He is playing for history. Capital G,

great man of history. To be remembered,

to be remembered by one name, to have

left a mark uh on the world that is just

different [music] than a typical

president or what he would say is a

normal president. Maggie Haberman is a

White House correspondent at [music] the

New York Times, a pulit surprise winner,

and the co-author alongside Jonathan

Swan of regime change. I would say the

single best book [music]

on the first 14 months of Donald Trump's

second term. She joins me [music] now.

Maggie Haberman, welcome back to the

show.

>> Ezra, thank you for having me.

>> So, I want to talk about the experience

I had reading the book, which is

remembering how much energy and ferocity

there was in the first 6 to 8 months

>> of the Trump administration,

>> right?

And then knowing how many of the things

that you all were tracking here from the

terrorists to Doge to

um parts of society bending the knee to

Trump to the Iran war

>> by now feel like they have like deeply

run out of some kind of steam or they've

ended up trapping the Trump

administration in its own decisions. So

sort of want to start with the big

picture. Um this book is really about

Trump's year one mostly. What does year

two feel like to you?

First of all, thank you for having me

and I wish Jonathan were here, but uh

his wife is having a baby soon. So, and

I have permission to say that. So, uh

there's a reason that the first section

of the book is called Whirlwind. And I

was thinking as you were talking about

the running out of steam piece. I would

put it a little differently. I think

it's a little it's not black and white.

Um and Elon Musk is obviously not

working for the government anymore. I do

think it's remarkable how much of Doge's

memory hold. um he came in, he was

supposed to uh change the way government

was going to work. In reality, Doge

didn't do anything close to what it was

supposed to do. But it did do things

like show how Trump was going to govern

um by fiat in large measure. Elon Musk

shut down USAD. Just shut it down. Shut

down an entire congressionally created

agency. One of Trump's first unilateral

actions was firing a bunch of inspectors

general. uh did not notify Congress,

which he was supposed to do, about why,

and he was supposed to give Congress a

30-day notice. None of that happened.

Steven Miller, in particular, rolled out

with a bunch of executive actions that I

would say some of them didn't run out of

steam. The ones focused on DEI in

particular, the one about trans women in

sports in particular. Um, and certainly

a lot of their activities at the border

have not. If you were a Trump supporter

and you voted for him for those reasons,

which were things he did talk about on

the campaign trail, just those three,

you would be happy. They didn't vote for

most of his base. Um, another potential

forever war in the Middle East. So, that

is, I think, not just running out of

steam, that is, um, injecting fresh

chaos. He has now just launched a fresh

trade war. And so there's the

combination of uh new tariffs plus

escalation back to uh engaged combat

with Iran. Um could be really

interesting for the economy. And so I

don't know that I think it's that it's

run out of steam,

but things tend to end one way with

Trump. Um and it's usually in some form

of uh the lack of strategy being

apparent. And I would say that's what

you're seeing right now. So I don't know

that it's running out of steam. it's

running into Trump reality.

>> I think often of something that uh the

conservative analyst Yvall Leven said to

me early in the term. He said that

>> administrations have a rhythm. At first

they are the master of events. Everybody

is responding to them.

>> It's true.

>> And then they are responding to events.

>> And in Trump's case, he's often even now

responding to events he created.

>> Correct. which is what I was thinking

when you were saying that

>> there's been a lot of reporting for

instance on Iran right now that Trump

he's in the mood for revenge and I

thought it was such a strange word that

was being chosen like he attacked

>> Iran decapitated the leadership

threatened to end the civilization Iran

has not completely capitulated to him so

he's like he needs reven like is revenge

the right word there I'm sure he feels

it is

>> I saw that reporting and I actually

wondered um whether it was just about

what you're describing which is some

kind of retribution for a military

intervention that he began or whether it

was

part of this ongoing

anger at Iran that really is quite real

with him about the threats against his

life.

>> Do you want to talk through that because

I think that's an important thread of

the book.

>> Sure. It's very much an important thread

of the book and I think it was

incredibly I don't think I know I mean

Jonathan and my reporting really did

show us how how radicalizing those four

years out of power were not just for the

investigations that he was facing and

that a lot of his advisers got swept up

in. But what also happened in 2024,

right after he was convicted in a state

court on uh falsifying documents in

connection with a hush money payment to

a porn star who said he had an affair

with her was um it was a Pakistani man

who was indicted in connection with the

murder for hire plot that was supposed

to be allegedly

engaged in by Iran. This was a proxy.

>> The allegation is Iran was had a proxy

who was trying to hire a murderer to

kill Donald Trump.

>> Correct. and was indicted, by the way,

you know, under the Biden Justice

Department was indicted.

>> But the assassination attempt in Butler

happens right after that where he was

shot and

>> it was a galvanizing moment for the

campaign. It was a galvanizing moment

for him. Um, all of that in his mind

becomes one big blur. And around that

time is when, and I don't remember it

was right before, right after, but Iran

had successfully hacked the campaign

manager's emails, Susie Wilds. accord

Iran according to officials was behind

it and they start releasing them and

that was hugely embarrassing to the

entire campaign. It also added to this

sense of siege that they all have and

they all went back into the White House

this way for different reasons in some

cases but for that core group and for

Trump himself Iran and this feeling of

being under threat is constant. You

heard it when he spoke to John Carl

after the Ayatollah was killed at the

beginning of this war and Trump said

something to John Carl that I don't

think I've heard him say since as a

repeat but it was they tried to get me

twice. I you some I'm paraphrasing but

it was I got them once they tried to get

me twice. Um whatever he's referring to

I don't exactly know in terms of the

twice but it tells you what his mindset

is.

One story that we've heard a lot is that

Netanyahu talked Donald Trump into this

war. Um, you know, there's

[clears throat] another story that Trump

himself had distinctive views on Iran,

has for some time, has always said they

cannot have a nuclear weapon, tore up

the Obama nuclear deal, over the

objections of his own advisers, has

always had a very hard line on Iran.

>> Going back years, I mean, you can find

old interviews way before the presidency

where he talks about Iran humiliating

us. When you get the respect of the

other countries, then the other

countries tend to do a little bit as you

do and you can create the right

attitudes. The the Iranian situation is

a case in point that they hold our

hostages is just absolutely and totally

ridiculous. That this country sits back

and allows a country such as Iran to

hold our hostages to my way of thinking

is a horror. And I don't think they'd do

it with other countries. I honestly

don't think they'd do it with other

countries.

>> Obviously, you're advocating that we

should have gone in there with troops,

etc., and brought our boys out.

>> I absolutely feel that. Yes.

>> I mean, you you're right about this, but

a lot of Trump's politics seem very

rooted in the 80s and things that

happened to America in the, you know,

the 70s and the 80s. But what at this

point is your view of why Donald Trump

decides

to actually do a regime changeoriented

war in Iran?

>> The final piece of reporting that we did

in regime change was about the leadup to

the Iran war. And it was not there there

were there were things that happened

that you know I'm sure will be either

unearthed or could fill out a fuller

picture, but we were really just focused

on a few discreet meetings and

conversations. And these were situation

room meetings. One of which included I I

have to say that I went and I tried to

find some other example that was an

analog and I couldn't of a foreign

leader coming to the situation room to

have a very sensitive intelligence

conversation with the US president. And

so Netanyahu comes on February 11th and

Netanyahu paints this pretty compelling

to Trump's ears story about why now is

ripe for regime change. And Trump is

always very receptive to you could be

the person to do XYZ. And so Trump says

some version of sounds good to me. his

own CIA director, his own secretary of

state the next day, they have run these

scenarios. They say some of what

Netanyahu is proposing and in what the

Israelis would call their decapitation

scenario of take out certain leadership

and then some of it could be done. They

could degrade the ballistics missile

program at Iran for instance, but that

the regime change scenarios that

Netanyahu had presented, including a

video of like who could take over and

most of the Americans found it to be

silly. John Radcliffe, the CIA director,

called it farsle. Marco Rubio was much

more explicit says bull in other words

it's and Trump said regime

change will be their problem. It wasn't

quite clear whether he meant Iran or

Israel but he still thought it was worth

a try to accomplish the other

objectives. So

that yes was definitely Netanyahu making

a case. But number one, Netanyahu in our

reporting in 2024 has this meeting with

Trump to essentially go kiss the ring

and make nice after a break in their

relationship.

And Trump says to him privately, I'm

going to be much more aggressive on Iran

this time. This is right after Butler.

Uh remember that as you said he was

Trump was doing things against the

objections of his own advisers on the

nuclear deal. Certainly the Obama

nuclear deal. Taking out General

Sulammani at the beginning of 2020 was

also against what some of his advisers

wanted. Um it is part of what has made

him such a target for Iran. Um but he is

more hawkish on Iran than he is about

other parts of the Middle East to a

degree that has always surprised some of

his own aids and that his current aids

have really misread. I would say um you

know they will continue to insist that

he doesn't he doesn't like Netanyahu, he

doesn't like this, he doesn't like that

and he definitely says different things

to different people depending on who

he's talking to but it's always been

pretty clear that he has a firm view

here and Trump believed Iran was a paper

tiger after the 12-day war of last year

cuz their response was pretty tepid to

the strikes that the US engaged in. It

was sort of some choreographed strikes

toward allies. Okay, US allies. uh Trump

believed that was going to be the extent

of it. It it was just a massive

miscalculation on his part and a and and

a lack of understanding what was

happening. And he was also fresh off of

this Venezuela

effort to capture Maduro earlier this

year. That also made him believe we can

do these things. I'm not saying that's a

rational belief. I am saying that was

his belief and he believes things will

work out for him always. And he said

that to Tucker Carlson which was in the

book as well. It it gets to something

that I think comes through in the book

and I think about a lot from our

coverage from the first year even just

on this show.

>> There's really in my view no Trumpism

there's only Trump.

>> Correct.

>> Which is to say that the amount of

energy that gets wasted chasing down

purported doctrines um the Mara Lago

accords that were getting floated at one

point to do a massive you know currency

rebalancing all across the world. the

Donro doctrine, right? We'd be focusing

on the Western Hemisphere. We wouldn't

be entangled in all this

>> war and conflict in the Middle East.

>> Trump just weaves in and out of

theories. I mean, there are things he

holds to, right? He is hawkish on

immigration, has been for a very long

time. That is sustained. He has his

views on trade, but even trade, right?

The objectives have flitted back and

forth on that. And everybody who says,

"I know what MAGA is. I know what

Trumpism is." Right? If it is anything,

as you know, JD Vance would put it, it's

no new wars, they end up wrong because

Trump is right. I think he it's possibly

you he said it to.

>> Michael Sher at the Atlantic. He said it

to.

>> He's the one who decides

>> right

>> what it is.

>> Ma is whatever I say it is is what he

said. Now I think that's true. Now I

guess that I I I have a slightly

different take on it though. generally

agree with you that trying to pin him to

some ideology is just an absolute fool's

errand and has always been a fool's

errand. He does have these idlike

impulses that he is very interested in,

but it doesn't mean they can't be

supplimated if the occasion calls for

it. I think MAGA is is a movement. I do

I don't think MAGA is the entire

Republican party. I think MACA is a

movement within the Rep Republican party

and the coalition that exists around

Trump in that framework has always been

very uncomfortable and strange because

he will say different things to

different parts of it and I think that

they would only be willing to ignore the

parts that don't match their own view

for him. I cannot think of another

figure who can unite these different

facets of this movement. But I do think

that this movement is is sinking. Not

just I shouldn't say sinking. I think

that it's it's having fissures not just

because of Iran and Israel. It started

with Epstein last year. We get into that

extensively in the book. Um right after

the 12-day war is when the Epstein

crisis, and I'm calling it a crisis,

what it actually is is a

multi-administration failure to deal

with a pedophile. Um who people of both

parties found entertaining or useful or

whatever. Um, but it was the MAGA

movement leaders who had been talking

about a need for transparency over many

years leading up to Trump's election in

2024. And they then get caught up in

that because Trump wants nothing to do

with this. He doesn't want anything

released. Uh, so it becomes a crisis

because there is growing anger by

Trump's own base about what's happening.

There's growing anger by victims about

why have these files not been released?

Why is nothing being looked at? So you

end up in this remarkable series, and we

write about these in the book, these

situation room meetings, the same place

where Trump decided to take the country

to war in Iran was what they were using

for crisis comms on how do we get

ourselves out of this mess. But if you

want to track a moment that Trump

started losing his own base, it was

then.

>> But did he lose his B? I mean, I had

people I've had people on the right on

to talk about Trumpism cracking up and

him losing his base.

>> And then, you know, you look at the

polls and the base is almost entirely

with him. He's able to intervene in any

primary he wants. He

>> has not actually seemed to lose

influence in this way. Tucker Carlson

kind of breaking with him at least on

some issues. These things really

happened.

>> And yet his influence with Republicans

seems pretty undim. The people who

challenged him like Massie, like

Marjorie Taylor Green,

>> they lost. They lost. They're gone.

>> They're gone. There is I think two

things can exist at once, though. A

there was polling last year showing that

even with his own base private mostly

private polling his numbers were ticking

down. Now there is no question that

people who have opposed him because the

Republican base is so Trump dependent

will find themselves out of a job. That

is absolutely true. At the same time, I

never thought that I would see enough

Republicans cross over and vote for the

Epstein Transparency Act when Donald

Trump was openly telling them, "Don't do

this." It's the only time I can think

of, Ezra, where he would say, "Believe

me, not what you're hearing over there."

And there were people who didn't,

including in his own base. Now, what

they what their voter preference ends up

being in the midterms or in a primary,

it doesn't necessarily correlate to

that. And I realize it sounds like I'm

saying two things that are

contradictory. Um I think these are two

facts that exist at the same time.

>> A very real thread of the book is this

what does Trump know anymore and when or

how does he know it? I mean, you have

this I wasn't really familiar with

Natalie Harp before uh you I I I read

the book, but this person who kind of

follows him around, gives some printouts

of adoring fan mail and positive news

stories from right-wing media,

>> but you know, he's on True Social. He's

not really on other platforms.

>> He clearly has some contact, you know,

with people like Carlson and and others

and, you know, so he gets some

information. But how would you describe

the difference in Trump's second term

from his first in terms of what he knows

of the world outside the White House?

>> You know, I can't stress enough how

radically different Trump 2.0 is from

term [clears throat] one. So, this

government is run basically by a half

dozen people who are in the room with

him. And if you are a senior official in

this government somewhere else, major

decisions can get made. And if you're

not in the room, like you literally have

no idea. The inter agency process in

particular at the National Security

Council just really doesn't exist the

way it used to. And that was often how

other agencies would be brought in.

That's just not happening now. The

comm's process is not quite what it was.

It was now it's just sort of pure

trolling. Um and he gets his information

as you said from Truth Social. It used

to be that he would get on what was

known as Twitter and he when he was

president last time and he would look at

the replies and he would look at the

trending topics. Uh he would talk to

more people. He does watch other cable

channels besides Fox. Um we we learned

recently that he watches um Ms. Now a

lot on the weekends. We Jonathan and I

learned that as after he appeared to

have watched one of our appearances

talking about the book. Um, so it's a

little more variegated than it seems,

but most of the information is coming

from

Natalie Harp, who's known as the human

printer, from people who know that he

wants a constant supply of positive

reinforcement, and his aids are afraid

of giving him bad news. And I just want

to make one other point, Fox is so much

less critical of him this term than they

were last term. Um, even on the the news

shows, it is all

pretty positive and especially about the

war. They are like the last in anything

that would be considered the MAGA media

ecosystem that is really championing

this war.

>> We stop the fighting in the ceasefire in

the 20 yard line. We take it into the

end zone.

>> Once you start this, there needs to be a

finish. And the only finish is complete

surrender by the Iranians. I hate to say

it, but complete annihilation. The

reason this president will go down in

history for a thousand years, the reason

the prime minister of Israel will go

down in history for a thousand years is

because they saw the danger and they

stood up to the danger and they're

fighting the danger.

>> So, how much do you think the decisions

being made reflect an altered

informationational environment for him?

>> Well, it's a it's a great question that

I don't think that we have the full

answer to. I mean, one question that

keeps coming up is does he understand

how depleted the US um munitions are

from this war? Now, that's not an

unknowable thing for his own Pentagon

leaders, but I don't know how much

they're telling him. Uh we have a scene

in the book where his advisers, his

economic adviserss, particularly Howard

Lutneck are trying to uh uh commerce

secretary are talking about numbers

about uh economic numbers and Trump this

is ahead of the trade war liberation day

last year and Trump says those are those

numbers are Natalie get me the

real numbers and so she's googling to

find these numbers. Um there was push

back in this meeting but his willingness

to operate on his own gut and on what he

thinks is reality I would say is much

sharper um this term.

>> There there's something also tucked in

there which is you describe his meetings

as having this borderless quality

>> that people are flowing in and out of

the White House. It's not necessarily.

I'm sure it is sometimes, but you know,

from 10:15 to 10:45, we're meeting with

the joint chiefs. From 10, you know,

that ends, they all leave 10:45.

>> So, can you talk just a bit about that

kind of that free flowing nature because

I think the way he ends up getting

information, making decisions actually

reflects that, the slightly random

assemblage of people who might be around

on a certain issue at a certain time.

>> There's no question about that. But it's

also um yes that is by his design. Uh

this White House group of staffers uh is

much more willing to work with that as

his preferred state than term one. You

had Ryan Priebus come in as the first

White House chief of staff in 2017. He

kept trying to put things on Trump's

schedule. First it was we're going to

schedule early meetings to try to get

him to stop tweeting in the morning.

Then the meeting started sliding back

and that wasn't working. They tried

monitoring his phone calls. That didn't

work either. Um this has always been a

facet of Trump is just there's a big

long kind of day and sometimes he has

all the time in the world but there is

no sort of this person cannot come in

there might be certain moments like that

or specific meetings but in general he

does have an open door policy everything

becomes this rolling ball session and so

I'll give you another for instance in

the book Laura Loomer comes into this

meeting in in April um I think it was

liberation day actually and she hands

him this list of and she had negotiated

this meeting with him directly um of of

uh national security staffers who who

she believed were being disloyal to him

and that should be fired and he's

listening and you know he acts on it but

in the middle of that meeting um

Congressman Scott Perry comes in to join

with his own list of things that he has

an issue with and Trump just has them

there and so yes the focus is whatever

is in front of him

>> and he just barks in order at some aid

and they go off and do it

>> yes it's just get it done I want it fast

fine what'sever in front of his

Uh you are correct that it does have to

do with the attent the the information

he's getting but trying to stop that is

also useless because many have tried.

>> This maybe goes back to the the question

I was circling at the beginning and and

maybe out of steam is not the right way

to put it. But I always wonder with him

and particularly around reporting like

this what picture he has of the way

things are going

because you know from where I sit his

trade war has been a disaster. It is

wildly unpopular. It has been shredded

by the Supreme Court. Has made people

very angry at him and it has

accomplished nothing. We're not seeing a

huge resurgence in manufacturing jobs.

China's not weaker now. I think the

broad and correct view is China's in a

much stronger position today than when

Trump stepped back into the White House.

So sort of everything they promised on

the trade war has not happened and the

politics of it have been bad. Doge

completely collapsed after a couple

months. It did terrible damage. It did

terrible damage. USAD is gutted and

gone. People have died,

>> but

>> it did not then cohhere into what many I

think people thought you might get,

which is like a Doge 2.0 where you know

Russ vote and others like actually

create something institutionalized.

>> He's not popular. The Iran war I think

is not going well.

>> They [snorts] have no legislative agenda

that I can tell.

>> No.

>> They don't have a affordability agenda

that makes any sense. But if you're him

and you got somebody following you

around all day telling you you're

wonderful,

>> right?

>> You think the media that is mad at you

just has Trump derangement syndrome.

you're getting presented with uh peace

awards by the head of FIFA.

>> Different CEOs are coming in and

constantly kissing your ass and telling

you how great you are.

>> Maybe you don't buy any of it. You have

defied the polls many times.

>> You you just hit on what it is. You've

you're suddenly we've left out one piece

that we haven't discussed at all that I

think we will all be talking about after

the midterms a lot, which is the

incredible

massive self-deing. uh you are richer if

you are Donald Trump and you spent your

whole life talking about wealth and

measuring success through wealth uh and

you are now wealthier liquidwise assets

than you have ever been from an industry

that you regulate from a company that

was created during your campaign that

your sons are running with the sons of

your special envoy. Um

it's a sentence that it's really was

would have been unimaginable not that

long ago. Um and you're you're doing it

in Republicans in Congress say nothing

and the Senate say almost nothing and

voters have only started to care about

some of it in polling I'm seeing and I

honestly think the main reason is less

the money made although I do think that

that is a factor. It's that they can see

visual signs with all of the monuments

and all of the, you know, bla literally

blasting through uh longstanding

um buildings or structures like the east

wing, planning to build an arch, um

putting down drapes so people can't see

your construction projects and so forth.

Symbols are a lot easier for v voters to

understand. Um, and voters tend to think

all politicians are corrupt, but this is

different than anything we have ever

seen in the US system. But if you're

him, you have been this kind of walking

moral hazard. Your company almost sank

in 1991.

And I think people don't understand

how close to ruin he was when his

casinos were uh [snorts] overleveraged.

It was across his properties. It wasn't

just there. You come back through a

variety of reasons, but partly because

the banks decided it was worth staying

with you and your father helped you. You

become a reality TV star. You win the

presidency after never having run for

city council before. You are indicted

four times. Your opponents keep doing

things that are pretty selfharmful. Uh

Joe Biden has a pretty non-spectacular

last two years at minimum of his term.

uh you are shot at, you survive. You

have take on this mystical quality with

your f not just your followers but with

your adviserss who refer to him or then

anyway would refer to him as the chosen

one. Um only semi- joking in some cases

and you believe everything works out for

you which is literally what he said to

Tucker Carlson. You know why the Iran

war is going to work out? Things are

going to work out because they always

do. And so you believe that your reality

is better than what experts have been

telling you. He thinks the economy is

boring. He literally will tell advisers

he finds this boring to talk about. He

wants to talk about immigrants, you

know, committing rapes or murdering

people or committing crimes. Um, and

he's going to do what he wants to do.

And he is, look, he obviously doesn't

want to be impeached again. But when you

have to say again unimpeached, it

stuff's mattering as much sort of I

think to some extent in his head. It's

also not even the first again.

>> Well, that's exactly correct. It would

be again three. Um, and so again, well,

again, two, I guess. Um, he's already

told people that he's going to pardon

everyone who walks in. You know, we

write about this in the book, who's come

within a certain radius of the Oval

Office, and he has an immunity ruling

from the Supreme Court that it's

[snorts] still not entirely clear what

would qualify as a presidential act

where he has no criminal uh exposure,

but I suspect it would be most of them

if it was pressed. So if you were him,

yes, it this moment could be very bad

for other Republicans, but he's not that

worried for himself.

>> Let me ask you about the corruption

dimension of this. So when you talk to

Republicans off the record,

often they will admit they know that we

are dealing with a level of corruption

that is majestic in its grandeur

>> that is like nothing we've really seen

before. It's not it's not even a

debatable point when you

>> not debatable point.

>> One thing I hear people say all the time

um in the media elsewhere just voters,

Democrats, is any one of these stories

would have consumed Washington at

another time.

>> Mhm.

>> Would have sunk another presidency.

>> You think of, you know, travel gate and

pig futures in the Clinton

administration. You think of the, you

know, the Trump um cabinet member who

had to resign. I think it was Andy

Price.

>> Yeah. Tom Price, I think.

>> Tom Price for what was it? Taken charter

jets.

>> He was using jets. Yes. And we we have

referenced that in the book actually.

Yeah. Yeah.

>> Why is it

that stories that would have consumed

Washington even would have been a

problem for, you know, members of the

Trump administration another time seem

to slide off of him. Right? There's

great reporting being done at the New

York Times, at the New Yorker, at other

places. You know, we know a lot, right?

>> We have numbers now that we didn't used

to have.

>> But why has he been able to flood the

zone on corruption and then escape the

consequences it would have attached to

another administration?

>> Well, there I would break that down a

little bit. So what you're describing in

terms of consequences from what you just

ticked through was primarily the

consequences of a news cycle, the

consequences of public information. And

number one, I think that at this point,

if you are a journalist and you get into

journalism

in the hopes that or the or I shouldn't

say hopes, in the expectation that what

you write is going to force an outcome

and that that is your that is your end,

you're going to be disappointed very

very often because it is a totally

different media landscape because there

this choose your own adventure

partisanship really actually allows

people to just hear what they want to

hear. Number one. Number two, um, you

know, we don't have we don't have

subpoena powers, right? We can only

write up to what we know. In the past,

investigations would have been done by

the inspector's general. He's fired

inspectors general at the start of his

term. They would have been done by

Congress on a bipartisan level uh basis.

Everything is tribal now, like beyond

anything we have seen in the past. It

was pretty bad before in terms of

partisanship. Um

uh the House GOP acts like an arm of the

the Trump administration.

The Republican House members uh and some

senators, they still look at him as a

celebrity. Yes, there is obviously a

fear factor. He has shown he is willing

to destroy their careers and really

humiliate them.

But the way that they grown men, you

know, he'll take chocolate bars out of

the what they call the chum closet that

has the presidential merch or whatever.

Um and he'll like throw them. them. It's

like Hershey bars. And these are house

members who are like, "Ooh, me." They,

you know, they love being on Air Force

One with him. And

>> the House member gushing that he knew

his first name.

>> Yes. Correct. It's this celebrity is

talking to me. Not this president. This

celebrity. I watched The Apprentice. I

knew Donald Trump. So that's one reason

why. The other is he has been

investigated since almost the second he

stepped actually literally the second he

stepped into office in 2017. So I think

there is a flattening effect with the

public in terms of their expectation.

At a certain point it all becomes one,

you know, Trump would smear it that way.

Witch hunt. Explaining to people that

there is new information is I think a

challenge for journalists across the

board. All of that are in his favor.

There is not one single reason why. And

I don't think there will ever be another

politician who will have this same

experience as he does, but we'll see.

>> Do you think that changes if Democrats

get subpoena power?

Uh, no I don't because I think that if

you are Donald Trump and you can pardon

everyone around you and you can instruct

your entire government not to respond to

subpoenas with anything timely and only

do it once the final stop in a court

challenge makes you I mean look Trump's

whole thing is waiting people out and we

have seen this over and over and over

again. So there are um a number of

members of his government and I talked

about how radicalized they all are who

do believe that they are going to be not

just subpoenaed but prosecuted. And I'm

not just talking about when the house

flips. I'm talking about under a

Democratic presidency.

They genuinely believe and I'm not

endorsing this view. I'm just saying

this is their perspective. um you know

we are going to be indicted by um you

know an an an illegitimate hunter of the

Democrats at some point they are going

to come after us when we are out of

power you know so we are going to do

everything we can that is entirely the

mindset they have the same hunted

mentality that he does um I don't think

it's I just think that people who think

that the house is going to flip and this

is going to look like it did in 2019

I'm struggling to see that I I could be

wrong, but what happens when they issue

contempt of Congress subpoenas and they

send [snorts] them to Attorney General

Todd Blanch? Does he rush to start an

investigation? Like, I I just don't know

what this looks like. Um, but I don't

see it looking like anything we've seen

before. A Democratic strategist said to

me in 2016, right after Trump won, that

the entire country was about to finally

understand how much of our system is

norms and not laws.

>> And fundamentally, I still come back to

that every time. If you have somebody

who is willing to violate every norm by

I mean I'm really every norm. I don't

think I can think of one that he I'm

sure there's something but it's hard not

it's hard to go down the list and find

something that is still firmly in place.

We have a president who cheered when

Robert Mueller died. Um he he cheered

when Rob Reiner was killed by his own

son according to prosecutors. um he is

making a ton of money and they're almost

they're very blasze about it. Um you

know they will say this is there's no

corruption here as they continue doing

what they're doing. They're about to

start trying to monetize his truth

social posts for advanced notice. It's a

it's a recipe. Can you talk through that

for a minute cuz that that the truth

social uh the

>> I know [clears throat] it's like it's

hard to describe because I remember

>> trying to monetize they're trying to

monetize um rapid trading

>> correct

>> on True Social, but but can you explain

how

>> Yes. What they're trying to do is sell

for very very high dollar amounts. I

think it's like $100,000

>> advanced notification of Trump's truth

posts because they can move markets and

do move markets.

It seems

ripe for even if even if it's not

violating a law for Trump because

presidents are actually not held to the

same ethical standards and laws um uh

and regulations as their staff. I mean,

how does this not become something else?

So anyway,

>> well, it it goes to something I think in

what you were just talking about, which

is I think the deep answer to the

question we were just discussing is

Republicans.

>> It's it's the it's the fundamental

answer

>> on some level, right? Like in other

administrations,

>> even your co-partisans on something like

this would say no. Now, arguably

Republicans did that a bit on the IRS

slushf fund.

>> It was I mean that was so brazen that it

was a little hard um not to have

problems with it. And I actually I don't

even remember if had the judge already

raised questions about that once they

did. Did that give them cover? I don't

even remember. But but yes, I mean this

was this was you're taking taxpayer

money and doing this. It's the taxpayer

money. a lot of how not just

accountability but investigation worked

in Washington

>> was it I mean either the other side was

in power so they were able to structure

investigation and that the agencies are

run more professionally the department

of justice run more independently and so

they responded to investigation and

responded to subpoenas

>> and that creates a

>> structure of and a sequencing of

information coming out and you know

possible consequences and people being

hauled before Congress and Each one is a

new news story

>> and that's how you get the connection of

like a congressional

>> operation and like media coverage that

people understand is a scandal.

>> Yes. Well, that is true. I mean,

>> that's how it works. And right,

Republicans just are not going to do

that.

>> No, they're not. Um, you know, the

closest that they have come would have

been, and I am really stretching the

word closest here, so just roll with me

for a second. But before you say this is

absolutely not at all parallel, cuz I'm

not saying it is, but the closest would

have been

some of what they were doing around

Epstein, but of course that took a

detour to the Clintons and all kinds of

other stuff. Um, and by that I just mean

James Comr's committee initially, uh,

which was filing a subpoena to Pam Bondi

that the administration [clears throat]

was not happy with. And then they slow

rolled that. But no, there's no there's

no analog. I mean, if you look back at

the last real effort that attempted to

be moderately bipartisan, it would have

been the J6 committee and uh the select

committee that was investigating what

happened uh in the leadup to the January

6th riot at the capital and Trump's

efforts to overturn the election. But

even that devolved into partisan

politics and so there you have it.

>> It was striking to me how small of a

role Congress played in this book.

Uh, well, there's a couple of reasons.

It's a good it's a it's a it's a point,

but the reality is that Congress plays a

supplicant role. We did talk about that.

We talked about Mike Johnson's role with

Trump and how incredibly unusual it is

historically. There's just there has not

been a relationship like this between a

house speaker and a president that I can

think of where it's literally give me my

marching orders this way. That is not

about policy. It's about just whatever

you want it to be. But the reality is

there is no legislative agenda. As you

said, there was the one big beautiful

bill and we did talk about that and we

do get into what went into that, but

this administration knew that it was

never going to be able to do much

legislatively.

Um, but this again goes to me to to this

question of what is actually being built

here versus what is just kind of

>> collapsing or being like left alone

>> on even a lot of these issues. Okay, so

the big beautiful bill did pass. It's a

big change and you know as the actual

changes to Medicaid and food stamps and

other things were a lot of things that

have a lot of

>> um political upheaval around that.

>> Yes. And there will be more focus and

there will be more coverage and

interest. I agree with that.

>> Look, their trade agenda got gutted.

>> They could have gone to Republicans in

Congress to get more power on tariffs.

They chose not to do that. Would

Republicans Congress keep them from ever

changing the filibuster?

>> I don't know. like they've been kind of

tough on that but they've also like

nicked it around the edges a little

>> a little

>> immigration um they have done a

tremendous amount immigration I think of

everything you can look at they have

done the most on immigration

>> correct

>> what they have not done is change the

laws

>> well because that takes time I mean this

isn't complicated this is

>> but it also means that another

administration can

>> I understand that but they also assume

that's going to happen regardless I mean

I think that just to try to explain the

mindset here

>> um the person who spent the most time

and I'm glad you brought up immigration.

The person who has spent the most time

thinking about a Trump 2.0 know and not

just from the perspective of of

immigration but obviously that's his

driving issue and defining issue is

Steven Miller and he spent four years

focused on

not just what he wanted to do

differently this time to be more of I

mean you know the initial Muslim ban was

a disaster um and a court challenged

disaster and it was poorly written and

so forth in 2017 and it it created mass

chaos on flights and so forth. Steven

Miller spent four years looking at how

far the law could go on a number of

things. What was in the executive

branch's control, what could be claimed

as an executive branch power, which

they've done a lot. And they've gotten

caught in courts on this, as you know,

and that's sort of part of what you're

saying, I think, is if you don't want to

have a big court fight, go work through

the actual process. They would rather

have a big court fight because if you go

through the process, it's going to move

slowly. and their gamble is that they

can win much of the time. Not every

time. The trade agenda was a calamity

for a variety of reasons, but it wasn't

just because they didn't go to Congress.

It was because the formula made no

goddamn sense.

>> But Doge is another example where Doge

is a great example.

>> To do what they wanted to do, you

actually need to do civil service

reform.

>> And they've done a little bit of that,

but it's not civil service reform.

Correct. Yes.

>> But that's not again who this actually

gets to a different problem. They don't

all there's no there isn't a they

actually they don't total they don't all

work in harmony even though they

collectively want the same thing which

is crush the left expand our power focus

on a a specific set of issues and we've

gone over many of them on this show but

Russ vote actually understands how

government works Elon Musk did not he

just came in and started punching

through walls um in some cases literally

you know physical aspects were impacted

by by how he handles things. That is

different also than how Steven Miller

wants to handle certain things. And so

that creates its own internal crash.

Then add Congress to that as a layer.

It's hard to see.

>> Has there been a shift in who holds

power in the court in the last year?

>> Yes, but it can change quite rapidly.

Marco Rubio had a lot of capital with

Trump um for a long time. I think still

does, but he is really not that involved

in the Iran issue. um he is

>> because Trump doesn't want him or

because he doesn't want to be near it.

>> I I think it's more the latter.

Honestly, I think that Trump would

welcome his um involvement more, but and

he may get more involved now, but uh we

you know, he's been talking about it a

little bit more, but uh I think that

Rubio, if you strapped him to a

polygraph, this is not where he wants

things to be. Um Susie Wilds is still

hugely influential. Steven Miller,

despite these stories about how he was

getting his wings clipped and whatever

after Renee Good and Alex Freddy were

killed in Minnesota, that was vastly

overstated. The showy displays of, you

know, repelling into a building in

Chicago from a Blackhawk, which I still

can't really believe happened last year,

but they have stopped the the great

displays of force. They are still using

force and it but it's not, you know,

these ice drives the same way. It's the

traffic stops. That's what the latest

shootings were about. Steven Miller has

taken down his arrest number for

undocumented immigrants from last year.

It was 3,000 a day last year. Now it's

2,000 a day. And he's back to pushing

people. And he's very, very aggressive

on these calls. So [snorts] Miller still

has power because Miller can also tell

Trump, I can get you what you want very

quickly. Which is also again why they

don't go to Congress. They want to act

unilaterally. Trump wants to act

unilaterally and he just wants to do

what he wants. Um, Hexath is still

actually pretty powerful with Trump.

Radcliffe is on certain issues. But the

person who is most powerful is Trump.

Period.

>> Hegath is powerful with Trump. Trump

listens to him.

>> He listens to him on certain issues.

Hegs has figured out how to have

conversations. Look, Hegsth, if there

was anyone who was in favor of Iran, it

was Hexath. Um, but I I don't think he

fully envisioned it going this way

either. Heath often shows up for these

briefings with Trump with Dan Kaine. he

has figured out how to handle these

discussions so that he is turning to

somebody who actually has better

tactical understanding. Uh but Trump

does listen to him and the former

general who

>> the former general who is now the

chairman of the joint chiefs of staff

but whose style is very different than

Trump's last choice for chairman of the

joint chiefs of staff which was Mark

Millie who would get into these sort of

grab Trump by the lapels arguments. He

did see his job as telling Trump which

way to go. Kaine has told people he

doesn't see that as his job. Um, Hexath

is a um a diehard Trumper, not MAGA

Trumper. And so that buys you a lot of

cash internally.

>> Yeah. So that that was my question with

him. Is he somebody who Trump enjoys as

a yes man or who Trump listens to for

strategic advice?

>> More the former than the latter, but the

strategic advice is also channeled

through these joint conversations with

HGsith. Um, but he does listen to him

and he likes him and, you know, he's

good on TV. He's tough. He he doesn't he

doesn't take crap, etc., etc. And he is

a devote.

>> What have the people uh in the inner

circle learned about how to brief Trump?

>> It's a good that's a good question.

>> This is it. It sits around the edge of a

lot of the stories in your book of

people bringing in poster boards, right?

>> Well, that's Phil Py. That's one person,

but yes, I understand.

>> But I've heard from other people around

the briefing books that they're very

visual.

>> Oh, totally.

>> Tell me what people have learned about

how you briefed Donald Trump.

>> He Trump is very visual, as you said.

Uh, and this was a a big facet of term

one, too. Now they all submit to it. I

think they resisted it, the government,

because it was so unusual to them in

term one, but he really doesn't like

long briefing books. Um, he doesn't

really read them. He wants to be shown

how things look. That is how he absorbs

them. This is people describe him,

they'll say he's a TV guy, and they tend

to think of it as him on the set of The

Apprentice, but it's actually really how

he absorbs the world is through TV. and

so he likes to see how things look. Just

having a dry recitation of facts and

discussions with him doesn't work very

well. But even when it was visuals in

term one, the quality of the information

was fairly reliable. There's a much

bigger fight now about the quality of

the information.

whether you include a like essentially

raw intelligence, whether you tell him

reports that are unverified, whether it

is just a different type of discussion.

>> The amount that he relies on

a sense of how things are either playing

visually, right? There are moments in

the book where and that I've heard about

too where he sees what it's looking like

when the Israelis are doing something

now. wants to be involved. Or the flip,

right, where he is being shown possible

cabinet appointees and they give him

little

montages of them on cable news.

>> There is something very deep about

Trump's he doesn't just apprehend the

world visually. He is a somewhat a

master of creating visuals for the

world.

>> 100%. Yes. He you know Hegsth uh is one

of many people he sort of cast into his

administration.

>> He was an innovator in this. I mean I

think you have to see Mdani as having

like a different version of this a kind

of visual mastery of the world. I just

had Morris Cats on the show. They very

much

>> found Graham Platner and cast him in a

very particular position. But again,

this operates on the the the edges of

the book, but I'd be curious to hear you

bring it to the the center of the stage,

which is

>> what has it meant

to have this uh administration that both

makes internal decisions through

spectacle?

>> Mhm.

>> And then communicates

through spectacle that that judges

visually and acts visually.

>> It becomes a self-reinforcing feedback

loop sometimes, right? Right. I mean, so

when you were talking about Hexath, we

have a bit in the book about how he, you

know, he got very into these these

videos of the boat strikes and um they

would be privately described as Hegsth's

um snuff films, but you know, he would

he would he would want to have some sent

to Trump because he knew Trump would

want to see them. Um,

Trump is a

master of the attention economy, which

is what I was thinking about when you

were talking about Mom Donnie. I think

that that is part of the attention

economy is creating a visual and is

getting something that will grab people.

Mom Donnie was exceptionally good at

that in his campaign. Um, and still is

honestly. I mean, when I look at his

social media, just as mayor, it is

actually quite striking how much of it

still comes into my feed. even if I'm

not looking for it, even if I'm not

looking at his thing. Um, but it becomes

a way to tell yourself that your view of

reality is what's happening. So, for

instance, um, we have a scene in the

book where Steven Miller comes into, it

was really an important moment. He comes

into the Oval Office and he's got these

pictures of this kid from Doge whose

name online was Big Balls. That's what

he was known as. And his actual name is

Ed something. But um he um he had been

beaten up and he's got these photos that

Stephen Miller had gotten from his wife

who had been working with Musk at Doge.

That then fires up something that

Trump's been wanting to do forever,

which is send National Guard in to DC.

Um it becomes a way of

it isn't just about seeing visuals that

you know reaffirm your point. Um, it is

basically that your world is no

competing viewpoints and that everything

is just going in through the eyes and it

stops you from thinking the same way.

It's because part of I mean this is my

this is my opinion now I'm getting a

little inside his head which I try not

to do cuz it's not a very worthwhile

endeavor but

>> I do think that when people are

consuming their own content that way so

much of consumption of visuals is is

about you react you react and so it's

just a constant reaction and that is

what they try doing with these videos

that um Steven Chung does when he's

trolling you know they set the the White

House communications director who was a

[snorts] big UFC guy for instance, they

set these videos of these strikes like

to to like actual video game music

[music] and dynamics

>> or and I thought this was a fascinating

detail in the book to the music of

artists who are going to protest.

>> Correct. That's true. going to say, "How

dare you use my music in this way?" And

then that's another news cycle for them.

>> Correct.

>> Um, one of the things that Kushner used

to tell people in the White House last

time was that he would describe what he

called Trump rules. And one of them was

controversy elevates message. And so

there's no quicker way to do that. But

it's also a way to say, "I'm not going

to follow your rules."

>> What did you make of the Trump MDI

meetings? Uh, I was so not surprised and

it went exactly as I thought it was

going to in all seriousness. But Trump's

uh own team is a little um

uh jarred by uh how much he enjoys

talking to momi and how as much as the

Republicans are trying to talk about

how, you know, socialists or communists

and Trump is even doing that in his own

speeches, but he seems to have a real

carveout for one particular person. And

I know he's attacked him a few times

recently, Mom Donnie, but Manny is um

he's very good. I mean, apparently in

their first meeting, Monnie was

referring to the crossover of voters

that that were Trump voters at his own

rallies. Money has been quite smart. the

Trump mom Donnie meetings uh they

reflect what I thought was the funniest

part of your book,

>> which is Trump's tendency to be

incredibly consiliatory and friendly

when he meets one-on-one with people

>> who he has been

slandering, who his administration might

be entirely

>> persecuting.

But for somebody who is so brash and

aggressive,

he's a bit of a pussycat one-on-one.

>> Um, he does not like one-on-one

interpersonal conf direct conflict. Uh,

this has been a a constant in his life.

Um, sometimes he does it intentionally

just to sort of make the person be off

guard. But with Manny, he seems to

genuinely like him. So for whatever

that's worth,

>> do you feel Trump is changed with age or

the age is sowing him in meaningful

ways?

>> I mean define meaningful I I

when I watch him on television from even

10 years ago, I mean I was watching his

RNC address in 2016 recently and it's a

a pretty jarring uh comparison to just

how his words flow now. Um he speaks

much slower. Um he's telling the same

stories a lot. the weave is getting wide

as Joe Rogan Rogan would say. That's

definitely true. I will say that

Jonathan and I spent an hour with him in

the Oval Office on March 16th of this

year for a fact check interview for the

book. We didn't notice anything

meaningfully different. Um what we did

notice is that he seemed like what Steve

Bannon describes as pure Trump. There

was just much more focus on payback,

much more focus on what he wants to be

focused on. Um very obsessed with the

renovation projects. Very. And and you

know, here's the models. It's day 17.

here's the models of the ballroom and so

of the day 17 of the war here's my

models of the ballroom and so forth that

was it was like he didn't have a care in

the world but I don't subscribe to this

dementia conversation I don't think

Trump is some fundamentally different

human being I just don't um uh but I

think he is much more himself um which

is a product of age in general

>> there was [clears throat] a sense

maybe the better way to put it is that

there was a thread on practically lefty

social media six eight months ago around

the sort strange bruising people were

seeing.

>> Oh, it is weird. I mean, yes,

>> the sort of the ankle swelling that he

was quite sick

>> in terms of physical health. He has

chronic venus insufficiency

syndrome, disease, whatever it's called,

that means that the blood is not going

to his heart properly. So, that's not a

good thing. Um, you know, on his first

medical report in 2018, he had a calcium

score of, I think, 133. That suggests

some level of heart disease. They have

not put out a calcium score since. Um he

was very sick with COVID in 2020 and we

still don't know the extent of that. I

mean I reported some on that from

information we got well after he was out

of office but you know we don't we don't

know what we don't know and his health

notes read as if he's written part of

them. So you know he goes to Walter Reed

with more frequency and they release

less information. Um he got imaging we

don't even know what they were. Um he

can't tell us. He says he was treated by

22 specialists. What? 22? I don't even

know that could be. And the the bruising

thing, the explanation has never made

sense. It's always been hand shaking,

aspirin. I it could be that 80-year-olds

have thinner skin, but I he's he's

clearly not the the picture of great

physical health, but I don't know what

that means. You know, what I know what I

generally know what it means is that um

electing 80-year-olds is a bit of a

gamble, right? I mean, electing anybody

isn't a gamble. You don't know how

somebody's health is going to be, but

you can guess where it's going when

they're older.

>> How much of his time actually goes into

the renovation now?

>> A lot. if you looked at like like a

chart of his mind share like this I will

say about getting into his mind um like

70% of it would be on his renovations.

It's it's it's a legacy thing but it's

it's it's I always think of legacy with

him different than the way we usually

use the word legacy. It's it's

um it's not what am I leaving behind for

the world. It's what am I leaving behind

so the world can't kick me off the world

or deplatform me or take my name off

buildings in Manhattan or take away my

Bronx leased golf course, you know, or

debank me? It's what can I do that

cannot be taken away?

>> Yeah. How can I create monuments to

myself?

>> Correct. I mean literally I mean he

literally said that when Ed O'Keefe from

CBS asked him he noticed the arch um

which he's calling the arc to Trump um

design on the Resolute desk and he asked

or on the desk I don't know if it was

the Resolute I think it was back by then

Ed said what is that and Trump's like

it's an arch

>> thank you all you come this way thank

you

>> for who?

>> Thanks guys.

>> Yeah know I know where it is but who's

it for?

>> Thank you guys.

>> And he was quite quite clear about it.

There was no further conversation. Um

the Kennedy Center, um the ballroom, um

you know, I mean, I can go on and on,

but it is all monuments.

>> Can you tell the Mcronone story with the

arch?

>> Going to f this up a little bit, but he

in a in a meeting he um he calls So, one

of the things he was musing about was um

like what should go on top of the arch?

And it was like should he put a version

of a gold version like the fight fight

fist from Butler up there? But he calls

Mcronone in the middle of another

meeting and starts asking him about the

Arctic Triumph in uh in France and you

know what's it like and and how many you

know does it have a visitor's desk? Do

people jump off of it? I mean this was

the conversation that he was interested

in and he's still talking about this

kind of thing. Um but calls up a foreign

leader to inquire about what his arch to

himself should look like. Speaking of

the other side of legacy, the more

traditional way we would talk about

legacy, does he have things he still

wants to achieve politically?

>> It's a really good, it's a really good

question. Um, I could answer that pretty

clearly in 2019 and 2020, there were

things that he still wanted to achieve.

um uh

if they are if there are things that he

wants to achieve um beyond just sort of

not being Herbert Hoover as he would

say, meaning with a a giant global

crisis. Um not really. I mean, he look

he's resumed his trade war as you as you

said. Uh I think he'd like to achieve

getting out of Iran. I think he would

like to figure out an end to that the

war that he started. Um but that's not

an achievement. That's a reaction to his

own behavior as we started this episode

with. There are people around whom him

who would like to see some form of

comprehensive immigration reform. To

your question about legislation, that's

something that we can work with

Democrats on. I boy do I have a hard

time seeing Democrats wanting to give

him some kind of a political win that

way, especially when it would be, I

suspect, a bill they would find less

than palatable, as they have almost

every single other bill involving

anything related to immigration with

him. Maybe another way of of asking this

is are there actual policy issues his

mind is gravitating towards in the way

it does towards the renovation. No, I

know what you're asking. I mean the

answer is no. Right. Yeah. I mean I I I

would give I mean that could change.

They could be having conversations we're

not aware of. Um

>> but certainly not in anything that we

have heard. I mean if anything what he

spent the last year and a half focused

on you know as issues top 1 2 and three

were

retribution were these bullying

campaigns across various industries and

aspects of civil society where he was

pretty successful for a time the law

firms won the courts caught up with him

but media he's done pretty well I would

say in terms of his attacks on the media

not not not through the government

levers but through lawsuits but

renovations is really

huge part of it. I mean it's the degree

of mind share on these projects is is

vast. Um he is vastly less interested in

and reactive to domestic politics this

time just just beyond. And one of the

things that we started seeing in 2024

and we get into this this relates to in

the book it relates to the mystical

quality. He sees himself as big on a

level that I think people really don't

understand and and there it was quite

clear when we were sitting with him and

we write about that in the epilogue of

the book but he is playing for history

capital G great man of history um to be

remembered to be remembered by one name

to have left a mark uh on the world that

is just different than a typical

president or what he would say is a a

normal president that doesn't involve

the boring work of trying to pass a bill

that doesn't involve the boring work of

going to Iowa to talk about XYZ,

although his numbers are not great in

Iowa now either. I mean, this is this is

fundamentally less interesting to him.

Immigration very interesting to him. I

think that if he could find some way to

even further change the immigration

system and claim credit for that, he

would. Um, that did not involve

legislation, he may still end up trying

to do something legislatively. It

wouldn't surprise me at all. I just

don't see it going very far. But,

[snorts] but who knows? I'm willing to

be surprised. But no, there is not room

in the tank for here is how we are going

to map out XYZ. They are in survival

mode politically to a degree that I I

kind of can't express.

>> I think that's a good place to end.

Always a final question. What are a few

books you recommend to the audience?

>> Okay. So, I'm reading Charlie Savage's

Takeover: The Return of the Imperial

Presidency, which was a very, very good

look at how particularly Dick Cheney

expanded um executive power under W.

Bush uh post 911. I am reading um Bill

Burton's um strangers because a book

that is that everywhere I sort of feel

compelled to have some sense of um

>> I haven't read it yet. Is it good?

>> It's interesting. Um it's interesting.

It's well written. It's definitely

propulsive. Um it's an interesting

choice to write about such wealth uh in

this moment. It was that was a little

hard to to get through because there are

many people who go through divorces who

don't quite have the same resources. And

then Keith McN's I Regret Everything.

>> Oh, that book has been fun.

>> It's actually fantastic. So, yeah, but

I've had to cycle out of that one for uh

for news and for other reasons. So,

>> Maggie Haberman, thank you very much.

>> That's right. Thanks for having me.

>> [music]

[music]