Why Desperate Trump Is Scrambling to Save His Base

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Daily Beast Podcast

Episode: Why Desperate Trump Is Scrambling to Save His Base
Host: Joanna Coles
Date: March 22, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives deep into Donald Trump’s increasingly precarious political position amid the ongoing Middle East war, the political weaponization of Christianity, escalating crises within the MAGA base, and the administration’s struggle with public perception and legislative challenges. Spirited, irreverent, and incisive, the show features show regular Michael Wolff unpacking the “competitive Christianity” among right-wing figures, the White House’s war strategy (or lack thereof), and Trump’s obsession with landmark projects and branding. The episode also teases Michael’s upcoming Jeffrey Epstein series and reflects on changing social mores in politics and media.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Political Crisis for Trump and MAGA (01:00–03:00, 17:03–18:58, 26:59–28:10)

• There’s a growing sense among political insiders that there is no long-term formula left to rescue Trump and the MAGA movement, particularly with war fatigue and an energy crisis souring the base.
  • "Everybody is beginning to say to try to find the political formula in which, you know, Donald Trump and MAGA and this whole enterprise can be saved. And beginning to worry that there is not such a formula." – Michael Wolff (01:00)
• Voter turnout is seen as crucial; if MAGA base enthusiasm drops, potential losses of the House and Senate loom.
  • "Turnout is going to be the key in terms of any chance, and there probably is no chance at this point of holding the House, but it also may well affect the Senate. And if the Senate goes, then Donald Trump goes." – Michael Wolff (01:14)

2. War in the Middle East & Trump’s Conflicted Narratives (17:03–24:51, 28:10–32:01)

• Trump claims military victories in Iraq and downplays energy vulnerabilities while U.S. forces build up in the Gulf – all as the White House remains deeply divided and strategizes only for survival until the midterms.
• The NYT’s editorial on Trump’s “lies” is dissected: Wolff argues Trump actually believes his own alternate reality.
  • "What it says about Donald Trump is he's not lying. The more dangerous fact of this is that he's not lying. The truer fact inside Donald Trump's head is that he actually believes what he says..." – Michael Wolff (19:15)
• The “extemporaneous” nature of the war and the administration’s lack of a clear exit strategy are highlighted.

3. Competitive Christianity & Political Identity (04:17–16:33)

• Panelists mock and critically analyze the new boom in “public Christianity,” featuring Pete Hegseth “discovering Christ” and using religion to justify war, while Tucker Carlson embraces evangelism to oppose it.
  • “Anybody who's... pushing Jesus out into the front... is, I'm going to submit, running for president.” – Michael Wolff (10:23)
  • “It's this performative, competitive Christianity... as if he's clinging to something because he's a man drowned.” – Joanna Coles (13:03)
• The guest proposes that these religious performances are strategic plays for post-Trump legitimacy in the GOP, with figures vying for new kingmaker Charlie Kirk’s blessing.
• A humorous aside compares Democrats to the Church of England and Jews—emphasizing performative, non-committal faith as a political stance.

4. The MAGA Base, the Israel Issue, and Trump’s Alliance with Evangelicals (12:06–17:03, 32:01–34:32)

• The alliance between Trump and Christian right is paradoxical, given his irreligious life—but evangelicals back him because he delivers on power, notably with the Supreme Court.
  • “Donald Trump is the guy most embraced by the Christian political movement... the most debauched, depraved, Godless guy.” – Michael Wolff (15:58)
• Discussion on how Trump’s ties to Israel and Netanyahu are becoming a fracture point inside the MAGA base.

5. The Ballroom Obsession & Branding (28:10–32:41)

• Trump’s preoccupation with the White House ballroom is revealed as a kind of therapy for his loss of control—one area where he feels true agency.
  • “To the extent that this man has vision, I think it's most clearly expressed in his own mind in what he can build.” – Michael Wolff (28:22)
• The impulsivity of his decisions is reflected in his obsession with buildings, the Trump Kennedy Center, and enlarging his own name on everything.

6. Immigration & ICE: Internal Party Struggles (34:32–39:25)

• Trump’s recent “mea culpa” on mass deportations reflects realization they've overreached—a lesson learned and forgotten cyclically.
• MAGA’s anti-immigration stance is discussed as racially motivated and increasingly rejected even by parts of the GOP and public.
  • “MAGA is profoundly, profoundly anti immigration, anti brown, anti black, anti. You know, this is a white Christian nation in the... foundational MAGA view.” – Michael Wolff (35:20)
• The divide between wanting stricter policies and opposing cruelty in implementation is straining the party’s unity.

7. The Legislative Wall: Save America Act and GOP Fractures (39:41–41:19)

• Trump’s last-ditch hopes for the Save America Act are quickly fading, as it’s dead in the Senate and key GOP figures like John Thune refuse to support.
  • “Trump is saying that he's not going to support any other legislation if they can't pass the Save America Act... But it seems clear they are not going to get the 60 votes in the Senate that they need.” – Joanna Coles (40:40)
• The panel ridicules Trump’s inability to accept legislative defeats.

8. Teaser: Michael Wolff’s New Epstein Series (41:41–47:01)

• Michael teases an episodic, first‑hand account of his interactions with Jeffrey Epstein, promising names and unfiltered narrative.
  • “I'm going to try to tell this story based only on what I saw... not speculation… not picking up from somebody else's speculative reporting.” – Michael Wolff (43:30)
• The ethical challenge of naming names is debated; Wolff says he will emphasize fact over sensational value.

9. Changing Social Mores & Scandals in Academia (47:01–49:13)

• Joanna discusses her own Substack column on professors dating students, referencing recent political controversies and generational shifts in attitudes toward past relationships.
• Michael jokes about remembering everyone he's dated, framing generational differences humorously.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Trump and Public Reality:
  “He actually believes what he says, that it is such a profound misunderstanding of reality…”
  —Michael Wolff (19:15)

• On Competitive Christianity:
  “It's this performative, competitive Christianity... as if he's clinging to something because he's a man drowned.”
  —Joanna Coles (13:03)

• On the MAGA Movement’s Identity Crisis:
  “MAGA is profoundly, profoundly anti immigration, anti brown, anti black... this is a white Christian nation in the... foundational MAGA view.”
  —Michael Wolff (35:20)

• On the Political Moment:
  “Jesus, we are going to get so wiped out.”
  —Michael Wolff, channeling White House sentiment (40:26)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• 01:00 – 03:00: Crisis of Trump & MAGA base, electoral formula, consequences of the war.
• 04:17 – 16:33: Performative Christianity, rivalry between Hegseth and Carlson, new right-wing factions.
• 17:03 – 28:10: Trump’s war messaging, reality vs. perception, NYT’s editorial, election strategy.
• 28:10 – 32:41: The ballroom as metaphor for control, Trump’s obsession with branding.
• 34:32 – 39:25: GOP wrestling with ICE policies, mass deportations, and political optics.
• 39:41 – 41:19: Save America Act's defeat, John Thune’s opposition, legislative dead-ends.
• 41:41 – 47:01: Michael Wolff’s upcoming Epstein series, reporting philosophy.
• 47:01 – 49:13: Changes in academic scandals, generational shifts in attitudes.
• 49:46 – End: Episode wrap-up, reflections on the “ad-libbed” war, upcoming content teasers.

---

Tone and Style

The episode is characterized by sharp wit, personal anecdotes, and a candid, irreverent style. There’s a palpable sense of exasperation with the Trump administration’s chaos—particularly its “ad-libbed” war and performative religiosity—punctuated with humorous asides and personal jabs.

---

Final Thoughts

This episode offers a lively, nuanced exploration of why Trump is in deep trouble with his own base and how his personal obsessions and the party’s cultural contradictions are undermining what remains of MAGA unity. The conversation blends high-level political analysis with biting humor and inside-the-room detail, making it a must-listen (or must-read) for anyone tracking the slow-motion disintegration of Trumpism in 2026.

Transcript

[A]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do.

[B]

@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month Required intro rate first 3 months only then full price plan options available, taxes and fees, extra fee full [e-mail]

[C]

CRM was supp improve customer relationships. Instead it's shorthand for can't resolve much, which means you may have sunk a fortune into software that just bounces customer issues around but never actually solves them. On the ServiceNow AI platform, CRM stands for something better. With AI built into one platform, customers aren't mired in endless loops of automated indifference. They get what they need when they need it. Bad CRM was then this is ServiceNow.

[D]

Everybody is beginning to say to try to find the political formula in which, you know, Donald Trump and MAGA and this whole enterprise can be saved. And beginning to worry that there is not such a formula. Turnout is going to be the key in terms of, of, of any chance, and there probably is no chance at this point of holding the House, but it also may well affect the Senate. And if the Senate goes, then Donald Trump goes. So the war itself, beyond the energy crisis, that sense that he has betrayed his movement is I think real and going to bite him in the ass.

[B]

Michael, once more, Joanna, we have so much to get through. I want to hear about your new Epstein series. We have competitive Christianity with people trying to out compete their prayers. We've got obviously the ongoing war. We've got Cuba, we've got the ballroom to discuss, which I know you have some info on. We've got the ice mea culpa from Trump and the realization this is not going to be good for them. And we have John Thune, who I'm going to admit is a bit of a new crush for me. That granite jaw is so much more presidential than Donald Trump's kind of moldy hay hair. And we have the Save America bill. The Save America bill. Is it gonna save America? So where do we begin? And we should ask people to sign up, if they haven't done so, to the podcast so that we can try and reach a million subscribers. We're at almost 600,000 but our goal is a million. So if you haven't subscribed, please do you get tons of extra content and the we're going to be rolling out extra, extra benefits.

[D]

A membership assume our goal is not just a million.

[B]

What?

[D]

I assume our goal is not just a million.

[B]

No, no, of course it's not just a million. But a million is very good on you YouTube and we love our YouTube partners and our all the other partners, Apple, Spotify, wherever else you get your podcast. So where do you want to begin, Michael?

[D]

You know, I got a. I have a theory. I'm going to try out a theory here which is did I just see a cat?

[B]

You did just see a cat. It's Saturday. We're doing this from home. Just going to introduce one of my cats to the world Bug. Say hello. There we go. Normally he sits on my lap and you don't get a chance to see him, but you're getting an unusually intimate glimpse.

[D]

I didn't even know you had a cat. I've known you for 30 years. I've never known you to have. I've never associated you with an animal.

[B]

That's upsetting. I have a dog or my ex husband got the dog and I have two cats actually. And I had two cats before. But this one is a nosy, curious cat. So he may make appearances. Anyway, what is your theory that you want to try on us?

[D]

You know, I think let's. There is this. One of the things that we've seen in the past week is this claim on Christianity. Pete Hegseth, you know, who has spent his life as a, basically as a falling down drunk, has clearly discovered Christ and Christ is now in his version, the reason for this war. Because Christ is on our side. I think, I mean this is not. This was almost an official public announcement the other day.

[B]

And I think that, you know, Pete Hegseth view of Christ is that Christ has saved him, right. From a series of, of adulterous marriages and alcohol.

[D]

Yes. And now he's going to save, I suppose, the United States from a quagmire. But on the other, and that's his justification for the war. Essentially Christ is on our side. Christ is the general and is the commander in chief. But on the other hand, Tucker Carlson, who has spent his life as a Juan Episcopalian, has suddenly discovered evangelical fever. And in his version, Christ is the reason we should not be fighting this war.

[B]

Tucker doesn't believe in killing anybody. I mean he's big on that.

[D]

I think he has a few caveats there.

[B]

Of course he has A few caveats. Also, can I just make a point? How much higher can Tucker's laugh go since we've known him? And I remember Tucker cars, and I know you've known him much longer than I have, but I remember him on MSNBC back in the day when they paid contributors and Tucker was a regular contributor, and his voice was definitely lower. And now his laugh is. Is almost at. It's on that scale where you almost can't hear it.

[D]

No, but I find it actually, when it is both ridiculous and effective, which is, in a way, a perfect description of the Donald Trump era. And I saw him, he did a long interview, and I've seen just pieces of it with the editor of the Economist, and he uses that laugh to really puncture her balloon of correctness and in reasonableness.

[B]

Well, I think we have a clip from it. This is an interview he did with Zanny Minton Beddoes, who's the editor of the Economist and a friend. And I admired her stoicism in. In line with his provocation.

[D]

Yeah, I mean, you might say that. Or you might say, as I would. He wipes the floor with her.

[E]

You've asked two questions. The first was, do you believe Israel is a right to exist? And the second question was, do you believe Israel should continue to go on as a nation state? And those are very different questions. So I often hear the question, having

[F]

been created as a political entity in 1948, does it have a right to exist?

[E]

Is that what you're asking?

[F]

I don't want to get hung up on the right.

[E]

No, no, no, no.

[F]

Should it continue to exist? That's how I define narrow design, because

[E]

the phrase you used was devised by the Israeli government, of course. Does it have a right to exist? And so my question to you would be, what does that mean?

[F]

Why don't you answer my question?

[B]

It's a very simple question.

[E]

I don't know what your question is. Are you asking, does it have a right to exist, or do I want it to exist? Do I seek its destruction?

[F]

Fine, answer it that way.

[E]

Well, of course I don't seek its destruction. I've already said, as you know, because I said it to you, I don't want Israel to be destroyed or have to use nuclear weapons.

[F]

We've established that you are in that narrow terms of Zionist, if that's anything.

[E]

I'm in no sense of Zionist. I don't want any country to be destroyed at all. And I don't want people to die, particularly ones who committed no crime, because I Don't believe in killing innocents, period.

[G]

Jackson Hewitt has a great tax prep deal. $149 or less. Missing out is like ignoring the check engine light in your car. You regret it. Seriously, the price is only 149dol or less, no matter how complicated. So don't wait. Like when you get a password expires today alert or you're shopping online and there's only one item left. It's like your taxes are in the cart. Just complete the purchase. Hurry. This deal for 149 or less is like your phone at 1%. It's about to power down. Limited time offer for new clients on federal returns. Participating locations only. [e-mail] 149 well, we didn't get, we

[B]

didn't get a chance to hear his laugh there, which is in evidence during the interview.

[D]

Yeah, it is, it is. But that's also a lesson, a perfect lesson in how to debate, I mean, question somebody else's unquestioned language. And she just gave it up by essentially saying, well, let's not focus on what I said. Well, if we can't focus on what you said, what can we focus on

[B]

is, I think she was just trying to keep the interview moving because he didn't want to and he was sort of, I felt like he was trying to pirouette here.

[D]

Yeah, but she didn't keep it moving and he punctured her. I mean, she was, you know, you can't, you can't talk about the, I mean, that's an interesting thing. Israel's right to exist. And he's, he's, I mean, the language of that. And, and, and that's a phrase which people use without, without, without thinking. What does that mean? And the truth is it doesn't mean anything. Which she was relying on. Well, we all say this and, and he put her on that.

[B]

So what's inside Trump's head about Tucker? I mean, Tucker has really stuck his stake in the ground here about being anti war.

[D]

I want to return to this, to the Christ thing here, because I think anybody, two theories, anybody who's bringing, pushing Jesus out into the front, and we don't hear Tucker in that clip, but at other places in this interview, he's wheeling Jesus out. But anybody who is now wheeling Jesus out in this very public way is, I'm going to submit running for president. And I think that we're starting to see a shift. And the shift here is not about who's going to pick up the legacy of Donald Trump and I think that there's an awareness that the legacy of Donald Trump, if he goes down in the midterms because of this unpopular war, because the economy continues to drag along, I think that's going to be a complicated legacy. So the legacy that I think they are starting to look toward, and they may not entirely have yet realized this, so I like to be in a position to tell them what's in their heads, the legacy is Charlie Kirk. So I think more and more that's what we're gonna see. Everybody vying for Charlie Kirk's endorsement from heaven.

[B]

And we know that at the moment, it feels like JD Vance is closest to that endorsement. He talks about God too.

[D]

Yeah, no, he. Very, very much so. All of these people, and I think in God or Christ, they don't really care about God, that God is for Jews, Christ is for Christians, and they are all using Christ for different reasons. But the ultimate reason is the identification with Charlie Kirk. And of course, there's some issue very clearly too, that Christ and Israel are inimical in so many ways.

[B]

And the irony, of course, is it's hard to imagine a more godless bunch of people.

[D]

Yes, I suppose.

[B]

Was that almost a half agreement, Michael? That might be.

[D]

No, it is. I mean, I'm just trying to think, think in my tucker sense. What does Godless mean?

[B]

Well, I think what my observation about it would be, it's this performative, competitive Christianity. When Pete Hegseth goes into his old, I want you to get down on bended knee and pray to God, it just feels like a performance, as if he's clinging to something because he's a man drowned.

[D]

Well, I mean, I think it's gone further than that. They have turned and this has been going on for certainly for some time in the Republican Party, that Christ is a political entity.

[B]

Right.

[D]

And I mean, very clearly the evangelicals have their particular use of Christianity, which is pointedly political. But as we see, the other people come to this, and Charlie Kirk's use of Christianity was different from the evangelical's use of Christianity, but it all is in terms of political meaning and political event.

[B]

Right. And of course, the Democrats slightly remind me of the Church of England here, which is that you don't even have to be believe in anything to be a member of the Church of England. You just turn up some perfectly nice people, you know, sing a hymn and then wander off into the morning.

[D]

Well, I think worse that for the Democrats is that they're more like Jews.

[B]

What does that mean?

[D]

Well, I. I mean. I mean, I Mean, to be Jew, to be Jewish, you don't really have to believe in God either. And the Democrats are so. The. The. The link between elites, which the Democrats are, unfortunately elites, and the link between elites and Jews is so clearly drawn by.

[B]

By.

[D]

By the MAGA people and is probably true also is something that the Democrats, I think, have not quite figured out how to deal with. They are on the wrong side of Christianity, so to speak.

[B]

Yeah, I'm wondering in Zoran Mamdani's New York whether or not that's true. But anyway, I mean, New York.

[D]

No, that would miss the point entirely. New York is on the wrong side of Christianity as the greatest Jewish town on earth.

[B]

Indeed. And of course, who comes from New York but Donald Trump? And what does he do with the Bible? He holds it upside down. He holds it upside down, and when asked what his favorite verse is or his favorite chapter, he can't remember, and he just says, so many. Got so many. He's not gonna choose one because he's never read it.

[D]

No. Well, that's another interesting thing and a confounding thing, and I don't think anybody, even the other MAGA people, can quite interpret this and get their heads around this, that Donald Trump is the guy most embraced by the Christian political movement. And I mean, I can't. After all these years, I still can't begin to possibly explain that the most debauched, depraved, Godless guy.

[B]

Truly, truly godless because he gave them the Supreme Court because their issue was abortion for the evangelicals, and he gave them the Supreme Court.

[D]

Yeah, well, I think it may be even something deeper than that. They have the ability essentially blackmail him. He is so exposed on this issue that they provide his only cover. Does that make sense?

[B]

The evangelicals provide his only cover?

[D]

Yes, exactly. Exactly. So they know this guy is. This is Donald Trump, but if we support them, he gets to not be, in some sense Donald Trump.

[B]

They give him air cover for all his previous sins.

[D]

Right. So that's a kind of leverage or blackmail over him. He has to deliver to them constantly has to deliver to them because he has no independent basis in, shall we say, Christ.

[B]

Okay, so let's move on to the war itself because I am thoroughly confused about where we are, as I think are most people. And we've got a Trump Truth social post from last night slash this morning. We're recording this on Saturday morning saying we are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great military efforts in the Middle east with respect to the terrorist regime of Iraq. And then he goes on to say that we've completely degraded their missile capacity and everything else pertaining to them. We've destroyed everything, basically. But of course, what we haven't managed to sort out is the Strait of Hormuz, which in another moment I caught myself thinking, sounds like a great title for a novel about the last heterosexual in some kind of place like Mykonos or Fire Island. I just love the idea of it, the Strait of Hormuz. And Hormuz is such a glorious, glorious name. Anyway, he's now saying, because we don't use the Strait of Hormuz, we shouldn't have to guard it. We don't need it. We're energy sufficient and everybody else should guard it. So what are your thoughts on this?

[D]

Well, two thoughts. You're making Donald Trump sound more like Donald Duck than Donald Trump.

[B]

Fair. Totally fair. I'm just trying not to give him the benefit of an English accent. And of course, we. That while he's saying this, we've got vessels packed to the gills with Marines steaming towards the Gulf for potential boots on the ground.

[D]

Well, let me. There was a New York Times editorial, I think, today, or maybe it came out yesterday, saying that Donald Trump is lying about the war. And I think that's interesting. It's interesting because of what it says about the New York Times and interesting. What it says about. About Donald Trump. What it says about the New York Times is that after so long, they continue to fail to understand this guy. What it says about Donald Trump is he's not lying. The more dangerous fact of this is that he's not lying. The truer fact inside Donald Trump, Donald Trump's head is that he actually believes what he says, that it is such a profound misunderstanding of reality that all of this comes out in such contradictory terms, in the same sentence or in sequential truth social posts. It just, to the extent that it means nothing, confuses everything, is helpful to nobody, and points in no clear direction at all. So it is not lying. The New York Times. It's really, really. How do they not get this?

[B]

Well, and it was a long editorial from the editorial board, and it just pointed out all the lies that he had told from the crowd sizes in Trump one to even.

[D]

That's a profound. Don't they get that? I mean, these are not lies. No one, no one would tell such lies about such obvious things. It's a much more serious condition, which is that he can't evaluate, appreciate, analyze,

[B]

and accept reality, which is just a terrifying. It's a terrifying thought as our troops are steaming towards the Strait of Hormuz.

[D]

Well, I find it to more terrifying almost that the leading newspaper in the country is so dim witted.

[B]

Well, you could argue that it's actually more frightening that so many people voted for him and that he's the most important person on the globe right now.

[D]

I'm trying to think of that as a, as a, that's not an either or situation.

[B]

It's all of the above can be

[D]

true at the same time.

[B]

The New York Times it's all of the above.

[D]

The New York Times is dim witted and Americans are dim witted. Anyway, I actually know. So I've been having a few conversations with people in the White House who are having to deal with this. Imagine you're a person, you're in the White House, you have a position of responsibility. This is the certainly the thing that confronts you when you get up in the morning and pretty much every minute of the day that there is a war on. And if you're in the White House you also have your half of your job is political. So it's like well what is this going to mean for, for, for us? And the answer to that is that it's going to be very bad or it is potentially or likely very, very bad. So how do we begin to, how do we begin to think about this? And it seems like they are starting to adapt a formula here. And the formula still has many unknown variables but it really is all about until next fall. How do we get to next fall? Where will we be at at that point in time, September and October when people are going to start to make their decisions about the midterms and in fact actually in many places start to cast their votes. And so it's does the war, at what point, how much longer can the war go on without that bleeding into those months? So the unpopular war plus the energy markets, when will, if we get out of Iran in a month from now or two months from now. Does that mean that the energy markets immediately return to normal? No. So how long before can the energy markets depending upon when we leave Iran, can the energy markets return to normal by September? One of the questions that's, that's going on but at the same time if we don't accomplish at least the most basic things that the, that the President of the United States has declared we are there to do, if we don't accomplish those things, do they bleed over into September and October? So if we still have a situation in which the, the actionable nuclear material has not been obtained, that the Iranians still possess it. Right.

[B]

The uranium.

[D]

Yes. And even worse if they possess it in a chaotic leadership situation. So that's number one. And we don't seem to have. We don't seem to be moving, in anybody's estimation, toward a plan for how to extract that material. And any plan to extract that material may well end up in keeping us in Iran that much longer. So that's a problem. Then there's the problem of the regime itself. So we leave. And then there's the other thing within the White House of everybody not knowing. I mean, literally everybody could wake up tomorrow, wake up to a post in which the. In which Donald Trump announces that we have withdrawn from Iran and the region and declared victory. But what does that mean in terms of the regime still being in place? Does that bleed over into September and October? So everybody is beginning to say to try to find the political formula in, in which, you know, Donald Trump and MAGA and this whole enterprise can be saved, and beginning to worry that there is not such a formula.

[B]

Well, and let's assume that actually most people, most voters aren't actually that interested in Iran. Most of them can't find it on a map. What they are interested in. As we know, the key word around the election is affordability. This is going to drive prices up. And it doesn't matter if we, if Donald Trump declares victory tomorrow or in a month.

[D]

I don't really think that that's true.

[B]

Well, I definitely think it's true in terms of the energy crisis impacting prices. Right. Food is going to go up, transport's going up, gas prices are going up. And they are going to see, we already see prices going up. Gas has gone up by a dollar already.

[D]

The idea that Americans don't care about Iran, I think is probably faulty on a larger basis. But on a specific basis, in terms of Republican turnout, if there is that, that's. I mean, just look at this as a turnout thing. If there's a sense of ambivalence in the MAGA base, that's going to profoundly affect turnout. Turnout is going to be the key in terms of any chance, and there probably is no chance at this point of holding the, of holding the House, but it also may well affect the Senate. And if the Senate goes, then Donald Trump goes. So the war itself, beyond the energy, which is the energy crisis and the energy costs, which is obviously directly related to the war, but even beyond that, that sense that he has betrayed his movement is, I think, real and Going to bite him in the ass.

[B]

He has betrayed his movement. Yeah, it's a great perspective on it. So what are we also hearing about one of the other issues? The ballroom. The ballroom, you know.

[D]

Well, one of the things, I mean, that kept coming up when I've had these discussions, because in a kind of confounding sense, people within the White House circle say that he is, as. As much as the war is top of mind, the Ballroom is top of his mind. That somehow the ballroom has become this thing for him. It represents his presidency, his accomplishment, his dominance, and his vision. To the extent that this man has vision, I think it's most clearly expressed in his own mind in what he can build. And it's always. So it's under constant discussion. The ballroom. The ballroom. The ballroom. And they wheeled out the architect who we've been making fun of.

[B]

Shalom Baranas.

[D]

Yes. We should provide his contacts and emails

[B]

[e-mail] and at any rate.

[D]

And so he was wheeled out for, for an interview in which he says, basically, you know, I can handle controversy and, and, and et cetera, et cetera. But this was. They apparently wheeled him out and got him to go on the record on this because they were, they were afraid that he was getting squidgy on it, that he might actually also walk away from this.

[B]

So that would be the second architect that's walked away.

[D]

Right. So a public interview, they feel kind of commits him here.

[B]

Do you think that one of the reasons that Donald Trump is interested in focusing so much on the Ballroom is because even though he thinks he knows everything we know, in fact, he doesn't know very much, and that this is the one area that he feels some genuine agency in.

[D]

No, no, no, I think it's true. Building things is a, you know, one of the things, perhaps the only thing that he's ever kind of, kind of successfully accomplished, you know, although living in New York with these Trump buildings, you would hardly say that that's. That that's success. He sees himself as a builder. He sees himself. He sees the physical world as someplace that he's actually very comfortable in, real estate building. And curiously, this is a lot of rich guys, in my experience. A lot of rich guys. What are they most comfortable talking about? Real estate and real estate and what you build on it and the nature and the control they have over the physical world.

[B]

Interesting. Well, of course, we know that he's also overseeing plans for the Trump Kennedy center, and in the plans that they're showing, his own name appears much bigger than it has done hitherto. Do you remember how it was? Suddenly it suddenly appeared and it was in a slightly different font. Well, his plans, as we know, he's closing it down. He fired Rick Renell, who was running it, and he's closing it for two years. But in the design plans for it to reopen in two years, his own name will be much bigger than it was before.

[D]

Yeah. No, I mean, the naming aspect of this, he profoundly believes in. That's what he believes. If you ask Donald Trump, if you pinned him down and said, what was the method by which you achieved your success? I think he would. And several conversations I've had with, with him, he's seen seemed to go. I mean, I never asked him like this because you can't ask him things in any conversation. But he seems to have. If you could, I think the answer would be because he has, from the beginning of his career, put his name on everything. And that's the thing.

[B]

That's a business success.

[D]

He became a brand. The brand is important. The name is important. He turned himself into something of value because of the name. So again and again, and I think we're seeing this, puts his name on the White House, puts his name on any surface he can possibly put it on.

[B]

So do you think that any of the criticism of him simply following behind Bibi Netanyahu as Netanyahu's lapdog is getting through? Does it annoy him? Does he pay any heed?

[D]

Well, I think it's, as I said, I think we've discussed before what gets through. And what actually he finds annoying is, again, not of the nature of what you and I would find annoying. But I think the Bibi thing is more complicated, too, because it's coming from his base, and it is, and we are the base, is turning Israel into an issue that he doesn't know how to deal with. It is becoming, I would say, one of the central issues of the MAGA world. And it is the fissure, and we've talked about this before, it is the major fissure that I think is developing within the Republican Party. I mean, it is the issue that will. That could break this, break the Trump thing wide open. Now, that's presuming that the Democrats don't also find themselves embroiled in this issue, which they may well be.

[B]

Okay, so we're also learning that Trump told the Cabinet, told people around him, that the deportations, the mass deportations orchestrated by Stephen Miller, as we know and as we have discussed, have gone too far. We saw Mark Wayne Mullen this week going through his Senate confirmation hearings, which began hilariously with a row with Rand Paul. Do we, is that a lesson that we actually think that they have learned that the Republicans need to lay off the ice, needs to start retreating and certainly retreating from Democratic cities because this has been a home goal for the Republicans?

[D]

Yeah, I mean, they've learned this lesson before. I mean, they learned this lesson in the first administration. The first administration began with all kinds of draconian immigration policies, separating children from their parents. I mean, it was, you know, as bad a situation, as bad a look then as it is now, and they did retreat from that. So, but then they came back again on, on, on this. So again, this is, this is a theme that they are not within a MAGA theme that they are not going to get away from. I mean, it. MAGA is profoundly, profoundly anti immigration, anti brown, anti black, anti. You know, this is a white Christian nation in the maga, the foundational MAGA view. And all of the numbers are inexorably pointing to the fact that this white Christian nation is in profound transition. So how do we stop that? And the way we stop, first thing, I think it can't be stopped. It's just obviously a whole living in a fantasy world. But if you are going to follow that logic, the how to stop it logic, it's we have to aggressively deport these people, get rid of these, these people. And we're going to do that because many people in the country say, yes, they are for stricter, more stringent immigration policies. The problem is they are not for what we see to be, for a certain policy, but to be against cruelty. Two things can be true at the same time, and that's what these guys are being, are being hung on. Stephen Miller isn't going away. The MAGA desire here to cleanse the country, ethnically cleanse the country, isn't going away. So Donald Trump, from his point of view, which is, as with all things, you get to the point, the Donald Trump point of view is, I don't give a shit. And, and so clearly everyone telling him this, even Melania telling him, I mean, Melania, of course, hello, hello.

[B]

Don't. We must calm down with ice. No more ice, no more masked men bursting into homes.

[D]

You know, and then he said, yeah, you know, it's a waving away. Yeah, I don't give a shit. Yeah, this is too much. But then, you know, he deals. This is within the administration proper. This is one of its engines.

[B]

Yeah, I think that people didn't like Those images of people roaring through the Rio Grande and the border. And they bought Donald Trump's promise that they were only going to get rid of criminals and these Venezuelan gangs. And actually, people are extremely concerned by the videos they see of masked men scooping up people. And, you know, millennials describe themselves now, I think, as four different races. You know, they're half or they're quarter Filipino, quarter Italian, quarter Mexican, quarter American. So I think this is something that. I don't know. I think it worked during the election, and it's now terrible for him. And I'm always mindful of, of how you say that. Donald Trump has the seeds of his own destruction in him, and they are just as big as his ability to win, is his ability to lose.

[D]

But one of the things that we are now going to see, and this is going to be related to more and more things, is it's all through the prism of the November election, the midterms.

[B]

Yeah, for sure.

[D]

And those are the formulas that people in the White House are looking at. How much time do we have? How much time do we have to reverse perceptions? How much time do we have to create new perceptions? Or is it too late? And in many instances, on many issues, it is too late. So can we compensate in other ways? And that's part of the Save America Act. And very well, it probably is true. And there probably is some. And there is some level of acceptance within the White House and around the president that that is really the only thing that would make enough of a difference to give them at least the sum possibility of staying in the game. But without that, more and more, it's like, Jesus, we are going to get so wiped out.

[B]

Well, that's interesting that they're sort of dug in now understanding that. And, you know, Trump is saying that he's not going to support any other legislation if they can't pass the Save America Act. And it feels as dramatic as the big, beautiful bill was. But it seems clear they are not going to get the 60 votes in the Senate that they need to pass the bill. It's clear that John Thune has no interest in passing the bill. They don't want to get rid of the filibuster and just do it with a majority. So Trump is not going to get his way on this.

[D]

Yeah, no, I mean, I think that's. That's. I mean, that's another weird thing that he doesn't appreciate that this is lost, that this is not a. This is not going to save him. They're not going to get there. John Thune, your boyfriend, is. Is not Trump's friend and really has never been Trump's friend.

[B]

Right, right. He should run. Why isn't he running? Why isn't he putting his hat in the ring? All right, so what I want to know, Michael, is more about your Epstein series which you are running on Substack,

[D]

which will start number one on Monday. So what I'm gonna do is.

[B]

Well, you wrote a sort of announcement column about it.

[D]

Yes, yes, in introduction. Come join me. But. But it's going to start on Monday and it really is going to be the story. I'm going to tell the story episodically. In a Dickens, a 19th century Dickens fashion.

[B]

Oh, my goodness. With a cliffhanger at the end of every episode.

[D]

With a cliffhanger, I hope. Yes. Once a week I will tell the story of what I saw in, in my relationship with Jeffrey Epstein from the first to the last. And part of the context here is this story. The Epstein story is anomalously being told by people who don't know it. And the people who do know it, who saw it firsthand, aren't contributing to the telling of this story because to, because any public identification with firsthand. Public identification, they get hoisted more. They've already been hoisted, but they will be hoisted again and again so that you have this story, one of the main stories of our time, being told by people who are outside of it and not being told by people who are part of it. So I'm going to try to tell this story based only on what I saw. So this is. It's not speculation. It's not picking up from somebody else's speculative reporting. It's not trying to parse emails without context. It's not. All of the limitations of the story as it is now being told, I will put aside and just report it from. From what was in front of my eyes.

[B]

So, for example, if you're reporting on a dinner that you've had at Jeffrey Epstein's, are you going to give us the names of the people who are round the table?

[D]

Yeah, probably.

[B]

I mean, what does that you mean?

[D]

Well, I haven't written it yet, so it's, you know, I mean, I mean, I haven't even begun those considerations. But

[B]

isn't it only of value if you can tell us who else was there?

[D]

Well, I don't fucking care about value on this. I'm trying to tell what I saw, the. Tell the story as I saw it, what I know. And to make sense of it, I'm not trying to pin this on anyone. I'm not trying to.

[B]

Well, I guess what I'm asking is.

[D]

Author reveals. I'm trying to approach this as a writer would. This is the story. This is what I saw. This is, I hope that I can provide some context and some meaning and make sense of it.

[B]

I guess what I'm asking is, are you going to be protecting other people by not using their names if they were also having dinner? Because I'm mindful of that. You raise all the time the fact that the New York Times has said anyone who shook Jeffrey Epstein's hand should be scrutinized. And then you pointed out he didn't shake hands.

[D]

I might, I don't know. And I have, I'm just actually finishing up the first, the first installment. And that's about the first time I met Epstein and on a plane ride that a lot of other people were on. And yeah, I mention everybody's names. I don't think it's, I don't think it's particularly damaging to any, to anyone or shouldn't be. Everybody was on the plane as I was on the plane, by pure happenstance, so.

[B]

And what, what? Give us a clue. I don't think I know how you first met Jeffrey Epstein.

[D]

Well, you'll have to, you just have to wait until Monday.

[B]

Do I have to pay for substack? So I have to pay for your substack to find out. In fact, I have been paying for your substack. It's very good value. Yes, very good value. But I, I think a lot of people will be pleased about this because, well, I run into people who know that we do this podcast. They are always asking me about your experiences with.

[D]

No, no, I think it's a, I, I, I think it's very interesting. I think it totally compelling story and it runs for a rather long time, and I think you see lots of themes in the time we live in. So that's what was. I'll try to capture that and make some sense out of this.

[B]

Did you keep contemporaneous diaries? Are you a journal keeper?

[D]

I am, I am.

[B]

Well, I can't wait to read the first installment. So if you want to get Michael's substack, it's called Howl. I also have a substack this week. I have just written about our fascination with professors and their affairs with students and how it's come back into popular culture, but actually it also impacted a. A Democratic candidate running for Congress in Illinois who 22 years after he took out A student. When he was a graduate student and he took out an undergraduate, she wrote a substack post drawing attention to this fact and saying they'd had some dates and nothing untoward had happened. But she wanted to let people know that now she was a professor, she understood the power dynamic in a 26 year old taking out a 20 year old. So an intriguing. An intriguing.

[D]

And what was your conclusion about this?

[B]

Well, you will have to read my substack to find out. Touche, my friend, touche. You will have to read the substack to find out. But, but, but we are living in odd times. I can't even remember people I was going out with 22 years ago. Well, 22 years ago, to be fair, I was married, but 32 years ago. Certainly can't remember anybody I, I dated. It's all, it's. Who remembers their 20s, who remembers any of their college?

[D]

I, I can remember everybody I've dated because I married them all.

[B]

Okay, well, you've had two marriages, so you're dated.

[D]

It's very. Yes.

[B]

Interesting. Well, I urge people to, to, to sample both of us on my substack's called Primal Scream. All right, so I think that's enough for today. That's quite a lot. The ballroom, the war, the competitive Christianity, Michael's tantalizing insight into his Epstein Diaries. What are you calling it? Are you giving it a special name?

[D]

That hadn't crossed my mind, but maybe I should.

[B]

I think the Epstein Diaries might be a good, A good title says it like it is. I want all the details. I want all the details. I found your chapter in your book too famous about Epstein where Erhard Barak turns up and asks with his greedy little fingers for some caviar and a boiled egg. I think I found it just. Well, it's a rare insight into a peculiar world.

[D]

Thank you.

[B]

So we will be back next week. We've already asked people to subscribe to the podcast. Leave us your comments on this week's. We may be out of the war. We may have declared victory by the time we're back on Tuesday.

[D]

It's, you know, one of the people in the White House as I was talking about this, said as though with a shrug, he said, you know, well, it's kind of an extemporaneous war, which

[B]

is what you said from the beginning. It was just. He was ad libbing his way through. But someone has to look after the Straight of Hormuz. Well,

[D]

yes, but maybe not. Maybe you can't. And maybe that the lasting effect of this war will be that the Iranians realize that's their actual power. What is their leverage in the world? It's not the building of a nuclear device. And is that they can strangle the Strait of Hormutz.

[B]

Right. 20% of the world's energy. All right, well, Michael, we'll be back on Tuesday.

[D]

Fantastic.

[B]

So the good news is we have so many Bee Beast tier members now, there are too many names to read out. And we really appreciate your support. Thanks to our production team. Devon Rogerino. Ryan Murray. Rachel Passer. Heather Passaro. Neil Rosenhaus.