Welcome to the Deep Dive. We're your shortcut
to getting truly well -informed. We basically
take a whole stack of sources, articles, some
research, our own notes, and pull out the key
insights, the surprising facts just for you.
Today, we're diving into a recent news digest,
and it's got, well, quite a mix. We're talking
judicial decisions, political strategies, some
really critical voter trends, and even an international
asylum request. OK, so let's unpack this. Our
goal here is to connect the dots, understand
the underlying dynamics shaping things right
now, from subtle shifts in political tactics
to some pretty significant societal changes.
What's fascinating here is how these individual
stories, they might seem disparate at first glance,
but when you look at them together, they really
paint a much clearer picture. You start to see
what's unfolding in power structures and also
in public sentiment. Absolutely. So. Sticking
to a bit of an odd tradition, we seem to have
fallen into Jeffrey Epstein news. It always seems
to demand attention first, even if it's relatively
minor this time. This week, it's the latest on
the refusal to unseal grand jury transcripts.
There was a recent ruling by U .S. District Judge
Richard Berman. He's a Bill Clinton appointee
in New York denying the release. And, you know,
that's interesting because Berman is actually
the third federal judge to refuse. He follows
Judge Paul Engelmeyer, an Obama appointee who
oversaw the Ghislaine Maxwell case, and Judge
Robin Rosenberg, also an Obama appointee down
in Florida. So, you know, in baseball, it's like
three strikes and you're out, right? But in court,
you can technically keep trying indefinitely.
Still, the more refusals you get in one direction,
well... It makes it more likely a new judge will
read those prior opinions and kind of lean the
same way. It suggests the system, at least at
this level, is pretty aligned on keeping these
specific documents sealed, regardless of who
appointed the judge. Yeah, that consistency is
notable. And the Department of Justice, interestingly,
hasn't appealed any of these rulings yet. They
still could, but haven't. So that's one piece
judicial secrecy. But just as interesting is
how political figures are changing their game,
their strategies. Let's pivot to that. California
Governor Gavin Newsom. Ah, yes. The new Democratic
playbook, perhaps? Maybe. He's been actively
trolling Donald Trump, using these really over
-the -top social media posts, kind of mocking
Trump's style, and apparently Trump is furious,
doesn't know how to handle it. Some examples
are pretty clever, actually, like calling Trump
Christopher Columbus. Newsom's apparently fine
being called Gavin Columbus if it annoys Trump.
And then there's the nickname TACO. Stands for
Take America Clean Out. Yeah, that one seems
to really get under his skin. It feels a bit
like playground stuff, but maybe effective. Well,
it's a stark contrast, isn't it? Michelle Obama
famously said, when they go low, we go high.
Newsom seems to be trying, when they go low,
we go low too. Maybe add some AI generated stuff
and see if we climb the algorithm. And it seems
to have spawned this little cottage industry
of like AI savvy Democrats. Apparently it's boosting
morale and some think it might bait Trump into
a mistake. Democratic strategists are noticing.
Jamal Simmons said Democrats are over being the
nice guy party and that people outside the political
bubble actually seem to like Newsom's approach.
Christie Setzer was surprised it took Democrats
this long, called it brilliant, a good attention
getting device. And it is getting Newsom attention.
He's popped up to second place behind Kamala
Harris in a very early twenty twenty eight poll,
mostly named recognition at this stage, obviously.
But notice he's also targeting JD Vance specifically,
trying to weaken Vance's early lead for the GOP
nomination in 28. Maybe make that primary fight
nastier. But the trolling, the tweets, that's
low risk. Newsom's real gamble, the big one,
is this redistricting initiative in California,
Proposition 50, on the ballot in November. Huge.
Absolutely huge strategic play. If Prop 50 passes
and they redraw the map for 26 -28 -30, Newsom's
a hero in the party. If it fails, he's the goat.
Simple as that. There's a Democratic poll saying
57 % of California voters are in favor right
now. We'll see. And this is happening while...
Texas, meanwhile, has already pushed through
its new map. Redistricting battles are definitely
heating up everywhere. Right. Just one more poll
point. That Citron Center one showed California
Democrats preferring Newsom over Harris 25 to
19 percent head to head for 28. Again, very early
days. Take it with salt and pepper. Name recognition
is key. But it's a data point. OK, so that's
the shifting strategies. But what about the voters
themselves? There's a new study from the New
York Times indicating Democrats are bleeding
voters nationwide. Yeah, this is well, it's pretty
ominous for Democrats. It's not just that younger
voters went for Trump in 24. It's that many have
actually changed their party registration from
Democrat to Republican. They're becoming actual
Republicans on paper, at least in the 30 states
that have party registration. Looking at the
change from 2020 to 2024, the share of registered
Democrats went down. In every single state with
registration, sometimes by a little, sometimes
by as much as 8%, Republican registration is
up in many states. But interestingly, down in
a few, like Alaska, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia,
when both go down, it usually means folks are
re -registering as independents, which, depending
on the state's primary rules, might not be the
smartest move strategically. So what are the
raw numbers on that shift? Democrats lost about
2 .1 million registered voters. Republicans gained
about 2 .4 million. So that Democratic registration
lead, it shrank. from 11 points in 2020 down
to six points in 2024. And context is important
here, right? California and New York have partisan
registration, big blue states. But Texas and
most of the South don't. So millions of Republicans
aren't even in these stats. Plus, for the first
time in 2024, more new voters signed up as Republicans
than Democrats. Exactly. And the key thing to
remember is registration is usually a lagging
indicator. People often stop voting for a party
long before they bother to officially change
their registration. So this just kind of formalizes
what we suspected. Republicans gaining popularity,
Democrats losing it. And most of the switches
are dumb into Republican, suggesting people are
really fed up. The details are, well, pretty
grim for the Democrats. Among new male voters,
59 % registered Democrat in 2020. That dropped
to 39 % in 2024. And new Latino voters, 52 %
Democrat in 2020, down to just 33 % in 2024.
Big drops. Wow. OK. So what does this all mean
for the Democrat strategy going forward? What
do they do? Well, it forces a tough question,
doesn't it? They need to figure out why the brand
is struggling so badly. One theory floating around
is, well, maybe... Nobody really knows what Democrats
stand for anymore, including maybe some Democrats
themselves. Compared to Republicans, who are
generally pretty unified, right? Lower taxes,
less government, accept the military, tough on
crime, anti -abortion, anti -immigration, pushback
on progressive social stuff. It's clearer. Democrats
are a bigger tent, more diverse views. So the
suggested strategy is basically... Go all in
on jobs, wages, the economy, which probably means
dropping or at least de -emphasizing some issues
that parts of the party care deeply about, like
climate change, DEI initiatives, gay rights,
and almost certainly trans rights. It might even
mean telling some of the more progressive voices
to kindly shut up, as the source put it, or even
the DCC funding primary challenges against figures
like Jasmine Crockett, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Clive,
people whose statements sometimes become attack
points that hurt the broader party image. There's
an asymmetry, you see? Republicans can easily
pick one progressive Democrat and make them the
face of the whole party in attack ads. It just
doesn't really work the other way around. That's
a really tough prescription, though. If they
go all in on the economy and sideline progressive
issues, don't they risk alienating the base,
especially the young voters and minority groups
they're already losing? That's absolutely the
tightrope. It's a huge risk. But the thinking
or the gamble is that they're losing more ground
with centrist and working class voters right
now. So maybe shifting the focus is necessary
to stop the bleeding, even if it upsets some
core supporters, reclaiming that broad economic
message. A real strategic dilemma. OK, let's
shift again from broad voter trends to something
very specific. How do you actually influence
policy in Trump world when the usual channels
maybe don't work? We've got this intriguing example,
Laura Loomer. and her alleged influence. Bill
Maher suggested it stemmed from a personal relationship
with Trump. Loomer denied that, sued him for
defamation even. Tim Miller over at the bulwark
actually defended her, kind of strangely, suggesting
an affair was technically impossible based on
past reports. Weird tangent. Yeah. Regardless
of why, her influence seems real. She's got some
greatest hits, so to speak, getting visas for
people from Gaza halted, getting five National
Security Council members fired for perceived
disloyalty, even getting the FDA's top vaccine
regulator fired, though he was later reinstated.
And you have to figure she probably has other
successes that just aren't public knowledge.
She has his ear. That's the key. Her value isn't
just reporting stuff. It's that she can apparently
get him to act. That's real leverage. OK, so
if you're not Laura Loomer. Maybe a company or
just an individual and you want to influence
policy now. What's the playbook? Jim van de Huy
and Mike Allen at Axios put together a list Yeah,
and it's pretty blunt advice really direct we
can break it down first stuff about communication
Managing what you say like put a sock in it Basically,
don't say nasty things about Trump, his policies,
his allies. There's only downside. And beware
of loomeroids, those hyper loyal followers who
police any criticism. Then put a sock in the
mouths of others. Guilt by association is real.
Make sure people connected to you also stay quiet
and don't overreact. If Trump says something
awful, keep quiet. You might just forget about
it. Remember taco. Don't poke the bear unnecessarily.
Strategic silence. So bite your tongue. What
about actually engaging? Right. They say Trump
has two ears. One's only open to the make -you
purists. You understand that maybe hire a Trump
whisperer. But the other ear? It listens to more
rational actors like Treasury Secretary Scott
Besant or Secretary of State Marco Rubio. You
ideally want to reach both. Also, everything's
negotiable. Trump loves making deals. Big deals.
But it has to be simple, easy to explain, and
sound like a clear win for him personally. Think
APER promising $100 billion investment, not some
complex policy argument about national interest.
It's transactional. And it's WWE or reality TV.
It's all about the show. Pageantry, posturing,
PR. It needs to look good, make him look like
a winner, make the other side look like losers.
Narrative is key. Got it. What about the more
personal side of things? Yeah, this is where
it gets interesting. A kiss ass. Apparently Trump
loves gifts, especially if they're gold. But
he can supposedly sniff out toadies. So the insight
isn't just flattery. It needs to be grand, almost
theatrical. And always, always connect it back
to how it benefits him personally. Makes him
look good. Simple bootlicking won't cut it. about
feeding that specific public ego. OK. So grandeur,
not just groveling. Exactly. Then get face to
face. The advice suggests he's actually more
reasonable, maybe less prone to grandstanding
in private one on one meetings. So getting that
face time is crucial. You got to work the gatekeepers
again, emphasizing how seeing you benefits Trump
personally. And maybe the most direct piece of
advice, pony up the best way in. Money. Buy a
couple of plates at a MAGA Inc. dinner. They
mention $1 million per plate gets you a few minutes
with Trump and a rubber chicken dinner. A million
bucks for rubber chicken in a few minutes. Apparently.
But it's the foot in the door. It buys you access,
maybe leads to more FaceTime later. It shows
you're serious in the currency he understands.
And finally, the long view. Two key things. The
deal's never done. Even if you have a deal, even
a signed contract. Trump might change his mind.
Reneguing his scene is just another negotiation
tactic. You have to expect it and play the long
game. This is crucial. We're barely one sixth
the way through his term. These tactics, you
got to keep them up until January 20th, 2029.
It's a marathon. OK, all of this might really
go against your basic principles. But the message
is this is how it works now. Consider yourself
warned. Which leads us kind of neatly into what
we're told is the most important guiding principle
in all of Trump world. Let me guess. It's all
about the grift. Bingo. Yeah, we see examples.
Former AG Pam Bondi, her power leading to what
some call thrifts, whether they are in parentheses,
you know, pushing back on gift rules. Cigars
from Conor McGregor. Yeah. Trying to get into
the president's box at the FIFA Club World Cup
final. Yeah. Her defense was apparently she didn't
stay for the whole game, so it was OK. Yeah.
which is a defense. But Trump himself is described
as much more experienced at this, like taking
the actual Club World Cup trophy and a medal
and just going on stage with the winners. It's
bolder. And this grift thing seems to be creating
some friction, some actual policy clashes, specifically
where M .A .A. make America healthy. Again, meets
Mindy. M .A .O .A. is HHS secretary Robert Kennedy
Jr.'s thing, even if the name's a bit off, implying
America was healthier before. And Kennedy's pushing
some ideas that might actually make things unhealthier.
But anyway. Right. The clash is here. MHA really
dislikes big pharma, big ag, big chemical, but
there's House Appropriations bill floating around
with provisions specifically shielding pesticide
and chemical companies from liability, from accountability
for health damage. And those provisions were
reportedly put there by Melkide folks, maybe
even Trump himself, as like paybacks for campaign
donations. So MEHA wants one thing, MEGA wants
the opposite, internal conflict. Mary Holland,
she's the CEO of the main MEHA group, Children's
Health Defense. She said it pretty plainly. It's
obvious that there are tensions within this newfound
coalition between MEHA and MEGA, and there are
some big issues there. Yeah, it makes sense.
Traditionally, a lot of conservatives sided with
industry wanted fewer environmental rules. MAHA
wants tighter rules, more protections. That puts
them directly against companies who probably
thought they'd bought some regulatory relief.
There's a specific fight going on right now.
Representative Mike Simpson, Republican from
Idaho, chairs the relevant appropriations subcommittee.
He put language in a bill saying states cannot
require different pesticide labels than the federal
one. That's what the chemical companies want.
Exactly. They don't want California, say, adding
extra warnings or restrictions that the EPA hasn't
mandated nationally. But MAHA supports states
having more power, like being able to ban spraying
near schools. Direct conflict. Another one is
forever chemicals, PFAS. Simpson's bill actually
prohibits the EPA from banning food from farms
contaminated with them. MHA is totally against
that. And you've got former chemical industry
people now in leading roles at the EPA, apparently
working to reduce restrictions on cancer -causing
chemicals. So even if Kennedy is maybe on the
side of the angels on this one particular issue,
Trump's the decider, and he seems inclined to
help the industries that paid up. It's quite
the tangle. And speaking of loyalty, retribution,
political dynamics, Tulsi Gabbard, she's made
a move to revote the security clearance of Obama
and Biden administration officials. Yeah, it's
hard to see the national security angle there,
honestly. Her statement about Clarence is being
a privilege contingent on adherence to principles.
Well, you can pretty much translate that as if
you didn't support Donald Trump or criticized
him, your Clarence might get pulled. She specifically
went after intelligence professionals who said
Russia interfered in the 2016 election, which,
by the way, was an assessment backed up by a
three -year Republican -led Senate Intel Committee
investigation. Marco Rubio signed off on that
report back then. So this looks less like security
and more like part of Trump's retribution tour.
Plain and simple. Mark Zaid, he is a national
security lawyer, called the targeted individuals
dedicated public servants. And Larry Pfeiffer,
former CIA chief of staff, basically asked on
social media who Trump and Gabbard are really
working for. He even ended his post with a Russian
flag emoji. Strong reaction. OK, let's shift
one last time from these big political and policy
clashes to a very personal story, but one that
maybe reflects some of these larger societal
shifts. It's the case of Ronika Clifford -Carlos.
She's a 28 year old transgender woman from the
U .S. and she's seeking political asylum in the
Netherlands. She says she fears for her life,
fears persecution for being trans back in the
U .S. And this really highlights the different
ways nations view rights and safety, doesn't
it? The Dutch government's initial response was
basically Yes, the situation for trans people
in the U .S. is concerning, but it's not so bad
that they should grant asylum to every trans
person who asks. They pointed out that trans
people have won cases in U .S. court. So the
legal framework isn't entirely gone in their
view. Clifford Carlos specifically mentioned
her fear about medical care, that her access
to hormones could just be cut off at any time.
But the Dutch Immigration Service said she didn't
provide specific proof of that imminent danger.
And they argued asylum can't be granted just
because some future action could endanger her.
It has to be more concrete, more immediate. So
she's filed suit in a Dutch court in The Hague.
We're waiting on a ruling in a few weeks. Yeah.
It really raises that question though, what does
this one individual situation tell us about how
rights and safety are perceived across borders
and how the U .S. is viewed globally on issues
like this right now? It's a really powerful human
angle on these big shifts. It really is and looking
back at everything we've covered. Wow. It feels
like a whirlwind, but it's all strangely connected,
isn't it? We went from judicial secrecy in the
Epstein case to these really new kind of aggressive
political campaign tactics. Then those huge shifts
in voter registration, the advice on how to navigate
Trump world, the policy fights between MHA and
Magier, the loyalty tests with security clearances,
and ending on this deeply personal asylum case.
Exactly. If you connect it all back to that bigger
picture, it just... underscores this constant
interplay, doesn't it, between what individuals
do, how public feeling shifts, and that ongoing
quest for power and influence. It shows how every
single headline, even ones that seem small or
weird, they all add up. They contribute to this
larger story about where things are heading and
how people in power are trying to manage it or
maybe manipulate it. So as you, the listener,
think about everything we've unpacked today,
here's maybe a final thought to chew on. How
might these changing political strategies combine
with these really profound shifts in who voters
are and what they want? How might that reshape
the very definition of political success and
maybe even national identity itself in the years
ahead? Lots to think about. Thank you for joining
us for this Deep Dive.