The article argues that Americans have a rapidly shrinking window to stop a slide into authoritarianism during Donald Trump’s second term, drawing on warnings from people like Nobel laureate Maria Ressa and dissident Garry Kasparov who have seen democracies collapse quickly. It says authoritarian takeovers accelerate by overwhelming the public with constant norm-breaking while purging independent experts, centralizing executive power, and attacking truth and accountability so corruption and intimidation become routine. The piece contends that many are waiting for a clear “red line,” but the real danger is the cumulative damage to institutions, the press, and the judiciary, alongside growing pressure for citizens and officials to stay silent. It highlights how propaganda and social media help normalize extreme ideas by repeating them until they feel acceptable, making later crackdowns less shocking. The author concludes that checks and balances only function if people act now—speaking out and resisting—because delay reduces leverage and makes losses of freedom harder to reverse.

Ezra Klein and Lawfare editor Quinta Jurecic track how the early “muzzle velocity” of Trump’s second term is colliding with institutional pushback, especially from the courts, as the administration pursues sweeping actions like dismantling USAID, freezing congressionally authorized spending, and issuing a birthright-citizenship order that judges have blocked. They explore what is merely aggressive versus outright illegal, why chaotic implementation matters legally and politically, and how the executive branch can create “facts on the ground” faster than litigation can unwind them. The conversation also examines Elon Musk’s informal role in cutting through agencies, the administration’s pressure campaign against civil servants and the FBI, and why Congress has largely ceded its power—turning separation of powers into “separation of parties.” After Vice President J.D. Vance signals that judges may not be able to constrain the executive’s “legitimate power,” they assess whether the U.S. is edging toward a constitutional crisis, how contempt powers and compliance might play out, and how public protest and institutional resistance could still shape what happens next.

Marc Andreessen argues that Silicon Valley once operated under an unwritten “Deal” in which tech founders got rich, legitimized themselves through philanthropy and mainstream liberal causes, and enjoyed friendly treatment from Democrats, but he says this arrangement collapsed after 2016 amid “wokeness,” hostile employees, media criticism, and a Democratic turn against tech. The article counters that tech’s rightward drift may be better explained by the industry’s rise from underdog to dominant center of economic and cultural power, which naturally drew greater public and political scrutiny. It suggests a new, similarly unspoken bargain is emerging with Republicans under Trump, where anti-progressive positioning and hawkishness on China replace prior liberal alignments, alongside a shift from “virtue-signaling” to “vice-signaling.” Yet this new deal carries added risk because Trump has shown willingness to use regulation, investigations, and personal threats selectively, making compliance and loyalty-signaling part of the price. Rather than returning to a hands-off 1990s relationship, the piece argues the government may move closer to tech through selective deregulation and politici...

The hosts process Trump’s election win and push back on postmortems that blame Never Trumpers, arguing their core warnings about Trump and democratic norms still stand even if some tactical predictions missed. They debate why voters prioritized inflation and personal economic pressure over abstract threats to democracy, and what Democratic losses among non-college and some minority voters say about a shifting, multiracial working-class Republican coalition. A central theme is whether Democrats need a more populist, anti-institution message to compete in a broader anti-elite, social-media-driven culture where authenticity and grievance matter more than traditional political appeals. They also wrestle with how to respond to a second Trump term—whether harm mitigation or letting consequences play out is the better strategy—alongside concerns about institutions, tech-oligarch influence, and the likelihood of normal elections continuing through 2028. Throughout, they reflect on how desensitization, information silos, and constant “change election” dynamics have altered what voters want and how politics works.

Elon Musk backed Donald Trump with money and public support and is poised to gain influence through a proposed “government efficiency commission” that could shape agency budgets and rules affecting his own businesses. The article argues that a second Trump administration would intensify a loyalty-based political economy in which tech leaders are rewarded or punished not just for lobbying but for visible personal allegiance. After the July assassination attempt and especially following Trump’s victory, prominent executives including Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos offered tailored praise and outreach, reflecting a shift from the wary posture many tech firms held during Trump’s first term. With privatization, government and military contracting, and major AI deals at stake, tech companies see cooperation as both a growth strategy and a way to reduce exposure to retaliation. The result, the piece suggests, is a more politicized industry where patronage and personal favor drive outcomes, with Musk best positioned to profit but also most exposed to the volatility of that system.

The episode examines how Donald Trump won decisively, focusing on a broad rightward shift across the electorate, including notable gains among Latino voters and young Black men, and a weaker-than-expected surge among women after Dobbs. The guests argue that years of norm-breaking and inflammatory rhetoric have helped desensitize many voters to behavior they see as authoritarian, even as many people cast ballots primarily based on economic frustration rather than democracy concerns. They discuss how a second Trump term could test democratic institutions through efforts like politicizing the civil service, pursuing loyalist appointments aligned with Project 2025, and potentially using government power to target opponents. The conversation also weighs major policy flashpoints—including mass deportations, tariffs, and uncertainty around Ukraine aid—while stressing that outcomes will depend heavily on personnel choices and congressional constraints. Finally, they explore how disinformation and “alternate realities” fuel cynicism, and suggest that opposition movements in other countries have rebuilt strength by forming broad coalitions and trust networks organized around concrete issues ...

Tim Miller and Tom Nichols react to Donald Trump’s election victory, arguing that many voters knowingly chose the chaos and “drama” he represents and will now live with the consequences. They debate what Democrats can learn from the loss, focusing less on policy than on cultural signaling, coalition “purity tests,” and the party’s difficulty communicating in a way that feels normal and attentive to working-class voters without abandoning minority rights. The conversation also examines public misunderstandings about executive power and the economy, with Nichols warning Trump will inherit strong economic conditions, claim credit, and then damage them through tariffs while supporters blame Democrats. They wrestle with how much to resist versus letting Trump’s agenda play out, drawing a line at actions that could cause severe harm, and emphasize the need for journalism and civic engagement that documents realities without normalizing them. Finally, they discuss how authoritarian actors abroad interpret the moment and argue the larger stakes are the survival of the liberal democratic order against a rising global authoritarian movement.

The episode investigates why taxing billionaires is so difficult, using ProPublica reporter Jesse Eisinger’s account of receiving and validating a leaked trove of IRS data revealing how the ultra-wealthy can report little taxable income despite massive gains in net worth. It explores the ethical and political rationale for scrutinizing billionaire tax privacy, arguing that extreme wealth confers public power and that transparency can expose legal strategies that undermine fairness. The conversation then traces how the U.S. income tax evolved from a public, war-driven class measure into a permanent mass system shaped by lobbying, loopholes, and shifting economic realities. Through the 20th century, the show explains how progressive rates and salary-based executive pay once made the rich easier to tax, and how later tax cuts and “financialization” shifted wealth toward stocks and unrealized gains that are often lightly taxed or invisible until sale. The episode sets up a follow-on installment that will detail a major legal method billionaires use to shield wealth and what it would take to close that gap.

PJ Vogt talks with ProPublica reporter Jesse Eisinger about the leaked “Secret IRS Files” and what they reveal about how some billionaires legally pay little or even nothing in federal income tax. The episode explains the “buy, borrow, die” strategy, in which ultra-wealthy people avoid taxable wages and instead borrow against appreciating assets, letting them spend untaxed money while deferring taxes indefinitely. It then explores policy responses, including the Biden-Harris proposal to tax unrealized gains for the very richest Americans, alongside skepticism about its practicality and alternative fixes like ending step-up in basis and the carried interest loophole. The conversation widens into a historical and political look at why taxing concentrated wealth has been so contentious in the U.S., even when public opinion supports it. The episode closes with the story of IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn, the whistleblower who leaked the tax data, and the ethical and legal fallout of his actions.

The episode digs into House Republicans’ push to impeach Joe Biden, arguing it’s largely evidence-free theater meant to feed a “Biden corruption” narrative even as the Justice Department indicts Hunter Biden and investigates prominent Democrats, undercutting claims of partisan law enforcement. The hosts also debate how Democrats should communicate more aggressively about these asymmetries and whether Biden should publicly embrace a border-security deal to unlock Ukraine aid, while warning Republicans may prefer border chaos and a weakened Ukraine for electoral gain. They discuss Supreme Court stakes around Trump’s immunity claims and the looming possibility of constitutional crises if legal cases collide with the election. A major segment focuses on the Kate Cox case in Texas, using it to illustrate how abortion bans force tragic medical decisions into courts and politics, and why that dynamic remains a potent liability for Republicans. The conversation closes with signs of Trump’s growing strength in the GOP primary, especially new Iowa polling showing consolidation benefiting him, plus a brief personal anecdote about meeting President Biden.

The hosts open with a lighter discussion of John Fetterman’s trolling-style campaign tactics, then pivot to major political news that Donald Trump is signaling an imminent 2024 announcement and what that could mean for media attention and potential legal jeopardy. Most of the episode focuses on the January 6 committee hearings, emphasizing evidence that the Capitol attack was planned as part of a broader, step-by-step effort driven by Trump rather than a protest that “got out of hand.” They unpack standout testimony and messages from Trump-world figures, the chaotic internal White House dynamics (including the Sidney Powell/Flynn meeting), and the moral failings of “adults in the room” who didn’t resign or fully cooperate, with particular scrutiny of Mike Pence and Pat Cipollone. The conversation also touches on Oath Keepers testimony, the Secret Service’s missing texts, the delayed National Guard response, and how accountability has largely fallen on foot soldiers rather than leaders, before closing with cautious optimism that extremist GOP candidates could reshape the midterm environment if Democrats effectively frame the choice.

Using the Tower of Babel as a metaphor, the article argues that America’s rapid social and institutional fragmentation in the 2010s mirrors a sudden collapse of shared language and truth, not only between left and right but within factions, organizations, and families. It contrasts earlier techno-optimism about the internet and early social media as forces for large-scale cooperation with the post-2012 reality that platforms reshaped how information spreads and how institutions function. The author contends that healthy democracies depend on social capital, strong institutions, and shared narratives, and that social media has eroded all three. This shift is traced to design changes around 2009–2012—likes, retweets, shares, and engagement-driven algorithms—that intensified virality and rewarded emotionally provocative content, especially outrage at perceived out-groups. The resulting incentives foster performative behavior, dishonesty, and mob dynamics, leaving people more connected technologically but less able to understand one another.

Chris Hayes argues that Donald Trump and his allies carried out an attempted coup after the 2020 election, walking through a string of pressure campaigns in Georgia aimed at breaking the chain of democratic certification, from audits and calls to Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to efforts to weaponize the Justice Department via Jeffrey Clark. The episode’s centerpiece is Reuters reporting that Trevian Kutti, a publicist tied to Kanye West (Ye), confronted election worker Ruby Freeman and, on police bodycam, pressed her to falsely “confess” to election fraud under threats of jail and harm. Hayes connects this intimidation effort to the broader strategy of manufacturing just enough “evidence” to delay or derail January 6 certification, culminating in Trump’s rally rhetoric and the push toward force when other avenues failed. The tone is urgent, incredulous, and prosecutorial, emphasizing how bizarre-seeming actions still fit a coherent authoritarian project. The segment ends by warning that even though the plot failed, the precedent remains dangerous—especially if a future, more competent actor uses the same playbook.

The hosts unpack the Ohio Republican Senate primary as a case study in how GOP incentives reward trolling and extremism, focusing on J.D. Vance’s attention-grabbing provocations (including elevating Alex Jones) and contrasting him with the more “authentic” MAGA style of Josh Mandel. They argue that Vance’s strategy is about boosting name recognition by being hated by the right people, while also debating what each candidate’s success would signal about the Republican Party’s inability to control the movement it helped create. The conversation then widens to a Politico report suggesting Trump has a “turnkey” 2024 operation and is increasingly likely to run as Biden’s approval slips, with the hosts warning that elites, institutions, and even the media will normalize his return despite January 6. They discuss the Democrats’ narrow 2020 margins, the risks of an aging Biden facing a Trump rematch, and the broader sense that many are failing to imagine how close the country could be to another destabilizing election. The episode closes with lighter banter about concerts and music tastes, including the Indigo Girls, Ani DiFranco, and a candid aside about revisiting Eminem’s early work.

With Sarah Longwell absent, JVL and Tim Miller dig into the looming House GOP vote to oust Liz Cheney, treating it as a test of whether the party is normalizing election denial and authoritarian instincts, and debating how many Republicans might privately support her versus publicly break ranks. They explore what Cheney’s future could look like and what happens to the slice of Republican voters who accept Biden’s win but remain tied to the party, while questioning whether Trump is a uniquely destabilizing figure or merely the most shameless expression of a broader movement. The conversation then shifts to the origins of COVID-19, arguing that the lab-leak possibility should be treated as an open question rather than a partisan loyalty test, and grappling with how misinformation, fear, and China’s opacity make definitive answers—and accountability—unlikely. The episode closes on a lighter detour into the NBA, including the Denver Nuggets’ prospects, the appeal and frustration of “super teams,” and what sports fandom reveals about hope, suffering, and schadenfreude.

The hosts open with light banter about parenting, screen time, and kids’ shows before turning to politics and a debate over Mitt Romney’s Wall Street Journal critique of Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus, weighing whether Romney’s arguments are substantively fair but politically out of step with today’s GOP. They then focus on Sen. Ron Johnson amplifying conspiracy claims that January 6 was driven by Antifa provocateurs, and discuss how Fox News and Republican messaging has evolved into an evidence-proof narrative that downplays or reframes the insurrection. From there, the conversation shifts to whether anti-Trump conservatives should form a third party, with the speakers arguing it’s impractical in a two-party system and that influence is more likely through a pro-democracy coalition within or alongside Democrats. The episode closes with a brief, contentious aside about deporting a 95-year-old former Nazi camp guard, highlighting the group’s differing views on moral clarity versus legal and factual nuance.

The episode centers on the January 6 Capitol attack and the impeachment trial, with a focus on how Trump faces some accountability while many Republican lawmakers, conservative media figures, and other “middle-tier” enablers largely escape consequences despite amplifying election-fraud lies. The hosts react to the House managers’ presentation and the riot footage, emphasizing the terror of mob violence, the injuries and trauma suffered by Capitol Police, and the moral numbness of senators who appear uninterested in the evidence while treating the outcome as predetermined. They debate what real accountability could look like—resignations, donor and social pressure, and lasting political costs—while wrestling with pessimism about whether the country can rebuild shared norms when a large share of Republicans rationalize the события. The conversation also touches on perceived hypocrisy in Republicans’ outrage over Neera Tanden’s tweets compared with their tolerance of Trump, before ending with a lighter but pointed discussion of the “Free Britney” conservatorship story as a metaphor for political captivity.

Charlie Sykes and Tim Miller react to the aftermath of the January 6 Capitol attack, describing the Trump administration’s rapid unraveling through resignations, elite defections, and renewed calls for impeachment. They argue that the violence was the predictable culmination of years of Trump’s rhetoric and Republican/media enabling, rejecting what they see as last-minute “reputation laundering” from figures like Nikki Haley, Bill Barr, and Mitch McConnell. The conversation focuses on whether impeachment or prosecution will constrain Trump going forward, while sharply criticizing Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley for stoking election-fraud narratives even after the riot. They also examine the security failures that allowed the breach and warn that the radicalization behind it hasn’t disappeared, despite hopes for a quick return to normal politics. The episode closes with a satirical J.L. Cauvin Trump impression that lampoons Republican leaders and the movement’s lingering extremism.

The episode examines the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, arguing it was driven by President Trump’s encouragement and sustained by Republican claims of a stolen election, and it follows reporter John Bresnahan’s firsthand account of how the breach unfolded inside the building. Bresnahan describes the chaotic mix of violence and spectacle—rioters forcing entry, lawmakers and staff hiding in fear, and intruders treating historic spaces like a stage for social media—while questioning why security preparations were so inadequate and noting the stark contrast to law enforcement responses seen at other protests. The conversation then shifts to the political aftermath, including Republicans continuing objections to electoral certification even after the assault and efforts to deflect blame, raising doubts about whether the party will break from Trump or learn a lasting lesson. Finally, they look ahead to unified Democratic control under President-elect Biden, outlining looming fights over nominations, Senate rules like the filibuster, and divisions between moderates and progressives, alongside the larger question of whether Congress can function effectively after years of polarizati...

The episode centers on Trump’s post-election efforts to overturn the 2020 result, with the hosts describing a “low-energy” but still dangerous attempt involving legal theatrics, pressure on certification boards, and officials being punished for disputing fraud claims. They argue that while the effort looks incompetent and is unlikely to succeed because the margin wasn’t close, it has been politically effective at binding much of the Republican Party and its voters to the narrative that the election was stolen. The conversation turns to Georgia, praising Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger for resisting intense pressure from Trump allies while warning that ongoing “rigged election” rhetoric could depress GOP turnout ahead of the Senate runoffs. They also discuss how Republican ambitions for 2024 are constrained by Trump’s hold on the party, and they criticize conservative attacks on Raphael Warnock’s religious sermon as hypocritical and racially inflected.