The memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran was apparently signed over the weekend, but the text remains a mystery to most. Donald Trump says he’ll release it and even read it himself so nobody can misunderstand it. If it’s such good news, though, why not put it out right now? Israel isn’t a fan of it, nor are those who believe we’ve abandoned the Iranian people by making a deal with the IRGC. At the same time, there may be a silent majority that cares less about the politics and more about the price at the pump. And that’s what caught my attention.

Since the beginning of May, with Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, gas prices in the United States have fallen. Not by a little, but by a lot. The national average has gone from roughly $4.50 a gallon to $3.50. That happened while the strait was closed and before any memorandum of understanding was announced. The White House wasn’t bragging about it. They weren’t loudly telling Iran that the closure wasn’t working. That made me think something else was going on.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

After digging through it, I’ve been able to dig up a few explanations. The most public, I’d argue, was the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Department of Energy released more than 53 million barrels as part of a broader international effort, bringing the reserve down to its lowest level since 1983. There were also reports that the United States was helping move oil out of the Gulf using some of the same techniques Iran has historically used to evade sanctions. American production remained high. Every hint of a peace deal pushed oil prices lower. Global demand softened. China sharply reduced its purchases on the open market. Alternative routes around Hormuz became more important. Gasoline inventories improved. All of it pushed prices down.

If I rank the reasons, peace-talk optimism sits at the top. Strategic reserve releases bought time. American-supported workarounds moved real barrels. Demand destruction, especially with China stepping back, reduced pressure. Improved gasoline inventories helped. Some of the more speculative theories include sanctions waivers for Iranian oil, greater tolerance for shadow-fleet shipments, and alternate export routes making Hormuz less decisive than Iran hoped.

What stands out is that there were more American incentives to get to the table than Iranian ones. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a temporary band-aid. Smuggling oil out of the Gulf is risky. Every day the Strait of Hormuz remained closed carried economic and military risks. That helps explain why the White House wanted a deal. Iran had incentives too, especially if China was no longer buying at previous levels, but the balance of pressure appears different than many expected.

My assumption remains what it has been for weeks: there are multiple power centers inside Iran, and the biggest question is whether any deal can survive them. The Ayatollah is gone, much of Iran’s leadership structure has been shattered, and the IRGC itself appears divided between factions willing to make a deal and hardliners who want to keep fighting. The memorandum of understanding may give us a clearer picture when we finally see it. Until then, the biggest question isn’t whether a deal exists. It’s whether anyone on the Iranian side can actually enforce it.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:38 - Iran and Gas Prices

00:31:47 - Update

00:32:04 - UFC 250 Terrorism Plot

00:37:46 - Russia-Ukraine

00:39:48 - Primaries

00:42:48 - Interview with Maria Curi

01:11:46 - Wrap-up

The situation with Iran continues to feel like Groundhog Day, except this time, believe it or not, there may actually be movement.

Earlier this week, I mentioned that I had heard from people in the know that the United States military was coiled to strike Iran and was looking for either provocation or justification to resume major military activity. That appeared to happen when Iran shot down an Apache helicopter that was escorting oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz. We also learned that more than 100 million barrels of oil had moved through the strait under U.S. protection over the last month.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

One of the reasons that caught my attention is that gas prices in the United States have been falling pretty dramatically. It was a head-scratcher. If the Strait of Hormuz was effectively stalled, then what explained the drop? Was it a global rerouting of supply? Was there a China component that had been negotiated and never publicly heralded? I didn’t know then, and I don’t know now, but the announcement about oil shipments at least provides part of the picture.

What’s more interesting is what happened next. After one night of military strikes, the second night was canceled. Donald Trump said that’s because we’re at the point of a deal, one that has supposedly been signed off on by all available parties in the region. It appears to resemble the memorandum of understanding that’s been floating around for weeks, although nobody really knows because we still haven’t seen the text. We don’t know if it’s real. We don’t even know exactly what it says.

The administration’s definition of success has been fairly consistent: Iran gives up its nuclear material and removes the nuclear threat. If that’s actually in the agreement, then it would be meaningfully different from what came before. The obvious question is what Iran gets in return. The reporting and public comments suggest that Tehran is focused on access to frozen assets and getting money quickly. Whether that money goes directly to Iran, whether it’s routed through humanitarian aid, and what conditions are attached are all questions that still need answers.

The strongest sign that something may actually be happening is coming from inside Iran. Reports indicate that FARS, the IRGC-controlled news agency, is acknowledging that a draft memorandum of understanding exists, that the United States has approved it, and that Iran is likely to do the same. The bigger question is whether any agreement can actually be enforced. Iran’s leadership appears splintered. We’ve seen officials make commitments before, only to have military figures or IRGC commanders move in a different direction. That’s why the real issue isn’t whether a deal can be signed. It’s whether anybody in Iran has enough authority to keep it.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:48 - Iran

00:08:38 - Interview with Karol Markowicz

00:36:19 - Update

00:37:19 - DeSantis and AI

00:42:56 - FISA

00:44:42 - Director of National Intelligence

00:47:17 - Interview with Karol Markowicz, con’t

01:07:27 - Wrap-up

California is inviting questions about its elections because of a problem that is entirely solvable: the state takes too long to count ballots. This LA mayoral race is just the latest example.

Let’s look at what happened. On election night, Karen Bass was at 30 percent of the vote. Spencer Pratt was at 28 percent. Nithya Raman was around 20 percent. Every model from respected vote-modeling people that I saw indicated that Raman would gain more than Pratt in the later votes, presumably giving her enough to catch up to a less-distant third place without surpassing Pratt’s campaign. Instead, we got an avalanche of late Raman support.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The first vote drop had Raman running about 10 percent ahead of Pratt. The second was stronger. Then Friday came around, and things got really weird. Whether you want to ascribe malicious motives to it or whether it’s totally above board and legitimate, the fact that this is happening on Friday for an election that happened on Tuesday becomes suspicious when Raman gets 40 percent of the vote total in a drop. She’s not only running ahead of Pratt, she’s running ahead of Bass. The same thing happened Saturday. The same thing happened Sunday. Now Raman is through to face Bass in the general a week after this sort of outcome — even in LA — seemed unlikely.

Am I saying that somebody cured ballots after seeing the results? Am I saying somebody harvested ballots? No. I don’t know specifics, and nobody else does, quite frankly. I’m saying you don’t have to do this. Opening the process up this way is the reason you create suspicion. Is it odd? Yeah, it is odd. Even the people who thought Raman was going to overtake Pratt thought it would happen by the skin of her teeth at the very end. Nobody thought it was going to be over by the weekend. It’s beyond expectations.

I’m going to renew my call here, and it’s not just me saying it. You’ve got systems in America that process a lot of votes really fast, and the way they do it is not rocket science. Florida created a system after 2000 that handles a lot of early voting and a lot of vote-by-mail, but those ballots are processed before Election Day and then dumped into the results when the polls close.

If we’re in an era of declining trust in elections, then I don’t care how you think we got here. I don’t care if you think it was Chicago in 1960, hanging chads in 2000, Democrats in 2020, Elon Musk and Starlink in 2024, or any of the other election fraud theories that have floated around American politics. What I care about is creating a system that we can all look at and say, “Seems like what happened.” I don’t think California is close to having that, and it’s only going to get worse if we don’t make some big changes ahead of 2028.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:22 - California Results

00:13:57 - Interview with Bill Scher

00:35:08 - FISA

00:38:06 - Walz and Ellison

00:41:19 - Dems’ New Super PAC

00:44:09 - Interview with Bill Scher, con’t

01:13:13 - Wrap-up

A new Graham Platner story dropped today, and it answers one question while opening about a dozen others. The reporting centers on an ex-girlfriend from his time in Washington who describes behavior that she says included being yanked out of cabs, shaken by the shoulders, blocked from leaving rooms, and subjected to bizarre conversations about violence and power. The Platner campaign does not appear to dispute many of the specifics. Instead, it continues to insist that none of this amounts to sexual assault. Their strategy is obvious: keep this campaign alive until July 10, the last day under Maine law that Democrats could replace him on the ballot.

The problem is that the list of people the campaign says are actually the problem keeps getting longer. First it was the former campaign manager. Now it’s an ex-girlfriend. The campaign has gone out of its way to point out that the woman worked in Republican politics years ago. Maybe that’s relevant, maybe it isn’t. What matters politically is that this is now the second woman in a week whose allegations are being dismissed while the campaign asks everyone to focus on Graham Platner instead. Meanwhile, the campaign’s own internal polling reportedly has him four points ahead of Susan Collins. That’s not exactly reassuring when a public poll from late May had him up nine. If you’re releasing a poll to save a candidacy and it shows you’ve lost five points, that’s not great.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The bigger issue remains the stuff we still don’t know. The dating stories are damaging, but the Kik story is the Pandora’s box. That’s the ugly stuff. What’s behind that door? The potential answer is why this scandal continues to dominate the conversation. Platner’s goal now is simple: survive the primary, survive the next month, and make it to July 10. If he’s still standing then, Democrats may have no choice but to circle the wagons.

Elsewhere, there was a polling shocker in Ohio. A Fox News poll found Sherrod Brown leading Senator John Husted by eight points, 53 to 45. If we start seeing more polls like that, Democrats may have found one of their best pickup opportunities. Brown is a known quantity in Ohio. If the environment continues to improve for Democrats, it may not matter how exciting or energetic his campaign is. He could simply coast on familiarity and favorable conditions.

California, meanwhile, continues to count ballots at a pace that seems designed to test the limits of human patience. The governor’s race is still unresolved, and Los Angeles mayoral results remain in flux. What frustrates me is that this is a choice. California mails ballots to everyone and allows ballots to arrive days after the election. Fine. But there’s no reason the ballots already in hand couldn’t be processed faster. Instead, the state releases vote drops so slowly that candidates can spend weeks appearing to lead or trail before the public gets anything close to a final picture. I genuinely think that’s bad for democracy because people are not wired to watch somebody lead by eight points and then potentially lose weeks later.

That brings us to Spencer Pratt and Nithya Raman. Prediction markets currently have Raman favored to make the general election despite Pratt holding second place. I don’t understand the math. Raman gained ground in the latest vote drop, but not nearly at the pace she would need to overtake him. Maybe future batches change that. Maybe they don’t. But when prediction markets start pricing in outcomes that don’t seem to match the publicly available numbers, people begin assuming something else is going on. That’s another reason the endless California count is so damaging. Even if everything is perfectly legitimate, the process encourages suspicion in ways that simply don’t seem necessary.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:01:20 - Graham Platner

00:09:22 - Ohio and California

00:14:58 - Interview with Reese Gorman

00:30:18 - John Bolton

00:32:01 - Todd Blanche

00:34:26 - College Sports Bill

00:41:28 - Interview with Reese Gorman, con’t

01:01:43 - Wrap-up

The Trump administration is backing away from a planned $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund after a revolt from Republicans on Capitol Hill. The fund, tied to a settlement and intended to be administered by the Justice Department, had drawn criticism as a potential slush fund that could benefit Trump allies prosecuted under the Biden administration. White House officials told GOP leaders they were retreating from the proposal, at least for now.

What stands out to me is that this was never something Trump could simply do by executive order. It would have had to move through Congress, and right now he is running short on political leverage. Collins, Murkowski, and McConnell have already shown they’re willing to break with the administration. Add in senators like Tom Tillis, John Cornyn, and Bill Cassidy, who have their own political considerations, and suddenly there are a lot of Republican votes that need convincing. If every other priority is tied to this fund, it becomes a problem. The White House has signaled retreat…. for now.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Meanwhile, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has sued OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, alleging that ChatGPT is an unsafe product, particularly for children, and that the company misled the public about its risks. The lawsuit argues that AI contributes to harms including addiction, suicide, and even mass shootings. What makes this interesting is that there are no clean ideological fault lines on AI. In Florida, AI is increasingly being treated as just another version of Big Tech, grouped together with the companies conservatives believe have censored or de-platformed them. Simultaneously, politicians in states like Michigan are celebrating AI investments, data centers, and the jobs that come with them, even as it might leave Gretchen Whitmer on the outside looking in for 2028. As AI becomes a larger part of the economy, states are going to play a much bigger role in determining how it develops.

But our biggest story remains Iran. Over the last few days, a targeted IRGC commander killing, an attack on a U.S. airbase in Kuwait, and reports that Iran is ending ceasefire talks have all pushed events away from diplomacy and toward escalation. Iran is threatening to fully shut down the Strait of Hormuz and other export routes. The president of Iran has reportedly tendered his resignation, while the IRGC appears to be tightening its grip on power. At the same time, Hezbollah has reportedly signaled a willingness to accept a ceasefire with Israel, though neither American nor Israeli officials seem convinced it would hold.

Everything now revolves around leverage. The Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s last major bargaining chip. If it reopens without major concessions, Tehran loses a significant source of pressure. If Iran gives up its nuclear ambitions or loses the ability to project power through regional proxies, the regime risks undermining the very justification it has used for decades. Meanwhile, global oil markets are hanging on every development. Hopes of a diplomatic breakthrough have helped keep prices contained, but each new escalation raises the possibility that the conflict widens and energy markets absorb the shock.

One small but important development is that internet access appears to be returning inside Iran after months of restrictions. That means more information is beginning to flow out of the country at a moment when the political situation appears increasingly unstable. Whether this ends in negotiations, further military action, or a deeper internal power struggle unfortunately remains wrapped in the fog of war.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:07 - Interview with Evan Scrimshaw

00:39:19 - Trump Slush Fund

00:42:13 - AI Lawsuit

00:46:34 - Iran

00:50:10 - Interview with Charlie Feldman

01:30:42 - Wrap-up

We currently have a reported 60-day framework on the table between the United States and Iran that would temporarily extend the current ceasefire dynamics and create space for renewed nuclear negotiations. To be clear, it’s not a breakthrough deal. This feels like a pressure valve built to prevent escalation from snapping back while both sides decide whether they can actually land something bigger.

The center of gravity here is the Strait of Hormuz. That is where the entire arrangement becomes real or falls apart. The reported structure prioritizes restoring and guaranteeing commercial shipping through the strait, easing maritime restrictions, and reducing the risk of renewed disruption in one of the most important energy chokepoints on the planet. In exchange, Iran would gain movement on sanctions relief and potentially access to frozen funds, while the United States would push for verifiable constraints on uranium enrichment and clearer handling of existing stockpiles.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Nobody is pretending this is a final settlement. It reads more like a staged de-escalation plan: stabilize shipping first, then attempt to negotiate the more politically radioactive issues like enrichment levels, inspection access, and long-term nuclear limits. The idea is to reduce immediate risk before trying to solve the underlying conflict.

That underlying conflict is the same one that has defined U.S.–Iran relations for decades. Economic relief in exchange for nuclear restraint. The structure is familiar, even if the packaging is not. Anyone watching this unfold will recognize echoes of past negotiations, especially the JCPOA framework, where the core trade was access to global markets in return for limits on Iran’s nuclear program. The political debate around that model has never really gone away, and it is very much present again here.

The fragility of the situation is obvious in the way it is being described. Working-level agreement is one thing. Leadership approval is another. That gap is where deals like this tend to stall, shift, or collapse entirely. Even small changes in political appetite can rewire the entire structure.

Still, this feels like the first tangible step towards restoring reliable, uninterrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. If that actually does happen, everything else becomes more plausible. If it does not, the rest of the framework is just another document waiting for even events to overtake it. God knows we’ve seen enough of those.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:03:07 - Iran Deal?

00:10:49 - Interview with Michael Tracey

00:36:18 - Update/LA Mayor Polling

00:39:46 - Trump’s AI Deal

00:43:43 - 2028 Dem Frontrunners

00:46:09 - Interview with Michael Tracey, con’t

01:25:16 - Wrap-up

Texas Republicans are about to answer a question that has been hanging over the party since 2024: is partial loyalty to Trump enough anymore, or do you either become fully absorbed into MAGA or get pushed out entirely? Because both John Cornyn and Chip Roy represent different versions of Republicanism that tried, in different ways, to coexist with Trump without completely surrendering to him. And right now it looks like both experiments are failing. Chip Roy backed Ron DeSantis and spent years cultivating the image of an ideological purist who would occasionally buck leadership. Cornyn, meanwhile, did the exact opposite. He spent the last few years trying to carefully stay inside Trump’s orbit, hiring Trumpworld operatives and constantly reminding voters how aligned he was with the president. One strategy was confrontation, the other was accommodation, and both may end in political extinction.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Roy situation honestly feels more straightforward. MAGA voters have absurdly long memories when it comes to perceived disloyalty during the DeSantis challenge. Roy spent the last year trying to re-enter the fold by being more cooperative, less antagonistic, more visibly aligned with the movement, but the suspicion never really disappeared. In a normal political environment, Roy’s résumé would make him a strong favorite for statewide office in Texas. Instead, he now looks like somebody who made one unforgivable career calculation at exactly the wrong moment. If the polling is right and Mays Middleton wins comfortably, then the lesson Republican politicians will take from this is brutal: you do not get credit for eventually coming home after backing an alternative to Trump. The scarlet letter sticks.

Cornyn’s downfall is more interesting because he actually played the game correctly, at least according to the old rules. He built institutional support. He raised enormous amounts of money. He aligned himself with Trump operationally. For a while it even looked like it might work. He outperformed expectations in the initial round of voting and there were persistent rumors that Trumpworld had seriously considered endorsing him. But the problem with trying to survive inside Trump politics is that eventually survival itself becomes weakness. Ken Paxton understood this instinctively. He didn’t need to prove he was more effective than Cornyn. He just needed to remain more emotionally connected to the base long enough for Trump to make a final decision. Once the endorsement landed, the race effectively stopped being about qualifications and became a referendum on who belonged more naturally inside the MAGA coalition.

What’s fascinating is that this same dynamic is now showing signs of strain elsewhere. South Carolina Republicans refusing to immediately fall in line on redistricting suggests at least some elected Republicans are beginning to quietly calculate for a post-Trump future. Not necessarily because Trump lacks influence — he very clearly still has it — but because the timing starts to matter. If Trump cannot personally destroy you until after the next election cycle, then maybe you can survive long enough for his attention to move elsewhere. That’s the first real symptom of lame-duck politics: not open rebellion, but selective hesitation. Politicians start making small bets that enforcement may become inconsistent.

And that’s probably the deeper story underneath all of this. Trump still absolutely has the power to end Republican careers. Thomas Massie just learned that. Cornyn is probably about to learn it. Roy may learn it too. But the coalition is also beginning to subtly adapt around the reality that Trump’s political clock is finite. The question is whether Republicans are entering a transition period where fear of Trump remains dominant but no longer universally paralyzing. Because once politicians begin believing there are scenarios where they can survive crossing him, even temporarily, then the entire incentive structure inside the party starts to change.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:51 - Final Texas Prediction

00:09:05 - AI Ads with Brian Brushwood

00:30:23 - South Carolina

00:33:54 - Iran

00:37:46 - Trump’s Physical

00:40:47 - AI Ads with Brian Brushwood, con’t

01:18:25 - Wrap-up