Michael Barbaro (4:46)

Once again.

Jonathan Swan (4:47)

Exactly. Potentially having more shoot downs. And Trump has shown great appetite for risk during his presidency. But when it comes to US Casualties, service member casualties, that's not an area where he's willing to push it. So that's the real tension here. And you know, Maggie and I talk about this all the time in our reporting. He underestimated the Iranians. He thought this would be a fast war, that they would capitulate. He did not expect the staying power that they've shown and their ability to disrupt global commerce, even as the US And Israel have just been pounding them with these bombing campaigns.

Michael Barbaro (5:24)

So, just to be very clear, what's frustrating for Trump is that on the one hand, he can't tell for sure that the Iranians are really negotiating in good faith, that they have a system that's timely for getting word from the Ayatollah that they can do this kind of deal or that kind of deal. And on the other hand, The United States is not necessarily capable of expeditiously doing what it might need to do to force the Iranians to sign on to some sort of a.

Maggie Haberman (5:54)

That's exactly right. And the ball is really in Iran's court right now. And it's not necessarily by design. It is also because of fractures within their own structure. But that is where it is, and it is outside of his control. And they are essentially in a holding pattern in the White House until they hear something back.

Michael Barbaro (6:14)

Which would be frustrating.

Maggie Haberman (6:16)

Correct. Especially because the President has made very clear he would like this to move on fast.

Michael Barbaro (6:21)

Now he just wants us to be done.

Maggie Haberman (6:22)

He wants this to be done, and he wants to move on to other things, and he wants to talk about different subjects. This is out of his control, and he is somebody who prizes control of his environment. People in his orbit, in the White House, some of them anyway, are much clearer eyed that there were going to be several days of waiting here. On the other hand, they've also been pretty clear, some of them anyway, that whatever came back, if they got something back that they consider halfway decent as a response, they would like to move forward in the US because, again, to go back to the point, the President would like to be done with this.

Jonathan Swan (6:59)

One of the other issues is, you know, you use the phrase good faith. Well, the fact is, from the Iranian perspective, they've been in two rounds of negotiations with the United States and have been bombed during both times. So there's not a huge amount of trust going on when your leadership keeps getting killed, when you're in conversation. So there is no trust here. And the US has wiped out. You know, Trump himself said, we had a few people in mind that could have maybe taken over, but we killed them. Okay. The issue is when you haven't actually established a very clear objective or the objectives have shifted, when Trump has sometimes said iranians rise up, it's regime change. Well, in a certain sense, it is regime change because the ayatollah was killed. It might actually be a more hardline regime. So it's very, very complicated. And everyone on Trump's team understands that. Trump is someone who is used to authoring his own reality, declaring reality, bending events, bending people's minds through force of will, force of personality. And there are certain events that have happened during his presidencies that have defied that ability. Covid was a big one, and this war is a big one. Iran gets a big vote in what happens next. It's not something that Donald Trump can unilaterally define and Determine.

Michael Barbaro (8:24)

You just said that Trump's team understood just how complicated this war could be, and I think it's worth going back to how it all began. We've done that before on the show, just to be clear. But you both put a particular focus in your reporting on the origins of this war. And I wonder how you've come to think about how those origins frame and influence how the president now views this moment, when in theory, it could be coming to an end, but it's coming to an end in this complicated fashion.

Maggie Haberman (8:59)

I'd phrase it slightly differently, Michael, or frame it slightly differently. I don't think that how they came to this war has fundamentally shifted how Trump is looking at this particular moment. I actually think it's very consistent, which is Trump has always been more consistently hardline on Iran than his own team and certainly than a lot of his supporters wanted to believe he was.

Michael Barbaro (9:21)

Wanted to believe he was, and to

Maggie Haberman (9:22)

be fair to them, meaning he said things that suggested that he was far more dovish than he actually is, at least generally speaking. But certainly in terms of Iran, he did pull back strikes in 2019 against Iran because he was warned of casualty numbers at the last minute. And it was much to the chagrin of John. This is his first term, his first term national security security adviser, which added to why people thought, ah, see, he's against the hawks. And then he authorized the strike against General Soleimani very early in 2020, which was a definitional moment for him. It is also part of why the Iranians had been looking to have a strike on Trump and on some people around him for many years after that. That was a strike that a lot of his own advisors were concerned about him taking. And so he has always marched more consistently against Iran. And it is something that it does harken back to sort of his formative years, not putting him on the couch, but just being clear about something he's talked about actually fairly consistently is Iran, especially the 1979 hostage crisis, especially how harmful it was to Jimmy Carter's presidency, which was one of the first that Trump really paid close attention to as an adult.

Michael Barbaro (10:34)

You're saying a kind of formative experience for him in the political world, even when he was just a New York developer in real estate, was that he watched Iran take all of these American diplomats hostage, saw Jimmy Carter struggle for what, something like 400 days to get them released, and made a mental note that would come to blossom much, much later when he's president, that this regime must be dealt with.

Maggie Haberman (10:57)

It has been A through line for him. It's there, if people were actually looking, that this was not really surprising. And so the portrait of somebody who has been manipulated or twisted, either by neocons who speak to him or the echo chamber of Lindsey Graham and conservative thinkers, anti Iran thinkers, or Bibi Netanyahu is not quite right in our reporting. And so it isn't that President Trump did not go into this with eyes wide open about the risks. He was told by his team about the risks. Granted, this all happened very quickly in terms of a briefing that Netanyahu gave Trump and some of his team on February 11 in the situation Room of the White House, which we reported on a few weeks ago. But nonetheless, Trump was warned by his team, particularly that the regime change scenarios that Netanyahu had described and his team had described were in the words of the CIA director, John Radcliffe Farsigle, and in the words of Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, National Security Adviser. Bullshit.

Michael Barbaro (12:04)

Right?

Michael Barbaro (12:05)

You seem to be saying, Maggie, by the time Bibi Netanyahu comes to the White House to pitch President Trump on war against Iran, which a lot of people have focused on, I mean, we even did an episode, the question being, did Israel push the US into this war? By that moment, it sounds like Trump might not have needed all that much convincing based on some decades of pretty deeply rooted disdain for Iran.

Maggie Haberman (12:31)

As deep as it gets, yes. But also the fact that it had been many years now of Iran personally threatening him, which is something that he actually said as almost, I think, an in passing remark to John Carl of abc. But yes, he was far more receptive than a lot of people want to believe.

Michael Barbaro (12:48)

So Trump very much owns this decision to go to war in a pretty singular, maybe even unique way. And that, naturally, I have to think, informs how he proceeds in these peace talks, in these negotiations. He's gonna wanna have a big set of his fingerprints on how the war ends. So what are you learning are his red lines, his yellow lines, and kind of how he's thinking about what becomes an acceptable way to end this conflict. Assuming, of course, that these talks proceed, which of course, inevitably they will.

Maggie Haberman (13:22)

Yeah, it's easier to define it by what he doesn't want, Michael, than by what he does. And that's also which is to say, well, a, that's generally his approach to most deal making. He usually has a sense either of the one thing he wants or the things he doesn't. More often he does not want something that is going to be very easy to describe as similar to the jcpoa

Michael Barbaro (13:46)

the Obama nuclear deal with Iran.

Maggie Haberman (13:47)

The Obama nuclear deal with Iran from 2015 that Republicans have been deriding for years and years and years for a variety of reasons.

Michael Barbaro (13:55)

Right.

Michael Barbaro (13:55)

And just to summarize what the JCPOA does. Cuz I was prepared for this conversation.

Maggie Haberman (13:59)

I mean, thank you.

Michael Barbaro (14:00)

In short, it capped Iran's ability to enrich uranium. It forced him to give up a lot of the centrifuges that would be required to enrich it, and it involved giving up some sanctions that had been on Iran for a long time. But it foresaw a, I think, 15 year period where Iran would make no progress toward becoming nuclear.

Maggie Haberman (14:25)

Correct. Or obtaining a nuclear weapon, to be more specific. And there is a difference between civil enrichment and weaponized weapons.

Michael Barbaro (14:33)

In some people's minds, this was a very good deal.

Maggie Haberman (14:35)

In some people's minds, it was a very good deal. In a lot of Democrats minds, it was a very good deal. It has been a Republican focal point. And if you look at Republican primary discussions across the country for the last decade, the JCPOA has been a repeated refrain. And it was often talked about by Donald Trump candidate, then president. And so one of the first things he did was tear this deal up. He was very proud of that. He has talked about it constantly and he has talked about why he thought it was a very bad deal. And throughout these conversations, that Steve Witkoff, his main Mideast envoy, but interlocutor, for lack of a better way of putting it, except for his son in law, Jared Kushner. But Witkoff was the one in the room for these conversations with the Iranians, or at least the intermediaries over the course of the last year. And there were various points where the levels, at least at one point publicly, were gonna be the same as what was in the jcpoa. And that caused all kinds of alarms for Republicans on Capitol Hill and for people close to the White House. And so that's what the President knows he wants to avoid.

Michael Barbaro (15:41)

Jonathan, is there a very real possibility that the best deal Trump's ever gonna get from Iran, he might not like it, but it's just maybe all he's gonna get is a deal that's gonna look a heck of a lot like the deal he hates that Obama got?

Jonathan Swan (15:52)

There's definitely a risk of that. There are two areas where he wants to distinguish himself from Obama. The sun sets. When does this deal expire? When do restrictions get lifted on Iran's ability to enrich? And the other one is which Trump really obsessed over with Obama was The so called pallets of cash. Part of the Iran deal that Obama struck with Iran involved releasing large sums of cash to the Iranian regime. And it came in some cases in the form of physical cash. And that was something that captured Trump's imagination. It's something that he's talked about aggressively on the campaign trail, and it's something that he wants to avoid himself having to do with Iran. So that's a big red line for him. But they're going to have to give a little because they didn't have a complete victory in this war and Iran showed that they had leverage that with very little technology, as the US Was absolutely pounding them with bombing campaigns, they were able to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. And now they're in negotiations and they've got some cards. So there's going to have to be some give and take. The question for Trump is how can the gives that we give be portrayed as superior to what Obama and co gave away in the jcpoa? I mean, if it was up to Trump, he would be the president, the first one to deal with this problem in a permanent way, completely eliminate the program, have a new regime in that's more friendly to the United States. But none of those things seem likely right now. So they're looking for what can we do in those two areas that will be seen as superior to what Obama managed to do.

Michael Barbaro (17:34)

Right. And they might be on the margins.

Maggie Haberman (17:36)

Well, not only might be on the margins, but the reality is that the closer that we get to a midterm cycle followed by a presidential cycle where there's going to be an open seat because Trump is term limited and people will be vying to replace him. You are going to see more and more Republican senators want to look for some separation from this White House, and particularly for the more hawkish senators who have long been anti Iran and very vocal about it and anti the Obama nuclear deal, I think you're going to see more people be critical. If there is an effort to essentially gussy up a version of the jcpoa,

Michael Barbaro (18:19)

there'll be Republicans willing to say that was insufficient. But inside the White House, the administration already claims this is a total victory. Now, that might be rhetorical and that might be essentially propaganda. Is that their actual belief that they have won this war already?

Maggie Haberman (18:38)

Who says that? Beyond the President and Caroline Levitt? I don't think that inside the White House they believe that at all. Based on the people that we speak with?

Michael Barbaro (18:45)

That was the question.

Maggie Haberman (18:46)

Yeah. I mean, look, there are no illusions about how this is going, and there are no illusions about the ongoing risks, both militarily and both fiscally and both in terms of domestic policy and what things look like going forward. The person who is so far and it doesn't mean it won't change, but who is so far the least interested in thinking about the midterms and what that could mean for his presidency is President Trump.

Michael Barbaro (19:16)

Well, Maggie, that was very helpful because we are going to talk about the implications of this war for the midterms and all the things that the president is doing or not doing that seem to be setting up his party for potential trouble. Right after the break.

Michael Barbaro (19:37)

We'll be right back.

Arbor Day Foundation Narrator (19:44)

This podcast is supported by the Arbor Day Foundation. For more than half a century, the Arbor Day foundation and its global network of more than a million inspired individuals, businesses and community leaders have united behind the power of trees to help solve some of the planet's most pressing problems. Using data and on the ground expertise, the Arbor Day foundation ensures trees are planted to help areas recover after natural disaster. Create healthier forests and green communities by offering trees in front yards, backyards and neighborhood parks. There has never been a more important time than right now to plant trees and turn your environmental goals into real world impact. From Michigan to Madagascar, the Arbor Day foundation is planting trees at the speed of a changing world. See how you can do your part@arborday.org

Lauren Dragan (20:32)

thedaily hey, it's Lauren Dragan from Wirecutter, the product recommendation service from the New York Times. And I test headphones. Sweat is actually conductive because of the saline content in it. So we basically make our own fake sweat and spray it over and over on these headphones to see what happens to them over time. This is 85 decibels of airplane noise. We're going to put on some noise canceling headphones and see how well they actually block out the sound. Put them on the ground and kick them over there.

Maggie Haberman (21:00)

Okay, go.

Lauren Dragan (21:04)

Are they broken? No. I have 3,136 entries in my database. Kids workout running. Does it have a connector that's lightning or usb C? What version of Bluetooth is it? Does it have fxhd? We have ones that track your at Wirecutter. We do the work so you don't have to. For independent product reviews and recommendations for the real world, come Visit us@nytimes.com Wirecutter we even have one that's solar powered.

Michael Barbaro (21:30)

So, Maggie and Jonathan here at home, those midterm elections that you just referred to before the break are. And I just Checked six months away, that's all. And the President keeps doing things that seem to make his party's prospects in that election harder and harder. There's the war itself, the increased gas prices that have resulted from it, and the reality he still doesn't really want to talk about affordability. He's been pursuing an immigration crackdown that, broadly speaking, voters remain pretty sour on. He has personally decided to insult the leader of the Catholic Church, the Pope. Why does Trump not seem to care in this moment about the political risks that all of these pose? Or does he care?

Maggie Haberman (22:17)

Jonathan points often to something that Trump said about some. I think it was a special election or about another election cycle, maybe last year, that he was very honored that Republicans didn't do well when his name wasn't on the ballot. Because that is generally how he looks at it. He's not on the ballot, and so therefore this isn't really about him.

Michael Barbaro (22:34)

Hmm. Midterm elections may not matter because Trump is not the person people are voting for.

Maggie Haberman (22:41)

Technically, in terms of how he's looking at it, that doesn't mean that that's how his advisors are looking at it. But that has generally been his.

Michael Barbaro (22:47)

Because he still is president who has to deal with the repercussions of the midterms.

Maggie Haberman (22:50)

Indeed. But he tends to look at things through a different prism. It doesn't mean that he'll only look at it that way forever, but that has been how it is up until this point. In terms of a lack of focus. What is clear, Michael, in every single poll that we have had described to us in our reporting, is that the war has damaged Trump's numbers universally. And again, it doesn't mean he won't come back from it. Maybe depending on how this ends. But the longer it goes, Republicans, who have been generally in lockstep with Trump because they've really been afraid of incurring his wrath, are gonna face a choice about how closely to align with him in the fall.

Michael Barbaro (23:28)

Jonathan, Maggie invoked you, which means in terms of debate stage rules. Now it's your turn. But what I wanna ask you is, is it actually true that the President really doesn't think of himself as being on the ballot? Because I can remember a couple months back, the President goes, speaks in front of congressional Republicans, and he says to them, you need to win these midter, because if you don't, I get impeached.

Jonathan Swan (23:53)

There's no question he doesn't wanna get impeached again.

Michael Barbaro (23:56)

If Democrats control the House. Right.

Jonathan Swan (23:57)

Does Donald Trump want Republicans to hold the House of course he does. But what Maggie's saying, which is actually a real source of frustration among some of his advisors, is he just doesn't actually care that much. Yes, he prefers that they win the midterms, but based on everything that we're being told by people who are around him, it's his team that's very focused on the midterms and, you know, affordability. What can we do? There's nothing Donald Trump would less rather talk about than affordability, really. That's true. Maybe. Maybe healthcare policy. But what Donald Trump is focused on in this term, what he has been focused on, is making himself a capital G. Great figure of history.

Michael Barbaro (24:38)

Great man of history.

Jonathan Swan (24:39)

Yep, A great man of history. The amount of time he is spending on domestic politics pales in comparison to him taking really bold, aggressive moves in foreign policy and also putting his physical imprint on the world, on Washington, D.C. designing monuments to himself, renaming institutions, ensuring that he achieved some level of immortality, building a grand ballroom, calling it the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace. That's a huge part of his mindset in this second term. None of these things are winning issues when it comes to swing voters and independent voters that have massively soured on Trump. But it's not really up high on his hierarchy of concerns. He's thinking at just a different level than a lot of his advisors, which

Michael Barbaro (25:32)

is to say, when you start to subscribe to the great man of history theory, then elections, they're temporary and they don't really mean all that much. A midterm election next to regime change in Venezuela and what he's doing in Iran.

Jonathan Swan (25:48)

Well, it's even more than that. Donald Trump has won his great victory.

Maggie Haberman (25:51)

Exactly.

Jonathan Swan (25:52)

His great victory was the 2024 election that against all reason and odds, coming back from January 6th, he's not on the ballot anymore. You know, I talked to one of his advisers, and they were saying, how much do you think he really deeply cares about the. The 2028 Republican at the top of the ticket and what happens the next presidential. Right, exactly. You know, if that person loses, well, only Donald J. Trump can win. Okay, so there's that. But there's another thing. He's changed the American presidency in very profound ways. Right.

Michael Barbaro (26:26)

As we've discussed with you both and Charlie Savage. Endlessly.

Jonathan Swan (26:29)

Endlessly. But his use of power here at home is like nothing we've seen in our lifetimes. So again, when you come to his mind share and things that he's thinking of, his team has to really pick their moments for when they show him polling or anything negative because he just. He kind of just doesn't want to hear it. These other things are just small ball compared to what he's doing.

Michael Barbaro (26:52)

Maggie, one potential counterpoint, but maybe you're about to tell me I shouldn't view it as a counterpoint, seems to be Trump firing cabinet members. 3 In the past, I think month or so alone, which would in theory suggest that he does recognize that he has some domestic political problems. Am I reading that wrong?

Maggie Haberman (27:12)

I think you might be overthinking that under a standard frame.

Michael Barbaro (27:16)

Michael, a simpleton, you call me.

Maggie Haberman (27:18)

What I think Michael is number one. This is not a Cabinet that was put together based on the idea of extensive resumes in the subject areas.

Michael Barbaro (27:29)

Loyalty was number 1, 2, 3.

Maggie Haberman (27:30)

Loyalty was number 1, 2,3. But loyalty, it doesn't necessarily translate to, I praise you so much, Mr. President. I think you're wonderful, Mr. President. It's do what I want. And so, in fact, I would argue that he is behaving like somebody who thinks that this changeover is probably gonna happen anyway. He's kind of ambivalent about it in terms of control of the House, maybe the Senate. And so that only gives him six months to get done. The things he cares about. What does he care about? He cares about, and he's very open about it. The Fed investig investigation of the construction project at the Fed renovation. He doesn't like Jay Powell, as he has said repeatedly. The Fed chairman who he's trying to replace right now. He was open with Pam Bondi, now the former attorney General, back in September, that she wasn't moving fast enough to prosecute certain people. In that case, it was James Comey. He has been talking to allies about how prosecutions can move quicker. You are seeing Todd Blanche now work

Michael Barbaro (28:33)

with is the acting attorney general.

Maggie Haberman (28:34)

These are people who the President believes are going to do what he wants. And what he wants is to see certain people indicted. He wants to see certain institutions discredited. That is what he is focused on.

Michael Barbaro (28:46)

In other words, the reason why he's replacing people in the Cabinet is not because he's worried about the political appeal of them in the midterms, but because he may already accept that he might lose the House and might lose control of Congress, and therefore he needs to get a bunch of stuff done fast, including replacing Cabinet members.

Jonathan Swan (29:04)

Obviously, the firing of the attorney general had nothing to do with the midterm elections. We all know why he. He fired her. He made it very clear to his advisors he was frustrated because the Department of Justice under Pam Bondi was not prosecuting his enemies quickly enough.

Michael Barbaro (29:21)

Right.

Jonathan Swan (29:21)

That has nothing to do with the results in any battleground state in the midterm elections. The other two Cabinet secretaries who were fired were getting lots and lots of bad headlines for the Trump administration. And of course, he doesn't like that. And again, I don't want to overstate what we've been saying. Donald Trump wants to hold the House in the midterm elections. Of course he does. I'm just saying it's not at the top of his hierarchy of things that he's concerned about.

Michael Barbaro (29:45)

Okay, understandable. You both keep returning to this idea that the president is very singularly focused on himself, on avenging himself, on finding his appropriate place in history, whether that's in Iran or here at home. But quite clearly, at the moment, that doesn't seem to be a viable position for the rest of the Republican Party. And I wonder how many of the leaders of the Republican Party are willing. They don't have a long history of doing it, of telling him that. We're starting to see some ruptures in the seams in the Republican influencer.

Jonathan Swan (30:25)

We're just at this very interesting moment because the coalition that Trump assembled in 2024 was sort of a political miracle. I mean, it was really an incredible coalition. People who just don't typically vote, young men, disaffected people coming together, independents. You know, none of the real fights on the right were actually resolved in the Republican primaries in 2024. The only thing that was resolved is

Maggie Haberman (30:59)

we love Donald Trump 100%. Yes.

Jonathan Swan (31:01)

So that's how you have a party which can contain people who absolutely despise each other, who have fundamental worldview differences, have all been sort of put under the umbrella of maga. And because of Donald Trump as this figure of historic charisma and force of personality and an ability to rally a mass movement. Trump papered over all of these disagreements and problems because he was Donald Trump. And now we're starting to see the first glimpses of what a post Trump Republican Party looks like. So what you then get is the disagreements, the fights, and all of these fractures. You get a bunch of people who voted for Donald Trump. Cause he thought they were gonna keep him out of foreign wars, who were now in foreign wars, angrily disaffected. And so now we're seeing the fight that never really happened in the 2024 Republican primaries. And we just don't know how it's gonna play out.

Michael Barbaro (32:03)

And just to elucidate this fight, Marjorie Taylor Greene, former Georgia Republican, is now saying what Trump is doing and saying in Iran is insanity. Candace Owens, the far right podcaster, calling Trump a genocidal lunatic. You have Tucker Carlson saying, I'm sorry, I'm sorry for leading you to Trump. I regret it. I feel implicated. You've got Alex Jones saying Trump sounds like his brain's not doing too hot.

Jonathan Swan (32:31)

And let's not go too crazy. You know, he's still popular among Republicans, right? But he has lost meaningful support among Republicans. And where he's really lost support profoundly is among independents. So that coalition, that miraculous coalition that he pulled together has unmistakably fractured. But I do think people are overstating the extent of bleeding from the Republican side.

Maggie Haberman (32:58)

And it's important to note that Trump has another two and a half years left of this term, and he does still remain the central figure of this party. And so, Marco Rubio, J.D. vance, every congressional Republican, every Congressional Republican, most of the Senate Republicans, influencers who have made their livings on the fact that Donald Trump is president, they are starting to see their interests diverge some from him, whereas it had been in total alignment until now. But they can't really get away from him for another two and a half years. They are all stuck with him. And if there is anything that we know about Donald Trump, not just during his political career, but over the last 50 years, is that he is not someone who is going to enthusiastically or willingly or quietly see the spotlight to anybody else.

Jonathan Swan (33:48)

Right.

Michael Barbaro (33:49)

Great men of history never leave the stage.

Jonathan Swan (33:53)

Correct.

Michael Barbaro (33:57)

Okay. Well, Maggie and Jonathan, so great to have you back. Let's do it again soon.

Jonathan Swan (34:04)

Let's do it.

Maggie Haberman (34:05)

Thank you, Michael.

Jonathan Swan (34:05)

Thanks, Michael.

Michael Barbaro (34:16)

We'll be right back.

Arbor Day Foundation Narrator (34:19)

This podcast is supported by the Arbor Day Foundation. For more than half a century, the Arbor Day foundation and its global network of more than a million inspired individuals, businesses and community leaders have united behind the power of trees to help solve some of the planet's most pressing problems. Using data and on the ground expertise, the Arbor Day foundation ensures trees are planted to help areas recover after natural disaster, create healthier forests and green communities by offering trees in front yards, backyards and neighborhood parks. There has never been a more important time than right now to plant trees and turn your environmental goals into real world impact. From Michigan to Madagascar, the Arbor Day foundation is planting trees at the speed of a changing world. See how you can do your part@arborday.org thedaily we gave times employees a preview of Crossplay from New York Times games,

Maggie Haberman (35:13)

and here's what they had to say, I can finally play with other people.

Jonathan Swan (35:17)

I'm pretty competitive. It's fun to beat friends and co workers.

Maggie Haberman (35:21)

I have a J for 10 points.

Michael Barbaro (35:23)

I'm guessing Tenga is not a word. Let's see. Tenga is a word.

Lauren Dragan (35:27)

Oh, as in English. As a second language speaker, I like

Maggie Haberman (35:31)

to learn new words.

Arbor Day Foundation Narrator (35:32)

New York Times game subscribers get full access to Crossplay, our first two player word game. Subscribe now for a special offer on all of our games.

Michael Barbaro (35:43)

Here's what else you need to know today. On Thursday, the Trump administration said it had loosened legal restrictions for medical marijuana, allowing it to be used for more research and more treatments. The change treats FDA approved and state regulated medical marijuana less like heroin, which is heavily restricted, and more like ketamine. The change, however, has no impact on federal restrictions over marijuana's recreational use. And in the latest sign of how rapidly artificial intelligence is changing the workplace, Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, said it plans to cut 8,000 workers, or about 10% of its staff. The company's founder, Mark Zuckerberg, has said he expects much of the work now done in tech to eventually be overtaken by AI. Today's episode was produced by Lexi Diao, Olivia Natt and Alex Stern. It was edited edited by Rachel Quester and M.J. davis. Lynn contains music by Marion Lozano and Alicia Ba?

Maggie Haberman (36:59)

Itube.

Michael Barbaro (37:00)

Our theme music is by Wonderly. This episode was engineered by Chris Wood. That's it for the daily I'm michael baboro. See you on Sunday.

Arbor Day Foundation Narrator (37:26)

This podcast is supported by the Arbor Day Foundation. For more than half a century, the Arbor Day foundation and its global network of more than a million inspired individuals, businesses and community leaders have united behind the power of trees to help solve some of the planet's most pressing problems. From Michigan to Madagascar, the Arbor Day foundation is planting trees at the speed of a changing world in communities and forests across the globe. See how you can do your part@arborday.org thedaily.