Countdown to Destruction

We had four years to build something. Now we have two.

“When politicians tell you what they intend to do with power, believe them.”

When Donald Trump won the White House again in November 2024, I did not start celebrating like the war was over. I started a clock.

Republicans had won the presidency and control of Congress. Trump had four years in office on paper, but politically we might have only two. The 2026 midterms could split the government again, and once that happened, whatever momentum existed could grind down very quickly.

I remember thinking we had been handed an opportunity, not a permanent victory. That was one of the reasons I put myself back out there.

The Clock Started in 2024

I had been publicly political before. I even ran carnellknowledge.com back around 2001. But hardly anybody knew who I was then, and there is a huge difference between having opinions online and attaching your real name to hundreds of political essays that thousands of people actually read. The quieter version is a much easier way to live.

I gave up a lot of that voluntarily. I attached my name and face to arguments challenging accepted narratives about politics, race, immigration, culture, media, government and the institutions that shape what people are allowed to question. I went after hypocrisy, bad data, convenient history and subjects most people would rather leave alone. I knew some people would hate it. I figured some friendships might get weird. I did not fully appreciate how permanent the whole thing becomes once you put a few hundred political essays under your real name.

I’ve lost friends on the left whom I genuinely liked. My political writing is now tied to my professional identity whether I want it there or not. Someone thinking about hiring me for SEO does not just find a guy who has been doing this since before Google existed. He can also find hundreds of political essays and a rather active Twitter account before he finishes his coffee.

That may already have cost me business. I had a Canadian SEO client for more than 18 months who was happy with my work. Canada’s real estate market went into the toilet, which is a perfectly legitimate reason for him to cut expenses. But he had also recently seen my Twitter feed. I cannot prove my politics had anything to do with his decision, but once you know a client has seen exactly what you think, it becomes hard not to wonder.

Nobody forced me to take that risk. I did it because I thought the next few years were too important to sit around hoping someone else would say the things I thought needed saying.

We had also already watched what happened during Trump’s first term and after it. A Democrat-controlled House impeached him in 2019. He was impeached again after January 6. Congress spent years investigating him. Then came criminal prosecutions, civil cases and efforts to keep him off state ballots.

Supporters of all of that call it accountability. A lot of people on my side call much of it lawfare. I have generally preferred the less clinical term Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Whatever label you prefer, the intensity was right in front of us. I had no reason to think putting Trump back in the White House would make his opponents suddenly mellow out, discover bipartisan yoga and spend four years agreeing to disagree. The same politicians were still there. The same activist groups were still there. The same ideological institutions were still there, and the socialist wing of the Democrat coalition was not exactly getting more embarrassed about being socialist.

I wanted to use whatever runway we had.

The idea behind this publication was not especially complicated. Produce serious work. Back the arguments with data. Take on subjects larger publications either ignore or approach from the same approved direction. Keep most of it open so it can spread. Grow the audience, then grow the paid base enough that the publication gradually buys back more of my working day.

I was not dreaming about becoming a celebrity pundit. I wanted enough recurring income that I could spend more of my day researching, writing and eventually producing more video instead of selling those same hours somewhere else.

For a while, it looked like that was happening. The audience grew. Paid subscribers grew. The archive became hundreds of essays deep. I started seeing pieces escape my own subscriber base and travel far beyond anything I could have pushed manually.

Then the calendar kept moving.

We are now less than two months from the November 3, 2026 midterms. Half of the four-year period I was thinking about after Trump’s victory is already gone.

And right as the political clock started getting uncomfortable, the economics underneath this publication started moving in the wrong direction too.

Once your name is attached to hundreds of controversial political arguments, there is no reset button. Employers can see it. Clients can see it. Neighbors can see it. With a few searches, people can find personal information about me that I wish required considerably more effort.

This week also marks one year since Charlie Kirk was assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley University. And Charlie is hardly the only reminder that political violence has stopped being theoretical.

Trump himself has faced three serious attempts or attacks since 2024. In Butler, a bullet hit his ear and killed a man in the crowd. Two months later, a man with a rifle was caught waiting near Trump’s golf course and was later convicted of trying to assassinate him. Then, in April of this year, an armed attacker tried to breach the White House Correspondents’ Dinner while Trump was inside. U.S. officials later said the gunman was trying to assassinate President Donald Trump.

Trump has been shot. Another man was convicted of trying to kill him. Charlie Kirk was murdered while speaking to college students. Political threat is considerably less theoretical than it used to be.

The day after Charlie was murdered, I wrote that the answer could not be retreat. I still believe that. But physical violence is only the most extreme way political conflict plays out. Most political power is exercised through laws, agencies, investigations, budgets, courts and congressional committees.

They’re Telling Us What Comes Next

And Democrat leaders are already telling us how they intend to use some of those institutions if they get them back.

House Democrat leader Hakeem Jeffries said:

“No one is going to get a pass. We’re going to hold every single member of the Trump cartel accountable, beginning on day one.”

Beginning on day one.

He said Judiciary and Oversight would lead that work. He has also called for nationwide judicial reform, nationwide electoral reform and nationwide campaign finance reform, and said that when it comes to judicial reform, “everything should be on the table.”

Ro Khanna was even less subtle:

“When we take back the House, when we take back the Senate, we subpoena, we investigate, and we prosecute.”

In the same speech, Khanna said:

“That is why we must abolish ICE.”

Those aren’t Republicans guessing what Democrats might secretly do. Those are Democrats speaking for themselves.

Then there is the Democratic Socialists of America. They are not hiding what they want.

Its 2026 program calls for abolishing ICE, ending ICE detention and deportations, abolishing the Electoral College and abolishing the Senate. It proposes replacing the current president and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.

Nothing says “replace capitalism” quite like a $30 T-shirt and a shopping cart.

It also calls for:

“Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries.”

You can spend an afternoon looking for a gentler description of that if you want. DSA already chose socialism.

I occasionally call it commie-land.

Now put those statements next to the fights already underway.

Trump and DOGE tore through USAID. More than 90 percent of USAID’s aid contracts, valued at roughly $54 billion, were terminated during the 2025 review. Democrats fought the dismantling, arguing that it damaged humanitarian programs and American influence abroad.

My own research has made me considerably less sentimental about the old system. USAID money did not flow only into food, medicine and wells. It also moved through NGOs, contractors, media projects, democracy programs, gender initiatives and a huge international-development industry.

ActBlue is under Republican investigation over its fraud controls and possible foreign contributions. ActBlue disputes the allegations and says the investigations are partisan. The part nobody needs to speculate about is what happens to congressional oversight if the House changes hands: Republicans stop running the committees conducting those investigations.

Then there is the SAVE America Act. The House passed it 218 to 213 in February, with only one Democrat voting yes. It would require documentary proof of citizenship for federal voter registration and impose federal voter-identification requirements. Republicans say that citizenship should be verified in elections restricted to citizens. Democrats say the requirements would unnecessarily burden legitimate voters.

Democrats overwhelmingly oppose the bill. If they take the House before it becomes law, its route through that chamber is finished.

The administration is separately fighting in court over the use of federal citizenship data to check voter rolls. As of September 8, it has asked the Supreme Court to allow use of the revised SAVE immigration database after lower courts blocked it over statutory, privacy and accuracy concerns.

Immigration itself is even less ambiguous. Trump has spent his second term pushing aggressive enforcement. Khanna says abolish ICE. DSA says abolish ICE. Others on the left argue for substantially reducing the agency’s role or replacing it.

Congressional apportionment also uses total resident population, citizens and noncitizens alike. The Census Bureau explicitly includes unauthorized immigrants who usually reside in the United States. Immigration is not just about who crosses the border. It creates a political pipeline. Noncitizens count toward the population used to distribute House seats. Immigrants who eventually become citizens become voters. Long before that, immigrant communities can organize, protest, lobby, advocate and even participate in some campaign activity. Illegal immigrants themselves cannot legally vote in federal elections, but their presence can still affect political representation. Legal immigrants can eventually become part of the electorate. The political effects begin long before Election Day.

USAID has been torn apart. ActBlue is being investigated. The SAVE America Act is stalled. Voter-roll verification is in court. Immigration enforcement is one of the defining fights of Trump’s second term.

Meanwhile Jeffries is promising accountability beginning on day one and Khanna is promising subpoenas, investigations and prosecutions.

If you think all of this is going to become less hostile when political control changes hands, I admire your optimism.

The Publication Worked

Over the past year, my paid subscriber count went from roughly 96 to more than 200. Gross annualized subscription revenue went from about $7,800 to more than $23,000.

An Inconvenient Black Truth was originally sent to 229 subscribers. As I write this, it has 119,497 views.

A piece sent to 229 people has now been viewed more than 500 times that number.

Whatever else I have gotten wrong over the past two years, that settled one question. A tiny independent publication can reach a hell of a lot more people than its subscriber count suggests.

The idea from there was pretty simple. More readers bring more paid subscribers. More paid subscribers buy back working hours. Those hours produce more research, essays and video, giving the publication more opportunities to reach new people.

Instead, paid subscriptions peaked in the mid 230s and slipped back toward 210. Then I lost two SEO clients that represented a large share of my income outside Substack.

That changes things quickly. Food still costs money. The car costs money. Utilities cost money. Rent definitely costs money, and right now I am dealing with the very real possibility of being late on it.

So I drive Uber. During the right periods, I can make more driving than I probably would at a lot of ordinary jobs. It isn’t bad money.

It just has a hard ceiling.

There are only so many profitable driving periods, and if I need another $200, I need another block of hours. I am already doing that across seven days a week.

I recently spent six hours driving and made less than $200. Those six hours helped pay that day’s bills. Tomorrow they earn nothing.

Compare that with the essay sent to 229 people that is still being read by people I have never met.

Most essays will never do that. Maybe none of the next hundred will. I could spend six hours researching something and discover that my original premise was wrong. I do that too.

But one already reached 119,497 people.

I want more swings.

Instead, right when the political runway is getting shorter, I am having to sell more of my day just to stay above water.

Now There Are Two Years Left

If the financial pressure keeps increasing, I drive more. Maybe eventually I take a conventional job. But a conventional job would not pay enough to eliminate the side work. I would still need additional income. I would just have fewer hours and considerably less control over when I could use them.

Nobody needs to censor mrchrisarnell.com. An essay that should take two days takes four. A research project gets pushed because I cannot justify 20 unpaid hours that week. Video keeps getting squeezed between everything else.

Do that long enough and there is simply less work.

Uber at least gives me some control over which pieces of the week I sell. A conventional job would take most of five days on somebody else’s schedule, and I would still have to find room for side work around it.

Either way, somebody else gets the hours.

And those hours are becoming more valuable as the political clock runs down.

If the Democrat Party wins the House in November, Trump’s presidency does not end. ICE does not vanish the following morning. But Republicans lose unified control of government.

The SAVE America Act is dead in a Democrat House unless Democrats dramatically reverse the position they have already taken. Republicans lose Judiciary and Oversight. Republican-led investigations change hands. The Democrat leadership already promising extensive oversight gains control of the committees issuing subpoenas.

A Democrat Senate creates a different obstacle. Presidents nominate federal judges and senior officials, but the Senate confirms many of them. A Senate controlled by the opposition can block nominees and legislation.

If Democrats take both chambers, Trump still controls the executive branch, but major new legislation becomes much harder and congressional investigative power points in the opposite direction.

Two years later comes the White House.

A Democrat president gains something congressional Democrats do not have now: control of the executive branch.

Agency leadership changes. Enforcement priorities can change. Executive actions within presidential authority can be replaced. Regulations can be rewritten through the legal process. Justice Department leadership changes. Immigration enforcement can change substantially. A new president selects nominees for federal judges and senior government positions.

The exact result would depend on Congress, the courts, internal party disagreements and future elections. No political party gets everything it wants.

But we don’t have to invent what some of the people seeking power want. They are saying it out loud.

I made my choice in 2024 because I thought we had four years to build something stronger. I spent the first two doing it.

Nearly 300 essays. Paid readership more than doubled. Subscription revenue almost tripled. One essay sent to 229 subscribers reached almost 120,000 views.

Along the way I lost friends, permanently attached my political opinions to my professional identity and made myself considerably easier to dislike.

I can live with that.

What bothers me is watching the remaining runway disappear while the economics force me to spend more of it doing work that ends when the shift ends.

Six hours in the car recently produced less than $200. Six hours here might produce an essay 1,200 people read and forget. It might produce a chart nobody shares. It might turn up absolutely nothing useful.

Every once in a while, though, something breaks out.

I want more chances at that.

Buy Back the Hours

More than 200 readers already pay for this publication. A small group has gone much further through Resistance Core at $1,200 per year, and many have also made additional one-time contributions. Others have stepped up when they could.

I would not still be producing this much without them.

Most of my work remains open because I want someone who has never paid me a dime to be able to read an essay and send it to somebody else. That openness is a large part of how a publication this small can occasionally reach an audience this large.

I can give the work away. I cannot manufacture the hours it takes to make it.

If money is genuinely tight, keep reading. Feed your family. Pay your rent. I know what that feels like.

I am talking to the people who have been here for months or years, read regularly, can afford to back the work and keep thinking they will probably become paid eventually.

Eventually was easier to say in November 2024.

We had four years then. Half of them are gone, the first major political deadline is almost here, and I am deciding which hours this week belong to this publication and which belong to rent.

A paid subscription here does not mainly buy access. Most of the work is already open.

It buys back some of those hours.

Six hours in the car recently produced less than $200.

Six hours here might go nowhere.

Or they might become something people are still reading a year later.

I want more chances at that before the clock runs out.

We had four years. Now we have two.

Help Me Use the Two Years We Have Left

If you want to help buy back more of the hours I’m currently spending elsewhere, here are the ways to do it.

Become a Paid Subscriber: $80 Per Year

If you read regularly and want me to keep showing up, becoming a paid subscriber is the simplest way to help.

Most of the work will remain open. You are not mainly paying to unlock articles. You are helping finance the time it takes to produce them.

Become a Paid Subscriber:
https://mrchr.is/help

Make a One-Time Contribution

If you do not want another subscription but still want to throw something in the jar, a one-time contribution helps too.

Sometimes buying back a few hours is the difference between spending the day researching an essay and spending it driving.

Make a One-Time Contribution:
https://mrchr.is/give

Join the Resistance Core: $1,200 Per Year

The standard paid subscription builds the floor. Resistance Core helps carry the roof.

Resistance Core is for the small group of readers who believe strongly enough in what I am doing to help fund it at a much higher level. It is $1,200 per year, charged annually, and that kind of support can buy back a meaningful amount of working time over the course of a year.

I already have a handful of people who have stepped up at this level, and several have gone beyond it with additional contributions. I do not take that kind of commitment lightly.

Join the Resistance Core:
https://mrchr.is/resist

Prefer Venmo?

If you prefer a direct one-time option without starting a subscription or using the gift page:

Venmo:
https://account.venmo.com/u/mrchrisarnell

If You Cannot Give

Keep reading.

Share the essay. Restack it. Send it to someone who needs to see it. Quote it. Argue with it. Use the research.

There are plenty of ways to help this work travel that do not cost anything.