"UNCONVENTIONAL CHOICES"

90 days ago, I wrote this piece: If these unconventional choices succeed, they will alter how politics is conducted in the United States. If they fail, we, the American people, are in BIG trouble!

Today, we find ourselves in the midst of a new and unsettling reality. For many, It’s been a hard pill to swallow, but Donald J. Trump has once again defied the odds, and perhaps reality itself, to reclaim the White House. The 2024 election, like everything else in his orbit, was a chaotic storm of misinformation, incendiary rhetoric, and deeply entrenched divisions. Now, with just 50 days until his second inauguration, America is bracing itself for what many fear will be a presidency that doubles down on his most dangerous tendencies.

The road ahead feels fraught with peril. Trump’s Cabinet and administration picks—steeped in MAGA loyalty rather than competence—hint at an agenda designed not to unite, but to conquer. We’ve already seen names like Stephen Miller and Kash Patel floated for key roles, signaling the return of extreme immigration policies and an all-out assault on federal institutions. For young Americans, the future feels especially precarious. From threats to reproductive rights and climate policies to regressive stances on education and healthcare, Trump’s vision appears to offer little for the generations who will have to live with the long-term consequences of his decisions.

But here’s the thing: the fight isn’t over. If anything, it’s just beginning. The resistance to Trump’s agenda didn’t vanish with the election loss of Kamala Harris. In fact, it’s stronger than ever. Across the country, protests are igniting, communities are organizing, and activists—particularly young activists—are refusing to let despair win. Gen Z and millennials, who overwhelmingly rejected Trump at the polls, are proving that their voice matters, even when the system feels rigged against them.

Today’s political landscape is one of deep uncertainty. Trump’s policies are poised to undo years of progress, from withdrawing the U.S. from key international agreements to ramping up his “law and order” agenda in ways that could disproportionately harm marginalized communities. His promises of economic prosperity ring hollow when examined through the lens of tax cuts for the wealthy and tariffs that could cripple working-class families. And his rhetoric—dangerous, divisive, and often delusional—continues to stoke the flames of extremism.

Amid this chaos, one bright spot remains: the resilience of younger generations. These are the people who took to the streets after George Floyd’s murder, who marched for their lives in the wake of mass shootings, and who campaigned tirelessly to defend reproductive rights. They are armed not with the cynicism of older generations but with a fierce belief that change is not only possible but necessary.

This is where our guest today comes in. Joining me is

Harry Sisson

, a leading voice for Gen Z in the political arena and one of the most influential young commentators of our time. Harry, a 21-year-old activist and social media powerhouse, is known for his sharp, incisive political commentary on platforms like TikTok, where he has amassed over 1 million followers. He is a tireless advocate for progressive causes, from gun control to climate change, and a fierce critic of the Trump agenda. Harry uses his platform to educate, inspire, and mobilize young voters, offering a perspective that bridges the gap between online activism and real-world impact.

Today, we’ll discuss the questions weighing on so many minds: What does Trump’s return to power mean for America’s future? How can young voters and activists prepare for the battles ahead? And most importantly, how do we hold this administration accountable when the odds feel stacked against us?

So, let’s go now to that conversation.

And now for today's Mea Culpa:

Donald Trump’s second-term Cabinet picks, rumored to include billionaires, industry titans, and political outsiders, have sparked both outrage and intrigue. Critics argue that these appointments prioritize loyalty and wealth over competence and experience. Yet, if these unconventional choices succeed, they could profoundly alter how politics is viewed and conducted in the United States, potentially marking a seismic shift in governance.

Historically, Washington, D.C., has operated on a system of career politicians, civil servants, and bureaucrats entrenched in tradition. This approach has created stability but also entrenched inefficiencies and a culture of incrementalism. Trump’s apparent gamble is to sideline the so-called “swamp” and place decision-making power in the hands of those who have achieved success outside of government. By relying on billionaires and kingpins who are accustomed to managing vast organizations and balancing high-stakes risks, Trump could reframe the narrative of who is fit to govern.

Imagine, for example, a Treasury Secretary who has spent decades leading multinational corporations, negotiating complex global deals, and driving economic growth. Such a figure might approach fiscal policy with a pragmatism that prioritizes results over politics, potentially driving job creation, innovation, and a revitalized economy. A Secretary of Education drawn from the tech sector might bring a fresh perspective on integrating technology into classrooms, addressing the digital divide, and preparing students for the workforce of tomorrow.

The hallmark of this strategy would be efficiency and results-oriented governance. Billionaires and industry leaders are, by necessity, problem-solvers and innovators. Their appointment to high government positions might cut through bureaucratic inertia, allowing for swift decision-making and the implementation of transformative policies. Trump could argue that this model exposes the inefficiency and self-serving nature of career politicians, proving that governance benefits from an infusion of real-world expertise.

If successful, this approach could dismantle the long-held notion that political experience is essential for public service. It could foster a new era in which public officials are judged less on their résumés and more on their ability to deliver measurable results. This might encourage more private-sector leaders, scientists, and academics to enter public service, broadening the talent pool and fostering innovation.

However, such a shift would not be without risks. Skeptics argue that billionaires and industry leaders often lack the empathy and public accountability needed for governance. Critics also question whether these appointments prioritize corporate interests over public welfare. Yet, if Trump’s experiment succeeds, it might force a reevaluation of Washington’s long-held practices, exposing weaknesses in a 250-year-old political system.

In this scenario, Trump would not only secure his legacy but also redefine how Americans think about governance. Whether this change is a lasting improvement, or a fleeting anomaly would depend on the outcomes his administration delivers. If the strategy works, Trump’s unorthodox approach could rewrite the rules of politics and governance for generations to come.

And as always, thanks for listening