← PBS Washington Week with The Atlantic - Full Show
PBS Washington Week with The Atlantic - Full Show
Washington Week with The Atlantic full episode, 7/24/26
00:24:12
Full Washington Week with the Atlantic broadcast from July 24, 2026.
Loading summary
Transcript51 lines
- [00:01]
A
As President Trump weighs escalating the war with Iran, a chorus of criticism is growing louder and it's coming from unexpected voices. The clock is ticking for President Trump to get out of this war. It's already, as we know, unpopular.
- [00:14]
B
He does need to get this over with.
- [00:16]
A
With more service members killed, the war widening across the region, and gas prices again on the rise, tonight, we look at the mounting cost of the Iran war. Next,
- [00:30]
C
this is Washington with the Atlantic.
- [00:34]
A
Good evening and welcome to Washington Week. I'm Vivian Salama, in tonight for Jeffrey Goldberg. The Iran war is escalating. The US Ramped up strikes again this week, including on civilian targets. The military is reportedly moving assets to the region. The Iran backed Houthis are now striking oil tankers. And President Trump says he's close to making a decision about a massive attack. And now we're learning more about how this administration makes wartime decisions, how Congress responds or doesn't, and about the economic, political and human cost of war. Joining me to break it all down, Leanne Caldwell is chief Washington correspondent at Puck. Adam Harris is a host of Radio Atlantic. Jonathan Karl is chief Washington correspondent for ABC News. And David Sanger is a White House and national security correspondent at the New York Times. Thank you all so much for joining me. David, I want to start with you. We had a memorandum of understanding here that was aimed to put us on a path toward peace that appears to be on the brink of collapse. Exactly what is the strategy here going forward? What is the White House trying to achieve?
- [01:46]
B
It's really hard to say at this point, Vivian, because if you don't have much of a strategy going in, it's hard to develop one in the middle of a war. The President started this with 38 days of bombing. It started at the end of February. And that clearly did not achieve his political goals. Which just to remind everybody from the night that the war started were end the nuclear program, end the missile program, weaken the government so much that the people of Iran could rise up and overthrow it. In fact, he asked them to stay in their homes, wait for the bombing to be over and all that. And the President now discovered that those 38 days did not crack the government. So he declared a ceasefire. They then went to get to this memorandum of understanding that was so hastily put together that it left all kinds of vague issues. The Iranians immediately interpreted it as giving them sovereignty over the strait. And now the President is sort of back to where he was on February 28, trying to make the argument that bombing the more including hitting civilian Targets, including some that people are concerned could be war crimes, will somehow crack this regime. And we're not sure there's any evidence that the two are directly related, all
- [03:15]
A
the while sending economic shockwaves around the world. John, the president has made clear that he's been frustrated about the pace of this war, especially. You speak to him often. What are his biggest grievances at this point?
- [03:30]
C
Look, he's gone back and forth in his rhetoric, obviously, between sounding like permanent pieces at hand to sounding like he's gonna annihilate all of Iranian civilization, as he has said. I think this moment right now, you heard what he said to Axios, promising this massive attack, saying a decision is coming soon. This does not sound the same. This does not sound like some of the bravado we saw in the past. First of all, they've clearly been moving additional military assets into the region. They are clearly prepared for a major attack. And what I'm hearing from senior White House officials is, yes, take very seriously what he said to Axios. Take very seriously what he said. He is looking at a possibly ordering a level of attack similar to what we saw at the very beginning of Operation Epic Fury, maybe even more so. What I can't figure out at this point is what the objective is. Do they really think that additional attacks, massive new attacks, are going to change the Iranian negotiating position? Do they think it's going to permanently open up the Strait of Hormuz? What are they trying to achieve? I can't figure that out right now. What they've achieved so far is. Is effectively regime change in Iran, where you have a more hardened Iranian leadership with the irgc, the military forces firmly in charge, and those political figures, the ones J.D. vance and Witkoff and Jared Kushner have been negotiating with, marginalized.
- [05:06]
A
And what do you make of the fact that he's been so public sometimes about the targets that he's going to go after in this war?
- [05:12]
C
I mean, you know, sometimes you think with Trump, it is bluster. He's putting them out there, warning. But again, the assets are in place, the preparations are in place for him to actually make the order to do some of what he has been talking about.
- [05:29]
D
Right.
- [05:29]
A
And obviously, the costs were on full display this week at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. On Wednesday, President Trump witnessed the return of the bodies of four service members killed in action. Lieutenant Tyler Feehan, Sergeant Angel Rampersad, Sergeant Michael Swinton, and Private Isabella Gonzales. And so, Adam, there are also invisible costs to wars. What are some of the invisible costs in Your estimate that a lot of viewers might not realize but could catch up with them later on.
- [06:01]
E
Yeah. Right. On top of the typical cost that we would associate with it. Right. The deaths to troops, the deaths to civilians who are caught in the crossfire. You have this economic shock that Americans are starting to experience in a more granular way right now. Right. Gas was over 100 or oil was over $100 a barrel very briefly this week. And we sort of depleted early, early in this war. The administration was able to move assets around, sort of dip into some of the strategic stockpiles that we've had for petroleums. But our strategic petroleum reserves are at the lowest that they've been since 1983 at this point. Right. They have fewer levers to p in order to make sure that the costs don't get shifted over to consumers. And so the gas prices that we're seeing high right now are likely to continue on for a significant period. And on top of that, it's not just the gas. Right. It's the diesel, the things that you're using for trucks and things to move the products that will increase the expenses for daily household products. Right. And that's something that Americans will start to see more over time in their daily purchases.
- [07:13]
A
Right. And then of course, there's also the literal cost of this war. The Pentagon this week said an estimated 37.5 billion so far has been spent on this war. And as those costs grow, frustration is growing, especially on the Hill. This week, Secretary of Defense Pete Hagseth was on the Hill testifying before Senate Appropriations. Watch this exchange with Republican Senator from Louisiana John Kennedy.
- [07:39]
B
This as serious as four heart attacks and a stroke paramilitary. Will they toll the straight.
- [07:45]
C
Sir, that's a hypothetical question and I
- [07:47]
B
don't know the answer to that. We need some hard answers and some straight talk. Would they try to redevelop to commence development again of a nuclear warhead?
- [08:02]
C
Part of the reason President Trump had to have the courage to do what he did after Midnight Hammer is that they didn't give up their ambitions, even though their nuclear sites had been obliterated. So this is a regime hell bent on nuclear ambitions and President Trump's been willing to go after.
- [08:15]
A
We need straight answers. Leigh Ann, talk us through some of the Republican frustration.
- [08:21]
D
Yeah, well, first, the fact that that frustration is coming from Senator John Kennedy, not someone who is usually highly critical of this administration, is very notable. He is quite frustrated and he is expressing the frustration that many of his colleagues are, and that is a lack of answers from this administration on what the objective is, what the timeline is, what the ramifications are and what the end game actually is. And those are things that they haven't been able to get from this administration. Even when it comes to the funding request, there's still lots of questions about what the money is going to be used for, how much specifically is needed, how much will be needed in the future. And so when members of Congress are asked to fund billions and billions of dollars, when their constituents are the ones who are being put on the line for this, patience obviously wears quite thin, but I will say it is not manifesting in a rebuke to the President. The House did rebuke the President this week in War Powers Resolution. They had the help of enough Republicans, but the Senate rejected it. And most of the Senate senators who have been really skeptical and nervous about this war are saying, look, the clock, the 60 day clock just restarted after the ceasefire broke. We're going to give the administration some more time. So there is a real dichotomy of what's happening on the Hill, but that tension is absolutely there.
- [09:52]
A
And with all of these challenges, I mean, Adam just outlined many of them, midterms are now looming and how are these lawmakers going to go onto the campaign trail and message this, especially Republicans, what's the messaging strategy?
- [10:05]
D
Yeah, so the House has now left town for over a month. They left town, they voted to, on an outline to give about $70 billion for the war. It's mostly, they say their justification is this is for the troops, this is to replenish munitions. But they are going to face constituents as polling has continued to show that this war is increasingly unpopular, including among Republicans, especially as prices are not going down, especially as war has restarted again. And so Republicans especially have a really difficult task at hand. They are trying to justify the spending of the war, like I said again, that it is for the troops, that it is necessary to keep our military strong. But their constituents care about costs right now. And I ask Republicans, what are you hearing from people at home? And they admit that that is exactly what people are talking about.
- [11:01]
C
I mean, the messaging from the White House, from the president, is we can never let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's why we have to do this. But that is clearly not broken through to American voters.
- [11:13]
D
Right.
- [11:14]
C
I mean, we saw polis, I think was 29% support for this war, which translates into a significant portion of the Republican base not sold on that argument. How do you sell the American people on that argument when you have said that their Nuclear program is obliterated.
- [11:33]
A
You took the words out of my mouth. They've gone back and forth on this issue.
- [11:36]
C
And when Hagstadt's answer is, well, we found out they didn't give up their nuclear ambitions, well, lots of, you know, groups have ambitions to do lots of things, and they don't have the capability to do so. How does that justify a war and then a renewed war? I think the biggest.
- [11:50]
B
There are two built in assumptions here. I think John struck on that the President's making. One is that if you don't support the war, you support Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Well, there are lots of ways to deter countries from getting nuclear weapons. We stopped South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, the list is long without going to war. But I think the second piece of this that is remarkable is the president himself acknowledges that the June bombing last year so buried most of their nuclear fuel that he said, I'm not that worried about it. Well, he's not that worried about it. Then why does he believe that if we give up what we're doing now for a while and monitor this, that they're necessarily going to get a nuclear weapon?
- [12:35]
A
What's the answer?
- [12:37]
B
The answer is they actually. The Iranians have not been able to get at that fuel since the bombing in June of 2025. Now, do you need to watch it like a hawk? Absolutely. But with no fuel, you can't make the weapon.
- [12:52]
C
But the renewed military operations here actually aren't about the nuclear issue. They're about opening up the Strait of
- [12:58]
B
Hormuz, which was open before the war started.
- [13:00]
A
Which was open before the war started. I mean, Adam, all of these issues said. All of this said. The frustration isn't just from voters. It's not just from Republican lawmakers. You're even seeing it from certain media commentators that are essentially, you know, allied with the President or conservative. We played some of that. The sound earlier. Talk to us a little bit about the dynamics there and how much of it influences the President's decisions when he hears Fox News now coming out and criticizing some of these decisions.
- [13:30]
E
Well, you know, one of the features of the last of both administrations is that the President watches a lot of tv, that he watches what people are saying about him. And, you know, I think a lot of this comes out of the fact that the president sort of preached this isolationist America first message. And when two thirds of Republican voters are saying, well, we blame. Two thirds of voters are saying that, well, we blame the Republican Party for this kind of increase in gas prices, for the increase of our daily household things. I think that is filtering into the commentariat. It's filtering into the people who are saying, well, we're going over here, we're spending all of this money, troops are dying, for what? For us to. We have people who are homeless. We have all of these issues that we need to solve here in American soil, that we're giving resources and sending resources towards. Something that, as you both have mentioned. Right. Doesn't have a necessarily defined objective at the moment and where the President continues to try to create this narrative that he has sort of a control over the situation where, you know, events show that there's not necessarily that control over.
- [14:41]
A
So, David, what now? I mean, does the President double down or does he cut and run? What are the options? What are the best options?
- [14:49]
B
So there are moments where you have seen President Trump cut and run. He negotiated with North Korea in his first term, didn't go anywhere. The North Koreans now have 60 plus nuclear weapons. He hasn't mentioned it. Right. Barely mentioned it in recent times. But he's past the moment where he can leave this because with the energy prices going up, with the straits closed now, with a second front opening up around the Red Sea, he's in a position where if he just pulled out now, the world economy and the world energy supplies would be in a far worse place than they were when he started. And so that makes it hard to sort of declare victory.
- [15:31]
C
I could imagine he's tried. I mean, he really tried to disengage. He really tried to get at this. He dispatched his vice president to have the highest level negotiations that we've have had with the Iranians since the revolution. And he offered terms, agreed to terms that were, you know, incredibly generous to the Iranians. He wanted to declare victory and leave. The problem was the Iranians didn't go along with it.
- [15:56]
A
Right. Leigh Ann, we talked so much about President Trump's fixation this term on his legacy and, you know, how people are going to talk about him in the future. Do you get the sense that he's concerned about how the Iran war will impact his legacy? Or is it more of a case? And, you know, especially from folks who talk to on the Hill, do they feel like he thinks that everyone else is wrong and he was right about this?
- [16:20]
D
So I think legacy is absolutely number one on his mind. And the people who cover the White House might have more insight on this than me. But my understanding is actually when it comes to his legacy, he thinks that the Iran war is part of his legacy. And that it has to turn out well. What is not part of his legacy is who wins, which party takes control of the midafter, the midterms. And he is not focused on that. And that is what is expressly frustrating for members of Congress and people whose names are on the ballot where the President is completely captivated by these international conquests. Essentially, when people at home, that's not what their priority is. I was talking to a person who is very close to the administration this morning about the politics of it. And I said, what do you worry about heading into November? And they said, well, the war, I try not to worry about it because that's completely out of my control. But if this is not wrapped up very soon, this is going to be very difficult for Republicans. And so I think when it comes to the President's legacy, you see it all across town with the building, with what he is doing internationally and politically, he thinks he's already won that legacy.
- [17:41]
A
So interesting. There was another major headline that came out of the Middle east this week where the administration signed a landmark deal to develop a civilian nuclear program in Saudi Arabia using predominantly American technology. But hours after it was signed, President Trump took to Truth Social and essentially backtracked on it, saying that it was all contingent upon Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords and normalizing ties with Israel. And so, David, you know, this deal has actually been met with a lot of criticism, including from conservatives. So explain exactly what's happening here.
- [18:18]
B
So this negotiation has been going on since the first Trump administration. It proceeded through the Biden administration and in some ways it's a very standard thing. It's bringing American technology to build nuclear power plants for electricity production. The Saudis, like the UAE and others who have nuclear power plants, the Saudis would like to have data centers. They want to modernize their economy. So it all makes perfect sense. But the Saudis did not want to sign on to some of the non proliferation agreements that the UAE, the United Arab Emirates did in 2009 with President first negotiated by President Bush, then negotiated by President Obama. And so when the president finally got this deal together, it was announced by Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and it was signed by his equivalent in Saudi Arabia. And the next morning, the president blows the whole thing up by saying, well, of course this is not going to go forward if the Saudis don't recognize Israel, which had been the Biden plan.
- [19:24]
A
Right, right. I mean, Adam, he's basically negotiating it in public after it's signed. How does that work?
- [19:31]
E
Yeah, I mean, it feels like a sort of M.O. for the president. Right. It's a negotiation through posting. And I think early on in that first administration. Right. I actually wrote a sort of history of the president's use of Twitter at the time and now X. And it's functionally been how he has operated. It's how he communicates with people. And so when he sees that, well, there's a little bit of pushback. It's his way of communicating. Well, there's actually there's another tweak. Right. It's contingent upon something that we want. It doesn't look as if Saudi Arabia got everything that it wants. And, you know, the United States didn't get what it wants and Israel sort of its partner didn't get what it wanted as well.
- [20:11]
A
Right. And before we wrap up, this week was the last week before the Hill you mentioned Leanne goes on a vacation and then ultimately they're going to have midterms to contend with. They call it kitchen sink week because they try to throw in everything in the kitchen sink. How did that go? Leanne, first of all. And secondly, just talk to us about the dynamic of politics on Capitol Hill going into these crucial months before the midterms.
- [20:38]
D
Yeah. So the House actually had a very successful week. Speaker Mike Johnson got everything that he wanted to get done done, including a very limited stock trading ban, you know, funding a short term funding bill that funds until after the midterm elections, this reconciliation party line framework that funds the war and some AG programs, et cetera. So he had a really successful week after weeks and weeks and weeks of nothing moving on the House floor. So it was good for him. But that doesn't mean these things become law. These things have to pass the Senate. There is a lot of pushback in the Senate. The dynamics are extremely difficult and much more complicated in the Senate. You have a growing number of Senate Republicans who are extremely worried about their own reelections or mad at the president and not willing to fall in line. And so there is a lot of unease about the midterms and all these political dynamics, a lot of frustration with the president and members are heading home and having to deal with the anger of constituents, too. So it's a tricky time for Republicans despite these, like, minimal wins that they got this week.
- [21:58]
A
And John, President Trump has his own frustrations. Carolyn Levitt, the White House press secretary, said this week that he was frustrated with Majority Leader John Thune. Can you explain what's happening there?
- [22:06]
C
Yeah, the president went after Thune in his speech in Georgia. I mean, pretty directly look, the president has been pushing for a long time. This goes back to his first term and frustration he expressed with Mitch McConnell. He wants the filibuster done with. So a Republican majority, even a really narrow Republican majority, can push anything it wants through the Senate. And he's insisting that Thune do this. And Thune has tried to explain privately and publicly that there aren't the votes to change the Senate rules. You need a majority of the Republicans to do that. And there is nowhere near that level of support. So I think this is a very interesting dynamic to watch forward because the president's frustration with Thune and his demand, a demand that Thune sees as absolutely unfair and untenable, continues. And I think you're going to see that clash more and more. Meanwhile, you know, Thune's trying to get Republican senators reelected in, you know, in races that are going to be tough.
- [23:05]
D
Right.
- [23:05]
A
And Adam, in the minute we have left, you know, the president obviously standoffish on elections, but very much involved in trying to kind of hold, push the House and the Senate on legislation. How do you get the split screen dynamic between what he's doing on their politics and what he's doing on legislation?
- [23:24]
E
You know, if you follow from, you know, thinking things like endorsing against John Cornyn down in Texas, things that would upset the Senate majority, but then also things like going out to Michigan. He's planning to go to Michigan next week to campaign for Mike Rogers. And so like just thinking, I think that the president believes that if he is successful on Iran, if he can sort of project success on Iran and say things like the war will be over very soon, then things will turn in his favor, that the party will come around to sort of his policy goals as long as he sort of continues it.
- [24:02]
A
Lots to watch there. Thank you so much. We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you to our guests for joining me and thank you at home for watching. I'm Vivian Salama. Good night from Washington.