The Michael Fanone Show

Michael Fanone
  • 0.0 (0)
  • 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. 7 HR AGO

    Top U.S. Officials Are Getting Subpoenaed — and That’s Not Even the Story

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com Most people saw the headline: James Comey got subpoenaed. But that’s not the part that should make your stomach drop. Because this isn’t one subpoena. It’s not even a handful. Reporting says the Justice Department has issued more than 130 subpoenas in this sprawling “grand conspiracy” probe aimed at former FBI/CIA leadership and other officials tied to the Russia investigation and later Trump-related cases. That number matters. Not because subpoenas are automatically evil. They’re not. Subpoenas are tools. Powerful ones. They compel testimony, force document production, and drag people into a legal process whether they like it or not. In real investigations, you use them to follow evidence. You start wide, you find the real threads, and then you narrow. That narrowing is how you get to something prosecutable. It’s how you avoid turning an investigation into punishment by process. What’s happening here doesn’t look like narrowing. It looks like expansion. And expansion matters when the underlying premise has already been examined, litigated, and publicly picked over for years — including a special counsel investigation that did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia. So when DOJ devotes this level of federal power — time, manpower, grand jury process, subpoenas stacking up like cordwood — to resurrect a narrative Trump has used for years to frame his enemies as “deep state,” you don’t have to be a lawyer to recognize the shape of it. At this scale, the subpoenas become the punishment. Every recipient has to lawyer up, respond, preserve records, sit for testimony, re-live old fights, and get shoved back into the public arena. That’s money. That’s stress. That’s reputational damage. And it happens whether charges ever come. Here’s the standard I learned in law enforcement: you don’t build a case around a conclusion. You build it around evidence. If the evidence doesn’t support the theory, you reassess. You narrow. Or you close it. If you don’t do that — if the scope keeps growing without a corresponding public showing of new, credible evidence — then what’s driving the investigation isn’t proof. It’s pursuit. And that’s the real danger. Not because Comey deserves sympathy. Not because former officials are above scrutiny. But because once you normalize federal investigative power being used this way — as a rolling re-litigation machine aimed at a political narrative — the boundary doesn’t stop with ex-directors. It moves outward. To anyone who worked a case. Signed a warrant. Wrote an assessment. Testified honestly. Or simply became inconvenient. That’s how institutions get repurposed: not with one dramatic order, but with a sustained message that dissent has a cost — and the cost comes with a subpoena attached. If you want me tracking this with receipts — who’s getting pulled in, what the theory actually is, and how it’s being used — become a paid subscriber. That’s how we keep doing this work without a corporate leash. 🟧 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. 12 HR AGO

    FBI Agents Fired for Investigating Trump — Now They’re Suing

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com Two FBI agents with decades in the Bureau — clean records, awards, strong performance reviews — say they were fired for doing their jobs. Not for misconduct. Not for incompetence. For being connected to the investigation into Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. So they’re suing the federal government. According to the Associated Press, the agents filed a federal lawsuit arguing their terminations had nothing to do with performance and everything to do with politics — that they were pushed out because they were perceived as the “wrong people” to have worked a Trump-related case. The lawsuit identifies them as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, and ties the dispute to the FBI’s election-overturn probe, “Arctic Frost.” This isn’t just a workplace grievance. It’s a warning sign. Because institutions like the FBI don’t run on policy memos alone. They run on norms — what agents believe will happen to them if they follow the evidence into the wrong room. If the belief is “do your job and the system will back you,” you get one kind of law enforcement. If the belief shifts to “do your job, but understand it may cost you depending on who it affects,” you get something else entirely. And you don’t need a loud order to change behavior. You just need consequences people can see. What makes this case feel especially loaded is the sequence described in the reporting: work a politically sensitive case, become publicly visible, then lose your position during a broader shake-up. That sequence doesn’t have to be spelled out on official letterhead to change how every other agent in the building thinks about risk. People start reading the room instead of reading the law. They start asking a second question on every decision: “What happens to me if this goes where it looks like it’s going?” That’s how systems get captured without a single dramatic headline. Not with one big illegal command — but with incremental pressure that teaches professionals to self-censor. The public never sees the cases that never get opened, the leads that never get followed, the subpoenas that never get signed. You only see the final outcomes and you’re told that’s “just how it is.” If these agents are even partially right, this isn’t about two careers. It’s about whether the FBI is drifting toward a loyalty culture — where the evidence matters less than who it touches. And once that becomes the vibe, you don’t need overt control. The system adjusts on its own. That’s the nightmare scenario. Not a dictatorship overnight — a bureaucracy that learns to fear the wrong targets. If you want this show tracking the filings, the personnel shifts, and what it means when law enforcement starts behaving like politics is the real boss, become a paid subscriber. That support is how we stay independent and keep following the behavior. 🟧 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. 1 DAY AGO

    Trump’s “For Fun” Bombing Joke Isn’t a Joke to the Rest of the World

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com Trump just said the U.S. might hit Iran’s Kharg Island again—“just for fun.” That’s not a throwaway line. Not in that neighborhood. Not after U.S. strikes near Kharg Island, a key hub for Iran’s oil exports. And definitely not when Iran’s response involves the Strait of Hormuz—a choke point that handles roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil. When the President of the United States talks about bombing strategic energy infrastructure “for fun,” nobody in the region hears humor. They hear a signal. And markets, militaries, and allies react like it’s a signal—because it is. Kharg isn’t some random dot on a map. It’s the artery. Reuters has described it as the hub tied to the bulk of Iran’s oil exports, and U.S. strikes there immediately raise global supply fears. The Strait of Hormuz is the other half of the trap: narrow water, dense traffic, and one incident away from a global price spike. When that corridor gets threatened or effectively shut, seafarers get stranded, insurance rates jump, and oil becomes everybody’s problem—fast. So this isn’t “foreign policy drama.” It’s the kind of escalation where Americans feel it at the pump, allies feel it in their economies, and service members feel it first—because they’re the ones on ships and bases when retaliation starts. Leaders don’t get to treat war like a punchline. I’m not saying presidents can’t be blunt. I’m saying your tone is part of the weapon system. When you sound casual about escalation, everyone downrange hears it—including the people you’re putting at risk. And right now, that risk is very real: the Gulf is already unstable, shipping is disrupted, and even friendly governments are hesitating about how deep they want to get pulled into this. Trust is the fuel for coalitions. When the guy in charge sounds like he’s freelancing, that fuel runs out. This is how conflicts expand: not just with missiles, but with stupid rhetoric that tells the world the guardrails are gone. When Trump jokes about bombing “for fun,” it doesn’t stay a joke. It becomes a permission structure—for miscalculation, retaliation, and escalation that other people pay for. If you want me tracking the receipts—what’s being targeted, who’s being asked to join, what Congress is refusing to do, and what it means for Americans at home—become a paid subscriber. That’s how this stays independent and keeps showing up when the story is bigger than the soundbite. 🟧 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. 2 DAYS 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

  5. 2 DAYS 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

  6. 3 DAYS 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

  7. 12 MAR

    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

  8. 11 MAR

    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
See All (177)

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
    177
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © Michael Fanone
  • Show Website
    The Michael Fanone Show

You Might Also Like