Chris Hayes marks the fifth anniversary of January 6 by arguing that Donald Trump’s defining pattern is taking power and resources by force if he thinks he can “get away with it,” linking the Capitol attack to what the show describes as the Trump administration’s seizure of Venezuela’s leader and open pursuit of the country’s oil. The episode turns to a broader warning about U.S. “imperialism” or “smash and grab” foreign policy, including talk of similar actions in Mexico or Colombia and even the possibility of military action to take Greenland, with Hayes stressing that only sustained public and institutional pressure can restrain Trump. Guest Congressman Jamie Raskin amplifies the theme by calling Trump’s approach “gangster state politics,” rejecting any moral pretense in these moves and insisting January 6 was a Trump-led conspiracy documented beyond dispute. The tone is urgent, condemnatory, and alarmed, with Hayes and Raskin focused on accountability, democratic norms, and the dangers of normalizing political violence. A line that captures the episode’s core argument is Hayes’s: “Donald Trump will do whatever he can get away with.”

John Heilman and Ezra Klein look back on the political arc of 2025, focusing on how Trump’s second term followed a “flood the zone” attention strategy early on but began losing momentum amid policy chaos, tariff-driven economic pain, unpopular immigration crackdowns, and visible fractures in the Republican coalition. They discuss how Trump’s disinhibition and reliance on attention over coherent governance created self-inflicted crises, leaving Republicans unsure what his agenda is beyond cruelty and spectacle. The conversation also tracks Democrats’ tentative recovery, including winning key 2025 elections, successfully framing fights around healthcare and affordability, and the emergence of new figures who communicate more effectively in today’s media environment. Klein ties these shifts to broader themes about the attention layer shaping politics, the need for Democrats to build a more pluralistic and risk-tolerant coalition, and the stakes of whether institutions and civic actors respond with sustained action. The episode closes with a brief detour into Klein’s interviews with artists Brian Eno and Patti Smith as a case for keeping culture and beauty in view amid political turmoi...

Chris Hayes focuses on a Vanity Fair profile featuring on-the-record remarks from Trump chief of staff Susie Wiles that portray an administration in internal disarray, with Wiles criticizing figures like J.D. Vance, Elon Musk, Pam Bondi, and Russell Vought while also acknowledging Trump’s impulse toward “score settling” and rule-bending. The conversation’s tone is sharply skeptical and accusatory, framing the White House response as frantic damage control and mocking its attempt to dismiss taped quotes as “out of context.” Hayes and guests Miles Taylor and Neera Tanden argue that Wiles comes off as a powerless “bystander” enabling illegality rather than restraining it, pointing to topics like January 6 pardons, Epstein-related fallout, and escalatory actions toward Venezuela that raise constitutional and war-powers concerns. The episode also touches on broader political headwinds, including rising unemployment, tariff-related economic strain, and the administration’s habit of blaming Biden. A line that captures the episode’s thrust is Wiles’s characterization of Trump as having “an alcoholic’s personality,” operating with the belief “there is nothing he can’t do. Nothing, zero, not...

The episode unpacks a fast-moving Hollywood deal saga in which Warner Bros. Discovery’s film assets may go to Netflix after Paramount/Skydance’s bids were rebuffed, prompting a new hostile bid and raising questions about how the company would be split, how shareholders decide, and what unusually large breakup fees mean. The hosts focus on the antitrust and regulatory risks for any mega-merger and how Donald Trump’s public desire to intervene could both influence corporate decision-making and potentially weaken the government’s case in court by making it look politically motivated. They also examine the political and geopolitical entanglements surrounding Paramount’s effort, including ties to Trump-world figures and outside money, and argue that the motivation may be influence over media assets as much as financial return. On the creative and industry side, they discuss what either outcome could mean for movie theaters, competition, HBO’s identity, and the broader trend toward consolidation that could reduce the number and variety of films made for theatrical release. Overall, listeners get a mix of deal mechanics, regulatory strategy, and the cultural stakes of who controls a major...

Chris Hayes and David Sirota discuss how today’s scandals—from officials using government resources for personal benefit to overt pay-for-play—fit into a longer story of corruption becoming normalized and legally protected in American politics. Drawing on Sirota’s book, they trace a post-Watergate shift in which reforms curbed “cash-in-an-envelope” graft while courts and political movements steadily expanded the legality of big-money influence through campaign finance, super PACs, and weakened bribery enforcement. They unpack how corruption works not only through direct donations but also through the threat of massive spending, industry “message discipline,” and policy capture, with crypto offered as a clear modern case study. The conversation explores why money matters differently at different electoral levels, the limits and risks of small-dollar donor politics, and why public financing models like New York City’s can create real competition against oligarch money. They close by arguing that Democrats may need an anti-corruption message that ties systemic influence directly to everyday costs, while outlining realistic reforms—disclosure rules, corporate-law changes at the state l...

David Frum uses historical parallels—from Rome’s tribute to Attila to modern foreign gift-giving—to argue that American power is increasingly being exercised through personal favor, corruption loopholes, and executive overreach rather than constitutional constraints and allied legitimacy. He and historian Margaret MacMillan discuss how the post–World War II international order depended on U.S. commitment to rules, institutions, and dependable alliances, and how a perceived American withdrawal and norm-breaking could accelerate instability, revive “zones of influence,” and empower rivals like China and Russia. Their conversation ranges from tariffs and coercive diplomacy to fears of unilateral military action in places like Venezuela and the strategic fallout for partners such as Canada, Europe, Japan, and South Korea as trust in U.S. reliability erodes. MacMillan frames the U.S. as an empire in practice and explores what makes empires endure or dissolve, emphasizing consent, cost, and the moral authority that once made American leadership an “empire by invitation.” The episode closes with Frum reflecting on Charles Dickens’s The Old Curiosity Shop as a way to process personal grief...

Sam Stein of The Bulwark reacts in an urgent, exasperated rant to what he portrays as a surge of brazen corruption and chaos surrounding Donald Trump and his administration, touching on a rapid-fire set of controversies ranging from RFK Jr.’s reported drug use and DHS contracting concerns to DOJ-related payouts and politicized handling of the Epstein files. He highlights the significance of even pro-Trump figures like Mike Cernovich remarking on how overt the corruption has become, using it as a sign that the behavior is too blatant to ignore. The centerpiece is a report that a Swiss delegation allegedly gave Trump lavish gifts, including a personalized gold bar, in connection with efforts to reduce tariffs, which Stein frames as a stark example of transactional governance. Stein then shifts to Trump’s late-night conduct, criticizing his evasive comments about an MRI and his aggressive Truth Social attacks on Rep. Tom Massey and the withdrawal of support for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene over their calls to release Epstein-related files. Across the episode, the theme is a presidency driven by demands for personal loyalty and public deference, with retaliation—via policy or public att...

The episode opens with a debate over Trump’s decision to alter the White House East Wing, with JVL arguing that reversing symbolic institutional damage is an easy early test of seriousness for future Democratic presidents, while Sarah contends it’s cosmetic, disruptive, and a distraction from governance priorities voters actually feel. They then discuss concerns about election integrity and a Financial Times piece by Ed Luce depicting a Washington climate of elite fear and off-the-record cowardice, alongside the broader problem that Trump’s pay-to-play approach aligns more naturally with autocracies than democratic allies bound by law. The conversation turns to the difficulty of proportionally covering Trump’s corruption and how media norms struggle to treat an administration that behaves like a criminal enterprise. They also touch on Trump’s tariff fight with Canada and the Reagan Foundation’s attempt to paper over Reagan’s anti-tariff legacy to stay aligned with today’s GOP, before moving to the Maine Senate race dynamics and what Democrats are looking for in “dominance” candidates amid vetting risks. The episode closes with polling suggesting Trump is weakening among Hispanics a...

The episode centers on what the hosts see as accelerating authoritarian abuse of government power, beginning with the indictments of John Bolton (and earlier targets like Comey and Tish James) and a debate over how classified-documents cases differ when deception and obstruction are involved. They discuss the political logic of using federal force and threats against cities like New York, arguing that governance is being shaped by loyalty tests and punitive pretexts. A major theme is the administration’s effort to sideline independent scrutiny, including the Pentagon press credential purge and a broader concern that major media and tech platforms are increasingly controlled by Trump-aligned owners or incentives. They then focus on the dangers of weaponizing the IRS and labeling opponents as “terrorists,” tying these moves to a breakdown of democratic norms and the citizen-government “compact.” The conversation ends with a darkly comic detour into JB Pritzker’s reported gambling winnings as brief relief from the episode’s broader anxiety about institutional erosion.

Tim Miller and Ann Applebaum discuss the human costs of the Trump administration’s cuts to USAID and the near-shutdown and politicization of the U.S. refugee program, arguing these moves both deepen global suffering and redefine who America chooses to protect. They broaden the conversation to what Applebaum calls a shift from “rule of law” to “rule by law,” pointing to aggressive immigration enforcement, alleged plans to weaponize the IRS and Treasury against political opponents, and Pentagon restrictions that push mainstream outlets out while privileging friendly “state media.” Applebaum links these domestic developments to the U.S. losing credibility as a democratic model abroad, accelerating European and allied efforts to plan for a less reliable America and weakening the unifying “democratic faith” that once shaped U.S. identity. They also cover Ukraine’s growing reliance on domestically produced long-range drones to pressure Russia’s oil economy and debate what economic strain can realistically change in an authoritarian system. The episode closes with a look at Venezuela’s repressive post-election crackdown and the risks of U.S. “kinetic” action there, followed by lighter not...

Sam Stein of The Bulwark delivers an urgent, outraged monologue about an overnight wave of federal “reduction in force” firings during the government shutdown, focusing mainly on what he describes as a devastating purge at the CDC. He ties the cuts to RFK Jr.’s long-running hostility toward the agency and vaccines, and highlights reports that leadership and staff tied to immunization and respiratory diseases, global health and measles response, Ebola preparedness, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, smoking and health, and violence prevention have been pushed out, even as HR staff were reportedly brought back from furlough to process the terminations. Stein argues this is an unprecedented use of a shutdown as a pretext to dismantle targeted domestic programs rather than standard furlough practice, and he notes similar damage being reported at the Department of Education, including special education funding operations. The episode’s theme is the risk of gutting institutional expertise and disease surveillance capacity at a moment when outbreaks can emerge quickly, framed as a broader political project with severe public-health consequences. He closes by soliciting whistleblow...

Eric Townsend interviews Luke Groman about whether the long-anticipated shift away from U.S. dollar dominance is moving from a slow grind to a rapid “all at once” phase, driven by rising fiscal stress, weakening demand for Treasuries, and central banks’ accelerating move into gold. They discuss how recent trade-war dynamics and supply-chain realities have exposed limits to U.S. leverage over China, including dependence on Chinese manufacturing and rare earths that underpins even U.S. military capacity. Groman frames the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s signals of tighter alignment among China, Russia, and potentially India as a geopolitical inflection point that could accelerate de-dollarization and force policy responses like yield-curve control. The conversation ties these themes to market implications, arguing that financial repression and higher inflation are the likely path forward, favoring gold, Bitcoin, and equities in nominal terms while eroding the real value of long-duration bonds and dollar assets. They close by citing forecasters like Emmanuel Todd to suggest the West’s industrial and demographic trends point toward deeper dislocation, with domestic political instab...

In this live Atlantic Festival conversation, Hannah Rosen speaks with Anne Applebaum and Garry Kasparov about how modern autocracies tighten control through indirect pressure on media and institutions, drawing parallels between Putin’s removal of a satirical TV show and growing threats to free expression in the U.S. They argue that democratic erosion often happens legally and incrementally, exploiting norms and loopholes, with Congress’s failure to act as a central vulnerability and courts limited by their inability to enforce rulings. The discussion focuses on the 2026 midterms as a decisive test, warning that election manipulation today is more about shaping unfair conditions—through gerrymandering, voter-roll tactics, and institutional intimidation—than overt ballot theft. Applebaum and Kasparov also explore how democracies can respond, emphasizing civic engagement across professions and the need for an opposition strategy that can build a broad coalition without fragmenting. The episode widens to global stakes, describing a weakening of U.S. democratic leadership and a strengthening transnational authoritarian alignment led by China, with “Trumpism” framed as part of a broader ...

The episode centers on David Letterman and Jeffrey Goldberg reacting to what they describe as escalating political pressure on late-night comedians and media companies, framed by Trump’s comments about negative coverage and calls to revisit broadcast licenses via the FCC. Letterman argues that recent moves against figures like Colbert and Kimmel signal “managed media” and a broader slide toward authoritarianism, contrasting it with decades when political satire drew no government interference across multiple administrations. The conversation widens to public passivity in the face of institutional disruption, citing examples like dismantling public health and aid agencies and questioning what it would take for a broader civic response. Goldberg emphasizes the role of owners and financial incentives in media capitulation, while noting that parts of the press and the judiciary remain independent even as checks and balances weaken, and both end on concern about the country’s direction and what it means for the next generation.

Chris Hayes focuses on what he frames as an accelerating Trump-era campaign to intimidate and control dissenting media, using Jimmy Kimmel’s show being “preempted indefinitely” after incorrect comments about the Charlie Kirk shooter as a case study in how political pressure can translate into corporate compliance. The discussion connects this episode to broader patterns of authoritarian media capture in Hungary, Turkey, and Russia, arguing that U.S. regulatory leverage (FCC licensing, merger approvals) and lawsuits are being weaponized to chill speech and reshape ownership toward pro-Trump allies. Guests Ben Rhodes and New York Times investigations editor David Enrich reinforce the theme that even isolated programming decisions send a wider warning to journalists and broadcasters, with Enrich emphasizing how litigation tactics hit smaller outlets especially hard. The tone is urgent and cautionary, highlighting the explicitness of FCC chair Brendan Carr’s threat—“We can do this the easy way or the hard way”—and later bringing on comedian Bassem Youssef to draw parallels with how strongmen target satire while Hayes stresses the difference between suspicion and fact.

John Heilman talks with epidemiologist Michael Osterholm about the weakening of America’s public health system under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., focusing on what Osterholm sees as rampant misinformation, politicization, and institutional damage to agencies like the CDC and vaccine advisory processes. They parse Kennedy’s claims about chronic disease, autism, and COVID, distinguishing legitimate concerns (like obesity and uneven health outcomes) from misleading statistics and conspiratorial framing, and discussing how scientific guidance evolved during the pandemic without constituting deliberate “lies.” Osterholm argues the biggest danger is that cuts to public health capacity and hostility toward vaccines—especially mRNA platforms—leave the U.S. and the world less prepared for the next outbreak. The conversation also draws from Osterholm’s book, The Big One, which outlines a realistic scenario for a far deadlier pandemic and makes the case for sustained, government-level investment in next-generation vaccines and biodefense. Despite his pessimism about current readiness, Osterholm highlights efforts like the Vaccine Integrity Project as a way for non-government actors to ...

Chris Hayes argues that Donald Trump is openly flirting with dictatorial power while portraying himself as “tough on crime,” even as he uses the justice system to target opponents and reward allies. The discussion centers on a sweeping pattern of pardons and special treatment for convicted or accused criminals—including January 6 rioters, Ross Ulbricht, corrupt officials, fraudsters, alleged traffickers, and moves benefiting figures like the Tates and Ghislaine Maxwell—framed as evidence of a “pro-crime” presidency. Guests Dan Frumkin and former DOJ pardon attorney Liz Oyer describe this as an unprecedented, chillingly authoritarian “pay for play” approach that swaps rule-of-law norms for loyalty, access, and wealth. The tone is urgent and alarmed, with concern about militarized enforcement, politicized prosecutions, and mainstream media and institutions failing to impose guardrails. A representative line comes from Oyer: “What we're seeing, Chris, is a straight up pay for play system.”

The article argues that US-led systems such as the dollar clearing network, advanced weapons platforms like the F-35, and communications infrastructure like Starlink function as “platforms” that allies have become locked into through network effects and high switching costs. It applies Cory Doctorow’s concept of “enshittification” to US hegemony, claiming that under Trump’s second term the US is increasingly “monetizing” control over this infrastructure and using it coercively. Examples include sanctions that effectively cut targets off from global finance, the ability to degrade or disable allied weapons capabilities by restricting updates, data, or intelligence feeds, and threats around Starlink access in Ukraine. With US tech firms and government power appearing to converge, allies are growing alarmed about their dependence and are beginning to pursue alternatives, such as European cloud providers and open-source software, despite the difficulty of exiting entrenched networks.

Ezra Klein and Matt Iglesias break down the structure and consequences of the Senate-passed “One Big Beautiful Bill,” focusing on trillions in tax cuts that skew toward wealthy households and businesses alongside deep cuts to Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and clean-energy incentives. They explain how Medicaid savings would largely come from tighter provider-tax rules and work requirements that function as administrative hurdles, pushing millions off coverage without boosting employment and shifting costs into medical debt, uncompensated care, and rural hospital closures. The conversation also argues that adding trillions to the deficit in a high-rate environment is likely to raise interest rates and living costs, undercutting claims of pro-growth fiscal policy. On energy, they discuss rolling back Inflation Reduction Act-era credits and loan programs, warning it could slow U.S. investment in renewables, batteries, and emerging “clean firm” technologies while raising electricity costs and ceding strategic industries to China. A recurring theme is political attention: despite broad unpopularity and major stakes, the bill has struggled to dominate the public agenda, which the hosts ...

Chris Hayes and Gia Tolentino discuss how AI-generated images, deepfakes, and engagement-farming “slop” are eroding people’s ability and motivation to distinguish what’s real online, especially as genuine footage of events like Gaza and ICE raids can feel both hyperreal and unbelievable. They explore how this constant mix of fakery and real-world horror creates a deadening, politically demobilizing “permission structure” to detach, worsened by fragmented algorithmic realities that make shared civic understanding harder to rebuild. The conversation links this media environment to policy and power, arguing that distorted phone-and-TV narratives can shape how leaders perceive events and even drive real actions on the ground. They also make the case for renewed reliance on human institutions like journalism and fact-checking as an anchor, while warning against a broader “de-skilling” as people outsource judgment and comprehension to tools like ChatGPT. As a counterweight to alienation, they emphasize reclaiming in-person community—through protests, social life, and everyday gathering—as a practical way to restore a sense of human agency and reality.