It is Thursday, January 29, 2026. And if you're
picturing the United States Senate right now,
I want you to imagine a game of hot potato. Yeah,
but not the fun kind. No, not the one you played
in kindergarten. Oh, this is the really high
stakes version. And instead of a potato, it's
the funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
And if this potato drops, the entire federal
government shuts down. Welcome back to the deep
dive. Today feels Well, it feels heavy. I'm looking
at the stack of sources on the desk, and at first
glance, it feels like this chaotic pile of bad
news. We have a government shutdown looming where
the leadership seems, I don't know, allergic
to actually leading. We have what being called
the mother of all trade deals happening halfway
across the world. Without us. Without us. And
then we have this fascinating and honestly kind
of brutal look at why the Democratic Party is
struggling to talk to normal voters. It sounds
disjointed. I know you hear domestic budget squabbles,
international macroeconomics, and then party
identity politics. And you think, what connects
these? But the mission for this deep dive is
to connect those dots. Because what we're really
looking at today is a split screen. I like that
image. A split screen. Exactly. On one side of
the screen, you've got Washington just paralyzed
by tactical maneuvering and obsessively relitigating
the past. And on the other side. On the other
side, the global balance of power is shifting,
and it isn't waiting for the US to get its act
together. OK, so that is the thread we need to
pull today. Let's start on the paralyzed side
of the screen. Let's head to Capitol Hill. Right.
The situation with Senate Majority Leader John
Thune is, well, The reporting suggests it's unique.
Unique is a polite way to put it. I mean, the
core issue here is the budget, right? The government
needs funding. And constitutionally, that's Congress's
job, the power of the purse. Exactly. And usually,
the Senate majority leader's job is to, well,
lead the Senate in passing that legislation.
But Thune has effectively thrown up his hands.
The reports say he's refusing to negotiate. He's
explicitly saying that's the president's job.
And that's the hot potato. Thun is basically
taking this stance that, OK, the power might
be constitutional, but practically he wants Democrats
to go talk to Donald Trump directly. He's trying
to force a direct negotiation between them and
the White House over the Department of Homeland
Security, DHS. Yes. And this is where the strategy
gets really twisty, because Senate Minority Leader
Chuck Schumer, he has a counterplay. Right. He's
looking at the board and saying, look, 96 percent
of the government funding is agreed upon. Let's
just pass that. We'll handle DHS and the border
separately. Which sounds completely logical on
paper. You know, isolate the radioactive part
immigration, ICE, the border, and keep the lights
on for the rest of the country. It prevents a
total shutdown. It does. Yeah. But Thun is having
none of it. because of leverage. It's all about
leverage. Precisely. Thune understands the game
board better than people give him credit for.
He knows that if he agrees to split the bills,
he loses all his power. He gives up the whole
game. The rest of the government gets funded
and suddenly the Democrats have zero incentive
to give Republicans what they want on DHS. Yeah.
If the Parks Department and the Pentagon are
funded, the pressure's off. Democrats can just
let the DHS funding hang there forever. And Thune
knows that If he allows that to happen, if he
gives up that leverage, it will, well, the sources
say it will infuriate Donald Trump. The reporting
says he's scared to death of that scenario. He
doesn't want to be the one who folded. So we're
heading toward a standoff. And here's the trap.
OK. If the government shuts down over this specific
slice of funding, the Republican narrative is
already written. They'll just claim Democrats
want to defund ICE. Which brings us to, I think,
the most fascinating piece of political analysis
in our stack today, because defund ICE is a politically
toxic accusation. Oh, it is. But the Democrats
might actually have a counter move this time.
I was digging into this report from the Searchlight
Institute, their democratic think tank, and they're
pushing this concept called popularism. Popularism
is such an interesting framework. It almost sounds
redundant, like, shouldn't politicians do popular
things? But in our current climate, it's actually
radical. It basically means advocating for policies
that are actually popular with a majority of
voters rather than, you know, prioritizing things
that satisfy ideological purity or the activist
base. And Searchlight just dropped a poll that
completely upends that defund ICE narrative.
The numbers are just wild. They are. They found
that 58 % of voters want to reform ICE, not abolish
it. And when you look at independents, you know,
the people who actually decide elections. Swing
voters. Yeah, the swing voters. 35 % of them
favor reform over any other option. So the big
insight here is that the defund slogan was a
total disaster, but reform is a winner. That's
it exactly. Voters want border security. They
want deportation of undocumented immigrants.
The data is really clear on that. But... And
this is a key nuance. They're uncomfortable with
the tactics. So things like warrants. Warrants
for entering homes. They want officers to wear
uniforms and identification. They want to bar
the detention of U .S. citizens. Basic stuff.
So the strategy Searchlight is proposing is for
Democrats to say, fine, we'll fund DHS. We aren't
defunding anything, but we will only release
the money if you pass these specific reforms.
It flips the script. Instead of being the party
of abolish, which sounds, you know, chaotic.
They become the party of accountability. And
that forces Republicans to explain why they oppose
requiring a warrant to enter a home. Yeah, that's
a tough position for a Republican to defend to
a libertarian -leaning voter. No, we don't want
warrants. It's tough. It is. The source notes
that unlike Henry Clay... these strategists would
rather be president than be right in some academic
sense. It's about winning. Meeting voters where
they are. Meeting voters where they are. Hold
that thought because we are definitely coming
back to that. But first, speaking of unpopular
positions and hard tactics, we have to pivot
to the executive branch. OK. Because while Congress
is in this staring contest, the FBI is making
moves down in Georgia. This is the story out
of Fulton County. And frankly, this reads less
like a political update and more like I don't
know, a legal thriller? It really does. Yesterday,
the FBI executed a search warrant at the Fulton
County elections office. And this wasn't some
random inquiry. This was directed by Cash Patel.
And driven, according to our sources, by Donald
Trump's lingering obsession with the 2020 election.
It is 2026. I know. We are six years removed
from that election. We are. But the grievance,
it remains the central operating principle for
the former president. The source points out that
despite the Georgia Secretary of State, a Republican.
Right, a Republican. And multiple judges all
saying there was no fraud. The administration
is using federal law enforcement to go in and
inspect 2020 records. There was a detail in the
reporting that just gave me chills. The fear
among the election officials isn't just that
the FBI is looking, it's what happens if they
seize the ballots. You break the chain of custody.
Exactly. They could physically destroy the margin
of victory. The 11 ,780 votes. Yes. If those
ballots disappear or if they're compromised.
They can claim a retroactive victory. They can
say, see, the evidence is gone. The count was
wrong. I won. It's pure score settling. And you
have to look at the personnel moves to really
understand how this happened. The top FBI agent
in Atlanta, Paul Brown, was replaced just a week
before this raid. That is not a coincidence.
It just can't be. It suggests a clearing of the
decks. They needed someone in place who would
ensure this operation went forward without any
internal resistance. It's just using the machinery
of government to relitigate the past. So you
had the executive branch looking backward at
2020. Meanwhile, in the House, the Democrats
are trying to use their own limited machinery
to go after the current administration. Right.
The impeachment of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.
This is the violence unleashed resolution. Over
160 Democrats have cosigned it. They're charging
that her management of DHS has led to violence
against the American people. But we have to be
realistic about the math here. Democrats are
in the minority in the House. They can't actually
remove her, can they? No, not a chance. Even
if they passed it in the House, they need a two
thirds vote in the Senate to convict. That is
mathematically impossible. So the strategy isn't
removal. It's something else. It's exposure.
Because it's a privileged resolution, they can
force a floor vote. They can make everyone vote.
They can force every single member of the House
to go on the record. So it's strategic theater.
It is, but strategic theater has consequences.
First, it shows their base they're fighting.
But more importantly, it puts every single House
Republican in a bind. Because they have to vote
to support Noem. And if she continues to be unpopular...
and her approval ratings are really sliding,
that vote becomes an anchor around their necks
in the midterms. And there was a little crack
in the armor mentioned in the source that I found
really interesting. The retiring Republicans.
Yes. People like Tom Tillis or Thomas Massey,
they're leaving Congress. They don't fear Trump's
wrath anymore because they aren't running for
reelection. They have nothing to lose. Nothing
to lose. And if even one or two of them vote
for impeachment as a sort of parting shot or
just to clear their conscience, it becomes a
bipartisan rebuke. And that's a headline the
White House desperately wants to avoid. It would
be deeply embarrassing for Noam. OK, so let's
pause and look at the US side of the board. We
have the House playing offense with impeachment.
We have the Senate playing defense with a budget
standoff. And we have the White House playing
What time travel back to 2020? It's a picture
of total internal obsession. Everyone is looking
inward. Everyone is fighting over the scraps
of power inside the Beltway. And this is where
we have to switch screens because while we are
obsessed with Fulton County ballots and ICE funding,
the rest of the world. It isn't waiting. No,
it's moving on. And this is the most critical
part of today's deep dive. And it's the story
getting the least amount of coverage. The mother
of all trade deals. Ursula von der Leyen, the
president of the European Commission, is in India
right now. And she's not there for a photo op.
She is finalizing a massive agreement between
the EU and India. We're talking about a trade
zone covering two billion people. Two billion
people. Just think about the scale of that market
for a second and notice who isn't in the room.
The United States. We're completely cut out.
Completely. And this is not an accident. This
is the direct consequence of the America First
policy, especially the tariffs. The source is
very blunt about this. How so? Trump's unpredictability
foreign leaders are reportedly referring to him
as a mad king has forced the rest of the world
to build an economic architecture that just doesn't
rely on America anymore. I was really struck
by the specific economic examples in the report.
This isn't just abstract soft power. No, this
is real money. It's German car manufacturers
losing money in the U .S. market because of our
tariffs. So what do they do? They don't just
eat the loss. No, they pivot. They look at the
map and they see India. They see South America.
I mean, the EU just signed a deal with Mercosur,
the South American trading bloc. They're offsetting
their losses in the U .S. by opening up markets
everywhere else. And that's the real danger,
isn't it? Once those supply chains shift, they
don't just snap back into place. Exactly. It
takes years to build these relationships, these
logistics. Once a German car company builds a
factory in India or Brazil to serve those markets,
they aren't going to shut it down just because
the U .S. changes its mind four years from now.
And it's not just manufacturing. It's the tech
sector, too. The source mentioned European companies
are prioritizing Airbus over Boeing, which is
not new. Right. but they're also actively moving
away from American software giants like Microsoft
and Oracle over data privacy concerns. It's a
decoupling. We talk a lot in Washington about
decoupling from China, but what we are seeing
here is the world decoupling from the United
States. Wow. Indian Prime Minister Modi looks
at the global board and he sees the EU as a stable,
predictable partner. He knows what the rules
are. As opposed to the US, where he has to worry
about a sudden tweet changing the entire deal
overnight. Precisely. There was a quote from
a European diplomat in the source material that
was just savage. What'd they say? They said,
we cannot have the security of Europe depend
on 4 ,000 voters in Wisconsin every four years.
Oof. I mean, it hurts to hear, but can you blame
them? You really can't. It's a rational calculation.
They are hedging their bets against American
instability and the cost to us. It isn't just
prestige, it's markets. It's jobs. It's the dollar
status as the reserve currency. It feels like
we are sleepwalking into irrelevance while we
argue about who gets to count the ballots in
one county in Georgia. That is the danger. We
are so focused on the internal fight, the hot
potato, that we aren't even noticing the external
walls going up all around us. Speaking of internal
fights. We have to talk about the Democrats again.
We touched on that popularism idea earlier. Yeah,
doing what's popular. But there's a deeper identity
crisis happening that explains why they struggle
with that so much. There is. And we can kind
of look at it through the lens of a specific
race down in Florida. Alexander Vindman, you
remember him? Of course. The impeachment witness,
L .T. Curl Vindman. He's running for Senate in
Florida against Ashley Moody. He is. And he raised
$1 .7 million in 24 hours. That's a record -breaking
number for a rollout. So the enthusiasm is there.
The money is there. But the state is still...
Solid Republican. Exactly. And this brings us
to the analysis by Thomas Edsall and Noah Smith
in our source deck. They argue that while individual
candidates like Vindman can raise tons of cash
from the base, the Democratic brand itself is
deeply unpopular with the working class. The
numbers on this were just staggering. Six in
10 working class voters view the party negatively.
And the authors did this linguistic analysis
that I found so telling. Oh, the vocabulary shift.
It's fascinating data. Tell me about it. They
looked at Democratic messaging since 2012. Usage
of words like equity went up over 700 percent.
Usage of LGBT and related terms went up over
a thousand percent. OK, so they're talking more
about social justice. That makes sense. But look
at what they stopped talking about. In that same
period, usage of the word responsibility dropped
83 percent. Usage of the phrase middle class
dropped 79 percent. That is a massive drop. It
just it paints a picture of a party that has
shifted its focus. entirely to identity groups
and away from these universal themes like duty
and economics. And the perception among working
class voters, and this is white, black, and Hispanic
voters, is that the party is, to quote the source,
woke, weak, and out of touch. They hear the language
change and they feel excluded. There was a specific
example given that really nailed this for me.
It was about how President Biden announced his
Supreme Court pick a few years ago. Right. He
announced he would only consider a black woman
for the seat. Now, to be clear, the critique
isn't about picking a black woman. The candidate
he picked was eminently qualified. The critique
is about the framing. So if he had just said,
I'm going to look at everyone and pick the best
person and then. pick the exact same candidate.
The message is excellence. It implies she beat
out everyone else. But by ruling everyone else
out beforehand, the message that so many voters
heard, especially those working class voters
the Democrats are hemorrhaging, was exclusion.
It goes right back to that Searchlight Institute
poll, doesn't it? Yeah. It's the difference between
being an ideological movement and a political
party. That is the fundamental tension right
there. An ideological movement wants to change
the language. It wants to change the culture.
It prioritizes purity and correctness. But a
political party's job is different. Completely
different. Its job is to build a coalition big
enough to win 50 % plus one of the vote. And
to do that, you have to talk about things like
the middle class and responsibility. So the analysis
suggests they've become excellent at being a
movement and increasingly bad at being a party.
They are winning the argument on Twitter and
losing the vote in Florida. So if we pull all
of this together, if we look at that whole split
screen. What are we really looking at? We're
looking at a system under stress from every conceivable
angle. You have a Republican party led by a figure
who is so obsessed with the past, he's using
the FBI to chase ghosts in Georgia. You have
a Senate leadership that's terrified of his own
base, which leads to total paralysis on the budget.
And you have a Democratic party that is trying
to figure out how to talk to normal people again
without getting canceled by its own activists.
And while all of this is happening, while we
are gazing at our own navel, The global economy
is being rewired by Europe and India to exclude
us. It's a lot. It really is. It is. But that's
why we do the deep dive. To see the whole board.
Because if you only look at the headlines about
the shutdown, you miss the trade deal. And if
you only look at the trade deal, you miss the
voter sentiment shifts that made that possible
in the first place. And hopefully you realize
that this game of hot potato has real... lasting
consequences. The world isn't waiting for us
to finish the game. That is the thought I want
to leave you with today. If the U .S. continues
to turn inward with trade wars and backward with
election re -litigation, how long until America
first actually results in America being last
in the room where the decisions are made? It's
a question we might be answering sooner than
we think. Thanks for listening to the Deep Dive.
We'll see you next time.