In today’s live, we covered three stories that on the surface seem separate but tell a single, deeply disturbing story about where this country is headed.

We started with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals — the New Orleans-based court that, in a ruling dripping with religious language, blocked mail-in access to mifepristone, the most commonly used abortion pill in the United States. The practical effect is clear: in states where abortion is already banned, women no longer have a discreet, safe, at-home option. The court’s own language — invoking Louisiana’s legal position that life begins at conception — tells you everything about who these judges are and what they’re actually doing. This isn’t jurisprudence. It’s theocracy.

Then we moved to Iran, where Trump stood at a rally in Florida and proudly bragged that the U.S. military has become pirates — seizing ships, taking cargo, boarding vessels on the high seas. He said it laughing. He said it like it was a compliment. We’ve been joking for months that this administration turned the Navy into pirates. Turns out the president agrees, and he couldn’t be happier about it.

Finally, we got to Louisiana again — because Louisiana apparently never sleeps. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision gutting what remained of the Voting Rights Act, Governor Jeff Landry moved immediately to halt the state’s ongoing primary. In a state that is 33% Black, with six congressional districts, Black Louisianans are now set to hold exactly one seat. The math is the message.

Three stories. One through line: a government that is actively, aggressively dismantling rights — reproductive, democratic, international — and doing it with a smile.

We’re not going back. We’re going through it. And we’re going through it together.

Get more from Mitch Eiven in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

This morning I live-streamed Pete Hegseth’s testimony before the House Armed Services Committee — and it did not disappoint, for all the wrong reasons.

Before Hegseth even opened his mouth, the hearing’s opening statements set the tone. Democratic ranking member Adam Smith delivered what I called a killer opening — methodical, surgical, and devastating, even if it lacked the kind of emotional heat that would make for a viral clip. Smith tore apart the administration’s claim that its foreign policy constitutes “realism,” pointing out that starting a full-scale war in the Middle East, going it alone, burning alliances, gutting the State Department, and dispatching Jared Kushner and a real estate lawyer to negotiate with Iran is the furthest thing from a realist strategy. His Princess Bride analogy — “you keep using that word; I don’t think it means what you think it means” — was the line of the morning.

Subscribe now

Then Hegseth took the mic. And the spin machine kicked into overdrive. “Historic” — a word he apparently cannot stop using — appeared so many times I started counting. He boasted about 70,000 new defense jobs while the broader U.S. economy has added zero net jobs since Trump took office. He bragged about military success against Iran while Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and control of the Strait of Hormuz remain entirely intact. And the president, we were reminded, actually announced a week ago that Iran had agreed to everything — a statement that turned out to be completely fabricated, as a humiliated J.D. Vance discovered at the airport.

My frustration peaked, though, not at the Republicans — I’ve long since stopped expecting anything from them — but at the Democrats, who squandered moments to land real punches. I wanted them to hammer Hegseth on the Geneva Convention violations, the Pentagon prayer services, and the Pulp Fiction psalm incident — yes, that actually happened. Instead, they went for safer ground.

The hearing went on recess. I took a breath. We’ll see if the second half delivers what the first half promised.

Get more from Mitch Eiven in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

In this wide-ranging live, host Mitch is joined by , a California-based activist and content creator who is deep in the weeds of the state’s 2026 gubernatorial race. What starts as a briefing on the crowded, chaotic primary quickly becomes a frank and fearless conversation about the state of American politics, media, and culture.

Subscribe now

The two break down the key players in the California race: Trump-endorsed Republican Steve Hilton, controversial Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, billionaire Tom Steyer (whose hedge fund profited from private prisons), Katie Porter (whose treatment of staff remains a sticking point), and frontrunner Xavier Becerra, who Carrie is backing. With 61 candidates officially on the ballot and no Democrat with a commanding lead, the fear of two Republicans advancing through the state’s nonpartisan primary is real — even if Californians keep saying it’ll be fine.

From there, the conversation broadens into a reckoning with political desensitization. Both hosts reflect on how the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner barely registered emotionally — a symptom, they argue, of living under a sustained assault of chaos and corruption. They discuss the “boy who cried wolf” problem Trump has created: a disinformation environment so saturated that even sane people are questioning whether real events are false flags.

The live takes a particularly compelling turn when the hosts dig into the online radicalization of young men, the trad wife pipeline, and how Fox News and MAGA media function like addiction. Carrie shares a deeply personal story about her own journey away from the attitudes she was raised with, and both women make a passionate case for reaching out to MAGA-adjacent women — not to forgive, but to deprogram — as a genuine political strategy. Ilhan Omar’s call to engage with Marjorie Taylor Greene is cited as an unexpected but powerful example of this thinking in action.

Raw, honest, and unfiltered — this is exactly the kind of conversation that doesn’t happen in mainstream media.

Get more from Mitch Eiven in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

The Justice Department dropped its criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell today, and somewhere in Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump — the village idiot — is absolutely seething.

Subscribe now

Let’s be honest about what this investigation always was: a revenge operation. Trump has been furious at Powell for years. Because Powell refused to take orders from him. The Fed Chair wouldn’t simply lower interest rates on command, the way a loyal foot soldier would. Trump labeled him disloyal and decided the appropriate punishment was prison. That’s the mentality running the executive branch right now.

So in January, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro — doing the administration’s dirty work — hit the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas over a building renovation project. The Fed’s headquarters, which hadn’t been seriously renovated since the 1930s, needed a $2.5 billion overhaul. Water was pouring into the basement. There was unexpected asbestos. Soil contamination. A sinkhole. Normal stuff when you’re renovating a nearly century-old building. But Trump smelled blood, invented a false narrative and went after Powell with everything he had. He even floated the idea that Powell was personally profiting from the renovations.

Here's what makes this entire spectacle even more absurd: a federal judge had already thrown out key subpoenas for lack of evidence. In court, the government couldn’t point to an actual crime. Meanwhile, the Fed’s Inspector General had already reviewed the renovation and found no clear misconduct. Yet Pirro kept pushing forward anyway.— because when you’re working for Trump, facts are always optional, frequently inconvenient.

Share Zenocracy

Today, Pirro announced she’s closing the investigation and handing things off to the Federal Reserve’s own Inspector General. She wrapped it in tough language, warning she’d “not hesitate to restart” if the facts warranted. Sure, Jeanine. The whole thing reads like a face-saving maneuver. The real reason this probe is dead? Senator Thom Tillis — a Republican, mind you — had been blocking confirmation of Trump’s Fed nominee Kevin Warsh until this so-called investigation was dropped. Trump needed Warsh confirmed more than he needed Powell in handcuffs.

And that brings us to Warsh. Senator Elizabeth Warren has been sounding the alarm about him for a while now, calling him Trump’s sock puppet at the Federal Reserve — not because of today’s news, but because she believes Warsh will simply hand Trump and his allies another lever to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense. Today’s developments only add fuel to that concern.

The independence of the Federal Reserve exists for a reason. It’s one of the few institutions designed to operate free from political pressure. Trump spent months trying to dismantle that independence through intimidation, sham investigations, and media attacks. He failed. Powell leaves in May on his own terms. The record is clear: there was never a crime here. Just a president who uses the taxpayer funded Department of Justice with his own personal law firm.

This morning’s live covers a lot of ground — but it all connects to one central argument: the pressure on Donald Trump is no longer coming from one direction. It’s coming from everywhere at once, and the cracks are showing.

We start with breaking news: the DOJ dropped its criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, punting it to an Inspector General review that Powell himself requested last year. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro dressed it up as a strategic handoff, but the reality is simpler — there was never a case to begin with. The Fed renovation “cost overruns” Trump raged about were debunked by Powell in real time, on camera, hard hat and all. Now Kevin Warsh waits in the wings to be confirmed as the next Fed chair, which is likely how this story quietly ends.

But the DOJ retreat is just one thread. The bigger argument in today’s live is about Iran — and what their approach to negotiating with Trump is revealing about him. Iran isn’t flattering Trump. They’re not managing him the way the Saudis or Qataris have tried. They’re pushing back, holding firm, and in doing so, exposing something the rest of the world is slowly catching on to: Trump collapses under real resistance. The Chinese learned it. Claudia Sheinbaum figured it out. Mark Carney is living it in real time.

Meanwhile, Trump’s late-night Truth Social posts are getting more unhinged — calling for Obama’s arrest, relitigating 2020, raging at ghosts. Combine that with the viral clip of him falling asleep at his own event, and you’ve got a portrait of a man in accelerating decline.

The question isn’t whether he’s breaking. It’s how fast.

Get more from Mitch Eiven in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

First up: Virginia. Voters went to the polls and approved a redistricting measure — a Democratic gerrymander in direct response to Trump’s mid-decade gerrymandering push in Texas and elsewhere. But before the ink was dry, a judge struck it down as unconstitutional, sending the case into the appeals process and ultimately toward the Virginia Supreme Court. I break down why I’m not panicking — the same court that allowed the measure onto the ballot in the first place is unlikely to defy voters now — and explain the broader gerrymandering war playing out across the country, from California and Florida to Maryland, Minnesota, and New York. More importantly, I make the case that even if Republicans win a few of these redistricting battles, the electoral wave building against them is so powerful that it may not matter come November.

That argument rests on the real-time data: special election after special election since January 2025 has seen Democrats massively overperform — sometimes by 20 to 30 points — in districts that should have been unwinnable. This isn’t about what Democrats are for so much as what Trump has done to his own coalition, including hemorrhaging Latino support down to the low 20s.

The second half of the live digs into the Ghislaine Maxwell story, with some Republicans on the House Oversight Committee reportedly pushing Trump to pardon Maxwell in exchange for her testimony — testimony I expect would be little more than a scripted exoneration of the president. I trace the suspicious chain of events: Maxwell’s transfer from maximum security to a minimum security facility after cooperating with DOJ, Pam Bondi’s non-answers about who authorized the move, and the committee Democrats’ ongoing efforts to force a real investigation.

The UN’s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, said it could not confirm whether Iran had suspended uranium enrichment, because Iran had shut out inspectors entirely. The bitter irony: before the strikes, Iran had been allowing limited inspection access. The bombing handed Tehran the perfect justification to slam the door shut and hide whatever it wanted.

A second round of U.S. and Israeli strikes on February 28th hit a government compound in Tehran and military targets — but also struck a girls’ elementary school in southern Iran, killing 175 people, most of them children. The Pentagon has yet to fully account for it.

Trump then declared the war could be over “in two to three weeks,” said the U.S. might leave without requiring any deal, and assured the public that buried underground uranium wasn’t a concern — because satellites would be watching it. (Satellites cannot see underground.)

As of April 21st, Vice President JD Vance is waiting in Washington to learn whether he should fly to Pakistan, where Jared Kushner and a real estate lawyer are supposedly negotiating peace with Iran — a country that has not agreed to show up.

The bombs dropped. The inspectors left. Innocent children were killed. And the peace talks are being ghosted.

The conversation also dug into Warsh’s record during the 2008 financial crisis, his views on regulation, and the concern that he would be under intense pressure from Donald Trump to slash interest rates regardless of consequences. That led into a broader warning about what happens when economic policy is driven by political vanity instead of reality. The live also tied those worries to the war in Iran, oil markets, the petrodollar, and the possibility of wider economic damage if the crisis escalates further.

By the end, the stream framed the hearing as more than a personnel fight. It was presented as a window into how Trump-era economic thinking can distort institutions, dismiss lived experience, and push the country toward instability just as families are already struggling to keep up.

I walk through the latest developments around Iranian shipping, the Strait of Hormuz, and the White House’s contradictory messaging, while also revisiting the broader context: Trump’s abandonment of the JCPOA, the resurrection of sanctions, and the way his administration keeps cycling through the same failed tactics. The live also touches on the role of key Trump allies and operatives — including Pete Hegseth, Mike Waltz, J.D. Vance, Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff — as part of the broader pattern of incompetence, corruption, and improvisation.

Beyond the foreign policy breakdown, the live turns into a larger argument about language, media normalization, and why mocking Trump and his enablers matters. I make the case that calling this behavior what it is — ridiculous, dangerous, and abnormal — is part of resisting the brainwashing effect of repeated exposure. I also briefly discuss California politics, MAGA psychology, and a Guardian report about Trump family-linked business interests in drone interceptors, which underscores how deeply corruption and profit motives are entangled in the current moment.

The stream ends with a reminder that this community exists to help people stay sane, informed, and grounded through political madness.

The second half of the live turned to Iran, where I pushed back on Donald Trump’s false claims about negotiations and the Strait of Hormuz. I explained how Trump’s shifting statements, and Iran’s public refutations, show a White House that is either lying, confused, or both. I also connected the situation to gas prices, oil markets, and the instability that comes from geopolitical brinkmanship driven by propaganda instead of reality.

I closed by reflecting on the importance of staying engaged, staying informed, and using the community as a kind of daily pressure valve while this administration keeps creating chaos.

Today’s headlines tell you a lot less about a deal—and a lot more about how Trump manufactures absurdist narratives in real time.

This morning, the village idiot came out and declared victory. He said Iran had agreed to “nearly all” of the U.S. demands—ending its nuclear program, giving up enriched uranium, cooperating with U.S. oversight, even helping stabilize shipping lanes. The way it was framed, you’d think the ink was drying and the press conference was already being scheduled. Of course, by this point, you should know better.

Hours later, reality showed up.

Iranian officials came out and said no such agreement exists. Not partially, not mostly, not a “framework in progress.”

Their position: Trump lied.

So what are we actually looking at here? A he said, they said situation? Both sides finessing a semi-believable, propagandized set of facts?

No. This is a pattern. This is a Trump thing. There’s no both-sidesing this issue. The Iranians don’t have to make things up because Trump consistently beats them to it.

We’ve now seen multiple instances over the past few weeks where Trump publicly claims progress—talks are happening, Iran is “begging” for a deal, major concessions are on the table—only for Iran to come out and deny that anything of substance has been agreed to, or even discussed in the way he describes.

It’s not a misunderstanding or miscommunication. It’s the Art of the Deal. It’s the harebrained strategy of a fully corrupted lunatic.

Trump communicates negotiation through projection. He doesn’t just describe reality—he pretends to create it. If you say a deal is close enough times, loudly enough, you shape markets, influence public perception, and try to box the other side into your version of events.

Although it never works, it does have real-world implications. Markets moved today on the assumption that tensions were easing. Oil reacted. Investors reacted. All based on another ridiculous claim that, by evening, didn’t hold up.

Of course, Iran is doing its own version of messaging—but in the opposite direction. While they have every incentive to downplay negotiations publicly, they don’t have to lie. All they have to do is tell the truth. Trump’s claims are so transparent, so juvenile, that Iran doesn’t need to get particularly creative. They simply refute the claim and offer a more credible version of events. In that dynamic, they win the day—and the argument—by looking like the more sane, reasonable, believable party.

That optimism, however, is immediately tempered by a deep dive into U.S. politics and foreign policy, where the tone shifts sharply. The conversation critiques Donald Trump’s behavior and leadership, highlighting what’s described as erratic and contradictory decision-making—particularly around escalating tensions with Iran. The breakdown of negotiations in Islamabad is portrayed as inevitable, driven by a lack of trust and coherence from the U.S. side. Confusion surrounding military strategy—especially conflicting messaging about the Strait of Hormuz versus targeted port blockades—becomes a central example of what’s characterized as dysfunction at the highest levels.

The discussion also touches on the broader implications of this instability, including global perceptions of American leadership and the strategic advantage it may hand to adversaries. Layered throughout is a mix of sharp political commentary, real-time analysis, and audience interaction, capturing both the urgency and unpredictability of the moment.

Ultimately, the stream paints a picture of two diverging realities: democratic progress abroad and growing uncertainty at home.

The discussion walks a careful line: acknowledging the real horror of Epstein’s trafficking operation while calling out the absurdity of the political theater surrounding it. The focus isn’t on mocking victims, but on exposing the reactions, spin, and contradictions that follow. Two competing theories emerge—either this was an attempt to get ahead of damaging revelations, or it’s yet another calculated distraction from larger geopolitical issues.

From there, the conversation expands into a broader critique of media narratives and partisan loyalty, especially within MAGA circles. The hypocrisy becomes impossible to ignore: a movement that rails against immigrants and language differences suddenly embraces Melania without question, despite the very traits they claim to oppose. That contradiction becomes a lens for understanding how political identity can override consistent beliefs.

Along the way, the tone stays conversational and personal—touching on everything from live-stream mishaps to reflections on language, learning, and even health quirks—giving the episode a more intimate, end-of-week feel.

It’s part political analysis, part cultural commentary, and part real-time processing of a moment that feels both serious and absurd at the same time.

The breakdown walks through the sequence step-by-step, emphasizing that the original 10-point proposal—widely reported and discussed—was clearly acknowledged and effectively accepted before being walked back. The sudden introduction of a supposed alternative plan is framed not as strategy, but as a reactive attempt to escape political embarrassment after being publicly outmaneuvered.

What stands out most is not just the inconsistency, but the predictability of it. The reaction comes across as almost childlike: when faced with failure or exposure, rather than clarify or correct, the response is to invent a new version of reality. The moment becomes emblematic of a broader pattern—an inability to accept accountability paired with a reliance on confusion and contradiction as a defense mechanism.

In the context of war, the stakes are far higher. Clarity, credibility, and trust are essential, yet the situation instead reflects improvisation at the highest level—leaving allies and adversaries navigating a rapidly shifting and unreliable narrative.

The conversation argues that the U.S., under Donald Trump, abandoned its initial demands and instead shifted toward accepting elements of Iran’s framework, signaling a loss of leverage. Despite public messaging framing the outcome as a victory, the speaker characterizes it as a political and strategic retreat, accompanied by a coordinated PR effort to reshape the narrative.

Beyond geopolitics, the live also acknowledges the human cost of the conflict, citing casualties and regional instability, while emphasizing that Iran’s military capabilities and influence remain largely intact. The broader takeaway is a critique of leadership decisions, highlighting how miscalculation, overconfidence, and lack of strategic competence can lead to outcomes that contradict initial objectives.

Shifting to the Department of Justice, Melanie describes a system under strain, pointing to mass departures from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., and a dramatic decline in prosecutorial capacity. She warns that fewer prosecutors means fewer cases being tried, delayed justice, and potentially dangerous outcomes for public safety. The appointment of figures like Jeanine Pirro is framed as both destabilizing and emblematic of a broader erosion of professional standards.

The discussion also covers the ousting of Attorney General Pam Bondi and what it signals about internal expectations within Trump’s orbit—namely, a push to pursue political enemies despite a lack of evidence. Melanie argues that while courts and juries have so far acted as a safeguard, the system is being tested in unprecedented ways.

Throughout the interview, the tone is urgent: a warning about the convergence of political power, weakened institutions, and the growing risk of decisions with global—and potentially irreversible—consequences.

From there, the conversation pivots into a more grounded and strategic discussion once Crowdsource Carrie joins. The focus shifts to the current political media environment—how audiences engage, where influence is actually built, and what trade-offs come with different platforms. TikTok is framed as both an opportunity and a risk, offering rapid growth but also concerns around control and censorship. There’s also a broader reflection on whether engaging directly with MAGA voices—especially through live debates—is productive or simply performative.

The Live today will be a 1:00 pm. Please join us for a discussion about all kinds of politics toady.