On this week's episode of Freed Up, Robby Soave and Christian Britschgi condemn Vivek Ramaswamy's new attack ad against opponent Amy Acton before discussing their predictions for the 2026 midterm elections. Next, the boys get biblical with references to their favorite parables as they discuss Tyler Cowen's latest article on why he thinks Elizabeth Holmes—and most other non-violent female criminals—should not be in prison. The episode wraps with a thoughtful discussion on aging, state attorneys general, and the latest Meta settlement.
00:00—Vivek Ramaswamy ad controversy
20:00—2026 midterm elections
25:50—Should Elizabeth Holmes be in prison?
49:20—Getting older
58:55—An update on Rep. Ilhan Omar
1:03:10—The importance of grain
1:06:14—Robby and Christian extol author Michael Crichton
1:11:30—The war in Ukraine should end.
1:14:50—Meta settled with the state of New Mexico
1:20:00— Christian continues his crusade against state attorneys general.
If you enjoy Freed Up, come watch Robby debate at our upcoming Reason Versus in D.C. Tickets are available here.
Robby Soave on the left, Christian Britschgi on the right, Elizabeth Holmes in the middle with the words "bad blood" written above her face, and the Reason Freed Up logo in the bottom left corner
In my role as a political commentator, I enjoy making predictions. I possess no special talent for this and am often hilariously wrong: Unlike most other pundits, I famously clung to my stupid belief that former President Joe Biden would never step down as the Democrats' 2024 candidate, for instance. I called the 2020 presidential election correctly (and got most states right, only flipping Georgia and Florida), but I messed up in 2024. (Nevertheless, I still demolished my co-host, who didn't appear to take this challenge very seriously.)
The hardest part about making predictions is separating what you want to happen from what is actually likely to happen. Commentators often feel inclined to rally for their preferred outcome, as if shouting about it on television is going to make it come true. In some ways, this is an easier temptation for us libertarians to avoid, since all outcomes generally seem suboptimal. Once again, that is the case: See, for example, the upcoming 2026 midterms.
It seems inarguable that President Donald Trump has squandered much of his political capital by failing to focus narrowly on the economy and instead launching another unpopular war in the Middle East. It also seems obvious that the Democratic Party, once returned in power, will do everything it can to thwart the administration's shrewdest policies—on tech and AI in particular.
But that is my prediction: Democrats will retake the House of Representatives and the Senate.
I don't have any specific map in mind for the House (it's too complicated), but here are my Senate predictions:
Here is my REVISED prediction for the Senate. For the last several weeks, everything has moved in Dems' direction, and I now expect them to take it.
When I looked at the map back in August, I still thought Ohio was a long shot for the Democrats and that Michigan was in play for the GOP due to Abdul El-Sayed being so far left. Now it looks to me like Republicans will lose both seats, along with Texas and Alaska. I'm still betting that the formidable incumbent in Maine, Sen. Susan Collins (R), will hold on—the polls have misjudged her in the past—and that Iowa is a bridge too far for Dems. If Republicans manage to keep those two seats, then it's a 51–49 map in Democrats' favor.
But wait…all is not lost for Trump.
In the event of a 51–49 Dem advantage, it seems somewhat likely to me that Sen. John Fetterman (D–Pa.) could switch parties, which would restore Republican control because of Vice President J.D. Vance's tiebreaking vote. With his conservative rhetoric on Israel and other issues, Fetterman has no future as an elected Democrat in his state—he could never ever ever win a Democratic primary—and will have to strike some sort deal with Trump before his reelection in 2028. Fetterman should agree to become an independent who caucuses with Republicans in exchange for Trump ensuring that no Republican dares run against him in the future. Absent such a deal, Fetterman is virtually guaranteed to be a one-term senator, so if he harbors any desire to keep his job—perhaps that's an open question—he will need to make a move. A 51–49 Senate will give him the exact leverage he needs.
So those are my predictions! What are yours?
This Week on Free Media
I'm joined by Amber Duke to discuss the riots in France, Vivek Ramaswamy's terrible campaign ad, and more.
Worth Watching
Here's another shameless plug for my upcoming debate with Katherine Mangu-Ward, Mehdi Hasan, and Jason Stanley! (Katherine is on my side.) If you are in Washington, D.C., please get tickets here.
Another day, another series of warnings from Democratic and liberal media figures that they are going to try to put their political opponents in jail if they take back control of government.
Another day, another series of warnings from Democratic and liberal media figures that they are going to try to put their political opponents in jail if they take back control of government.
In this segment of Free Media, Reason Senior Editor Robby Soave and Daily Caller Editor in Chief Amber Duke discuss worrisomeremarks from Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and journalist Kara Swisher, suggesting retribution for those in the Trump Administration if and when Democrats regain control of Congress.
If you enjoy Free Media, come watch Robby debate at our upcoming Reason Versus in D.C. Tickets are available here.
In this segment of Free Media, Reason Senior Editor Robby Soave and Daily Caller Editor in Chief Amber Duke discuss the ongoing violent protests in France.
If you enjoy Free Media, come watch Robby debate at our upcoming Reason Versus in D.C. Tickets are available here.
In this segment of Free Media, Reason Senior Editor Robby Soave and Daily Caller Editor in Chief Amber Duke discuss Vivek Ramaswamy's controversial attack ad against his opponent Amy Acton in Ohio's gubernatorial race.
If you enjoy Free Media, come watch Robby debate at our upcoming Reason Versus in Washington, D.C. Tickets are available here.
Acton’s enemies have run a political ad in which they enlisted Acton’s own mother, whom she has been estranged from since she was 12, to call her a liar. This is a very disturbing ad, for several reasons.
Acton’s enemies have run a political ad in which they enlisted Acton’s own mother, whom she has been estranged from since she was 12, to call her a liar. This is a very disturbing ad, for several reasons.
The end to the war will be on Russia’s terms, and Ukraine’s terms, and our terms — but until Russia is ready to play ball, there’s no reason to let up.
This week, Robby Soave and Christian Britschgi discuss the federal government's raid of Rep. Ilhan Omar's Washington, D.C., residence and question the temporary pause of U.S. intelligence support to Ukraine. Next, the boys exchange mishaps—Robby lost his phone, and Christian had a bad experience at a local restaurant—before decrying the Pentagon's idea to livestream the execution of the Fort Hood shooter. Next, Christian gives a rave review for the new movie Primetime, and Robby shares a positive reaction to Greta Gerwig's first trailer for The Magician's Nephew. Finally, they wrap with some cultural commentary, striving to answer the age-old question of whether or not women dress like "whores" at the gym.
0:00—The politicized raid on Omar
12:40—U.S.-Ukraine dynamics
26:55—Do not lose your phone.
39:10—Christian might leave a two-star restaurant review.
46:00—Livestreaming the Fort Hood shooter's execution was a grotesque idea.
President Donald Trump is plainly frustrated that the Ukraine War continues to drag on. This is understandable. Trump came into office pledging to end this conflict on day one, and succeeded in resetting the expectations of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump also met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2025, in hopes of bringing the war to a close. Yet no peace deal emerged.
In recent weeks, Trump has complained ceaselessly that the war is impacting global energy prices, and thus indirectly hurting the American economy and damaging Republicans' midterm prospects. Earlier this week, the president arbitrarily declared an "energy ceasefire" and instructed both countries to stop targeting each other. Neither side had been given forewarning of this, but Ukraine went ahead and complied; Russia did not. With no actual ceasefire in place, Ukraine resumed hostilities.
Unfortunately, it appears that Trump has decided to punish Zelenskyy rather than the responsible party: Putin. It's not Ukraine that wants war—it's Russia. It's not Zelenskyy prolonging this conflict—it's Putin. Ukraine is willing to accept an immediate ceasefire and negotiations. Russia is not. Putin's action suggest that the goal is to subjugate Ukraine, and regardless of the impression he gives Trump, Putin is not willing to stop.
Given this, the rational course of action for the U.S. is to continuing supporting Ukraine until Russia—the invading party—is willing to negotiate. And yet, the U.S. is seemingly (suddenly) sabotaging Ukraine. This week, the Ukrainians discovered that use of Starshield, the U.S.-run satellite system they use to defend themselves against Russian forces inside Ukrainian territory, had been restricted; Starshield is a division of SpaceX, but according to Elon Musk, it is operated independently by the U.S. government. If it's not functioning properly, the most likely reason is that Trump made such a call.
Trump also signaled a willingness to cut off the Ukrainians from routine intelligence sharing with regard to Russia's bombing targets, though the administration insists that no such decision has been made. Such intelligence is extremely important for the Ukrainians, and vital for civilian safety. Ukrainians rely on air raid sirens to let them know that Russian strikes will soon take place and they should seek shelter. (I learned this firsthand during my trip to Ukraine in June, which was sponsored by a pro-Ukrainian aid group.) It's malicious of the U.S. to deliberately keep the Ukrainians in the dark when we could save lives by letting them know what we know.
None of this means that the U.S. is obligated to send even more tax dollars to Ukraine or to supply them with weapons. We have already spent $185 billion, after all.
But the U.S. should not deliberately undermine the Ukrainian position by failing to share intelligence or by hamstringing already existing military systems. Of course Trump would be within his rights to work to constrain Zelenskyy if Zelenskyy were the barrier to a peace deal, but this is simply not the case at all. We can't blame the Ukrainians for defending themselves in the face of invasion when Putin is the one refusing to negotiate.
Given all this, Zelenskyy has admitted that he feels "betrayed" by Trump and is concerned that Ukraine is losing the U.S. as a partner. The war will continue regardless, with Europe stepping in to fill whatever void the U.S. leaves behind. It's proper for Europe to shoulder more of the responsibility for protecting Ukraine, since this war is ultimately a Europe problem—the U.S. cannot be solely responsible for the security of the entire free world.
But there's a difference between thinking Europe should do more and the U.S. should do less, and thinking that the U.S. should actively hurt Ukraine to help Russia so that energy prices briefly (maybe?) improve. That's not in the long-term best interests of anyone, including and especially the U.S.
Rather than bullying Ukraine into agreeing to put up less resistance as Russia conquers it, Trump should put his negotiating skills to work on Putin.
This Week on Free Media
The latest episode of Freed Up will be available later this afternoon, so subscribe here and check back soon!
Worth Watching
Here's something exciting: I am participating in another Reason Versus debate—this time alongside the boss, Katherine Mangu-Ward! We will be up against Mehdi Hasan and Jason Stanley, who posit that "authoritarianism is a right-wing problem." It should be an entertaining, spicy debate, and (if we're being honest) probably not quite as friendly as the last one I was involved in. Get your tickets here!
Shane Gillis is an actor and comedian. He first came to my attention in September 2019, when he was hired to be a new cast member on Saturday Night Live—and then abruptly fired after it was revealed that he had (gasp) told offensive jokes. (SNL creator Lorne Michaels subsequently said that the network forced him to fire Gillis, and he thought the whole controversy was stupid.)
Since then, Gillis's career has really taken off, to the extent that he has repeatedly returned to SNL as a guest host. He did so again on October 10, delivering a monologue in which he made the following observation: "I haven't been to the gym in so long, I didn't know women just dress like whores now."
Some people are really mad about that joke, including the actor Dan Levy, who called Gillis a misogynist and implied that this sort of joke was emboldening men to treat women as objects—and to sexually assault them.
"It's complacency that has created the environment in which women are sexually assaulted," said Levy.
He was not the only one to make this claim. On The View, Sara Haines echoed Levy's criticism and said that such language—the word whore in particular—was demeaning.
"I'm not saying a joke makes an assault, but it makes it much easier to look at another human as an object," she said.
This is unpersuasive.
I might understand why people would take offense if Gillis consistently singled out women for unrelenting abuse. When it comes to humor, context is everything, and a harmless joke can come off as mean-spirited if it seems targeted.
But in that very same monologue, Gillis denigrates men, gay men, his sisters, and himself—repeatedly. He admits that he's fat and ugly. That's the basis of the humor. It does not suggest that he has some problem with women or enjoys laughing at their expense and solely their expense. He's doing observational comedy, and no one is spared, not even Gillis. He even makes a joke about how he might unintentionally come off as threatening to women, because he's a big ugly guy.
It would be weird if women wearing skin-tight clothing at the gym was for some reason an off-limits subject for comedians. Why? It's OK to insult men's appearance, but not women's? Is that really the standard? Of course not.
Indeed, it is trivially easy to find examples of liberal-coded comedians (Gillis is one of those right-coded, anti–political correctness, Joe Rogan types), mocking the appearances of specific women. Jimmy Kimmel's recent monologue went after Katie Zacharia, the Trump administration's new press secretary, for her looks. Kimmel insinuated that she's a dumb blonde who was picked just because she's attractive. He even showed a photo of her at the gym, dressed semi-provocatively!
You know how the left is trying to cancel Shane Gillis for his SNL remarks about women at the gym, well, Jimmy Kimmel puts up a picture of Katie Zacharia at the gym, "Oh, wait, just kidding. This is the new press secretary, former Newsmax commentator Katie Zacharia, seen here,… pic.twitter.com/ANYeqhfVev
Was Kimmel inviting sexual violence against Zacharia? Of course not. It would be ludicrous to pretend that this joke was somehow out of bounds.
The same goes for Gillis, though.
The Hollywood Reporter writes that Gillis's brand of humor just isn't a good fit for SNL, which has become a show by liberals, for liberals, and aimed at skewering the Trump administration. That's fair enough: Personally, I didn't think the Gillis monologue was particularly funny, though I am well-accustomed to consuming SNL in stone-faced silence. I find about 99 percent of the skits are cringe and humorless. It's not for me.
Login
