So imagine trying to project global strength
when your military is literally running out of
missiles. And your most fiercely loyal political
allies are suddenly calling you a terrorist.
The Vatican is actively icing you out. And your
own household is broadcasting these cryptic,
defiant messages to the world. Yeah, it sounds
like absolute fiction. It sounds exactly like
a hypothetical premise for a political thriller.
That is the exact reality of the landscape we
are waking up to today, because today is Friday,
April 10th, 2026. Welcome to the deep dive. We
are opening up a massive stack of recent reporting
that shows an administration facing just an absolutely
perfect storm. We're talking extreme simultaneous
pressure coming from every conceivable angle.
And before we really get into the weeds of this,
I need to pause and set some very firm ground
rules for you, the listener. because the sources
we are unpacking today, they contain intense,
highly charged political developments from across
the entire spectrum. Exactly. There is polarizing
rhetoric, there are serious accusations, and
quite frankly, there is a lot of emotional volatility
in these reports. So I want to make it explicitly
clear right now. Our goal in this deep dive is
absolutely not to take sides. No. Not at all.
We are not here to endorse any of these viewpoints,
and we are not here to validate the political
rhetoric you're going to hear about. Our mission
is strictly, impartially, to synthesize the facts
exactly as they've been reported in the source
material. We want to give you the broader picture
of what is structurally happening without any
partisan spin. Right. And the roadmap for this
journey is dense. We are going to start with
the stark physical reality of the military supply
chain. Then we'll look at how the fallout from
that global conflict is causing serious structural
cracks in a famously loyal domestic political
base. It's fascinating to see unfold. It really
is. And from there, we'll examine a truly bizarre
diplomatic showdown with the Vatican. And finally,
we'll end on the home front, where the walls
seem to be closing in both legally and personally
for the administration's inner circle. It is
a remarkable convergence of pressures. Because,
I mean, you really cannot execute any kind of
foreign or domestic policy without the basic
hardware to enforce it. And the political capital
to back it up. Exactly. OK, so let's start right
there with the literal hardware. But it's easy
to talk about foreign policy in the abstract,
right? But right now, there is a very physical
constraint happening. The literal arsenal is
running on empty. So how bad is the depletion
of the stockpile right now? It is severe. According
to the latest Bloomberg reporting, the U .S.
military is currently committing almost its entire
stockpile of JSMER cruise missiles to the Iran
War. Okay. For the listener, what exactly are
those? So, they are highly advanced, stealthy
standoff weapons designed to penetrate heavily
defended airspace. And out of a pre -war stockpile
of roughly 2 ,300 of these specific missiles,
the data shows that only 425 are going to remain
available. Wait, 425 out of 2 ,300? Yeah, only
425 for use anywhere else in the world. That
means we are burning through our most advanced
munitions in one single theater. But I don't
quite get how we burn through them so fast. Like,
wars are expensive, sure. But what is the actual
math on this burn rate? The sheer volume of munitions
being expended is just staggering. If you look
at the financial data from just the first 16
days of the Iran War, coalition forces fired
over 11 ,000 munitions. Wow. In 16 days. Yeah,
that translates to a cost of roughly $26 billion
in just over two weeks. That is unbelievable.
And, you know, this isn't solely an American
supply chain issue. It is severely draining our
ally stockpiles as well. The data from JINSA
estimates that the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain have
already used up more than 75 percent of their
Patriot interceptors. More than 75 percent. So
they're practically empty. Basically, yes. And
Israel is now actively having to ration its high
end Arrow 3 missiles. I mean, it's like maxing
out all your credit cards in the first week of
a year -long road trip. You might be moving fast
right now, but you are completely exposed for
the rest of the journey. If another crisis kicks
off tomorrow, the funding and the physical assets
just aren't there. What's fascinating here is
the underlying timeline of defense manufacturing.
Because you can't just flip a switch and print
more of these systems overnight. Interceptors
are highly complex pieces of technology. Right,
they take a long time. Exactly. They take years,
not months, to build. The geopolitical risk of
a conflict like this was theoretically priced
into the market, which is why defense stocks
actually lagged the broader market initially.
Oh, interesting. But the physical reality of
rebuilding these depleted stockpiles means that
governments around the world are fundamentally
exposed right now. So I imagine the defense industry
is scrambling to keep up, right? This has to
be a massive multi -year tailwind for those companies.
Oh, absolutely. The administration has asked
Congress for $1 .5 trillion in military spending
for fiscal year 2027. A trillion and a half dollars.
Yes. And the Pentagon is asking for an immediate
$200 billion supplement. If you look at a defense
prime like Carmen... According to the Financial
Times data, they now have nearly 50 % of their
sales coming entirely from missile -related revenue.
50%. Wow. Because every government realizes they
cannot afford to stay exposed. But the problem
isn't just finding the money. It's the physical
capacity of the industrial base to actually deliver
those complex layered shield components. Right.
The factories can only work so fast. Exactly.
You need... OEA batteries, which shoot down short
and medium -range ballistic missiles. You need
Patriot systems. You need sea -based Aegis systems.
And the reality is the industrial base is functionally
running at the capacity to produce them fast
enough. OK. So the literal military stockpile
is drained. But how does that physical drain
translate to a political drain? Because a war
this expensive, burning through $26 billion in
16 days, that cannot be universally popular,
even with the administration's own base. And
that is exactly what the report This Iran war
isn't just costing billions of dollars. It is
costing the administration the support of its
most fiercely loyal followers. The rhetoric surrounding
this war... Specifically, some of the very casual
calls for genocide against the Iranian people
on social media has crossed a hard line for major
figures in the Mejia movement and what is often
called the Manosphere. OK, let's unpack this.
Because, you know, are we overstating this a
bit? Influencers and podcasters fight all the
time for engagement and clicks. Is this really
a massive shift or just a temporary family squabble
playing out online? It is far more serious than
a squabble. I mean, this is the exact information
ecosystem that essentially built and sustained
the modern populist movement for the past decade.
Yeah, that's true. And the reaction over the
last few weeks has been exceptionally severe.
Take Tucker Carlson, for example. He released
a skating 43 minute direct to camera video attacking
the president. 43 minutes just going after him.
Completely. He was furious about Trump tweeting
the f word on Easter morning asking, quote, Who
do you think you are? But he went much further
than just criticizing the tone. What else did
he say? Carlson actually urged U .S. military
officers to refuse illegal orders to kill civilians,
explicitly citing the Uniform Code of Military
Justice or the UCMJ. Wait, he cited the UCMJ?
He did. That is a massive escalation. Right.
Reminding the military that they are legally
required to disobey illegal orders from the commander
in chief is not your standard media critique.
That is bordering on calling for mutiny. Exactly.
There's a profound shift in rhetoric. And, you
know, it's not just Carlson. You have Alex Jones,
who appeared visibly emotional on his broadcast,
calling the president a dementia risk, who must
be removed from office. Wow. You have Megyn Kelly,
who went on her radio show. and said she is,
quote, sick of this shush. She stated that casually
threatening to wipe out an entire civilization
in a social media post is completely irresponsible
and disgusting. And then you have the podcasters,
right? The Manosphere influencers who were absolutely
crucial in getting out the vote in the last election.
Yes. The exodus there is staggering. Joe Rogan
is now calling the war insane. Rogan said that.
Yep. Theo Vaughn, another major podcaster, tweeted
that the U .S. and Israel are the actual terrorists
in this scenario. Tim Dillon called Magier the
greatest con in history. Good grief. You even
have a prominent streamer like Sneco openly stating
that he misses Joe Biden. That is wild. And how
is the president reacting to this? Because usually
his strategy is to ignore these things or brush
them off as fake news. He posted a massive unhinged
wall of text rant on social media, no paragraph
breaks, entirely focused on attacking these former
allies. He called them low IQ, stupid losers,
trying to latch onto MAGA and mock them for having
third rate podcasts. So what does this all mean
for the administration politically? Because name
calling online is one thing, but how does this
hit the ballot box? The stakes here are existential
for that political movement. The president is
clearly furious that his former sheep are trying
to shear him, as the reporting characterizes
it. But the real structural danger isn't that
they are fighting online. It's the underlying
mechanism of how this voter base gets its information.
Traditional politicians often misunderstand this.
These podcasters aren't just entertainers. They
are the primary news source and ideological compass
for millions of highly engaged voters. The danger
is what their listeners do in November. If these
voters decide to jump ship to the blue team,
or even if they just stay home because they are
disillusioned by the war, that coalition collapses.
It's the cost of war coming home to roost at
the ballot box. But here's the thing. It's not
just the new age populist podcasters that are
revolting. What happens when an administration
decides to pick a fight with one of the oldest,
most traditional institutions on earth? It is
a genuinely baffling diplomatic strategy. You
know, you think of the famous Theodore Roosevelt
approach to foreign policy. Speak softly and
carry a big stick. Exactly. The sources we are
looking at describe this administration's current
approach as the exact opposite. Bluster loudly
and carry a small stick. bluster loudly and carry
a small stick. That is a brutal assessment. So
what exactly sparked this showdown with the Vatican?
Well, back in January, Team Trump actually summoned
Cardinal Christophe Pierre to demand that the
Catholic Church take their side regarding the
war in Venezuela. OK. And according to the reporting,
administration officials boasted that the U .S.
military can do, quote, whatever it wants in
the world. And then one of the officials actually
brought up the Avignon Papacy as a threat. OK,
for anyone who isn't a 14th century European
history buff, the Avignon Papacy refers to a
period where a succession of popes were essentially
held hostage in France and forced to take their
marching orders from the French crown. To bring
that up to a Vatican ambassador in the 21st century,
I mean, it's just absolute hubris. It's like
a decade old tech startup trying to execute a
hostile takeover of a legacy monopoly that literally
prints its own currency. You do not try to bully
an institution that has been operating for 2000
years. And the church is clearly not intimidated.
The fallout from that meeting has been swift
and highly visible. Shortly after, the Vatican
canceled a planned papal visit to the U .S. that
was meant to coincide with the country's 250th
anniversary celebrations. That's a huge snub.
It gets worse. Even more pointedly, Pope Leo
IV recently held a meeting with Obama insider
David Axelrod. which is widely seen as a precursor
to a meeting with the former Democratic president
himself. I imagine the administration's poll
numbers among Catholics are taking a massive
hit because of this. They are cratering. The
polling data shows Pope Leo has a net approval
rating in the U .S. of plus 34. The president
is hovering around negative 20. And the administration's
support among Catholics was already bleeding
out even before the Iran war started. White Catholic
support dropped from the 60s down to 50%. Latino
Catholic support plummeted from the low 30s down
to just 23%. And why is that specific drop from
the low 30s to 23 %? among Latino Catholics so
critical. Because of the electoral map. Elections
in key battleground states, particularly Texas
and Florida, hinge heavily on the margins provided
by Latino Catholic voters. Right. If the administration's
bluster alienates this demographic to the point
where they vote Democratic or simply stay home,
the GOP faces an absolute disaster in the November
elections. So just to recap the landscape so
far for you, the listener, the literal military
hardware is strained to the breaking point. The
populist podcast base is in open revolt. The
religious demographics are heavily alienated.
The pressure is coming from everywhere. And now
we transition to the final frontier of this perfect
storm. The pressure is breaching the president's
own household and his past actions are catching
up with him in court. It's where the political
strategy breaks down and becomes intensely personal.
Let's talk about the Melania situation. Because
out of nowhere, the First Lady called a press
conference and gave a speech where she essentially
channeled Margaret Thatcher. Yes. It was this
fierce cutthroat denial of any ties to Jeffrey
Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. She specifically
released a relatively benign email addressed
to G, emphasized that she didn't meet her husband
through Epstein, but rather by chance at a party.
in 1998, and then in a truly bizarre pivot, used
the moment to plug her book titled Melania. It
was a deeply unusual public appearance, both
in its timing and its content. But the president's
reaction to her speech was incredibly dark. What
did he do? Instead of defending her directly,
he posted a horrific video on social media of
a Haitian immigrant murdering a woman with a
hammer. Wait, hold on. Is it possible people
are reading too much into this? Like posting
a video about violent crime and border policies
to blame Joe Biden? as a standard playbook for
him? Are the sources absolutely convinced this
was a veiled threat directed at his wife? It's
the timing that makes the intelligence community
and political analysts view it as a threat. OK.
Because the White House initially claimed they
had no idea she was going to give that speech.
The president's post immediately followed her
defiant independent press conference. Whether
intentional or not, it projects extreme instability
from the very core of the administration. Here's
where it gets really interesting. What is driving
Melania's timing here? That's the question. Right.
Does she just decide to give this speech during
a lull in the Iran war because she has terrible
PR instincts? You know, the Streisand effect
where trying to suppress or hide something only
draws massive public attention to it. Or is she
deliberately getting out ahead of a much larger,
imminent bombshell? That ambiguity is exactly
what makes the situation so volatile. And, you
know, that internal instability is happening
at the exact same time that the legal walls are
closing in. Yeah, the civil suits. Exactly. While
the family drama is playing out publicly, Judge
Amit Meth had just issued a major ruling regarding
the January 6th civil suits brought by Capitol
Police and members of Congress. Right. The president's
legal team filed a motion for summary judgment
to get the whole thing thrown out before it could
go to trial. Yes, and the judge denied it. Trump's
legal team argued that his actions on January
6, specifically the ellipse speech where he told
the crowd to fight like hell, were official acts
of the presidency and therefore he had absolute
immunity from any civil liability. But Judge
Mita made a critical distinction about what constitutes
an official act, didn't he? He did. If we connect
this to the bigger picture, it goes back to the
Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity.
Judge Mehta ruled that Trump's actions that day
were done in his capacity as an office seeker,
a candidate running for election, not as an office
holder, executing the duties of the presidency.
Meaning, just because you happen to be sitting
in the Oval Office doesn't mean everything you
do is an official presidential act. If you are
acting as a candidate trying to win an election,
you get no more legal protection than any other
citizen running for office. Precisely. The judge
completely rejected the claim of automatic immunity
for candidate actions. Furthermore, the Department
of Justice actually asked the court to let it
substitute the U .S. government as the defendant
in the case. Wait, why would the DOJ want to
do that? Because if the U .S. government is the
defendant, the American taxpayers would be on
the hook for any financial damages awarded to
the Capitol Police or Congress members, not Trump
himself. But the judge said no to that, too.
She did. Because the acts were deemed unofficial,
personal acts of a candidate, the DOJ has no
legal basis to step in and absorb the liability.
The request was denied. Trump remains personally
on the hook as the sole defendant. Which means
personal financial ruin is on the table and this
is actually going to trial. The delay tactics
completely ran out and the timing of this, well,
this civil trial over the events of January 6
could easily be happening right as voters are
heading to the polls. It is the culmination of
all these systemic pressures. You have a massive
civil trial regarding the attempt to overturn
the last election happening simultaneously with
the upcoming election. So let's bring this all
together for you, the listener. We started this
deep dive looking for a localized crisis. But
what the sources have revealed is an administration
caught in a flawless 360 degree storm. The physical
mechanisms of their foreign policy are failing.
They are running out of literal cruise missiles
and scrambling to fund complex defense manufacturing.
They are burning through years of hard -earned
political goodwill, getting into screaming matches
with the very podcasters who serve as the information
ecosystem for their base. They are trying to
bully the pope with historical threats, alienating
crucial Catholic voters in states like Florida
and Texas that they absolutely must win. And
on top of all, that, they're facing a deeply
unsettling marital standoff and a massive civil
trial where the president is entirely stripped
of his immunity. All of these seemingly isolated
crises are hurtling toward a single point of
impact, and that is the ballot box this November.
And as you watch all of this unfold, this raises
an important question that I want to leave you
with, one that stems directly from our initial
look at the military supply chain. OK, what is
it? We know from the hard data. that the United
States and its allies are functionally out -of
-reserve interceptor missiles. The global stockpile
is essentially empty. If a completely unforeseen
third global conflict were to erupt tomorrow
in another part of the world, a flashpoint no
one is currently predicting does the U .S. even
have the physical capacity to respond or has
the global shield already been entirely spent?
That is a chilling question and definitely something
to keep in mind as we watch these headlines continue
to develop and interact with each other. Thank
you so much for joining us on this deep dive.
We'll be back next time with another stack of
sources to unpack. Take care everyone.