The Michael Fanone Show

Michael Fanone
  • 5.0 (39)
  • NEWS
  • UPDATED DAILY

This Machine Kills Fascists / Author of NYT Bestseller “Hold The Line - The Insurrection and One Cop’s Battle for America's Soul” michaelfanone.substack.com

  1. 2H AGO

    Top U.S. Official QUITS in Middle of Iran War — What Are They Hiding?

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com A senior U.S. counterterrorism official just walked away in the middle of an active, escalating conflict with Iran. Not a quiet retirement. Not a “new opportunity.” Not a transition plan. A resignation — public, pointed, and timed like a flare shot into the sky. The official is Joe Kent, the (now former) director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Multiple outlets report he resigned in protest over the administration’s handling of the Iran war and internal disagreements about the strategy and justification. And whatever you think of Joe Kent personally, the institutional signal here is hard to ignore: you don’t walk out of a job like that during a war unless you believe something inside the room is breaking. People in a counterterror role aren’t tracking one battlefield. They’re tracking blowback: retaliation risks, proxy activity, threats to U.S. assets and personnel, intelligence confidence levels, escalation ladders, and the stuff that doesn’t make it into a press briefing. So when someone with that vantage point resigns mid-conflict, it usually means one of two things: * They think the decision-making has become reckless or unmoored from the intel, or * They no longer trust the internal process to produce sane outcomes. Either way, it screams instability at the top — at the exact moment the country needs steady hands. Washington loves to treat resignations like “palace intrigue.” But in national security, departures like this often telegraph internal fracture: competing endgames, broken trust, and decision loops that aren’t holding. And that matters right now, because the war isn’t a contained headline. It’s oil lanes, alliances, regional retaliation, and American service members standing the watch while politicians posture. After Kent resigned, Reuters and the AP reported the FBI is investigating whether he leaked classified information — and that the probe began before he stepped down. Maybe that’s a legitimate investigation. Maybe it’s a convenient pressure valve. Maybe it’s both. But here’s what you should notice: the administration is now fighting a war abroad and a credibility war at home, with public splits and counter-narratives coming from inside the national security apparatus. That’s not “everything is under control.” That’s the opposite. If the people closest to the risk picture don’t believe in the strategy enough to stay in the seat, then we’re owed an answer to a simple question: What do they see that we don’t? Because the cost of getting this wrong doesn’t land on the people making jokes at podiums. It lands on families, troops, allies, and a region that can spiral fast. If you want this kind of straight, receipts-first breakdown without a corporate leash, become a paid subscriber — it’s how we keep tracking the filings, the resignations, the briefings, and the real consequences behind the spin. 🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life You’ll get the link in your welcome email. GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

    2 min

  2. 5H AGO

    Congress Is Letting Trump Drift Us Toward War

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com While everyone’s locked onto Trump escalating with Iran, the bigger problem is sitting right in front of us: Congress is watching it happen. The branch of government that’s supposed to decide whether the United States goes to war is basically riding shotgun—quiet, cautious, and acting like this is just another news cycle. That’s not how the system is supposed to work. And it’s how you end up in a conflict nobody voted for. The Constitution didn’t give one person the power to drag the country into war. That wasn’t an accident. It was the whole point. Congress is supposed to authorize sustained military action. Debate it. Vote on it. Put limits on it if needed. Make the case to the public. Own the consequences. A president can respond to an immediate threat. But “responding” is not the same thing as escalating into a broader conflict while the people’s representatives issue press releases and call it oversight. When Congress refuses to use its authority, the power doesn’t disappear. It moves. Straight to the White House. Senator Cory Booker went on TV and called Congress “feckless” for giving up its war powers. And he’s not wrong. It’s not that Congress can’t act. It’s that they don’t want to. Because acting means risk. It means forcing a vote. It means making members put their names on a decision. It means angering donors, getting attacked in ads, and being held accountable later. So instead we get the Washington special: statements, hedging, and a whole lot of “we’re monitoring the situation.” Meanwhile, the situation keeps moving. Here’s what happens every time Congress sits out a moment like this: * Presidential power expands. * The checks and balances get weaker. * The next president inherits an even bigger blank check. That’s how you go from “limited action” to “open-ended conflict” without ever having a real national debate. One strike becomes two. Two become a pattern. Then it’s “too late” to ask Congress to do its job—because everyone acts like the train already left the station. It didn’t. Congress just won’t grab the brake. Policies exist everywhere. Oversight exists everywhere. Accountability exists everywhere—on paper. But the moment the people responsible for enforcing the rules decide they’d rather avoid conflict than do their job, the whole system becomes permission. That’s what this feels like. Congress has war powers on paper. But if they won’t use them when it counts, those powers are decorative. And the rest of us are the ones who pay for it. Congress isn’t powerless here. They’re choosing not to act. And when lawmakers treat a potential war escalation like normal politics, they’re not staying “above the fray.” They’re surrendering the one guardrail that’s supposed to keep any president—of any party—from making war a solo decision. If you care about checks and balances, this is the moment to pay attention—because the precedent being set right now won’t end with Iran. It will get reused. If you want more of this kind of breakdown—clear, direct, no spin—become a paid subscriber. That support keeps this show independent and keeps me digging into what power tries to do quietly. And if you’re watching this unfold and thinking, “Congress should have to vote on this,” you’re right. 🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life You’ll get the link in your welcome email. GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

    3 min

  3. 1D AGO

    Trump Just Threatened Congress Over Your Vote

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com Here’s what should bother you about this moment: it’s not the policy. It’s the posture. Trump is pushing a sweeping voting bill — the SAVE America Act — and he’s framing it like it’s about “integrity.” Proof of citizenship to register. New limits around voting methods. Fine. People can argue those ideas like adults. But that’s not what he’s doing. He’s not trying to persuade Congress. He’s trying to corner Congress. The message coming out of this push isn’t “here’s why this is good.” It’s “fall in line, or pay for it.” And when a president starts treating lawmakers like targets — when the implication is that your career, your safety, your family’s peace depends on obedience — that’s not governing. That’s coercion. I’ve been around long enough to know presidents whip votes. They pressure. They make calls. They trade favors. None of that is new. What’s different here is the vibe: retaliation as a tool. Not “I’ll campaign against you” — that’s politics. More like: I’ll unleash consequences until you comply. That’s not theoretical. We’ve watched this playbook for years now. Trump points, the online mobs swarm, the threats start, people get doxxed, and institutions fold because they’d rather avoid the heat than hold the line. Corporations, law firms, officials — you name it. “It’s not worth it” becomes the guiding principle. Now he’s applying that same pressure model to voting legislation. When elected officials start making decisions based on what’s safest instead of what’s right, democracy degrades without a single window breaking. No riot required. No Capitol tunnel. Just quiet compliance. That’s how you end up with a Congress that doesn’t need to be overrun — because it’s already disciplined. Already conditioned. Already afraid of what happens if it says no. And here’s the thing: if you normalize intimidation around voting rules, you’re not just shaping one election. You’re shaping the whole system. You’re teaching everyone watching that the rules aren’t supposed to be neutral — they’re supposed to be owned. On January 6, the lie was: “the process doesn’t count if we don’t like the result.” This is the next evolution: “change the process so the result is easier to control.” Same impulse. Different method. And it always comes dressed up as patriotism. If you believe in an election system, you don’t talk about “guaranteeing” outcomes. You don’t threaten people into passing laws that shape who can vote and how. You make your case, you take your chances, and you accept the result. Anything else is a power play. If you want this show tracking the fine print — the threats, the pressure campaigns, the backroom leverage — and calling it what it is, become a paid subscriber. That support keeps this work independent and keeps me in the rooms where these games get played. And if you know someone who still thinks this is “just politics,” share this post with them. This is how it starts: not with chaos in the streets, but fear in the halls. 🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life You’ll get the link in your welcome email. GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

    3 min

  4. MAR 12

    A U.S. Missile Hit a Girls’ School — Because of Outdated Intelligence

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com A missile doesn’t care about your intent. Once it’s launched, you don’t get to take it back. You don’t get a redo. You don’t get to say “we meant well.” You get impact. You get rubble. You get grieving families. And according to new reporting and an ongoing U.S. investigation, one of the most horrifying strikes in the opening wave of the U.S.–Israel campaign against Iran may have happened for a reason that should terrify anyone who believes “precision” is a moral shield: outdated targeting data. Not a convoy. Not a weapons cache. Not a hidden command node. A girls’ elementary school in Minab, Iran — hit because intelligence systems still treated it like part of a military facility long after it stopped being one. Iranian officials have said roughly 150 students were killed. Investigators are still working to verify the exact toll. Whatever the final number is, the core allegation is already devastating: that a basic update never made it through the pipeline, and children paid the price. Modern targeting has layers for a reason. Multiple sources. Imagery. Confirmation. Cross-checks. People whose entire job is to prevent exactly this kind of disaster. Because when you’re operating with long-range strike weapons, the only thing separating “precision” from slaughter is the accuracy of the information you feed the system. Reuters reporting describes a school that had a visible civilian footprint for years — online presence, photos, and satellite features consistent with a functioning school — raising the obvious question: how does something that visible survive in a target package as “military”? If the investigation confirms that the strike relied on old intel, then this wasn’t an unavoidable “fog of war” moment. It was a preventable failure. And preventable failures in war aren’t just tragic. They’re gasoline. Civilian casualty events like this don’t just create grief. They create momentum—anger, recruitment, retaliation. They harden positions. They make diplomacy harder. They give the worst actors a talking point that writes itself. And when the United States—the most technologically advanced military on Earth—appears to have killed children because a database wasn’t corrected, it doesn’t just damage credibility abroad. It corrodes confidence at home in the institutions that claim precision and accountability as part of their legitimacy. This isn’t about blaming the service members who execute orders. Wars run through systems: intelligence pipelines, verification protocols, command decisions, and oversight. When the system fails, the consequences are measured in bodies. I have four daughters. So when I hear “girls’ school,” my brain doesn’t go to geopolitics. It goes to backpacks. Classrooms. Parents expecting their kids to walk back through the door that afternoon. That’s what makes this story so hard to stomach. It’s not abstract. It’s the collision of bureaucracy and irreversible force. The Pentagon says an investigation is ongoing. Fine. Then it needs to be public, transparent where it can be, and ruthless about fixing the failure chain—because if this is an outdated-intel strike, it’s not just one mistake. It’s a warning sign about a process that can fail again. Power demands precision. And precision demands accountability. Not excuses. Not silence. Not “we don’t intentionally target civilians” as a substitute for explaining how civilians got targeted anyway. Because the measure of a country’s strength isn’t just its weapons. It’s whether it takes responsibility when those weapons are used wrongly. If you want more reporting and breakdowns like this—where we follow the receipts, track the investigation, and call the shots straight—become a paid subscriber. That support keeps this work independent and lets us keep showing up where the truth is hardest. 🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life You’ll get the link in your welcome email. GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

    2 min

  5. MAR 11

    FULL SPEECH: What I Said in Pittsburgh — and Why I’m Not Going Quiet

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com I don’t consider myself a motivational speaker. I’m not here to give you a feel-good ending. I’m here because I stood in that tunnel on January 6th. I felt what it’s like when the country turns on the people trying to hold the line. And I’ve watched, for five years now, as the people who helped light that fuse tried to rewrite the story like we were just overreacting. In Pittsburgh, I said what I’ve been carrying since that day — about the violence, the aftermath, the threats, the betrayals, and the part nobody likes to talk about: what it costs to keep telling the truth when powerful people would rather you disappear. That full speech is right here. If you’ve ever wondered why I’m so blunt about this moment, this speech answers it. And if you’re tired of the noise—tired of watching democracy get chipped away while people argue over slogans—this is the kind of content I’m trying to build on Substack: full conversations, full context, no corporate leash. Paid subscribers are the reason we can do exclusive, full-length drops like this—unedited speeches, extended Q&As, behind-the-scenes debriefs from the road, and the reporting that doesn’t fit into a YouTube runtime. You’re not just paying for content. You’re funding the work: * travel to communities on the Defend Democracy Tour * production that keeps the receipts intact * a platform that doesn’t answer to sponsors or party handlers If you want the full Pittsburgh speech—the whole thing, uncut—become a paid subscriber today. You’ll get access immediately, plus the rest of our member-only drops as we release them. And if you’re already paid: thank you. Share this post with one person who still gives a damn and tell them why you’re here. We’re not building a brand. We’re building a backbone. Your support keeps this show growing, keeps us on the road, and keeps these stories from getting buried. 🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life You’ll get the link in your welcome email. GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

    5 min

  6. MAR 11

    Trump’s Legal Nightmare We ALL MISSED

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com Here’s one that slipped under the radar — and it shouldn’t have. While everyone’s been stuck in the usual Trump chaos cycle, a major AI company just dropped two federal lawsuits that could turn into a real constitutional problem for this administration. Not a cable-news “legal peril” segment. A first principles problem: did the government try to punish a company for protected speech? The company is Anthropic — one of the biggest players in the AI race, the maker of Claude. And their claim isn’t subtle: they say the Pentagon wanted their tech used in ways they consider unethical, they refused, and the administration responded by moving to blacklist them as a “supply-chain risk.” That label isn’t some harmless acronym. “Supply-chain risk” is the kind of designation you’d expect to hear in the context of hostile foreign actors — something that can cut you off from government work and poison your reputation across the industry. If Anthropic is right that this was used as a punishment tool instead of a genuine security finding, that’s the sort of thing judges don’t treat like normal politics. Why this is dangerous for Trump Because in court, motive matters. Anthropic’s lawyers are arguing this wasn’t about national security — it was about retaliation. They’re pointing to public statements and pressure campaigns as evidence that the administration’s real issue wasn’t “risk,” it was disobedience and “woke” branding. If a court buys that, you’re suddenly in First Amendment retaliation territory — the government using its massive contracting and regulatory power to punish a viewpoint. And that’s only layer one. They’re also stacking due process and administrative-law claims — basically arguing the government tried to wreck their business relationships and cancel contracts without following the rules that exist precisely to stop agencies from freelancing punishment. Two lawsuits. Multiple legal theories. Aggressive posture. That’s not a “contract dispute.” That’s a company saying: you don’t get to weaponize the government because we told you no. Why you should care even if you don’t care about AI Because this is the playbook: label → isolate → starve → make an example. Today it’s an AI firm. Tomorrow it’s a university. A newsroom. A nonprofit. A contractor. Anyone who won’t bend the knee. The core question the courts will have to answer is simple: Can the federal government blacklist a private company because it doesn’t like the company’s position on how its own technology should be used? If the answer is no — and a judge finds retaliatory intent — it doesn’t just hit Trump. It sets a precedent that limits the next administration’s ability to do the same thing to someone else. That’s why this matters. Power is testing whether guardrails exist. Your support keeps this show growing, keeps us on the road, and keeps these stories from getting buried. 🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life You’ll get the link in your welcome email. GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

    3 min

  7. MAR 10

    They Hid the January 6 Plaque at 4 A.M. in a Different Building

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com They finally put up the plaque honoring the officers who defended the Capitol on January 6. And they did it like they were ashamed of it. Not in the Capitol. Not with the officers present. Not with a ceremony. Not with any acknowledgment that the people who bled for that building are still living with what happened. They waited years past the deadline Congress set for itself, got sued by the very officers they were supposed to honor, and then quietly installed the plaque at 4 a.m. in a Senate office building. That’s not “oversight.” That’s not “scheduling.” That’s a political system trying to bury the truth in the dark. And I’m going to say this plainly: it’s an utter disgrace. In 2022, Congress passed a law requiring a plaque honoring the officers who defended the Capitol on January 6. It had a deadline: March 2023. The idea was simple—put the plaque in the Capitol, publicly recognize the people who protected the peaceful transfer of power, and move on like a country that’s capable of basic decency. That shouldn’t have been controversial. More than a hundred officers were injured that day. Cops were beaten with flagpoles, crushed in doorways, sprayed with chemicals, tased. Some are still dealing with broken bodies, PTSD, and the kind of moral injury you don’t fix with a medal. But when the deadline came? Nothing. No plaque. No ceremony. No explanation. Just silence. Months passed. Then more months. Then years. And the promise that Congress made—on paper—never became real. The officers who were supposed to be honored had to sue Congress just to get Congress to follow its own law. Think about how insane that is. The people who nearly died defending the Capitol had to drag the institution they protected into court to make it do the bare minimum—acknowledge them. That’s where we are. And when the lawsuit finally forced action, Congress didn’t respond with gratitude. They responded like they were trying to minimize damage. 4 A.M. — and not even in the Capitol According to reporting, the plaque went up early Saturday morning—around 4 a.m. No public moment. No press. No invitation to the officers. No recognition of the people who held the line. And they didn’t even put it in the Capitol building itself—the actual place where the attack happened. They put it in a Senate office building nearby. Close enough to say “we did it,” far enough to avoid confronting what it actually represents. That choice is the story. Because the building doesn’t matter as much as what Washington is telling you with this move: January 6 is still politically radioactive, and too many people in power would rather treat the truth like a problem than face it like adults. Why they did it this way Because acknowledging January 6 honestly forces a lot of uncomfortable truths into the open. It forces politicians to admit it was real. Violent. Coordinated. That it wasn’t a “tour.” That it wasn’t peaceful. That it wasn’t “antifa.” That officers were the ones standing between the mob and the government. And if you admit that, you have to deal with the next question: who fueled it, who excused it, who profited off it, and why the hell so many people still refuse to tell the truth. So instead, they do what Washington always does when truth is inconvenient: delay, deflect, and bury it in procedure. I was there. I know what that day felt like. I know what it sounded like. I know what it looks like when the crowd turns and you realize there’s no backup coming fast enough. And I know what it feels like to watch the country move on while the people who fought for that building carry it alone. So when Congress finally puts up a plaque honoring officers—and they do it in the dark, in a different building, without the people they’re supposedly honoring—don’t tell me that’s just “how it goes.” That’s a choice. And it tells every officer who was there exactly what they’ve felt for five years: you’re useful when you’re bleeding, inconvenient when you’re telling the truth. Look—I’m glad the plaque exists. I’m glad we forced them to do what they promised. But don’t confuse “installed” with “honored.” If your gratitude has to be dragged out of you by a lawsuit, and you deliver it at 4 a.m. like you’re trying not to get caught… you’re not honoring anyone. You’re covering your ass. And that’s the part that should make every American angry—regardless of party. Because if Congress can’t even publicly honor the officers who defended Congress… what do you think they’ll do for the rest of us? If you want this show to keep showing up where truth gets buried—hearings, court records, the stuff they try to do off-camera—become a paid subscriber. That’s how we stay independent and keep pulling the thread even when it makes powerful people uncomfortable. And if you were there on January 6—an officer, a staffer, a witness—drop a comment. Say it out loud. The truth only survives if we keep telling it. Your support keeps this show growing, keeps us on the road, and keeps these stories from getting buried. 🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life You’ll get the link in your welcome email. GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

    2 min

  8. MAR 10

    Trump's New Scapegoat Gets Grilled

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com Kristi Noem walked into a hearing this week thinking she was going to do the usual Washington two-step: “we take this seriously,” “it’s under review,” “I’ll get back to you.” Instead, she got lit up. And it wasn’t because senators suddenly found a spine. It’s because DHS is sitting on top of a pile of chaos tied to Trump’s immigration crackdown—and somebody had to show up and take the hits. That somebody is Noem. Here’s what this hearing really was: a preview of how Trump handles scandals. He doesn’t absorb them—he assigns them. The questions kept circling back to Minnesota, because you can’t hide from dead Americans. Two U.S. citizens were killed during protests connected to federal immigration operations. That’s a sentence that should stop the country cold, and the fact we’re already “moving on” is part of the problem. Noem’s posture was predictable: “it’s under investigation,” “we’re looking into it,” “we’ll review mistaken arrests of citizens.” But that last part is the quiet admission everyone should be paying attention to: U.S. citizens being swept up in enforcement operations is not a PR issue. It’s an operational failure. It means somebody is running a machine that’s moving too fast to verify who they’re grabbing—or they don’t care. Either way, it’s not “law and order.” It’s chaos with badges. If Minnesota was the moral gut-punch, the spending questions were the credibility punch. Lawmakers pressed DHS over a deportation plane purchase being described as “luxury” while the department is tangled in shutdown politics and funding brinkmanship. Even if you strip away the rhetoric, the optics are brutal: DHS wants more authority, more money, fewer restrictions—while acting like basic accountability is optional. But the real bomb wasn’t the plane. It was the $143 million contract. A contract that, on its face, looks like the kind of thing that triggers every fraud alarm in government: a company incorporated days before getting the award, no clear footprint, no obvious headquarters, and the address trail leading into political-world territory. When asked the simplest question—where is this company headquartered?—Noem didn’t have an answer. “I don’t know” is not a response you get to give when you’re signing off on $143 million of taxpayer money. That’s not “oops.” That’s negligence at best and something darker at worst. And then the credibility trap snapped shut One of the most revealing moments wasn’t even about policy—it was about what she said and what she’s now pretending she didn’t say. Noem tried to walk back past comments about one of the Minnesota victims, framing it like people misunderstood her. The problem is: the receipts exist. When you’re in front of Congress, you don’t get to rewrite your own words just because they became inconvenient. That’s how officials talk when they’re trying to manage a story, not tell the truth. Here’s the larger dynamic nobody in Washington will say out loud: Kristi Noem didn’t invent Trump’s immigration agenda. She’s just the one being sent out to defend it. The surge tactics, the aggressive operations, the rhetoric, the posture toward oversight—this comes from the White House. And Trump’s oldest move is letting underlings take the fall while he keeps his hands clean. So the question isn’t “did Noem have a bad hearing?” The question is: how long before Trump decides she’s more useful as a sacrifice than as a shield? Because that’s what scapegoats are for. They take the heat so the boss doesn’t have to. And based on how this hearing went, the heat isn’t cooling down. It’s building. If you want this show to keep tracking the paper trail—hearings, contracts, internal investigations, and the real-world consequences of DHS policy—become a paid subscriber. That’s how we keep doing this without a corporate leash. And if you know something about the Minnesota operations or that contracting mess, reply to this post—my team will follow up. Your support keeps this show growing, keeps us on the road, and keeps these stories from getting buried. 🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life You’ll get the link in your welcome email. GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!

    4 min
See All (174)

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
39 Ratings

About

This Machine Kills Fascists / Author of NYT Bestseller “Hold The Line - The Insurrection and One Cop’s Battle for America's Soul” michaelfanone.substack.com

Information

  • Creator
    Michael Fanone
  • Years Active
    2025 - 2026
  • Episodes
    174
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © Michael Fanone
  • Show Website
    The Michael Fanone Show

You Might Also Like