written, the database has not been restored.
So transparency is still lacking there. OK, from
manipulating data to maybe the most direct form
of power abuse, personal enrichment, using public
office for private gain, what connection did
the sources draw here? They explain that one
of the real telltale signs of a dictatorial leader
throughout history is their use of their position
to fill their own personal bank account. They
list examples. Oh, yeah. Putin, Assad, the Shah
of Iran, Franco, Saddam Hussein, the Castros,
Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier in Haiti, Pol
Pot, Idi Amin. A rogues gallery. Right. All leaders
who, according to the sources, ended up pilfering
tens of millions or hundreds of millions or billions
of dollars. It's a disturbingly common pattern.
So turning to Trump, there was a big investigation
mentioned by David Kirkpatrick at the New Yorker.
What did that investigation estimate regarding
how much Trump and his family have reportedly
enriched themselves from the presidency? The
number is pretty staggering. The sources give
an overall total estimate from Kirkpatrick's
work of $3 .372 billion. $3 .3 billion. Billion,
with a B. Now, there are some important caveats
the sources mention. OK, like what? Kirkpatrick
apparently didn't assign much value to Trump's
own claims about his brand being worth astronomical
sums. Right. Also, some assets, like Truth Social,
are expected to drop precipitously in value once
he leaves office. Makes sense. And the key point.
The sources suggest that while Trump was maybe
somewhat cautious about profiting off the presidency
at his first term, now all of that is out the
window, meaning the gloves are off and any estimates
for future enrichment, what the source calls
grifting, are necessarily very preliminary. This
$3 .3 billion is based on what's already known
or estimated. Okay, $3 .3 billion. Let's try
to unpack that. What are the major categories
making up that total? Kirkpatrick breaks it down.
First, licensing. That totals about $165 .4 million.
Licensing his name. Exactly. This includes at
least five new deals for projects in the Gulf
States worth over $100 million combined. The
Trump -Hanoi Hotel deal, about $40 million. And
this thing called 1789 Capital. What's that?
Apparently it's a venture where the Trump family
gets paid nearly $20 million just to lend their
name to some right -wing social clubs. Okay,
$165 million in licensing. What's next? Business
ventures. That adds up to about $177 .7 million.
This is from his existing businesses. Mostly.
The biggest chunk, $125 million, is from dramatically
increased membership fees at Mar -a -Lago. Ah,
doubling the fees after he became president.
Right. Then there's about $28 million from selling
merch hats, shirts, even those blasphemous Bibles
the source mentions, and an estimated $25 million
in value derived from truth social. OK, licensing,
business ventures, what else? The biggest category
by far, crypto, totaling nearly $2 .37 billion.
$2 .4 billion from crypto? Roughly. Yeah, the
source explicitly states crypto is the place
to be for the contemporary grifter. Wow, how
does that break down? Well, there are the collectible
Trump trading cards, the NFTs that brought in
over $14 million. I remember those. Then there
are ventures reportedly involving his sons. something
called World Liberty Financial Tokens, worth
over $400 million, and a World Liberty Financial
Stablecoin worth over $240 million. OK. Plus,
the Sons apparently licensed the family name
to something called American Bitcoin for $13
million. And Trump himself. His own first crypto
venture, called Trump Media, is valued at $1
.3 billion in this estimate. And his personal
mean coin, Trump, is pegged at $385 million.
That is just... Astronomical. Is there another
category? Yes, a final category labeled Other.
This totals about $661 million. OK, what's an
Other? It's a mix. $100 million is attributed
to campaign expenses, specifically legal and
other personal costs paid by campaigns packs.
Using campaign funds for personal legal bills.
That's the implication. Then there's $320 million
in Saudi wealth management money, reportedly
paid to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. From
the Saudis? Yes. Also, $150 million attributed
to the Qatari jet, which the source says was
nominally Air Force One for some period of time.
Some private jet funded by Qatar used like Air
Force One. That seems to be the gist. And finally,
$91 million from what Kirkpatrick calls corporate
shakedowns, basically protection money paid to
the Trumps by companies like CBS, Amazon, and
others. To avoid negative attention or action
from the administration. That appears to be the
interpretation. So adding all that up, licensing,
business ventures, crypto, other. gets you to
that $3 .372 billion figure. It's just incredible.
How does this compare, though, to the examples
you gave earlier? Dictators directly stealing
government funds. That's an important distinction
the source makes. While the Trumps have, according
to this investigation, greatly enriched themselves,
they haven't yet managed to directly steer billions
in government funds into their own pockets in
that classic direct plundering way. So it's more
leveraging the office for private deals and ventures.
Primarily, yes. Using the power and prestige
of the presidency to boost existing businesses,
create new ones, secure favorable deals and draw
investments, particularly from foreign sources.
But the source leaves the door open. It does,
it adds. Time will tell if they try to change
that. It notes these are people who, quote, can
never, ever, ever have enough money and that
they've been awfully good at avoiding the criminal
consequences of their actions. Maybe feeling
bulletproof at this point. So the source concludes,
it could go either way. Direct plundering isn't
off the table in the future, in their view. A
really sobering thought. We have certainly unpacked
a lot today. We really have. From that federal
assertion of power in DC, the targeting of universities.
To global trade tactics, manipulating official
data. And ending with these truly astonishing
figures about personal enrichment connected to
public office. Yeah, if you try to connect it
all, see the bigger picture. What seems to emerge
is this complex web of strategies. Different
ways power can be exerted, maybe ways to consolidate
control across various parts of society. It really
highlights why it's so important to look past
the headlines. Try to understand the motivations,
the implications for our institutions, for the
very information we rely on. So the question
for you listening is, what does all this mean?
When you see these different kinds of power plays
unfolding, controlling a city, pressuring universities,
shaping trade deals, manipulating data, potentially
enriching oneself, what does it reveal? What
does it tell us about those ongoing tensions
between government authority and individual freedom?
Or between the official stories we're told and
the underlying reality, especially now when we're
all just drowning in information? Definitely
something to keep thinking about.