Summary of “Donald Trump Will Not Be President Four Years Hence”

Podcast: The Opinions
Host/Author: The New York Times Opinion
Release Date: May 1, 2025

Introduction

In the May 1, 2025 episode of The Opinions, hosted by Patrick Healy of The New York Times Opinion, esteemed columnists Masha Gessen, Brett Stevens, and Michelle Goldberg engage in a critical discussion about President Donald Trump’s first hundred days in office. The conversation, held at the Brooklyn Public Library, delves into the execution of Trump’s mandate, the administration’s policies, voter expectations, and the broader implications for American democracy.

Trump’s Mandate and Voter Expectations

Voter Awareness and Intentions

The episode opens with a provocative premise from Patrick Healy: American voters in the previous election were fully aware of what Donald Trump was capable of as president, intent on delivering a "disruptive, destructive strongman presidency" endorsed by a plurality of voters.

Michelle Goldberg challenges this notion at [00:03:27], stating:

“You said Americans knew what they were getting. I think that you should have said Americans should have known what they were getting.”

She suggests a disconnect between voter expectations and the reality of Trump’s actions, highlighting a "mass amnesia or denial" that clouded public perception.

Erosion of Democratic Legitimacy

Michelle further elaborates that a significant portion of the electorate did not fully grasp the potential consequences of Trump’s presidency. Referencing a poll at [05:01], she notes:

“A poll today that 52% of Americans think Donald Trump is a dangerous autocrat.”

This sentiment underscores a growing concern about the erosion of democratic legitimacy under Trump’s leadership.

Assessment of Trump’s Policies in the First 100 Days

Implementation of Tariffs

Brett Stevens provides a counterpoint at [06:10], arguing that many Trump voters were "shocked" by the administration's implementation of tariffs, which diverged from the more predictable Republican policies they had anticipated:

“Trump voters now and last year thought, well, it's going to be just like the last time. And this is a president who loves to stir the pot... And they are shocked that they're getting exactly what Trump promised.”

Administrative Appointments and Institutional Attacks

Michelle Goldberg criticizes the quality and intentions of Trump’s administrative appointments, describing them as “weirdos and creeps” with specific aggressive agendas, such as Stephen Miller’s approach to immigration ([26:13]):

“Stephen Miller running immigration the way he's always dreamed.”

This section highlights the administration’s efforts to dismantle key institutions like the judiciary and higher education, accelerating actions more blatant than anticipated.

Economic Mismanagement and Potential Recession

The discussion also touches on economic turmoil instigated by excessive tariffs, with Michelle expressing concern over a forthcoming recession:

“We're like lurching towards this completely self-inflicted recession...”

Brett underscores the administration’s lack of crisis management, predicting that future significant events will expose Trump's incompetence rather than any hidden strategic brilliance ([23:01]):

“I can't, you know, just this piece I had today was about a guy who makes board games... if it took 145% tariffs and economic chaos to get a voter like him to suddenly go, ah, I see the problem.”

Reactions and Opinions from Columnists

Divergent Perspectives on Trump’s Competence

The panel offers contrasting views on Trump’s efficacy. Brett Stevens dismisses the notion of Trump as a “sinister genius” prevalent among other authoritarian leaders, categorizing him instead as a "bullying schmuck" ([33:43]):

“I think it's bullying schmuck. Now, I don't like bullying schmuck. I'm opposed to bullying schmuck, but how does it feel?”

Meanwhile, Michelle Goldberg highlights the administration’s paranoia and obsessive focus on undermining institutions, emphasizing the dangers of their actions against the rule of law ([24:44]):

“He's given him carte blanche, and he's been able to kind of transform the federal government.”

Impact on Public Sentiment

Michelle and Brett acknowledge a noticeable erosion of Trump’s base support, with Michelle referencing focus group findings where a significant portion of voters are beginning to regret their support ([21:55]):

“So he won by like... I don't think that everybody expected there to suddenly be a consensus that this is an erratic monster.”

Brett remains cautiously optimistic about American democracy's resilience, asserting that the nation's institutions are robust enough to withstand Trump’s maneuvers ([36:43]):

“This country, this democracy that's 250 years old will not dissolve in a vat of Trumpian acid... The democratic experiment is going to continue.”

Comparison to Other Authoritarian Leaders

Defining Traits of Trump’s Administration

Brett Stevens contrasts Trump with other authoritarian leaders like Erdogan and Putin, arguing that Trump lacks the calculated “sinister genius” and instead exhibits erratic and incompetent leadership ([19:00]):

“The first few years were successful... but the first hundred days... it's bullying schmuck.”

He suggests that Trump's unpredictable and self-sabotaging behavior undermines the potential for sustained authoritarian control, unlike more strategically manipulative counterparts.

Implications for Future Governance

The panel discusses the potential long-term effects of Trump’s administration on American governance. Michelle raises concerns about escalating attacks on the judiciary and media, questioning the integrity of future elections:

“His executive order on elections... that is a huge blow to any possibility of a free and fair election.”

Brett echoes these fears, emphasizing that without respect for the rule of law, the stability of a capitalist, free-market society is threatened ([28:46]):

“There's a connection between the two... If you don't have an executive that believes in the rule of law... everything else is noise.”

Future Predictions and Conclusions

Outlook for Trump’s Presidency

As the discussion wraps up, Brett Stevens makes a definitive prediction at [28:32]:

“I am going to make a high confidence prediction that Donald Trump will not be president four years hence.”

He cites the strength of American institutions and the eroding support base as key factors preventing Trump from maintaining power.

Hope for American Democracy

Masha Gessen expresses a blend of pessimism and hope, recognizing the resilience of American civil society and the free press:

“Nothing is preordained until it's actually happened.”

Michelle Goldberg remains cautiously optimistic about grassroots activism becoming the backbone to counterbalance Trump's administration ([39:14]):

“...neighbors have just started meeting every week to talk about... what kind of activism... We should go down to the migrant shelter...”

Final Reflections

The columnists collectively acknowledge the unprecedented challenges posed by Trump’s administration but remain hopeful that active community engagement and robust institutions will safeguard American democracy.

Notable Quotes

• Michelle Goldberg [00:03:27]: “You said Americans knew what they were getting. I think that you should have said Americans should have known what they were getting.”

• Brett Stevens [06:10]: “Trump voters now and last year thought, well, it's going to be just like the last time... And they are shocked that they're getting exactly what Trump promised.”

• Brett Stevens [28:32]: “I am going to make a high confidence prediction that Donald Trump will not be president four years hence.”

• Michelle Goldberg [39:14]: “...neighbors have just started meeting every week to talk about... what kind of activism...”

Conclusion

The episode provides a comprehensive analysis of Donald Trump’s presidency in its initial stage, highlighting the complexities and unforeseen consequences of his administration’s policies and leadership style. Through insightful dialogue and critical perspectives, the columnists offer a nuanced understanding of the current political landscape and its implications for the future of American democracy.