The Revenge Presidency with Maggie Haberman

Summary

Podcast Summary: On with Kara Swisher – "The Revenge Presidency with Maggie Haberman"

Episode Details

• Title: The Revenge Presidency with Maggie Haberman
• Host: Kara Swisher, Vox Media
• Guest: Maggie Haberman, White House Correspondent for The New York Times and CNN Political Analyst
• Release Date: May 29, 2025

---

Introduction

In this insightful episode of "On with Kara Swisher," award-winning journalist Kara Swisher engages in a profound conversation with Maggie Haberman, a seasoned White House correspondent known for her in-depth coverage of former President Donald Trump. This third appearance by Maggie on the podcast delves into the evolving dynamics of Trump's presidency, drawing from her bestselling book, Confidence Man. The discussion navigates through Trump's increasing reliance on misinformation, his influence over the Republican Party, economic policies, and the broader implications for American democracy.

---

Trump's Increasing Misinformation and Altered Reality

Maggie Haberman and Kara Swisher begin by addressing the concerning trend of President Trump making increasingly false statements. Maggie references Trump's recent denial of atrocities against white farmers in South Africa and his insistence that a manipulated image depicted actual MS-13 tattoos on an individual, [04:22]. Kara likens Trump's creation of an alternate reality to the children's book character Harold with a purple crayon, stating:

"He is creating a reality that he wants other people to adhere to." ([04:12])

Kara elaborates on how Trump's unchallenged narrative has intensified due to the shrinking number of White House officials willing to correct him, leading to a more pronounced force of his version of reality [06:05].

---

Insights from "Confidence Man"

Maggie discusses key themes from her book, Confidence Man, emphasizing Trump's regenerative nature and refusal to exit the political arena despite numerous setbacks. She highlights Trump's ability to channel public anger towards various targets, fueling his base's loyalty through shared antagonism rather than unified ideals [08:10]. Maggie reflects on the unforeseen extent of Trump's impact on the Republican electorate, underscoring the underestimated appetite for autocratic behavior among Americans, which became evident over the last few years [08:10].

---

Trump's Influence on the Republican Party

The conversation shifts to Trump's enduring influence over the Republican Party. Maggie points out that many Republican senators, such as Ron Johnson and Rand Paul, perceive aligning with Trump as a strategic move for their political survival, especially in swing states [29:42]. Kara adds that the current Republican Senate is more independent and fragmented compared to eight years ago, making the party's direction under Trump's shadow less predictable [30:49].

---

Economic Policies and Tariffs

Discussing Trump's economic maneuvers, Maggie cites recent actions like threatening tariffs on smartphones, specifically targeting Apple and its CEO Tim Cook [31:06]. Kara expresses skepticism about Trump's understanding of the complexities involved in relocating manufacturing bases to the U.S., emphasizing the impracticality and high costs associated with such moves [32:16]. The discussion underscores Trump's often reactive approach to economic policies, viewing tariffs as tools for negotiation rather than part of a cohesive strategy [35:13].

---

Relationship with Elon Musk and Organizational Dynamics

A significant portion of the dialogue examines Trump's relationship with Elon Musk. Maggie recounts the tension arising from Musk's involvement in government projects and his subsequent distancing from political engagements [42:54]. Kara reflects on a critical moment involving a mismanaged briefing at the Pentagon, which strained Trump's rapport with Musk [43:09]. Despite initial collaboration, their relationship deteriorated due to conflicting interests and misunderstandings, highlighting the challenges of merging corporate and political objectives [45:37].

---

Retaliation, Corruption, and Institutional Attacks

Maggie and Kara delve into the darker aspects of Trump's presidency, particularly his systematic targeting of institutions and individuals for retribution. They discuss how Trump leverages his power to intimidate dissenters, exemplified by actions against figures like Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor [15:09]. Kara emphasizes that such behavior aligns with traditional authoritarian tactics, undermining democratic institutions and fostering an environment of fear and compliance [16:21].

---

Media Coverage and Public Perception

The duo explores the media's role in covering Trump's presidency, debating whether the coverage effectively informs the public or inadvertently amplifies Trump's messaging. Maggie reflects on how media outlets continue to chronicle events without overtly shaping public opinion, maintaining their role as informers rather than opinion leaders [56:27]. Kara asserts that while media efforts are commendable, the fragmented information ecosystem hampers unified public understanding and response [58:49].

---

Future Outlook: Crisis or New Normal?

In concluding their discussion, Maggie and Kara ponder the future trajectory of American politics under Trump's enduring influence. Maggie questions whether the current state represents a slow-motion crisis or an emerging new normal, acknowledging the rapid potential for political and social shifts [58:49]. Kara expresses concern over the reluctance of individuals to voice reasoned criticism, fearing it could lead to further destabilization [59:59]. They agree that while the situation remains fluid, the combination of autocratic tendencies and media fragmentation poses significant challenges for democratic resilience [60:03].

---

Impact on Journalists and Reporters

Maggie addresses the personal toll on journalists like herself who tirelessly cover such a tumultuous presidency. She remarks on the privilege and challenges of reporting in an era where press freedom is increasingly under threat, yet emphasizes the importance of perseverance and dedication to truth [60:14].

---

Notable Quotes

• Kara Swisher at [04:12]:
  "He is creating a reality that he wants other people to adhere to."

• Maggie Haberman at [08:10]:
  "Confidence helped signal his supporters who are bound to him more by common enemies than shared ideals."

• Kara Swisher at [35:13]:
  "He sees tariffs as a weapon and he is deploying the weapon how he wants."

• Maggie Haberman at [15:09]:
  "There's nobody likes lawyers. Really."

• Kara Swisher at [59:59]:
  "How many people are afraid to voice reason based criticism of the president."

---

Conclusion

This episode of "On with Kara Swisher" offers a comprehensive analysis of Trump's sustained influence on American politics and society. Through Maggie Haberman's expert insights and extensive experience covering Trump, listeners gain a nuanced understanding of the complexities and challenges posed by what is termed the "Revenge Presidency." The conversation underscores the fragile state of American democracy in the face of autocratic tendencies, institutional attacks, and a fractured media landscape, leaving listeners with poignant questions about the nation's future trajectory.

Transcript

[Kara Swisher]

It's on.

[Maggie Haberman]

Hi everyone from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network, this is on with Kara Swisher. And I'm Kara Swisher. My guest today is Maggie Haberman, a White House correspondent for the New York Times and a political analyst for cnn. This is the third time Maggie has come on the podcast and we always have a fantastic conversation. Maggie's been covering Trump since when he was a real estate gu in Queens and someone who knows him really well and has covered every stage of his career, which makes it important to read what she has to say about where we are now with President Trump. Confidence Man. Maggie's best selling book from 2022 showed how Trump's familial upbringing and his roots as a 1980s New York real estate developer formed him, shaped his worldview, and basically informs who he is as a person. One of the things I really like about Maggie is she often goes contrary to other people. When Trump was on the down and out, she was the only person who said to me, just watch, he's gonna. And in fact, he did. And when the election was happening, she thought he had a very good chance when others did not. So the book comes out in paperback on June 10, including added material from her. So it's a perfect time to have her on for the sequel. Our expert question comes from the Daily show correspondent and co host Jordan Klepper. So stick around. Support for this show comes from Nordstrom. Summer's here, and Nordstrom has everything you need for your best dress season ever, from beach days and weddings to weekend getaways in your everyday wardrobe, discover stylish options under $100 from tons of your favorite brands like Mango Skims, Princess Polly and madewell. It's easy too, with free shipping and free returns in store order pickup and more. Shop today in stores [e-mail] or download the Nordstrom app. Support for this show comes from HubSpot. Let's be honest. Most business software promises the world but rarely delivers. Clunky interfaces, endless tabs, and AI that somehow makes work more complicated. HubSpot is actually doing something interesting with Breeze, their suite of AI tools. And Breez is built right into their customer platform so you can get more done faster. They even have a whole fleet of AI agents that do work for you. Breeze agents can do everything from creating content to prospecting to handling service tickets, all to help you get results fast. And it's working. Marketing, sales and service teams are cutting sales cycles in half and saving hours on work every week. Go to HubSpot.com AI to get started today. Support for this show comes from ServiceNow, who are enabling people to do more fulfilling work they actually want to do. You know what people don't want to do? Boring, busy work. But now with AI agents built into the ServiceNow platform, you can automate millions of repetitive tasks in every corner of your business. It, hr, customer service, and more. And that means your people can focus on the work that they want to do. That's putting AI agents to work for people. It's your turn. Get [e-mail] AI Agents.

[Kara Swisher]

It is on.

[Maggie Haberman]

Maggie, thank you for coming on on.

[Kara Swisher]

Kara, thanks for having me.

[Maggie Haberman]

Recently there's been a lot of speculation about President Biden's state of mind, but I wanted to start by asking you about Trump's Last week on cnn, you said basically that President Trump is increasingly making statements that aren't true. For example, he showed a video to South African President Cyril Ramaphosa with crosses lining a road and said they marked the actual burial sites over a thousand white farmers. That's completely false. During an ABC News interview, he showed a photo of Kilmar Abrego Garcia's knuckles and insisted that the obviously photoshopped text MS.13 were actual tattoos. Why is this happening? These easily debunked things more than before, he's not known for his truthiness. Does he not understand what's going on or does his staff not want to correct him?

[Kara Swisher]

There is an analogy that I used to use in Term one, particularly in the first year, about Harold and the Purple Crayon, which is a children's book. And Harold is the character and he's a little boy who has a purple crayon and he gets out of bed one night and he draws an entire city and he draws buildings. And that's his reality. And I'm not suggesting that Trump's version of that is benign, but that is a version of what he's doing. He is creating a reality that he wants other people to adhere to. He's always done a version of this, but there are fewer people around him who are trying to tell him, don't do that. The difference between Term one of Trump and this version of Trump is there were a lot of people in the White House last time who saw it as their job to stop him or stop things he was doing. And that would include things like this, but it would also include policy that he had run on that voters had known what they were getting when they voted for him. There are now a lot of people who are incredibly true believers in him who are very radicalized by the last four years of investigations and indictments and the assassination attempts. And they share his impulses. And so that's the main reason why these things are happening. It's not that he's going from having said a lot of things that were all verifiable to suddenly saying a lot of things that aren't verifiable, but it is true that he is trying to force other people to buy into his version of reality, I think in a more pronounced way than we saw before. And to your point, the MS.13 tattoos that he insisted were on Kamar Abrego Garcia's knuckles in that photo, which were of tattoos on his hand, but then someone had written, you know, Ms. 13.

[Maggie Haberman]

Yes. Above it, to indicate what it might mean. Right. Yeah.

[Kara Swisher]

His insistence, especially in that interview with Terry Moran of abc, that these were real tattoos was quite intense. His insistence on showing that video to Cyril Rima, which, as I understand it, is a memorial. That's what it was. And his insistence that it's not just that he's debating whether there are white farmers who have been attacked, it's that he's insisting it's a genocide. And the word genocide is obviously very specific. That is more intense than it used to be. And so to what do I attribute it? He's just. He's untethered in a way that he was not before.

[Maggie Haberman]

So do you think he believes that?

[Kara Swisher]

I think. Look, I can't read inside his mind. He is very good at convincing himself that something is true, and he is very good at at least appearing to believe something is true. And for all intents and purposes, when he's sitting there with a foreign leader saying these things or giving an interview to a major broadcast outlet, I'm not sure it matters whether he actually believes it or not.

[Maggie Haberman]

Right. But he certainly has had a history of doing this. It's just the stick to it. Iveness, and the frequency has increased rather dramatically.

[Kara Swisher]

Well, and I would say that the stakes and the subject matter have become more significant. And, you know, this goes back to his revisionism around what happened on January 6, 2021, when a pro Trump mob attacked the Capitol. He has been rewriting the history of that day for several years now, and he has slowly, over time, had some effect on his supporters, on some Republicans, if you look at it in polling.

[Maggie Haberman]

So, yeah, Trump's effect on his supporters dovetails perfectly with your book, which is coming out in paperb called Confidence Man. Con man, is essentially what you're saying. But in the new afterword to the book, you write that Trump quote, revealed that many Americans shared an appetite for autocratic behavior, for dominating and humiliating the political opposition and intimidating dissenters, for disrupting the lives of others and forcing their unpleasant personal frailties into the sunlight, for scorn and mockery. Would you have guessed this about the American public before Trump came down that golden escalator in 2015?

[Kara Swisher]

No, I don't think that it was clear how broad an appetite for this is beyond smash mouth politics. This is something a little different existed out there. But I think that it should have been clear that there was some appetite for it. And I talked about this in the book, that in 2010 I was covering this gubernatorial race in New York and Carl Palladino was the Republican nominee. And he was very much a proto Trump in a lot of ways. First time candidate, businessman, so forth at first time statewide candidate. I don't think he had run for something before that, you know, had a, had a colorful personal history, had made racist and sexist comments in a series of emails. He had sent some of them about Michelle Obama. And he was running against Rick Lazio, who had run as the Senate, the Republican nominee against Hillary Clinton in 2000 in New York. And Tony didn't win. Andrew Cuomo won, but he won the primary, Palladino. And it became clear in hindsight that the more that we were reporting on things that in previous campaigns or election cycles would have been disqualifying, they were actually helping Paladino among a certain group of the Republican electorate. And that race took place in the shadow of President Obama's election and in the shadow of the fiscal collapse and in the shadow of a lot of anger about the Iraq war. And all of those factors together are what helped fuel Donald Trump. And Ron Fournier wrote a, a piece at National Journal in Nothing We Trust was the headline. And that is where we are as a country in a lot of ways. And so when that happens, people are very angry. And I think Trump is expert at channeling people's anger. And people don't want to be told what they should vote for and how they should vote. And I think that that is part of what you're seeing, too. So did I anticipate there would be this much fervor for some aspects of what he's running on? I did not. But I will say it should have been pretty apparent over the last few years that things like him talking about border crossings and him talking about crime and him talking about the economy These were areas where President Biden was really struggling. And that is what a lot of voters were focused on, too.

[Maggie Haberman]

Now, do you think it's the appetite for autocracy and domination unique to the right? I mean, could a charismatic left wing populace with similarly violent rhetoric have captivated voters, too?

[Kara Swisher]

You know, I think that what you would hear from Trump's advisors and supporters is that it's not about the violent rhetoric, that it's about other matters. Could somebody on the left in theory do that? I think any, I'm done predicting what could happen or couldn't happen, but I certainly think that it's not about autocracy, but in terms of what we've seen the last years on the left. But there certainly was a lot of groupthink around President Biden, and I don't think that's ever healthy.

[Maggie Haberman]

Right, right. Every episode we get an expert to send us a question, and we're getting to yours early in the interview. Let's hear it. Hi, Jordan Klepper here. Much has been made of Donald Trump and his sense of humor, his sensitivity around humor. His use of humor often veers into the cruel or the references of former golf pros and the size of their genitalia. And I was curious, Maggie, as someone who's gotten to spend some time with Donald Trump over the years, if he's truly made you laugh and not unintentionally or about something silly that he's done, but if there's been a moment where.

[Kara Swisher]

He'S had the intention of making you.

[Maggie Haberman]

Laugh and how he achieves that and what it felt like in that room.

[Kara Swisher]

To experience that moment of humanity, if it ever did come. So the, the one time that he has ever made me laugh. But I can't speak to whether it was intentional or not. I wrote about this in Confidence man was when I called him about a story that was in the Washington Post in 2015, where the, the, it was that Reince Priebus had sternly lectured him about his rhetoric, about, about, you know, Mexicans and about the wall. And it was right after Trump got into the race. And I was asking Trump about it and he said, I'm doing this from memory now, but it was, he knows, he knows better than to lecture me. And then there was a pause and I believe what he said. And again, I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it's in the book as it happened. This is not a five star army general or something like that. And it just, it made me laugh.

[Maggie Haberman]

And.

[Kara Swisher]

Whether he was trying to make me laugh. I don't know. I think he was more just, you know, being sarcastic, but I don't. I have never known him to spend a ton of time trying to make people in a room laugh in the.

[Maggie Haberman]

Way that I think or be comfortable.

[Kara Swisher]

No, I mean, I think he does actually try to make people be comfortable. It's just in a certain way it's on his terms and it's for a certain reason. And it's usually if he's trying to extract something. I've seen him try to make crowds laugh, but that's a groupthink issue. It's an interesting question, and I hadn't really thought about it in that way.

[Maggie Haberman]

So Bill Maher, infamously speaking of putting on a charm offensive, visited the White House in April and then said of Trump, he's much more self aware than he lets on in public. And a crazy person doesn't live in the White House. A person who plays a crazy person on TV a lot lives there. Putting aside any opinions on Bill Maher's trip to the White House, does that ring true to you? Is that something that when he's not playing to the camera, that happens? Or in that case, he just wanted to make Bill like him? That would be my guess.

[Kara Swisher]

Well, trying to make Bill like him would be an example of what Bill is talking about. Right. Which is that it's more calculated than it seems sometimes. And it is more calculated than it seems sometimes. And then other times it's not. And so there was always a big thing in term one when he was on Twitter all the time, which was he would do these all caps posts and the reaction in the press corps would be, oh, he's fuming. Trump fumes was a whole genre of stories. Sometimes he was laughing as he would write these posts, sometimes he's not. And so, you know, the problem is, is figuring out which one is which. I don't. I think the fact that he is capable of charming people in certain settings doesn't mean he is not. That everything is sort of a, a clear through line of thought. And I think that's, that's the issue I take with that description.

[Maggie Haberman]

So according to your book, you. You wrote, quote, a core tenet of the Trump political movement has been finding publicly acceptable targets to serv receptacles of pre existing anger. You then write, quote, anger helped signal his supporters who are bound to him more by common enemies than shared ideals. It's a really interesting thought. He's been promoting and encouraging anger towards immigrants Trans people, government workers, the news media, elite, universities, law firms. Law firms. Oh, I forgot that. But nobody likes lawyers. Really.

[Kara Swisher]

You should want lawyers to exist, though.

[Maggie Haberman]

Yes, I do. I'm sensing my brother's a lawyer. What other moves they have left in the playbook besides ratcheting up the anger into even darker, more extreme territory?

[Kara Swisher]

I don't think there is. I don't. I think that's the main. That's the main play. I mean, you know, he is. He will always try to see how far he can go and what he can get away with and what he clearly feels right now is unencumbered. In part because he won, in part because he didn't get killed last summer when he was shot at. In part because he didn't go to jail despite being convicted. In part because one of the indictment that most legal experts thought was the most serious and airtight one of them, which was the documents indictment, was dismissed by a judge who Trump appointed, and in part because the Supreme Court granted him broad immunity for official acts. And so for all of those reasons, he is going to keep pushing and pushing and see how far he can take things. And you are seeing it on any number of fronts, Kara, But a main one is on immigration. What I don't know is where else these punitive presidential orders will go. You know who additional targets will be.

[Maggie Haberman]

Do you have a clue of where you think it is? That's a big, long list of people that are personal, people like Chris Krebs who work for him, et cetera.

[Kara Swisher]

Yeah, the Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor ones. I put in an entirely different category, that which, which, to be clear, is not that I'm saying, you know, the rest are understandable or the rest are, you know, similar to anything we've done in history or we've seen in history, excuse me, the law firms. He's using whatever power he can to pressure them. The universities have been a long standing Republican target for a while. And the protests related to Gaza, some of which veered into anti Semitism, some of which veered into violence, that created a nexus for people to feel more supportive of that in his base and just more broadly among Republicans. But in terms of Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor, these were people who worked for the government. Now, Miles Taylor is a very outspoken critic of Donald Trump. We know this. I'm also not saying, therefore it's valid that there was a presidential memorandum about him. Chris Krebs was doing his job and was saying that the election machinery, the machines were secure. It Was not rigged. When I have raised that point with some Trump advisors, the response I get is generally, well, he was grandstanding. Well, I mean, that's a subjective view, but even if that's your view, don't think that that's criminal. And so we are getting into an area now, and actually, you left a couple of people off.

[Maggie Haberman]

Okay.

[Kara Swisher]

And that was part of the increase. Oprah, Bruce Springsteen now, I mean, my fandom of Bruce Springsteen is pretty well established on the website formerly known as Twitter.

[Maggie Haberman]

I'm aware.

[Kara Swisher]

But that said, I mean, what he's talking about is he warned Springsteen to keep his mouth shut once he gets to this country. Yeah. And suggested that, said something like, we'll see what happens, and then said there should be investigations. And that gets toward the prospect of criminalizing oppositional speech. And so everything is being very, very slowly increased also. I mean, I would just make the point, Kara, this. Bruce Springsteen has a history of being outspoken on politics, but it's actually in a very specific way. It's not about all issues. He was very against the Iraq War, and so he was vocal about w. He did not support Reagan's policies. Born in the USA was mistakenly taken as some kind of national anthem as opposed to being about the Vietnam War or about a war vet coming back. Prospects dim. There's a lot of Trump fans who like Bruce Rainstein's music. And so it's just getting into a different kind of darker area where Trump can just threaten whoever he wants all the time.

[Maggie Haberman]

Yeah. I think it feels mob bossy, but just for people. Many of the people he's attacked personally, Mark Milley, Letitia James, besides Chris and Miles, James Comey, Andrew Cuomo, Taylor Swift, Beyonce just recently under investigation. Who have some of them have under investigation. Some of them just attacks. Others have had their security clearances revoked.

[Kara Swisher]

Right. Someone like Chris Cribbs had to leave his firm.

[Maggie Haberman]

That's correct.

[Kara Swisher]

And so that goes to his livelihood and.

[Maggie Haberman]

Well, he was threatening the entire company. Correct.

[Kara Swisher]

But the goal is to, at minimum, eat up time with some of these people. Right. And resources and energy.

[Maggie Haberman]

Sure.

[Kara Swisher]

And to draw all of our attention to it. And then in other cases, the goal is to. Is to have an end of some kind of a prosecution.

[Maggie Haberman]

Right. So to the point of feeling unencumbered in the afterwards. You wrote that one of Trump's most revealing early interviews appeared in playboy magazine in 1990. In it, he praised the Chinese Communist Party for showing strength when they killed protesters in Tiananmen Square, which is a very different take. Now, the Supreme Court has declared he's immune from prosecution for official acts. What, if any, limits does Trump acknowledge on his own power?

[Kara Swisher]

It's a really good question, and not many is what I would say. I mean, what you have seen him say, you have seen Elon Musk doing this on Twitter. Stephen Miller's been doing it on Twitter. Sorry, X the website formerly known as Twitter. They are raising questions about the legitimacy of judges to curtail the executive branch. And the interpretation of this presidential term so far is. You hear a lot of talk about the unitary executive theory. The unitary executive theory says that all power in the executive branch flows from the president. It does not say everything the president does is legal within all legal parameters. Even with the Supreme Court ruling now, Trump has said he will abide by what the Supreme Court says, but that is already being tested. And so I don't think he recognizes much. Look, even if he said, you know, whatever Congress does, I'll abide by, or Congress has its own role, I mean, he's clearly challenged that with firing at the inspector's general without notifying Congress within 30 days beforehand and so forth about the reasons why. But he, he controls certainly the House, to a lesser extent, the Senate with what he would call an iron fist. One other point, too, Kara, that I just want to make, when you were talking about the differences between term one and term two of Trump, I don't, I don't think that I fully processed until these last few months just how much the existing Russia investigation was something of a. Of a chilling on Trump's own behavior, especially after he fired Comey and got a special counsel and on others in his administration. There was a fear of being subpoenaed. There was a fear of being investigated. And the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate then, too. But that concern is now gone.

[Maggie Haberman]

So if you had to say, writing this book, writing the afterword, what was the most substantive thing that you think you got right and something that you were, you just mentioned something you were surprised by. But what do you think has changed the most from your perspective?

[Kara Swisher]

There are episodes I wish I had spent more time on, certain things I wish I had focused on more. I wish I'd mentioned his interest in Greenland a few more times than I did. Right. I think I mentioned it in passing. I wish that I had mentioned his. His sort of interest in imperialism with land acquisitions that he talked about in briefings, but we couldn't see. There are aspects of his time in New York that I wish I had focused more on, such as I wish that I'd focused a little bit more on his interactions with Robert Morgenthau, the district attorney. And I did have a portion on it, but I wish I had done more in hindsight, because I think that how Trump interacts with prosecutors has been a pretty significant theme of the last few years and eight years, I would say I wish I had done a little bit more on his relationship with his father. Not that I think that it was something that I got wrong, because I don't. But I wish that it is something that I had pulled more on. On the other hand, if I had done more on all of these, the book would have been 9,000 pages.

[Maggie Haberman]

Would you still call it Confidence Man? I might call it a mobster because he's sort of shifted.

[Kara Swisher]

I would call it Confidence Man.

[Maggie Haberman]

Confidence Man.

[Kara Swisher]

This is a book that published in the first print in October of 2022. And I think that what I think has been remarkable is his, and this was the theme of the book is just sort of how regenerative a figure he is. And that has proven to be true 8,000 times over.

[Maggie Haberman]

Yeah, he keeps growing. The arm gets cut off.

[Kara Swisher]

Yeah, right. And he's, look, if you are the thing that I wrote the first time, that is true, which is just his sort of refusal to be thrown out of the ring is unlike anything I have ever seen. And mind you, we're having this conversation, Kara, in a year when Andrew Cuomo is running for mayor, Andrew Cuomo, who resigned the governor's office amid sexual harassment scandal. Anthony Weiner is running for City Council in New York. You know, I can go on and on a list of sort of people who also refuse to be thrown out of the ring and all come from the same milieu that Trump does to some extent. What I wish that I had done a little more on Jack o' Donnell said this to me, and it's in the afterword. He wrote what I think was the first Trump staff book. And he was a casino executive, and it was about his time working for Trump. And he said something, and I'm paraphrasing what's in my book, but it was something in the effect of, you don't really understand what it's like when he kind of gets in your head that he's after you unless you faced it. And I think there's a lot of people who are seeing that right now.

[Maggie Haberman]

We'll be back in a minute. Support for this show comes from Smartsheet. Did you know there is one human experience more universal than death and taxes. What do you think it is? Take a guess. Okay, I'll tell you. It's creativity. I know you're probably thinking, yeah, right, I'm not that creative. Or maybe you're thinking, I am creative, but I have just so much trouble tapping into my creativity. And in that, my friend, you are not alone. Perhaps because there is actually one thing more universally human than death and taxes and creativity. It is distraction. That's where smartsheet comes in. Smartsheet is the work management platform that helps clear clutter, break down barriers, and streamline workflows to allow your creativity to, you know, flow. Its innovative platform lets your team find its rhythm no matter the obstacles. When roadblocks emerge, smartsheet empowers teams to chart a new course, one where innovation thrives. We all have the power to tap into creative flow. We just need some help clearing away distractions. And Smartsheet knows exactly how to do that. Smartsheet Work with Flow learn [e-mail] Support for the show comes from Upwork. You've learned to do a lot of things while running your business. Sales, marketing, product design, keeping the books. But for every business owner, there's a day when you come across something you do not know how to do, something that you might need help with. And when that happens, there's upwork. Companies at every stage turn to upwork to access a global marketplace filled with top talent in it, web, dev, AI, design, admin, support, marketing, and more. Posting a job on upwork is easy. There's no cost to join, and once you register, you can browse freelancer profiles, get help drafting a job post, or even book a consultation. From there, you can connect with freelancers or experts in their fields and and you could easily hire them to take your business to the next level. Upwork makes the entire process easier and simpler, and they do it all with industry low fees. Post a job today and hire tomorrow with Upwork, visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That is Upwork.com to post your job for free and connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's up w o r k.com upwork.com Support for this show comes from NPR's Planet Money. Sometimes when we think of economic news, we think of a string of numbers crawling across the bottom of a screen while an expert screams at you about the market going up and down. In short, it can be a little indecipherable and overwhelming. Planet Money is a different kind of show where they make the complexities of the economy actually make sense. Where human stories supersede abstract theories, listeners can learn, laugh and be entertained. It's econ down to Earth. From the job market to the stock market to prices at the supermarket, Planet Money is here to help explain it all. And the Planet Money team loves to tell a good story in around 30 minutes. It's econ for the rest of us. If you're curious about learning something new and exciting about economics every week, you can listen to Planet Money podcast on npr. I really like Planet Money and npr, and I listen to all the shows from the morning edition to the ones in the afternoon and everything else. But I do listen to Planet Money a lot. I think it's really well done. Tune in to Planet Money every week for entertaining stories and insights about how money shapes our world, stories that can't be found elsewhere. Listen now to Planet Money from npr. So let's dive in to a few recent Trump headlines. They all involved a lot of bluster. It's unclear whether it was just empty talk or actual policymaking. Some people think a lot of it is a distraction from other things. And so let's go through them. The Republican Party tent includes deficit hawks and populists. Last week, Trump cursed Cokes and threatened to primary fiscal conservatives who are holding up the one big, beautiful bill. And in the end, they passed it. But in the Senate, Ron Johnson is saying he has enough votes to stall the bill until they pass larger cuts. And Rand Paul has echoed him, saying somebody has to stand up and yell the emperor has no clothes. Presumably he's talking about Donald Trump, which is a vision I don't want to see necessarily. Do you see Johnson or Paul actually forcing deeper cuts to Medicaid or elsewhere? And if they do, how do you expect Trump will react?

[Kara Swisher]

Well, Rand Paul is an interesting person to watch on this conversion sort of toward Trump and then away from Trump again because, you know, he what what exactly he meant by the emperor has no clothes thing, I don't know. But I do think that there are a lot of Republicans who, just as frankly this happened in term one, two, feel like they are forced to walk the plank on things that are very hard for them to sell back home.

[Maggie Haberman]

Right.

[Kara Swisher]

I think Ron Johnson also, I think has a he did some criticism of Trump and then he walked that back also a little bit, or at least put put a different spin on the ball. But, but it's the same concept. Ron Johnson lives in a swing state where he has to show that he is delivering. And so it's the same principle where these folks feel like they are walking the plank and taking difficult votes, and they just need to be able to show that they were forcing change of some kind. But how different. I will say this, that the makeup of the Republican Senate is so different now than it was eight years ago. That exactly what direction this goes in is.

[Maggie Haberman]

Is not clear to me, because they're.

[Kara Swisher]

More independent, because they are both more magified and also more toward the end of the time when Trump will be in power. And there are some of them who are going to want to run for president themselves. And so.

[Maggie Haberman]

So they want to wait him out.

[Kara Swisher]

Now, you know, J.D. vance may be in a very strong position in a couple of years, and they may all decide it's not worth it, but I just think that's a dynamic we're looking at right now.

[Maggie Haberman]

Yeah, they want to show they're more conservative and want deeper cuts. They don't want to be on Donald Trump's train when they're running for president, necessarily.

[Kara Swisher]

Yeah. And they don't want to have to defend things that they don't necessarily believe in, assuming that it won't matter, you know, in the distant future.

[Maggie Haberman]

So, a few weeks ago on Pivot, Scott Galloway predicted that iPhones would be exempt from tariffs on Chinese goods, and he was right. But now Trump is threatening to slap a 25% tariff on smartphones made outside the U.S. everyone knows the iPhone supply chain is incredibly complex, and making them here would be prohibitively expensive. Tim Cook had a good working relationship with Trump going back to the first term, but he didn't travel to the Mid east with Trump. The New York Times just wrote a piece about this, his latest trip. Is that why you think Trump is threatening Apple? And do you think Trump is bluffing? Because if so, to what end?

[Kara Swisher]

I definitely think that not traveling to the Mid east piece is related, but I think the major issue is that Tim Cook is not saying that he will move iPhone production to the US because it makes absolutely no sense for Apple to do that. And they're moving some of it to India. I don't know if it's all. I don't know enough of the parameters of that.

[Maggie Haberman]

They're trying to make it more diverse. Yeah.

[Kara Swisher]

And it's not even clear to me what exactly the end goal is for Trump in terms of the manufacturing base here. And if you listen to Howard Lutnick, it's even harder for me to understand it, frankly. But is the goal to move the manufacturing base back to the United States, whether it's iPhones or other products so that you can have pride of ownership of that factory. Or is it so that you can have jobs for the working class?

[Maggie Haberman]

Or keep it out of the Chinese hands.

[Kara Swisher]

Right, or keep it out of the Chinese hands. But, but there's no. I don't know that the working class folks who have lost manufacturing jobs want to keep hearing about how this will be automated, which is something that keeps getting discussed. I mean, Lutnick had a line about how essentially that there will be robot care to take care of all this automation.

[Maggie Haberman]

Oh, he doesn't know what he's. I can't listen to him. I'm sorry.

[Kara Swisher]

Anyway, that hasn't worked. So what exactly the end goal here is, other than Trump getting someone to acquiesce is not clear to me. But that is what I think he is angry at Tim Cook about. And you're right that it is, it is a bit of a dial flip here because what happened with Tim Cook in term one was he was very good finessing his relationship with Trump and now Trump has all kinds of other tech leaders talking to him. Why isn't this guy right and Tim Cook is kind of running his own program about his company and Trump's not. I think. Sure. How to deal with that.

[Maggie Haberman]

Wasn't in that front row, was he?

[Kara Swisher]

He was not. But he did donate an awful lot, so yeah, he did.

[Maggie Haberman]

Does Trump realize that moving iPhone production to the US is not realistic? I would assume he does not.

[Kara Swisher]

I don't think so, no.

[Maggie Haberman]

Yeah. I think he doesn't understand it.

[Kara Swisher]

I don't think he knows that and I don't think that he cares for all of the various reasons why. I think he just wants it done.

[Maggie Haberman]

Yeah. So on Monday, Trump said he's delaying the 50% tariffs on EU goods. This is something he does a lot. The red light, green light on EU goods that he had announced last Friday. As you've written, quote, more often than not, Trump is react something instead of having an active plan because he was so disorients people, they believe there must be a grander strategy or secret scheme at play. Whatever he's up to is often part of what he sees as a game whose rules and objections make sense only to him when it comes to tariff. He's playing a game with the bond market, the world economy and Wall Street. Is the adult in the room really here? And it hasn't gone well for him.

[Kara Swisher]

Scott Besant, I would say as much as anybody is. Yeah.

[Maggie Haberman]

Is the adult in the room. Yeah. But he's gone along with some idiotic stuff.

[Kara Swisher]

Oh, no question. Look, I mean, well, but Scott Besant is working for a guy who has a certain, you know, belief in punitive tariffs. I think Besson is just doing the best he can.

[Maggie Haberman]

Correct. But the bond market doesn't care. Neither does Wall Street.

[Kara Swisher]

No. Although I will tell you, Kara, that something Trump does understand is the bond market. And so I don't mean that he's sitting there as a student of it, but that was the bond market's getting to the precipice on whatever day that was that he hit pause. The bond markets were a major reason why.

[Maggie Haberman]

No, absolutely. But does he have a larger strategy for implementing the tariffs, this red light, green light thing, or is he just making it up as he goes along?

[Kara Swisher]

He sees tariffs as a weapon and he is deploying the weapon how he wants. And there is not, you know, the end game is, you know, you will hear on broad strokes, better trade deals.

[Maggie Haberman]

And which aren't coming together in some cases they are.

[Kara Swisher]

Sure.

[Maggie Haberman]

There were supposed to be 90 and 90 days.

[Kara Swisher]

Well, that was Peter Navarro. But there's no question that there are some people who do want deals. And what his supporters will say, Trump supporters will say is even people who, you know, don't agree with him or don't like him, frankly will say is there is something to what he is saying about the non tariff barriers. There is something about what he's saying about the EU countries, There is something about China, there is something real there. It's just that it gets taken to this maximal conclusion of and I'm going to tariff you into oblivion with no in between. So what the outcome is, it's something that he will say is fair for the U.S. but in the meantime, the risk for him politically and for his party politically is that he is going to be perceived by voters, not all voters. There's a number of voters who are going to do whatever he wants and believe whatever he says. But there is a segment of voters who helped put him back in the White House who just want things to be better in their lives. And I don't know that those voters feel like things are yet.

[Maggie Haberman]

Right. That's absolutely true. I mean, a lot of people have been telling me, I agree with this, but not this way. That's like a lot of them is not this way. So let's pivot to Trump's fight against Harvard. It seems like every day there's a new twist in this conflict. Your colleagues Jess Ridgewood and Michael Schmidt have written the administration has the upper hand in the broader fight against Harvard? Do you see him as backing down the way he's done, really, in the terror fight over and over again, or does he seem intent on crushing them again? To what end does it serve the larger goals about making a show of strength for strength's sake?

[Kara Swisher]

I guess I don't think he's gonna back down. I think he'll back down if the court tells him he has to back down. I think that if he is, you know, I know I said earlier we're seeing that it's tested about whether he will adhere to anybody, you know, questioning his limits. But in some cases, we have seen it. I don't think he will continue if there is a Supreme Court ruling. But a lot can happen leading up to that. Right. I mean, he can.

[Maggie Haberman]

Lot of damage.

[Kara Swisher]

Yeah. A lot can be done, and a lot of harm can be inflicted on the school. I do think he wants to hurt them. I do think he is angry at them. I don't know the root cause of it. It's interesting because he's such a credentialist, One of the first things he'll say about people is first in his class at Harvard, first in his class at Yale, first in class. Whatever input the school, Harvard has become a symbol of elitism run amok for a lot of Republicans. We have seen that in these hearings over the last couple of years in Congress. And so I don't really think he knows quite what the end game is. But again, seeing how far it can.

[Maggie Haberman]

Go, do you have any sense why Harvard, given Columbia had bigger problems in the area? If he's talking anti Semitism.

[Kara Swisher]

Because it's quote, unquote, the best.

[Maggie Haberman]

That's why the best. I see. Okay. And to what end?

[Kara Swisher]

To what end is to do a show of force? To what end is to try to bring. I mean, look, to what end is partly to try to bring whatever changes he can in terms of education, in terms of what they will do. There are a lot of people, and frankly, it's not just Republicans who are unhappy about. Including Harvard graduates who are unhappy about some of what they saw with these campus protests. You know, there are some people who have objected to some of the academic parameters, but again, this is a very extreme reaction.

[Maggie Haberman]

Extreme version of dealing with it. Yeah.

[Kara Swisher]

Yeah. And so it's a confluence of things, and we'll see where it goes.

[Maggie Haberman]

Yeah.

[Kara Swisher]

I don't know that he has some huge end game. I do know that Stephen Miller often has a big end game in mind. And so That's a different issue.

[Maggie Haberman]

I want to get to him in a second. But about a week after Trump spent two hours on the phone with Putin and softened his stance towards Moscow, Russia launched its largest drone attack against Ukraine on Monday. Trump responded with a post that said Putin had gone absolutely crazy. Putin's spokesperson blamed Trump's outrage on an emotional overload. What is going on between them? Lindsey Graham is leading a growing bipartisan push in the Senate for more sanctions against Russia. Can you see Trump supporting it? Is that what he's sort of working towards?

[Kara Swisher]

I can see Trump supporting something and I don't think that Lindsey Graham would be doing this if Trump was really opposed to it. Honestly, I have a healthy amount of skepticism that Lindsey would be off on his own pushing for this if Trump was really hard against it. And I think it's helpful to Trump as some form of leverage. There's a reason why Trump like having John Bolton go into certain meetings and he's talked about this because he thought Bolton would scare other people. Even if Trump wasn't going to go along with Bolton's program, ultimately, I think Trump is frustrated. I think Trump is angry at Putin. I think he feels like he is being played. Trump said it publicly on Trade Social that Putin is tapping him along. Whether he goes with sanctions, I think is a different issue. Trump told the European leaders, I think it was last week, time has no meaning anymore on a call that sanctions are not really effective for the US from a financial perspective. And that look Trump, everything that Trump approaches everything from is about deals. That is how he looks at things. And so I do think that Trump may end up supporting some program of sanctions. I think the question is, what then? Are they going to be effective long term or are they just going to get Putin to the table for some kind of a short term ceasefire? I, I don't think they know either.

[Maggie Haberman]

Is their relationship degenerated from your perspective?

[Kara Swisher]

You know, I don't, I don't, I don't know. It's a complicated question because it's a, it's a, it's an, it's a thing that everybody has a lot of theories about. Right.

[Maggie Haberman]

Including the best memes ever of them on a horse together.

[Kara Swisher]

Well, right. But I, I don't know if it's deteriorated. I think they are both people who are pretty transactional, shall we say? But I think that they, they come at world affairs from a pretty different perspective. And I think if you're Putin and you are spending all of this capital on a war that you are not winning so far. I don't know what sanctions in particular are going to hurt you or sway you. And then it gets to the question of secondary sanctions on other countries dealing with Russia, and I don't know that Trump wants to go there.

[Maggie Haberman]

Yeah. So very quickly, one of the things you told me at the last interview we did was the power of Stephen Miller. You mentioned him. Nobody else was really, really clocking him as much as you. We're gonna get to Elon in a second. But who is the more performative power was and maybe not isn't anymore. Where is Stephen Miller right now and why does he continue to have such sway?

[Kara Swisher]

Stephen Miller is. He continues to be underestimated for how expansive his reach is. And the thing about Stephen Miller, according to people who work with him, is he will sometimes be involved in things and they. You don't necessarily realize it. Stephen has allies in key departments. He has allies at key levels of the government. He has Donald Trump's complete trust. And he is the architect of the immigration program, which for Trump is one of the most successful pieces so far, at least in terms of the border closure. The border is basically sealed. And that was accomplished fairly quickly. And that was. That's what Trump ran on and he did it. And Stephen Miller was a huge part of that. Stephen's influence has not waned. Stephen Miller and Elon Musk were, and I think are quite aligned. But Stephen Miller is a long termer with Donald Trump. Elon Musk is a headline maker of his own. And Stephen Miller tries not to do that.

[Maggie Haberman]

Right. So he continues to have that power, you think? Yeah, Yep, I do. They are quite. They're allies. And apparently Milan stayed at his house, I guess, when he was staying here, from what I understand. So when I last spoke to you on this podcast in early January, you said Trump was complaining that Elon was around a lot.

[Kara Swisher]

That was at Mar a Lago still. Yeah.

[Maggie Haberman]

Yes, at Mar a Lago still. This is before he got to the White House. That moment has passed. And Elon now says he's going to devote himself 247 to his companies. He won't be spending so much time on politics going forward.

[Kara Swisher]

Right.

[Maggie Haberman]

He was there for quite a bit. Like you thought he wouldn't get a West Wing office. He did.

[Kara Swisher]

He did. I was really surprised.

[Maggie Haberman]

Yeah.

[Kara Swisher]

That's something I got wrong. Fine saying that.

[Maggie Haberman]

What is the relationship now, obviously? And what if it's broken? What broke it? Was it Wisconsin? Was it just? When I hear from Trump, people, they call him a nuisance and an irritation and a bully and don't like him. Like, actually, likability is quite an interesting thing for them.

[Kara Swisher]

They like his money. I mean, that's. And Trump likes his money.

[Maggie Haberman]

Yes, of course. But there's a lot of rich people. There's just. There's not as many annoying.

[Kara Swisher]

Yeah, but there's not as many who are going to spend $100 million through Trump's political entity, which, by the way, Trump continues to raise money despite the fact that Trump is not running again.

[Maggie Haberman]

Right.

[Kara Swisher]

And that gives him a certain level of control over his party as well, because he can threaten to primary people. And Elon helps him with that.

[Maggie Haberman]

Right. 270 million. And he's got more where that came from.

[Kara Swisher]

That was last.

[Maggie Haberman]

That was the first. That was the first cycle.

[Kara Swisher]

But, yeah, yeah, he's pledged and possibly has already given $100 million to groups that Trump controls. That's not what happened last time. It was groups that Elon had more of a direct influence over in terms of what really changed things. There were a slew of reports from Cabinet members who felt like there was a lot of interference. And Jonathan Swan and I wrote about a pretty dramatic meeting, Cabinet meeting where this happened, where there was a confrontation, notably between Marco Rubio and Elon Musk. But there was also a lighter Sean Duffy back and forth and then Doug Collins from the va. The main issue, Wisconsin certainly didn't help, but the main issue was the tank meeting that was set up at the Pentagon, which it was supposed to be a briefing for Musk on China. Pete Hegseth was preparing to read Musk in on some version of the China war plan. According to our reporting, our reporting was matched by other people. Musk's behavior indicated he may not have realized exactly what he was going to receive. Maybe that's true. Regardless, Trump was unaware of this briefing ahead of time, according to multiple people. And he read about our reporting when it was on TV right after it broke that night and was very unhappy and told Hegseth to cancel it. And that was the beginning of the end. Because Trump.

[Maggie Haberman]

Why? Why was that?

[Kara Swisher]

Because the words Musk and Pentagon and tank and China all in one sentence struck Trump as problematic as a headline. And for all of the obvious reasons they. It should have occurred to anybody who was involved in setting it up. And Trump doesn't like to be surprised. And he is the commander in chief, so I understand it on that one. So that's why.

[Maggie Haberman]

Yeah, so I've said that Elon served as a heat shield for Trump. In many ways, Doge was able to take control of federal agencies, enforce cuts and layoffs much faster than people imagine possible. In doing so, do you think he was enacting Trump's agenda or Project 2025's agenda or his own? Because at the end of the day, they managed to wreak a lot of habit, made virtually no impact on government. Does Trump actually benefit from Doge or was it better that Elon moved along? And has he moved along from your perspective? I don't doubt he'd bring him back.

[Kara Swisher]

If he needed, but yeah, And I don't think that. I don't think that Musk is that involved in the day to day, although he's clearly still around in certain respects. I think that this was some combination of Musk plus some. You know, what a deputy mayor who I covered in New York City a gazillion years ago would have called government auto mechanics. Just people who really understand where all of the carburetors are and how you pick things apart. Elon was doing things in ways that made a lot of people, even people who were predisposed to like him in government, uncomfortable. I don't think that. Look, when you, when you say to people, as a concept, do you think that waste, fraud and abuse should be eliminated? I don't know many voters who are like, no, keep it. But it was the way in which he did it. It was the way in which he expressed, you know, tremendous disdain for the federal workforce. Some of them are Trump, Trump supporters. That all became very problematic what the long term effect of Doge is. I don't think we're going to know for a while.

[Maggie Haberman]

Will you hear a lot about Elon from Trump going forward?

[Kara Swisher]

I think if Trump thinks it's necessary or useful to him, yes. And I do think, to be just to be clear, and I didn't say this before, I do think that Trump feels bad about the attacks that Tesla has had. I do think he feels bad about Musk's businesses and the hits they've taken. I do think that he believes that Musk has done a lot for him. But I also think that he has. I know that he has grown weary of the negative headlines.

[Maggie Haberman]

The negative headlines. And then they were starting to splash back on him, presumably.

[Kara Swisher]

Yeah. I mean. Or risked doing that. Yeah.

[Maggie Haberman]

We'll be back in a minute. Support for this show comes from Quince. Getting dressed in the summer is hard. You want to look and feel put together, but on the other hand, you don't want to melt in the heat. Quince says they have pieces that check Both boxes like 100% European linen shorts and dresses from $30 Luxe Swimwear, Italian leather platform shoes and so much more. And the best part is that everything from Quint's is priced 50 to 80% less than you'd find at sea similar brands. By working directly with top artisans and cutting out the middlemen, Quince gives you luxury without the markup. And Quince says they only work with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes. Quince has sent me many items. I really like everything I get. I am right now wearing a Quint's sports bra. I think they're great. They work really well. I have a suitcase of theirs. I've got a T shirt that I really like. They're super comfortable, they feel luxe and they don't come cost that much. I really like everything I've gotten from there. Treat your closet to a little summer glow up with quince. Go to quince.comcara for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com Kara to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com Cara.

[C]

Support for this show comes from Pure Leaf Iced Tea. You know that point in the afternoon when you just hit a wall. You don't have time for self care rituals or getting some fresh air. So maybe you grab a beverage to bring you back but somehow it doesn't do the trick or it leaves you feeling even worse. What you need is a quality break. A tea break. And you can do that with Pure Leaf Iced Tea. Real brewed tea made in a variety of bold and refreshing flavors with just the right amount of naturally occurring caffeine. With a pure Leaf I iced tea in hand, you'll be left feeling refreshed and revitalized with a new motivation to take on what's next. The next time you need to hit the reset button, grab a Pure Leaf iced tea. Time for a tea break. Time for a pure leaf.

[Kara Swisher]

Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're.

[Maggie Haberman]

Not sure where to start.

[Kara Swisher]

Thumbtack knows homes so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte, paint, finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is with thumbtack. You don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app download today.

[Maggie Haberman]

So I want to end up talking about this revenge idea that you have here because it is a much darker Trump than when your book first came out in many ways. So if you look at other countries where strongmen have systematically targeted institutions and individuals for retribution, it's not hard to see how this could go off the rails. We talked earlier about how the Republican senators might stand up to Trump on deficits or Russia. Is there anyone in the party who would stand up and speak out against him if he takes the retribution too far? Is there a too far? Would it even matter? How do you look at his power right now?

[Kara Swisher]

It's a good question. I don't know what too far would look like for certain people. I don't think we would know until we got there. I think it would depend on how concerned people were about getting reelected themselves. And I will say this, Kara, and you just also asked about things that I wish I had done differently. He was never as weak as we thought he was in 2021 and 2022. He was damaged, but he was, I would actually argue, in some ways had a stronger hold on the actual party, if not the apparatus in D.C. than he did before. And that was an error for a lot of us. What has been surprising to me, it's not the Republican Party. What's been surprising to me is the business leaders and also the business leaders who thought that he was kidding.

[Maggie Haberman]

They do.

[Kara Swisher]

Yeah.

[Maggie Haberman]

I've had those conversations.

[Kara Swisher]

Right. He wasn't really going to do tariffs. He doesn't really mean this. The retribution is a joke. It's a wink, wink, nod, nod. What we are seeing so far is actually a lot more of what I expected when he was elected the first time in 2016. But he didn't really understand the levers of power and he was under investigation and he had a lot of people around him who sanded certain things down. This is in some ways not surprising.

[Maggie Haberman]

Yeah. So one of the things that I think is a problem is this corruption, this possibility of monetizing the White House. Your colleague Peter Baker recently published a piece on the stunning ways in which Trump is monetizing the White House. One of the takeaways was the American public didn't seem to care. Paul Rosenzweig was quoted in article saying 80%, the public never cared, 20%. We were overwhelmed and exhausted. Trump is able to effectively label Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden as corrupt. I saw. One explanation is the Biden crime family was secret and we're doing everything in public, which is sort of an interesting argument. I know Don Jr. Just said, well, they yelled at us before, so we might as well just do it, you know, and we didn't do it and they did it. So why do you think he's doing these now? Not just the pardons, which I think is your basic corruption, but the meme coin, the Qatari jet. Do you think it does matter? Because this personal enrichment corrupts pretty much everything, right? I mean, ultimately, do you think it's a money grabbing thing with them or just. Why not?

[Kara Swisher]

I think a couple of things. I think that to your question about whether the public cares, I do think the public thinks that the presidency has been monetized over a long period of time. I don't think they think it's just, just endemic to Donald Trump. It is the scale, and that was what Peter's, the point of Peter's story was. And the real time effects of what we're talking about. That is entirely different. I mean, you know, that, that is, that is the main difference. I had a line in the book about asking an advisor to Trump. I think it was July of 2017. We had, we had just left an Oval Office interview with him, a handful of us, and Trump was just ripping Jeff Sessions, remember him, the first Attorney general who recused himself from an investigation. Now we have Trump's personal lawyers leading the doj. Jeff Sessions was just a huge target of Trump's ire for recusing himself from the Russia investigation. And Trump would not let it go in this interview. And I asked this person, why was he doing this? Is there an end game here? And the person's answer was, because he can. And I think that applies here with the fact that he measures everything in terms of how much money people have. That is, you know, why was Elon appealing to him? Because Elon is, you know, clocked as the wealthiest man in the world and is objectively a very smart guy. But, but you can measure it. That is how, that is how you measure worth in Trump's mind. And so this is a, in his mind, a tremendous opportunity. As you said, his family believes they, you know, forsook it last time and shouldn't have, and so they're going to do this now. Do I think, again, is there a point where voters say, my personal finances haven't gotten better, There were a lot of cuts to the government and look at what's happening here. I think Trump is so buffeted by the fact the information ecosystem is so siloed and bifurcated now, and trifurcated a gazillion fricated. There's no. 3 television networks. I went and saw Goodnight and Good Luck a couple of weeks ago.

[Maggie Haberman]

This is George Clooney's thing.

[Kara Swisher]

George Clooney's play that's ending soon. It was very well done. It's about Edward R. Murrow. So we are not in that era where there is, you know, there are a handful of TV networks and one person who people put their faith into. People get the information from systems they trust and in many cases it's just to reaffirm what they already think. So we'll say, right.

[Maggie Haberman]

So last question, last two questions, really. Trump 2.0 is constantly bombarding us with headlines. Right. This is this idea of flood the zone. It's the old Steve Bannon trope and everything else. But speaking of the digital news era, I want to ask you about how the news media then can cover Trump. We've talked about this before. After he's elected in 2016, the conventional wisdom was that the media had given Trump too much coverage. Now that the media is overcorrected in the lead up to 2024 election, the public wasn't attuned to enough crazy things Trump was saying. Is there any way to cover this if it doesn't matter? I think that's what you're kind of saying. Maybe you're not.

[Kara Swisher]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Because I think that matter is a subjective view. I think that if people are hoping and the people who level those criticisms against the news media and primarily the New York Times, have the perspective that matter means Donald Trump ceases to exist or loses potency or stops being appealing to people. I, I don't think that's our, I think our, I don't. That's not our role. Our role is to inform the public about what he would do as president and, and what he is doing as president. And I think the Times, but not only the Times, I think the Washington Post, I think Bloomberg News, I think Politico. I think there's a lot of outlets that are doing a lot of really good work. Axios. And our job is to inform folks on what is happening and let them know it is not. I forget who said this. Someone said this on X. I can't remember who it was, but they had a line about. It was about this line of criticism. And, and they said, all I can do is write what's happening. What I cannot do is walk down the street and open people's eyes Clockwork Orange style. Like with Malcolm McDowell. Yeah. And with, you know, surgically and make them read my coverage. I can't do that. And I can't also say to them, and here's what you should think, that it also is not my role. I think that if you read the New York Times and if you read mine and Jonathan Swan and Charlie Savage's series about if Trump wins, and that was the headline, if Trump wins comments over a number of stories, you knew what he was going to do. If you listened to his speeches, you knew what he was going to do. Now, did he say, I'm going to do a series of retributive presidential orders? No, he did not. But he certainly was clear about retribution on any number of occasions. And so I think voters had all the information that they needed and they reelected him. And I think that voters are who elect folks in this country and all we can do is chronicle history and inform the public. And I think we are.

[Maggie Haberman]

My last question, speaking of chronicling history, given everything we've talked about, how Trump is playing games with the economy, his autocratic behavior, the revenge, the corruption, the media's struggle to find the right frame and the public's apathy or exhaustion or they like it, how are you now thinking about this moment? Are we living through a slow motion crisis, failing to meet the moment with the urgency it demands or just the new normal we're ready to beginning to accept? And I know politics can change rather quickly.

[Kara Swisher]

Indeed. I mean, Barack Obama's election was less than 20 years ago and that was a pretty remarkable bipartisan election. And it was an election that was a perfect storm of events with a remarkable generational candidate at the end of a war and a fiscal crisis. And so circumstances change things and a unique moment in history changed things. I don't know what the longer term effects are. I disagree that we are struggling for the right frame. I actually think the media is doing a very good job. But I do, and I realize that I will get criticized for saying that, but I just don't know. I don't know what a year from now looks like. I think that yes, everything is slow moving and yet kind of quick in terms of how fast things can change. I don't, I don't know. I think that the biggest issue that I am seeing, or I shouldn't say the biggest, a big issue, is just how many people are afraid to voice reason based criticism of the president. And that gets to a very risky place that does.

[Maggie Haberman]

Unless it just changes suddenly.

[Kara Swisher]

Unless it changes. And things can change very fast.

[Maggie Haberman]

Yeah, we'll see. Anyway, Maggie Haberman, let me ask one last question. What is the. Very quickly.

[Kara Swisher]

This is like Colombo.

[Maggie Haberman]

What's the toll on you and reporters like you?

[Kara Swisher]

Oh, I, you know, we're not as, as my colleague Jonathan Swan often says, we're not, you know, we're not in Fallujah. We. Yeah, it's. There are, there are reporters who are imprisoned, you know, doing their jobs in other countries. I feel very privileged to cover this. It is. Yes, it is. It is a lot of hours. But fortunately, I don't really, I don't like to take a lot of vacations.

[Maggie Haberman]

Me neither. That's what we have in common.

[Kara Swisher]

Exactly.

[Maggie Haberman]

Anyway, that's one of the things.

[Kara Swisher]

Yes.

[Maggie Haberman]

Thank you so much. And again, people, you can read Confidence Men. The paperback is out now.

[Kara Swisher]

Thanks, Kara.

[Maggie Haberman]

On with Kara Swisher is produced by Christian Castor Roselle, Kateri Yocum, Dave Shaw, Megan Verney, Allison Rogers and Kalen Lynch. Nishad Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Special thanks to Eric Liedtke. Our engineers are Rick Kwan and Fernando Arruda and our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following the show, you know the real boss is Bruce Springsteen, not Donald Trump. If not, you get Kid Rock instead. Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for on with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to on with Kara, Switch from New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast network, and us. We'll be back on Monday with more.

[C]

Support for this show comes from Pure leaf iced tea. When you find yourself in the afternoon slump, you need the right thing to make you bounce back. You need pure leaf iced tea. It's real brewed tea made in a variety of bold flavors with just the right amount of naturally occurring caffeine. You're left feeling refreshed and revitalized so you can be ready to take on what's next. The next time you need to hit the reset button, grab a pure leaf iced tea. Time for a tea break. Time for a pure leaf. Support for this show comes from pure leaf iced tea. When you find yourself in the afternoon slump, you need the right thing to make you bounce back. You need pure leaf iced tea. It's real brewed tea made in a variety of bold flavors with just the right amount of naturally occurring caffeine. You're left feeling refreshed and revitalized so you can be ready to take on what's next. The next time you need to hit the reset button, grab a pure leaf iced tea. Time for a tea break. Time for a Pure Leaf.

[Kara Swisher]

Tribeca Festival returns to NYC June 4th 15th. Every summer, the festival takes over New York City's famed movie theaters and concert venues, and this year is no exception. With groundbreaking films and television, musical performances and talks, live podcasts and immersive art, there's something for everyone all across the city featuring the world premiere of Billy Joel and so It Goes at the Beacon Theater, Becky G at the United Palace, a live recording of this American Life at Spring Studios Indeed Theater, and so much more. Tickets are on Sale [e-mail].