Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan Take Us Inside Trump’s ‘Imperial Presidency’

In their new book, “Regime Change,” New York Times journalists Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan take readers inside President Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 and the chaotic year that followed. It’s an incredibly revealing look at a president and an administration untethered from the historical constraints of the office and willing to take extraordinary risks in pursuit of absolute power. Maggie and Jonathan reveal what they learned about Elon Musk’s chaotic reign in the White House, why so many of the top tech CEOs were eager to get into the president’s good graces, and what Trump seems obsessed with in 2026. They also discuss the future of Trump's political movement and the challenges Democrats will face from this administration should they regain power in Congress. Questions? Comments? Email us at [email protected] or find us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Threads, and Bluesky @onwithkaraswisher. Come see Kara live in DC. She is sitting down with Former Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo on July 16 at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Center, and you can be in the room. ⁠Register now⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  He is the most consequential president, certainly of my lifetime, certainly of Jonathan's lifetime. It depends on how long we live. Maybe it'll remain that way, but he's not just going away.

• 0:09Kara Swisher?

  No, that is very true.

• 0:22Kara Swisher?

  Hi, everyone. From New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network, this is On with Kara Swisher, and I'm Kara Swisher. Covering President Donald Trump's second term is not an easy job, but few people do it better than New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan. Their new book, Regime Change, is out now. It's an incredible account of Trump's return to the White House in January 2025 and the chaotic year that followed. We all remember the headlines like the outrageous cabinet picks, the ICE raids, the Doge cuts, and the gifted Qatari jet, to name just a few. But Maggie and Jonathan's book takes readers inside the conversations at Mar-a-Lago and the Oval Office and even in the Situation Room to tell the stories behind those headlines. What comes through is a portrait of a president

• 1:04Kara Swisher?

  and administration untethered from the historical constraints of the office and willing to take extraordinary risks in the pursuit of absolute power. I think it's really important to chronicle this in real time, especially the enormous amount of corruption going on with the Trump family, which has essentially monetized the White House for their own benefit. As I have said, Trump is a coin-operated president, and as you'll see here, a lot of people have been putting coins into the vending machine. And one more thing before we get started. If you're going to be in Washington, D.C. on July 16th, please join us at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Center for a live taping of On. I'll be talking to Gina Raimondo, Commerce Secretary under President Biden and former Rhode Island governor,

• 1:47Kara Swisher?

  about what AI means for the American workforce. And as a special bonus, before that conversation, I'll be speaking with Johns Hopkins President Ron Daniels and University of Notre Dame President Father Robert Dowd about how universities are approaching AI and workforce issues. You can get tickets and learn more at voxmedia.com/karaswisherlive. All right, let's get to my conversation with Maggie and Jonathan. They are second to none when it comes to covering Trump. This is a fascinating conversation. Stick around.

• 2:24Kara Swisher?

  Support for this show comes from The Guardian and their new show, Stateside, where journalists Kai Wright and Carter Sherman use the entire independent reporting resources of The Guardian to slow down the news and wrestle with the questions we all have about what is actually happening in the world. Join Kai and Carter three times a week as they utilize all the reporting resources The Guardian has across news, international coverage, climate, culture, wellness, and more. And The Guardian's not owned by a billionaire, they fearlessly report the facts without interference. Go to theguardian.com/stateside to learn more. And listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on YouTube. That's theguardian.com/stateside.

• 3:08Kara Swisher?

  Support for this show comes from Odoo. Running a business shouldn't feel like surviving a software group project. One app for accounting, another for inventory, another for sales, and somehow, none of them ever talk to each other. That's where Odoo comes in. An all-in-one business management software that brings every part of your business together. From sales and accounting to inventory and marketing, all in one powerful platform. No messy integrations, no bouncing between tabs, and best of all, no spreadsheets. Stop managing software and start managing your business with one unified system. Try it today for free at Odoo.com/kara. That's O-D-O-O dot com slash Kara.

• 3:51Kara Swisher?

  Support for this show comes from Canva Enterprise. Design is the face of your brand. It's how you stand out in a noisy world. That's why Canva Enterprise is the all-in-one visual communication platform that lets your organization create, collaborate, and publish high-impact on-brand content at scale. Canva Enterprise was designed to clear up bottlenecks so your teams move faster. Stay on On brand and create content that stands above the rest. Whether it's social, presentations, docs, or video, scale your content without scaling your team. Give your team the power to create their best work today with Canva Enterprise. Learn more at canva.com/enterprise.

• 4:38Kara Swisher?

  Maggie and Jonathan, thank you for coming on ON. I'm excited to talk to you about this book.

• 4:43Speaker 00

  Thanks for having us.

• 4:44Kara Swisher?

  Maggie, you said in a few interviews that writing this book nearly killed you and Jonathan. And you said that unlike Trump's first term, you had to assume people in the administration were not telling the truth to start with. And yet you capture some incredible scenes in the book, down to the empty ice cream cartons and potato chip bags that Trump would leave on the floor of the White House bedroom. Talk about adapting your reporting this time. First Maggie, then Jonathan.

• 5:09Speaker 00

  We first got this book contract in 2023, and we had always planned on a book that was going to be the last act of Trump, whatever that was, whether it was him going to prison, whether it was, you know, which was a real possibility at the time, whether it was him returning to the White House. And once he was back in the White House, it was very clear that we were covering a radically different presidency than anything we had seen, and certainly in most ways unrecognizable to term one. So we shifted the focus to the first 14 months of this term and ended up jettisoning a solid 99% of our reporting. In some cases, there is material that appeared in The New York Times,

• 5:51Speaker 00

  such as, you know, some things related to Elon Musk, although we go a little deeper here on that topic. When we were remotely uncertain about something, it went on the cutting room floor because we wanted to have the most accurate version of history that we could about this remarkable chapter. And we are clear-eyed that this is a first draft of history, that there will be other people who are going to interpret what has happened and probably add on to some of the episodes that we're describing. But we wanted to focus on, A, what was verifiable, B, what explained how this government works and how decisions are made and what their areas of focus are. And you will see that. That's across tech.

• 6:35Speaker 00

  It's across taking control of how the American story is told at the Smithsonian. It is across the Pentagon. It is across various aspects of the government.

• 6:44Kara Swisher?

  John, what about working with sources, especially if you thought they were maybe not telling you the truth to start with? Presumably, you begin with assuming people-

• 6:51Speaker 02

  You begin with false until proven otherwise. And the only thing in your introduction that I would disagree with is your characterization of like, first term, we sort of could trust the sources, now we can't. No, actually, no. Not at all. False until proven otherwise became my default setting in the first term as well. The biggest difference is the shrinking of the circle, which just makes it much more difficult to get information. I will say, again, we don't want to get too much into a sourcing conversation for reasons that you'll find very obvious, but we've published some very detailed scenes in the Situation Room with very specific dialogue, scenes that are not exactly flattering to the administration,

• 7:34Speaker 02

  in some cases are quite damaging to the administration. There hasn't been one denial. There hasn't been one specific denial from any of the participants in these meetings. The only thing there has been is Trump himself doing a sort of all-purpose denial, saying the whole thing is fake. But no one who's quoted in any of those scenes has denied anything so far.

• 7:54Kara Swisher?

  Maggie, did you want to add something?

• 7:55Speaker 00

  No, I think that's exactly right. You know, in fact, the Vice President told Megyn Kelly that he was concerned that we had recordings because, you know, of the specificity and accuracy of these scenes. And, you know, we have not commented on that one way or the other, and won't. But I don't assume that any of the people that I deal with in politics or in government are telling me the truth, and that's not specific to this administration by any stretch of the imagination. We hear something, and we learn a piece of information, and then we build on that, and then we, you know, look and see how the corners of the information from the various people that we're dealing with overlap. And if there are major disagreements about either what was said or events that happened...

• 8:42Speaker 00

  They're discarded, you know, in cases where there is agreement about the sentiment, then we characterize it. But beyond that, I mean, I don't think it's, it's just a more rigorous and arduous process, to your point about how much smaller this circle is. We benefit from the fact that we both covered him for such a long time. We've covered his world for such a long time. So we can have a sense of what angle somebody might be trying to comment something from if they're telling us, and that does help.

• 9:17Kara Swisher?

  Yeah.

• 9:17Speaker 02

  I mean, sometimes you can read something, right, Cara? And it's like, it's pretty obvious that like, the microphone has been handed to one person. And it's like, the world according to Garp, you know, and here's my version and whatever. We don't do that. We say, on February 11th, at this time, Benjamin Netanyahu went down to the Situation Room. Here's where they were sitting. This was up on the screen. This happened, then this happened, then this said, then that said, okay, you can, if that was wrong, like, if any of those details were wrong, there's a bunch of people that we've named in the room that can come out and say, this, this is just bullshit. This is a fiction, you know, fictional account or whatever. And like, that hasn't happened.

• 9:57Kara Swisher?

  Right, right, right.

• 9:58Speaker 02

  Nobody in any of those scenes has denied anything, whether it be the scene we have with all the big oil CEOs, Chevron, Exxon, you know, a very dramatic scene with some of the biggest oil CEOs in the country with Stephen Miller and Donald Trump in the room, with Stephen Miller texting the Attorney General, Trump basically telling the oil CEOs like it's some kind of a funhouse of no regulations, they can have whatever they want, very specific dialogue out of the mouths of these CEOs. You would expect if we had something wrong, that the Corporate Affairs Department of Exxon, or Chevron, or Conoco, or any of these people in the room might say, this is bullshit. This never happened.

• 10:43Speaker 02

  The reason that hasn't happened is because for every single one of these scenes, there's like, 10 scenes that didn't make it into the book, because we just had that little kernel, a little bit of doubt, or there was a conflicting thing. And so- I don't think I'll ever do another book, Kar. I'm really not being, I'm not kidding. Like, this thing was so frickin' hard and brutal that, like, as a reporting process, like, by the end of it, I was just like, I never want to even think about a book ever again.

• 11:11Kara Swisher?

  I know, I know the feeling. There are a lot of different ways Trump's second term is different from the first. You can make a long list. But one of the big differences this time, tech and business leaders are very much behind him. In the first, they were much either on the bubble, didn't, thought he was a moron, or sort of cooperated out of like massive self-interest, but very little like. But in this book, you write about how Trump delighted in getting the big tech CEOs to grovel for him, which is precisely what they did. He took joy in showing them flattering texts and messages from Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos like they were trophies. Now, why don't you start? Tell us about the lengths, both how Trump took to humiliate these billionaires, which I'm down for, and why they let him do

• 11:53Kara Swisher?

  it, and the shift that you perceived here in these relationships. Let's start with you, Maggie.

• 11:57Speaker 00

  Yeah, sure. So I think there's a couple of factors at play that our reporting showed. And so one is, and you would know this better than we do, but a lot of tech leaders came to really dislike the Biden administration. They felt like there were certain regulations that were onerous. They did not like DEI policies. Zuckerberg, obviously, has been fairly explicit about that. But it was remarkable to us that Zuckerberg, who once upon a time funded one of the most known pro-immigration groups in the country, goes during the transition to go have a, you know, sort of seance with Stephen Miller, basically, where Stephen Miller

• 12:38Speaker 00

  makes very clear how unhappy he was with that group. Zuckerberg distances himself from it. Obviously, there were corporate interests. Zuckerberg was in the middle of some kind of, I think it was an antitrust case that the government had brought, among other things. You know, Trump was suing Meta over being deplatformed after the January 6 riot at the Capitol in 2021. But it wasn't a black and white thing of, you know, I'm doing these things that I really don't want to be doing. In our reporting, these tech officials were delighted to be sort of shedding what they saw as, you know, constraints that had been placed on them for a variety of reasons.

• 13:16Speaker 00

  So another example is Jeff Bezos, who goes to dinner with Trump and again at Mar-a-Lago, and he says he's trashing the Washington Post, you know, and Trump is too. They're sort of commiserating. Trump is doing it from a coverage perspective. Bezos is lamenting the business side and describing them as, quote unquote, terrible, says, you know, describes this as his worst financial investment. Whatever he thinks of the financial piece of it, independent journalism is really under siege in this administration in particular. And so it's remarkable that he's having this conversation. When Zuckerberg went to dinner with Trump, Trump sits on the patio, in addition to the

• 13:56Speaker 00

  texts that they send him that he, you know, is showing off at his golf club that led Elon Musk to describe it as first-class grovelling. When Zuckerberg is there, Trump keys up on his iPad as he's DJing a version of the National Anthem sung by what is called the J6 Choir.

• 14:14Kara Swisher?

  Yeah, the Star Spangled Banner.

• 14:16Speaker 00

  Right. And it's people who are in prison for their role, alleged or for which they were convicted in the riot. And everybody, when Trump would play this version, would stand on the Mar-a-Lago patio and, you know, put hand on heart. Zuckerberg did too. And it's a pretty remarkable moment of buy-in to Trump's worldview, not just bringing him a check, not just bringing him a gift. And then you had this inauguration where you had all of these tech leaders on stage behind him, whether it was the head of TikTok, who needed some kind of a questionable maneuver to be allowed to continue to operate in the US.

• 14:56Kara Swisher?

  Yeah, vague is what I call all of them.

• 14:58Speaker 00

  A law to sell a TikToker, make it declared a national security risk that Trump had backed in term one. And so there are various reasons why these folks are all... Are all with him, but at least for some of them, it was quite happily.

• 15:14Kara Swisher?

  It was quite happily. Yes, Sergey Brin would be one, the former who had protested at the San Francisco airport, the immigration policies in the first term was now enthusiastically embracing him. I think Bezos was always conservative. That was always my, he was a Wall Street guy through and through. John, how do you look at this? I mean, were you surprised by the, we'll get to Elon in a second because he's his own singular sensation. But talk a little bit about why you think this happened beyond just regular self-interest, which I think was very clear in the first term when they went up to Trump Tower. For that meeting that all of them went up that one time in 2015. What was the difference here from your perspective and did it surprise you?

• 15:55Speaker 02

  It started to change. I started to notice the change after the Butler assassination attempt. When several of them called him, that seemed more sincere to me. I think it was a sort of shocking moment for the country, the president or the potential next president. You know, gets shot in the ear and almost dies and stands up and raises his fist, this blood coming down. You know, a lot of these guys saw it as this heroic moment. Bezos called him, Zuckerberg called him, et cetera. I, look, I don't think it's that complicated. Trump has shown very clearly that he's willing to use power, government power to crush his enemies and to reward his friends.

• 16:40Speaker 02

  Tim Cook is a very low key rational guy. He felt compelled to bring a literal golden tribute to the Oval Office in full view of the news cameras. To the president, you don't do that unless you, there's some level of concern. I think about what the president could offer you, sorry, either.

• 17:05Kara Swisher?

  Do to you.

• 17:06Speaker 02

  Do to you or a desire for him to do something for you. He's incredibly transactional. He's made clear to all of these people that he's a personalist leader, that he, he demands a personal interaction that you can just. Go straight to him. Jensen Huang of Nvidia had no real footprint in Washington before this term. I mean, it was very light footprint anyway. Trump didn't even know who he was.

• 17:32Kara Swisher?

  No, he just, he sold game chips before. It was for games.

• 17:35Speaker 02

  Yeah, they started to be used, the GPUs started to be used for something different. But, but, but Nvidia was a, you know, reasonably big deal during the first term. Trump had no idea who he was. Anyway, he actively, he gets very active. And we have, we sort of chart that relationship in the book as well. He goes down to Mar-a-Lago with his wife. All of these people understand there's a playbook with Trump. And if you don't play it, your competitors are playing the game. Bezos, you know, we have a scene in the book where he comes into the Oval. And this is when Elon Musk is sort of out on the outs with Trump. My recollection was July last year. And Bezos is basically pitching Trump on this concept of contractor diversity at the Pentagon.

• 18:16Speaker 02

  Meaning, don't just give everything to SpaceX, you know, think about us, Blue Origin. So if you're Bezos and you're watching one of your competitors become the best pal of the next president.

• 18:28Kara Swisher?

  You've got to get in there.

• 18:29Speaker 02

  You've got to get in the game. You've got to get in the game. And the only way to get in the game, you've got to be all in. You've got to have both feet in, both arms. You've got to be, I mean, we have, when Trump was showing off the text messages, Bezos had sent him this smiling selfie of himself and Lauren Sanchez. Zuckerberg had texted him a letter from one of his kids about the golden age of America. You know, they're all in.

• 18:52Kara Swisher?

  Yeah. And Maggie, why the humiliation part? I, again, I enjoy it. I think they deserve it. And, but talk a little bit about what, why Trump relishes that. Playing that J six thing, he does on purpose, presumably.

• 19:06Speaker 00

  Well, that one I do think is about, you know, sort of forcing some version of a buy into his, his extremely fact challenge view of the election and of 2020.

• 19:19Speaker 00

  In other cases, I don't think it's complicated. You know, he loves nothing more than a convert, but he wants to see how far you're willing to go to make him happy. And he has done some version of that to any number of people. But in this particular case, I mean, Trump.

• 19:37Speaker 00

  Prizes attention and he prizes fame and he prizes money.

• 19:41Kara Swisher?

  Uh huh.

• 19:42Speaker 00

  And he equates money with intelligence. And so in this case, if you're going to have the wealthiest people in the world coming and, you know, doing some version of this or talking about how, you know, successful you are and how amazing your election was and so forth. There's like nothing that is, is a pure form of, of, of joy for him. Um, it is a thrill. And so I, I think, I think that is all it is.

• 20:08Kara Swisher?

  Yeah.

• 20:08Speaker 00

  I mean, there is the other component, which is it's not just, the humiliation can't just be in private.

• 20:14Kara Swisher?

  Uh huh.

• 20:14Speaker 00

  That's part of the showing the texts off. It's making sure other people see it. So.

• 20:20Kara Swisher?

  Right, right. Absolutely. And you're putting them in the front row was also, when I saw them in the front row, in front of elected officials, in front of bigger, you know, big, long time donors. I was like, oh, and the cabinet, I was like, right next to the family. I was like, oh my God. You know, I don't, in many ways it was grotesque, but I don't blame Trump for that. Well, of course he'd do that. That, the fact that they were there, especially Sundar Pichai was really, you know, who is not, it was, keeps his, his profile quite low, the head of Alphabet. Uh, one, one of the more interesting things, people, Sergey Brin was also there, but Sam Altman and Tim Cook were sort of toward the back. And I wondered why you wouldn't have put Sam or Tim in the front, because Tim is a well-known person.

• 21:03Kara Swisher?

  And I asked people at their companies and one, one of the company people responded, it was the greatest feat of engineering in history not to be within, within that, that panoply.

• 21:14Speaker 00

  That's a good line.

• 21:14Kara Swisher?

  Yeah, I thought so too. Um, let's talk a little bit about AI, because a lot of this is about AI. And that's, that, this is what the race is really about. You capture how Trump seemed to go from a skeptic to a booster after just one meeting with two top executives from OpenAI during the campaign. You call it, quote, "one of the more significant half hours in the history of AI." Jonathan, talk a little bit about the meeting and how the ways it came to shape the White House mostly hands-off approach to AI regulation when Trump took office. I'd be remiss if not saying the people he picked, like David Sacks, are very tight in with these people. And to me, it's all, again, it's a rumble among Silicon Valley people was happening here. But talk a little about Trump himself, because I, I do understand the other characters like Emile Michael and the rest.

• 21:56Speaker 02

  So Trump is what you tech people might call a late adopter, Kara. He only started text messaging in 2022. Okay, so.

• 22:07Speaker 00

  At the end of 2022.

• 22:09Speaker 02

  So, you know.

• 22:10Speaker 00

  In that year, yeah.

• 22:11Speaker 02

  More than 20 years after most of us. Anyway, um, he, he, so this is the summer of 2024 during the campaign. Trump really had no idea what AI was. To the extent he was aware of it, he thought it was kind of scary, kind of disturbing. Um, he had all these concerns about deep fake, someone doing a deep fake of himself, declaring that a nuclear weapon was, you know, a nuclear bomb was heading towards Russia or North Korea. What, what would happen? How would you verify it wasn't him, et cetera? Anyway, OpenAI very smartly, uh, courted the Trump campaign, um, and, and, and set up this meeting in, in Las Vegas.

• 22:56Speaker 02

  And it was Sam Altman was supposed to be there, but he had COVID, so it was two of his top executives. And this is the first time Trump had interacted with any type of AI tool in any meaningful way. And so they're in this crappy little hotel room in Vegas. And they set up.

• 23:13Speaker 00

  Conference, conference room.

• 23:15Speaker 02

  Conference room, not a hotel room, conference room.

• 23:17Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 23:18Speaker 02

  And they set up ChatGPT on the screen. And so they, you know, they put in a few, and so it's Trump sitting there, it's, you know, some of his team, it's, um, two of the top.

• 23:29Speaker 00

  Doug Burgum.

• 23:31Speaker 02

  Doug Burgum's there as well. Anyway, um, so they set up, uh, the ChatGPT and they put in the prompt, you know, they put in a prompt about the AI executive order, one of them that Trump did in term one. And they ask it to turn it into a poem. And so of course it does it and Trump's reading, he goes, the language is so beautiful. This is incredible. He was completely bowled over by the poetry of the 2024 version of ChatGPT. And he turns to one of his aides, um, who's a speechwriter and says, you know, is this going to put you out of a job? And so he'd started the meeting in this sort of like. Almost comatose state. He was yawning. He was tired. It was the end of a long day. And then he was just alert and totally locked in and kind of transfixed by this

• 24:16Speaker 02

  presentation. And so he starts asking them questions, really basic questions. How does this stuff work? Who funds it? They explained to him the concept of compute and how much energy it requires. And he went within the space of about 20 minutes from being like, what the fuck is this thing? And it seems really bad and terrifying to how can I help you as president?

• 24:40Kara Swisher?

  Yes, he's quite intuitive.

• 24:41Speaker 02

  Open the floodgates, get rid of all. And then, of course, it becomes known to him, he's briefed that Biden had been chaining these guys up and that he could be the one to liberate them. So he becomes a convert. He becomes a total convert. And the first 12 months of the administration was essentially open season for these guys. They're changing course now, which is actually very interesting. But that's what it was.

• 25:11Kara Swisher?

  Maggie, how do you look at that shift? Because Trump of all, for a Luddite, he's astonishingly prescient about tech. You know, I always said he's the world's greatest internet troll, like he's good at it, actually. But he's not technical, obviously. But that hardly matters because he understands it, I think, understands at its heart that it could be propaganda.

• 25:29Speaker 02

  He understands the attention economy. That's what he understands. But yeah.

• 25:32Kara Swisher?

  Right, right. We'll be back in a minute.

• 25:44Kara Swisher?

  Support for this show comes from The Guardian. Trying to locate news sources that reliably separate fact from fiction can seem like looking for a needle in a haystack these days. Social media feeds, cable news, and subscription-based news outlets might be able to give you one version of the news, but not in the way that you need. You want news fast, but slow enough to actually absorb the information. Stateside with Kai Wright and Carter Sherman is here to do just that. The podcast tries to slow down the news and wrestle with the questions regarding the world at large at your own pace. Three times a week, hosts Kai Wright and Carter Sherman bring their expertise together to showcase different and engaging perspectives regarding the world today. They will use their collective knowledge to discuss the news, international affairs,

• 26:27Kara Swisher?

  climate, culture, sports, lifestyle, fashion, and wellness. Plus, The Guardian wants to emphasize they're not billionaire owned, meaning they're free to report the whole picture without interference. Go to theguardian.com/stateside to learn more and listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on YouTube starting May 13.

• 26:48Kara Swisher?

  Support for this show comes from Delete Me. Have you ever Googled yourself and found your home address, phone number, or the name of a family member? It's unsettling. Here's what you do to clean up your online data footprint. Go to joindelete.me/kara and enter the code Kara. You get 20% off Delete Me. Delete Me removes your personal information that's being sold online. Delete Me was named the top pick for data removal services by Wirecutter, so you know you're in good hands. I really like Delete Me. I use it all the time. It's always surprising how much data people have about me. I am very privacy forward and I still find so much stuff in mine online, some of which is incorrect, some of which is compiled in a really disturbing way. And you have to sort of control it like weeds.

• 27:32Kara Swisher?

  Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now, at a special discount for our listeners, get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindelete.me/kara and use the promo code Kara at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to joindelete.me/kara and enter the code Kara at checkout. That's joindelete.me/kara code Kara.

• 28:01Kara Swisher?

  Support for this show comes from Hers. Losing weight on your own can often feel like a fight you never win. Luckily, weight loss by Hers offers access to the FDA-approved Wegovy pill and the Wegovy pen. Wegovy is the first-ever GLP-1 weight loss medication available in a pill, but also comes as a pen, so you've got options. With Wegovy, you can lose up to 20% of your body weight. People lost an average of 14% body weight at 64 Weeks in a clinical trial of Wegovy alongside diet and exercise. To get started with Wegovy, just go to forhers.com and complete an online consultation with a licensed provider who will determine if your prescription is appropriate. And Hers doesn't stop there. Nutrition and lifestyle guidance are part of the plan, along with access to 24/7 messaging

• 28:46Kara Swisher?

  with your care team, so support is always in reach. Ready to reach your goals? Visit forhers.com/cara to access personalized, affordable care for weight loss, hair, menopause, and more. That's forhers.com/cara. Individual results may vary and stopping treatment may result in weight regain.

• 29:07Kara Swisher?

  He also formed an alliance, obviously the most famous alliances with Elon Musk and gave him huge latitude to operate across the government Doge, which is now apparently closed down with nothing to show for it. In fact, probably a lot of costs.

• 29:18Speaker 02

  Except, you know, just a minor detail, USAID doesn't exist anymore.

• 29:22Kara Swisher?

  Correct. And that's what I'm saying. There's a lot of costs, including deaths of people across the globe. You write that some of the administration, he appeared unhinged, which I told you this, Maggie. He would just wander to meetings drunk whenever he wanted and pick fights with cabinet members. Talk about the tenure, that first tenure that created so much destabilization, which the White House still hasn't recovered from, or has it? First, Maggie, explain that, sort of what happened there.

• 29:52Speaker 00

  Yeah, it's a good question about the recovery piece. So it's almost, it's memory hold at this point with so much that has happened, for the most part, what those first couple of months of the administration were like. But Trump basically let Elon Musk become not exactly a co-president, but basically a co-president. He was issuing directives. He was, you know, sending out these memos from the Personnel Management Office, you know, the Five Things email. Senior advisors in the West Wing would learn when the rest of us did what Musk was up to. It created this, you know, sort of presidency within a presidency. And

• 30:35Speaker 00

  He was demanding cuts at cabinet agencies in ways that, you know, there were some people who were quite fawning over him, like Lee Zeldin at EPA. And then there were others who were very, very troubled by the demands that he was making. Marco Rubio at State Department, Sean Duffy at Transportation, Doug Collins at the VA, although, you know, it's a sliding scale of how animated everybody was. But he was just sort of doing these slashes of, you know, get rid of this one. He would make accusations. We read about this remarkable cabinet meeting in March of last year, which was only like six weeks into the administration at that point, where, you know, Elon Musk is insisting that Sean Duffy has,

• 31:20Speaker 00

  I think it was like, "You have DEI hires still in the aircraft control towers." And Duffy was like, "Who?" Like, names, please. And that was, that was one of the things that became the beginning of the end of Musk. On the one hand, Trump saw Musk as something of a heat shield at the time. He was the one absorbing a lot of bad press. But the reality is that Musk also essentially, as one person put it to us in the course of this reporting, hijacked this second administration for several months. And, you know, they've recovered in the sense that there were, you know, other things that they moved on to, like the 12-day war in Iran, which was early last June. Then there was the summer of Jeffrey Epstein piles, and I'm sure we'll talk about that at some point.

• 32:05Speaker 00

  Yes, I'm glad, because it was Musk-related, yeah. You know, it, the, there are people who, they, it's not like they are rowing in different directions

• 32:16Speaker 00

  in terms of what they want to see happen agenda-wise in this administration overall. They really aren't. This is not Steve Bannon versus Jared Kushner. But how you get there, they're not all on the same page, you know, whether it's Russ Vod or Elon Musk or Stephen Miller as the top.

• 32:34Speaker 00

  People I would put in that bucket. So you have this situation where Musk, yes, they closed a congressional, we created agency in USAID, just got rid of it. It's just gone. And the rump that was left became Marco Rubio's problem. But beyond that, as you say, they did not do anything close to the savings they said they were going to do. We had the sitting president do what was essentially an ad for Tesla by buying a Tesla and bringing it up to the White House, which, you know, in a series of pretty astonishing moments, that was one. But that was the beginning.

• 33:10Kara Swisher?

  Right. So John, how do you look at this period of time? Is it just that he gave Trump a lot of money and possibly was a critical element in it, in the, in the election of Trump winning? I, I believe that to be so. Or something else was happening here? And interestingly enough, when the break happened, which I predicted would happen, Elon's tweet about Epstein set off the Epstein stuff. Absolutely. To me, he was, when I saw that, I was like, oh, no, this is, this is where it's good. Because I had spent a lot of time focused on Epstein stuff in, in MAGA world, essentially. It had been a bearing wall for MAGA world. And when I saw Elon's tweet, I was like, oh, dear, he's really angry if he's putting this up. Talk a little bit about the course of that relationship, because

• 33:54Kara Swisher?

  there was also the, the criticizing, the big spending bill. John, talk a little bit about both those things. And Maggie, if you have any thoughts, but John, you go first.

• 34:03Speaker 02

  Well, so the Elon relationship is interesting for lots of reasons. But Trump had no relationship with Elon Musk before 2024, really. I mean, they'd met each other a couple of times. Elon had been quite critical of Trump. They'd sort of attacked each other publicly. There were a series of meetings throughout 2024.

• 34:32Speaker 02

  You know, breakfasts and things like that. And then Elon became a huge booster after the assassination attempt in Butler, and they just went all in, spent around three hundred million dollars to elect him.

• 34:44Kara Swisher?

  That we know of.

• 34:45Speaker 02

  That we know of, exactly. Correct. Uh, which is just maybe the most ever spent on a presidential campaign by any donor. So I think it's that, but it's also Trump was fascinated by Musk. You know, Maggie made the point earlier, he equates wealth with intelligence. Well, by that score, Musk may, you know, must have been the smartest man who ever lived. And Trump would talk about him almost like he was socializing him into the world. You know, he would say like Elon's a recluse, but he's not a recluse anymore. I mean, Elon Musk moved in. He literally was living at Mar-a-Lago in a cottage on the property called Banyan that Trump usually rents out for two thousand dollars a night. We don't know what Elon was paying for it.

• 35:30Speaker 02

  He was getting meals from the Mar-a-Lago kitchen at odd hours. He became essentially a housemate and was suddenly involved in everything. Trump, I think, was intrigued by him, flattered that the world's richest man was essentially working for him. Trump would constantly, usually in previous iterations of Trump, you might think he'd be insecure having someone who was so much richer than him around. But Trump at that point was such, he had been so inflated by his victory. He was now indisputably this figure of history. You know, he would say to people, you know, he can't be president. You know, he's South African, he can't be president. He would, he would throw that in. So Elon was not a

• 36:15Speaker 02

  threat from that respect. And he sort of, I think, felt that he was larger than Elon, even though Elon was richer than him.

• 36:21Kara Swisher?

  It was paternalistic or older brotherish, you know?

• 36:24Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 36:24Kara Swisher?

  At, at one point when he was living, I knew that he had a cottage there. Some, one of the Trump people were like, oh, it's great. He's there. He's there all the time. I go, that'll get tired in fourteen seconds. And you'll call me in two weeks, three weeks and tell me, he crazy. And the person called me and said, he crazy. Like, and it was like, they didn't. Didn't know what to do. It was like Bob. I kept calling him Bob, the guy who wouldn't leave in the Richard Driver's movie. What do you make of the break, both of you, very briefly, of the break between them? And then the reconciliation, which seems to be afoot?

• 36:55Speaker 00

  It was inevitable for the reason that you said. There was always going to be a moment when Elon Musk did, or several moments where Elon Musk did too much, or went too far. And, you know, by the time that he did that Epstein tweet, or X, whatever the hell we call it now, X post, I will tell you that I don't, I don't share the view that Elon is why that all suddenly came to bear. I think that that was a slow-moving disaster in MAGA world, and with accelerating speed. He made it impossible for people to look away at that point. But that was a different issue.

• 37:30Speaker 00

  Trump is never going to be happy with somebody else getting spotlight, attention, credit. Elon did become a liability in Trump's mind. He was privately telling people he was worried about conflicts of interest, which was a little late after the whole Tesla display, but whatever. And the ultimate reality is, I mean, to Jonathan's point earlier about how Trump uses power and wields it over these tech officials, you know, Elon Musk is not so relevant politically without Donald Trump. And I think that he has seen that. And so Trump cut him off. Yes, Trump did have this remarkable line about how this is why he can't have friends, you know, they always

• 38:10Speaker 00

  leave him, which a lot of people have noted to us, whoever read the book, and were struck by. But Musk is back because Musk likes influence and power, and because this government still has, you know, sway over some of his companies. And a lot of people around Trump still believe that Elon Musk can be of use to the party financially. I don't think it's more complicated, but Jonathan may have a-

• 38:34Kara Swisher?

  Does Trump think that? Does Trump think that?

• 38:37Speaker 00

  Trump's always happy to have somebody invest.

• 38:39Kara Swisher?

  Yeah.

• 38:40Speaker 00

  Is how I would put it.

• 38:41Kara Swisher?

  Yeah. Let's talk about some of the ways Trump has also used the presidency to enrich himself and his family. It's a lot wrapped up in technology. Trump has made at least $2 billion after returning to the White House. Again, I think that's undercounting it. About half of that comes from the family's cryptocurrency business. One of the ways is getting fees. Even as people lose money, they get a vig every time. Other ways is like the UAE buying into their companies and getting something else somewhere else. They purchased 49% of World Liberty Financial and it's a crypto firms they share with the family of Steve Witkoff, Trump's Middle East envoy. Talk about this and what do you make of what's happened here? It's not a surprise, but compared to Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden wasn't imaginative enough, apparently, in terms of taking advantage of this.

• 39:26Speaker 02

  To compare them is almost absurd at this point. I mean, Hunter Biden, what was it $80,000 a month that he was getting from Burisma?

• 39:35Speaker 00

  And some paintings, basically.

• 39:37Speaker 02

  Yeah. Obviously, Hunter Biden was influence peddling when Biden was Vice President. I mean, he's not on the board of Burisma because he's an energy expert, obviously. But this is something of a scale that we've never seen before in the American presidency, and it's actually not even close. The Trump family has made clear to everyone in this second term that you actually don't need to go through intermediaries anymore. You can put money directly into their pockets. You can put the children on boards of companies that are competing for government contracts and, in some cases, getting major government contracts. If you're a foreign government or a fund attached to a foreign government,

• 40:21Speaker 02

  you can go into business directly with the Trump family and the Witkoff family. And you said, you know, that we don't know the half of... I don't, we might not know 5% of what the family's making. I mean, like, any time you go down a rabbit hole, like, we went down in the book, A Rabbit Hole, on the library, the presidential library, which I think is a really under-reported exercise. Of course, it's not a library, it's a skyscraper, and the plot of land was given to the Trumps free, very valuable plot of land in Miami was given to them for free. Eric Trump is out soliciting Gulf Arab sovereign funds.

• 41:02Speaker 02

  This is at the same time as his father is conducting foreign policy with those countries, and those countries are seeking favors. But it's also, if you want to stay in with Trump, you can give money to him. So Howard Lutnick, his Commerce Secretary, Trump was, some of our reporting in the book was, Trump was very irritated at reading stories about Lutnick's sons being involved in business that had overlaps with his government. Lutnick gave $25 million to the Trump Presidential Library, and Trump would remark in front of people, "The only reason I," this is in front of Lutnick as well, but others in the Oval, "The only reason I put up with Howard's bullshit is because he gave me $25 million." You know, other times he'd say, you know, "How great is Howard? I asked for 25, he just gave it to me straight away."

• 41:46Speaker 02

  So, it's all out there. They've made it very clear that they're open for business, and, you know, understandably, many businesses, many rich people, many people who are seeking pardons, understand that this is the Trump economy in Washington, and you've got to get into it.

• 42:08Kara Swisher?

  I've called it a coin-operated presidency. You put money in and you get more out, typically. Musk is a good example. He puts 200, 300 million in, and he's gotten billions out in contracts, and he may have deserved those contracts, but some of them he might not have, right? But talk about how that's allowed. Is it because of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, or the fact that Trump is going to pardon, or going to try to pardon everything? Because it's not just that, there's luxury resorts in Albania linked to Jared Kushner, everywhere, it seems everywhere that Trump's sons are doing licensing deals. Deals around the real estate businesses that are somehow linked to. So it's essentially the monetization of the White House. Maggie, how is this going to be? How is this going to turn out? This blurring of foreign policy with private interests?

• 42:53Speaker 00

  Well, there's no question. And sorry, Jonathan, I didn't mean to cut you off. I was, I wanted to make sure that you made the lead point because that's an example that I don't think I could have imagined before, honestly, as a cabinet official, making sure to stay in a good place that way. In terms of how is it going to turn out? I mean, it's inevitably raising questions about the overlap between foreign policy and, you know, personal finances. There is a bit in the book where, you know, Jared Kushner and Steve Whitkoff went to go try to hammer out the ceasefire deal with Gaza, get the hostages back. It was a, it was a huge deal. It was a big deal. It was a legitimate accomplishment.

• 43:35Speaker 00

  And their view was, you know, what you guys would call, I'm paraphrasing, but what you would all, the collective you, would call a conflict of interest. You know, these are, these are negotiating assets for us. However, there is so much overlap that it is, it is really, really hard to determine what ends where and what begins where. In terms of how is it, I think you said, how is it allowed? So there's a couple of factors. One, people keep saying to me, you know, wait until the House flips, if the House flips. I don't think Trump's going to have a big problem. I mean, he, you know, there might be subpoenas that he doesn't want to deal with, among other things, because most processes move much slower than Trump does, number one.

• 44:20Speaker 00

  Number two, Trump is operating with an immunity decision, which he will often say, you know, I'm immune and I'm immune. Trump runs the Justice Department and they have made very clear, there is no, and we lay this out in our book very clearly, there is no separation between the DOJ and the West Wing, as there was as a post-Watergate norm for a very long time. And Trump has told people that he'll pardon, you know, everyone who's come within a certain radius, the number changes, but of the Oval Office. And we spoke to a number of people in the course of our reporting who are counting on those pardons. They were explicit about it, you know? He's going to give out pardons. I'm counting on my pardon. I hope he does, et cetera. So that sets up its own incentive structure. And then when you have a, a group of House Republicans who behave as if

• 45:03Speaker 00

  they are an extension of the executive branch, that's another way. So I don't know what this all ends up looking like, but I, you know, this, what it's not going to look like, in my humble opinion, and again, I could be wrong. There is no use, to some extent, in prognosticating, she says before she does it, a version of it, but this isn't going to look like 2019. You know, this is going, this is going to be a very, very difficult world for Democrats in the House to get subpoenas complied with.

• 45:35Kara Swisher?

  We'll be back in a minute.

• 45:43Speaker 03

  Support for this show comes from Indeed. When the pressure's on and you need to hire the right person for the job, Indeed Sponsored Jobs has got your back. Instead of forcing you to spend tons of time searching, Indeed Sponsored Jobs matches you with quality candidates fast. According to their data, sponsored jobs posted directly on Indeed are 95% more likely to report a hire than non-sponsored jobs. Join the 3.3 million employers worldwide that use Indeed to connect with quality talent that fits their needs. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Less stress, less time, more results. When you need the right person to cut through the chaos, this is the job for Indeed Sponsored Jobs. And listeners to the show will get

• 46:26Speaker 03

  a $75 sponsored job credit to help get your job the premium status it deserves at indeed.com/podcast. Just go to indeed.com/podcast right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. That's indeed.com/podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need the right hire fast? Then this is the job for Indeed Sponsored Jobs.

• 46:54Kara Swisher?

  I'm Kara Swisher, and I like people who say the quiet part out loud. In fact, I love it. That's Tiger Sisters, a new podcast that recently joined the Vox Media Podcast Network. Cherie Brooke Lu and Jean Lu are real sisters who built their careers at LinkedIn and Goldman Sachs. On their weekly podcast, they're giving the next generation practical tips on how to get ahead, how to write emails people actually answer, how to make your LinkedIn profile stand out, and how to keep learning as an It's straight talk about money, career and relationships every Monday. Follow Tiger Sisters wherever you get your podcasts.

• 47:30Kara Swisher?

  Let's finish by looking forward at the upcoming midterms and the presidential elections. You write in the book that not only does Trump seem uninterested in the midterms, but he seems to take satisfaction at the idea of Republicans losing when he's not on the ballot, which seems on brand. He also expects to be impeached again if Republicans lose control of Congress. Can you explain that indifference, Jonathan?

• 47:52Speaker 02

  Well, firstly, it's not completely black and white. It's not that it's not that he doesn't care at all about the midterms. It's just that he cares about them far less, A, than he did in the first term, B, than his advisers would hope, you know, that they would hope that he would be more exercised about domestic political concerns, and he's just not. Things could change, but I think in Donald Trump's mind, the way he's behaving right now, he's not ever going to run for office again. He's constantly talking about, you know, should it be JD? Should it be Marco? You know, what have you. And he's in what he would talk about as describe, I think, as legacy mode, but a very specific type of legacy, you know, putting his stamp on Washington.

• 48:34Speaker 02

  He spends an inordinate amount of time thinking about architecture and building monuments to himself, renaming institutions, essentially branding himself indelibly on Washington and also on reshaping parts of the world. I think one of the great appeals of the Iran situation was that he could be the first president in 47 years to finally deal with this problem. It's what can get me in the history books. So I think that's part of it as well.

• 49:06Kara Swisher?

  Maggie, you've also said you're not sure Trump wants a successor. And just a few weeks ago, he again floated the idea of running for a third term. Is he serious about that? Or is he just trying to drive everyone, including Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance, crazy? Because there's a scene in the book where Trump asks Rupert Murdoch about both of them, and they're in the room. Talk about that moment.

• 49:25Speaker 00

  Sure, let me, let me work, let me work backwards. So from that, that was, we have this scene in the book, and it was, it was a pretty remarkable moment. Yes, Trump likes trolling people. We have no reason to believe in our reporting that Marco Rubio is running for president. You know, maybe that will change, you can scale up fairly fast. But J D Vance, in all of our reporting, is the, is the, the frontrunner at the moment. But Trump's not going to make it easy for him. And to that point, you know, Trump has Murdoch to the White House for dinner in October of last year, while Trump is suing Murdoch over some of the Epstein coverage in the Wall Street Journal at the time. Very big group in the

• 50:06Speaker 00

  Blue Room at the White House, and J D Vance, and who should answer there, Marco Rubio is there, along with a bunch of other people. And Trump starts engaging Murdoch. You know, what do you, what do you think of J D? And Murdoch says, well, J D has the potential to be great. And, or good, I don't remember the exact, Jonathan, was it good or great?

• 50:27Speaker 02

  Great, I think, but yeah.

• 50:28Speaker 00

  Whatever, I think it was, anyway. So, and then J D Vance, who knows that Murdoch did everything he could to stop Trump, you know, and we didn't succeed, from making Vance the VP in 2024 as nominee. Oh, thanks, thanks a lot, Rupert. And then Trump says, you know, well, what about Marco? And Murdoch just icily says, coolly, you know, Marco is brilliant. And it was uncomfortable. And it was a, a pretty incredible scene, just to do this in, in front of them, in front of this group of people. I, you know, and there have been other moments like that, where Trump has, has made a side, or we, we write in the book about how Trump was talking about his, his gilding of the Oval Office, and someone asked him what happens when the next person who succeeds him takes it all down, and Trump

• 51:13Speaker 00

  says Cubans love gold. J D Vance is not Cuban. So. That was a funny line. So Trump, you know, this was misinterpreted, when I said it somewhere, that, you know, he doesn't, what he wants is to be the, the last big sort of leader among Republicans and among the MAGA movement. Doesn't mean that he doesn't actually want another president. To take over the country.

• 51:38Speaker 00

  But with the 2028 stuff, you know, he just doesn't like other, he doesn't like seating the stage. And so the second that he anoints someone, that person is going to start the hourglass on Trump. Number one, depending on how he does it and what it looks like, fine. Number one, number two, these things often start out as trolls with Trump and then they take on a life of their own. Like the 2028 thing now. It is a really hard to see a world where he could run again. But that said, there is no world where he is leaving the stage, even if he leaves the White House. And so I think that becomes its own complication in various ways going forward.

• 52:23Speaker 00

  I mean, there's this, this was like, it just, I keep thinking about the people who keep talking about this. I keep wondering if they lived through the same 2021 that I did where Joe Biden kept saying the former guy, as if that was going to make Trump never appear again. He is the most consequential president, certainly of my lifetime, certainly of Jonathan's lifetime. You know, it depends on how long we live. Maybe it'll remain that way, but he's not just going away.

• 52:47Kara Swisher?

  No, that is very true. So he doesn't really want, and it's interesting, John, it's Vance who's been, including in your book, voicing skepticism about Trump's impulses. He's the one that seems most not on the same page. What, where, how do you look at what he'll do?

• 53:03Speaker 02

  JD Vance is, is actually, when it comes to most of Trump's agenda, completely on board, if not more aggressive on some issues like immigration. I mean, we have a scene in the book where only a few days after the killing of Alex Prety in Minnesota, JD Vance walks into the Chief of Staff's office in a meeting and is agitating for them to invoke the Insurrection Act to suppress the left wing protests in Minnesota. So it's not like Vance is, you know, against a bunch of Trump's agenda. Where he was really vocal were two issues, Epstein and Iran. And the interesting thing about Iran was, which I think was quite revealing,

• 53:47Speaker 02

  was no one in Trump's inner circle thought this was a good idea. The closest may be Pete Hackett, but basically everyone else was very skeptical about going into Iran. But no one made a case to Trump against it vocally, except for Vance. And it cost him. It cost him with Trump. It irritated Trump. He didn't want to hear it. And it strained their relationship. So I thought that was kind of interesting because if you're JD, I always looked at Vance through the prism of his one job politically is to stay in Trump's good graces. And to get, you know, if Trump says, you're my guy, that's it. It's over in terms of the primary.

• 54:31Speaker 02

  So it was just interesting that he was willing to risk that at that moment. And it showed me that ideologically, it does run deeper for him on certain issues than it does for Trump.

• 54:43Kara Swisher?

  Yeah, absolutely. I think he can't stand it. It just is history. I think eventually he won't be able to stand it. Trump is also 80 years old and showing signs of aging as Biden did. But Maggie, you've said that Trump's health is, quote, "one of the black box secrets of the administration." Why? I mean, obviously, they can't figure out what's going on with Mitch McConnell. He's in a hospital. One would assume you could find out, but why is this? This ability to suppress the information about any president's health?

• 55:10Speaker 00

  So to your point, it's not just this. All presidents, you know, have some version of being secretive about their health, not to the same degree by any stretch of the imagination, all of them. But he's not alone in that. Trump has always just been very, very, very secretive about his health, going back decades to when he was running the Trump Organization. Why? I don't know. It doesn't, you know, it doesn't mean that there is some dark secret. It just, it's an area that really he doesn't want people going to, in part because he sees. illness as as weak. He is constantly worried about getting sick. You know, there was an amazing moment in term one where George Stephanopoulos was doing some hours-long

• 55:52Speaker 00

  project with Trump of just a news recording project and Mick Mulvaney was in the background and the White House chief of staff and then Mulvaney starts coughing and Trump was like, get out of here. If you're sick, get out of here. And it was all on camera. That's a pretty pervasive attitude. But he, yes, he is 80. He obviously looks older than he used to. He sounds older than he used to. His voice is slower. His, his, his language is less crisp. You know, I can watch the same videos everybody else does from 10 years ago. But we don't know what we don't know. And, you know, he has gone to Walter Reed more often with less information being released. I think presidents in general have, you know, a desire not to be seen as weak in terms of illness.

• 56:37Kara Swisher?

  I am astonished that we don't have this information for any president, including this one who's clearly aged.

• 56:43Speaker 00

  Yeah, I mean, I think this is true for all public officials. I personally am of the opinion, either party, presidency, congress members, anybody, you know, if you have a condition that is impairing your ability to serve, that is not in the public's interest, that doesn't mean I think he does, by the way, Trump's. I'm just saying that this is not something that, that any president really is particularly forthcoming with.

• 57:09Kara Swisher?

  Last question. One of the big arguments you make in the book is that it was Democrats' successes in driving Trump from office in 2020 and their support of efforts to hold him accountable that made him, quote, "the most consequential and feared president of our lifetimes." In other words, it egged him on to, to get, one of the things you say is stay out of prison. The other is to make money. The third is to have a do-over here. For Democrats, what are the risks that come with aggressively going after Trump again, should they retake power?

• 57:36Speaker 02

  Well, I don't think it's really a disputable premise. The point was that if Trump had have served a consecutive second term.

• 57:44Speaker 02

  It just would be nothing like this term. He was hobbling along at the end of 2020. And if he eked out a narrow victory in that election, he would have had to deal with all the same stuff Biden did. Covid, inflation, you know, the notion that he would have avoided global, the global inflation. I mean, okay, fine. You can claim that, but it's not really plausible. He would have had to withdraw from Afghanistan, which he was trying to do on a precipitous timeline. So that was the argument. Instead, he leaves power, the public sours on Biden, and Trump gets built up as this almost mythological figure through four indictments, you know, the assassination attempt, holding up the fist, the blood coming

• 58:27Speaker 02

  down the face. He became a larger figure. He was enlarged by all of this and had time during the interregnum for his team to really prepare for what they want to do, people like Stephen Miller. So I don't think that's disputable. That's just like, anyone with any common sense can see that. As for, you know, the future, look, I don't think, I never want to make, you know, confident declarations, but I, I don't think Donald Trump is running for a third term. I don't see any evidence that he is. So I think then the, the political risk is simply just energizing the Republican base, right? And impeachment effort obviously

• 59:12Speaker 02

  energizes the Republican base. We've seen that with Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party. We've seen that in the first term with Donald Trump. So, you know, it's pretty obvious. And I've spoken to people who are, you know, advisors to Trump and people who are supporters of J D Vance, who've said to me, the best possible thing for us in 2028 is if Democrats impeach. It would just be something that we could rally behind. I mean, remember, the Republican Party is very divided right now. There's all kinds of fractures and an impeachment effort would just be, it would be a glue. So, I mean, that's the political analysis.

• 59:50Kara Swisher?

  I would agree. Maggie, why don't you finish up?

• 59:53Speaker 00

  I'm sort of of the opinion, A, like, I, I agree with everything Jonathan said, just about sort of the unifying factor that it would be. I don't really see how Democrats can have been running on Trump as one of the most dangerous threats in the world and talking about accountability and then not pursue accountability, despite the fact that What Democrats have run into every single time, among other problems in their in their party and with their own messaging and their own actions, is it's an asymmetrical fight. Because Trump will, we write this in the book, his shamelessness is his superpower.

• 1:00:34Speaker 00

  And so, you know, Graham Plathner, for instance, did eventually drop out of the race. You really are never going to see Trump take a similar, I mean, you're not going to, he's obviously not going to be in that position again, but you're not going to see a commensurate action. But what I will also say, just my personal guess, and again, I, you know, this is useless and all the caveats, if it is an impeachment, there's going to be something else that Republicans unite behind to, as to why they're galvanized against Democrats. And it will be the same for Democrats against the Republicans, because this is the, this is the world of, of political polarization that exists. So it's just, it's all tribal, and neither side wants to see the other get ahead.

• 1:01:18Kara Swisher?

  So no more books, right? No, you're never doing a book?

• 1:01:23Speaker 00

  Don't say the word book to us. Terrible question.

• 1:01:26Kara Swisher?

  Yeah, but so much good stuff.

• 1:01:27Speaker 02

  That's why, just enjoy this one.

• 1:01:28Kara Swisher?

  Okay, well, no, but there's more.

• 1:01:30Speaker 02

  I can't speak for Maggie, you ain't getting another one from me.

• 1:01:33Kara Swisher?

  I know how that feels.

• 1:01:34Speaker 02

  Enjoy this one.

• 1:01:35Speaker 00

  This was a unicorn.

• 1:01:36Kara Swisher?

  This was, all right. Well, it's an excellent book, and congratulations on the success, and good luck covering the rest of the administration.

• 1:01:42Speaker 00

  Thanks, Karen.

• 1:01:43Kara Swisher?

  Yeah. You're going to stay for the, till the end, right, Maggie? Bitter end?

• 1:01:46Speaker 00

  Sure, so is Jonathan.

• 1:01:48Kara Swisher?

  You, you too. All right. Well, we'll look forward to more of your reporting in The Times. Thank you so much.

• 1:01:53Speaker 02

  Thanks for having us.

• 1:01:53Speaker 00

  Bye. Thanks for having us.

• 1:01:59Kara Swisher?

  Today's show was produced by Michelle Alloy, Catherine Millsop, Madeline LaPlante-Duby, Megan Burney, and Kalen Lynch. Nishat Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Special thanks to Rosemarie Ho, Dave Shaw, Lissa Soap, and Julia Sharp Levine. Our engineers are Fernando Aruda and Rick Kwan, and our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following this show, you are writing another bestselling book. If not, you're falling asleep on camera. Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from Podium Media, New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network and us. We'll be back on Thursday with more.