Bulwark Takes - Trump’s Polls Are Slipping—So Why Does He Feel More Dangerous Than Ever?

Episode Date: January 18, 2026

Trump’s polls are slipping, but his authoritarian project keeps accelerating. Does his unpopularity matter, and on which issues is he most vulnerable—Greenland, NATO, ICE or the economy?

Oh, hey, how's it going? Amazing. I just finished paying off all my debt with the help of the Credit Counseling Society. Whoa, seriously? I could really use their help. It was easy. I called and spoke with a credit counselor right away. They asked me about my debt, salary, and regular expenses,

gave me a few options, and help me along the way. You had a ton of debt. And you're saying Credit Counseling Society helped with all of it? Yep. And now I can sleep better at night. When debt's got you, you've got us. Give Credit Counseling Society a call today. Visit no more debts.org.

Hey Ontario, come on down to BetMGM Casino and check out our newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. Don't miss out. Play exciting casino games based on the iconic game show. Only at BetMGM. Access to the Price is right fortune pick is only available at BetMGM Casino. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please play responsibly.

If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connix Ontario at 1866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Hi, Bill Crystal here, Editor Large with the Bullwork, joined about my Bullwork colleague. And if I could say even more importantly, my Morning Shots colleague, Andrew Eger. And we were just talking before the show.

Andrew, thank you, first of all, for taking some time Sunday to join me. We were talking before the show that we've been going almost two years with warning shots. It's hard to believe, huh? Yeah, the team within the team. Yeah, where does the time go? Lots of collaboration on Morning Shots,

but I have never even sat down and watched Sunday Bullwork because usually it's like I'm at church in the morning and then in the afternoon I'm like, Monday's morning shots, here we go, like let's rock. So this is a hopefully, hopefully we'll not be a train wreck, will be a pleasant experience for everybody involved. Here we go. This shows the kind of a collaboration we have.

Andrew Diggis and I fit right at the beginning of our show here. And in a nice, gentle way, kind of. I just don't quite have time to watch it. NFL football, church. Who's really watching a Sunday? To be honest, NFL football, yes. I sometimes rewarding shots. Not everyone, no.

I think the Monday morning shots will go up in quality a lot when the NFL season is over, actually. I think that will have a real noticeable impact for a lot of people. We'll see. We'll see. It's getting it. So do you have a, I can't remember you don't have a team of this. I'm a chiefs fan. I grew up in St. Louis, so I like the chiefs now, but I still have like sort of residual,

confusing feelings about the Rams, went to college in Michigan, so I like Matt Stafford a lot. I kind of hope they can go all the way. I like Josh Allen. I was sad to see him get crushed last night. Also sad to see Bo Nix leave. So, yeah, there's a lot of really good games leading to a lot of really lame outcomes so far, as far as I've been concerned. Although I was happy that the Eagles lost. Yeah, that's good.

Yeah, the Eagles. I remember 40 years ago, I lived in Philadelphia, and the Eagle fans have not approved. That's one of the few constants in life. Other things change in our life. Okay, we'd love to talk about. I thought we could go over a couple of issues that we've written about a lot in Morningshots, honestly. Both foreign, I summarized them as Greenland on the one hand. hand and ice on the other, you know, kind of bullying abroad and authoritarianism at home,

which I think are sort of related. But it would begin with that new CNN poll from Friday that I think came back just that morning. We didn't really discuss. Did we? I don't think in morning shots. No, no. Pretty striking, though, don't you think? I mean, go ahead. I mean, the big thing to me about this one, and it is sort of of a piece with polling we've been seeing. I mean, he is stable and really low. Like, like we have just, we have hit this kind of new plateau for him where he's in the high 30s or the very low 40s, pretty much across the board in most polls. It's not moving around a lot, but it's also, you know, we're at this moment where he is losing a lot. I mean, that was the story of the off-year elections in November. Like something

needs to change for his, for this MAGA project to become like electorally viable again. But all of the sort of flailing around that they're doing in terms of, it's not like they're not trying new things. They're certainly trying new things. they're trying never before seen things in terms of like, oh, what if we just went and got Greenland? Or what if we, you know, parachuted these paramilitary forces down into, into, you know, the Twin Cities in Minnesota and see how that works. But the problem is that none of the things are popular. Like across the board, they have kind of no issue to turn to that's like a safe space for them or like, you know, you know, comfy territory where if they could just get this to be the thing that's in the news right now. That would really help.

That would really kind of like remind the American people of this deep reservoir of affection that they actually have for Donald Trump and his presidency. There is no such thing. And meanwhile, you know, one thing after another that they try that's new is less popular than the last. And it's all against the backdrop of this really, really, really, really bad economic sentiment kind of across the board where not only do people feel like things aren't going well now, I think, I believe it was about three in ten say that they think the economy's in good shape now.

But only four in ten, which is down from six in ten, say they think it'll be good a year from now, down from six in ten when Donald Trump was about to take office. So 20% of the country that was feeling pretty good about our economic prospects when Trump first came to power has since been disabused of that fact. And that is kind of driving, I think, the real nosedive that his popularity has taken even more so than all of the other. outrageous that we talk about day in and day out. No, I agree with that. And I mean, the good news is he's lost basically eight, nine, ten points of approval in a year. We're almost exactly at the one year mark of his presidency. If he keeps losing, he's not going to lose at that rate for the next 10 months because presumably he lost the ones that were easier to lose, so to speak, you know,

off the top, right? So now he's getting into his more core support. But he could lose at half the, I think he could go down at half the rate. That gets him down to 36-ish, 37. And if you look at standard off-year election metrics and go into it with the president of 36, 37 percent, that is very rough for the incumbent party if that party controls Congress and people therefore want to check the guy who's a 37 percent approval. And I think it puts the Senate in place. So on the one hand, I think the public is doing, from my point of view, the right thing is moving in the right direction. It could be moving a little faster. I mean, you said plummeting or whatever, but, you know, it's also down like two points in the last four months. feels like, I don't know, if you're picking aggressive, fighting aggressive wars against NATO allies

and deploying ice troops in a really terrible way to major American cities, maybe you should lose more than two or three percent of your support, but that's just me. And we know his support is very, is very sticky. So that's the good news. The bad news, though, and you and I have discussed this a lot in morning shots in different ways. And you had some terrific stuff this past week. I mean, is the authoritarian project continues and even accelerates. And I suppose the question is, does Trump care at some point? How much does he care about the popularity? I mean, does he think he can turn it around in 27, 28 if he needs to? The Fed will goose the economy or something once he controls it. Does he think it doesn't matter because he can put his thumb on the scale for the elections in such a strong way? And there's some indications of that. Or it doesn't matter, but he's just going to, you know, push everything as far as he can for the next three years. And then he doesn't much care what happens at that. He'll be 80, after that, he'll be 82, 83 years old. I don't know. It's really, it's a hard thing. But certainly the authority, it is kind of unusual. We have the population. We have the population. everybody going down and the authoritarianism going up

for a sentence. Yeah, I have, I have wondered about this myself. And I don't know if I have like a satisfying answer to like how much is Trump like performing this sort of like, oh, you know, relief is just around the corner thing. And how much does he actually think that that is true? Like how much is he

not to rile people up, but how much is he like Joe Biden, circa 2022, late 2020, early 2023, where he's like, yeah, you know, everybody's mad about the economy now. But like, just wait, just wait around. You know, we've got this thing pointing in the right direction, and they'll see.

They'll come around by the time the election rolls around. And like, he might have been right. Biden might have been right to think that there would have been good reasons for people to, you know, feel better about the economy by 2024. But that isn't what happened, right? I mean, everyone was still very, very sour on his handling of that stuff by the time that election rolled around and he paid for it. Now, Trump, you know, he talks as though we are in a golden age right.

now. And he also frequently talks as though the polls that show that economic anxiety is still high and stuff. Like, those are invented and cooked up by his enemies and not actually an accurate barometer of the sentiment of the country. And so, like, in some respects, he is, like, completely just sleepwalking toward a real rude awakening, you know, come this November if these things continue. The one weird, like, possible swerve here is we still don't know whether the Supreme Court is going to save him from himself and knock down all. of his tariffs and, you know, inject a couple hundred billion dollars or a hundred billion dollars in change back into the economy in terms of these trade duties that have already

been collected from all these companies and, like, actually give us some real economic stimulus that could improve his economic prospects in particular. And I think, like, to me, it is really hard to overstate how much hinges on that, because the thing with all this other stuff is, like, the lesson from Trump's first term in terms of just the crazy American mind is, I think a lot of people came out of that first term like, yeah, all that stuff that was in the news all the time was crazy and bad, but I could just stop paying attention to it most of the time if I wanted to. And meanwhile, I feel like the economy did really well. So, like, that was great. In the last analysis, I would take that trade, said a lot of voters. It wasn't enough to win him the election in

2020, but that was the way a lot of people felt. Now, it kind of works the opposite way. Because because the economic sentiment is so bad and because people actually feel like, you know, there's there is not a steady hand at the wheel in terms of, in terms of just normal prosperity stuff. It's not like they didn't care about all that other stuff before and they don't care about it now. The other stuff, the stuff that we pay so much attention to, the authoritarianism and the bullying and the, you know, the norm breaking all that stuff, it serves as sort of a similar function, but it's stuff that they see him paying attention to instead of making the economy better, right? They're like, well, what's he doing, like spending all this time, you know, like trying to get Jim Comey thrown

in prison when he should, in fact, be concentrating on, you know, making the economy better. And like before, if the economy were, you know, just humming along, maybe they'd be saying to themselves, well, yeah, you know, he wants to throw Jim, Jim Comey in prison, but at least my 401k is doing great. And so it's a force multiplier in the negative direction. Of course, you know, the other thing is that we actually shouldn't really want him to be paying more attention to the economy because all of his economic instincts are insane, just like all of his other instincts. But I think that that is the way that, like, I mean, the other really striking finding from that poll is just a very, very widespread voter sentiment that Trump is not focusing on the issues that they think he should be focusing on. And that's kind of

the thing that glues these two things together. No, I think that is striking in the poll, and you explain that well. And I would say on tariffs, I do think I actually am a little less convinced and some other people that the actual effect of a terrorist decision, either way, is going to make a huge difference. I mean, $1,200 billion sounds like a lot, but we have a very, very large economy, and I don't know that it's going to make a huge amount of difference compared to Fed actions or other, you know, other independent variables, as they say, in social science. I also think that Trump will can restore a lot of these tariffs using other authorities pretty quickly. And so even if they pay back the $100 billion to some companies, you know, I don't know how big a deal it is. And going forward,

which is what, in a way, the markets follow, you know, the tariffs are there. And now we have a new terrorist threat. We should get to that in a minute on major, major trading partners, not Brazil and coffee, which is a major partner. But, you know, at the end of the day, coffee prices went up a little for Brazil. And we're talking to Europe, you know, major European Union nations from which we import a lot. And, of course, Canada. So I do, I think the terrorist thing is the word.

But I think the one is the significant thing about the tariffs is he's made such a big deal about it. that people are more willing to make him responsible for what they don't like about the economy. Don't you think it's sort of like it's a political thing as much as an economic thing? In 2017, they passed the Republican tax bill. It was pretty considered a kind of standard. That's what Republicans do. People sort of believe that that probably helps the economy on that. Maybe it's a little unfair to some poor people.

It's a little lopsided the way it helps, but it helps nonetheless. Economy was reasonably okay. And people thought, okay, well, Trump's economic policies are, quote, working. I feel like now, to the degree they're just satisfied with, his failure to get inflation under control or just worried about the job market, which they probably should be. You know, the tax tax gives people a peg to make it easier to blame Trump. It's not just life in the modern world as complicated, you know. So I agree that the terrorist decision will be a big deal. People sort of stop talking about it. Keep waiting for it to happen. It doesn't happen.

It's going to happen one time soon. Either way, I think it highlights the issue. I guess I put it that way. Trump's got a few issues that he's put a lot of chips on the table on. where it's pretty clear the public opinion is pretty strongly against them. And I don't think easily moved because these are issues that people sort of thought about, a fair amount. And one of them is terrorists, I would say. I think immigration is one where people have moved because it's been so dramatic what's happened, sadly.

And so I think terrorists will come roaring back, actually. And I do think this thing about Europe with Greenland, and tying the Europe tariffs to Greenland now means that his adventurous foreign, is it called Sittalese foreign policy, which people don't like one. much is now tied to a domestic policy terrorist that they don't like much either, I think. Yeah, yeah. There's so much we can say about like sort of the politics of all of this. Before we get to that, is it okay? Can I just make one really quick point? Because I'm so steamed about just sort of the actual merits.

Well, you're the guest. You haven't seen the Sunday Bullwark. I actually let the guests talk. It's not like the typical bullwork show where, you know, you sab signs steamrolls, whoever the the nominal guest is here. I'm happy to have you talk, Andrew. Yeah, I'm going to, I'm going to make, I'm going to try to make some point, and Sam is going to pull up to my house in his car. He's going to run up here. He's going to take the mic away. No, I have just been really steamed about that. I mean, like, every week is something stupid, right?

I mean, we write about it. We live in it. Like, you get kind of numb at a certain level. But this whole idea that, like, the game here is that we really have to do this whole Greenland thing to beat China, right? Like, we have to, you know, the Arctic is so important. You know, we're going to be fighting over it with China. with Russia and like this is this is the move that we take to to limit China. We already have perfect access to Greenland because Greenland is in NATO, which is on our side, I would remind

the president, we have our bases there, we can do what we want militarily up there. The idea that we are going to hurt China, limit China by putting, by starting another new trade war with Europe and with Canada over this, over over like what, over our ability to like have those guys call themselves Americans who live around our military bases up there. Like the idea that that is what is going to curtail China. When meanwhile, by starting this trade war, by going after Europe, by going after Canada, we are pushing them completely into the arms of China because China is doing pretty well. You know, like trading-wise, they're increasingly an economic force to be reckoned with.

One of the nice arguments that we had going for us for a long time was, yeah, you know, you can make a lot of money over there. but also they're total bullies, they're authoritarian, they push their capitalists around. Wouldn't you rather play in the free market of America and do your trading with us? We are also extremely wealthy.

You can make a lot of money here. All that stuff is completely out the window. You know, we are pushing around our capitalists just like they do over there now. There's no moral argument to be made. And just at the moment that we're getting rid of the moral argument, we are also making it way less convenient for anybody to do business with us at all.

So like over the weekend, we just saw this big new economic sort of like a pledge of cooperation between Canada and China. China's going to be able to sell a bunch of, you know, their electric vehicles in Canada now, which is something that the U.S. has been trying very hard to avoid because that's horrible for our auto industry. And that's just one little example of this entire thing, which is like we're going to blow up our credibility. We may ruin NATO over Greenland because supposedly that's necessary to help us against China. when in reality it actually makes even that thing worse. It just makes everything worse. It just sucks. It's bad across the board. So that's my whole rant. No, that was... I'll now follow it with the rant of my own since I think it's a very important rant.

And a really true one. I was just... Well, incidentally, it's also supposed to stop Russia, but of course, we're not helping Ukraine. The actual way to punish Putin to stop him is to help Ukraine, where they're actually fighting a huge war. And Trump is doing nothing really to speak up to help Ukraine. And not...

The Europeans are doing a little more. But that's a... now a risky proposition, I think, and dwarfs, Greenland, obviously. I was at a conference in honor of my friend Aaron Friedberg, who's written for the bulwark, who teaches taught at Princeton in his last term. So this was in honoring him as he retires from teaching. Luckily, he's going to continue writing and working on. And China's been the main focus of his work for the last 23 to 25 years.

And he's been totally, he was a hawk on China when it was not popular to be what. Everyone believed in liberalization and they're going to be coming around. There'll be a stakeholder in the world order. He was, I'm not so sure. they're going to liberalize. The political liberalization may not last. The economic liberalization is okay, except it turns out it also involves stealing a huge amount of intellectual property and establishing relationships that they benefit from much more than the other people. So he was very much vindicated, a lot of praise for him, but as they should have been at this kind of at this

little series of panels and symposium and so forth. But what struck me was there are people there who know a lot about China. And they said what you said. I mean, just to really emphasize it, we had worked hard. Aaron personally had been to five conferences, I'm going to say, in Europe in the last seven years, pleading with the Europeans to get tough on China, to be more serious about curtailing their ability to steal technology and so forth. And the Europeans were coming around. It's funny. I mean, this is partly a post-Ukraine thing, partly just a kind of recognition of some of the atrocities in China with the Uighurs and other groups, partly their own self-interest. But there was, in the Biden administration, whatever criticisms can should be made to them,

they were friendly to Europe, so Europe felt they would have to have. no problem working with the U.S., and that's a preferred partner, was a preferred partner. So there was a real, real progress in kind of getting a bit of a more of an alliance against China. And what struck some of Aaron's friends who do China policy, go to these conferences, talk to Chinese diplomats and European diplomats, was that that is on the verge of collapsing. I think we started this conversation. I was in Princeton before the announcement of the Canada trade deal, which is a big deal.

They even used the term strategic partnership, I think, with China, but also someone I know who knows a lot, I don't know what you matter, about the electric vehicles market was saying, the Europeans are on the verge of saying, look, in general, they're on the verge of saying, what you said. I mean, we don't like China, but you know what? They're not raising and lowering tariffs like every two months. I mean, they're a fairly stable sort of trading partner. They're 10,000 miles away.

They're not going to invade us. They're not going to mess with us too much. They'll sell us their cheap stuff. They'll try to take advantage of certain things. We'll have our guard up. But we can work with that. whereas these guys are threatening to invade a NATO ally and, you know, raise, and then when we do, we say we don't want you to do that, they raise the tariffs, which is the better trading partner.

And people at this conference were sort of very struck how quickly that dynamic is moving the direction you just outlined. And that the Canada deal is really one, a very important instance of that. But there are a lot of things happening beneath the surface, including with electric vehicles, incidentally, where if we're not careful, they'll have the European market. and then they'll be way ahead of us, and that is probably the future, to large degree, of autos and stuff. So, I mean, the degree of disaster

that the Greenland thing is courting, if I can put it that way, is really striking people at this conference. This was not the focus of the conference at all, but people were just talking about it as a kind of radically new development over the last few months. Yeah, yeah.

Can I just say one more thing on this? Because this is just another thing that really sticks in my craw, is that back in the first term, when Trump's protectionist tendencies were much more strongly focused on China, right? I mean, China was the country he picked the big trade war with at that time. It was not this like a tariff for every country on earth situation. He did, he did, you know, he made some feints in that direction, but, but, you know, he was, for instance, ended up being satisfied to renegotiate

NAFTA basically the way it already existed and then leave, you know, North American trade alone. And there was a lot of stuff like that. But China, there was the real trade war. And at that time, you had so many MAGA voices who just made the case that this was like a righteous fight. Like, we actually had to do this. And like, maybe economically it was bad for America in the short term. But like, as a national security matter, this was actually like a really pressing thing. For all the reasons you just laid out.

And at the time, I was kind of like, well, you know, there is something to that. Right. I mean, like, for all the reasons you just laid out. Like, it is actually true that, like, maybe a thing that is in our immediate short-term interest in terms of more and more trade with China without trying to curb all these other things is actually bad in the long run. That could be. That could be possible. So, like, I was sort of like, you know, like, try to readjust my own sort of like priors on this. And now we're in the exact opposite situation where, where not only are we not like putting that kind of particular pressure on China, but we are helping them. Just by pure clownishness and idiocy and short-sightedness and by being madder at Denmark than we are at them. And being madder at Canada than we are at them.

Like we are just actively helping them. Like not just this like you scratch my back, I scratch yours and they get away with some stuff situation like predated the first Trump term. But but like no, like please take all of our trading partners. and the same voices who were like so scoldy about how bad the pre-existing sort of neoliberal China consensus was and how we had to, had to, had to get smart about them immediately or we would lose the future to them. Where are those people? Like they're just, they're posting about how Renee Good was a domestic terrorist.

Like that's what they're doing with their time right now. So that has been a sort of a black pill for me as well as we kind of chew through this stuff. I think the alleged China Hawks not will be willing to say that Trump has not been a China Hawk here in his first year. And if anything, I'd say the other way to put what you're talking about is both cloutishness, but also sort of an implicit sense that, well, he and Xi and Putin can sort of divide the world up into three spheres. And, you know, he can sort of fake that he wants Greenland because it's checking Russia and China, as those are the two, you know, the big countries that he has in his head. I think he wants Greenland because he just thinks that, you know, you get to be on Mount Rushmore, if you can. expand the size of the U.S. That's one reason you got to be on it in the 19th century.

It wasn't built to the 20th century, but the presidents who are out of did that in the 19th century. And Greenland, you know, that's just great to have that as part of the U.S. There's no, I mean, I discuss this more currently on one of the podcasts. I mean, there's just, there's no serious foreign policy rationale and national security rationale. It's not mentioned, I went back and looked at this to remind myself to make sure this is true. It's not mentioned in the authoritative national security strategy document they put out with a little bit of hoopla, right? At the very end of November, I think it was. It's not that long ago, six weeks

ago. And this is 30, it's not the longest, excuse me, national security document ever issued. And these things are often just issued and not forgotten and forgotten. But this is 35 pages or something like that. And it mentions different parts of the world. It's the one that it focuses on the Western atmosphere and all that. It does not mention Greenland. I mean, not the word is not in there. You have to do the, you know, the search function for Denmark at Greenland. You can't find them. So it was not, it's all nonsense. It was not part of their theory of the world. or of the global order or of national security. So it is vanity and whatever else it is.

And maybe a little later, J.D. Vance wanted to bust up NATO in Europe. And Steve Miller just thinking that it's good to be a bully and throw your weight around at broad. Somehow it also goes hand in hand with throwing your weight around at a terrible way at home. He wants more immigration. He wants more Americans from white countries. And the further north you go, the wider they get, and that's about as far north as you can get. So they're really, really high value Americans to add if we could get them.

No, I mean, look, like a year ago, like a year ago, before Trump had even taken office, that was when he had kicked up this whole Greenland obsession again. And it was a recapitulation of a similar thing he had during his first term. And there was this weird energy that you would see from like a lot of well-meaning liberal commentators around that time. Like, no, don't get distracted. Like, don't take the bait. This is just one of those shiny objects that he dangles before he does. the real, before you really sticks in the knife and like, you know, ends the Department of Education or something. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what he was supposed to be distracting from at that time. But like that was, that's always the argument. These are distractions. But like, no. I mean, like it may maybe in some sense, like he likes to yank the news cycle around and he likes to, you know, make these big flashy declarations. But like, it doesn't mean he doesn't mean it. He's really trying to do it. And I think like this is this is what we have absolutely seen right now.

is that, you know, this is by far the furthest he's gone in terms of policy to make this happen, to blow up our trade relationship with Europe over this very, over this place that we already have all our bases, all the bases we could ever possibly want. It's all already there. And I think what we wrote about it, not to pat ourselves on the back too much, but like a year ago, like we wrote something like take Trump's obsession with Greenland seriously, because it's just all of a piece with the way he does everything. It's like, all of these sorts of little, like, strategic objectives and the things that are like attached onto it in a post hoc way to sort of like rationalize Trump's just sort of like grasping maximalist,

I should get more control than I currently have. The amount I have, the amount I had yesterday was was okay and the amount I have today, which is more than that is nice, but wouldn't it be good to have even a little bit more tomorrow? And that's just everywhere. That's just everywhere. Like it's just, it's just who can I dominate? Who's going to stop me? And he and his, and his appetites land different places on different days. You know, maybe Minneapolis will blow up enough, and he'll get excited enough about dominating them there, dominating Tim Walls and Jacob Frey and, you know, random liberal protesters in Minnesota.

And that will, like, satisfy his lust for the next several weeks, so much so that Greenland will blow over again. And that'll be the end of that. But I don't know. Maybe not. Maybe that won't happen. Maybe he will not be so easily sated. And maybe we'll have to keep doing all this.

he's got the policy in place now. So that's something for him to keep coming back to. So I don't know. It's all just, it's all real. Like he's the president. He's the president. He can make us pay attention to things. It is. It's not, we can say it's performative. And of course, it is in certain ways. And, but it's also very real. Minneapolis really shows that. I think you and I, but either of us wrote something on, one of us wrote something on Minneapolis every day this, this past week. And we were pretty upset and outraged by the whole thing. And certainly, I think that's a good instance where it's hard to, it doesn't seem like he gets satisfied and relaxes, right? It seems it's the opposite, if anything.

The authoritarianism self-radicalizes this. So one step leads to another. It can be, some of it could be silly and not as important. It's the Trump-Kennedy Center. But there's always something. He can't, there's something either psychological or maybe it's political in a way also, that you can't sort of just let off the gas pedal for a while. And so, which makes it even more dangerous.

But say a word about Minneapolis. as you've written very powerfully on it. And I said, do you think, I think people know where we are in the substance, but I don't know. I feel like, on the one hand, I would say, I have run into more, quote, regular people in the last week or two, are like, geez, that stuff's bad. What is Trump doing? That's just chaotic. And I'm not, these aren't people who are looking at every freeze frame of the, of the, of the Rene good, you know, killing and so forth.

But I would just think this is kind of, you know, this is not good for the country. Do you feel like there is some reaction? Do you feel like, on the other hand, I can't say elites are really rebelling our moss against Trump and cutting severing ties and saying they won't do business with them anymore and so forth. So I don't know. Where do you think this goes? Yeah. I think that we maybe shoot ourselves in the foot a little bit when we always analyze everything like in terms of will this now make the bottom fall out farther. Right?

Because I just think, I just think like until proven otherwise, we should assume that like nothing will crack. we should allow ourselves to be actually taken by surprise, if anything ever does crack, like the psychological hold he has over the core mega base, or like the financial grip he has over these titans of industry who know that he can just, like, ruin them at this moment in time. And I think that if all that is the case, then the first real moment to actually break his power is the midterms, right? Which are coming right up. and will actually stand a chance of really hurting his grip on these various actual

sort of strangleholds on power. And if that's the case, then the question is not, how can Trump be made to go from 39% to 34% in the immediate term? Because it's probably just not going to happen. But the question is, is there a world in which he recovers? Is there a world in which he sort of manages to stabilize and then woo back some of these people who he needed to win in 2024 but who have since abandoned him.

And I think that one of the things that this whole Minneapolis ordeal has shown is that he is not doing that at all, at least in the present moment, that this is a story that really did break through. I mean, the staggering polling in terms of like just the number of Americans who say they themselves have seen the video.

Like 75% of poll respondents are like, yeah, I actually watched her die. I watched this ICE agent, you know, pull a gun and shooter. And they do not have the narrative at all. They have their, their pretext for going into Minneapolis has not landed with the American people. It is small minorities who, who buy their case and that this is sort of like the, this, rather than, by the way, rather than the fraud, which was the original pretext, right? That was, that's why they, that this giant fraud scandal in Minnesota was the sort of thing that like they actually had, uh, stood a chance of having

majority support on as like a pretext for doing this sort of thing. That was like a gift wrapped story for them. But because the bloodlust is just there now and because it's because they cannot, they have completely lost any ability to like tap the brakes on this stuff at all, even like a perfect gift wrapped pretext like that immediately disintegrates into just this sort of naked fist of the state brutality and authoritarianism. And it is the kind of thing. I think that a lot of normal people who even haven't been paying attention to a lot of this stuff, they see it and they recoil from it, and it re-contextualizes a lot of the other things that maybe they like sort of half heard over the last year about what Donald Trump and his MOOCs are up to.

And it's the kind of thing that, again, you know, it's not, it's not, it's not de-radicalizing the main kind of like cultish mega base, but it is creating this like iron wall of, of opposition. to what's going on around like 60% of the country who are not going to get wooed back necessarily if, if, you know, the economy improves, you know, if the unemployment rate ticks down a percentage point or something like that. So I think in that way, if the question is the midterms, if that's like the main big next thing, then I do think all of this stuff in Minnesota and just all these other actions, the Greenland and everything like that, they really do amount to Trump shooting himself in the foot in terms of getting back.

to any kind of, any kind of stability for, for electoral politics. No, that's an interesting way of putting it. And even before the midterms, I mean, you could say, if he had done Venezuela and said, you know what, and even if he had then betrayed the Democratic opposition and it was going to work with the same regime without Maduro and stuff, you know, we could imagine sort of, but it's better. We's really cutting down on the, you could make a lot of claims whether they're true or not, who knows.

But you could imagine it's sort of, okay, I think he maybe did the right thing there. He pulled it off, no American deaths and so forth. you know, got rid of a horrible dictator who was judged horrible by the Biden administration as well and by the Europeans. Then if he's left Venezuela, if he hadn't done Greenland right on top of Venezuela, and to make use of just your point, if he had investigated the fraud with all these child care and welfare programs in Minneapolis and some of it's centered in the Somali community there, so you get to play a little bit of your, you know, racially tinged nativist politics with that. But, but, but, but send in, I'm making this up, you know, 500 inspectors to really do the job that the Minnesota

government's not doing. Instead, he sends ICE and a license has nothing to do with welfare fraud. I mean, right? I mean, ICE is supposed to be about immigration enforcement. And in fact, that's what they're doing. And so they've totally disconnected the two, which, I mean, because he's so obsessed and Miller's so obsessed with obviously the immigration side. And the border patrol is there? Is it, is it Gambino on the ground in Minnesota? Yes. And it's really grotesque. Mike Murphy called it Freikor sort of, you know, with his security detail of 25 parading, francing through the streets, it really is like, this is not America.

He's a stupid cliche, but in this case, probably one that is apt. So, yeah, I very much agree with your, that's a very true point. And we'll see he has a state of the union in a month. There are all kinds of other moments that will be before the midterms, where we'll see if he has a chance to reset, if he wishes to. On the other hand, the degree to which he's also using the Justice Department of

the Monkey with the bit terms. That's another topic that we'll have to write about more in morning shots. We should let people go. We should let you go to watch NFL football. Very important, I know. And then if it's out of why, well, you then got to get to work on tomorrow's morning shots. So anyway, I hope this wasn't too unpleasant experience for you, Andrew, too challenging to come on the Sunday, bullwork on Sunday as opposed to your normal bulwark takes and it was my white whale. And now, and now here we are. Look at this. Look at us. Look at us go. Unlike the original white whale, this is one that you've harpooned. Yes. Without great misadventure. To yourself, I guess.

Andrew, we'll see. We'll see. Maybe something that will come up and will be the beginning of the end for me. I'll be canceled, who knows. Sarah Longwell on line one sort of, Andrew, that was not acceptable. Yeah, that would be good.

Thanks for doing this, Andrew, and thank you all for joining us. And we'll see you next Sunday. And meanwhile, take a look at warning shots tomorrow if you wish. Thanks.