Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

John: Alan Dershowitz has a column this week in the Wall Street Journal where he reveals that he has joined the Republican Party and will actively contribute and campaign for Republican candidates. The main reason for this change is the Democratic Party's radical anti-Israel shift. Dershowitz's quote: "The Democratic Party has become the most anti-Israel party in U.S. history." You and Bernie have been very public about your becoming independent as neither a registered Republican nor Democrat. Was Dershowitz's political conversion surprising to you? — Steve R.

No, I wasn’t surprised. I actually half-thought he had already joined the Republican Party (like Tulsi Gabbard and other high-profile lefties). I knew he had left the Democratic Party a while back (apparently multiple times). It’s certainly possible that he joined the GOP precisely for the reason he stated, even with corridors of the Right going through its own anti-Israel binge (though not so much in Republican leadership, which is an important difference).

Personally, in this political era, I find neither of our major political parties appealing. I can, however, think of two entirely logical reasons for wanting to be in one: 1) If your state requires a party-affiliation to vote in the primaries (mine doesn’t); 2) If you plan on running for office (I don’t).

Sir John — apparently Air Force Major-General William Neil McCasland has mysteriously disappeared after leaving his New Mexico home and taking his gun with him. This silver alert could easily be a simple tragedy, except that several other scientists who either worked under him or had some other type of connection to his work (which included UFO research) have also either vanished or died mysteriously, one of which was murdered. Barack Obama AND Donald Trump have both made some tantalizing remarks recently about otherworldly aliens as well. Alien Abductions!? Foreign enemy assassins!? A secret cabal!? The Men In Black!? In all seriousness, I know you think I indulge in conspiracies too much, but one has to admit that there sure are some odd coincidences occurring recently. (Speaking of which, You live in Colorado; what secrets are hidden beneath that airport,, and have you ever seen that spooky cursed statue of the horse known as “Bluecifer” in your travels? What’s going on here, Sir John? Enquiring Minds Want To Know —“Area 51” Regards from The Emperor

I haven’t followed this story closely enough to offer much insight on it, Emperor. In fact, if not for my wife mentioning it to me last week (she learned about these mysterious disappearances and deaths from her newsfeed), today would have been the first time I’d even heard about any of them. From what little I know, it’s certainly unusual, but I have no theories or conclusions to present you with.

As for Blucifer, yes, I see him often — every time I go to Denver International Airport. He’s large, in charge, and displayed prominently out front (on the drive in).

Blucifer has been a fun topic and cultural landmark for us Coloradans for several years now. He was an interesting art choice (for the very art-centric DIA), but what makes him even more notable is that he actually killed his sculptor before he was completed (by falling on him).

Blucifer is a hit with tourists (though you can’t really get your picture with him), and my wife and I got a kick out of him making an appearance on this season’s “Paradise.”

Represent!

I'm all in on a 10% tariff all around. Congress should approve this and dedicate it to the elephant in the room which is our national debt. I would also like to see an overall spending cut of 10% with the only exception to defense. I would like to see an annual decrease in spending of 5% to NATO with a five-year sunset clause. Minnesota fraud continues to be uncovered by independent reporters and covered up by mainstream reporters. The left has found a way to redistribute our federal tax dollars. Simple fiscal policies could rid our debt in 20 years. Unfortunately, it will never happen and to our grandchildren I ask forgiveness for the crash that will occur in their lifetime. — Tim H.

Tim, I certainly agree with you on that very last part. What we’ve done to our grandchildren, by letting our national debt explode well beyond our control, is unforgivable. Both parties have chased the fiscally-literate leaders out of office, and largely replaced them with grifters and clowns who are awesome at parroting talking points and sharing internet memes, but couldn’t care less about the most serious challenge we face as a nation.

I disagree with a mandatory 10% tariff. As we’ve learned, tariffs are a very inefficient, costly, and regressive way of raising tax revenue. Plus, they wouldn’t put a dent in the national debt. At this point, unfortunately, higher taxes will have to play a role in dealing with the issue, but tariffs aren’t the answer. There are far less damaging forms of taxation.

Of course, the major drivers of our national debt remain our major entitlement programs. They’re in desperate-desperate-desperate need of reform (and have been for many years). We can’t get anywhere at all on this issue without making serious changes to them.

On other spending, I would absolutely welcome a 10% federal cut across the board. Sun-setting NATO would be a terrible decision (for reasons I’ll probably get into in a future column). Fraud should be aggressively targeted and eliminated (and the fraudsters prosecuted). Unfortunately, even if you eliminate all government fraud, that wouldn’t put a dent in our debt either.

Ukraine’s going to win this thing, isn’t it? — Alex D.

Alex, I’m more confident of that now than I’ve ever been. Their home-grown drone technology (along with the Ukrainians’ amazing courage and resilience) has been an absolute game-changer for them. They’re steadily taking back territory, depleting the Russian forces, and securing new alliances and funding. It is to our country’s deep shame that we largely abandoned them, and have kept trying to tip the scales in favor of Putin, while they were (and still are) on the front line of defending the free world.

I wish the Ukrainians continued success, and eventual triumph.

Ok I know you have replied to an earlier question about Trump vs. Pope Leo, so this is more about the possible political ramifications. Do you actually think there will be any? Or is this just another “mean Tweet” that will be forgotten by next month.

BTW although many pundits have described this as a “tiff” or even a “fight” between them, seems so far it’s Trump who is swinging most of the online punches.

Most of the Pope’s public comments on the folly of war, the evils of politicians weaponizing religion, etc., are just what modern Popes tend to say, and really don’t come across as aimed at Trump personally, although I am sure they weren’t excluding him, either.

Anyway, at first I didn’t think this would affect Trump’s popularity at all. But I did see a recent poll indicating a drop in his support among Catholics, and even some non Catholic Christians, say that Trump’s recent blasphemous posts are the last straw, etc.

But Trump isn’t running again (and no I don’t agree with people already assuming he will figure out a way to run again in 2028). And when it comes to the midterms, I doubt this will matter much, unless Iran goes totally pear-shaped (like, Trump orders a mass ground invasion, and hundreds of American soldiers die, or get captured and set up Iran Hostage Crisis Part 2), but that would be much more about the Iran issue itself, than what the Pope said about it. — Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. I do not believe there will be any Pope-related political ramifications for Trump. The president’s Christian supporters have long exempted him from their moral standards (on everything from philandering to autographing Bibles for $1,000 a pop). Thus, I don’t expect that to suddenly change based on this. You’re right in that this dust-up (or whatever it is) has been one-sided (well, kind of). The Pope has been weighing in on policies and cultural issues (some are related to Trump), while Trump’s been going at The Pope individually for doing so. I think Trump’s worsening poll numbers (among all groups at this point) are more related to other things, like Iran, the economy, ICE, and general Trump-fatigue.

How much online hatred did you get from posting that picture of you and David French? — Ben G.

Ha! Surprisingly little, Ben. If David had retweeted it, I’m sure I would have received all kinds of unhinged responses, as I have in the past (since a lot of people hate-follow him).

I’ve interviewed David a number of times, and saw him speak at an event a year or so ago, but this was the first time I’d met him in-person. Nice guy. He and his Advisory Opinions podcast co-host, Sarah Isgur, were doing a live event at the University of Denver. So, I figured I’d drive down and say hi. I’m glad I did.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Back in February, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump’s nearly year-long “emergency” tariffs were, in fact, unconstitutional. The ruling didn’t come as a surprise to many legal experts and constitutional scholars, who long recognized that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was being abused. There was, however, a good amount of speculation over how the approximately $166 billion (plus interest) illegally collected from the tariffs would be refunded to the American companies who paid them… or if that would even happen.

As the New York Times recently reported, we’re beginning to get answers on that:

By Monday morning, those companies could begin submitting documentation to the government to recover what they paid in illegal tariffs. In a sign of the expected demand, more than 3,000 businesses, including FedEx and Costco, had already sued the Trump administration in a bid to secure their refunds before the application website launched, with some cases filed even predating the Supreme Court’s ruling.

But only the entities that officially paid the tariffs are eligible to recover that money. That means that the fuller universe of people affected by Mr. Trump’s policies — including millions of Americans who paid higher prices for the products they bought — are not able to apply for direct relief.

Assuming this all goes through (it’s possible the administration could put up roadblocks), it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the federal government won’t be paying consumers a dime back of the artificially high, tariff-induced price-hikes they’ve had to endure over the last year. It was U.S. importers, not other countries (as the president has long contended), who directly paid the tariffs — aka taxes. So, any attempts by consumers to get reimbursed would have to go through a distribution chain of companies, perhaps in the form of class action lawsuit (that likely wouldn’t get far). Some companies may feel charitable enough to pass some of their federal repayment down to customers, but that’s entirely up to each company.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, consumers will just need to live with their losses.

To make matters worse, the $166 billion collected from the tariffs (the largest tax hike in over 30 years) has already been spent on other federal initiatives. That means the reimbursement amount, plus hundreds of millions of dollars more in interest, will be added directly to our national debt (which is currently racing toward $40 trillion).

In the meantime, while the aftereffects of these tariffs continue to work their way through the global economy (along with Trump’s ongoing non-emergency tariffs and continued efforts to impose new tariffs under different statutes), it’s becoming clearer and clearer just how damaging this entire, unilaterally-imposed experiment has been.

Free-trade conservatives and economists had long predicted the turmoil caused by Trump’s tariffs (lessened only by the president pulling back on some of his most crippling ones), and U.S. manufactures (who were supposed to be their biggest beneficiaries) — have long opposed them. But Trump thought (and still believes) that tariffs are cool, so we got a whole bunch of them.

At least the president got some ego-gratification and flashy gifts out of it. The rest of our country mostly came away with unnecessary burdens and hardship.

“In the history of the worst self-inflicted policy debacles, the administration’s tariff policies should be on the short list,” remarked Kim Holmes, former Assistant Secretary of State, and former Executive Vice President at The Heritage Foundation.

Holmes elaborated:

They were wasteful of government time and money.

They harmed the economy and US companies and did nothing to restore US manufacturing.

They fleeced consumers who will not get the money back that was paid in higher prices.

Since the administration is now reimbursing US companies, it’s admitting by its actions (if not its words) that that the tariff critics were right all along and that Trump was obviously wrong. That is the very definition of failure.

They set a terrible legal precedent that thankfully the Supreme Court corrected, but which along with other instances of bending the law, generally undermine the rule of law.

Any other money collected from tariffs that still remain in the US Treasury were still taken out of the US private economy and thus is still not available for investment, hiring new employees, paying wages and other things that American companies need to do.

They represented a blatant abdication of Congress’s constitutional role in our system of government.

And that doesn’t even include all of the trade relationships the U.S. has needlessly strained or destroyed by waging this trade war, in addition to finding other ways to drive away allies.

Now, there is actually a silver lining in all of this (as long as the administration holds true to its reimbursement plan). Injecting over $166 billion back into the U.S. private sector, to its rightful owners, will amount to some good economic stimulus. Affected companies that have long been holding off on reinvesting, bringing on new employees, and increasing salaries, will suddenly be in a better position to do those things.

It would seem a no-brainer, then, that every company that paid Trump’s illegal tariffs would apply to get reimbursed. That, however, is not certain. President Trump has already stated that he’ll “remember” the companies who choose not to apply for a refund, suggesting that he may give them some type of preferential treatment in the future. A different read is that he’ll find a way to punish those who do apply. Either way, it’s a wildly inappropriate gesture, and I suspect the overwhelming majority of these companies are done playing Trump’s games.

Regardless, prices should go down on a number of items, and some of our trade relationships should start to normalize (unfortunately, others may be irreparable). Even with our continuing challenges (including the high cost of oil, and Trump’s other tariffs), the added means and certainty will assuredly have a positive economic effect on our country.

It’s just a shame that the U.S. Congress let the administration go down this very painful path for almost a year before the judiciary — our last functional branch of the federal government — finally addressed the situation.

Share

Hi everyone.

I hope you all had a good weekend. Mine was pretty busy, but I finally had a few spare minutes this evening, and figured I’d write about a couple things that are on my mind.

Good Riddance to Eric Swalwell

People who’ve read my work for a while know that I’ve been making fun of Eric Swalwell for quite some time. From his portrayal of himself as a bad-ass for not buying coffee at Trump Tower, to his argument that the U.S. government could nuke its own country to put down a domestic uprising over proposed gun-confiscation, to his hyper-feminized presidential run, to his possible affair with a suspected Chinese intelligence operative, I’d long pegged Swalwell as a hopelessly unself-aware clown.

But as it turns out, he’s also a very creepy one — a sexual predator, if you believe the credible allegations that have recently come out against him (including the rape of a former staffer). Swalwell denies at least some of the claims, but there’s enough corroborating evidence backing them up that he ended his California gubernatorial campaign and resigned from the House of Representatives. The DOJ has appropriately launched an investigation into the allegations, as have state officials.

Since the controversy began, it’s been disturbing to hear a number of D.C. insiders describe rumors of Swalwell’s infidelities and womanizing as being well-known for some time. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) even said, “Every member in Congress knows not to let any young staffer get around Swalwell or Matt Gaetz. It’s not a secret there.”

If that was indeed true (and I believe it, based on how many people have now said as much), how did this not become an issue much earlier? Granted, there’s a difference between being a cad and sexual assault, but Swalwell, who’s married with children, ran successfully for Congress seven times. He even ran for President of the United States. One would think that his conduct with women would have set off career-damaging alarms a long time ago. Unfortunately for his apparent victims, it didn’t.

The good news is that, like Matt Gaetz and recently Tony Gonzales, he’s no longer in public service. That’s a start. I hope justice is served through our legal system.

An Unholy Troll

Last week, conservative New York Times columnist David French appeared on the “Relatable” podcast with host Allie Beth Stuckey. French and Stuckey are both Christians, and their commentary often delves into matters of faith and politics. The two have a number of disagreements, including whether Donald Trump, and the political-era he’s shaped, have been a net-positive or net-negative for the Christian church in America. Stuckey seems to believe the former. French believes the latter.

It was a decent enough conversation, with both individuals making good points. But in accordance with the online hatred that is routinely directed at David French by the MAGA-right (seemingly whenever he pens a column or opens his mouth to speak), the disparagement came hard and fast.

One social-media post that caught my eye pretty early in the feeding frenzy was by a guy named J. Chase Davis. It wasn’t directed at anything French said, but rather something Davis noticed, and felt inclined to publicly speculate on.

“No wedding ring,” Davis noted on X, posting a screen-capture from the episode showing French’s bare left hand. Davis also included a screen-capture of French’s profile-page, along with that of his wife Nancy, drawing attention to a discrepancy he found interesting. “Two different locations,” Davis wrote. “I can’t be the only one that has some questions.”

The clear suggestion was that David and Nancy were having marital problems, and were separated. The reality, as anyone familiar with the couple (or bothered to do a quick Google search) knows, is that the two split their time between Franklin, TN and Chicago, IL in order to live closer to their grandchildren. And as a number of people replying to Davis soon pointed out, lots of happily married individuals choose not to wear a wedding ring (mine comes off whenever I lose some weight, because I’m afraid it’s going to fall off my finger).

Of course, such garbage as Davis’s is pretty common online. Lots of trolls hound public figures across social-media platforms with gross accusations and demonstrably false statements.

But J. Chase Davis isn’t just some troll. He’s an evangelical pastor — a real one… at The Well Church in Boulder, CO.

The “core beliefs” of The Well Church, according to its website, are “based on the foundational truths taught in the bible. All of our teaching and ministry is rooted in and flows out of these biblical doctrines.”

Apparently, Davis’s copy of the Bible is missing the part about bearing false witness (which is fairly important, being that it’s the Ninth Commandment).

Davis later acknowledged that he now understands the nature of David and Nancy French’s living situation, but, as of the time I’m writing this, he has yet to delete his original post. He’s also dismissed the criticism he’s taken over it as “leftist discourse.”

Ironically, Davis is currently promoting his new book titled, “Offensive Christianity.”

No, I’m not joking. And its subtitle, “Restoring the Strength of Men in a Feminized Age,” would also seem ironic considering Davis’s gossip girl tendencies.

For the hat trick, if you Google Davis’s recent past, and browse through his other posts, it would seem he’s been finding ways to actually bolster French’s beliefs about the Trump Effect on the Christian church in America — unwittingly so, of course.

The good news for Davis is that his post has now been viewed by over a quarter of a million people, which can only help his book sales.

Let’s hope it was worth it for him, because it definitely didn’t do the Christian faith any good.

That’s all for now. Have a great week, everyone.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

Hi John. So my admittedly uninformed take on Iran, is that I would love for the mullah / IRGC regime to fall, but I don’t exactly trust Trump and his merry band to actually see that through, and really am not sure the whole thing will be worth it, if that doesn’t happen.

But my question is, have you also noticed that for most pundits, their degree of support or lack thereof for the war, seems to be based solely on their level of support or lack thereof, for Trump? Of course we have the MAGA cultists supporting whatever Trump does, even if he contradicts himself within the hour. Nothing new there. But we also have most Bulwarkers, not only opposing the war, but proclaiming that Iran is actually winning, and at times even appear to be gleeful about it, just because it makes Trump look bad. I honestly find that attitude quite gross.

I have appreciated the more nuanced coverage by NR and TD, but even there, NRs “cautiously optimistic” and TDs “cautiously pessimistic” takes are essentially simpatico with their overall editorial approaches to Trump.

Do you think this war is for most political pundits, little more than just another referendum on the Orange Man? I don’t think it’s all of them, certainly. I appreciated your recent podcast interviews with [Mike] Nelson and [Mike] Coté because they do NOT give me that impression. Also, if you can give me names of other analysts I can trust to actually try to analyze the war itself, I would appreciate it. — Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. I think you’ve illustrated just how complicated of an issue the Iran War is. I also think your position is totally reasonable.

As for political pundits aligning their war analysis with their personal views of Trump, I think that’s largely true. There are exceptions, of course, and I’m one of them. I’m not at all a Trump fan, but I do support much of his Iran policy and the military action we’ve taken there. I would love to see the Iranian regime toppled; it would be great for the Iranian people and much of the world. That said, I think the administration has handled a number of things poorly, including in communicating the policy to the American people (there has been a lot of mixed messaging), and sidestepping Congress. Also, Trump himself seems to be quite confused at times about what the goals, strategy, and latest developments are (I have much more confidence in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CENTCOM).

I very much disagree with those, including some of the aforementioned Bulwarkers, who are insistent that Iran is winning. Iran is absolutely not winning (and no American should be giddy if they were). At minimum, we’ve destroyed so much of the regime’s leadership and military capacity (not to mention their nuclear program, months earlier) that it will take them years to recover. But again, at this point, I’d like to see us keep going and put an end to the regime.

Lastly, thanks for watching/listening to the Reagan Caucus podcast episodes with Mike Nelson and Mike Coté. They both know their stuff. I’m a bit more aligned with Mike Nelson on the issue that I am Mike Coté, though both certainly want the Iran regime gone.

Sir John, I keep hearing from the left that Trump attacked Iran to distract from the Epstein Files. I keep hearing from the right that the Dems could have released the files during the Biden Administraton but chose not to. The left responds by saying that a court order prevented them from doing that. So what IS the truth? Do you think Trump truly doesn’t want the files made public because they may be incriminating or at least embarrassing to him and his friends? Were the Dems truly unable to release the Epstein Files during the Biden Administration? Or is that a convenient excuse they use to cover their own concern about prominent Democrats that may be on the list? —“Epstein’s Ghost Still Hanging Around” regards from The Emperor

Hi Emperor. I do not believe that Trump attacked Iran to distract from the Epstein files. As for the Democrats, from what I understand, they could have released the files under Biden (albeit it with significant limitations), but they didn’t.

Regardless, I think you and many others may be missing an important point here. The “Epstein Files” controversy of the past couple years was created by MAGA, not the Democrats. I don’t think the Democrats had any interest in using the Jeffrey Epstein as a political weapon against Trump (at least not in any meaningful way), until MAGA gift-wrapped it, and dropped it right in their lap.

Trump surrogates (including current FBI Director Kash Patel) made this a huge issue in the 2024 election cycle, insisting that President Biden was protecting pedophiles, and therefore Trump was needed back in office to publicly expose those people (with the assumption that many of those mentioned in the files were Democratic party bigwigs and/or donors). When Trump won, MAGA demanded the promised results. But Trump didn’t want that, because, as a former friend and associate of Epstein’s (not to mention a Democrat and big Democratic donor at the time), he was mentioned several times in the files (along with some embarrassing, if not damning, revelations). This put people like Patel and AG Pam Bondi in the unenviable position of having to very awkwardly manage the situation, and do their best not to embarrass their boss (or otherwise get him in trouble).

The Democrats, observing all of this, smelled political blood in the water. They went all-in on calling for the release of the files (apparently having calculated that any embarrassing revelations about people still on their political team would be offset by what might come out about Trump). Even if there’s nothing more about Trump that hasn’t already been released (which is doubtful), it’s a political advantage for the Dems to keep hammering the issue (even if, in reality, they couldn’t care less about it).

It’s that classic tale about being careful what you wish for.

Literally a day after you published this, the corruption got worse with the DOJ now deciding to vacate charges against the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers for the Jan 6th insurrection. It’s clear ‘justice’ is not being served by the department that bears its name, and trust in this institution is at an all time low (like Trump’s poll numbers) that will take years to rebuild. Well done on being ahead of the curve on this one. — FDM

Thanks, but the corruption is sadly front and center for all to see. I might write about this latest development next week, but it really is egregious (though sadly not surprising) that the DOJ is working on totally clearing people found guilty of seditious conspiracy, of all things.

What are your thoughts about Lauren Boebert (is she your representative?) slamming a bunch of reporters, who were asking about sexual misconduct scandals (that she had been weighing in on), as being “horny.” — Ben G.

My first reaction was to laugh, because — while it’s possible I missed some important context — my understanding is that she was being asked relevant questions about an issue she’s been very vocally weighing in on. The bizarre leap to calling the reporters “horny” reminded me of a recurring joke on Arrested Development:

Oh, and no, she is not my representative. I used to live in, and volunteer for, that district (when Ken Buck held the seat), but recent redistricting put me in a different one. Now, a Republican named Gabe Evans is my rep. He’s pretty much just a Trump toadie, but a fairly low-profile one.

Are we ever going to know the real reason why Trump and Vance were so desperate to keep Victor Orban in office? — Alex D.

That’s an interesting question, Alex. Up until the election, I had assumed that Trump’s weird affection for Orban came entirely from his well-documented admiration for strongman leaders. With Vance, it was more ideological; Orban represents the postliberal, autocratic ideology that Vance largely subscribes to. But Trump and Vance went so far over-the-top in their campaigning for Orban (Vance outright lied on behalf of Orban numerous times) that I’m inclined to believe there was indeed something more. We did find out, after Orban was defeated, that he’d been directing Hungarian tax dollars to American right-wing organizations like CPAC. I now wonder what other American enterprises he was investing in. It’s possible, through the new Hungarian government, that we’ll find out.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Show Notes:

• Mark’s memoir, A Cup of Tea on the Commode

• Mark’s website

• John’s newsletter on watching 1980’s action flicks

Share

A few weeks ago, when Pam Bondi was still our attorney general and trying desperately to keep her job, she directed the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into one of her boss’s old political foes: Cassidy Hutchinson.

On January 6, 2021, Hutchinson worked for Trump’s then chief of staff, Mark Meadows. A year and a half later, she provided damning testimony to the January 6 Committee, including the implication that Trump was aware, prior to the attack at the U.S. Capitol, of his supporters potentially causing violence that day.

Cassidy publicly recalled the president, after being told that some of the protesters outside his infamous “Stop the Steal” speech were armed, saying words to the effect of, “I don't f****** care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me.”

Others have disputed Hutchinson’s summation, which was the expressed basis for the DOJ pursuing the notion that she lied under oath in front of Congress.

A number of Justice Department officials have reportedly been skeptical all along that there’s a viable case to be made against Hutchinson. Nonetheless, the department has been moving forward with the former AG’s last sacrificial offering to the president. And they’re doing so in a highly unusual way.

The investigation has been assigned to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division — a specialized unit that typically handles cases involving systemic issues like police misconduct, voting rights, and racial discrimination. It’s currently headed by Harmeet Dhillon, a Trump appointee and staunch Trump loyalist with a penchant for going after the president’s critics.

Normally such a case would be led by the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, headed by former Fox News host, Jeanine Pirro (another Trump loyalist). But Pirro has been handed so many judicial defeats in recent months, while trying to advance criminal cases against Trump’s political adversaries, that there are apparently higher hopes for Dhillon.

None of this should be surprising, of course. As The Dispatch’s Kevin Williamson recently pointed out, the Trump DOJ has launched “a series of pretextual criminal investigations and prosecutions targeting the president’s political enemies, even when there was not the hint of an actual legal case to be made against them.”

Williamson provided a useful list of the DOJ’s political targets so far:

Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, all of Minnesota; Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey; St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her; Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell; Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook; Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan; Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado; Rep. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire; Reps. Chrissy Houlahan and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania; Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona; Sen. Adam Schiff of California; former FBI Director James Comey; former CIA Director John Brennan; Attorney General Letitia James of New York. (The prosecution of former National Security Adviser John Bolton, no less political and pretextual where Bondi was concerned, is more complicated in that it is not solely the work of the Trump administration.)

And this doesn’t even include all of the DOJ personnel, FBI officers, and Secret Service agents who were fired for simply being assigned to investigate occurrences that Trump didn’t want investigated (like January 6, his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, his mishandling of classified documents, and his obstruction of the retrieval of those documents). In other words, their career-derailing sin was just showing up to work. Some of these individuals filed federal lawsuits last month, claiming they were unlawfully fired as part of a “retribution campaign.” It’s not clear whether such terminations are in fact illegal, but I suppose we’ll find out.

Regardless, Hutchinson is just the latest political target of this DOJ, but she assuredly won’t be the last. Trump fired Bondi, after all, because he didn’t feel she was aggressive enough in using the legal system to punish his opponents. And with Trump recently promising mass pardons for his staff before he leaves office (similar to what he did for almost 1,600 January 6 criminals on the first day of his second term), it’s entirely possible that Bondi’s replacement will indeed dare to go where no modern AG has gone before. What would he or she have to lose?

Whether that person is Todd Blanche or someone else, however, I suspect Trump will continue to be disappointed for one simple reason: It’s not a lack of internal willingness or desire to appease the president that keeps derailing these cases. It’s the frivolousness of them. In instance after instance, they have lacked compelling evidence of a crime having been committed. And judges and juries have been unwilling to make the same capitulations as the DOJ.

While it’s disheartening that the judiciary is arguably the only branch of our federal government that’s still functioning as it should, one is certainly better than none. These cases (including Hutchinson’s) will likely continue to fall apart regardless of who heads the DOJ, but that’s not to say that those who’ve been politically targeted will walk away unscathed. A legal defense-team costs a lot of money, and not everyone in this administration’s crosshairs is wealthy. There’s also the reputational and professional damage that can come from such an ordeal, even if one is legally vindicated.

What’s especially troubling to me is how normalized this has become. Congress is largely asleep at the wheel, and the general public doesn’t care much about it either, probably having priced such abuses into the baseline chaos and vindictiveness they’ve come to expect from a Trump presidency. Their biggest problem with Trump has been cost-of-living issues (now including the price of gasoline, due to the Iran War). Much of the rest is just noise.

Lots of Trump loyalists, on the other hand, are very much enjoying what the DOJ is doing. Like the president, their only gripe is that it hasn’t been brutal enough. They believe the department is righteous and justified in exacting their boss’s revenge, because of how Trump was treated by prosecutors and investigators when he was out of office. They’ve been assured over the years by the president, his surrogates, and the right-wing media that Trump wasn’t deserving of any of the criminal investigations, indictments, and prosecutions he had to contend with.

I certainly agree with them on the New York cases (as I’ve written many times). The federal ones were a different story. But that shouldn’t matter — not for the question of whether it’s acceptable for the DOJ (whose primary function is to enforce laws impartially and independent of political influence) to openly serve as an instrument for satisfying a president’s bottomless desire for political vengeance.

Regardless of how one feels about Trump, that is indeed what’s happening right now. And the country should care more about it.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

John, Pam Bondi's firing was long overdue in my opinion- January first would had been the time to do so. She leaves a bad taste and much confusion with the Epstein files and her initial verbiage and handling of it all; an earlier firing would had helped the Republicans going into the mid-terms as folks would had long forgotten her face by now. Same goes for Kristi Noem. Better late than never. These two women hurt Pres. Trump's ratings much more than he realizes. My question to you is do you believe these women were more controversial than if a man had held these positions? — Sharon H.

Hi Sharon. I didn’t shed any tears for Pam Bondi, of course, but as I told one of the commenters on this website the other day, Bondi wasn’t fired for being incompetent (which she was) or being a terrible AG (which she also was). Trump fired her for not being terrible ENOUGH. His beef was that she wasn’t aggressive enough in perverting our legal system to punish his perceived political opponents, and protect his from the Epstein political fallout (which he can thank MAGA influencers for — including his current FBI Director Kash Patel). In other words, despite Bondi completely discrediting the office and herself for Trump, it wasn’t (as Bernie discussed in this week’s “Off the Cuff”) enough for him. He wanted her to be more corrupt. She wasn’t (or couldn’t be), so he fired her.

As for the midterms, I don’t think Bondi and Noem will make (or would have made) a difference. And I don’t think their gender played a role in them being controversial.

John: It’s the beginning of April, so that means tax season. Again this year, my wife and I are going through the herculean task of gathering all documents, receipts, etc. to submit to the tax preparer. Even though we don’t do our own taxes, I still consider this an autopsy of my finances without the benefit of death. We hear a lot about raising taxes in blue states and lowering taxes in red states, but I think that misses half the point. I would actually be willing to pay slightly MORE taxes if this whole process were greatly simplified for time and clarity. The older I get, the more I value time equal to or greater than money. Have you seen any proposals lately to simplify the tax code, and do you agree that this would go a long way towards clarity of the whole exercise of taxation? — Steve R.

I feel your pain, Steve. The work I do for this website/membership is just one several contracted jobs I have (in addition to author royalties/expenses, freelance writing, etc). My accountant probably hates me due to the complex nature of my tax situation, but I suppose that’s my cross to bear for being (as Bernie calls me) The Renascence Man of the Rocky Mountains.

I’m all for a simplified tax code, and I’ve heard lots of proposals over the years for making it happen, but they unfortunately never come to fruition, in large part due to political interests. In other words, Steve, I think this will continue to be a pain in the butt.

Sir John — what are your thoughts on Pope Leo’s homily about Jesus ignoring the prayers of those who wage war? On the one hand, it appears that he’s speaking about Trump. That’s fine. But I would take him more seriously if he had the guts to criticize the Islamic regime and what they did when they slaughtered their own citizens protesting in the streets, and then afterwards they executed a star wrestler simply for dissension. Okay so the Mullahs and IRGC aren’t Christians, nor do I believe that Jesus is pro war. But I can’t help wondering if the Pontiff would have made the same homily in 1941. —“All We Are Saying Is Give Peace A Chance…While The Iranian Citizens Are Being Slaughtered By Their Rulers” regard from The Emperor

Hi Emperor. This may sound weird, but I’ve never put much personal stock in what Popes say about the morality of war (unless it’s specifically about war crimes), because of how complicated and individualized of an issue it is (geopolitically and beyond). Like you, I don’t believe that Jesus is pro-war, but many times throughout history it has been war that has ultimately saved scores of people from genocide, or liberated them from terrible suffering. Though I do think Pope Leo was addressing Trump’s threats to commit war crimes, he also got more broadly into the morality of war (which again, is complicated).

If I recall, Pope Leo did comment on the mass-murder of Iranian protests, but did in so in broad terms (emphasizing peace, dialogue, and an end to the suffering of civilians) without specifically naming the Iranian regime. Was it a cop-out not to name them? Maybe/probably. But for what it’s worth, I don’t think he specifically named Trump either. Regardless, like I said, I don’t hang on a Pope’s words when it comes to this issue.

You’re exactly right about Vance with Orban. What a disgrace. In regard to the flaming hypocrisy of his “election interference” comments, he’s STILL out there doing it. He told a Hungarian interviewer: “You should never have a foreign head of state threatening the head of government of an allied nation. It's preposterous, it's unacceptable.” TRUMP HAS DONE THIS TIME AFTER TIME. Does Vance honestly not understand how ridiculous he sounds? — Ben G.

I think Vance is smart enough understand exactly how hypocritical and shameless these comments are, Ben. He just doesn’t care. As we’ve seen time after time (including specifically with Vance), there’s no penalty for double-standards and breathtaking hypocrisy in today’s U.S. politics (let alone lies). Thus, there’s nothing keeping those things from getting worse — except for personal shame (which Vance, and many other politicians on both sides of the aisle, no longer have).

What are your thoughts on Thomas Massie? Did you ever expect him to become a Trump opponent in the GOP? — Alex D.

I don’t like Massie. Like a broken clock, he gets a couple of things right, but I mostly view him as a conspiracy-nut provocateur who — up until recently — was overly servile to the guy he’s now become of an “opponent” of. Am I surprised that he (and others like MTG) have taken on this new role? Maybe a little, but they were perfectly fine (and eager) to go along with some of Trump’s worst instincts (at times when it mattered more).

Hi John, has Trump lost his mind completely?

“There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP.”

What are your thoughts on the US committing war crimes by attacking civilian infrastructure such as water desalination plants, bridges and power plants? Will Trump Join Putin and Netanyahu on the ICC’s most wanted list?” Fun video explainer.

Can acting AG Todd Blanche’s slobbering love affair with Donald Trump get any more sickening and cringeworthy? Blanche publicly prostrated himself in front of the entire media, affirming his “love” and subservience to the President. I have never seen a more spineless display of toadying in my life, and that’s saying a lot with this current administration. — FDM

Lots to answer there, FDM. Lol. I’ll address one question at time.

Longtime readers know that I’ve long believed Trump to be psychologically/emotionally/temperamentally unfit to be president, and I do think it’s getting worse as he gets older. (And before newer readers throw “What about Biden???” at me, I argued, while Biden was in office, that he was so mentally unfit that he should have resigned rather than try to run for a second term). I’ve always believed that a U.S. president’s words matter, and while one could argue that a president presenting oneself as insane could effectively scare our enemies into compliance, what I’ve seen with recent developments surrounding the Strait of Hormuz (and the broader Iran situation) isn’t exactly compliance.

To my knowledge, Trump hasn’t committed any war crimes (though he spoke of possibly doing such, which was bad in itself, but not an international crime).

As for Blanche: Yes, it can absolutely get worse, but it’s hyper-embarrassing at its current level. As I’m often reminded, there is no bottom.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Not all that long ago, it was considered wholly improper for an elected representative of the United States to campaign for a foreign leader — especially on their home turf. But earlier this week, Vice President JD Vance did exactly that. Making it especially gross was who that leader was: an unapologetic supporter of Vladimir Putin and outspoken opponent of Western civilization, policies, and governance.

I’m talking, of course, about Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary. He’s currently running for a fifth consecutive term, and polls suggest it’s a very tight race. Orbán’s erosion of democratic institutions and the rule of law, along with economic stagnation in his country, have voters considering a new direction. In a move of desperation, Orbán presumably called upon his buddy, President Trump, for a helping hand. Vance was apparently tasked to publicly extend it.

Critics of the move have pointed out that beyond Trump’s personal affection for the strongman leader, the United States and its allies would gain nothing from Orbán winning reelection. In fact, Orbán has been deepening Hungary’s ties with China, and obstructing the Trump administration’s preferred Ukraine policy of letting Europe take the lead role in supporting Ukraine against its Russian invaders. He’s also been delaying sanctions packages against Russia.

Russia certainly has a vested interest in Orbán staying in power; the United States does not.

But it’s even worse than that…

In Vance’s Budapest campaign speech, the vice president went as far as parroting Kremlin propaganda that Ukraine has been interfering in foreign elections, including those of Hungary… and the United States.

“This is just what they do,” Vance told reporters. “This is part of the cost of doing business within some elements of their system. I try to remind myself that Ukraine, like the United States, is a very complicated place. There are good people and there are bad people. There are people that try to interfere in others’ elections. And there are people who actually just say, you know what, we believe in sovereignty for everybody. And that’s what we support. For example, there were people in the Ukrainian system who were campaigning with Democrats literally in the weeks before the presidential election where Donald Trump won very comfortably in November of 2024.”

Of course, that didn’t happen. That is, unless one wants to argue that President Zelenskyy touring a Pennsylvania ammunition factory alongside local Democratic leaders was a campaign event. For Zelenskyy, it was an opportunity to thank American workers (who were producing shells for Ukraine) for helping defend is country against its Russian invaders.

As shameful as Vance’s comments were, one could simply add them to our vice president’s long history of expressed, inexplicable, personal animosity toward Ukraine and Zelenskyy. But what stood out in this instance was the glaring irony of Vance’s claim.

Vance, that very day in Budapest, was openly doing exactly what he accused Ukrainians of doing: campaigning for a foreign leader. In his speech, Vance even specifically called on Hungarians to “go to the polls” and “stand with Viktor Orbán.” He also voice-conferenced President Trump into the event, who told attendees (and Hungarians watching at home): “I’m a big fan of Viktor. I’m with him all the way. The United States is with him all the way.”

By Vance’s own framing, that is election interference. Thus, doesn’t that make him and Trump two of the “bad people” he spoke of?

“It’s like a Prohibitionist pastor railing against that ol’ demon rum between shots of whiskey,” remarked The Dispatch’s Jonah Goldberg.

Sadly, expecting our political leaders to be mindful of their own hypocrisy is a pointless, bipartisan exercise in today’s politics. But shouldn’t we still expect our leaders to prioritize America’s interests over those of Russia?

It doesn’t feel like a lot to ask for.

Share

Are you into mystery/thriller fiction?

“John Daly has a magical writing style, and his books keep you up late at night turning pages.” — Dana Perino, The Five

For a limited time, my novel “From a Dead Sleep” (book one in the Sean Coleman Thriller series) is just $1.99 on Amazon Kindle!

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

Greetings, sir, John: what do you think of the No Kings protestors? For that matter, is it true that many of these protestors were being paid by very wealthy Communists? The types of people that want to take everything from the rich, but stay wealthy themselves? —“April Fools March For No Kings” regards from The Emperor

To be honest, Emperor, I paid even less attention to the most recent No Kings protests than I did the ones the preceded them. But my general assessment of “the movement” is that, like similar ones, it’s a hodgepodge of normal people, weirdos, and radicals. Were some protestors paid by “very wealthy communists”? Maybe. I’m assuming there are stories indicating as much (which is why you asked)? What I do know is that a number of people I know personally have gone to these things, and I can assure you that no one has been paying them to.

John: Politics and the courts are often downstream from culture, so I am curious about your thoughts regarding two legal decisions recently, one in your home state. The Supreme Court ruled this week against Colorado's "conversion therapy" ban. Also, a California jury found Meta and YouTube liable for the mental health issues of a woman who became addicted to the dopamine hits that social media companies program into their algorithm. Do you think these decisions will have legs and far-reaching consequences? What about the moral and legal issues that serve as undercurrents? — Steve R.

Hi Steve. I think politics are certainly more downstream from culture than our courts, but I can certainly think of examples of what you’re talking about.

Anyway, regardless of what one thinks about “conversion therapy,” I think it’s pretty clear that Colorado’s ban violated the First Amendment. The SCOTUS ruling was a victory for free speech.

I don’t know much about the California case, but the ruling, as you describe it, seems pretty ludicrous on its face. I have all kinds of criticism for social-media and its algorithms, but finding these companies liable of damages related to screen-addiction feels like a very slippery legal slope. I can picture lots others now trying to get in on the action.

Why is Vice President Vance going to Hungary next week to campaign for Viktor Orban? — Alex D.

The White House is trying to portray the planned joint-remarks as something other than that, Alex, but you’re right: It’s a campaign endorsement. And it’s both inappropriate and pretty gross (considering who Orban is).

Unfortunately, both Trump and the Postliberal Right (of which Vance is part of) have a crush on Orban. With Trump, I’m sure part of the appeal is their mutual affection for Vladimir Putin, but a lot of it has to do with Orban’s autocratic tendencies. Trump and Vance want him to stay in power for reasons that just aren’t in America’s interest.

Did I see you dissing Chuck Norris on X the other day, John? You do know he once roundhouse kicked someone so hard that his foot broke the speed of light, right? RIP

Lol! Chuck was an American icon (and by all accounts, a very nice guy). RIP. But yeah, his acting was always pretty rough.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Last week, The Dispatch’s Steve Hayes wrote a fascinating (and entertaining) long-form piece on a hotly contested (but little reported on) GOP primary race in Florida’s 19^th Congressional District. Rep. Byron Donalds currently holds the seat, but he’ll be giving it up to run to be Florida’s next governor. The district leans heavily Republican and pro-Trump, so whoever wins the contest will assuredly go on to win the general election.

The candidates, as Hayes describes, are quite an entangled collection of hardcore MAGA faithfuls.

Perhaps the most recognizable name among them is Madison Cawthorn, who’d previously represented North Carolina’s 11^th District for a single term (from 2021 to 2023). He had plans on staying in that office longer, but a few reelection snafus prevented that from happening. By “snafus,” I’m referring to Cawthorn’s unsubstantiated (and later recanted) claims of being pressured into attending cocaine-fueled congressional orgies on Capitol Hill, the public emergence of photos of him wearing women’s lingerie, and multiple videos showing him simulating sex acts with men (one of whom was allegedly his cousin).

It was a little too weird for Cawthorn’s former constituents, who voted him out in the primary. A week after that defeat, the House Ethics Committee announced that Cawthorn was under investigation for an inappropriate relationship with a male staffer (his second cousin) and a conflicting interest with a cryptocurrency business.

Now a Floridian, Cawthorn is presumably tanned, rested, and ready to give the U.S. Congress another try.

Also running for the Florida House seat is another former congressional representative, Chris Collins. Collins served New York’s 27^th Congressional District for a few terms before insider-trading charges resulted in his resignation and imprisonment. He was supposed to spend over two years in the clink, but Donald Trump pardoned him just a couple months into his sentence.

Believe it or not, Collins isn’t the only individual in the race who was pardoned by President Trump. He shares that apparent honor with fellow candidate, John Strand, a California transplant whose biggest political notoriety, prior to running for Florida’s 19^th, was as an unapologetic January 6 rioter.

Strand (who possibly attended Madison Cawthorn’s vitriolic “Stop the Steal” speech that day) was convicted of multiple crimes for his conduct at the U.S. Capitol, including a felony (for which he served prison time). As with several hundred other J6ers, Trump would later absolve Strand of his legal sins. Strand not only walked away with his freedom, but also a slogan he’s currently using in his campaign ads: “Let’s storm the Capitol for real.”

The good news for fans of law and order is that the remaining candidates don’t have much of a criminal record. Most have instead established themselves as geographically-diverse professional political candidates.

Ola Hawatmeh is a MAGA influencer and former New York congressional hopeful. Catalina Lauf is a multi-time congressional candidate, who ran unsuccessful campaigns in three different Florida districts before trying her hand at the 19th. Prior to moving to Florida, she ran for congress in Illinois, where she was defeated in the GOP primary by a guy named Jim Oberweis. Oberweis would go on to lose the general election, and move to Florida… where he’s currently running once again against Laur — this time in the 19th.

As Steve Hayes describes in his piece, Oberweis “has run and lost so many times that he’s known in Illinois as the ‘Milk dud.’ Oberweis ran for U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2002 and 2004. He ran for governor in 2006. He ran for the House in the 14^th Congressional District in 2008 (in a special election and the regular election). He ran for the U.S. Senate again in 2014, winning the GOP primary and losing to Sen. Dick Durbin.”

Also in the race are Linda Sawyer (who ran unsuccessfully in three different Michigan congressional districts over four cycles), recent New Jersey arrival Dylan Modarelli, and former Marine Mike Pedersen.

Oh, and there’s also Jim Schwartzel, a fellow who owns a local country music station called “Trump Country.” He and Pedersen are the only two candidates who’ve lived in Florida’s 19^th district for some time.

What everyone in the race has in common is their expressed adoration of President Trump. As Hayes documents in his piece, it’s pretty much the entirety of each of their arguments for why they should win the nomination: They love Trump more than their primary competitors do.

Case in point, there hasn’t been much in the way of voter outreach or campaign events. The only real campaigning going on, as Hayes describes, has been the campaign for Trump’s endorsement (which everyone agrees would effectively decide the nomination). The effort has included adopting Trump’s policies wholesale, parroting Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was stolen, attending events in celebration of Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and landing air-time on Fox News (Trump’s go-to network) to further sing the president’s praises. Chris Collins has gone as far as claiming he was targeted by prosecutors not for the commission of a crime, but rather for being too effective of a servant to Trump.

You can’t make this stuff up, folks.

Or course, one might ask why any of this matters (beyond entertainment value). If a congressional district is so reliably pro-Trump that criminals, disgraced former leaders, and failed politicians converge there — from around the country — in hopes of becoming a reliable pro-Trump vote, flatterer, and pseudo-celebrity in Washington, isn’t that the prerogative of everyone involved?

The answer to that question is yes. If the only standard constituents choose to hold their representative to is that of unconditional loyalty to Donald Trump, it’s hard to imagine voters in Florida’s 19th will be disappointed with any of these contenders.

But here’s my question: Shouldn’t voters expect more — especially those who still consider themselves conservatives in our system of divided government?

Our national debt is about to surpass $40 trillion — double the amount it was when Trump first took office. Yet, like the Democrats, Trump still opposes reforming the federal entitlement programs that are the major drivers of our debt. He’s signed more debt-spending into law than any president in U.S. history (and it’s not even close).

Is the rapidly approaching insolvency of Social Security and Medicare not of any concern to today’s Republican Party? How about a catastrophic debt crisis? Is loyalty to Trump really all that matters, at least for the next few years? Shouldn’t our congressional representatives be thinking more about America’s future than live-in-the-moment rump-kissing?

Trump’s trade war has been a major drag on the U.S. economy. The numbers don’t lie. His tariffs have cost us jobs, driven up prices and government subsidies, raised taxes on the American people, and alienated safe and previously reliable trade partners — all while achieving none of the goals the administration promised. Congress could put and end to this failed experiment tomorrow, and the GOP could right the ship and reclaim its “free trade” mantle.

Is personal loyalty to Donald Trump really more important than the health of the U.S. economy? He’d still be our president, after all, even with more principled conservatives in the Republican Congress occasionally voting against his worst ideas.

Sure, the race in Florida’s 19^th is uniquely cartoonish because of the candidates’ pasts… But purely in the realm of congressional representation, is it really all that different than the GOP primaries currently taking place throughout the rest of the country?

Maybe that’s something to think about when it’s time for you to vote in this year’s local primary.

Share

Reminder: For a limited time, free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives.

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

John: I was reading Friday that CBS, once a pioneer in the business, is ending its radio service. This makes me sad, as it is the end of an era and a piece of Americana. Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid, Dan Rather, and Peggy Noonan (as a writer for Rather) all got their starts in CBS Radio. I was once a general manager of a couple of small-town radio stations and still enjoy the magic and intimacy of terrestrial radio. Maybe this is more a question for Bernie, but what are your thoughts and reflections on this news and the future of radio in general? — Steve R.

Yeah, that really is a better question for Bernie, Steve. Lol. I’ve never listened to CBS Radio, nor did I ever really get my news through the radio medium. Radio, in general, does seem to be slowly fading out of existence, as more and more people turn to streaming services. I suspect it will eventually go away all together (at least as we know it), unless it finds a way to hang on, in some limited fashion, as a novelty attraction (similar to drive-in movies).

What do you think about Jimmy Kimmel mocking Senator Markwayne Mullin for being a plumber? — Daniel R.

I thought it was very cheap and elitist, Daniel. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Mullin (I’m not a fan), but dismissing him as a “plumber” for a punchline was snobbish and willfully ignorant. Mullin took over his family's small, six-employee plumbing business after his father's health went down the tubes, and he turned it into the biggest plumbing service company in his state. And it was just one of eight companies he owned. That’s a very impressive resume, even if you don’t like Mullin as a politician.

John, what's with your dismay of Tulsi Gabbard? — Al

Not too many years before she was our National Intelligence Director (including when she was a Democratic member of Congress), Tulsi Gabbard was essentially a propagandist/apologist for tyrannical enemies of the United States, including Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin. Her “useful idiot” role should have kept her from being given any presidential-cabinet position, let alone that of National Intelligence Director. But because she kissed up to Trump (on Fox News and elsewhere) and trashed her former party a whole lot, Trump nominated her, and the GOP Senate confirmed her.

Just weeks after becoming secretary, she absurdly testified, under oath, that Iran was not working on a nuclear-weapons program (the very nuclear-weapons program Trump would drop bombs on a few months later). Since then, amidst much speculation that she’s been leaking information from the administration to the press, the White House has apparently insulated Gabbard from serious national intelligence matters (despite her being the director), and placed her on 2020 election conspiracy-theory investigations, rather than taking the appropriate action of removing her from office. If she had any dignity, she’d resign. If the administration took her position seriously, they’d fire her. I’m hoping one of those things happens soon, and I suspect it just might.

Greetings, Sir John — recently Hasan Piker and a bunch of virtue signaling leftist groups, such as Code Pink, went to Cuba to stay in a 5-Star Hotel and “help” the suffering Cuban people who are alleged victims of America. Even the Irish band Kneecap was there performing in concert. Ironically, as it turns out, these wealthy left-wing American liberal fools ended up, causing a power outage from the concert, causing people in the hospitals on ventilators to lose power and die. How do you feel about this and why do these liberal Marxist idiots continue to blind themselves with the virtue signaling that is doing nothing but causing problems? —“Power OUTAGE To The People!” regards from The Emperor

The part about them causing a power outage and killing people seems to be a hoax, Emperor (I discovered that with a simple online search). As for performative political activism, I’m not a fan. It’s typically far more about getting personal attention than helping anyone who’s legitimately suffering. That was certainly the case this time.

By the way, I hadn’t heard of this Piker guy until just a few months ago, but every time he pops up on my radar, it’s because he does or says something idiotic.

Since it became a topic this week, is there anyone whose death you would publicly celebrate? — Ben G.

Oh, maybe a mass murderer’s, or someone of that nature… though I can’t remember a time when I’ve actually ever celebrated anyone’s death.

Did president Trump just go full TACO with Iran? Was he caught out as a liar in regards to discussions with “Iran’s Leadership” who flatly deny ever having discussions with his administration (even through back channels)? Or is Iran lying? Who is responsible for the current airport chaos inflicting misery on travelers? Surely it can’t be the government in power?? — FDM

I’m not sure what’s going to happen with Iran, FDM. Like I said on this week’s podcast, there’s been lots of mixed signals about the administration’s goals for, and commitment to, this war. As for who’s being dishonest, I don’t know. Trump tells plenty of lies, but the Iranian regime obviously does as well. As for the airport chaos, I’m not sure you can pin it all on one party, or even one factor, but I do think the Dems are more to blame than the Republicans, since they’ve tied DHS funding to ICE reforms (which has been a big part of the hangup).

I saw your post on X about this year’s National Park pass, and I LOL’d. I honestly thought you made that photo yourself, but it’s real! I guess plastering his name and face all over U.S. memorials, federal offices, Bibles, U.S. coins, U.S. currency, and stimulus checks wasn’t enough. Did you follow through with the purchase? — Alex D.

Lol. Now, I’m going to have to explain this, Alex, so readers know what you’re talking about.

Every year, my wife and I purchase an America the Beautiful National Park pass (we go to multiple national parks throughout the year (including nearby Rocky Mountain National Park), and the pass saves us a lot of money. The card design is known for featuring beautiful National Park wildlife and scenery.

Here’s what past annual cards looked like:

But when I logged into the National Park website the other day, to purchase the 2026 card, I discovered that this is what it looks like:

No, that’s not satire. That’s the actual “America-250” card, featuring — as you say — more of the same. Breathtakingly beautiful aesthetics, huh? Really captures the spirit of our national parks and federal lands. Anyway, I’ll complete the purchase next week when my current pass expires.

In the meantime, I’ll leave you all with some pictures I took last week in Rocky Mountain National Park (it was a great day)…

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Over the weekend, after a five-year battle with Parkinson's disease, Robert Mueller passed away at the age of 81.

Mueller was a longtime public servant, who held a number of high-profile federal-government positions throughout his impressive career, including as our sixth director of the FBI (from 2001 to 2013). As former President George W. Bush stated in remembrance, Mueller, who took the helm a mere week before the 9/11 attacks, transitioned the bureau’s mission to protecting the homeland, and helped prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

As a young man in 1968, Mueller, a recent Princeton graduate at the time, volunteered to fight for our country in the Vietnam War. He was so committed to serving in the theater that he waited a year for a knee injury to heal, so that he would be accepted into the military. A U.S. Marine Corps officer, he led a rifle platoon and earned a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart, and two Navy Commendation Medals.

Mueller was married to his one and only wife, Ann, for 60 years. They had two daughters and three grandchildren.

On Saturday, shortly after the announcement of his passing, and the beginning of his family’s mourning, President Trump publicly celebrated Mueller’s death.

“Good, I’m glad he’s dead,” Trump posted on social media. “He could no longer hurt innocent people!”

Lots of observers (including Trump supporters) expressed shock at the incredibly callous statement, but it’s hard to imagine anyone was truly surprised. This is what Trump does. This is who he is. In his mind, anyone he perceives as an adversary is neither worthy of respect nor basic human decency — even in death. The same goes for their families.

“This is the kind of stuff Trump does that makes people not just oppose him but hate him,” remarked Fox News’s Brit Hume. “There was no need to say anything.”

Indeed there wasn’t, but as we saw with John McCain, Donald Trump (who sought and received five draft deferments during the Vietnam War era — including one for bone spurs) seems to hold a particular animus toward “adversaries” who are widely recognized as patriots and war heroes.

Of course, it shouldn’t really matter why our president didn’t like Robert Mueller — not for this discussion, anyway. Trump doesn’t have (nor is he expected) to like anyone he doesn’t want to. But for the sake of many Trump loyalists — those who feel inclined to rationalize anything and everything that comes out of our president’s mouth or keyboard (as they’re doing again this time) — it’s probably worth noting what, exactly, was behind Trump’s beef with Mueller.

From 2017 to 2019, Mueller led the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in our 2016 election. The investigation included (but was by no means limited to) possible collusion between Trump, Trump associates, and the Russian government.

Contrary to popular MAGA belief, Mueller didn’t start the investigation, create the special counsel, or seek to lead it. The investigation had been ongoing for months before Mueller’s involvement, conducted by the FBI under the leadership of the Trump Justice Department. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who was appointed by President Trump and confirmed by the Republican-led Senate, was compelled to create the special counsel in response to Trump's controversial firing of FBI Director James Comey. Rosenstein assigned Mueller to lead the team.

Mueller had a sterling reputation, and his appointment received broad bipartisan support at the time, including from high-profile MAGA cheerleaders like Newt Gingrich. But Trump, likely motivated in part by the reckless assurances of liberal pundits and Democrats that Mueller would indict Trump at any moment, made Mueller his enemy. He publicly smeared Mueller at every turn, insisting that he was a vindictive, anti-Trump partisan who was running a corrupt investigation with the sole purpose of taking him down. Trump and his loyalists declared the probe to be illegitimate, and a vicious attack on our very democracy.

But as it turned out, Mueller effectively exonerated the president. He concluded there was insufficient evidence showing collusion between Trump and Russia, as well as insufficient evidence to charge Trump for obstruction. Mueller did unearth other criminal wrongdoing related to Russian inference, and got indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies.

In the wake of the final report, Trump himself, to the surprise of many, even praised Mueller for doing an honorable job (before turning on him again shortly after).

The Durham Report later identified abuses and biases within the FBI that had improperly altered the scope of the original investigation, but again, that had nothing to do with Mueller. He came in later.

But the fact that he came in at all is why Trump hated the man. Mueller had the gall to step up and serve his country, when called upon, in a way that Trump didn’t like. Thus, he remained a villain to the president and MAGA-world until his dying day (and beyond). To a certain type of person, adding to the pain of that man’s family, while they grieve their loss, is not only understandable but entirely defensible.

Donald Trump is demonstrably that type of person, but you don’t have to be.

Share

Reminder: For a limited time, free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives.

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

John: Simple question this week - Are you for or against keeping the senate filibuster? — Steve R.

I’m for keeping it. I’ve been consistent on that position, regardless of which party holds the Senate majority. I think Senate approval should require a stronger consensus than that of the House.

Sir John, Do you think it would be a beneficial strategic move for the U.S. military & the IDF to take control of Kharg Island in this current conflict? Also why did Trump ask for assistance from our NATO allies with keeping the Straits of Hormuz safe if, as Trump claims, “we really don’t need their help? — “Strait FLUSH Kharg-GO!” Regards from The Emperor

I don’t know enough about the pros, cons, and military logistics to offer an educated opinion on Kharg Island, Emperor. As for Trump, he loves to treat our NATO allies like crap, and claim the alliance has been useless to the United States (despite lots of examples — including deceased soldiers — that prove otherwise). Now, he’s mad that some of those allies, after all the bullying and berating he’s done of them since returning to office last year, are reluctant to help with a war he didn’t even bother consulting them on beforehand. It’s a mess of his own creation, and if he doesn’t effectively kill NATO before the end of this term, the alliance will likely require years of repair by future U.S. presidents.

John, Given that Iran vowed retaliation for decades to come, do you see another military action taking place when Pres Trump is out of office? No one will ever be as brave, bold, and ballsy as this administration. — Susan H.

I would love to believe, Susan, that by the end of this Trump term, the current regime will be no more, and Iran will no longer be a state sponsor of terrorism or a nuclear threat. However, there are too many unknowns (at this point) for me to say, with confidence, that that will be the case. (I certainly hope it will). If not, I can definitely picture a future administration taking another military action against Iran. I don’t buy that no other administration would have done what Trump’s doing right now (I think Haley and DeSantis both would have). And now that it has been done, with much weaker retaliation than most people would have probably guessed, I think there’ll be less of a stigma with doing it again (if needed).

Two former FBI employees are suing the FBI, DOJ, Pam Bondi, and Kash Patel over being fired simply because they were previously assigned to investigate things that Donald Trump didn’t want investigated. Do you think their case stands a chance? — Alex D.

I don’t know, Alex, mainly because I’m not sure what legal protections such people have. I’m interested to see where this case goes, because what you’re correctly describing has happened to A LOT of people over the last 14 months. Think about the insanity of it: You’re an impressive individual who was hired and trained by the FBI, but was later fired (and had your career derailed) — not for incompetence — but because you were assigned to investigate January 6, efforts to overturn the 2020 election, Trump’s illegal handling of classified documents, or some other case that upset Donald Trump. This has been happening not just to FBI officers, but also DOJ employees and Secret Service agents. Meanwhile, new potential hires for these agencies are being asked whether they believe the 2020 election was stolen, as some kind of litmus test. It’s gross and glaringly unethical, and it’s weeding out competency and character in our federal government. But whether it’s illegal, I guess we’ll find out.

Mr. Daly, I was interested in your RINO answer. I avoid cable news and only subscribe to one other .com and one internet daily newsletter. I would be interested to know what your and Mr. Goldberg's top 5 news sources are. — Michael P.

The Dispatch is my go-to source for news, Michael, but I think National Review is still pretty good too (Audrey Fahlberg has been doing some great reporting there). I also think there’s value in checking out what legacy publications are putting out, like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. Like you, I avoid cable news (it’s mostly garbage these days).

With Noem and Kent now gone, who do you think will be the next high ranking cabinet official to be axed or quit? — Ben G.

My guess would be Tulsi Gabbard, which would be a great thing for our country.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Reminder: For a limited time, free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives.

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

Good, concise analysis. I am curious about your business relationship with each other, and also, John, which part of Colorado are you from. — Bob H.

Thanks Bob. Contrary to that of Kristi Noem and Corey Lewandowski, my business relationship with Bernie is strictly professional. Lol.

Seriously though, in simplified terms, Bernie owns this site/membership, and I manage and promote it. Both of us, of course, contribute our own individual commentary. I also edit the podcasts.

As for where I’m at, I live in Greeley, Colorado. It’s a little over an hour north of Denver. I grew up in Lakewood, a western suburb of Denver.

John, I admire your optimism about the future of Iran, and once again, I am not shedding any tears for the mullahs or other leaders in Iran that have met their 72 virgins. However, if you look at our track record in the Middle East vis a vis regime chance: Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan - we are basically 0-4. Our military is the best in the world, and can defeat any other military in the world in conventional combat situations, but "regime change" takes more than that. I just think it's overly naive to think this war won't drag on, in some form for at least 10 years. This looks like Iraq 2.0 to me. — John M.

I totally understand your concerns, John, and it’s entirely possible this will indeed drag on for some time. It’s easy to look at the overthrowing of past regimes in the Middle East, using the metric of whether it resulted in a Jeffersonian democracy (or even something well short of that), and see failure. But I don’t quite view it that way.

I had pretty complex thoughts on Afghanistan, prior to the enactment of the foolish Biden/Trump doctrine (people can read those thoughts here). I didn’t consider Afghanistan a loss before then, but rather more of a cold war. Biden forced an unnecessary loss, and the collapse of Afghanistan, based on the political sentiments from an earlier era. It was a terrible mistake.

And I still don’t consider Iraq a loss. It’s worth remembering that we actually toppled the regime pretty quickly, but Iran and other insurgents poured in over time and created a much deeper conflict. It took years, and blood and treasure, but I would argue that we actually won that war. Unfortunately, Obama pulled us out too early after the successful Bush-era surge, which drew in ISIS, and put us in the position of having to go back in and fight some more to clean it up. But all these years later, Iraq is in a far better place than it was and would have been. Still, what most people hold onto is the pain it took to get us there (which is understandable). Because of that, lots of folks reflexively believe every U.S. foreign invention will be like Iraq, despite differences in ruling regimes, history, culture, and regional conflicts — not to mention U.S. military objectives and capabilities.

Iran, in 2026, is different (so is the region for that matter). Since the Iraq War, many other countries in the Middle East have become far less hostile to (and even cooperative with) both the U.S. and Israel, in large part because they’ve come to recognize Iran as a common threat (a threat that has been significantly weakened, with their mostly behind-the-scenes help, over the past few years). The people of Iran are demonstrably emboldened to revolt, in a way the generationally-oppressed Iraqis were not. This less than two-week-old war in Iran has already led to Lebanon calling for direct talks with Israel on “permanent arrangements for security and stability on our borders,” while calling out the betrayal of Hezbollah. I think we can see many other positive alliances built from this, while what’s left of the Iranian regime becomes further isolated and diminished.

Are there lots of challenges and the potential for things to go wrong? Yes. Do I have faith in President Trump to see this situation through properly? No. But I think this is a historic, perhaps once-in-a-generation opportunity for a new day in the Middle East, and I hope it’s successful.

I’ve been wondering for awhile now which is better: parties selecting their candidate in backroom deals Like the old days; or the public primary system which, as you say, very few people participate in which leaves the party radicals left to pick the candidate. Your thought? — Rick H.

Good question, Rick. Party-primary reform is something I’ve thought a lot about over the last decade, as our two major parties have only grown weaker and weaker. It’s worth remembering what the purpose of a political party is supposed to be: a vehicle for defining social ambitions, translating them into policy positions, building public support for those positions, and ultimately advancing them through elections and public policy. But that’s not how the parties function these days, in no small part because those “smoke-filled rooms” no longer exist. The decision has instead been largely democratized, which, as you and I stated, gives more weight to highly-engaged radicals. And when a nominee is selected these days (often by a plurality rather than a majority), the car keys are basically just handed over to the winner, who’s often the loudest, most obnoxious person in the room. The party then climbs into the backseat, buckles up, and hopes they won’t be driven off a cliff.

This practice of falling in line behind an individual, whose ambitions and policy positions (if they even have any serious or identifiable ones) may not line up at all with the party platform, defeats the main purpose of that party. Some may remember that Trump (a lifelong Democrat until he decided to run for president) made the GOP drop their platform entirely at one point (they later rewrote it to essentially pledge deference to Trump). Others may recall that Bernie Sanders came closer to defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primary than anyone could have guessed (and he only switches his party affiliation from “Independent” to “Democrat” when he decides to run for president).

Think about that for a second: In 2016, Republicans nominated a lifelong Democrat, and Democrats came close to nominating an Independent, neither of whose views lined up with their respective party platforms. That’s how weak the parties had become, and they’re much weaker now.

So, do I think the “backroom deals” days were better for the parties, and resulted in stronger, more capable nominees than those selected through publicly democratized primaries? Yeah, I suppose I do. That said, I don’t see those days ever coming back (at least outside of emergency situations). The best someone like me could plausibly hope for are ranked-choice primaries, and increased primary turn-out.

John: I want to explore the term RINO, which I hate. Stands for Republican In Name Only and was most recently applied to Dan Crenshaw, who fell out of favor with the MAGA crowd and lost his primary race in Texas. I actually think most of the modern Republican party are RINO's, having forsaken many of the principles of conservatism - rule of law, personal responsibility, and especially fiscal conservatism. Has RINO just become a pejorative term among our Republican crowd for RIDL (Republicans I Don't Like)? — Steve R.

I’ve never liked the “RINO” stuff. It’s always struck me as stupid. Regardless, its meaning — as you elude to — has changed dramatically since the pre-Trump era. Back then, it was used to criticize Republicans who were deemed insufficiently conservative. Under that definition, Trump would be the ultimate RINO. Today, however, “RINO” is used to trash Republicans who aren’t 100% servile to Donald Trump. Heck, it’s even used to trash me, and I’ve been politically unaffiliated for a decade (you can’t be a RINO if you’re not even a Republican). I can’t take anyone seriously who throws the term “RINO” around in earnest these days.

Sir John — Jesse Jackson Jr. did the classy thing by inviting people of all political persuasions to his father’s funeral. As I recall, he did request that nobody bring politics into the funeral. Of course that did not stop Obama, Biden AND Harris from doing so. Your thoughts? —“Friday The 13th Part 2026—Dems Dishonor The Dead” regards from The Emperor

I’m of the strong belief that if the family of someone who’s passed away asks that funeral attendees refrain from engaging politics, those people should absolutely refrain from engaging in politics. It’s really a no-brainer. And yes, it’s disrespectful to disregard such a request.

A while back, there were a number of crazy commenters on this website who regularly accused you and Bernie of holding all kinds of positions and beliefs that you very clearly did not hold. In fact they were often the exact opposite beliefs that you guys have regularly stated in your writing and podcasts. What happened to them? Did they finally get tired of making stuff up? And why were they doing it in the first place? (Not that I miss them). — Alex D.

I think most of them just left, Alex… though I know a few are still subscribers. The whole phenomenon (which I see on lots of other websites as well) really is bizarre. It basically comes down to our criticism of Donald Trump, and some points I made in a column back in January.

If someone spends endless hours digesting popular right-wing commentary (whether it’s Fox News, Newsmax, high-ranking podcasts, etc.), they come to this website with all kinds of preconditions and “conventional wisdom” that doesn’t line up with our commentary. That’s because we’re not here to confirm people’s political biases, like the big outlets are. We’re just a couple of conservative guys sharing what we actually believe, based on facts, with intellectual consistency. But because we’re often at odds with the popular right-wing outlets, a certain type of person essentially disregards what we say, and instead assigns us the positions and ideology of their perceived political enemies: liberals. Again, this comes from what they’re preconditioned to believe — not what we actually say or write.

Below is a great example. Someone cancelled their subscription the other day, and included this note explaining why:

I've long admired you Bernie, because you were the first to correctly point out how dangerous the so-called mainstream media had become - "they aren't just biased, they are corrupt."But I'm afraid you have really lost your way. I too am a proud Reaganite. But any Reaganite that can actually endorse voting for the communist left is a good thing today has clearly lost his marbles. This idiocy of voting for the left because you don't like Trump is going to ruin this country. I can't believe you endorse this moronic point of view. Bye.

A question for those of you who just read that: When did Bernie ever “endorse voting for the communist left”? When did he endorse voting for any Democrat? Bernie doesn’t even vote for Democrats himself! He has stated, time after time, that the last Democrat he voted for was Jimmy Carter… in the 1980s!

And yet, this guy was so offended, by something he totally fabricated in his own mind (derived only from Bernie’s criticisms of Donald Trump), that he cancelled his subscription. If that’s not Trump Derangement Syndrome, I don’t know what is. But that’s the kind of stuff we unfortunately have to contend with in today’s hyper-tribal political environment.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

John, I support taking it to the Iranian regime as well, and I certainly will not shed any tears over the Supreme Leader’s demise. My concern, however, is what exactly is the administration’s endgame in Iran? Is it regime change? Is it to destroy their nuclear program once and for all? Is it to destroy their ballistic missile systems? Is it to punish them for sponsoring terrorism all over the world for decades? Is it, as Trump suggested in one TS post, because Iran supposedly “interfered in the 2020 and 2024 election against Trump”? As you and Bernie pointed out in the most recent no BS Zone, the president owes the Congress and the American people a much more detailed rationale for why this action was necessary at this time. I do agree with you that there IS a case to be made, but they need to make it. My fear is that Trump was emboldened by the relatively painless operation in Venezuela at the beginning of the year, and decided he can just do the same thing in any country that he feels has offended him. I’m afraid he thinks this is Venezuela 2.0, when more likely, it is Iraq 2.0. — John M.

Hi John. I think many of your concerns are valid. The administration’s messaging has been all over the place, and Trump has made statements over the past few days that would seem to line up with the notion that he indeed believed (or at least hoped) things would go as smoothly as with Venezuela. That said, it seems that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CENTCOM have a pretty good handle on the situation so far. So does the Israeli government, who understands the stakes and complexities much better than our president. The primary objective, despite Pete Hegseth’s press conference tap-dancing, seems to be to totally degrade or dismantle the current regime, including their leadership, military, and major weapons systems, with the ultimate goal of regime change.

That’s easier said than done, of course, but I think we have a good shot at success, and that would pay dividends to the Middle East and the free world for a long time.

Why is it easier to kill an evil, Hitler clone, Iranian Dictator, than it is to pass the Save Act, that 95% of all Republicans support, 70% of Democrats support, and 85% of all Americans support. — Rob O.

Because Operation Epic Fury has been an executive action (in coordination with Israel), and passing a bill into law requires approval from both branches of Congress and a presidential signature. That’s the simple answer, Rob (though I suspect your question was probably rhetorical).

You are correct. Very sad. Political civil war in the near future? — Robert C.

I guess that’s one way of phrasing it, Robert. Like I said in a recent piece, I think there’s a fight to be had for the future of the Republican Party once Trump has been sidelined.

Kristi Noem is finally gone! Are you surprised? — Alex D.

No, but I find it amusing what finally sunk her. It wasn’t her smearing a couple of Americans killed by ICE agents as “domestic terrorists.” It wasn’t her bypassing due-process to send asylum-seekers to a third-world prison. It wasn’t her carrying on an extramarital affair with Corey Lewandowski on the government dime (including a luxury $70 million jet). It wasn’t her awarding, through an irregular process, federal contracts to a company she is closely tied to. It wasn’t her spending over $220 million (again of taxpayers’ money) on a self-aggrandizing ad campaign. What got her in hot water was that she revealed, in a recent Senate hearing, that President Trump had pre-approved that ad-spending. That apparently sent Trump over the edge.

Do you not think there’s ANY future now for Dan Crenshaw in politics? — Ben G.

Oh, maybe in some capacity there is, but I don’t think he could win another GOP primary at this point — not unless the party goes through a major transformation once Trump’s gone.

I do agree that we need both strong Democratic AND Republican conservative party. How to get this done over time? Aloha, Mike

I think party primaries are a big part of the answer, Mike. More voters need to participate in them. Only about 20% of eligible voters currently do, which leaves the increasingly important nomination process up to a relatively small number of people, who tend to have more radical views than the average voter. I’d also like to see ranked-choice primary voting continue to grow in this country.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Last Tuesday marked the official start of the midterm election season, with three states holding their primaries. Nationally, most eyes were on Texas, where a number of controversial candidates were running for their party’s nomination for high office.

The results were… fairly disheartening — at least for us remnant conservatives who (perhaps foolishly) still hold out hope for a little bit of character and integrity in positions of public leadership.

Incumbent GOP congressman, Tony Gonzales, fared well enough to head into a runoff election in Texas’ 23^rd Congressional District. This, despite a number of lawmakers (including in his own party) calling on him to resign following allegations that he pressured a staffer into an extramarital affair with him. The staffer later committed suicide by setting herself on fire, but an endorsement from President Trump has helped keep Gonzales competitive in the race.

Also performing well enough for a runoff was Republican U.S. Senate candidate, and current Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton. Paxton is infamous for his numerous acts of professional corruption (met with both criminal indictments and impeachment), his bizarre legal efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and his serial philandering. If nominated over incumbent GOP senator John Cornyn, his baggage would all but assure the Democrats taking over the seat in November. Yet, unlike with Texas’ 23^rd, President Trump refused to endorse anyone in the race heading into March 3. This let Paxton run on his uniquely close relationship with (and devotion to) the president — and not much else. Paxton barely spent any time campaigning, and he and his allies put just $4 million into the race. Yet, it was enough to give him the lead in most of the polls heading into the election.

Conversely, Cornyn (who’s pretty MAGA in his own right, but can’t compete at Paxton’s comic bookish level on that front) campaigned like a mad man. He and his allies spent a whopping $71 million on the campaign, which resulted in a surprise one-point victory. Cornyn is hoping his narrow win will compel Trump to get off the sidelines, endorse his campaign going into the May runoff, and put him over the top.

But the real bummer of the night was Dan Crenshaw, the decorated former U.S. Navy SEAL, and four-term incumbent GOP congressman, losing his primary race. He did so by a wide margin to a Tucker Carlson-backed, anti-Ukraine, MAGA populist named Steve Toth.

I found it sad for a few reasons.

Not so long ago, Crenshaw was widely believed to be the future of the Republican Party. He was a young, patriotic war-hero with traditionally conservative values, who even enjoyed some brief celebrity status as a unifying pop-culture figure. But the Trump era has had a way of derailing the political careers of conscientious Republicans, and Crenshaw, as an elected leader, has often found himself walking a tightrope between serving his country honorably (as he did in the military), and abiding by the MAGA rules of Republican expectations.

To those outside of the MAGA-verse, Crenshaw sure seemed to do what was required of him to remain politically viable in today’s GOP, even if he didn’t always look comfortable doing it. He consummately fawned over Trump, slammed his opponents, and reliably voted for legislation Trump supported as president. Crenshaw also voted against both of Trump’s impeachments. But to Trump devotees, the congressman hadn’t surrendered enough of his soul to the cause. They deemed him insufficiently loyal to Dear Leader and the “America First” agenda.

Crenshaw’s cardinal sins included voting to certify the results of the 2020 election, and publicly criticizing Republicans and pro-Trump media figures who promoted Trump’s bogus “stolen election” claims. He also got into hot water for supporting bipartisan border-enforcement legislation when Joe Biden was president, which turned out to be a party no-no because Trump, in his effort to return to the White House, wanted to run on the issue of a porous southern border. Toth framed Crenshaw’s acts as a “betrayal” of their constituents, the party, and the country.

It’s sad to think that prioritizing the nation and U.S. Constitution over one man’s ego is akin to treason in today’s GOP, but it is, and Toth successfully presented it as such. So did Trump, for that matter; Crenshaw was the only incumbent House Republican in Texas who he refused to endorse, despite the congressman, as I said, serving us a reliable flatterer and pro-Trump vote. Crenshaw’s open support of Ukraine was the icing on the cake.

As expected, lots of people in the “America First” movement are celebrating Crenshaw’s loss. They’ve long mocked the congressman, who lost his right eye to an IED explosion while serving our country in Afghanistan, with the nickname “Eyepatch McCain.” In his defeat, they’ve continued to grossly lampoon his disability.

As stated in the Schadenfreude above, Crenshaw will finish out his current term in early January of next year — about ten months from now. It will be interesting to see how he’ll handle that time.

Maybe he’ll keep his head low, and try not to ruffle more feathers on his way out the door. Or… maybe he’ll go out with a bang, as Rep. Don Bacon and Sen. Thom Tillis have chosen to. Like Rep. Ken Buck before them, they’ve decided to end their political careers on their own terms, standing on principle and calling out the MAGA malfeasance that has largely defined the Republican Party, and corrupted the conservative movement, over the last decade.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that my job is to fight for the soul of our party, and defend our traditional, conservative, Reagan values,” Bacon told me last year.

That’s exactly what he’s been doing, and though I wish more Republican lawmakers would have chosen the tact earlier, at moments when it would have perhaps mattered more (like supporting Liz Cheney’s efforts after January 6), I still think there’s value in doing it now.

My hope is that Crenshaw will go the Bacon/Tillis route, both on rhetoric and policy, as he clearly knows the difference between right and wrong, believes in conservative principles, and is no longer bound by party considerations.

I guess we’ll find out soon.

Share

Last Friday for the Reagan Caucus Podcast, mere hours before the United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury on the Iranian regime, I had the opportunity to co-interview National Review’s Noah Rothman on the attack he believed he was imminent.

Rothman writes a lot about, and is extremely well-versed in, U.S. foreign policy. I always find his perspectives valuable, and Friday was no different. We discussed the build-up of military assets in the region, the historic justification for upping the ante on Iran, the goal and possibility of regime change, and the public perception of what was to come.

The latter is something I think about whenever there’s a U.S. military operation abroad — mainly for reasons I discussed with Bernie Goldberg on last week’s No BS Zone. Americans typically don’t pay much attention to foreign policy unless they’re forced to. And up until that point, in addition to side-stepping congressional approval for an operation in Iran (which I believe was a mistake), the Trump administration hadn’t made much of a public case for what they were about to do. This, despite there being a strong case to make (including Iran being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans).

Sure, a couple officials had once again evoked Iran’s nuclear program, but as Rothman explained on Friday, it was a hard argument to make due to the success of Operation Midnight Hammer last summer:

Senator Ted Cruz made the same point after the operation began.

While I have no doubt that Iran’s nuclear ambitions hadn’t been deterred, their nuclear capabilities certainly had been (at least for the foreseeable future). I think the real hesitancy to appeal to Americans (beyond the abstract), and let the case simmer in the court of public opinion, was muscle memory from the Iraq War a couple decades earlier. Iraq was a much more complicated conflict, under different circumstances, that required a large deployment of ground troops.

That’s probably also why the Trump administration launched Midnight Hammer under what was apparently the false predicate that Iran was planning to preemptively strike the United States.

But Iran is not Iraq, and U.S. and Israeli military and intelligence-gathering capabilities are far more advanced than they were 23 years ago. The broader situation in the Middle East is also quite different. More of Iran’s neighbors, due to the growing threat Iran posed to them, had built strong working relationships with Israel and the United States (a lot of it behind the scenes). Since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, the IDF (with help from the United States) had dealt tremendous blows to Iran’s terrorist network. With Iran’s nuclear program sidelined, and the country’s domestic uprising that began earlier this year, America and Israel were left with arguably the best opportunity they’ve had in decades to remove the regime. And to everyone’s credit, they took advantage of it. Congratulations, President Trump. Congratulations, Prime Minister Netanyahu.

We’ve been watching the operation play out since then, thus far with a good amount of success.

Is regime-change a foregone conclusion in Iran? No (though much of the regime’s leadership has thankfully already been decimated). This is war. War is complicated. War is hell. Conditions will change. Unforeseen circumstances will arise. There’s already a good amount of confusion as to the administration’s goals and commitment to the cause. And of course, a lot’s going to depend on the will of the Iranians, and their ability to organize and take back their country.

I wish them the best of luck.

I support this effort, and am glad we’ve embarked on it. I’m praying for the safety of our troops, our allies, and the Iranian people.

While we watch as the situation continues to unfold, I think it’s worth reflecting on some of the politics (and related irony) that led us here.

As I first pointed out last June, shortly after the president bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities (another operation I supported and congratulated him on), Donald Trump, his vice president, his family, and his most fervent supporters (in and out of the media) have spent the last several years casting Trump’s Republican and conservative opposition (including yours truly) as bloodthirsty, globalist, warmongering neocons. You may remember that MAGA-world bragged about Trump never starting a war, along with his opposition to regime-change in the Middle East. They claimed that folks like Nikki Haley, John Bolton, and Liz Cheney were downright dangerous, and far too prone to using the U.S. military abroad. Trump, on the other hand, was the “Peace President.”

Well, despite all the Code Pink talking points, it turns out that the Peace President has now ordered military strikes against more nations than any U.S. president in the modern era — seven countries in total. And Trump ordered more air strikes in 2025 alone than “Sleepy” Joe Biden did during his entire four-year term.

I’m not complaining about those strikes, mind you. I’m not the one who ran for office on what was effectively an anti-war platform. But it’s been very amusing to me to watch all of the backtracking in MAGA-world on this… in just a few short days! It’s been even more amusing to watch the always-principled, Trump-maligned John Bolton basically taking a victory lap over Operation Epic Fury (including telling CNN the other day, “My only regret is that I wasn't persuasive enough in the first term to get to this point.”).

Bolton might just be the most politically-vindicated man in Washington, and I love it.

Again, I’ve largely approved of these military operations, I pray the regime in Iran is toppled, and I hope the Iranians live happily ever after in some form of democracy.

But in the interest of intellectual and ideological consistency, especially in MAGA-world, shouldn’t we finally change Trump’s nickname from the “Peace President” to “Neocon Don”?

It even has a good ring to it.

Share

Last weekend, I traveled to Washington DC for the Principles First Summit. It was my third year attending the annual, multi-day event. And as with previous years, I had a great time.

For those unfamiliar with Principles First, it’s a grassroots organization that came together on the political right out of frustration and concern with the direction of the Republican Party under Donald Trump. Founded by lawyer Heath Mayo in 2019, the movement began as a series of regional meet-up sessions around the country. This led to the annual DC event that was created as counter-programming, of sorts, to the increasingly unhinged CPAC (scheduled on the same weekend, and in the same town). The summit features lots of panels and interviews with mostly political, media, and public-policy figures. It also serves as a social gathering for like-minded, regular folks to connect.

Case in point, I was particularly excited this year to meet (for the first time in person) my Reagan Caucus podcast co-host, Thomas Howes.

Unsurprisingly, hardcore Trumpers have had a special dislike for Principles First from its inception. In fact, last year’s event was disrupted by a group of Proud Boys, including Enrique Tarrio — a convicted January 6 seditionist who, just a few weeks earlier, had been released from prison (a couple decades early) thanks to a presidential pardon from Donald Trump. The incident was followed the next day by an emailed bomb-threat that included the residential addresses of some Principles First speakers (and their families), and led to the conference floor being evacuated, speaker cancellations, and a big police presence.

But radicals and other MAGA-types aren’t the only righties who are less than keen on Principles First. In recent years, the organization has taken a good amount of criticism from traditional conservatives for platforming prominent Democrats and other center-left figures whose views don’t exactly line up with the brand of Reagan conservatism and declared principles Principles First was founded on. Some speakers, including former Republicans, have even called for straight-ticket voting for Democratic candidates (even far-left ones), having concluded that today’s GOP is unrestorable, and an existential threat to the country.

Principles First has responded to such criticism by emphasizing its commitment to preserving democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law, and its willingness to expand its coalition to individuals, of varying viewpoints, who share those priorities.

Some might call that a cop-out, but I think it’s a pretty decent argument, and I absolutely believe there is value in listening to those with different ideologies. It often leads to the discovery of some common ground.

For instance, I very much enjoyed talking to center-left economist Justin Wolfers this year:

Narrower criticism I’ve heard of Principles First is that it has become too closely aligned with The Bulwark — especially Bulwark publisher, Sarah Longwell, whose disparaging public remarks about a number of principled conservatives dissuaded those individuals from accepting their invitation to this year’s event. Unlike in previous years, there was no representation from The Dispatch or National Review, and I recently spoke to the head of a well-recognized, traditionally conservative think-tank who cited the same reason for steering clear of Principles First.

I think that’s unfortunate, and I wish there had been a wider variety of center-right voices on stage, including Reaganites. Chris Christie spoke more like a Reagan conservative than just about anyone this time around, but he felt even more like an outsider than he did the previous year. And there was much less talk, across the board, about rehabilitating the GOP than there was dismantling it.

Part of me certainly understands why. We’re eleven years into this political era, and virtually every Republican leader who’s thus far been willing to stand up to the Donald Trump’s worst instincts and actions has either been chased out of office or is about to retire. I do, however, think there’s a real fight to be had for the future of the Republican Party.

It will likely start after the midterms, when an already diminished Trump will lose much of the remaining political leverage he has over congressional Republicans. Sure, many will continue to serve as Trump’s lackeys, but I also think we’ll see a willingness from a number of Republicans to distance themselves from an increasingly unpopular president and his increasingly unpopular agenda. I think we’ll also discover, going into 2028, that Trump’s cult of personality is not easily transferable to a MAGA heir — even one of Trump’s personal choosing. In other words, I don’t think J.D. Vance becoming the next Republican presidential nominee is by any means a forgone conclusion. I’m not even convinced Trump won’t eventually, for whatever reason, throw Vance under the bus (he’s been known to do that with his vice presidents).

The way I see it, our nation desperately needs a conservative political party. Our fiscal situation alone demands it. That begs the question: Which party would be more likely to claim that mantle — as it’s rightfully understood — once a uniquely corrupt and destructive president is finally on his way out? I’m not convinced it will be the Democrats (the foundation and history just isn’t there). And I think I’m far from the only non-Trump conservative who holds that view. Thus, it would have been nice to hear from more folks, who share that perspective, at Principles First.

But here’s the kicker… Despite all of the great speakers and panel discussions, I don’t go to Principles First every year looking for answers to our country’s political problems (even though I certainly learn things). I also don’t go there to commiserate over how screwed up things are (though there may be some therapeutic value in doing so). I go for the people.

The people involved with Principles First are absolutely wonderful. They’re honest, principled, and care deeply about our nation. They’re people of strong character. The institution they have created (and put lots and lots of hours into) presents a platform and opportunity for patriotic, well-informed Americans — who reject the tribalism and hackery that largely defines today’s politics — to come together on a grand scale and share ideas, define goals, and have meaningful discussions. Some of the attendees represent organizations, but most are just regular folks. I’ve built relationships and even started friendships at each visit, and I fly home every year with a sense of renewal and a helpful reminder that our politicians and popular political trends don’t define us as a nation.

Our people and our principles do.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

The president sets the tone of the country, whether directly or indirectly. I feel as though Trump's demeanor "gives Americans permission" to curse in public more, normalize and peddle conspiracy theories, openly show hostility towards people with whom you disagree, etc, etc... And in fact, for SOME (not all) MAGA folks, it's a breath of fresh air - it allows them to openly show their biases and imagined victimhood, rather than suppress it. What say you? — John M.

Hi John. I think you’re directionally right, but there’s more to it than that. Profanity, peddling conspiracy theories, and showing hostility toward disagreement all predate Trump — even in our modern political arena. I noticed it really take off a little over 20 years ago, when the Iraq War started to head south. It was suddenly publicly acceptable for popular political-media figures like Keith Olbermann, and national politicians like Howard Dean, to say all kinds of nasty, conspiratorial, and demonstrably untrue things about President George W. Bush and his supporters. And I think it helped normalize unhinged conduct among a lot of everyday Americans.

Years ago, I told the story on this website about how I was verbally accosted by an employee at a blood-plasma bank I was donating too. My infraction: bringing a copy of Bush’s biography “Decision Points” to read from my donation bed. This person felt so scandalized by my reading choice that any semblance of workplace professionalism went right out the window. And this was a full two years after Bush had left office!

This new era of political discourse carried over into the Obama years, infected both sides of the political aisle, and opened the door for Trump’s entrance into politics. Suffice to say, Trump’s made things far worse — not just with his profound lack of character, but also with his culture-heavy brand of populism that has further strengthened people’s sense of victimhood and grievance (to the point that they’ve defined themselves by it). He’s screwed up much of the Right similarly to how hyper-wokeness has screwed up much the Left. Americans are now more tribal — and less interested in facts, character, and regard for the other side — than at any point in my lifetime.

That ain’t good.

John: I am writing this Wednesday morning, the day after the longest State of the Union speech ever. I heard on the radio this morning that Trump and Clinton occupy all of the top 10 longest SOTU speeches in history. Is this a function that these two, more than any other, love to hear themselves talk? Or is this somehow an Epstein thing? — Steve R.

I think it’s the former. Trump loves public attention. So did Bill Clinton (well, at least until Monica).

J.D. Vance said this week that he thinks he’s the coolest Vice President in United States history. Do you concur? 😆 — Ben G.

To steal a line from a buddy of mine, Vance isn’t even Trump’s coolest vice president.

Greetings Sir John: Here’s a short video about a high school girl named Gabby Stout. According to the Alliance For Defending Freedom, she painted a tribute to Charlie Kirk on school property, an act for which she apparently had obtained prior permission from the school administration to do. After it was done however, school officials allegedly reversed course and accused her of vandalism. Okay…maybe. However, I’m always suspicious whenever reporters share a story that seems TOO pat and one-sided while supporting any agenda, whether it be on the right (like this one) or on the left (like the hoax you investigated about the grandfather that allegedly went to renew his green card and then got picked up by ICE and sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador and eventually a hospital where he died—-ALL A BUNCH OF BALONEY!). So I ask you Sir John— please shed some light on the story of Gabby Stout. —“STOUT- HEARTED TEEN” regard from The Emperor

Emperor, I don’t know anything about Gabby Stout. I sometimes think you view the Daly Weekly as an investigation service for random stuff you find on YouTube. Lol. I would suggest just Googling the matter. Sorry, but I have no insight I can offer on this.

Does it get any more shallow, and embarrassing, that ANY politician wouldn’t stand up and applaud for our USA Olympic Team, simply because they don’t like the person who invited them. Those athletes fought their tail off in Italy to represent everyone in the room last night. — Rob O.

I didn’t watch that portion of the State of the Union, Rob, but from what I understand, both sides did stand and applaud for the USA Olympic Team. Did they not? If some in attendance remained seated, and/or refused to clap, I would indeed call that shallow and selfish. As you say, these athletes busted their asses representing America at the Olympics, and they absolutely deserve respect and celebration for that.

In spite of my often criticisms, I like where you are politically. And I understand why you are convinced Trump is not the right man for the presidency. If we could return to a political position that aligns more with yours and mine, what would it take to do that? — Al

I decided to do a little experiment with your question, Al. I asked AI (specifically Grok) to summarize, from my writing, what I believe the Republican party needs to do to realign with my political positions. It was kind of scary how accurate it was:

Reject the personality cult and Trumpism: You’ve repeatedly highlighted how the GOP has devolved into a cult around Donald Trump, leading to electoral losses, the normalization of deranged behavior, and a focus on grifting and populism over substance. To recover, the party must move beyond Trump, acknowledge his role in undermining democracy (e.g., election denial and the January 6 insurrection), and stop protecting or renominating figures who prioritize personal loyalty over national interest.

Restore conservative principles and elevate principled voices: Emphasize a return to Reaganite conservatism by supporting and amplifying non-MAGA, center-right thinkers, policy wonks, and alternatives within the party. This includes purging populist BS, reinvigorating institutions like Congress through separation of powers, and avoiding the trap of adopting progressive positions or switching to the Democratic Party.

Bring back accountability and shame: Reintroduce a culture of shame for unethical or irresponsible actions, which you note was more prevalent in U.S. politics before the Trump era. This would help weed out boot-licking and focus on ideological consistency rather than messianic figures or election myths (like who won in 2020).

Now that Trump has decided to put his face on the DOJ, that's basically an admission that they are completely doing whatever he wants. What other federal institutions are captured or will be subservient to the president? — FDM

Now that this has been done with the DOJ, the sky would seem the limit (at least as far as the executive branch goes). After all, the DOJ is supposed to operate independently in order to impartially apply the law. Plastering Trump’s name and face on the building, after Pam Bondi has spent the last year reshaping the department to align with Trump’s personal priorities, has essentially, as you say, been an admission of how badly it’s been corrupted.

Do you think Kamala Harris will run for president again in 2028? She’s hinting at it. — Alex D.

No, I don’t. And if I were a Democrat, I wouldn’t want her to.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Show Notes (organizations mentioned in this episode):

• Principles First

• Society for the Rule of Law

• No Cap Fund

• American Values Coalition

Share