A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR

The AI for problem solvers

When you're tracking the real story behind the headlines—connecting dots across policy and personalities—Claude helps you understand the patterns that matter.

Anthropic built Claude on a simple principle: AI should be a force for human progress. That means creating an AI system that's straightforward to use—a partner to help you think through complexity rather than racing past it. No quick takes, no surface-level analysis. Just deeper thinking.

With every update, Claude gets smarter, more useful, and more balanced. Try Claude for free and see why problem solvers and independent thinkers around the world are choosing Claude.

Learn more

During the 364 rotations of the Earth between Election Day 2024 and Election Day 2025—as Democrats desperately sought cures to the ailments that led to their systematic drubbing by Donald Trump and his MAGA-fied G.O.P.—few of the party’s elected representatives found themselves on the receiving end of more beseeching phone calls than second-term New York congressman Pat Ryan.

A 43-year-old West Point grad who’d served two tours of combat duty in Iraq, Ryan had run for reelection in NY-18, one of the deepest purple frontline swing districts in the country. In 2022, Ryan had won his seat with just 50.67 percent of the vote; heading into the reelect, everyone agreed, the race was going to be a squeaker. But by waging a heterodox campaign—one that fused pissed-off populism and a prescient focus on affordability with earnest appeals to patriotism, a metric ton of testosterone, and a willingness to embrace both his party’s moderate and progressive wings (stumping alongside Kathy Hochul one day and A.O.C. the next), while being willing to break with its leadership (running ads criticizing Joe Biden’s border policy)—Ryan delivered a blowout: crushing his opponent by 14 points and outperforming Kamala Harris by 11 in the district.

A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR

In the wake of November 4, as some Team Blue voices began suggesting that their party’s existential crisis was done and dusted, I wrangled Ryan for my Impolitic podcast to run that line of thinking by him. Not surprisingly, his reaction was that it smacked of a complacency—not just ill-founded, but insidious. Ryan also had plenty to say about the lessons his party should take from the off-year elections, including with respect to Zohran Mamdani; how the defections of Lauren Boebert and M.T.G. over the Epstein files portend fractures in Trump’s coalition; and the moment of truth that’s coming for senior military leaders as they face the prospect of obeying the law or their commander-in-chief. As always, this excerpt has been condensed for length and edited for clarity, but you can hear the whole megillah here.

John Heilemann: However the drama over the Epstein files plays out, the fact that M.T.G., Lauren Boebert, and other hardcore MAGA Republicans defied Trump—and that as many as 40 or 50 Republicans planned to join them—feels like a sign that something is shifting. And it’s not just about the Epstein files, but about Trump’s weakness in the aftermath of the thumping that the G.O.P. took a couple Tuesdays ago.

Pat Ryan: There are a bunch of clear points here. There’s the Epstein stuff. There’s the overreach on the military side, where the guy who ran as an antiwar president—which was always bullshit—is now threatening to invade multiple countries. There’s the tariff stuff, which has driven a huge wedge with the other side of his coalition. And I would love to see us drive those wedges. Let’s show that there is a lot of disagreement here. We certainly saw that in the elections, but it’s been simmering beneath the surface for a while.

There’s this notion taking hold—as Republicans internalize the fact that Trump isn’t going to be on the ballot again in 2026 or 2028, and that his interests and theirs are not aligned—that he’s entering his lame duck era. How important is it for Democrats to stay on the Epstein issue to hasten Trump’s lame duckification?

I don’t think he’s a lame duck yet; he’s just starting to get there. Democrats need to keep it in the context that the number one, two, and three issues for people are housing, food, and healthcare costs. But [the Epstein files] get to the heart of a fundamental breach of trust. I hear from Trump voters in my district that they are very personally twisted in knots about this. And I think that’s an important point for us to keep driving the issue. It’s one of the first times we’ve seen him actually get held to account. All the other times he’s lied, he hasn’t been held to account for whatever reason, but he finally is, so let’s absolutely hammer him every frickin’ day on this.

Based on what you were hearing from voters in the lead-up to this year’s elections, did you think they would be such a sweeping repudiation for Trump and the G.O.P.?

I knew it was going to be significant. It even exceeded my expectations. We were hearing two things, both of which are important: People [are] really seeing, and feeling, and not liking the overreach of Trump on a bunch of things. I had Trump voters who voted for me talk about the ICE overreach, specifically, and troops being sent to cities as unconstitutional. So he’s overreaching, going far beyond what anybody expected—even though they freaking wrote it all down in Project 2025. And then him not delivering on the economic stuff. That one-two combo is so potent. What I sensed when I was out knocking on doors with local candidates was a different vibe from people. It was a quiet resolve—like, Even if I’m not happy with the Democratic Party, I’m gonna vote and send a message here.

You’re someone who’s been comfortable campaigning with Kathy Hochul while also campaigning with A.O.C. and being for Mamdani. People often call you a moderate, but that’s clearly too simplistic. Talk to me about your theory of the necessity of building broad coalitions in the Democratic Party.

Earlier this year, when there was an opening in the Oversight Committee, A.O.C. was putting her name in for it, and I was excited. I was one of her nominators, and people were like, Wait, I thought you were a frontline moderate. And I said in my remarks, Do I agree with her on every single thing? No. But she is a fighter. To me, the axis right now is, are you legit gonna fight? Whether that’s against your own party sometimes, whether that’s against corporate interests, whether it’s against Trump—are you on the side of the people? I know that sounds cliché, but people really sense that.

So in the final week or two of my campaign last year, I had both Governor Hochul and A.O.C. come, and people were like, Wait, what are you doing? I’m like, this is how you build a broad coalition. Where we agree, we talk about it and focus on it. And you have to be willing to say, I don’t agree with that person on everything, but we’re going to work on the areas that matter. And getting back to Mamdani—the energy that he’s brought hasn’t happened since I’ve been in politics. So how could we, and why would we, ignore that?

We’re already hearing some Democrats heave a big sigh of relief in the wake of November 4—like, phew, the existential crisis is over; everything with the party is hunky-dory; forget all this talk about the need for fundamental reform. What do you make of talk like that?

Yeah, I’ve started to hear that from the status quo forces, but that’s incredibly dangerous thinking. Because it’s easy, and then we don’t have to do the hard reflection. What I heard from folks leading up to this race is they’re very unhappy with the Trump overreach and the failure on economics, and are open to a real alternative. But they’re not feeling it from Democrats at a national level.

Mikie [Sherrill] and Abigail [Spanberger], two of my closest buds from Congress, did an amazing job of giving voters something to be for. But I also get concerned about people throwing this word “affordability” around all the time—that’s the classic D.C. consultification thing. I’m like, guys, don’t use that word. We’ve got to be specific and local and visceral, and talk about people’s rent and healthcare costs and food at the grocery store. If we start throwing around “affordability,” people are going to be like, What are you talking about? That is what people are concerned about, but it can’t feel like it’s the poll-tested bullshit as usual.

Trump keeps talking about sending in the military to American cities, insisting he can use troops from the “Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines,” whoever he wants, wherever he wants, if he deems it necessary, and nobody can stop him. What do you make of that?

Of all the harmful, dangerous things [Trump has talked about doing], this is by far the most dangerous. If the military becomes loyal to him and not the Constitution, we are in existential trouble—and that’s what he’s trying to do. The idea of U.S. troops against U.S. citizens in American cities is just as un-American as you can possibly be. That is not what a single soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine joined to do; it’s the opposite of what they joined to do.

The senior generals are very aware of this, but they’re in an impossible and uncomfortable position. They don’t quite know how to respond. And so [veterans] have to speak out on this. We have to remind and reassert to the broader American public that this is not normal, it’s not constitutional, it’s un-American. This has been a major mission of mine. There’s so much happening, but if he gets control of the military in this way, there’s no way out of that. That’ll take decades to fix, if we even can.

There’s a prevailing view that Trump’s endgame in deploying the military on domestic soil has something to do with messing with the elections in 2026 and 2028. Is that what you think?

I do. And a year ago, I wasn’t sure. But I don’t think you could objectively look at the facts and see anything different at this point. I also think there’s a battle—that even if the military holds the line and remains apolitical, this is why he’s ramping up ICE. That’s sort of his contingency plan of loyalists that they’re literally bribing with these bonuses and everything else.

What is it that holds senior military personnel back from making public comments about all this? And do you think we’ll see, at any point, some generals stepping forward and saying, Enough—he’s crossed the line?

The way they went at Mark Milley was intentional—taking down his portrait, taking away his security detail, threatening his life, threatening his reputation, threatening all kinds of things. It was intended to have this chilling effect. That’s number one. Number two, we train our military officers to be apolitical, and now they’re being put in a situation where it’s so political, and it’s almost like going into a foreign land with a foreign language. So I know everybody’s wrestling with that. I do think we’re building to a moment where someone’s going to have to say something publicly soon, God willing.

The Democratic Party and our leadership has to get more aggressive in saying there will be consequences for the people who enable this traitorous behavior. Military officers take an oath to follow all lawful orders. If you know an order to not be lawful, or even if you believe it’s not ethical, you have an obligation—not just a right, but an obligation—not to follow that order. We are in or very near that point.

Right now, if you’re a patriot, serving in uniform, and you’re a senior leader, in particular, you’ve got to be thinking about what the line is where, when it’s crossed, you not only resign, but actually speak out. Because if we don’t, all the things that they served their whole careers to defend—and all the things I served 27 months in combat for—are at risk. Being a patriot right now in this country means being more political than you ever thought you’d have to be. That’s just the reality.

Need help? Review our FAQ page or contact us for assistance. For brand partnerships, email ads@puck.news.

You received this email because you signed up to receive emails from Puck, or as part of your Puck account associated with {{customer.email}}. To stop receiving this newsletter and/or manage all your email preferences, click here.

Puck is published by Heat Media LLC. 107 Greenwich St., New York, NY 10006