The Dispatch Podcast - The Public Shifts on Immigration

Episode Date: January 16, 2026

Michael Warren takes the host chair from Steve Hayes to lead a panel discussion with Jonah Goldberg, Sarah Isgur, and Grayson Logue on the recent fatal shooting involving an ICE agent in Minneapolis, its effect on public opinion around immigration enforcement, and the broader ramifications of aggressive immigration enforcement. The Agenda:–Polling on public reaction to the ICE shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis–Trump’s “Reverse Midas Touch” and its influence on the political narrative–The feds are coming for Jerome Powell–Are we really taking Greenland?–Is NWYT worth your time? Show Notes:–Save the Federal Reserve's independence–ICE's Deadly Professionalism Deficit The Dispatch Podcast is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you’d like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Dispatch podcast is presented by Pacific Legal Foundation, suing the government since 1973. Welcome to the dispatch podcast. I'm Mike Warren. On this week's roundtable, we'll discuss the political fallout from ICE's actions in Minnesota, the political blowback against the criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell. The Greenland question, what do we gain and what do we lose by choosing this diplomatic fight right now? Plus, a little not worth your time. I'm joined today by my dispatch colleagues, Jonah Goldberg, Sarah Isger, and Grayson Logue. Let's dive right in. All right.

Well, we are a little over a week removed from the tragedy last week in Minneapolis, the death of Renee Good, a woman in Minneapolis who was shot by an ICE agent. Lots of controversy, obviously, lots of different opinions about it based on all of these different videos. You could see online over the past week, different angles, you know, sort of whatever, whatever you wanted to see in this video, you could see happen. Was she turning the wheel? Was she blocking and stopping the ICE agents from doing their job? Whatever that is, we now have some information about how the rest of America, who's not necessarily living online watching these videos, thinks of not just what happened in Minneapolis, but what has been happening with regards to ICE

and the aggressive immigration enforcement. This is a new poll from Quinnipiac that came out this week. 40% of voters approve of the way U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement is enforcing immigration laws, while 57% disapprove. On the specific question of this shooting of Renee Good, It's some interesting numbers. And I know, I feel like I'm triggering Sarah here by going to a poll for a specific, you know, question on this. But roll with me here because I think there's a bigger story here that the polling does tell. So this is the, on the question specifically of Renee Good, 82% say that they have seen a video of the shooting, which is remarkable, actually. That's a lot of people who say they have seen a video of the shooting.

and 53% of those of people say they think the shooting was not justified. 35% think it was justified, 12% did not have an opinion. Even when you break it down in partisan ways, 7% of Republicans think the shooting was justified. While Democrats, 92% say the shooting was not justified, 59% of independents, they're really kind of hitting that average of all voters. 59% say the shooting was not justified.

Now, we don't determine whether a shooting is justified based on polling, but I do think this poll is in line with a way a lot of the polls have been about Donald Trump's administration's enforcement of immigration laws. Increasingly, Americans don't like what they see. And it's not just been the shooting of Renegra. There have been a number of videos that have come out in the last week from Minneapolis showing protesters, sometimes just regular mini-eague. Minneapolis sites, you know, trying to get to one woman trying to get to a doctor's appointment, pulled out of her car by ICE agents because she was driving through a place where they were doing some kind of enforcement. There's been a lot of video, a lot of information, a lot of attention to this issue, and Americans don't like it. And they increasingly dislike it. And that's even true, I think, among Republican voters, a vast majority. still approve of Donald Trump, but that number is going down, and it's significantly less

than how many approve of Donald Trump overall. Sarah, I want to go to you because I did bring up a single issue poll, and I know you hate that, but I'm curious what you think of the broader polling picture and the broader political question of the administration's immigration enforcement. Is it not true that the more people see of what is going on at Minneapolis and in other cities, the less people like it. I didn't hear a word you said because of the take you had on what we call people from Minneapolis. I'm sorry.

Did you just call them apples, basically? Like, I don't... Who can say what I said? Who can say? So I believe it is Minneapolis. There we go. I like that. Which is actually not less silly than what you said, frankly.

Agreed. Thank you. Yeah. But anyway, yeah. So let me start with the issue polling part because I think it's actually pretty relevant here. And this goes to my larger beef with issue polling, as you know, that you don't really know what question people are answering. Some people might be answering the question you're asking. Some people may be answering what they believe is just a team question.

Are you on this team or that team? And some people may be asking, do you approve of Donald Trump's immigration enforcement, regardless of how specific your question is, I think you can see all of that in these issue polls. That being said, to your point, it doesn't make those polls not interesting because sort of no matter how people were interpreting the question, it is showing you something related to immigration enforcement in the country.

You know, it reminds me a little bit of the abundance guys or the popularism take from the left? Like, what if, and stick with me here, there was a political party that took positions that were popular and didn't take positions that were unpopular. And when it comes to immigration, I think we have a pretty good sense now of what that would look like.

It would look like extreme enforcement on the border, like crazy enforcement. And then none of this is. in the interior. I'm not saying that is following the law or that it is, you know, morally good or bad. There are all separate takes to be had on those things. But in terms of what is popular, I think that's it. And it's interesting to me that we don't have a political party that is even interested in taking that position, right? Does anyone believe that if the Democrats, you know, took over the White House tomorrow that they would continue, you know, strict enforcement at the southern border?

I don't think so. We get to swing the pendulum one way or the other. So my point is, Americans aren't really picking between the immigration parts that they like. It's a bundle of sticks. And so while you can ask people what they think of this type of interior immigration enforcement, which is what I think that issue poll is really telling you, the reason that that issue poll isn't as helpful as people want is because immigration enforcement right now is a bundle of sticks. And so what you actually want to ask people, although again, not an issue poll because it won't be the question they're answering is, do you hate the interior enforcement enough to give up the enforcement at the southern border? Because that's what will determine their votes at the midterm or in 2028. And that's

a question I don't think we have the answer to slash, if I were to guess, I'm. I'm a question. I don't I think that there are plenty of people who would take the bundle of sticks with the stuff they don't like rather than give up immigration enforcement. I think that's an astute way of putting it, Sarah, the extreme border enforcement and none of the interior stuff that we're seeing. It's interesting that none of this should have been a surprise, right? for anyone who was listening to what the Trump campaign was talking about in 2024, they said they were going to do all of this. I do wonder if there is something of a lack of imagination among voters about what the reality of that whole bundle of sticks was going to look like.

And now all of these... Or they were fine with the bundle. Again, like if you have to pick all bundle or no bundle, they were like, well, I'll take the bundle with the stick that I don't like, is the interior enforcement. But I do. Something has changed. Jonah, go ahead.

Yeah. So I, I, I, I take their support and I think it's a good one. I also disagree with it at the margins because I think a better metaphor for how you could think about this is a portfolio, right? And it's not like you have to take the whole bundle of sticks, you know, or no bundle of sticks. It's, could we have a few less shares of this kind of stock in our portfolio and a few more of that kind?

And I agree with you. the Democrats have not earned the trust about the border stuff with voters. On the flip side of that, I could totally see a Rahm Emanuel type or some other Clinton adjacent type saying, which in some ways is sort of how Obama did things too. Right. Of saying a lot of stuff that the left likes, but keeping the border enforcement because it just saves them so many headaches,

maybe not as severe. I think the Trump administration screwed this up royally because the binary choice that, as Sarah puts it, of you have to have this kind of enforcement if you're going to get border security, misses the fact that Stephen Miller and some of these guys want huge theatrical, scary stuff to get immigrants, illegal immigrants to self-deport and to dissuade other immigrants from ever coming here. And that is a defensible argument in a pure real politic, right? Certainly the flip side was true. Biden's rhetoric invited waves of illegal immigrants into this country. And so, like, Trump's cruel, vicious rhetoric has an actual real point to it is you have to be really blunt to send the signal out there that don't dry it and don't stay if you're illegal. And we don't know the self-deportation numbers, but we think they're pretty dramatic. I just think this stuff has gone too far

with the American people as a political matter and they could ratchet this back 30, 40%, and not be underwater with a lot of people, but they want the drama, and part because Trump, this isn't purely about immigration for Trump. Trump, you know, he wants to send troops into cities and there is this idea that we should be, you know, the Fed should be provocative to give him

the pretext to be able to send in the National Guard. And so they, that's the vibe they send out. And if they weren't interested in doing that and sending this sort of Uber testosterone BS out, they could have half of this policy. And it would still be much stronger on immigration than any previous administration. We've had, you know, I don't know, since Eisenhower. And, but they don't want to do that because Trump likes the theatrics of strength. and he wants to provoke Antifa and all of this.

I mean, it is really, really telling that J.D. Vance has said almost nothing about Venezuela, very little about Iran, and he can't shut the F up about how great this officer was for shooting this person in the face. But it does seem that the theatrics, I agree with you, Jonah, that's a lot of the motivation for the powers that be. feature, it's not a bug. Correct. At the same time, that has, the feature has become a bug, at least at the margins, right? In all of these videos, and again, I want to caution, we talked about this on the Monday, sorry, on the Tuesday podcast, and I know you guys talked about it last week as well, right? Video is not, you know, determinative of everything, but the volume of videos of different incidents being captured a lot of times just by, you know, regular people or at the very

least protesters who are savvy enough to get their phones out and, and capture what's going on. That seems to have, I mean, again, I was shocked by that Quinnipiac poll where something like 82% was, was that the number of people who had actually seen a video of the Renee Good shooting? That's remarkable to me. The plethora of videos that are getting out there, Grayson, it suggests that, to me that being confronted with this, the physical or the visual evidence, I should say, of what this actually means has generated, at least it has helped generate a kind of visceral reaction against it, right? That seeing what it actually looks like leaves, just leaves

a lot of Americans cold. What do you make of that? Are we sort of seeing a change in how, you know, video and social media can in a new sense drive public opinion. I don't think it's necessarily new. We've seen this happen with law enforcement killings for like more than a decade now. I will say on the bundling point, I think there's two things going on with whether or not you can have aggressive immigration enforcement can still have all the craziness that more and more people are seeing in these videos. I think the administration is trying to do two separate things.

One is exactly what Jonah described, which is if we give off. off this message that we're going to beat you up and drag you from your homes. Maybe you'll be less likely to come here and if you want to leave your home already and self-deport from the United States. This goes back earlier to maybe we'll send you to like a gulag in El Salvador, think twice about crossing the border. But I think there's also this other element that was really accentuated after the Charlie Kirk shooting, which is the people who don't like this, we're going to beat them up to if we come across

them in the streets. Like these are the lefty agitators who are agitating for violence. that that was like another element that I think got emphasized post the Kirk shooting, and there's even some videos from when Noam was out on the street from last year, specifically giving a pack talk to officers saying, we're going to go after these leftist radicals who are advocating for violence against you. We're going to go hard after that. It has nothing to do with what these Border Patrol or ICE officers

were going to do with immigration enforcement today, but that's what she was telling them. And even taking the administration's kind of best argument, that doing this to level 10 is necessary to get the deterrent effect, you don't have to do that to the people who are protesting, right? Like if you want to send a message to migrants, like you can be just as aggressive on that front, even though I would disagree with that tactic.

I think another thing to recognize too, just with the popular reaction to this, is the idea that this administration is a friend to ICE or to these immigration enforcement agencies. I don't think they're a friend to these agencies. Yes, they've given them a lot of money and they're infusing them with a lot of personnel. But if you listen to like anonymous reporting of people within the veterans within ICE or former leadership of ICE, they don't like what's going on.

You are not doing a credible law enforcement operations that's going to set this agency up for success in the long term or be very effective after going after high-value targets, quality, quality arrests. And there was an interview from last month that Nick wrote about in his newsletter with the former acting ICE director in the Obama administration saying how inconceivable it is to him as a matter of law enforcement that you are publicly announcing that you're surging operations in a city and you're starting an operation here and you're sending 2,000 more personnel there. If your goal is to get as many as people as possible with as little interference from the public as possible, you would want the least amount of publicity around that operation. So that I just think that the administration doesn't actually care about the legitimacy and credibility of this as a law enforcement institution, but they care about it for other ends. And that's increasingly driving a lot of backlash from people who are seeing what happened to Renee Goods and a lot of other people. So as loathe as I am to refer to or to sort of look at the barometer that is Joe Rogan, the comedian and the number one podcaster out there, I think the 2024 election means that we sort of have to pay attention to what these kind of popular

right-coded but not necessarily partisan podcasters are saying. And Joe Rogan sort of, again, had this kind of, he was interviewing Rand Paul, the libertarian U.S. senator, who, and had this express this visceral reaction. You don't want militarized people in the streets just roaming around, snatching people up, many of which turn out to actually be U.S. citizens that just don't have their papers on them? Are we really going to be that the Gestapo? Where's your papers? Is that what we've come to? You know, this is, he said, do we really want the Gestapo as the word he used? You know, this is not a partisan Democrat saying this is a podcaster sort of reacting to this.

I think that may be a good barometer of kind of how the semi-informed American voter, news-informed voter, is reacting to all this. I want to ask you put on maybe your political operative hat a little bit here because you mentioned something about how there is no party that is sort of responding to where maybe the American voter really is. What would be your advice to say a Democrat who's running for office in Texas or somewhere else looking ahead to these 22, sorry, the 2026 midterm elections to try to triangulate on this. and find the right message on immigration, because a lot of Democratic primary voters are angry and furious about this, but these politicians have to know they can't just be abolish ICE, period, end of story. What would you say they should do? So there's two Sarahs here.

There's West Wing Sarah, which you guys never want to hear from. And there's Gryfter Sarah, which everyone, for some reason, is much more interested in Gryfter Sarah's take. So I will assume this is a question to... I want to hear from both. Yeah. Well, look, Rifter Sarah is going to tell you that the first thing you have to do is get through a primary. And so, yeah, you're...

You want to avoid things that can be used against you in the general election. So I wouldn't put out a bunch of abolish ice stuff because that's easy to clip for the general. But yeah, I mean, what you're seeing, of course, makes perfect political sense because right now we're in primary season. So take Texas, for example, where we have actually a pretty interesting Democratic primary. For Senate. Jasmine Crockett was initially seen as sort of the most left wing of the candidates because she was kind of the content creator, AOC Trump Trull version. But the more that's come out about her, she's the content creator all right, but not necessarily the progressive candidate. And, I mean, you're just going to see the Democratic candidates try to race each other to the left to capture not just that part of the vote that is against this.

By this, I mean immigration enforcement. But their outrage and their small dollars as well, which again, all wrapped up in winning those primaries. So Grifter Sarah says, avoid the quick snippets. that can be used against you, but like lean all the way in, which, spoiler alert, is how we get the two parties, none of which can actually capture the middle, because while you can pivot toward the middle in the general, you can't really just abandon everything you said or the vibes. And so everyone gets trapped without actually capturing the popular positions. But I want that sorkanism, the West Wing Sarah.

Right, right. Okay. West Wing, Sarah is like, stand up there loud and proud and tell the people what they need to hear. I will say there is one candidate who is doing that. It's Rahm Emanuel. And, you know, he's the former mayor of Chicago, former chief of staff to President Obama. And he is out there telling truth to primary voters. And I am here for it.

I am desperate to see it work because it actually is this very Aaron Sorkin candidacy right now. And so, you know, if you want to shut down Grifter Sarah, start paying attention to Rahm Emanuel. I mean, he's telling people that, you know, the schools aren't working and that part of that is Democrats' fault for the policies that they've been supporting. If you actually want a candidate to say real things, you've got to support them in a primary, and you've got to support the people who aren't just saying everything you want at an 11 to try to. stoke that outrage in the primary. So yeah, Rahm Emanuel is your Aaron Sorkin candidate. Everyone else is your grifter Sarah candidate so far. Jonah, do you agree? Is the synthesis for Democrats on this,

basically Obamaism on immigration enforcement? Well, first of all, let me second what Sarah said about Rom Emanuel, who have become kind of friendly with. I had him on the remnant in violation of my no politicians, you know, rule of thumb. David Drucker did an excellent profile of him for the dispatch as well. But the reason why I'm for, let me rephrase Sarah's view about it, the reason I'm for Rahm Emanuel or someone Rahm Emanuel like to win is that, first of all, Donald Trump has proven that once you win, most of these supposed power broker people crumble and will get in line,

right? All of the purists on the right all crumbled and got in line with Trump. They did it with Clinton. You know, there are two resignations because of welfare reform. I mean, they just go with whoever is president. And so this idea that, like, you know, the party can't be moved, I just think is wrong. The party is full of quizzlings and cowards. But they have power structurally in the primaries.

But the reason why I'm for a Ramanal type is I have come to the bedrock conclusion that you cannot have just one sane party. You need two sane parties. Because if you have only, if you have one insane party, it gives the other party permission to be just slightly less insane than the other party. And that's no way to run a railroad. You want, you want virtuous competition where the parties are competing over who is more sane, not over who is more insane. On the immigration stuff in general, you know, I'm one of these people. I probably took a slight backseat to Sarah on this point. but I'm one of these people who have been making the same point that Trump is harming himself

because he's not getting his executive orders passed as legislation. And as a general proposition, I agree with that and I say it all the time. At the same time, there's some of these executive orders that I don't think Democrats are going to repeal because it is in their interest not to have the issue on it and they definitely don't want a campaign on it. So, like, some of the DEI stuff, if, I mean, if they're morons, they will sign another questionnaire from the ACLU and they'll lose again. But some of them won't. And if you're going to repeal a lot of that stuff, you have to campaign on it to a certain extent. And I don't know that, I mean, you listen to Roman Manuel talk about immigration.

And he's like, look, you have to enforce it. And he talks about how many deportations Obama had. And they're kind of made up numbers, but it's a good rhetoric. And he talks about Bill Clinton saying, you know, there are people who are illegally have to go. I think you can make that case to a significant slice of Democrats. If you convince them, you have to say it to win. Because a lot of these people really, really, really, really, really, really want to win.

So I don't know. I just think there's a lot more give in the politics of a lot of this than I might have because Trump is so disrupted everything that there's room to navigate through the rubble now. All right. We're going to take a quick break, but we'll be back soon with more from the dispatch podcast. We're back. You're listening to the dispatch podcast. Let's jump in. Well, let's move on lots more to talk about immigration. Something tells me immigration enforcement is not going away as a political issue in the upcoming midterm elections. but I want to turn our attention to this issue regarding the Fed Chair Jerome Powell and the criminal investigation being done into Powell. I will read this from CNN.

This is a CNN report, quote, White House officials are heaping blame on DC U.S. attorney Janine Piro over her office's criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell, faulting her for blindsiding them with an inquiry that has forced the administration. into a days-long damage control campaign for people familiar with the matter told CNN. This all comes out. We talked about it earlier this week on the despot. Essentially Sunday night, Fed Chair Jerome Powell issues a statement and a video statement, too, essentially saying, I'm being investigated. We got subpoenaed by a grand jury last week, standing up, really, for the Fed's independence and calling the investigation, in so many words,

a political witch hunt. And the reaction from the rest of Washington was, seems to be to have sided with Jerome Powell. You've had Republican members. Tom Tillis was the first. Yes, he's a Republican senator, not running for a reelection and is sort of maybe more freed to say and speak his mind,

but saying that he was going to put a hold on any future Fed nominations from, Donald Trump until this matter was resolved. You heard this from other Republican senators, the Republican chair of the House Financial Services Committee, French Hill, as well. Yes, all those sort of requisite, all the other living Fed chairs outraged about this. And it really seems to have caught the administration flat-footed. And that CNN story suggested to me that they were frustrated by how all of this came out. I'm curious, Grayson, I want to start with you, now that we've had a sort of a few days

to sort of marinate and all of this and we've heard lots of just kind of a lot of people in Washington kind of feeling icky about this whole thing and maybe even more outraged did the administration

did Janine Piro bite off more than they could chew? Did they sort of get out over their skis on this? And were they outfoxed by the least likely person in Washington to outfox anyone in the blue political realm, Jerome Powell. What say you? I think, yes. This has just been, I mean, this is deeply serious and significant, but it's also

kind of hilarious to listen to the duke trip of reporting on how exactly this came about and whether or not Janine Imperial was just purely acting out on her own or if it came from the White House or from the Justice Department. There was a Wall Street Journal editorial on this that basically described it as lawfare for dummies, which I thought was about right. If you want to buy entirely the Trump's sympathetic case that everything the Democrats did

against him or Democrat prosecutors did against him or special counsels before he came into office was lawfare. At least they did a much better job of making the pretext seem plausible and the people who were making the case for watching these investigations

in these cases, there was some plausibility behind this. The reason why I think Powell's statement could have such impact and why you saw a core contingent, obviously, is a only a handful, but a significant handful of Republican senators get behind this so quickly, is that that there's no real there there that's been defined whatsoever behind this criminal probe or investigation. You've had since last summer the idea of this building construction and the rumors or speculation of fraud, not really even claims, just like, hmm, fraud, question mark?

Like, maybe we can find something there. Like, that's the extent of... Grayson, can you just give listeners just a real quick two-sentence? What is the substantive claim here? Yeah, so to the extent that there is one, it's basically that there was this renovation project that's ongoing of the Federal Reserve.

I think it's mainly two of its historic buildings. It's projected to be a two-and-half billion dollar cost, and it's gone up, I think, like, 30% from the original projections, which date all the way back to, like, 2018, 2019. Not inconceivable that a big, project dealing with a building in DC would have some cost increases over that time, but the administration saw that as a potential opportunity to put pressure on PAL and say,

hmm, these costs have gone up, like is there fraud here? And the president, as well as big amplifiers within the administration, including federal housing finance director, Bill Holti, seized on that last summer to say that, yes, we need an investigation, but even before this investigation begins, Powell should resign. He needs to be out. or maybe even he should be fired. So that was, all of that background to what happened this weekend made it really, really clear to see that this is pretextual. Like, there isn't a justification here for this investigation

that would warrant getting rid of the Fed chair like this week or last week or tomorrow, even if there is, turns out to be something to this investigation. So I think that that was just kind of one of the obvious reasons why this was able to backfire on them so quickly, but they really have kind of done this to themselves. Well, Sarah, I mean, you're the only one here who's worked at the Justice Department. I mean, we're talking about this

as if this is like Keystone Cop operation here, but, I mean, hey, a grand jury has been in panel. There's subpoena. I mean, like, this is serious, right? Like, play devil's advocate here. Is there some, is there the possibility that there's something actually, there and we shouldn't be just accepting of everybody's dismissal of this as pretextual and

political. First of all, the idea that this is the clownish prosecution, Fonnie Willis takes a backseat to no one in clown car prosecutors. Hey, we don't know who has been sleeping with who yet. So we, you know, let's let's slow a roll on that, but I take your point. I mean, the hours of my life that I'll never get back watching that hearing where Fannie Willis is on the witness stand. Oh, yeah. It's one of the, like, it should be shown in law schools of just a what not to do. And it's like, but what specifically? And it's like, nope, this is just a, we're not going to talk any more about this. Just watch it and don't do it. We had fun watching that, Sarah. What are you talking about? Yeah, yeah. You and I, I mean, I miss you, Mike. So a few things here. This doesn't make any sense because Powell's term

is up in a few months, so he's replaceable in just a few months. And legally, the president can fire him as chairman at any point. There's no legal restriction in the statute on changing out the chairman, for instance. Well, there is on changing out the actual governors of the board as, you know, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on that next week and what exactly for cause removal means. So can I, just to clarify and make sure I understand it, Powell's term is chair ends in a few months, he would remain a governor, a Fed governor. And then what you're saying is he could fire Powell today and replace him with an existing Fed governor as the chair. Correct. The chairmanship is the point. The chairmanship is not restricted under the statute,

or at least it's never been challenged. So none of this makes sense. So then you back up and say, okay, well then, you know, why do it? And I think it gets to actually Trump's leadership style. You know, everyone around Trump is aware of what he wants, but he never gives direct orders of what he wants, or at least, you know, that's rarely or it's not quite how we operate. I mean, there's exceptions to every rule. And so it's very easy to see a Janine Piro, for instance, thinking that she's acting on the president's wishes, but of course, she never asked the president. because the president doesn't want to be asked. And for anyone who's worked in politics, or maybe just in life, because almost all of my jobs

have been in politics, I guess I can't speak to what the real world even looks like. But I've certainly had bosses where there's certain things that they don't want to tell you to do the thing. They want you to do it, but they don't want to tell you to do it. Now, it's one thing to do that on like a one-off basis, but when it is your entire thing, your leadership style, you're going to end up with things like this where your subordinate thinks they're acting on your wishes, but in fact, they do something really boneheaded because they don't actually understand the full landscape, which is why you actually want people to

sit in meetings and hash things out and have explicit direction from their leaders. So let that be just a lesson in how to run a business, if not how to fire a venture. Jonah, there's I will say there's been a lot of conversation and talk that, you know, is this the moment that, I don't know, Republicans or whomever sort of turn on Donald Trump? I think that all of that talk is always overblown and this seems to be no exception. But I want to go back to the sort of reaction from everybody else in Washington, the kind of ickiness or more so that you just saw from across the board. There's something about the independence of the Fed and this weird. space that it operates in within our system where it seems like, you know, it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense if you were setting up things, you know, right now the way things should work.

Like the Fed doesn't fit into any plan that anybody would make for setting up our system. And yet everybody kind of needs and wants and loves for it to be, you know, separating out some of the cranks in the Ron Paul world, wants it to be independent and operating without any influence. from a president. Is that what's going on here? Is the Fed just special and different? And everyone hates the idea that Trump is messing with that. This is the place where, you know, they're going to make their stand because the Fed is just that important?

In short, yes. All right. Well, we can move on then. So I am, I'm going to drop some old school policy on y'all. E.E. Schott Schneider, one of the great mid-20th century political scientists, author of semi-sovereign people, former head of the American Political Science Association, he had this concept called expanding the scope of conflict.

And he does this whole running metaphor about how a fight breaks out on a bar, and the two combatants keep enlisting larger and larger groups of allied people to join their fight. And what Powell did was brilliant in this regard. He did not say, I will be vindicated when this investigation is over. He said, this is BS, and anybody who's concerned about this BS, come to my aid. You know, bold forces come, you know, writers of Rohan, come to my aid, right?

And so the set, you know, we were talking about this in the editorial meeting, you know, every senator, first of all, as a millionaire. Second of all, every senator has a personal stock advisor, you know, financial advisor and a chairman of a finance committee to raise money from. They have a dozen, two dozen, a hundred, I don't know, rich people who can get them on the phone at any given moment. there are almost literally no rich people who aren't contenders for the job of Fed chair who think this is a way to run a railroad, right, who think this is a good idea. I've talked to very successful, very rich MAGA people, and they're like, well, on this, he's crazy, right? This is just not how you do it, right?

And so by skipping the narrative of the legal stuff and going straight to this is pretextual, which it obviously is. You know, I feel like every time I've been calling what Trump does pretextual on all these fronts for so long, I feel like I'm owed royalties now that everybody else is saying it. But this is obviously banana republic stuff, and everybody knows it. And there are a lot of people who think some of these other dramas

or beltway dramas or don't really matter or don't have geopolitical consequences. And everyone basically understands that this does. And so by immediately calling in reinforcements, I think we saw the Trump administration back down, right? And one of the reason the market didn't freak out is because they saw the Trump administration back down. I think Sarah's interpretation is entirely correct, that is most likely, right? We don't know for sure. But like, these are people who said, oh, the old man loves this kind of stuff.

Let's do this. And so, but I have a question about the constitutional thing. that as you put, you know, how it's sort of this orphan in our constitutional order. And I'm very, I've been very sympathetic to the argument that I normally don't like to make arguments like this that it's unconstitutional, but I'm for it, right? That really, I really try to get out of that. But the Fed is one of these things that, like, if we could have, amend the Constitution tomorrow to basically instantiate the Fed the way it is right now, I would be for it because

it essentially works. and it is one of these few areas where the progressives were directionally right in the sense that you do want some disinterested experts separated as much as possible from politics to make some kinds of decisions like maybe at the NIH and at the Fed and that's about it, right? But it's interesting. I was wondering if there's this Kobayashi-Maru solution here that I'm not. I am intrigued by, that I had somehow missed, and I want to ask Sarah about it. Michael McConnell from Stanford has this idea, makes this point, which I think is actually a very

good one, which is that the core things that the Fed does are actually legislative things. They are, they're part of Congress's powers. Congress is the power to regulate banks. Congress is the power to authorize borrowing and lending and all of that kind of stuff. it's these peripheral second order things that the Fed does that make it seem like an executive branch thing if Congress could simply essentially privatize the Fed like make it the second bank of the United States or something like that and create a charter for it that put it outside of the executive branch functions I know that feels like Kirk walks out of the Kobayashi simulator with a big with a big W But I don't know enough about this.

We can put it in the show notes. McConnell had this op-ed in the post in September. I'm sure he's written a much longer or something about it somewhere. But anyway, I was just wondering if you have any thoughts on it, Sarah. First of all, it took me many years to understand that Mitch McConnell and Michael McConnell were not the same person. So just a shout out to anyone who's listening, Michael McConnell was... Saying with Kenny Loggins, right?

Was a judge who was also, like in my least. legal circles, like Mitch McConnell and Michael McConnell were equally famous. Not the same person. Anyway, okay, so this is a bit of a complicated answer, I guess, but I'm going to try to make it as simple as possible, which is... Shut up, Jonah. No. Jonah, you ignorant.

It's something like this. Every executive branch agency does, quote-unquote, legislative functions as you're describing it. This was a point that Justice Kagan made at the oral argument about the Federal Trade Commission. The problem is it proves too much, right? If all of these agencies are doing, quote, legislative functions, and they're in the executive branch, then they shouldn't exist potentially. Not that we should just be like, oh, I guess legislation, it's messy. Or it proves the other part, which is like there is no such thing as separation of powers. Everyone's doing everything. And to prove the point a little bit, the only way you can really have an executive branch without

some sort of regulations is one of two things. One, everything has to be a speed limit instead of like a sign that says don't drive too fast. Everything would have to be anything over 55 miles an hour is too fast. Otherwise, if it's don't drive too fast, the other option is you just have a bunch of different bureaucrats deciding for themselves what driving too fast is. what the regulations do is internally set for all of them what driving too fast means. Now, I think we can all want Congress to set the 55 mile an hour speed limit, but there's all sorts of things where, you know, maybe you just want it to be between 52 and 54, or maybe it's going to change over time, and it's a lot easier to change with technology in the agency than it is with passing new congressional legislation every time there's a change. So defining all of that as legislative becomes really messy.

When it comes to the Fed, in addition, there's no question that they actually do exercise some executive functions like investigatory and punitive. Enforcing consumer credit law, blah, blah, blah. So at a minimum, you've got to strip all of that out if you even want to make the, well, they just sort of do legislative stuff. Okay, that all being said, I do think that they could, and we know this from history, charter something like a second bank of the United States, which I think is what you're describing slash kind of what Professor McConnell was describing.

We know they can do that. The Supreme Court upheld it, but it would strip out all those executive things. It would make it, again, something more like the Second Bank of the United States, which was actually pretty unpopular, which is why it never got rechartered, yada, yada, yada. This is super messy. And at the end of the day, Jonah, I'm actually more. sympathetic to the, well, this feels unconstitutional, but I'm kind of for it. And the only other time that's really happened in my own little brain is the Civil War, where Lincoln was doing some

things that I'm like, well, I have a hard time actually papering over this, but I'm glad he did it. Shrug. Yeah, no, look, I'm with you. I think the petulant sort of self-interested vandalism of pressing this issue by the Trump administration. when it is not, I mean, I know he's the king of debt and all this kind of stuff, it is not entirely clear to me. He understands how the Fed even works. Right. Because the Fed basically, as I understand it, Grayson, you can correct me, just changes the overnight rate, right? And a couple other, like, has a couple other levers.

And then the rest of the, and the chairman just gets one vote. So, like, he could put, he could put Bobo the Talking Monkey in there, or Kevin, Asset as the chair or whoever, and they could do exactly, he could put Trump's speakerphone as the chair of the Fed, right? It doesn't mean everyone's going to vote with him. And so, like, to go through all of this and to undermine the confidence that the world has in America's, you know, central bank is so selfish, even though he's got a constitutional argument on his side.

Two quick points on that. I think there's a non-trivial. amount of people who listen to what Trump and people around in her shade about the Fed and think that the Fed controls mortgage rates. Like the rate, when they say rate cuts, is like your mortgage rates in the market, and that's obviously

not true. But to secondly, to put a finer point on it, that's the reason why this was such a backfire for the administration is that, as Sarah and Mike pointed out, the chairmanship for Powell ends in May, but his board of governor's seat is good through

until January 2028. Traditionally, chairmen's, like when their chairman term, they leave, right, even if they have some more time on their board of governors. But if you want, this is the exact type of thing that would piss off someone like Powell to want to stay through the full term, let alone pissing off Republican senators who you need to vote to confirm your nominees on that board. So if the goal of the administration is to get close to a majority of Trump sympathetic folks on the board when it comes to monetary policy, who want to cut rates faster, they have made that further from possible based off what they've done the last week. By the way, fun fact for those, it just occurs to me that not everyone was living my life back in the first administration. You know, Donald Trump was constantly threatening to fire Jeff Sessions and then, of course, didn't until the day after the midterm elections.

And I think people think that, like, he just didn't ever pull the trigger or, I don't know, what they think was going on. There was a lot going on behind the scenes to prevent Donald Trump from firing Jeff Sessions because it was assumed that that would pave the way to fire Mueller. And it was all Republican senators for the most part. Now, at some point, the threats from Republican senators, we did public threats first, then there were private threats. Eventually, there were outside groups as well that had to come in to help as well. But it will be so interesting to me whether that playbook, which we're seeing replayed again,

right? Republican senator saying, I will not confirm another member, another governor of the Fed chair, if they fire Powell or arrest him or whatever, will work this time because it was so effective last time. But this is a very different Donald Trump in the second administration. Although we are not hearing much from Scott Besant, who is in public, entirely with Donald Trump on whatever. but as well I've been led to understand, is resistant to Trump's efforts to meddle with the Fed and is in particular opposed to the influence of Bill Pulte, who we need to move on, but it does feel like Bill Pulte is a figure.

Remember, he was also the source for the big push against another Fed governor, Lisa Cook, to try to investigate her, which also backfired. Supreme Court argument coming next week. Yes. And tune in to advisory opinions to see how that goes. There we go. He's also apparently one of the few people in the administration, Scott Besant, has threatened to punch in the face.

So that's another little station. Maybe not the only one. He's an ornery soybean farmer that Scott Besant. Yeah, I was going to say, like, I don't see him, I've spent some green room time with him. He's not a big puncher in the face guy. That's not his vibe. He apparently got into it with Elon as well. Before we take an ad break,

consider becoming a member of The Dispatch. You'll unlock access to bonus podcast episodes and all of our exclusive newsletters and articles. You can sign up at the dispatch.com slash join. And if you use the promo code roundtable, you'll get one month free. And speaking of ads, if they aren't your thing,

you can upgrade to a premium membership. No ads, early access to all episodes, exclusive town halls with the founders, and more. Okay. we'll be right back. Welcome back. Let's return to our discussion. Look, there's a lot going on in the world. We could talk about Iran. We could talk about Venezuela. But things seem dynamic and hard to pin down about what exactly is happening at the moment. I do think we can talk a little bit about Greenland. Because Greenland, it feels like this is now an annual thing, because I remember this was about January, February of last year when the idea of Greenland and annexation, taking over Greenland. Are we going to invade Greenland and take it from the Danes? It was in the news. And here we are back at it. Jonah, I want to go to you first because the first time I ever really remember hearing about the idea of America annexing Greenland was from you. This is what

you have wrought. And I am curious, the Danish foreign minister and Greenland's foreign minister were in Washington this week, had meetings with administration officials. Things seem pretty tense, actually. What do you have to say for yourself? So it's funny you bring this out, because Pat McHenry, the, I don't, I think he said this on screen so I can quote him,

but he really gives me grief about it in the green room. Former Speaker Pro Tem, right? Member of Congress. Slam the gavel down hard at the, well, anyway, sorry, go ahead. He's like, you know, this is all your fault. because like nobody on Capitol Hill ever heard about this until you and Mike Gallagher had your little drunken podcast where you talked about taking Greenland. And I feel guilty about it.

I actually wrote a column saying, talking about the Greenland effect about how Trump has this sort of reverse Midas touch thing where he takes good ideas and ruins them for a generation. I never wanted to like threaten war against Denmark to take Greenland from it. right, and destroyed NATO. I was like, let's make them an offer. Not an offer they can't refuse, an offer. Like, it'd be kind of cool. And it was, and the show was about half-baked ideas. Not like, on this rock, I will sacrifice my life, liberty, and honor ideas.

I think you and McKay Coppins need a whole podcast of things I wish I hadn't said out loud that affected U.S. history. McKay Coppins, of course, famously writes the piece, basically mocking Donald Trump for even thinking he could run for president. And, I mean, between that and Barack Obama's White House correspondence dinner speech, like, one of those two things is responsible for our current moment. Well, it's funny. McKay Coppins wrote a piece listing the other things that pissed off Trump that made him run for president.

And one of them was my column in the New York Post saying there were only two candidates in that field I could never get behind. One was George Pataki. And the other one was Donald Trump. And apparently Trump slumped in his chair and says, why don't think he? they respect me. We need a total and complete shutdown on Jonah Goldberg. Exactly.

Until we can figure out what the hell is going on. It's like someone snuck a monkey paw under my chair and didn't tell me when I'm running this. Anyway, look, I think this Greenland thing is actually more important than a lot of the stuff that we're talking about. Wait, it's more important even just if it's rhetoric or it's more important if it happens. Well, it depends what you mean by rhetoric. Like if we never talk about Greenland again from today, was it still important? It was still important. It wasn't as important.

Okay. If you're talking, if you take seriously, not even literally, just seriously. I'm not even sure I take seriously that this is reality, just so we're clear. You'll have your chance, Sarah. When Trump says we can take it the easy way or the hard way, when he talks senators out of backing legislation that would prevent the president from using military force or whatever that language was. Like, you can, you can think it's all silly. I can think it's all silly.

NATO countries cannot afford to think it's all silly. And we are seeing the President of the United States and the Republican Party morph into this thing that thinks, if you listen to Stephen Miller's rant on CNN, where he does this. I mean, I said this last week, but I just wish it had been Seb Gorka because it would have sounded so much cooler. But there's force and strength

have governed the planet since the beginning of time, right? All this kind of crap. They are not talking about sending mercenaries into Venezuela instead of U.S. troops to guard the oil countries. Trump, I mean, I know we're not supposed to be talking about Venezuela. Trump is parking hundreds of millions of dollars of oil revenues in Qatar. They are talking about militarily threatened.

And again, it doesn't have to be the use of force. The mere saber rattling is all that is required to literally destroy NATO. And but also to profoundly besmirch any sense of American national honor, we are not an empire that conquers us. other countries simply for the acquisition of territory, at least not anymore. And we certainly don't attack allied countries for that purpose. And all because Trump doesn't understand how Mercator maps work or conic projection maps. Although I will say, I've been making that point for a long time.

I actually looked up the square miles of Greenland. It's not as big as it looks on some of these maps. It's not like as big as Africa. but it's big. It's like 20% bigger than Alaska. And Alaska's large. Regardless, I think this really puts in focus the fact that Trump rejects the basic ideals of how this country conducts foreign policy going back at least 100 years. And that's really, really, really dangerous.

It's really easy to break friendships. old friendships, it's really hard to restore them. And I think the damages of all of this are going to be profound for a really long time. Sarah, I'll come to you in a minute. But Grayson, I actually wanted to ask you about this, the particular aspects of the bizarre diplomacy that is going on here, because let's, you know, this is what was said after this meeting between, you know, among Denmark, Greenland, and the United States, quote, fundamental disagreement over the future of Greenland is what the Danish foreign minister said.

I mean, they're having these conversations, and it seems as if the Danish and Greenland representatives, like, can't believe they're having them. Like, this is, like, they've entered the Twilight Zone, and it looks like the White House and the State Department. Is the damage done? One of their representatives, I think, has replaced the Ben, Affleck meme of like chain smoking outside their door.

She was like smoking outside the White House before going to the meeting yesterday. Well, I think to Jonah's point about why we should maybe take this somewhat seriously is that because this has been such a thing for so long in this latest phase, the Trump administration seems to be more committed and serious this time around,

we have NATO allies doing military exercises in Greenland. And you can look at that a couple of ways. One way is, hey, look, we're investing in Greenland and Arctic Security, and you don't have to worry about Russia, like in taking incursions and require us to suddenly take over Greenland. Another way to look at that is that they're worried that the United States is going to invade Greenland, which is just bonkers that our own NATO allies think that this is a necessary exercise to do. In either of those two ways of looking at it, they're both trying to deter the president from deciding to take Greenland. So yeah,

diplomatically obviously doesn't make any sense. Like my heart goes out to people trying to have these conversations both behind closed doors with the administration. It also doesn't, to Jonah's point about making them an offer, like this doesn't make any sense. Like if we wanted to own Greenland, if we wanted to have a bigger military, if we wanted four more bases,

like there are ways of doing that. There are ways for negotiating that. Trump doesn't want that. He wants to possess Greenland like a colony, as he told the New York Times. It's psychologically important to him that we actually own. and control Greenland fully. And it's probably not,

even if we were taking that seriously, it's not going to be a good deal, right? We're just taking, colonies were usually a net negative for countries. Like, we're going to, the Danes, I think, spend a billion dollars a year for the 50,000 or so people who live there.

We're just going to shoulder all those costs just to have an increased military presence or the potential for getting more minerals once all that ice melts. It doesn't make any sense on a diplomatic level or like a strategic level to me either. Sarah, talk us off the ledge here. Yeah, I mean, I disagree with Grayson a lot, actually,

because what he's saying is it doesn't make sense in today's world order. I agree with that. But what Trump is talking about is a different world order, something far closer to what Joan has been describing now since the beginning of this Trump administration, which is a tripartite, you know, hegemony with Russia, China, and the United States. dividing up the world into their sort of, you know, mob families, I think is how Jonah has described

it in the past. And so if that is the case, then you absolutely need Greenland because Greenland is the buffer. It's the border area because otherwise someone else gets Greenland and now they're that much closer to the United States. Venezuela is the same idea, right? China and Russia are, you know, trying to influence Venezuela, know that it's an unstable regime. I mean, this is the Jack Ryan clip that everyone's been passing around. So again, yes, it makes no diplomatic sense if you live in 2015 or if you think or want that world order to continue. But if you either don't want it to continue or don't accept that it will continue

whether you want it to or not, that China will change the world order and you can either sit there and twiddle your thumbs and say that you don't like that or you can beat them to the punch, then the Greenland thing makes a lot more sense. I don't mean it is good, and I don't mean that Jonah's wrong that it is going to fundamentally change NATO and America's relationship to NATO

to the extent NATO exists without the United States, which I don't think it actually does. And the reason I was pressing Jonah on the rhetoric versus the reality is because I think it's already done. I don't think it actually now matters whether we take Greenland, I think NATO and the United States and everyone's assumption of the continuation of that world order ended a few weeks ago, and it ain't coming back.

Because even if we got a new president and sort of tried to give some lip service to the old world order, I think everyone kind of now sees the overarching point that no one's saying, which is, the world order is changing because of China, whether we are going to acknowledge it or not, Trump's simply acknowledging it. Jonah, final word to you.

Yeah, so interesting point. I am now at the place where I think that any stated argument that Donald Trump gives for anything that he wants to do is pretextual. And that the idea that until proven otherwise. So the idea, first of all, like the idea that these like super sympathetic to Iranian protesters, I don't buy. The idea that he really cares about restoring democracy in Venezuela, I don't buy.

He didn't, the stuff in the Caribbean wasn't about drugs. It was about, it was pretextual about taking the oil. We can go down a really, really, really, really long list. He obviously doesn't care about cost overruns and buildings when it comes to the Fed, right? I mean, just every public argument they make is a lie to one extent or another. And so the idea, and I think this applies to Greenland. I am sure that, you know, there are people in, you know, Elbridge Colby, I'm sure, has convinced himself of this, you know, spheres of influence, you know, Carl Schmidt BS nonsense. But Trump, he's like when he first started talking about it, he says, look, I'm a real estate guy.

And I look on the map where the empty spots are. That wasn't pretextual. That was Trump being honest, right? And the way he talked about Canada when he first came into office was remarkably similar to how Putin talked about Ukraine, not a real country, this border is arbitrary, we have a shared history and culture and language that were really the same people. Why should they even be a different country, right? I think someone has gotten into his head about the idea that the way you become known as a

great president is by expanding the country, by having your Louisiana purchase or something like that. And since it conforms to his general narcissism as a guy who's been in real estate for 50 years putting his name on everything, like he can attach these intellectual constructs to what is basically a pretty lizard brain kind of project. And to take your version of events, your theory of the case, there's no principled, reasonable argument for the United States. not to take over Norway, not to invade Canada, because we can do it. No military force will stop us, right?

Yep. And I don't know that America, and I mean this quite seriously, I am not a catastrophist, right? Like, I'm the one who's usually telling Steve, you know, up the Prozac. But I don't think this country can survive as this country. If we reconceive of the military as essentially Roman legions of conquest

trying to expand our territory that we no longer care about democracy and spreading of liberty in any meaningful way, which Trump has made clear in his speech in Riyadh, if that we are just simply a country of territorial expansionism for mercenary purposes,

I think it breaks the U.S. military. I think we see lots of senior officers resign when faced with that and resisting orders. And then we have, we have, we have, we have, we have a constitutional crisis coming down the pike as well because Congress is going to say, don't do this. And he's, and if he does it anyway, like, he is playing with matches in an oil refinery on some of these issues with the Fed and with, with, with this talk about Greenland. Like Venezuela, I cannot get that worked up about.

And I, I, in normal times, it would be. just like all we could talk about. But like talking about, like he said in the Oval Office a couple days ago, look, China or Russia are going to take Greenland and NATO can't defend them. So that's why we need it, as if we're not part of NATO, right? And if we are part of NATO or if we have Greenland, then we can defend, if his whole point is that we can defend it, well, then NATO can defend it because we're part of NATO. And we are NATO.

We are NATO, right? And so, like, he wants to have it both ways. And I just think, you know, this kind of rhetoric changes the way people think we now have cadres of 20-something kids throughout the Republican Party who, it's not just like making jokes about the Holocaust. They think, like, invading Poland is good policy. And I just think that that's really, really freaking dangerous and so, so short-sighted. Well, a little peek behind the curtain how the sausage is made here at the dispod.

There was a conversation I had with our producer about what the topics should be for this show. And when we set it on Greenland, I wasn't even quite sure if Greenland was worth our time, but it clearly was. The bigger question is not whether Greenland is worth our time, however. It's whether not worth your time as a segment. on this August flagship podcast is worth our time. And particularly whether the Steve Hayes conception of not worth your time, since he has taken over hosting duties, and which, by the way, I am in some ways a representative of him

because he asked me to fill in for him. So I do feel a bit like Brutus here. But the idea that this should be a segment in which we discuss what our favorite type of chicken wing is, has annoyed some people on this podcast. On this podcast, let alone listeners to the podcast. And that the original intent of the segment was not for us to share our own little opinions about what we like and dislike, but to discuss whether or not a certain story in the news is newsworthy.

and worth the Dispod talking about. So, Sarah, you were very animated and opinionated. I know that's a shocker to a lot of people listening, but you're very opinionated about this subject is not worth your time, as currently constituted, worth our time. I hate it so much. And if I had known that stepping away from hosting duties would mean, look, I would have actually been fine if y'all had just said,

like, we're not doing not worth your time anymore. We're doing dumb stuff with Steve. Hayes, call it that. Fine. What I object to is continuing to use my trademarked name, but completely eviscerating it of all

meaning and purpose and joy and intelligence, etc. Soul. So, yeah, and I, and I, my problem was also that I wasn't even sure if y'all understood what you had done. Like, did you think this whole time that my not worth your

time was like me talking about mustard versus ketchup? No. It was something that like, you know, the kids were all talking about or that Twitter was all worked up about and then deciding whether in fact that was something that like we as a society should be talking about or not. Like chicken wings, guys, like, ugh, nobody cares. Your, you know, your attempt to create that parisocial relationship is so cringe, as the kids would say. Jonah, do you have thoughts as well on Not Worth Your Time? I do. And, you know, there's a reason why the responsible figures at the dispatch have one of these

unwritten rules of keep Jonah and Sarah separated. Oh, no, it's been written down. I've seen it. I know. They never let us play our reindeer games. And so I was part of those conversations of the original Not Worth Your Time thing. Yes. I, and I remember them vividly, and I thought it was a really great sort of compromise, right?

It was one of these, we really should talk about some of these viral things, but our whole smug dispatchy, we don't go in for the hot takes and social media nonsense. And so the great compromise was we were going to talk about them by saying maybe we should, about explaining maybe why we shouldn't talk about them or why we should, right? And I like this conceit. True story. When Steve and I and some others were still raising money, still conceptualizing what the dispatch would be, I advocated for a couple things, most famously, the group blog, which we still don't have. But. Jonas's sway in the business.

Exactly. Well, it's just like, it's a longer story. He gets to complain at the end of the podcast, though. That's right. That's his, the bone he gets. One of the things I wanted to do in a very similar note, which is one of the reasons why I was part of the moving towards that compromise, was I wanted to have a regular clickbait columnist who would cover the crappiest parts of social media with a major sort of tis, tis, tisk, and ha, ha, ha, kind of tone, which I will tell you that my inspiration for this was Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox. because Bill O'Reilly every year, or maybe twice a year, had a week-long series on the, like,

I can't remember what was called it was like, the smutification of America. And what he would do is he would have, like, endless B-roll of strippers, of runway models, of pixelated porn actresses, all this kind of stuff, and keep those big in the screen, and then just have tiny little talking headboxes where Bill O'Reilly is talking to someone

from concerned women of America about how, look at how terrible this stuff is. I mean, look at it. Look at it. And like, you know, every middle-aged dude watching, it's like, oh, that's so terrible. Oh, that's terrible. And so I wanted this sort of ironic meta thing

for that kind of thing. And so I like the not worth your time. I don't mind to get Steve's back a little midgeon. I don't mind some of the slice of life kind of things. But I am sympathetic. to Sarah about the absolute loss of originalism here. This is that this is textualism even, not worth your time. This is this is living podcast and segmentism that is in violation of whatever

vestigial conservatism we have here. Then again, our Slack channel, which was supposed to be dedicated to dog pictures, has been utterly overwhelmed by human baby pictures for five years now. So, like, these things do happen in life, and you do get reliance interest and all the rest. So, but I'm basically with Sarah. I think we should keep the segment. And I think if we want to do more slice of life stuff,

we should figure out how to do that. But I think the not worth your time thing is, actually, I think it would make a great podcast of its own. It is like, what of all the stupid things people arguing about have merit that are worth our time. I think people would listen to that. Grayson, are the Golden Globes worth our time, or can you tell me what your favorite winter meal is? That's the question that I pose to you. Oh, wow. No, the Golden Globes are not worth our time, simply because I have no idea what's happened there.

Favorite winter meal? It's Casillet. Casselais. Casselay is the correct answer. It is, the winter meal that only is served in winter and it's amazing. And in the summer, it doesn't taste as good. We just made it. We just made it two months ago. You like this. You like the slice of life stuff. Exactly. I couldn't even get my answer out. You're in there with like, Castle A. Hippocrat. Hippocrat. No, no. All right. So, look, I feel, I feel torn on this question. And sorry, Grayson, I don't know if you have anything more to say. I put you on the spot there. You feel torn because you're my work spouse? No, look, I mean, I'm just a guy filling in. I'm just trying to make sure this podcast's wheels keep turning.

And, you know, you put a lot of time and effort into planning and coming up with an idea. What was the one you wanted to do, Mike, just because you're clearly bitter about this? No, no, no, no, I'm not bitter. No, no, I had this whole setup I was going to do about how we are now entering the dead of winter. It's a time that I become, I often like annually become actually depressed because it's very cold. The sun is not out very much. There's a song for you. It's called stick season.

Okay. I'll have to check stick season out. Wait, really? You've never heard stick season? No, I've never heard stick season. It was like a really big banger like two years ago. Well, that's why I had never heard it. That's why I've never heard of it either.

I mean, we literally have, we literally have a holiday in a couple of weeks that is entirely built around the idea of asking a rodent whether or not this misery shall continue for six more weeks. And so my question was basically, what is your way of dealing with that depression? But no, I don't want anybody to answer that question. I do think there is, there needs to be a space in not worth your time for that question. Is this story? Is whatever controversy, which I don't know about happened at the Golden Globes. Maybe no controversy happened at all. Was that worth our time?

Is it worth our time to discuss that? Is it worth our time to discuss whatever is the sports controversy of the time? It's basically coded for, do you need to know about this or commit any brain cells to it? Yes. Yeah. But I love hearing about what everybody, you know, everybody's little quirks and interesting things. So, you know, maybe the answer to this question is why not both?

So let's sound off in the comment. What do you want to hear in this section? Prediction. My contention that this Greenland stuff poses an existential threat to the future of the United States of America will represent about 10% of the comments. And this topic will take up about 80% of the comments. That's when it's correctly done. That is a true not worth your time is when it overwhelms the whole rest of the podcast, proving the point.

Well, I'm going to take credit for that and for, the excellent way that this podcast has ended because that's the direction I took not worth your time. Next week, I'm sure Steve will have something to say about all of this. But until then, that is all the time we have for today. Thanks to Grayson, Sarah, and Jonah for joining me on the Dispatch Podcast. If you like what we're doing here, there are a few easy ways to support us. You can rate, review, and subscribe to the show on your podcast player of choice to help new listeners find us. And speaking of support,

Here's a shout out to a few folks who recently joined his premium members. Pete Weisseth, Richard Maxton, and Drew Shively. We're glad to have you aboard. As always, if you've got questions, comments, concerns, or corrections, you can email us at Roundtable at the dispatch.com. We read everything. Even the ones who don't think any of this is worth their time. That's going to do it for today's show.

Thanks so much for tuning in. And a big thank you to the folks behind the scenes who made this episode possible. Max Miller, Victoria Holmes, and Noah Hickey. We couldn't do it without you. Thanks again for listening. Please join us next time.