The Secret pod is out! Sarah and I sat down together—IRL!—to talk about trans women and sports. The show is here.

Chuck Schumer’s negotiation with President Trump seems to have gone like this:

Trump: We can’t pass the CR because we’re bad at governing, so you pass it for us.

Schumer: No.

Trump: If you don’t pass it for us, the government will shut down and we’ll blame Democrats.

Schumer: Uh. . . No?

Trump: We’ll blame Democrats and then do whatever we want with spending anyway.

Schumer: Oh. Okay. I guess we’ll do it then.

Schumer’s capitulation has many people angry. I am one of them. What is the point of having preserved the filibuster if you’re unwilling to use it? Why would Schumer roll over without getting any concessions from Trump? Are Democrats enablers of a lawless government, or an opposition party?

My reflexive judgment is that Schumer and the Senate Democrats were weak. They have a winning political issue and real leverage. The should have either:

1. Forced the government to shutdown and then used the resulting pain to drive down Trump’s popularity, or

2. Extracted a foundational-level compromise from the administration. (For example: That Trump/Musk would stop breaking the law.)

But what if this reflexive judgment is wrong? What if Schumer’s capitulation is unpleasant, but wise?

Let’s talk about fighting wildfires.