Subscribe now

My central argument is that the administration entered this conflict without fully understanding the consequences of its actions. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the economic fallout, and the political pressure that followed exposed what I see as a profound level of incompetence at the highest levels of government. The result was a White House scrambling for an exit while attempting to sell that retreat as a triumph.

But the conversation quickly expanded beyond Iran itself. Mainstream media continues to cover Donald Trump as though he were a conventional political actor. Too often, major outlets report his statements and claims without providing the necessary context about his long history of lies, contradictions, and misinformation. That style of reporting normalizes behavior that should be challenged and examined more aggressively.

I contrasted that approach with independent outlets like the Midas Touch Network, which spend more time connecting the dots between past reporting and current events, helping audiences understand not just what happened, but how we got here.

The discussion ultimately became a broader reflection on the future of journalism. Independent media is growing rapidly, but it still lacks the resources and infrastructure of legacy news organizations. As mainstream outlets struggle with corporate pressures, access journalism, and fear of political retaliation, the need for stronger independent reporting has never been greater.

The question isn’t whether the media is failing. The question is whether independent journalism can grow quickly enough to fill the void before the damage becomes irreversible.

Trump’s “Fantastic Deal” With Iran: Who Actually Won This War?

I’m doing this one from a friend’s place in rural Pennsylvania. It’s a genuinely beautiful morning — birds everywhere, a chipmunk made a brief appearance — and here I am talking about the U.S.-Iran war. Sometimes things don’t work well together.

Subscribe now

We appear to be on the verge of an end to the conflict. Confirmation is coming from the Pakistanis, from the Iranians themselves, and from the usual flood of leaks out of Washington. Trump has declared a “fantastic deal” so many times at this point that the phrase has lost all meaning — but this time, something does seem to be getting finalized. So it’s worth asking a simple question before everyone moves on to the next news cycle: when the dust settles, who actually won?

Based on everything that’s leaked about the terms, Iran comes out of this war in a significantly stronger position than when it entered.

Start with the Strait of Hormuz. Iran is reportedly going to retain control of the waterway and charge a toll — $2 million per ship. With roughly a hundred ships transiting per day, that’s $200 million in daily revenue, split between Iran and Oman. Iran’s share alone amounts to approximately $100 million per day, every day — money that flows into a government with a long history of funding regional proxy forces and pursuing a nuclear program. Annualized, that number is almost incomprehensible.

Then there’s the money that’s already changed hands. Reuters reported that the UAE paid Iran $3 billion as what amounted to a protection payment — stop attacking us, here’s your down payment, with potentially $10 to $20 billion to follow. The UAE denies it. Reuters is standing by the story. What remains genuinely unclear is where the money came from: frozen Iranian assets, Emirati funds, or something routed through the Gulf with Washington’s fingerprints carefully removed. With this administration, none of those scenarios is far-fetched. It could just as easily be your tax dollars.

On top of that, sanctions relief appears to be part of the deal, meaning Iran will be able to sell oil on the open market again — another massive recurring revenue stream that had been cut off for years.

Now consider what the U.S. actually achieved. The justifications for the war shifted so many times in the early weeks that it was hard to keep track. Eventually the administration settled on the nuclear threat as its primary rationale. But Iran’s military infrastructure is intact. The regime didn’t fall — it consolidated. The old Ayatollah has been succeeded by his son, who is by most accounts younger, healthier, and more hardline. The war didn’t weaken the Iranian government. It handed it a generational financial windfall and left it more entrenched than before.

This is the outcome. A more radical Iranian regime, flush with cash, in control of one of the world’s most strategically critical waterways — while millions of Americans have lost their health insurance because this same administration refused to extend ACA subsidies, and unemployment continues to climb.

The deal may end the shooting. It doesn’t change what this war produced.

Subscribe now

Here’s what Engel reported: a senior negotiator directly involved in mediating talks between the U.S. and Iran expressed deep frustration after Trump had a copy of the latest negotiation proposal in his hands — a proposal that may have been close to forming the basis of a deal — and instead ordered last night’s strikes on Iran. The negotiator’s words were blunt: Trump “has the deal in his hands now.” And he attacked anyway.

This isn’t just recklessness or even just MAGA level stupidity. This is the behavior of a man who is cognitively and psychologically incapable of following through on a coherent strategy. Mental health professionals and psychiatrists in independent media have increasingly pointed toward prefrontal dementia as a likely explanation for what we’re watching. Combined with what appears to be malignant narcissism — and an obsessive, pathological need to win — Trump has reached a point where he can’t recognize an agreement even when it’s sitting right in front of him. So he keeps escalating. He keeps undermining deals and ordering strikes because his damaged mind can no longer distinguish between winning and losing.

The consequences of this are not abstract. People are dying. Our soldiers are being put in harm’s way based on impulsive, contradictory orders from a non-functioning commander-in-chief. This war could end in an hour, or it could drag on for years — and right now, that outcome depends almost entirely on the deteriorating mental state of one sociopath.

Subscribe now

The discussion began with a newly reported story from the New York Times concerning internal White House efforts to manage the fallout from the Jeffrey Epstein files controversy. While much of the reporting appeared to reinforce suspicions and reporting that had circulated previously, the significance of the story lies in its confirmation that senior officials viewed the issue as a major political threat. The broader argument was that the Epstein controversy remains one of the few stories capable of cutting across partisan lines and continuing to damage Trump politically.

The second major topic was the escalating conflict involving Iran. Reports of a U.S. helicopter being shot down, subsequent retaliatory strikes, and concerns about further military escalation raised questions about the possibility of a deeper American involvement in the region. The discussion also explored how renewed conflict could affect energy markets and consumer prices in the weeks ahead.

Economic news provided the third major focus. Inflation reportedly rose to 4.2%, the highest level since 2023, while wage growth continues to lag behind rising prices. The combination of higher fuel costs, increased household expenses, and uncertainty over future Federal Reserve decisions was presented as a growing challenge for the administration.

Finally, the live reviewed several election results, including Nancy Mace’s stunning defeat in South Carolina and key races in Maine, California, Nevada, and South Carolina. The broader takeaway was that voter frustration appears to be growing, and several races that once looked safe for Republicans may become far more competitive heading into the next election cycle.

The central theme of the discussion was simple: individually, each of these stories would be significant. Together, they create a political storm that may prove difficult for the administration to escape.

Not because I agreed with his politics—I didn’t. But after surviving the 2017 congressional baseball shooting and fighting his way back to Congress, Scalise became a symbol of perseverance, resilience, and basic human decency. Watching him return to the House chamber after nearly losing his life was one of those rare moments that transcended politics.

Subscribe now

That’s what makes his transformation so disappointing.

In today’s live discussion, I took a hard look at what Steve Scalise has become during the Trump era: a politician desperately trying to walk an impossible line between being a serious public servant and being a loyal MAGA foot soldier. Unlike the Randy Fines and Andy Ogleses of the world—politicians whose extremism, bigotry, and performative outrage appear completely authentic—Scalise knows better. That’s what makes his behavior so much more pathetic.

The focus of the conversation was Scalise’s attempt to amplify Donald Trump’s latest claims about election fraud in California. Yet even while pushing the narrative, Scalise couldn’t bring himself to actually make the fraud accusation. Instead, he resorted to the familiar MAGA strategy of hinting, suggesting, and implying that something must be wrong because California takes longer to count votes.

The problem is that California’s slower vote count has nothing to do with fraud. It has everything to do with counting millions of ballots, verifying signatures, curing ballot defects, and ensuring eligible voters are not disenfranchised. In other words, the delays exist because California prioritizes both election integrity and voter access.

What struck me most wasn’t the weakness of Scalise’s argument. It was the weakness of the man making it.

The Steve Scalise who survived tragedy and earned bipartisan respect deserved admiration. The Steve Scalise who now bends himself into knots trying to please Donald Trump while pretending to remain a serious statesman is something else entirely: a cautionary tale about what happens when political ambition becomes more important than personal integrity.

Subscribe now

Here’s where we stand: Iran fired ballistic missiles into Israel in response to Israeli strikes on the suburbs of Beirut — strikes that killed civilians, including children. Israel shot most of them down. Israel then hit military sites in Iran. Iran said it would stop firing if Israel stopped bombing Lebanon. Trump went on Truth Social and basically told everyone to knock it off. And then Israel hit Lebanon again anyway.

That’s it. That’s the story. The so-called leader of the free world issued a direct order to stand down, and the country that receives more U.S. military aid than any other on earth looked him in the face and ignored him.

Meanwhile our military is parked in the Strait of Hormuz doing essentially nothing — exhausting our sailors, burning fuel, wasting resources — while Iran gets supplies from China and Pakistan through land routes anyway. The blockade isn’t working. And Trump is out there calling it incredible.

I also get into the Epstein files, the immunity clause Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche is desperately trying to shore up, and why I think the legal groundwork being laid right now is specifically about protecting Trump from crimes we haven’t even seen yet.

Netanyahu is running out Trump’s clock and protecting himself from a corruption trial in the process. Iran is winning the PR war. And Cuba is probably watching all of this and breathing a sigh of relief.

This is the weakest Trump has ever looked. Geopolitically, there’s no debate.

The hard truth is the U.S. has lost its leverage. Israel isn’t afraid of us. Iran isn’t afraid of us. Whatever happens next is entirely up to them. If they want a full-scale war, there’s nothing Trump can do about it short of sending troops back in — and I don’t think he’s going to do that. My prediction is he lets them fight, declares we tried, and walks away.

That’s probably the best case scenario at this point. The worst case is Netanyahu manipulates him back into the conflict. We’ll be going live on this in a couple of hours — stay tuned.

Subscribe now

Since Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” on April 2nd, 2025 — when his tariff insanity went into overdrive — the U.S. has added a net zero jobs. Nothing. And now, out of nowhere, we get one blowout report and the press acts like the economy is back. Stop it.

Here’s what actually happened: the World Cup is coming to the U.S., and hospitality businesses — hotels, restaurants, bars — have been staffing up in anticipation. These are likely temporary hires. Seasonal. Event-driven. And here’s the kicker — there’s a very real chance those tourists never show up in the numbers anyone is counting on, because people around the world are genuinely afraid to travel to the United States right now. ICE detentions, customs harassment, social media screenings — the word is out. Tourism is already cratering. Las Vegas is having its worst year on record.

Meanwhile, the Dow is down nearly 500 points, the S&P is down 150, and the NASDAQ is off almost a thousand. Wall Street is not buying the headline. Neither should you.

This jobs report is a blip. A temporary, World Cup-flavored blip. Don’t let them gaslight you.

Subscribe now

Rather than viewing her restraint as weakness, I argued that it may actually be a sign of strength. Collins appears unfazed by Trump’s attacks, maintaining her professionalism while continuing to do her job. The more I thought about it, the more it seemed that her refusal to engage on Trump’s terms may be a deliberate choice rather than an inability to push back.

The conversation then shifted to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Representative Ted Lieu. I reviewed Lieu’s aggressive questioning during a congressional hearing and argued that Democrats are becoming more effective when they stay focused on a single issue instead of allowing administration officials to move from topic to topic. In my view, sustained pressure often reveals more than a rapid-fire series of questions ever could.

Finally, I broke down the Senate’s ongoing “vote-a-rama” and explained why the reconciliation process matters. While much of the debate is procedural, the underlying fight involves billions of dollars in spending priorities and growing signs that some Republican senators may be reluctant to give Trump everything he wants. Whether those concerns translate into meaningful opposition remains to be seen, but the political dynamics are worth watching closely.

Throughout the discussion, the broader theme remained the same: accountability matters, persistence matters, and sometimes the most revealing reactions are the ones that never happen.

Subscribe now

First, Donald Trump’s decision to elevate Bill Pulte to Acting Director of National Intelligence raises serious questions about qualifications, accountability, and the increasing concentration of power among loyalists. Pulte is best known not for intelligence or national security experience, but for his aggressive efforts to target individuals Trump views as political enemies. With oversight of critical intelligence functions now potentially falling under someone with no background in the field, the move highlights broader concerns about loyalty being valued over expertise throughout the administration.

I discuss why this appointment matters, what the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is responsible for, and why placing an inexperienced political ally in such a powerful position should concern Americans regardless of party affiliation. The discussion also explores the growing pattern of acting appointments being used to bypass immediate Senate scrutiny.

The second story focuses on yet another problem surrounding preparations for America’s 250th anniversary celebrations. Reports emerged that fuel spilled beneath the National Mall during event preparations, prompting cleanup efforts and raising questions about planning and oversight. The incident comes amid a series of epic failures surrounding the administration’s competing America 250 initiatives, including canceled events, logistical problems, and growing criticism of how the celebrations are being managed.

Taken together, these stories paint a picture of an administration increasingly defined by political loyalty, questionable decision-making, and operational failures. While larger headlines dominate the news cycle, these developments may offer a clearer view of how power is being exercised—and mismanaged—behind the scenes.

In this episode, I break down a detailed roundup of developments that received far less attention than they deserve, including Iran’s decision to halt diplomatic communications, escalating military operations in Lebanon, reported threats involving critical shipping routes, and the growing impact on global oil supplies. I also examine why energy markets reacted so sharply and what rising oil prices could mean for consumers in the United States.

Beyond the immediate headlines, I explore the broader strategic consequences of the conflict. Has the current approach made the region more stable or less stable? Are policymakers accurately assessing the long-term risks? And what happens if disruptions to global shipping lanes continue?

The discussion also touches on reports involving military activity in the region, questions surrounding U.S. preparedness, and concerns about the nation’s strategic petroleum reserves. If current trends continue, experts warn that the economic effects could extend far beyond temporary price spikes.

In the second half of the episode, I review several significant political developments closer to home, including a federal appeals court ruling on the transgender military ban, controversy surrounding CBS News leadership, the release of Tina Peters in Colorado, legal developments involving Trump allies, and other stories shaping today’s political landscape.

This is a fast-moving news cycle, and understanding the connections between these events is critical. Whether you’re focused on foreign policy, energy prices, democracy, or the 2026 political environment, these developments deserve attention.

From there, the conversation widens into a critique of the broader information environment: legacy media, propaganda, market manipulation, and the way political narratives are spun in real time. I also discusses the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu, the erosion of credibility around ceasefires and negotiations, and the danger of escalation into even more destructive military action.

The second major half of the stream becomes more personal. I reflect on my Jewish background, my years in Jewish communal work, and how my views on Israel changed through adulthood and exposure to different experiences and communities. I describe backlash from people I once knew while arguing against blind loyalty to any government. I try to frame moral clarity as more important than tribal identity.

The stream also touches on anti-Semitism, Gaza, civil rights, and the responsibility to speak out even when it costs socially.

Overall, it is a sprawling but cohesive live episode about power, decline, propaganda, and the moral burden of telling the truth in public.

Subscribe now

Bondi isn’t just a passive figure here. She’s central to the cover-up. The Epstein Transparency Act — signed into law with rare bipartisan support from the likes of Garcia, Massey, Ro Khanna, Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Nancy Mace — required the DOJ to release all the Epstein files. Not half. Not the ones that don’t implicate anyone powerful. All of them. That hasn’t happened. And Bondi, as the person who ran the DOJ, owns that failure.

Committee Chair James Comer, the congressional face of this cover-up, made sure there’d be no camera in that room today. That’s not an accident. The Democrats on the committee — led by ranking member Robert Garcia — are sharp, aggressive, and have the truth on their side. Garcia made it crystal clear before walking in: no video, no oath, only 50% of files released, and survivors’ private information recklessly exposed. The frustration in his voice was palpable. He and the Democrats are playing a rigged game with integrity, while the other side plays it with impunity.

Meanwhile, coming up: Leslie Groff, Bill Gates, Leon Black, Doug Band, and others are scheduled to testify. This investigation isn’t slowing down — but neither is the obstruction. We’ll cover the transcript the moment it drops, in full, live or recorded. Stay subscribed.

This episode tackles three major stories colliding at once: Jill Biden discussing President Biden’s disastrous 2024 debate performance, renewed tensions between the United States and Iran, and Donald Trump’s latest legal theatrics surrounding the Epstein scandal.

Subscribe now

The core argument centers on timing and political responsibility. After clips surfaced from Jill Biden’s upcoming interview in which she said she feared Joe Biden was “having a stroke” during his debate against Donald Trump, the episode questions why Democrats continue giving Republicans fresh distractions at a moment when the stakes for democracy remain extraordinarily high. The discussion argues that while Jill Biden has every right to tell her story, releasing a memoir and making emotionally charged comments before the midterms risks fueling right-wing media narratives instead of keeping public attention on Trump’s scandals, authoritarian behavior, and economic failures.

The episode then pivots to Trump’s renewed lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal over reporting tied to Jeffrey Epstein, framing the move as part of a broader effort to intimidate the press and distract from ongoing scrutiny surrounding Trump’s Epstein connections.

Finally, the conversation turns to the increasingly chaotic U.S.-Iran conflict. The episode criticizes both the Trump administration and legacy media coverage, arguing that the public is being told there is a “ceasefire” while missile strikes, drone attacks, and retaliatory military actions continue almost daily. The broader theme throughout the episode is frustration with political dysfunction, media normalization of chaos, and Democratic leaders who continue making unforced political errors at precisely the wrong moment.

Get more from Mitch Eiven in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Subscribe now

The discussion breaks down why traditional Republicans like Cornyn are becoming politically extinct inside today’s MAGA-dominated GOP. Despite years in the Senate and a late attempt to reinvent himself as a Trump loyalist, Cornyn was overwhelmingly rejected by Republican primary voters. The episode argues that Donald Trump still dominates Republican primaries — but that many Trump-backed candidates are becoming liabilities in general elections.

At the center of the conversation is Democratic candidate James Talarico, who is framed as a uniquely dangerous opponent for Republicans in Texas: a moderate Christian Democrat capable of appealing to independents, disaffected Republicans, suburban voters, and Texans exhausted by political extremism. The episode explores how Paxton’s scandals, legal baggage, and combative MAGA identity could repel voters outside the Republican base, especially amid economic frustration over inflation, beef prices, tariffs, and broader instability.

The discussion also expands beyond Texas, arguing that Republican senators who were humiliated or pushed out by MAGA politics — including figures like John Cornyn and others nearing retirement — now have an opportunity to break with Donald Trump and block parts of the Republican agenda in the Senate before leaving office.

The result is a wide-ranging, fiery analysis of Republican infighting, MAGA extremism, and why Texas may be more politically competitive than many people realize.

For more than a year, I’ve warned that the global economy feels dangerously unstable — and now the warning signs are flashing brighter than ever. In today’s episode, I break down a chilling analysis from The Guardian arguing that the world may be heading toward another massive financial crisis, one potentially worse than 2008.

Subscribe now

I explain why Trump’s tariff policies, rising geopolitical instability tied to the Iran conflict, exploding national debt, and the fragile AI investment bubble could become a perfect storm. We also talk about the terrifying possibility of foreign investors losing faith in U.S. Treasury bonds — something that nearly happened after Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariff chaos.

The bigger issue, though, isn’t just the possibility of a crash. It’s the fear that the people currently running the government are completely unequipped to handle one.

I also dive into the strange contradiction between record-low consumer confidence and high spending, the risks surrounding massive AI data-center investments, and why America’s economic system increasingly resembles a debt-fueled house of cards.

This is part economic analysis, part political warning, and part existential anxiety session. If you’ve felt like the world economy is being held together with duct tape and vibes, this conversation is for you.

Subscribe now

Yes, Twitter. Still Twitter. Always Twitter.

If you want guaranteed crazy on demand, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, no waiting, no effort required, you go to X. And that’s exactly what we did on today’s episode — we took a guided tour through the right-wing fever swamp so you don’t have to.

First stop: Congressman Ralph Norman of South Carolina, who told us — with complete confidence and zero shame — that January 6th was staged. Made up. A hoax. Not the riot, mind you. The riot was real. It was just created by the other side. This man holds elected office. Let that settle.

Next up: Pat Stedman, J6 political prisoner and — I am not making this up — men’s dating coach. Pat wants a piece of Trump’s $1.776 billion pardons-and-payments slush fund, and he wrote a whole manifesto on X to make his case. He stormed the Capitol and he will you find your dream girl. Two things.

Then there was a clip from Alex Jones and Marjorie Taylor Greene that was somehow shockingly normal, which was arguably the most disturbing part of the whole episode.

And we closed it out with Pete Hegseth’s Pentagon propaganda video — $250,000 of your taxpayer money, animated like a Saturday morning cartoon, narrated like a Sesame Street episode gone rogue.

It’s a confederacy of schmucks. But at least they’re entertaining.

My argument is that this framing looks highly suspect and politically convenient rather than credible. If Cuba posed a serious and immediate threat, the intelligence community would have been dealing with it long before now, especially given how close the island is to Florida and how much surveillance the U.S. already maintains in the region. Instead, the report reads like a manufactured justification for pressure, sanctions, or even military action.

I also connect the story to larger political incentives. The administration appears to be looking for a quick foreign-policy win, a way to distract from other conflicts, and an attempt to appeal to Cuban-American voters in Florida ahead of the 2026 midterms. That makes the entire narrative feel less like sober national security analysis and more like strategic theater.

The broader warning here is simple: once a White House starts selling a threat this aggressively, escalation can move fast. Even if the endgame is not a full shooting war, the rhetoric alone can push the U.S. closer to another dangerous confrontation. That is why this story matters now, and why it should be treated with skepticism rather than panic

Subscribe now

The bigger story is the party’s growing dependence on personality over principle. Trump’s supporters were sold a message about independence, restraint, and anti-establishment politics, but what we’re seeing instead is blind loyalty, redistricting games, and a political culture that rewards obedience over judgment. That’s not just bad politics; it’s a warning sign for the party’s future.