The Commentary Magazine Podcast — "Oh, the Homanity!"

Date: February 5, 2026
Host: John Podhoretz (Editor, Commentary)
Panelists: Abe Greenwald (Executive Editor), Seth Mandel (Senior Editor), Eliana Johnson (Editor, Washington Free Beacon)

Episode Overview

The episode explores significant shifts in the Trump administration’s approach to illegal immigration enforcement—particularly the pivot to targeting only criminal illegal immigrants, and related political strategies and consequences. The panel also analyzes the broader implications of migration trends in the U.S., demographic changes, and the tangled politics of red state/blue state divides. In the latter half, they dive into the ongoing diplomatic drama with Iran, debating Trump’s intentions and possible American responses to Iranian provocations.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump Administration’s Pivot on Immigration

• Tom Homan's Announcement:

  • Redeployment of 700 Border Patrol officers in Minneapolis (from 3,000 to 2,300; [01:21–01:24]).
  • Focus: Cooperation from local authorities in Minneapolis and jails to pick up criminal illegal aliens ([06:16]).

• Trump’s NBC Interview with Tom Yamas:

  • New focus on detaining criminal illegal aliens only—representing a "softer approach."
  • The administration will act only in localities that “want us.” Sanctuary cities/states that resist federal help are left to “live with their criminal illegal population.”
    • "We're going to go into cities that want us and the cities that don't want us and that are going to resist us can be damned." — Paraphrased Trump via Eliana Johnson ([02:03–03:57]).

• Strategic & Political Calculus:

  • This move is interpreted as a significant concession to public pressure and a rational political adjustment to adverse optics, especially after negative feedback from aggressive enforcement in 2018 ([09:48]).
  • The administration is avoiding “pitched battles” in sanctuary cities, choosing instead to concentrate enforcement resources in red states seeking assistance ([02:03], [13:57]).

• Panel Concerns:

  • Seth raises a worry: publicly stating that resistance will lead to a lack of federal enforcement may embolden activists and undermine federal authority.
    • “You enforce federal law or you don't enforce federal law, but you definitely don't tell people... if you organize your own roadblocks... we'll leave you alone. That's... not something you should say." — Seth ([11:16])

2. Policy Philosophy, Enforcement, and Political Blowback

• Point of Comparison:

  • John uses "seatbelt law" as an analogy: Emphasizing enforceability based on secondary infractions rather than sweeping random enforcement ([03:57–06:10]).
  • Panel distinguishes between targeting criminal aliens and mass roundups of ordinary undocumented immigrants at places like Home Depot (Eliana, [06:10]).

• Ideological Concession:

  • The administration is backing off from the idea, championed by hardliners (like Stephen Miller), that all illegal immigrants should be removed, and instead focusing on a pragmatic and sustainable approach ([06:32–09:00]).
  • Some hardliners still want “tougher” enforcement and are dissatisfied with the focus on criminal aliens alone ([29:50]).

3. Migration Trends, Demographic Shifts, and Political Consequences

• Depopulation in Blue States:

  • John describes significant domestic shifts, with people leaving states like NY, CA, IL, and moving to NC, TX, SC ([14:02–16:50]).
  • Demographic projections: Fewer congressional seats for NY/CA after the 2030 census; FL and TX may become the two most populous states ([14:02]).

• Political Impact:

  • These changes shift the "blue wall" advantage away from Democrats, making it harder for them to clinch 270 electoral votes in the future ([14:02–16:29]).
  • However, John and Seth caution against deterministic thinking as internal migration brings diverse politics—many blue-state migrants still retain liberal views ([20:05–24:06]).

Notable Quotes

• “People are voting with their feet because of the blue. This is the ultimate fulfillment of Walter Russell Mead's idea that blue state governance is going to have real world consequences.” — John ([14:02])

• "Most of the New Yorkers that I know who moved to Florida during the pandemic... were liberals who were complaining about Desantis right up until the point that they moved." — Abe ([23:39])

• Shifting Self-Identification:

  • Over generations, immigrant families are less likely to self-identify with their original communities, complicating demographic and political predictions ([22:24]).

• New York City Example:

  • John notes the city’s transient population and difficulties in attracting family residents due to cost-of-living, which interrupts historical political continuity ([24:06–28:20]).

4. Iran: Negotiations, Deterrence, and American Strategy

• On–Off Talks:

  • The Iran nuclear/missile talks—abrupt location and negotiation shifts, with the U.S. insisting on broader terms (missiles, terrorism); Iran resists ([34:22]).

• Two Trump Administration Voices:

  • A) Trump wants an “off-ramp,” a way out through a deal, after promising help to Iranians.
  • B) The administration is staging and preparing for possible strikes on Iran, awaiting the right moment ([33:46–35:59]).

Notable Panel Insights

• Eliana:

  • “I actually think the former is what Trump wants. I think he wants a way out, and he would like an excuse not to do this, even though from the outset... I thought he would end up doing it.” ([34:22])

• Seth:

  • Proposes that Iranian provocations may be meant to force Trump’s hand, assuming he’s preparing to attack once ready.
    • “I think the Iranians... think the answer is choice number two... that Trump is waiting to strike when the time is right and everything's in position.” ([35:59])

• Abe:

  • Considers that deterrence is “working in a weird way” but believes future American–Iranian confrontations are inevitable ([37:28–37:53]).

• John:

  • Expresses skepticism about what any potential deal could credibly include, questioning whether Trump could legitimately return with “a piece of paper” offering empty promises from the Iranian regime ([41:01]).

• Historical Analogies:

  • Gulf War (Bush 41’s patience and coalition building) and Iraq War (Bush 43’s attempts at UN process). Panel recalls how preparations for kinetic action are sometimes misread as reluctance ([41:01–46:26]).

Memorable Moments & Notable Quotes

• “Trump, as usual, is saying the quiet part out loud...” — John ([12:45])
• On demographic migration trends:
  “Nothing is static. You know, California was a Republican state until 1996. People forget that.” — John ([24:06])
• On limitations in U.S. political “third way” outlets:
  “There is no Nigel Farage. There is no like third actor. And so you got nowhere to go, buddy. You know, enjoy yourself in your rage.” — John ([30:22])

Important Timestamps

• 00:46–03:57: Explaining the new enforcement focus; difference between Trump’s and Homan’s messaging
• 06:10–09:00: Effects and implications of shift; hard-liners’ reactions
• 14:02–16:29: Demographic/democratic impacts from domestic migration
• 23:39: Anecdotal evidence about blue-state migrants keeping their politics
• 33:46–37:53: Iran segment; U.S. negotiation/strike strategy
• 41:01–48:30: Strategic dilemmas, historical analogies, possible U.S. actions
• 48:30–51:32: Panel wraps up on the various levers in action regarding Iran

Conclusion

The episode underscores profound shifts in enforcement philosophy under Trump—pivoting to pragmatism over maximalism on immigration, while highlighting the complex interplay of national migration, demographic evolution, and political strategy. The latter segment’s Iran discussion illustrates the ambiguities and dilemmas facing U.S. leadership amid regional volatility—a blend of realpolitik and reluctance driven by both external resistance and internal calculation.

Panelists maintain their characteristic tone—wry, candid, engaged—balancing sharp policy analysis with historical perspective and lively intra-panel debate.

For further reading on these topics, visit Commentary Magazine’s archives. For ongoing discussion, tune in to the next episode as the panel continues tracking developments.