Someone in the White House Is Leaking Dirt on JD Vance (w/ Bill Kristol) | Bulwark Podcast

This episode is not a traditional market show, but it does contain several geopolitically relevant themes that affect energy, defense, sanctions, and macro risk. The longest discussion centers on Iran. Miller argues that despite weekend headlines about a possible deal, “it does seem like we are quite a ways away from a deal,” while Kristol says the market may be too complacent because the trade route remains “closed or 90% closed” and that pressure on energy prices, shortages, and fertilizer should keep building. They both think Trump wants a face-saving agreement, but they also note that Iranian and U.S. messaging has hardened again, making renewed conflict or prolonged disruption plausible. …

1. The most immediate macro issue discussed is Iran: the hosts think a deal is still possible, but the market is underpricing the risk of prolonged disruption or renewed conflict.
2. Oil and energy shortages are a real near-term risk if the trade route stays constrained; they think complacency is high relative to the damage already done.
3. Trump’s political behavior is increasingly treated as an institutional risk, especially around courts, elections, and federal power over red states.
4. U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine may be sacrificing military-tech cooperation for Trump’s political alignment with Putin and anti-Zelensky sentiment.
5. The White House leak atmosphere suggests Trump does not fully trust JD Vance as successor, which matters for internal power and policy continuity.
6. The Maine Senate fight is treated as a control-of-the-Senate question more than a purity test, with Platner vs. Collins as a governance choice.
7. Trump’s America 250 plans are framed as an attempt to personalize and politicize national symbolism, but local celebrations could blunt that effect.

• The hosts disagree somewhat on how likely a Trump-Iran deal still is: Miller thinks a deal remains the likeliest end state, while Kristol sounds more skeptical about how much damage has already accumulated.
• They differ in emphasis on the Platner race: Miller is more willing to defend Platner politically and morally, while Kristol is more focused on the risk of a damaging Senate nominee and the possibility of withdrawal if more emerges.
• Miller is somewhat more optimistic that local July 4th celebrations can neutralize Trump’s America 250 hijacking, while Kristol is more focused on the corruption of the national event itself.
• There is mild uncertainty about the internal White House leak narrative and whether it reflects Vance weakness, alternative succession options, or simply general dysfunction.