The Michael Fanone Show

Michael Fanone

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. 8h ago

    ICE Wants to Spend $20 Million on Gloves That Electrocute People. As a Former Cop, Here’s What Scares Me.

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com Picture a standard pair of black patrol gloves. Now picture a switch on the wrist. Flip it, press the glove against someone’s skin, and it sends an electrical pulse through them — enough pain to make them stop whatever they’re doing and comply. The Trump administration wants to put thousands of these on the hands of ICE agents, at a cost of up to $20 million. They’re called the G.L.O.V.E. — Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter — made by a Kentucky outfit called Compliant Technologies. Per the AP, ICE is chasing what could be a no-bid contract worth $10 to $20 million, running potentially into 2027. And the sheer size of that buy tells you everything: this isn’t a niche gadget for a handful of tactical guys. AP reports ICE may be looking to strap these onto most or all of its officers. Let me be honest about where I start on this I’m a former cop, and I’m not reflexively against less-lethal tools. Give me a choice between an officer shooting somebody and an officer using a device that causes temporary pain without lasting injury, and I’ll take the less-lethal option every single time. That’s not a close call. And that’s essentially the administration’s pitch. Border czar Tom Homan went on Fox and framed the gloves as one more rung on the ladder before deadly force — cops can’t leap from zero to a hundred, so slot this in alongside pepper spray and Tasers as another way to end a fight without a bullet. ICE says it’s still writing policy and training, so the gloves aren’t hitting the street tomorrow. Fine. On paper, that’s a real argument. Here’s why it falls apart in practice. A less-lethal weapon is exactly as safe as three things: the rules for when you’re allowed to use it, the training of the person wearing it, and the accountability that lands afterward if they screw up. And we’re talking about ICE. This is not the agency you hand an invisible weapon Right now, ICE is already buried in use-of-force questions. According to numbers the agency gave Congress last month, there have been 56 excessive-force complaints since the administration began its crackdown. Out of all 56, lawmakers say exactly one officer was even referred for possible discipline — with no confirmation that discipline actually happened. At least 10 people have died in encounters with immigration agents during this push, and recent fatal shootings in Maine and Texas have only sharpened the questions about training and oversight. So this may not be the ideal moment to hand every agent a weapon that’s practically impossible to see. And that invisibility is the crux of it. Point a Taser at someone and you can see the Taser. Deploy pepper spray and there’s residue and reaction. Swing a baton and the bodycam catches it. But this thing looks like a glove. An agent flips a switch on the wrist and delivers the current through plain skin contact — and AP reports that, unlike a Taser, it doesn’t leave burn marks or contact wounds. No probe, no barb, no trace. That is precisely why civil-rights advocates are alarmed, and they’re right to be. Pain compliance has always demanded hard limits. You don’t get to hurt somebody because they’re irritating you. You don’t get to hurt somebody because they mouthed off. You don’t get to inflict pain as punishment because your ego took a hit. Even the company that makes them says all of this Here’s the part that should stop everybody cold: the manufacturer’s own guidance says the device shouldn’t be used as punishment, shouldn’t be used for torture or horseplay, and shouldn’t be used just because somebody’s being verbally defiant. It even warns against using the gloves on high-risk groups — small children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with severe disabilities. Now think about who ICE actually runs into on a daily basis. Families. Pregnant women. Older people. People with disabilities. People who don’t speak English. People who may genuinely not understand the command an agent is barking at them. And the agent laying hands on them might be wearing a glove that can shock. What could go wrong? We don’t have to guess. The Kentucky case AP found a pending lawsuit over a 43-year-old man who died in 2024 after an encounter at a Kentucky jail where these gloves were used. I’m going to be careful here, because the lawsuit does not establish that the gloves killed him. But according to court records AP reviewed, the man was allegedly shocked 27 times with the gloves and another 13 times with a Taser. An internal investigation found two of those glove applications ran 45 seconds and 99 seconds. The manufacturer’s recommended maximum is 15 seconds. That same internal review concluded the applications inflicted unnecessary pain and raised the risk of serious medical complications. AP found two other suits alleging glove-related injuries; both were dismissed. And that’s the whole ballgame right there. You can write the most beautiful use-of-force policy in the history of law enforcement. The weapon can’t read it. The officer can. And the easier you make it to inflict pain, the more the oversight has to carry the weight. The oversight is going the wrong direction Which brings me to the timing. ICE is rolling out body cameras nationwide, and that’s genuinely good — I’ve said for years that cameras protect the public and the cops, because they show when someone lies about an officer and they show when an officer blows it. But ICE’s new policy says footage from serious incidents gets released promptly only when leadership decides it’s in the agency’s “best interests.” They can delay it. They can withhold it. So put the two pieces together: a weapon that hurts people without leaving marks, handed out at the same moment the agency is reserving broad discretion over whether the public ever sees the footage of how it was used. That’s not an argument to ban the technology outright. It’s an argument to get some real answers before you drop $20 million on it. The questions you ask before you buy, not after What counts as enough resistance to justify activating it? How long can an agent hold it on someone? How many times? Does every single activation get automatically logged and reported as a use of force? Does the device keep its own electronic record? Will a supervisor review every deployment? What happens the first time it’s used on somebody who turns out to be a U.S. citizen? What happens when the person doesn’t speak English and never understood the order they’re supposedly refusing? And when an agent breaks the policy — who, exactly, is holding them accountable? None of those are anti-cop questions. Those are the questions. They’re what you ask before you put a new weapon in anyone’s hands. And stop calling it “de-escalation” The company brands this a “conductive distraction and de-escalation device.” Words matter, so let’s be precise. De-escalation is talking somebody down. Creating distance. Slowing things. Calling for backup. Giving a person the room to comply on their own. Electricity delivered through your hand is force. Maybe justified force. Maybe, in some situations, meaningfully safer than the alternatives. But it is force, and you should call it what it is. Because there are absolutely scenarios where I can see the value — somebody actively fighting officers, somebody lunging for a weapon, somebody violently resisting inside a jail where the alternative is five guys dogpiling him or pepper spray in a closed room. Study it. Train for it. Write strict policy around it. But ICE isn’t mainly a corrections agency managing violent inmates in a controlled building. Its agents are increasingly working parking lots, job sites, homes, and streets, as part of the biggest immigration enforcement operation in modern American history. That changes the entire equation. Former acting ICE director John Sandweg warned the gloves are simply too easy to misuse on someone who poses no real threat. And a law professor who studies use of force raised the most human concern of all: when the weapon is literally attached to your hand, do you start reaching for it before trying anything gentler? That’s not cynicism. That’s behavior. If the tool’s already on, you’re more likely to use the tool. “Trust us” is not an accountability system When you’re talking about government agents with the power to detain people, load them into vehicles, and remove them from the country, “trust us” doesn’t cut it. Maybe ICE eventually proves these gloves reduce injuries. Maybe they head off shootings. Maybe they spare somebody from getting slammed onto concrete. If the evidence shows that — and shows it’s safe — I’ll listen. But you build the safeguards first. Require a report every time the electrical function fires. Require the bodycam to be rolling. Set hard limits on duration and repeat shocks. Make misuse a disciplinary offense with teeth. And release the footage when something goes wrong. The question was never whether cops should have tools to safely control genuinely dangerous people. Of course they should. The question is whether we’re about to give thousands of federal agents the power to inflict invisible electric pain with a touch — and then ask the country to just trust they’ll use it right. Given everything we’ve watched from ICE this past year, that is one hell of a lot of trust to ask for. 🟧 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. 1d ago

    A “Law and Order” Trump Store Owner Got Arrested. What She Learned in That Squad Car Is the Whole Point.

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com There’s a specific kind of bodycam video I can’t look away from. Not the violent ones. The ones where somebody who has spent years certain that the police are only ever a problem for other people suddenly hears the words “you’re under arrest” — and it’s about them. This is one of those. And it’s a hell of a thing to watch. The stop Meet Lisa Fleischmann. She’s 53, lives in Illinois, and owns a business called the Trump Truth Store — shirts, flags, mugs, posters, the whole MAGA merch catalog. By her own account, she “woke up” after the 2020 election and started a journey to “seek the truth.” She’s said, out loud and proudly, that part of what she loves about Trump is that he “triggers people.” On May 26, police near Carpentersville pulled her over for a plate problem — no front plate, rear plate bent or blocked. Routine. Boring. The kind of stop that ends with a ticket ninety-nine times out of a hundred. It went sideways in about ten seconds. She didn’t have her license. Didn’t have another ID. And instead of just giving her name, she started interrogating the officer about whether he was even allowed to pull her over. At one point he tells her, flatly, that she’s wasting his time — and he’s got all day to waste hers right back. Then they run her name. And this stops being a traffic ticket, because there’s an active warrant out of DuPage County. What the warrant was actually about Here’s the backstory the footage doesn’t give you. Court records reported by local outlets show Fleischmann got cited in late 2024 for driving without a valid license and some related violations. She went to court on it more than once — then missed a hearing in December 2025, and a judge did what judges do when you don’t show up: issued a warrant. She disputes how the whole thing was handled and says she thought she’d cleared it up. Maybe she did think that. Doesn’t matter on the side of the road. As far as those two officers know, DuPage County is telling them the warrant is valid. Which means they don’t have a choice anymore. She’s getting arrested. Watch the cops, not just the meltdown I’ve made a lot of arrests. I’ve been on the other end of a lot of arrests. So trust me when I say these officers were being patient. They tell her she’s under arrest. They tell her why. They walk her through what’s about to happen. One of them literally says, “I’m begging you — please step out of the car.” And Lisa wants to negotiate. She needs her cash. She wants to lock the car. She wants to call her daughter. She wants to know what the warrant’s for. Some of that is completely human. I get it. But here’s the thing nobody wants to hear in that moment: once you’ve been told you’re under arrest on a valid warrant, you’re under arrest. The shoulder of the road is not a courtroom. You don’t get to argue the warrant from the driver’s seat — that fight happens later, in front of a judge. Eventually she gets out. Cuffs go on. And that’s when it goes from tense to genuinely unhinged. Two things I want to keep separate Because this part matters, and I’m not going to be lazy about it. She says the cuffs hurt. Repeatedly. The officer says he can fit a finger between the cuff and her wrist, and both cops keep telling her she’s tensing up while they try to search her. I can’t tell you from footage exactly how much pain somebody’s in — so I’m not going to sit here and call her a liar about her own wrists. If cuffs are genuinely hurting someone, cops should take that seriously. Full stop. That’s one thing. The other thing is what she does with it. She’s screaming. Demanding the sheriff. Threatening the media. Accusing the officers of punishing her. At one point she announces, “I can’t wait for this to go on the media.” Well. Here we are, Lisa. And then the detail you could not script Later, in the back of the car, she tells the officer what business she owns. The Trump Truth Store. And she promises them it’ll make national news. You cannot write it better than that. Because this isn’t some random person who votes a certain way. This is somebody who built an entire storefront around Donald Trump and the whole “law and order” brand — a self-described gathering place for “patriotic Americans.” And she just ran face-first into the one lesson that brand never prepared her for: The government does not care who you voted for. There’s a warrant with your name on it, the cops confirm it, and you’re going to jail. All that tough talk about law and order lands very differently when it’s your wrists in the cuffs. Here’s the part that actually got me After she got out, Fleischmann described her time in custody as “horrific.” She complained about the handcuffs, the jail procedures, the food, how detainees were treated, what she watched happen to other people locked up over minor stuff. She questioned why anyone should sit in a cell over a traffic case and a missed court date. And — I mean this — some of those are good questions. Should somebody lose days of their life in jail over a missed traffic hearing? How are police supposed to handle people with chronic pain or a disability during an arrest? How fast should someone picked up on a warrant get in front of a judge? What should conditions look like for people who haven’t been convicted of anything yet? Those aren’t “gotcha” questions. Those are the questions. That’s the entire criminal justice reform conversation — the one a lot of people only discover exists on the day they’re the one in the cell. Welcome to it, Lisa. We’ve been over here for a while. “This is a punishment.” “It’s not a punishment.” That exchange — her insisting it’s a punishment, the officer insisting it isn’t — is the whole story compressed into six words. Because that argument, when does law enforcement stop being process and start being punishment, is one Americans across the entire political spectrum have been having for years. When does an arrest cross the line? When does pretrial detention become a penalty for something you haven’t been convicted of? When do the ordinary gears of the system grind somebody far harder than their actual conduct ever warranted? Those questions don’t stop mattering because the person finally asking them sells Trump T-shirts. But they also shouldn’t have to wait until it’s your body on the pavement to feel important. What I actually hope she took home She was booked at the local PD, moved to the DuPage County Jail, held overnight, and released the next day after seeing a judge. New court date. That’s it. In the scheme of things, she got off easy. But I hope something stuck. I hope the next time she hears somebody say the cuffs were too tight, she doesn’t assume they’re faking. The next time somebody says a small legal problem blew up their whole life, she remembers how fast hers did. The next time somebody questions whether locking people up before trial is unnecessarily cruel, she remembers what that cell felt like when she hadn’t been convicted of a damn thing. Because that’s what equal justice is supposed to mean. Not that the system should treat everybody like garbage. That everybody gets held to the same standard — and that the power to arrest, cuff, and cage a human being deserves scrutiny every single time. Not just when it’s aimed at a Trump supporter. Not just when it’s someone you know. And not just when you’re the one in the back seat screaming that the handcuffs hurt. 🟧 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. 5d ago

    A Cop Mistyped One Character. Then the System Spent a Year Defending the Mistake.

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com A cop got one character wrong. An innocent man paid for it — his window, his car, and more than a year of his life. On July 4, 2024, two SFPD officers, Jonathan Zepeda and Vinesh Govindbhai, spotted a Honda Accord they believed was stolen. The belief came from a license plate an officer had typed into a computer with one character wrong. They followed the car until the driver, 47-year-old Matthew Ludwig, stopped behind traffic at a red light. According to the Public Defender’s complaint, the officers didn’t recheck the plate. They didn’t turn on their lights. They didn’t tell him to pull over. They didn’t even try the door. One of them went straight for the window. The body-camera footage is brutal. Govindbhai smashes the driver’s window with a baton, grabs Ludwig by the hood of his sweatshirt, and drags him out onto the pavement, where his head is driven into the ground. Ludwig is saying, “I wasn’t doing nothing, bro.” Then an officer pepper-sprays him in the eyes at close range. He starts wheezing and says, over and over, that he can’t breathe. According to the public defender, it was Ludwig trying to de-escalate — “Be cool,” “Take it easy” — and the officers who kept escalating. I spent two decades as a cop, so hear me on this. Officers absolutely face situations where force is necessary. Sometimes you’ve got seconds and incomplete information. That’s exactly why procedure matters. You verify. You communicate. You give commands when you can. You reassess. And the more force you’re about to use, the more certain you need to be about why. These officers didn’t even have the right plate. Per the complaint, they realized after Ludwig was already cuffed that it had been entered wrong. The entire reason they thought they’d found a stolen car was false. They arrested him anyway. And that’s where this stops being a story about two cops screwing up and becomes a story about a whole system refusing to fix it. Ludwig was charged with reckless driving and resisting arrest, and prosecutors pushed those charges for more than a year — over an encounter that only began because police typed the wrong plate. Meanwhile, he couldn’t afford the impound fee to get his car back, so the city sold it at auction. His public defender says he lost virtually everything he owned, including an RV he shared with his girlfriend that got towed days later. Prosecutors even offered him a deal to avoid a conviction if he’d take responsibility. His public defender’s answer was simple: he hadn’t done anything wrong. Two years after the arrest, San Francisco’s Department of Police Accountability concluded the officers used excessive force and violated multiple department policies — including the close-range pepper spray and drawing a firearm without justification. Accountability matters. But it also raises the question of why it took this long to admit what the footage apparently made obvious. And Matthew Ludwig isn’t here to see it. He survived the encounter and lived another 14 months. In September 2025, while the charges were still pending, he was found dead in a park in Morehead, Kentucky, at 47. Local authorities said no foul play was suspected and described it as an apparent suicide. I’m not going to tell you the arrest caused his death, because we don’t know that. Suicide is complicated, and nobody should turn a man’s death into a convenient argument without evidence. But we do know what those final 14 months held. He lost his car. His public defender says he lost nearly everything. He spent more than a year as a criminal defendant over an encounter that started with a police mistake. And he died before the agency investigating it publicly admitted the officers used excessive force against him. That’s tragic, full stop. I want to say something to other cops here, because the instinct in this job is to hear criticism of an officer and immediately go looking for the explanation — what happened before the video, what did the officer perceive. Those are fair questions. I’ve asked them myself. But sometimes the officer is just wrong. And if you actually care about policing, you have to be able to say that out loud. Good policing isn’t defending every cop every time. It’s holding the standard that lets the public trust the badge. When an officer screws up, the next officer shouldn’t inherit it. When an arrest is bad, prosecutors shouldn’t try to salvage it. The goal shouldn’t be finding some other charge to make it look justified after the fact. The goal should be correcting the mistake. That’s what eats at me about this. The typo was human error — cops make mistakes, I made mistakes. But everything after they discovered the mistake was a choice. Once the officers saw the plate was wrong, there was a chance to stop. Once prosecutors understood how the arrest began, another chance. Month after month, more chances. Instead, Matthew Ludwig stayed the defendant. As his public defender, Brian Cox, put it: nothing justified the amount of violence used on Ludwig, especially when it stemmed from the officers’ own mistake. The Accountability office will now recommend discipline, and where that goes is up to the department and the Police Commission. Whatever happens, accountability isn’t anti-cop. It’s how you preserve policing. Because when you hand someone a badge, a gun, and the power to take another person’s freedom, the standard has to be higher than everybody makes mistakes. The typo was a mistake. What happened to Matthew Ludwig afterward was a series of decisions — and every institution involved had a chance to make it right before it was too late. 🟧 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. 6d ago

    DHS Called Racial Profiling “Categorically False.” The Bodycams Say Otherwise.

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com They told us it wasn’t about race. Then the bodycams came out. For over a year, the administration insisted its immigration crackdown was targeted — that agents weren’t stopping people for being Latino, and that profiling claims were, in a DHS spokeswoman’s words, “disgusting, reckless, and categorically false.” Now there’s footage. And based on the evidence, what these agents are doing looks disgusting, reckless, and categorically true. A New York Times investigation reviewed court evidence from more than a dozen cases across the country — body-camera footage, bystander video, text messages, court filings — 169 hours of video across 459 clips. What comes out of it is a disturbing picture of how these sweeps actually ran. In multiple court filings, agents referred to targets as “tonks” — a derogatory term for Mexican immigrants that, per the Times, is meant to evoke the sound of a flashlight hitting someone in the head. Other footage catches an agent calling a man “wet,” short for the slur “w*****k.” Another, in a Southern California operation, flagged people he considered suspicious as “older Hispanic males.” Now, I spent two decades in law enforcement, and anyone who tells you cops never say ugly things behind closed doors is lying to you. But there’s a difference between someone saying something offensive and that language showing up right next to evidence that it’s shaping who gets stopped. That’s where this stops being a bad joke and becomes a constitutional problem. In San Bernardino, a driver said in a sworn declaration that an officer told him he’d been pulled over because he looked like a “paisa.” Then there’s Angel Santiago Tafolla, a U.S. citizen working at a carwash in Anaheim. According to his declaration, agents chased him — a dark-skinned Latino man — while ignoring his lighter-skinned coworkers. An agent arced a Taser in front of him while his clothes were still wet from work. They cuffed him and loaded him into a van. And the whole time, he kept telling them the thing that should have ended it: “I’m American.” According to his account, they told him he was Latino, that his documents were fake, and that he should stop talking. Sit with that. A citizen tells federal officers he’s American, shows his papers, and they tell him the papers are fake — because they’ve already decided who he is. Based on what? That’s the question at the center of these lawsuits, and it isn’t one man. According to filings reviewed by the Times, at least 65 U.S. citizens were stopped, questioned, or detained during these operations. Many were Black or Latino. Some said agents refused to accept passports or valid licenses. Several were threatened with Tasers, tackled, or handcuffed. Some were held for hours. And civil rights lawyers think they know why it keeps happening: quotas. Court filings describe agents under enormous pressure to run up arrests — the national target reportedly as high as 3,000 a day. That changes everything about how you police. Real investigation means you develop information, identify a person, build reasonable suspicion. But if someone tells you to produce 3,000 bodies today, you’re not investigating anymore. You’re doing volume. So roving teams converged on the places they expected to find Latino workers — carwashes, construction sites, Home Depot lots — and leaned on broad traits: looks Latino, darker skin, an accent, day-laborer clothes. Footage from Los Angeles, civil rights lawyers say, shows agents walking past people who appeared white to approach Latino men nearby, masked and armed, chatting about targets and tallying how many they’d grabbed. That is not how professional law enforcement works. Race can be part of a suspect description — if I’m looking for a specific 35-year-old Latino man in a blue jacket, ethnicity is obviously in the mix. But “Latino guy outside Home Depot” is not a suspect description. For more than 50 years the constitutional rule has been that immigration agents need a specific factual basis to stop someone and can’t use ethnicity as the sole factor. A 1975 Supreme Court decision let ethnicity count as one factor in certain situations — not the only one. Even that line is now being tested: Justice Brett Kavanaugh gave provisional support to broader consideration of characteristics including ethnicity while the litigation continues. It wasn’t a ruling on the merits, but legal experts say it may have emboldened agents in the field. The government denies any agencywide profiling policy — says the operations are targeted, that isolated offensive language doesn’t establish policy, and that agents can briefly question people they reasonably suspect are here illegally. Fine. Then explain the evidence. Explain why citizens’ passports and licenses weren’t accepted. Explain why a man was told he was Latino after he said, over and over, that he was American. Explain footage that appears to show agents skipping white people to approach Latino men. And explain why federal officers on official duty were driving around calling people “tonks” and “wet.” Here’s the part both sides should be able to hold at once: you can support deporting people who are here illegally and demand that federal law enforcement follow the Constitution. Those aren’t in conflict. I’ve said it before — give someone a badge, a gun, and the power to take away another person’s freedom, and the standard goes up, not down. When leaders demand enormous arrest numbers and celebrate aggressive sweeps, don’t act shocked when quantity replaces investigation. That’s how innocent people get swept up. That’s how citizens get handcuffed. That’s how “he looked Latino” becomes law enforcement intelligence. These cases are moving through courts across the country, and some may end up back at the Supreme Court. When they do, the justices won’t be weighing a hypothetical. They’ll have body cameras, text messages, sworn declarations, and citizens who were detained. That’s exactly what the cameras are for — they don’t care what the press release says. They show what happened. And now we can hear what some of these agents were saying when they thought the only people listening were each other. 🟧 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. Aug 14

    Trump Ended Their Careers. They Handed Him the Justice Department Anyway.

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com Trump’s personal criminal defense lawyer now runs the Justice Department. Todd Blanche isn’t just some conservative attorney Trump plucked to lead the DOJ. This is the man who sat next to Trump at the defense table and fought his federal criminal charges. Then Trump put him inside the department, and once he was running it in an acting capacity, he moved hard to advance Trump’s agenda. Now the Senate has handed him the keys for good — by a vote of 50 to 49. Every Democrat voted no. Two Republicans, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, voted no. Everybody else folded. And it’s who folded that tells the story. Take Bill Cassidy. He voted to convict Trump after January 6th, and Trump never forgot it — Cassidy lost his primary to a Trump-backed challenger, and his Senate career is ending. Trump already got his revenge. If any Republican was ever free to say “fine, I’ll vote my conscience, the man already ended me,” it was Cassidy. Nope. Cassidy became the decisive vote that put Blanche over the top. And listen to his reasoning: this “is not a referendum on President Trump,” he said — and maybe the fact that Blanche once represented Trump personally would make him better at pushing back on Trump’s worst impulses. Read that again. We’re supposed to want Blanche as attorney general because Trump trusts him enough that he might occasionally tell him no. That’s where the party is. Then there’s Thom Tillis and John Cornyn, who nearly derailed the nomination over that $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” Under Blanche, the DOJ had announced a settlement creating a pot of money to compensate people who claimed they’d been mistreated by the justice system — including January 6th defendants and other Trump allies — plus provisions designed to shield Trump and his family from IRS audits. Tillis and Cornyn balked. Blanche backed down, rescinded the fund in writing, and agreed to rein in the tax provisions. That was enough. Nomination moves forward, and we’re all supposed to feel better. I don’t. Because remember who this is. Blanche defended Trump in the New York hush-money case and against the federal prosecutions. Trump made him deputy attorney general, then acting AG, and when Pam Bondi was fired he took over and pushed harder. Per the Associated Press, under Blanche the department accelerated investigations into Trump’s perceived enemies — moving to indict former FBI Director James Comey over a ridiculous social media post with seashells arranged to read “86 47,” and appointing Joseph diGenova to investigate whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired to undermine Trump. And this is the man we’re supposed to trust because he wrote a letter killing a slush fund? Maybe he keeps that promise. I hope he does. But if you think a piece of paper turns Todd Blanche into an independent attorney general who’ll stand between Trump and whatever he demands next, you’re far more trusting than I am. So was Murkowski, who voted no and said the country needs an attorney general “who will check the worst impulses of this administration.” That’s the job. Not Trump’s lawyer. Not Trump’s fixer. Not Trump’s enforcer. Here’s the bigger thing, and it’s the part that actually explains all of it. Cassidy’s career is over. Tillis is leaving. These are exactly the men who should have the least left to fear from Trump — and they still won’t cross him. Why? Because leaving office isn’t the same as leaving Republican politics. There’s a whole ecosystem waiting after Congress — corporate boards, law firms, think tanks, lobbying shops, speaking fees, book deals, cable contracts, consulting. And to stay a Republican in good standing in that world, there’s still one ring you’re expected to kiss. That’s the power Trump has built. It’s not just fear of a primary anymore. It’s fear of exile from the entire professional world around the party. Which makes it even more pathetic, because what would Cassidy actually have lost by voting no? Trump already beat him. What does Tillis have to fear? He’s out. If there was ever a moment to stand up for the institution you serve, this was it. Instead, Blanche got 50 votes. Republicans will tell themselves they extracted concessions, point to the letter, say maybe his bond with Trump means he can restrain him. We’ve seen this movie. They convince themselves that this time there’s a guardrail, this time someone in the room says no, this time the institution holds. Then Trump pushes, and they move. Todd Blanche didn’t confirm himself. Trump didn’t have 50 votes — Republican senators did. And even the ones with nothing left to lose couldn’t say no. That’s not loyalty, and it’s not principle. It’s submission. 🟧 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!

  6. Aug 13

    Lauren Boebert Called Everyone a “Groomer.” Now Her Son Faces Child-Exploitation Charges.

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com Suddenly, Lauren Boebert believes an accusation isn’t a conviction. Her 21-year-old son, Tyler, has been arrested again — this time on five felony charges, three of them tied to the alleged sexual exploitation of a child. Let me say the important part first and plainly: these are allegations. Tyler Boebert has not been convicted. Prosecutors will have to prove their case, and he’s entitled to the same presumption of innocence as anyone. Hold onto that, because it matters to where this is going. Here’s what’s on the record. Tyler was arrested in Garfield County, Colorado, after an investigation by the sheriff’s office and a felony review by the district attorney. The counts: sexual exploitation of a child by inducement or enticement, sexual exploitation involving possession with intent, sexual exploitation involving video, and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Authorities say the alleged conduct dates back to January 1, 2024. They haven’t disclosed much more, because the investigation is ongoing. He was booked into the Garfield County Jail, released the same day on a $10,000 bond, and is due back in court August 19. And these aren’t even his only open cases. Tyler is already awaiting sentencing in two others — one child-abuse case stemming from an incident involving his young son, and a 2024 vehicle-trespassing and theft case in which he pleaded guilty to attempted identity theft. At 21, he’s already got a remarkable history with the justice system. His mother, Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, responded to the new arrest by saying, “I love my son,” that the family takes the allegations “very seriously,” and that they’re praying for everyone affected. And that’s a perfectly reasonable response from a mother whose adult son has been accused of a serious crime. Take it seriously. Don’t prejudge. Let investigators investigate and prosecutors present evidence. Let the process decide. There’s just one problem. Lauren Boebert has spent years extending exactly none of that restraint to other people — whenever an accusation about children was politically useful to her. Remember when Republicans decided everyone they disliked was a “groomer”? Boebert was one of the loudest voices doing it, and she never needed anyone to actually be accused of anything. In 2022, a North Carolina teacher used LGBTQ-inclusive flash cards in an elementary classroom — illustrations of different kinds of families. No allegation of abuse. No allegation of exploitation. Boebert looked at that and declared, “The Left is grooming our kids.” Think about how heavy that word is. Grooming isn’t a synonym for “teaching kids something Lauren Boebert doesn’t like.” It describes the manipulation of children for sexual abuse. That’s one of the most serious accusations a person can make — and she turned it into partisan slang. She did it again that year going after Tyra Banks, an executive producer of a reality show about teenage drag performers, with “Siri, define grooming.” No evidence. No criminal allegation. Just association she could weaponize. And it was part of a much bigger campaign — LGBTQ people, drag performers, teachers, Democrats, providers of gender-affirming care, all tarred with the language of child predation. Then five people were murdered at Club Q, an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs, in November 2022. When people confronted Boebert about the rhetoric she’d aimed at that community, she called it “disgusting” that anyone would connect her words to hostility. See the machine? When it’s someone else, a teacher’s flash cards become proof “the Left is grooming our kids.” When it’s her, connecting rhetoric to consequences is irresponsible. And now that her own son is facing real felony charges involving the alleged exploitation of a child, the response is careful, restrained, wait-for-the-process. That is how she should respond. The hypocrisy isn’t that Lauren Boebert loves her son. It’s that she clearly understands nuance perfectly well when she needs it. When it’s your family, an allegation isn’t a conviction. When it’s your family, words matter and the situation is complicated and painful. We even saw it before — when Tyler faced that separate child-abuse case after his young son wandered from a family home, she called it a “miscommunication.” Maybe it was, and he was entitled to have the circumstances weighed instead of being branded a monster. That’s the whole point. Extend that same courtesy to everyone else. Because this is what makes the “groomer” rhetoric so poisonous. Child sexual abuse is real. Grooming is real. The exploitation of children is real, and those crimes destroy lives. When politicians grab those words and slap them on teachers, LGBTQ people, and opponents without a shred of evidence, they don’t make a single child safer — they turn the gravest accusations imaginable into a Twitter insult. Tyler Boebert deserves the process. The alleged victim or victims deserve a serious investigation. And if prosecutors prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt, he should face the consequences. That’s how justice works — for him, and for everyone his mother ever pointed at. Maybe she remembers that the next time she sees a rainbow flag and reaches for the word “groomer.” 🟧 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!

  7. Aug 13

    It’s Not Christianity vs. Atheism. It’s Religious Freedom vs. Religious Power.

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com Believe in God. Don’t. Go to church every Sunday or never set foot in one. That’s your right — and that’s the whole point. Let me be clear up front, before half the internet loses its mind: this isn’t about whether Christianity is good or bad, and I’m not here to tell anyone what to believe about God. This is about the difference between a religion and a political weapon. Congressman Jared Huffman of California has a new book out — No Prophets: The Fight to Save Democracy From Christian Nationalism. He’s unusual in Congress: the only member who publicly calls himself a humanist. And his argument isn’t that Christianity threatens American democracy. It’s that Christian nationalism does. Those aren’t the same thing. Christianity is a faith. Christian nationalism is a political ideology that wants to use government power to privilege one version of Christianity and bake it into American law. And Huffman says that movement has become extraordinarily influential inside the Republican Party and inside the Capitol itself. He describes pastors working the halls of Congress almost like lobbyists — approaching lawmakers and staff on the way to votes, handing out cards, inviting them to Bible study. If members want to hold a Bible study, fine; they have the same religious freedom as anyone. But Huffman says some of these operators aren’t there to pray. They’re there to push doctrine into public policy. That’s the line, and that’s where the problem starts. The First Amendment doesn’t just protect your right to practice your religion. It protects my right not to practice yours. You believe what you want, I believe what I want, and neither of us gets to use the government to force it on the other. That’s the deal, and it’s a good one. Huffman points to Ralph Drollinger, founder of Capitol Ministries, who runs Bible studies for government officials — calling him one of the most extreme religious activists operating around Washington and arguing his access to powerful people should concern us. For his part, Drollinger disputes that characterization and says his work is about accurately teaching scripture, not pushing personal opinion. Fair to note. But the bigger point isn’t one pastor — it’s the ecosystem around power. And nobody illustrates it better than Speaker Mike Johnson. Johnson has never hidden how central his evangelical faith is to his politics, and by itself that isn’t the problem. Raphael Warnock is a Baptist pastor and a U.S. senator. James Talarico is running for Senate in Texas and talks openly about his Christian faith. There are devout Democrats and Republicans everywhere. Huffman actually praises Warnock and Talarico — because, in his view, they speak authentically about faith without trying to use the coercive power of government to impose it. That’s the distinction. Mike Johnson can believe abortion is a sin, pray about it, preach it, and vote his conscience like anyone else. But when a leader starts presenting government policy as God’s will, we’re somewhere else entirely. After Republicans passed Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill,” Johnson said he’d been on his knees praying every day and called its passage God’s will and God’s plan. Think about that coming from the Speaker of the House. That’s not a sermon — it’s legislation governing hundreds of millions of Americans, Christian and Jewish and Muslim and atheist alike, and one of the most powerful officials in the country is framing his party’s win as the will of God. Huffman notes Johnson also moved the Congressional Prayer Breakfast into Statuary Hall and launched a National Gathering for Prayer and Repentance at the Museum of the Bible, where lawmakers gathered to repent for what they called national sins, abortion among them. Any one of these you can wave off. A prayer breakfast, who cares. A politician thanking God, they’ve done that forever. Huffman’s point is that you have to look at all of it together — and when you do, the wall between church and state starts looking a lot less solid. There’s one more piece I can’t let go of: January 6th. I was there on those steps. And Christian imagery was all over parts of that crowd — flags, crosses, prayer. Huffman says the January 6th Committee actually considered addressing the role Christian nationalism played in the radicalization around the attack, and that Adam Kinzinger believed there was a responsible way to tell that story while making crystal clear the committee wasn’t attacking Christianity. But Huffman says the material got cut from the final report — he believes Liz Cheney worried it would let Fox News paint the committee as anti-Christian. Cheney didn’t respond to The New York Times about the claim, so take it as his account. But it points to a real Democratic problem: they’re so afraid of sounding anti-Christian that they’ve managed to make religious and nonreligious Americans feel unwelcome at once. Here’s what people miss. Separation of church and state isn’t hostile to Christianity — it protects it. If you’re Catholic, it shields you from a government run by Protestants. If you’re Protestant, from one run by Catholics. If you’re Jewish or Muslim or Hindu, from a majority deciding your faith counts less. And if you don’t believe at all, it covers you too. Nobody has to win. The government doesn’t get to rule on whose God is right. Because the day you hand government the power to impose religious doctrine, you’d better be dead certain the people running it will always believe exactly what you believe. Someday they won’t. That’s why I don’t care whether Mike Johnson prays. I care whether he thinks his convictions hand him a mandate to use the United States government to impose them on the rest of us. Those are very different things — and you can say so without insulting the millions of Christians who believe just as hard in religious freedom. This isn’t believers versus nonbelievers. It’s religious freedom versus religious power. You have the right to worship God, to worship differently, or to worship no one. The moment the government starts telling Americans which of those is correct, we haven’t protected religious freedom. We’ve destroyed it. 🟧 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!

  8. Aug 12

    The Conservative Plan to End Birthright Citizenship Is a 50-Year Project. They Just Told Us So.

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com Here’s a phrase I want you to stop trusting: settled law. Americans got told for two generations that Roe v. Wade was settled. Untouchable. Precedent stacked on precedent. And then one day it wasn’t — because a movement spent fifty years quietly building the lawyers, the judges, the scholarship, and the Supreme Court seats required to unsettle it. They didn’t win an argument. They changed what an argument even was. I’m bringing that up because the exact same machine just turned to face the Fourteenth Amendment. And the people running it are not being subtle about it. Start with the loss, because it’s the part everyone misreads In June, Donald Trump lost on birthright citizenship. Not to a protester, not to some district judge he could rage-post about for a week. He lost at the Supreme Court — six of whose nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents, three of them by Trump himself. The Court’s answer was about as clean as these things get: if you’re born in the United States, with a few narrow historical exceptions, you’re a citizen. That’s what the Constitution says. Trump tried to erase it with an executive order. The Court told him no. For a normal president, that’s the end of the story. You lost at the highest court in the land, on your home turf, with your own appointees on the bench. You move on. That is not what happened. And the reason why is the actual story here — bigger than one executive order, bigger than Trump. The tell is that they’re bragging about the timeline A few weeks after the ruling, conservative lawyers, former Trump officials, and immigration activists gathered near Capitol Hill — people tied to America First Legal, the Heritage Foundation, state attorneys general offices — to map out what comes next. Per POLITICO, one of the voices in the room belonged to John Eastman. Yes, that Eastman — the lawyer who helped engineer the scheme to overturn the 2020 election, and who’s also spent decades arguing that everyone’s understanding of birthright citizenship is wrong. And Eastman didn’t treat the Supreme Court loss as a loss. He called it a win — because the argument is now mainstream. It’s being debated. It’s on the table. Sit with that, because it’s the whole playbook in one sentence. You don’t begin by winning. You begin by making something that was settled feel debatable. Then you write the law-review articles. You hold the conferences. You draft the model legislation. You teach it to law students until a generation of young lawyers grows up believing there’s a live controversy here. You start asking judicial nominees where they stand. And you wait. Do that long enough and a fringe theory hardens into “one side of a legitimate constitutional debate.” That is precisely the road Roe traveled, in reverse. Mike Davis, who runs the Trump-aligned Article III Project, said the quiet part into a microphone: the Court just turned birthright citizenship into the next Roe — a fight conservatives might spend the next fifty years winning. His stated goal, in his own words: “We need nine Alitos on the Supreme Court.” That’s not a conspiracy theory I’m assembling from scraps. That’s them handing out the blueprint. While the long game gets organized, Trump is picking at the locks The outside-the-White-House campaign is the marathon. Inside the White House, Trump is running the sprint — testing what he can get away with right now. Five weeks after losing, he signed two new executive orders. One goes after so-called “birth tourism” — people the administration says travel here specifically to give birth so their child is a citizen. The others try to carve citizenship away from narrower groups: certain foreign-government personnel, and people the government labels “alien enemies.” Here’s the thing that tells you it’s strategy, not policy: a lot of it isn’t even new. The New York Times reported that a Homeland Security official admitted part of the birth-tourism order changes essentially nothing operationally, because existing law already covers fraud and misrepresentation. So why sign it? Because the goal isn’t the order. The goal is the edges. The Court slammed the front door — you can’t strip citizenship from a kid just because the parents are undocumented or here temporarily. So the administration is now rattling every side door and window, looking for a narrower category where a judge might decide presidential power over immigration gives it more room. And every attempt manufactures a fresh lawsuit, a fresh ruling, a fresh shot at getting some version of this back in front of the justices someday. That’s not flailing. That’s how you keep a “settled” question permanently pried open. Why the June ruling was stronger than the headline number The vote was 6-3, but the guts matter more than the tally. Five justices — including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joining the three liberals — grounded their answer in the Constitution itself: the Fourteenth Amendment protects birthright citizenship for children born here to undocumented immigrants and temporary residents. That’s a constitutional floor. Justice Brett Kavanaugh made the sixth vote against Trump, but on narrower ground — he leaned on federal statute, and pointedly left the door open to Congress changing that law down the line. So the movement didn’t read a 6-3 defeat and shrug. They read the opinions and started cataloging every opening: Congress. Different executive theories. Different categories of people. Future judges. Future justices. And, eventually, a head-on run at the constitutional interpretation itself. When you’re playing a fifty-year game, a loss is just a map of where the walls are. “The babies of slaves” — and the calendar problem Trump keeps describing the Citizenship Clause like somebody scribbled it in the margins right after Appomattox for one tiny purpose that no longer applies. At the White House, he said it was meant for “the babies of slaves.” There’s a small problem: the arithmetic. The Civil War ended in 1865. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. And more importantly, the men who wrote it didn’t write what Trump wishes they’d written. Yes, undoing slavery and the monstrous Dred Scott decision was the beating heart of the clause. But the words Congress actually chose weren’t “the children of the formerly enslaved.” They were: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” All persons. Not some. And in 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court applied exactly that — recognizing the citizenship of a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who weren’t citizens themselves. This isn’t a Biden-era invention or a liberal reading smuggled in last Tuesday. It’s been the law across the entire life of the country. So believe them Here’s what I’ll defend all day: these people are allowed to do this. They can publish, organize, lobby Congress, push constitutional amendments, and campaign for judges who share their view. That’s the system working. Nobody should want it any other way. But the rest of us are allowed to see it clearly — and to refuse the one thing they’re counting on, which is that we’ll file this under “Trump lost, moving on.” He didn’t move on. He signed two more orders five weeks later. His allies are building lawyers, targeting law schools, floating litmus tests for judges, drafting legislation, and openly modeling the whole thing on the decades-long campaign that ended Roe. This was never a four-year project. It may not even really be a Trump project — he won’t be here in fifty years, and neither will most of the people in that room. That’s the point. They’re building institutions designed to outlive every one of them, aimed at a single goal: changing who gets to count as an American. The Supreme Court told this president the Constitution doesn’t mean what he wants it to mean. For almost anyone else, that’s the last page. For this movement, it was the first. 🟧 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!

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
43 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

You Might Also Like