Thank you for watching! In the face of unrelenting disinformation and authoritarian actions, clear truth-telling and independent media are a necessity. If you value pro-democracy journalism, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to my newsletter. Paid subscribers empower this work and gain access to exclusive benefits. Your support makes a difference.
In our latest Substack Live conversation, BBC & Sky News Contributor James Matthewson and I sifted through the muck to find the throughlines tying all the latest news together from the US to the UK.
We started with the UK fallout tied to the Epstein network, including the arrests of former Prince Andrew and former US Ambassador Peter Mandelson, and quickly got to the deeper issue. This is a story about corrupt systems, relationships, and elite protection structures that allowed powerful people to operate with impunity for years.
From there, we turned to Trump, including a newly surfaced allegation and the disturbing reality that even as serious claims continue to pile up, he remains protected by a political and media ecosystem built on normalization, denial, and shamelessness. James put it plainly, and I agreed: Shame no longer functions in public life the way it once did.
But this conversation was not just about outrage. It was about what comes next. We ended on something I think people really needed to hear: decency is not weakness, hate is the easy choice, and the path out of this era requires moral courage, accountability, and a deliberate rebuilding of culture, especially for young men.
You can watch our full conversation above and read key takeaways below.
The Epstein fallout is exposing a whole system, not just individuals
Our conversation made clear that the real story is the transnational network of power, access, status, and protection that enabled Epstein’s crimes and insulated people connected to them.
We discussed how the UK fallout involving ex-Prince Andrew and Peter Mandelson reflects a wider net of elite accountability.
I emphasized that these are not only sex trafficking related consequences. Authorities are also pursuing peripheral and adjacent misconduct, including alleged misuse of office and insider relationships.
We talked about the “shrapnel” effect of scandal, where not only central figures but also those involved in hiring, elevating, or protecting them come under scrutiny.
I framed it as the exposure of an “Epstein class,” a broader elite ecosystem that traded in introductions, access, ego, influence, and mutual protection.
James reinforced that frustration in the UK comes from the fact that many people believed the worst conduct was always the real issue, but accountability often arrives through narrower charges first.
Ex-Prince Andrew is not just a “bad apple.” This is a structural impunity.
James brought crucial UK context that sharpened the conversation. His point was not simply that Andrew is uniquely awful. It was that extreme privilege creates conditions where accountability is delayed or denied.
James described the split in UK public reaction:
People who already oppose the monarchy and see this as confirmation of systemic rot.
People who prefer to isolate Andrew as an individual aberration without questioning the structures around him.
He argued that Andrew’s position and status contributed to years of non-accountability, especially when serious claims and warnings were already circulating.
We discussed how public anger is also increasingly aimed at the institutions and intermediaries that empowered him, including those who approved or facilitated official roles.
James made the point that a prince born into immense privilege can operate with protections ordinary people do not have, and that this is exactly why the system itself must be part of the story.
We also discussed how parts of the royal apparatus appear to be reacting not out of principle, but out of institutional self-preservation.
Trump’s latest allegation and missing records fit the same pattern of elite protection
One of the most disturbing parts of the live was how naturally the conversation moved from UK elite protection to U.S. elite protection. Different institutions, same pattern.
I broke down the newly surfaced allegation against Trump that involved a woman who was reportedly interviewed multiple times by the FBI.
I highlighted what I found especially alarming: the reported absence of multiple interview records from a public document release and the lack of explanation for why those records were missing.
We discussed how, in any normal political environment, allegations of this severity, especially with this context, would dominate public life.
James stressed that Trump’s broader record and prior findings already make continued public minimization morally indefensible.
We both returned to the same core frustration: there is a clear pattern where elite figures are insulated by power, status, and partisan information ecosystems.
The State of the Union was not governance. It was rage bait and spectacle.
We spent a lot of time on this because it gets at something bigger than one speech. Trump continues to treat governance as reality TV, and too much of the system still responds as if this is normal politics.
James described watching the speech from the UK and reacting not as a partisan observer, but with genuine disgust at the theatricality and authoritarian aesthetics.
We talked about the props, the staged emotional beats, and the selective use of victims and stories to reinforce dehumanizing narratives.
James called it “rage bait,” and that was exactly right. The speech was designed to provoke, bait, and dominate attention, especially by turning toward Democrats and inviting reaction.
I argued Democrats should have had a unified strategy rather than fragmented responses, including the possibility of coordinated walkout or counter-programming centered on people harmed by Trump’s policies.
We both agreed that continuing to treat these moments as ordinary political theater helps normalize behavior that is far beyond the bounds of democratic leadership.
Trumpism made shamelessness politically profitable
This was one of the deepest parts of the conversation. We were not only talking about Trump as an individual, but about what he unlocked in the culture.
I said what I have argued for years: Trump gave people a permission structure to stop pretending to be decent.
He did not invent the rot. He identified it, exploited it, and made it electorally and socially rewarding.
James added an important point that many people will recognize from personal experience: the sentiments were already there in workplaces, family gatherings, and private conversations. Trump simply poured fuel on them.
We discussed how this changed the incentives inside the Republican Party, where figures who once pretended to have principles abandoned them once shamelessness proved profitable.
I also noted that this era exposed not just bad character, but good character too. Some people walked away, spoke up, or held their line. That matters.
The answer is not nihilism. It is moral leadership, decency, and courage.
We did not want this conversation to end in despair. The most powerful part of the live was the shared insistence that decency is not weakness.
James said something essential: hate is easy. Dignity, restraint, values, and nuance are harder, and that is exactly why they matter.
We talked about the need to rebuild a moral permission structure in public life, one that makes decency feel strong again, not passive.
I argued that people are already resisting simply by refusing to surrender their values in a culture that rewards cruelty and shamelessness.
We both emphasized that this era will pass, and that authoritarian politics have never been permanent.
I also stressed that these moments can become refounding moments if people stay clear-eyed, organized, and morally grounded.
Young men are a central front in this fight
This was one of the most human and important turns in the conversation. We talked directly about what boys and young men are being fed online and what alternative we need to model.
James said he is deeply worried about young men being led into anger, grievance, and misogyny by toxic online figures.
He made a powerful point that strength is not domination, and that empathy, love, and emotional maturity are not weakness.
We talked about how algorithmic rabbit holes now push young men toward dehumanization and performative cruelty instead of confidence, growth, and real connection.
I said plainly that young men need to hear this: being a good person is not a liability. It is the foundation.
We ended by emphasizing the role conversations like this can play in showing a different path, one rooted in decency, self-respect, and how you treat other human beings.
Bottom Line
This conversation was about more than a scandal. It was about the systems that protect the powerful, the culture that stopped punishing shamelessness, and the work required to rebuild a society where dignity, truth, and accountability actually matter.
The good news is this: people are not powerless. The resistance to this era is not only electoral. It is moral. It lives in how people think, speak, organize, raise their kids, and refuse to surrender their humanity.
That is how this ends. Not with better messaging alone, but with stronger values, lived out consistently and without apology.
If you watched the Live, thank you! If not, appreciate you catching it here. Feel free to leave a comment if you have questions.
And if you haven’t yet, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Independent journalism only works if we build it together.
