We’ve done two live editions of our podcast (The Josh Marshall Podcast Featuring Kate Riga) so far this year, one in DC in January and then a second in Chicago in May. And now we’re bringing the show to New York City on Nov. 6. If you’d like to see Kate and me live in person for the recording of the podcast, along with a Q&A and open bar happy hour to follow (get me drunk, I’m more fun), you can buy tickets now. Just click here.

If you’re not in New York we’re planning to come to the West Coast soon and … well, even other parts of the country that aren’t DC, Chicago, New York or Seattle. Also, don’t @ me. I’m from St Louis.

We can’t wait to see you. Get your tickets here.

Kate and Josh take stock on day one of the government shutdown.

On Monday I saw a bunch of people on Bluesky mentioning and praising this essay by Andrea Pitzer. It’s quite good. I recommend reading it. It’s about the recent podcast discussion between Ezra Klein and Ta-Nehisi Coates. And that conversation turns a lot on the much-derided column Klein wrote about Charlie Kirk and how “Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way.”

Regular readers know that I have a number of enduring disagreements with Klein. They’re actually more and less than disagreements. They’re more like dispositional disagreements. Pitzer says up front that a lot of people are dumping on Klein now and she’s not trying to do that or at least not add to that. (And I second that for what I write below.) What she sets out to do is explain why she thinks Klein is “lost” in the present moment (a point Klein actually agrees with) and, secondarily, why Coates, whether you agree with him specifically, is not. Again, it’s worth reading Pitzer in her own lucid words rather than just my synopsis. But I would summarize it thus: Pitzer says that Klein has something called “bright-kid syndrome,” by which she means the idea that a smart and hyper-educated young(ish) person like Klein can and should come up with a prescription or fix to the ills he sees in front of him. It’s not quite like the “one weird trick” of memeland. But it’s kind of like that, inasmuch as it rests on the assumption that the intractable and overwhelming can actually be solved if you think about it hard enough, if you have enough cleverness and ingenuity.

I can’t go into too much detail without revealing my sources. But I wanted to share that I’ve heard from sources in multiple departments and agencies that the groundwork you’d expect to see in advance of wholesale firings — as promised by Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought — simply are not happening: lists for who gets fired and who doesn’t, the reduction in force paperwork, etc. Those things aren’t happening. At least not in the places where the people I’ve spoken to work. At least not yet.

Of course we’re one day in. MAGA isn’t known for good order and process. So it might change. But it is an early signal, by no means definitive, that Vought’s threat of a DOGE 2.0/large-scale firings is one they’re hesitant to carry out … In this Times newsletter, Jess Bidgood relays Karoline Leavitt’s threat that the layoffs are “imminent” and Vought is cueing them up. Trump holds all the power, she continues. “The question is merely how far [Trump] wants to go.” But again, under the hood, in the boiler rooms of personnel policy rather than official statements, it looks different.

I write fluidly across different venues. Here, on social media, in emails with readers … and I sometimes lose track of where I’ve said what. So I wanted to agree with something TPM Reader XX1 says in this email I flagged. I’m skeptical the White House will follow through on their threats to carry out a new wholesale round of firings, as Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought is threatening. I’m not saying they won’t. They totally might. So this isn’t something I’m relying on or telling you to rely on. I’m just skeptical for two reasons. The first is that this White House doesn’t need a shut down to fire people. Despite the law-breaking it entails, they’ve made clear that, with the Supreme Court’s assistance, they can fire as many people as they want. If they thought it helped them to fire more people, they’d be doing that already; the shutdown provides zero new legal power to fire anyone.

“Want” is the key word here.

From a federal employee. TPM Reader XX1, initials anonymized and portion of letter which notes government agency removed for obvious reasons …

I’m writing here to concur with your last couple blog posts on the shutdown.  You put into prose accurately what I’ve been trying to get across to so many local political allies who overthink irrelevant minutia.  They focus on the timing of the fight, on the details of the substance, etc.  None of that matters, as has been apparent to me all along.  This is, in fact, an arm-wrestling match, purely a battle over power.  The Democrats’ goal should be to extract a material concession that resonates to the broad masses as a “public good,” and they are doing that with ACA subsidies.  Successfully extracting  a concession is a material victory that slightly restores just a little bit of balance of power, and blocks Trump’s effort at totalitarian control. 

Early this afternoon, multiple federal departments and agencies sent out an email to employees blaming the impending shutdown on the Democrats. I didn’t see one from every department and agency. (I saw with my own eyes the versions at Health and Human Services, the Social Security Administration, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Justice and the National Science Foundation. TPM’s Emine Yücel separately saw one from the Department of Commerce.) I saw enough to see that they were going out government-wide. They were all identical. So, unsurprisingly, they were produced at the White House or possibly the General Services Administration. It was a top-down decision. “Unfortunately,” it says, “Democrats are blocking this Continuing Resolution in the Senate due to unrelated policy demands.” The website of the Department of Housing and Urban Development currently has a pop-up message claiming that the “radical left are going to shut down the government and inflict massive pain on the American people …” This is hardly surprising. Legalities mean nothing to the Trump administration. So following the Hatch Act would almost be quaint.

Meanwhile, as you’ve likely seen, at the much-anticipated convocation of general officers at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Hegseth encouraged generals and admirals who don’t agree with Trump administration policy to resign. In his speech, President Trump announced that he wants to make American cities the “training ground” for the U.S. military.

We’ve had a lot of you asking if you can buy tickets for one night of our anniversary event in early November. We know a two-night commitment is a lot. So as of this morning, we’ve put those individual tickets on sale too. If you’re a member there’s an email in your inbox with a link to buy tickets for either Thursday (the big show, live podcast, etc) or the party Friday night. Or you can just click the links here. We can’t wait to see you.

There’s now a flurry of statements from GOP congressional leadership essentially saying, Democrats need to do the right thing, act responsibly. The White House is claiming it’s about ACA for “illegals.” If anything this tends to confirm the folly of all these intricate and baroque arguments about how to win or argue or whatever else about a shutdown confrontation, whether you state explicit policy demands, or don’t state them or use subordinate clauses or the passive voice.

This is a brief update on the New York City mayoral election. There’s not a lot of good reason why this should be big news or a big story outside of the tristate area. But since politically obsessed people are pretty obsessed with it, I wanted to discuss a couple specific points about Mayor Eric Adams’ announcement that he’s leaving the race.