Trump 2.0: The Art of the Deal

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Trump 2.0: The Art of the Deal"

The Daily by The New York Times delves deep into President Donald Trump's strategic maneuvering within both domestic and international arenas. In the episode titled "Trump 2.0: The Art of the Deal," hosted by Michael Barbaro with insights from White House correspondents Maggie Haberman and Zolan Kano Youngs, and congressional correspondent Katie Edmondson, the discussion centers on two pivotal deals proposed by Trump—one within the U.S. Congress and the other on the global stage with Ukraine. This comprehensive summary encapsulates the key discussions, insights, and conclusions drawn during the episode.

---

1. Introduction

Michael Barbaro opens the episode by highlighting President Trump's dual focus on crafting significant deals that prioritize his interests, both domestically and internationally. Emphasizing the president's adeptness at navigating complex negotiations, Barbaro sets the stage for an in-depth analysis with his esteemed panel of journalists.

---

2. Domestic Deal with Congress: Navigating the Budget Resolution

a. The Half Man, Half Horse Metaphor

Maggie Haberman introduces the primary domestic deal: a budget resolution that amalgamates Trump's campaign promises through a blend of executive actions and congressional legislation. She describes the bill as a "half man, half horse" entity, symbolizing its dual nature of combining tax cuts (the "man") with spending reductions (the "horse") (02:40).

b. Balancing Party Factions

Zolan Kano Youngs elaborates on the internal dynamics within the Republican Party. Speaker Johnson faces the arduous task of appeasing both ultra-conservative members and more moderate Republicans who represent swing districts. This delicate balancing act is crucial for the passage of the budget resolution (03:35).

c. Potential Impacts on Medicare and Medicaid

The resolution's structure necessitates substantial spending cuts, with $880 billion earmarked for Medicaid and Medicare over ten years. Katie Edmondson emphasizes the contentious nature of these cuts, highlighting that Medicare and Medicaid are often referred to as the "third rail" of American politics due to their political sensitivity (06:20).

d. Passage Through Legislative Maneuvering

Despite initial resistance, Speaker Johnson successfully pushes the resolution through with a narrow vote of 217 to 215, aided by strategic persuasion and pressure from President Trump. A notable moment occurs when President Trump contacts Republican Victoria Spartz, urging her to support the bill, leading to its eventual passage (08:17).

e. Deficit Concerns and Party Contradictions

The budget resolution forecasts an increase in the U.S. deficit by $2.5 trillion, contrasting with the Republican pledge to cut taxes by $4.5 trillion and reduce spending by $2 trillion. This contradiction underscores the tension within the party regarding fiscal responsibility and economic strategy (09:12).

f. Democratic Countermoves

Katie Edmondson notes that Democrats may seize this opportunity to criticize potential Medicaid cuts, drawing parallels to the 2018 successful campaign against the Affordable Care Act repeal. Such strategic positioning could shift the political landscape if Democrats effectively rally against these spending reductions (11:04).

---

3. International Deal with Ukraine: A Transactional Approach

a. Trump's Negotiation Tactics

Transitioning to the international sphere, Barbaro introduces Trump's negotiations with Ukraine, characterized by a transactional mindset. Katie Edmondson describes Trump's approach as seeking compensation for U.S. military aid to Ukraine, specifically targeting Ukraine's natural resource assets like critical earth minerals (15:28).

b. Initial Proposals and Rejections

The initial proposal presented by Trump's Treasury Secretary, Scott Besant, demanded Ukraine compensate the U.S. by granting half of the revenue from its natural resources, amounting to up to $500 billion. This proposal was met with resistance from Ukraine, primarily due to the lack of long-term security guarantees (15:30).

c. Ukraine's Predicament and Zelenskyy's Decision

Despite the unfavorable terms, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy opts to sign the deal, recognizing the dire situation and the necessity for U.S. support. Katie Edmondson underscores the limited options available to Ukraine, compelling it to acquiesce to Trump's conditions to secure any form of assistance (17:07).

d. Reactions from Allied Nations

The episode highlights a broader trend of Trump's allies conceding to his demands to maintain favorable relations. Examples include the UK Prime Minister offering increased defense spending and the Japanese Prime Minister showering Trump with compliments. This pattern reflects a shift towards a more transactional and self-serving international diplomacy under Trump's leadership (23:25).

e. Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy

Maggie Haberman and Zolan Kano Youngs discuss the long-term ramifications of Trump's approach, suggesting it signifies a departure from traditional Republican foreign policy. The emphasis on economic gains over strategic alliances raises concerns about the future of U.S. commitments abroad and the potential erosion of international trust (18:52).

---

4. Trump's Deal-Making Style and Global Implications

a. Transactional Diplomacy

Katie Edmondson and Maggie Haberman delve into the essence of Trump's deal-making style, which prioritizes immediate economic benefits and personal rapport over sustained alliances and moral imperatives. This approach has elicited varied responses from global leaders, often resulting in superficial agreements that favor Trump's agenda (21:33).

b. Impact on Alliances and International Relations

The transactional nature of these deals has led to a recalibration of relationships between the U.S. and its allies. By leveraging economic incentives and exerting pressure, Trump has redefined diplomatic interactions, potentially undermining longstanding alliances and altering the geopolitical landscape (26:03).

c. Criticisms and Concerns

Critics argue that Trump's tactics echo colonialist attitudes, focusing on resource extraction and economic dominance rather than equitable partnerships. This perspective raises ethical questions about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy and its alignment with global norms and values (21:43).

---

5. Conclusion

The episode "Trump 2.0: The Art of the Deal" offers a nuanced exploration of President Trump's strategic maneuvers within the U.S. Congress and on the international stage. Domestically, Trump's ability to broker a narrow passage of a contentious budget resolution underscores his influence over the Republican Party, despite internal contradictions regarding fiscal policy. Internationally, his transactional approach to diplomacy, exemplified by the negotiations with Ukraine, signals a shift towards prioritizing economic gains and personal rapport over traditional alliances and security guarantees. The cumulative effect of these deals highlights a transformative phase in U.S. politics and foreign relations, driven by Trump's unique negotiation tactics and overarching vision.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Maggie Haberman (02:30)

  "Trump has been very focused and his aides have been very focused in the White House on trying to get through some kind of a bill through Congress that reflected what he campaigned on, not."

• Zolan Kano Youngs (08:17)

  "One of the potential defectors, Victoria Spartz from Indiana, got a call from Trump... he was really pressuring her, as we understand it, to vote for this bill."

• Katie Edmondson (15:28)

  "The US basically wants back pay for the aid they already sent to Ukraine. Trump is basically saying, you have these critical earth minerals in Ukraine and the US is going to get a significant amount, half of the revenue from that up to 500 billion."

• Maggie Haberman (17:05)

  "Trump has separated out Russia and Ukraine from one another... he is trying to negotiate a peace deal."

• Katie Edmondson (21:33)

  "The best kind of security assurance that you could get, because we don't want Russia to take over all of this territory."

• Zolan Kano Youngs (18:52)

  "The anti-interventionists have won. They occupy positions of power in Republican leadership on the Hill. They occupy positions of power within the Pentagon."

• Katie Edmondson (26:03)

  "You're seeing other nations react in a way to try and give him something that he can cite that they've done for him lately."

---

Final Thoughts

"Trump 2.0: The Art of the Deal" provides a critical examination of President Trump's negotiation strategies, revealing a complex interplay of power, influence, and strategic concessions. Through adept deal-making, Trump has not only reshaped domestic policies but also redefined international alliances, leaving a lasting impact on the political and geopolitical fabric of the United States.

Transcript

[Advertisement Voice]

Ever been in a recipe rut where the only constants in your kitchen are a few lonely onions and half a box of pasta? Now that you can order New York Times cooking recipe ingredients through Instacart, trying a new dish doesn't even take a grocery trip. Just find the New York Times cooking recipe you want to try. Click Shop Ingredients on Instacart and get all the ingredients at your door. Classic pasta alla Norma. Why not? You've already got the pasta. Learn [e-mail] pasta instacart.

[Michael Balbaro]

From the New.

[Maggie Haberman]

York Times, I'm Michael Balbaro. This is the Daily. This week, the president proposed two deals, one at home, the other abroad, that would require allies to put his needs ahead of theirs. And in both cases, Trump got exactly what he wanted. To understand why, I spoke with three of my colleagues, White House correspondents Maggie Haberman and Zolan Kano Youngs and congressional correspondent Katie Edmondson. It's Friday, February 28th.

[Michael Balbaro]

So, friends, welcome back, all three of you to the roundtable. Zolin and Katie, thank you for being in our Washington studio. Good to have you.

[Zolan Kano Youngs]

Thanks for having us.

[Katie Edmondson]

Thanks for having us, Michael.

[Maddie]

Thank you.

[Michael Balbaro]

Michael, I didn't even say hello to you yet, Maddie.

[Maddie]

Oh, how presumptuous of me.

[Michael Balbaro]

There's an order to this all. The host says hello and the guest. You can't just get ahead. You can't just circumvent.

[Maddie]

I hope you all keep this.

[Michael Balbaro]

That's the plan ready. Maggie, thank you very much for being here.

[Maddie]

Michael, thank you for having me.

[Michael Balbaro]

So this was a week, I would argue, of deal making by President Trump, and we are gonna spend time on two of those deals. And you've all been carefully selected because of your relationship to these deals. The first deal was with Congress, and there was a lot of drama surrounding this one, as there often is with Congress. Maggie, just to start, what was this?

[Maddie]

Trump has been very focused and his aides have been very focused in the White House on trying to get through some kind of a bill through Congress that reflected what he campaigned on, not.

[Michael Balbaro]

An executive action which has pretty much defined this president. Correct.

[Maddie]

Trump has taken a number of executive actions. He's very proud of it. But you can't do everything that way. Spending has to get passed through Congress, at least in this form. So this House bill was sort of a half man, half horse of Trump's campaign promises.

[Michael Balbaro]

That's a very intriguing metaphor. Katie, can you explain what this half man, half horse thing was that ends up before Congress?

[Zolan Kano Youngs]

Yeah. I mean, the campaign promises that Maggie highlighted are really tax cuts. It is extending the 2017 tax cuts that his administration passed the first time around. And there are a number of other taxes that on the campaign trail, he said he wanted to eliminate. But for a lot of House Republicans, they don't want to just cut taxes. They also want to cut spending, federal spending.

[Michael Balbaro]

Right. That's a huge part of their message. It's a huge part of their brand. It's a huge part of the Republican Party identity for the last decade.

[Zolan Kano Youngs]

Absolutely. And so a number of these Republicans have said, President Trump were very happy to extend your tax cuts, to cut taxes more, but we also need to be able to cut federal spending. And that is what this budget resolution that they put to a vote on the House floor on Tuesday night laid out the parameters for.

[Michael Balbaro]

Okay, and so what happens once this half man, half horse. I'm just gonna keep saying that as many times as I can, reaches the House floor.

[Zolan Kano Youngs]

Well, this is the balancing act that Speaker Johnson has really had to deal with his entire time as speaker, which is placating basically both the ultra conservatives in his conference and the more moderate Republicans, many of whom represent sort of swing districts. And so you heard some concerns from those more centrist Republicans who are saying, look, I know this resolution we're about vote on doesn't say that we're going to cut programs like Medicaid or Medicare, but we're looking at the way this bill has been written. And it seems that almost certainly in order to get to the levels of spending cuts we're talking about, we're going to have to cut programs like Medicaid. And so you had some deep concerns from lawmakers who represent districts where a lot of their constituents rely on Medicaid. At the same time, you had these ultra conservatives say, actually, I think this bill doesn't cut spending enough. And I'm not sure if I can bring myself to vote for this resolution if it, in fact, is going to increase the deficit.

[Michael Balbaro]

I don't think we can let what you just said about Medicare and Medicaid fly by. That's a biggie in American politics. So whoever wants to take this on, what about this plan seems to many to require touching the third rail of American politics, which is potentially cutting these two huge health programs that millions and millions of Americans rely on.

[Zolan Kano Youngs]

Well, I don't want to get us into the weeds too much, but the way a budget resolution is structured, lawmakers aren't required to lay out the specific policy changes that they want to make in order to hit these spending targets. But it does instruct individual committees and say, look, you need to go and find, you know, X number of dollars of cuts when we build this legislation that we're ultimately going to put to the floor for a vote. And so in this particular resolution, lawmakers have told the committee that oversees Medicaid and Medicare spending, we need you guys to find in this case, $880 billion.

[Katie Edmondson]

In cuts over 10 years. Right, 880 billion over 10 years. And there's only so many ways that you can actually reach those cuts. And for a program like Medicaid. Right. And just as a reminder, this is the government program providing health insurance for low income Americans.

[Michael Balbaro]

Bless you for explaining.

[Katie Edmondson]

That's now a program that could be on the chopping block here in this saga.

[Michael Balbaro]

Well, let's talk about how that, to use your word, zolin saga unfolds in Congress when the president starts to ask members of his party in Congress to pass this unwieldy thing that might require, as you've all said, cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

[Zolan Kano Youngs]

So this was yet again another vote on the House floor where we really didn't know if Speaker Johnson had the support necessary to push this legislation through. He's working with extraordinarily thin margins. We saw Democratic leaders actually bring back a number of their lawmakers who have been ill, who have not been at.

[Michael Balbaro]

The Capitol or who just, I think I saw this, had a baby like a month ago.

[Zolan Kano Youngs]

Yes, a month ago, had a baby, come back to the Capitol for this vote, trying to ratchet up the pressure. Speaker Johnson, as he walked out onto the House floor, said, I have the votes. Meanwhile, I was texting with a Republican who had said they were going to opposed the resolution because it added to the deficit. And they said, by my count, there's three of us who are going to oppose it, which would doom it. And it turns out they both were kind of right. Right. Speaker Johnson was able to push this resolution across the finish line in the end, but it took about an hour. We saw him and some of his deputies really working over about three, four Republican lawmakers. These were all ultra conservative lawmakers who said they didn't want to vote for this resolution because it would add to the deficit. It look for a while like Johnson was not going to be able to get them to flip. But then something sort of notable happened, which is that the Republican leadership spirited some of these defectors off the House floor. And when that happened, I thought, I have seen this movie before because that is what happened when Johnson was reelected back in January.

[Michael Balbaro]

Right.

[Zolan Kano Youngs]

They took the defectors off the floor and they got a call from President Trump.

[Michael Balbaro]

Maggie, is this where you come in?

[Maddie]

This is where I come in. So one of the potential defectors, Victoria Spartz from Indiana, got a call from Trump or spoke to Trump. It's not clear to me who initiated the call, but he was really pressuring her, as we understand it, to vote for this bill. And at this moment, when the Republican Party is living in Congress, so fearful of Trump, so encroached upon and so afraid to go against him in any way, and he is making an example of anyone who does, this was a.

[Michael Balbaro]

Lot of pressure and ultimately she votes for it.

[Zolan Kano Youngs]

Right. And it passes 217 to 215 with just one Republican voting against.

[Michael Balbaro]

Let's focus for just a second on the question of spending and debt, which would seem to be the thing that these defectors principally were upset about. How much is this budget going to increase the US Debt?

[Zolan Kano Youngs]

So what House Republicans have given themselves is they've said we are going to cut taxes by $4.5 trillion and then we are going to cut spending by $2 trillion. So essentially you are looking at a piece of legislation here that is going to add to the deficit by $2.5 trillion. And for a lot of lawmakers, that's a big number.

[Michael Balbaro]

Yeah, it's a big number. And this is where. And Zola and Maggie, I'm curious what you think. We know where many members of the Republican Party stand on this House. Republicans have ousted speakers over failures to rein in spending and be tough enough on the debt. And here comes the president kind of bulldozing those who raise that question about spending and debt. And that creates a really complicated and I think I'd argue incoherent message about what the Republican brand is, especially in Congress, but also at the White House. Is it the party that cares about deficit and doge and cutting spending and getting rid of people so that we have a smaller government, or is it the party that creates additional debt so that it can cut taxes?

[Maddie]

It's complicated, Michael. And I think, look, Republicans have been complaining about debt and the deficit forever. And under Trump's term, certainly it was added to the first one. So. Right. And Trump historically pushes things down the road. He kicks the can down the road on what he's going to deal with. And that creates a fraught situation, especially for these members who are going to go back to their districts and have to explain all of this.

[Michael Balbaro]

Right.

[Katie Edmondson]

And while you're cutting spending. The question that we have to keep asking are going to be following is also what programs get cut with that? And if you're looking at 800 billion over 10 years, there's very few ways to do that without cutting something like Medicaid, providing health insurance for lower income.

[Michael Balbaro]

Americans, many of which are supporters of.

[Katie Edmondson]

The President, many of which are supporters of the President as well. And if they were to do that, you know, Democrats who up until this point have been really cautious in choosing what to swing at when it comes to the Trump administration. I've talked to folks who think they have an opening there in attaching cutting a government program that many of the President's own supporters rely on to this administration.

[Michael Balbaro]

Right.

[Zolan Kano Youngs]

Can I just add as well.

[Michael Balbaro]

Yeah.

[Zolan Kano Youngs]

In 2018, Democrats were able to coalesce around a message that was focused on the attempted repeal and replace of the Affordable Care Act. Right. And that was an incredibly salient issue. And we saw in 2018, Democrats take back the House after campaigning pretty narrowly on that issue. And a lot of Democrats that I've spoken to in the past few days think that they have a real opening to use that playbook again, this time on cuts to Medicaid potentially. If.

[Michael Balbaro]

If they happen.

[Zolan Kano Youngs]

If they happen. And there's a real excitement and I think, energy around that message that, as Zolin pointed out, we haven't seen from Democrats in quite some time.

[Michael Balbaro]

Got it. Back then, Republicans touching the Affordable Care act backfired for them. Democrats hope that if they touch Medicaid now, it will backfire once again.

[Zolan Kano Youngs]

Yeah, that's exactly right.

[Michael Balbaro]

Okay, so that was the congressional deal making. This week. When we come back, we're going to talk about the international deal that the President struck.

[Maggie Haberman]

We'll be right back.

[Advertisement Voice]

This podcast is supported by GoodRx. More than a third of Americans are living with a heart condition. If you're looking to save on heart medications, GoodRx offers 30 popular heart medications, all under $30. GoodRx compares prescription prices at over 70,000 pharmacies and finds discounts of up to 80%. Even if you have insurance or Medicare, GoodRx may beat your co. Pay for savings on heart medications plus everyday medications. Go to goodrx.com thedaily I'm Jonathan Swan.

[Jonathan Swan]

I'm a White House reporter for the New York Times. I have a pretty unsentimental view of what we do. Our job as reporters is to dig out information that powerful people don't want published to take you into rooms that you would not otherwise have access to, to understand how some of the big decisions shaping our country are being made. And then painstakingly to go back and check with sources, check with public documents, make sure information is correct. This is not something you can outsource to AI. There's no robot that can go and talk to someone who was in the Situation Room and find out what was really said in order to get actually original information that's not public, that requires human sources. We actually need journalists to do that. So as you may have gathered from this long riff, I'm asking you to consider subscribing to the New York Times. Independent journalism is important, and without you, we simply can't do it.

[Michael Balbaro]

Welcome back. Solan, Katie, Maggie, we have talked on the show before, around this very table about a theoretical deal that Trump had wanted to make with Ukraine that would require Ukraine to basically compensate the US for all the military assistance that the US has given Ukraine in its war against Russia. It started off as very theoretical and notional, but now it's becoming an actual reality. And Ukraine's leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is now headed to Washington to make it official on Friday. Zolin, how did this all start and become what it now is?

[Katie Edmondson]

So we've talked about how President Trump's approach to foreign policy can best be described as transactional. And we got some examples of that early on when after coming into office, when it came to aid for Ukraine, it started out as sort of a musing over having an exchange of the natural resources in Ukraine for aid to Ukraine. And that has really become a focus of the negotiations that we've now seen in recent days and in recent weeks. So a pivotal point in this is when Trump's Treasury Secretary, Scott Besant, took a trip to Kyiv, Ukraine, and presented an initial version of this deal. And the initial version, Ukraine bocked at it.

[Michael Balbaro]

What was the initial version?

[Katie Edmondson]

First, the US Basically wants back pay for the aid they already sent to Ukraine. Trump is basically saying, you have these critical earth minerals in Ukraine and the US Is going to get a significant amount, half of the revenue from that up to 500 billion.

[Michael Balbaro]

It's a lot.

[Katie Edmondson]

The maybe even more significant thing is what's not in that proposal. And that's the assurance Zelensky wants of a long term security guarantee. The concern for Ukraine is that any pause in fighting that US And Russia agreed to, well, what if Russia uses that to build up its forces and then Ukraine is left without the assurance, the knowledge that the United States will come to their defense, that the United States will actually support Ukraine, and it.

[Michael Balbaro]

Might be left without some rare earth minerals that would help it pay for its own defense if it were to accept this deal. Maggie, how should we understand this initial offer that on its face seems like a very good deal for the US and not much of a deal at all for Ukraine?

[Maddie]

I think you just answered your own question. I mean, essentially, Trump has separated out Russia and Ukraine from one another as he is saying that he is trying to negotiate a peace deal. He's got Russia at one table with the U.S. he's got Ukraine at another table with the U.S. a smaller table. A much smaller table. And with Ukraine, you know, Trump said it himself, and it's really true. Ukraine basically has no cards to play. Trump has rejected the idea of NATO membership for Ukraine. And Trump also does not want to provide security guarantees for Ukraine, and he wants Europe to do it. And that is going to require a heave of the will by Europeans. And we'll see what that looks like. So the new deal that is being.

[Michael Balbaro]

Negotiated, because the first one kind of got rejected.

[Maddie]

The first one was rejected and then other iterations of it were rejected, and then the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, jumped in and that complicated the deal.

[Michael Balbaro]

How do we get to a deal?

[Maddie]

So what is now there because of various forces is a smaller deal in terms of what the US will get. Trump keeps saying 350 billion. My understanding is the actual number is smaller than that, but it still does not include a security piece. And that was clearly a red line for Trump. And Zelensky clearly realizes that and is taking what he can get.

[Michael Balbaro]

But that doesn't seem like a deal the president of Ukraine would sign. And yet, Zolin, he's about to arrive in Washington and sign it. So at some point he decides that even though he's not really getting anything from it, it's still somehow worthwhile. Why?

[Katie Edmondson]

Well, for one, I mean, a late version of a US Proposal did vaguely say that the US Would support Ukraine's security. But then Trump came around the next day in a cabinet meeting and said essentially that was going to be the responsibility of European nations that are closer to Ukraine. Zelensky's in a really tight spot here. I mean, he knows Ukraine has been relying on a lot of US Aid, and he's now put in a position where, like many other world leaders, he now needs to come to Washington and try to placate Trump, try to use old fashioned diplomacy to try and secure any kind of assurance for Ukraine.

[Michael Balbaro]

Katie, is this the death, like the official death of anything resembling the conventional republican approach to Russia and containing its territorial aggression and its previous mandate to protect Ukraine.

[Zolan Kano Youngs]

I mean, look, over the past seven years I've been up on the Hill, I've written a lot about sort of the two foreign policy wings of the Republican Party, sort of the traditional Mitch McConnell interventionist, Protect Ukraine, right, right wing and sort of the, at the time ascendant, sort of, they call themselves realists, restrainers, people who did not want to send sort of U.S. treasure U.S. troops abroad. And I think what we've seen over the past couple of weeks, at least, when it comes to Republicans in Congress, is that that's not really a battle anymore and that the ant it's over. The anti interventionists have won. They occupy positions of power in Republican leadership on the Hill. They occupy positions of power within the Pentagon. And so I think Zelensky knows that. Right? He knows that he's not going to get any more aid from Congress. And so he has to make a deal with President Trump.

[Michael Balbaro]

Well, to that point, if you subscribe to this ascendant now victorious America first worldview that has now dominated the party under Trump, isn't this quite an achievement? The United States is gonna recoup the money it spent in Ukraine with no commitment to spend much more or to ever put American troops in harm's way in Ukraine in a war that Trump and many Republicans don't think the US Has a real interest in?

[Maddie]

Yes, I mean, this is, look, in a long line of things that Donald Trump promised during the campaign and is doing. This is one he made very clear that he did not support the aid to Ukraine. Trump also looks at all of these engagements through an economic lens. He does not look at them through a foreign policy end the same way, you know, as some kind of a moral exercise. He is looking at it as what is the best deal for the US he sees Ukraine as a tiny country. Russia is obviously not the superpower it once was. But in Trump's mind, it looms much larger from its stature decades ago. And he sees more business opportunities for the country, as he has said, with Russia, than he does with Ukraine.

[Katie Edmondson]

It's interesting, even when the administration is trying to reassure Ukraine that the United States will be here, they actually point to the fact that, look, if we have an investment in your critical earth minerals, that is in a form, the best kind of security assurance that you could get, because we don't want Russia to take over all of this territory. If we have an agreement with you to continue to financially benefit from these critical earth minerals. Isn't it more likely that we will continue to support your defense of your land? Which I think says a lot about Trump.

[Michael Balbaro]

That's fascinating.

[Katie Edmondson]

It says a lot about him.

[Michael Balbaro]

Right. The best way to get America's support is to allow us to have a financial interest in you not being overrun by your larger neighbor.

[Katie Edmondson]

That's right.

[Michael Balbaro]

Which in this case, he's just struck.

[Katie Edmondson]

That's right. It's also worth noting just some of the criticism that's come from some other European leaders who have said that this does echo colonialism as well. Right. And a colonialist approach where you are looking to extract the resources of a country that you have leverage over or even power over.

[Michael Balbaro]

I just want to end by asking for a larger reflection on all this deal making. We started, of course, in Congress, now we've gotten to this deal with Ukraine. But if you zoom out even further and you think about all the Trump deals that have been struck since he was inaugurated, you've gotta deal with Canada on tariffs, you gotta deal with Mexico on tariffs. On top of that, the Prime Minister of the UK was just at the White House offering Trump a deal of his own to increase the UK's defense spending. Something that, as we've hinted at here, Trump has asked all European countries to do so that they are less reliant on United States defense spending. And when you think about it, the common thread here is Trump's allies. And stay with me, this is one of those heady stretch ending questions. His allies, both within his party and America's allies across the world, are all kind of bending to him in ways that don't seem to hew to tradition or in some cases, to their own best interests. And just to give you a vivid example of that knee bending and just how vivid it is, right before we started taping, the Prime Minister of the UK handed Donald Trump a letter from King Charles. And I want to play you that scene.

[Unnamed UK Prime Minister]

Yes. So this is a letter from His Majesty the King. It's an invitation for a second state visit. This is really special. This has never happened before. This is unprecedented. And I think that just symbolizes the strength of the relationship between us. So this is a very special letter. I think the last state visit was a tremendous success. His Majesty the King wants to make this even better than that. So this is truly historic, unprecedented.

[Michael Balbaro]

Just to really summarize what has happened in this scene, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom having basically been summoned to Washington to make sure that Trump knows that he's willing to have less US security in Europe and instead that the UK will spend more on its own security. Follows up by saying, and by the way, our King wants to have you for dinner. It's gonna be amazing. It's gonna be historic. The scene is one of, kind of, of, let's just put it really plainly, self debasement in the name of impressing Donald Trump.

[Maddie]

There was a whole sideshow in the first term when Trump visited the UK and met with the Royal family. And there were all these complaints about how he handled himself and some concerns by people around the royals that they didn't care for how the Trump entourage was behaving and so forth. And that was all very much on the UK's terms. This is all on Donald Trump's terms. And using the British royal family, which Trump has been enchanted by since childhood, and he credits his mother for that as a chit. And so this is absolutely a change in tone and a change in approach, and it is definitely a bending of the knee of some sorts. But it is also a reflection of how world leaders have, instead of bristling against Trump, trying to set the debate on his own terms, are just essentially saying, hell with it at this point. And that's pretty different than the first term. This is a recognition that Trump wants some kind of offering. And this one is pretty clever.

[Michael Balbaro]

I think we all might have imagined that Trump's victory in the US meant that there would be lots of deal making from within the Republican Party and concessions. But this is something else entirely. These are America's strongest allies saying, where do you need me? What do you want? Here's the deal. Yes. And it's just very striking what an extraordinary exercise of power we're seeing from this president.

[Katie Edmondson]

I think that's right. And it's a little bit of, what have you done for me lately? Approach to foreign policy. And you're seeing other nations react in a way to try and give him something that he can cite that they've done for him lately. And it's not just today. The Japanese Prime Minister came to the White House and was showering Trump with compliments, complimenting his appearance on tv. Netanyahu also showered him with compliments when he threatened terrorists against Mexico. Mexico agreed to new border security measures. You saw Canada also threatened with tariffs and talked about, you know, different things they were going to do at their northern border. So you're seeing Trump make clear what his approach to foreign policy is, and you're seeing other world leaders respond by giving him something, whether it be something tangible. On the ground or simply even the appearance of plat kading at the White House.

[Maddie]

Right.

[Michael Balbaro]

And that can be minerals, literally something from the ground, or it can be dinner with the king.

[Katie Edmondson]

That's right.

[Maddie]

Well, one of them is probably more specific to the US Economy than the other, but yes.

[Michael Balbaro]

Well, my thanks to all three of you. Maggie, Zolin, Katie, see you again soon.

[Maddie]

Thank you, Michael.

[Zolan Kano Youngs]

Thanks, Michael.

[Katie Edmondson]

Thanks, Michael. Thanks, everyone.

[Maggie Haberman]

We'll be right back. Dave.

[Michael Balbaro]

I'm David Marchese.

[David Marchese]

And I'm Lulu Garcia Navarro, and we're.

[Michael Balbaro]

The hosts of the Interview from the New York Times.

[David Marchese]

David and I have spent our careers interviewing some of the most interesting and influential people in the world, which means.

[Michael Balbaro]

We know when to ask tough questions and when to just sit back and listen.

[David Marchese]

And now we've teamed up to have these conversations every week. We'll try to reveal something about the people shaping our world.

[Michael Balbaro]

And we'll get some great stories from them, too.

[David Marchese]

It's the Interview from the New York Times. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

[Maggie Haberman]

Here's what else you need to know. Day in the latest legal setback to the president's cost cutting efforts, a federal judge has barred the Office of Personnel Management from ordering the termination of thousands of probationary workers. The judge ruled that the firings, which have occurred across federal agencies, were illegal because, he argued, only individual agencies have the power to hire and fire their own workers. As a result, the Office of Personnel Management, he found, cannot order firings beyond its own staff, as it recently has. And Republican lawmakers in Iowa have overwhelmingly passed a bill to end the the state's civil rights protections for transgender people. If signed into law by the state's Republican governor, the legislation would remove trans identity from a list of protected groups that employers, businesses and landlords may not discriminate against and would make Iowa the first state in the country to revoke such protections. Today's episode was produced by Carlos Prieto and Eric Krupke. It was edited by Rachel Quester and M.J. davis. Lin contains original music by Diane Wong, Rowani Misto and Elisheba Itube and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonder Lake. That's it for the Daily I'm Michael Balboro. See you on Monday.

[Lulu Garcia Navarro]

Ladies and gentlemen, we are now boarding Group A. Please have your boarding passes ready to scan. If your phone is cracked old or was chewed up by your Chihuahua travel companion, please refrain from holding up the line. Instead, go to Verizon and trade in any phone in any condition from one of their top brands. For the new Samsung Galaxy S25 plus with Galaxy AI and a watch and tab on any plan only on Verizon with new line on my plan. Service plan required for watch and Tab. Additional terms apply. See verizon.com for details.