Trump Bypasses Congress for Executive Fiat and White House Renovations

特朗普绕过国会推行行政命令并专注于白宫翻修 特朗普摒弃了传统的立法治理与政党建设，转而通过冲动的行政命令和封闭的亲信小圈子执政，同时将实体纪念建筑置于政策之上。 基于对特朗普第二任期的广泛深入报道，Haberman剖析了本届政府如何从最初密集发布的行政法令，演变成为陷入对伊朗个人恩怨、充斥临机应对且危机频发的总统任期。对话表明，“特朗普主义”缺乏连贯的意识形态学说，而是依赖特朗普的直觉、阿谀奉承式的信息过滤，以及由Stephen Miller等亲信主导的、对单边行政权力前所未有的扩张。与此同时，传统的立法治理与国会监督已实际瓦解，让位于博人眼球的政治秀、足以撼动市场的发声渠道以及个人报复。最终，特朗普渴望名垂青史、被铭记为“历史伟人”的宏大野心，与深陷生存模式的政府以及一位主要精力放在实体纪念建筑与装修改造上的总统产生了鲜明冲突。 特朗普针对伊朗的军事升级和推动政权更迭，源于2024年暗杀图谋与竞选黑客事件所形成的极强个人受围攻心态，并在Benjamin Netanyahu于白宫战情室的直接游说下达到顶峰。 (3:32) 椭圆形办公室的决策运作处于极度信息真空中，传统的跨部门审查机制已荡然无存，使得特朗普只能依赖直觉、助手Natalie Harp精心挑选的打印材料以及未经核实的电视片段。 (16:16) 该届政府基本放弃了国会的立法治理，转而依靠Stephen Miller起草的单边行政行动来试探宪法边界，同时依赖保守派司法机构来维护行政命令的效力。 (38:49) 特朗普约70%的精力都被白宫实体翻修和纪念建筑计划（包括提议建造的一座凯旋门）所占据，他将这些视为防止自己在历史上被抹去和被封杀的永久实体护甲。 (55:23)

Donald Trump's second administration has abandoned structured policymaking and legislative compromise in favor of unilateral executive fiat, impulse-driven governance, and personal self-commemoration, according to reporting by Maggie Haberman. Governance by Executive Fiat and Institutional Bypassing (0:00) Rather than pursuing an expansive statutory agenda, Trump's second term deliberately sidelines Capitol Hill. With House Speaker Mike Johnson assuming a deferential posture, major legislative action was largely confined to a reconciliation measure overhauling Medicaid and food stamp benefits. Outside of that package, policy architect Stephen Miller and White House ideologues intentionally bypass Congress, leveraging aggressive executive actions on border enforcement, trade tariffs, and civil service restructuring while daring federal courts to intervene. Simultaneously, traditional institutional checks have eroded. The administration summarily terminated multiple inspectors general without giving the legally required 30-day notice to Congress, shuttered USAID by executive fiat, and ignored congressional oversight. Haberman notes that Trump avoids traditional scandal fallout because of hyper-partisan media silos, loyalist shielding by House Republicans, and broad reliance on absolute presidential pardon powers. The Insular Information Ecosystem and Ad-Hoc Access (16:16) Operational decision-making inside the White House has shrunk to a tight circle of roughly six loyalists, dismantling standard interagency processes like those once run by the National Security Council. Aides such as Natalie Harp—dubbed the 'human printer'—actively curate adoring fan mail, laudatory news coverage, and social media praise to shelter Trump from negative headlines, while cable news figures reinforce his worldview. Briefings rely heavily on visual aids, video clips, and poster boards rather than detailed policy binders. In this rolling 'bull session' environment, physical proximity dictates executive policy. Outside visitors such as Laura Loomer or unannounced lawmakers can divert presidential focus on the spot, triggering immediate purge orders or tactical shifts. When official economic data contradicts Trump's instincts, such as during tariff discussions with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Trump flatly directs aides to search for alternative figures that mirror his intuitions. Personal Grievances and the Escalation Toward War (3:32) Trump’s foreign policy decisions routinely upend theoretical 'America First' doctrines of non-intervention, driven instead by visceral personal reactions. Following the 2024 campaign hacks by Iranian actors, an indictment regarding a Tehran-linked assassination plot, and the Butler, Pennsylvania shooting, Trump framed statecraft with Iran as a personal vendetta, privately remarking, 'They tried to get me twice. I got them once.' This animus culminated in military conflict after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pitched a regime-change decapitation plan in the Situation Room in February. Although U.S. intelligence agencies judged Netanyahu's political succession proposals as detached from reality, Trump embraced the campaign under the assumption that Iran was a 'paper tiger' that would fold quickly. Trump's self-assurance was further amplified by an earlier operation targeting Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela and an enduring personal conviction that high-stakes gambles will inevitably work out in his favor. Unprecedented Self-Dealing and Monumental Fixations (24:14) Haberman highlights that Trump is wealthier and more liquid than ever before, benefiting directly from corporate ventures run by his sons in industries he actively regulates. The administration has even explored monetizing market-moving Truth Social posts by offering high-paying institutional subscribers split-second advance notifications for fees around $100,000, exploiting statutory exemptions that spare the presidency from federal conflict-of-interest laws. Rather than engaging with routine policy mechanics or midterm election strategy, Haberman estimates that roughly 70 percent of Trump's mental bandwidth is absorbed by physical White House renovations and commemorative monuments. Viewing stone-and-mortar structures as permanent shields against cancellation or debanking, Trump has obsessed over new ballrooms and scale models of an Arc de Triomphe, even phoning French President Emmanuel Macron to interrogate him about architectural specifications and musing about topping a monument with a golden statue of his own raised fist. Operating with Supreme Court immunity protections and feeling immune to political consequences, Trump governs largely in reaction to disruptions of his own making, leaving open whether his administration can navigate mounting external crises such as depleted munitions stockpiles and ongoing foreign entanglements.

《纽约时报》记者Maggie Haberman指出，唐纳德·特朗普的第二任期并非单纯失去动能，而是陷入了由个人直觉主导、缺乏长期战略规划的“自我制造的危机”，其执政重心已从常规立法治理转向单边行政法令、个人财富扩张与实体建筑纪念碑。 个人恩怨与直觉主导的单边外交决策 (3:32) 特朗普将国家安全决策高度个人化。在经历2024年的暗杀未遂事件与竞选团队邮箱遭黑客攻击后，特朗普对伊朗产生了深厚的围城心态与报复心理。2025年2月11日，以色列总理Benjamin Netanyahu在白宫战情室作出了关于政权更迭的情报简报，利用特朗普的虚荣心促使其赞同打击行动；尽管Ratcliffe等情报高官认为所谓政权更迭方案严重脱离现实，特朗普仍坚信伊朗只是“纸老虎”，并抱持其一贯的神秘主义信念，认为事情最终总会自然顺利解决。在内阁简报中，特朗普极度依赖个人直觉并排斥官方客观数据，例如在商务部长Howard Lutnick汇报贸易数据时，特朗普要求助手搜寻符合其预期的网络数字以替代官方事实，五角大楼关于弹药库存枯竭的严峻报告亦难以穿透其信息屏障。 无序的白宫运作与严密的信息茧房 (16:16) 与第一任期试图建立层级秩序不同，特朗普的第二任期白宫呈现出完全开放且无边界的“漫谈会”运作模式，行政权力几乎完全取决于谁能在特定时刻进入椭圆形办公室。诸如Laura Loomer或Scott Perry等外部人士可随时携带诉求或清算名单打断决策流程并获得即时执行指令。与此同时，跨部门的国家安全委员会审议机制名存实亡，核心权力集中于少数亲信手中。特朗普放弃了日常浏览社交媒体的互动习惯，转而完全封闭在Truth Social的数字环境中，日常信息由被戏称为“人体打印机”的助手Natalie Harp严格过滤，源源不断地向其呈送正面报道、赞美帖文与支持者信件，使外部的政策抗议与现实危机难以引起其警觉。 行政命令治国与立法角色的主动退化 (37:53) 特朗普政府在第二任期几乎彻底放弃了传统的国会立法途径，将立法机构降格为单纯执行指令的附庸角色。除了通过预算和解程序推进大幅削减Medicaid与食品券补贴的单一法案外，白宫缺乏任何实质性的法案议程。以Stephen Miller为首的幕僚在四年在野期间深入研究了行政权力的极限，选择通过密集的行政命令在移民与贸易领域强行推进极化政策，甘愿承受漫长的司法诉讼并押注于保守派联邦法院的支持。面对这种单边扩权与潜在的利益冲突，国会共和党人由于对特朗普的政治依附和偶像崇拜，彻底放弃了传统的制度制衡与监督职能，甚至在涉及大额公款争议与人事清洗时保持完全沉默。 空前利益变现与执政问责机制的瘫痪 (24:14) 特朗普在第二任期内的流动财富达到个人历史峰值，其商业帝国直接受惠于其监管的行业，甚至探讨过以高达10万美元的价格出售Truth Social帖文的优先发布通知，以此变相将能够引发金融市场波动的总统言论变现。尽管这种行为在法律灰色地带持续打破伦理界限，但传统的政治丑闻问责链条已彻底断裂。媒体虽然发布了大量调查记录，但由于公众陷入党派阵营化的“自选冒险式”信息消费，加之特朗普上任之初便大规模解雇独立监察长并无视国会传票，行政分支的抵制策略令民主党的常规监督手段丧失了强制执行的实际效力。 建筑实体狂热与“伟人历史观”驱动 (55:23) 在执政后半段，特朗普大约70%的心力被用于白宫内部的实体建筑改造，包括规划修建舞厅以及一座凯旋门。由于此前经历过企业破产、银行断绝往来及物业剥离命名权等危机，特朗普将砖石建造的实物视作防范被“销户”与历史抹杀的绝对防御手段，甚至在处理战事期间中断公务致电法国总统Macron询问巴黎凯旋门的建筑细节。Maggie Haberman评估，尽管特朗普因高龄出现言语重复和语速放缓，但其并未出现认知退化，而是完全呈现出摆脱了所有制度约束的“纯粹特朗普”状态——执政目标退化为逃避历史污名与个人清算，对细致的日常政策制定与党派建设已完全丧失兴趣。 Maggie Haberman的观察表明，特朗普的政治生命建立在终身未曾真正承担实质性后果的“道德风险”之上。即便中期选举面临国会多数席位动摇的风险，在最高法院豁免权裁决与不受限的赦免权庇护下，白宫内部缺乏纠偏机制，未来美国宪政体制将持续承受行政权无序膨胀与非正式规范瓦解的深度冲击。

## Background 本期节目由播客频道《The Ezra Klein Show》（埃兹拉·克莱因秀）于2026年7月31日发布在YouTube平台上。视频简介指出，特朗普第二任期在经历了第一年的狂飙突进后陷入明显停滞与内外危机，深陷对伊战事与民意低谷，甚至表现得更关心白宫翻修而非国会中期选举；主持人埃兹拉·克莱因邀请刚合著出版新书《政权更迭》的《纽约时报》资深白宫记者玛吉·哈伯曼（Maggie Haberman），共同拆解这届政府内部决策的真实运作逻辑与权力走向。 ## TL;DR 哈伯曼在访谈中指出，特朗普第二任期并非单纯动能枯竭，而是在以行政令速推基本盘文化保守议程后，因盲目挑起对伊战事和关税战而撞上了自己制造的现实泥潭。白宫决策体系发生质变，高度依赖“人体打印机”过滤赞美与极简视觉奇观，内部跨部门制衡和国会监督机制全面瓦解，使高层陷入深度封闭的信息黑洞。面对前所未有的家族权力自肥与制度溃败，特朗普在屡次侥幸脱险的心理暗示下自认“永远不败”，对繁琐的立法治理与具体政策毫无耐心，精力几乎被政治复仇、白宫建筑改建（如构思个人凯旋门）以及自我神话为“大写的历史伟人”所彻底占据。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对谈呈现出冷静剖析与荒诞现实交织的冷峻质感。克莱因以抽丝剥茧的系统性提问，引导哈伯曼抛出大量极具黑色幽默的白宫内幕——从战情室里被迫紧急公关爱泼斯坦档案，到政务会议中突然致电马克龙打听凯旋门细节，听感既像是一场对美国宪政防御机制失效的严肃病理尸检，又宛如一出荒谬绝伦的政治讽刺剧。叙述语调克制却极具压迫感，深刻传达出超级大国最高行政中枢被极度个人化的虚荣与本能冲动所绑架后的悬疑与窒息氛围。 ## Bulletin - [18:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=1121s) 《纽约时报》记者玛吉·哈伯曼披露，特朗普第二任期的决策体系陷入极端信息失真，跨部门国家安全协调机制瘫痪，总统甚至因不信任内阁数据而直接要求助手在 Google 现场检索作为决策依据。 - [06:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=406s) 在外交与军事决策上，特朗普将对伊战事深度绑定于个人遭遇暗杀图谋的复仇心理，并在内塔尼亚胡阿谀其为“历史伟人”的游说下草率介入政权更迭，全然忽视了情报部门关于战后乱局的严厉警示。 - [34:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=2082s) 传统宪政与伦理监督已彻底停摆，特朗普团队甚至拟以单笔约10万美元的高价出售其 Truth Social 帖子的提前访问权供对冲基金高频套利，而国会共和党人因对其名流光环的狂热崇拜而放弃实质问责。 - [55:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=3323s) 特朗普当前心智约有70%被白宫改建与个人纪念碑工程占据，甚至构想建造一座饰有自己遇刺挥拳金像的凯旋门，白宫因精力枯竭已彻底放弃重大立法议程，全面沦为被动应对现实危机的求生模式。 ## Key takeaways - [01:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=75s) 执政动能撞上“特朗普现实”：尽管通过单边行政令兑现了废除 DEI 与强化边境执法的基本盘诉求，但擅自开辟的中东战火与新一轮关税战缺乏战略支撑，使政府迅速从“事件的主人”沦为自身制造混乱的“应对者”。 - [03:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=235s) 个人安全危机诱发的复仇式外交：对伊强硬并非出于理性地缘算计，而是源于司法诉讼、巴特勒刺杀未遂与涉伊暗杀密谋交织而成的极端“围攻心态”，使国家对外战争蜕变为私人反暗杀复仇。 - [06:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=406s) 内塔尼亚胡战情室游说与战略误判：内塔尼亚胡史无前例亲临战情室，通过迎合其“历史伟人”虚荣心直接促成了对伊军事冒险，压过了中情局与专业情报官员对政权更迭可行性的严厉警告。 - [11:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=687s) “没有特朗普主义，只有特朗普其人”：知识分子试图用“唐罗主义”或宏大汇率框架包装其决策，但 MAGA 的内核完全受其本能冲动支配，本质是一个仅靠对特朗普个人崇拜维系的脆弱联盟。 - [13:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=783s) 爱泼斯坦档案撕裂 MAGA 信任基石：白宫在战情室闭门召开危机公关会议压制档案公开，直接激怒了常年被灌输阴谋论的草根基本盘，并罕见导致国会共和党人顶住压力倒戈通过透明法案。 - [16:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=976s) “人体打印机”铸造的绝对信息茧房：国家安全委员会跨部门机制名存实亡，椭圆形办公室仅由少数亲信把持，助理娜塔莉·哈普源源不断打印极右赞誉，彻底切断了总统感知负面现实的通道。 - [20:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=1213s) 无边界的椭圆形办公室与即兴口谕治理：常规日程与参谋流程全盘崩溃，极右翼活动家如劳拉·卢默可随意当面递交人员清洗黑名单，重大国家政策取决于谁能在特定时刻出现在总统视野正前方。 - [24:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=1456s) “天选之子”神话与前所未有的家族自肥：从商业破产、四次刑诉到枪击幸存，屡屡免受惩罚的经历让特朗普滋生了狂妄的道德风险，在利用公权力使家族流动资产急剧膨胀的同时坚信自己永立于不败之地。 - [28:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=1699s) 传统问责机制全面瓦解与调查疲劳：督察长遭清洗、众议院沦为马前卒，议员甚至在空军一号上抢夺总统随手分发的巧克力；常年调查使公众产生审美疲劳，所有重磅丑闻均被拉平成猎巫叙事。 - [37:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=2273s) 国会沦为屈从者与行政权力单边榨取：议长迈克·约翰逊彻底唯命是从，白宫全面绕开国会立法通道，由斯蒂芬·米勒等人精密计算行政权力极限，宁可诉诸法庭对决也不愿按部就班推行法案。 - [47:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=2850s) 奇观驱动决策与“争议提升声量”原则：白宫决策被极度视觉化绑架，暴力照片与实战短片直接催生调兵决策；对外宣传刻意使用侵权音乐与游戏化剪辑，通过制造舆论争议零成本引爆传播周期。 - [51:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=3065s) 极度厌恶面对面冲突的性格特质：公开场面上的嚣张跋扈与私下一对一交锋形成剧烈反差，在面对面接触中特朗普往往表现得温和退缩，甚至对极力声讨的左翼政客马姆达尼产生人际投缘。 - [52:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=3155s) 高龄侵蚀下的“纯粹特朗普”：尽管未现失智症状，但慢性静脉功能不全、高心脏钙化积分及就医隐秘性揭示了身体机能衰退，年龄不仅没有平抑其攻击性，反而加剧了其固执与报复本能。 - [55:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=3323s) 物理纪念碑执念源于被抹杀恐惧：痴迷于白宫扩建与凯旋门甚至致电马克龙打听构造细节，本质在于特朗普一生都在对抗被主流社会剥夺平台、取消名字或收回资产的深层生存恐惧。 - [57:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=3448s) 政策雄心消亡与深层政治求生模式：对日常立法流程失去全部耐心，执政底线仅剩避免成为危机代言人“胡佛”，特朗普沉溺于单名流传的史诗伟人幻觉，致使白宫核心层政治精力全面枯竭。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=0s) “历史伟人”：特朗普第二任期的开局与狂飙 本期节目开场直接揭示了唐纳德·特朗普内心深处最具支配性的驱动力：他要成为一个“大写的历史伟人”（capital G, Great Man of history）。他渴望在这个世界上留下一个只需单字姓名便能被永远铭记的印记，建立一种彻底颠覆常规总统定义的非典型统治。主持人埃兹拉·克莱因（Ezra Klein）引介了本期嘉宾——《纽约时报》资深白宫记者、普利策奖得主玛吉·哈伯曼（Maggie Haberman）。哈伯曼与同事乔纳森·斯旺（Jonathan Swan）刚刚合著出版了新书《政权更迭：唐纳德·特朗普的帝国式总统内部》（*Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump*），该书详尽记录了特朗普第二任期前14个月的白宫内幕（斯旺因妻子即将临盆而未能出席播客）。 克莱因在阅读该书后提出了一个强烈的反差感：特朗普重返白宫的前六到八个月充满了令人窒息的政治能量与凶猛推进——从强推关税、整肃司法部、迫使全社会各界低头臣服，到发动对伊朗的军事冲突。然而时至今日，整个政府似乎已深陷其自身决策织就的泥潭，原有的政治动能仿佛“耗尽了气力”（running out of steam）。克莱因由此向哈伯曼发问：如果第一年是一场狂风骤雨，第二年究竟呈现出怎样的底色？ ### [01:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=75s) 是“动力耗尽”，还是撞上了“特朗普现实”？ 哈伯曼并不完全认同“动力耗尽”这一非黑即白的定性。她指出，新书第一卷之所以命名为“旋风”（Whirlwind），是因为特朗普一开始确实以行政命令强行重塑了华盛顿的治理逻辑： - **政令统治与机构拆解**：埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）在离职前以惊人手段直接关停了由国会设立的联邦机构——美国国际开发署（USAID）；特朗普入职伊始便单方面解雇了一大批联邦机构监察长（Inspectors General），彻底忽视了法定的30天国会通报期与理由说明程序。 - **意识形态议程的落地**：由斯蒂芬·米勒（Stephen Miller）主导的一系列行政令并未失速，特别是在废除多元、平等与包容（DEI）项目、禁止跨性别女性参加女子体育赛事，以及边境严酷执法等方面，特朗普完整兑现了竞选承诺，让其基本盘选民深感满意。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 特朗普第二任期两极化执政路径 accDescr: 展示选民期待的基本盘议程与未获授权的外部危机如何导致政策陷入泥潭 subgraph BaseWins ["兑现基本盘诉求（保持动能）"] A1["打击 DEI 项目"] A2["限制跨性别参与女性体育"] A3["铁腕边境管控与大驱逐"] end subgraph UnforcedCrises ["自陷危机（缺乏战略）"] B1["深陷伊朗中东冲突"] B2["骤然开辟新一轮贸易战与高关税"] B3["宏观经济面临剧烈动荡"] end BaseWins --> C["核心选民狂热拥护"] UnforcedCrises --> D["撞上'特朗普现实'：<br/>缺乏长远战略带来的混乱反噬"] ``` 然而，特朗普遭遇阻滞的核心在于他擅自开辟了基本盘从未授权的战场。选民并未投票支持中东的另一场“无休止战争”，也未预料到他会在已深陷战火的同时再开辟新一轮全面关税战。关税叠加中东战事，极可能给美国经济带来灾难性冲击。哈伯曼援引保守派学者尤瓦尔·列文（Yuval Levin）的洞察：任何一届政府起初都是“事件的主人”，全社会被迫对其举措做出反应；但最终，政府都会沦为“事件的应对者”。特朗普当前不仅在被动应付现实，而且他所疲于应对的，全是他自己亲手制造的混乱。这不是单纯的动力枯竭，而是缺乏长期战略的盲动撞上了残酷的“特朗普现实”。 ### [03:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=235s) 遭遇“暗杀阴谋”与“围攻心态”：复仇心理的源起 克莱因对近期媒体广泛引述特朗普对伊朗抱有“复仇”心态的措辞感到不解：明明是特朗普率先下达定点清除指令、斩首伊朗高层并威胁毁灭其文明，面对伊朗的顽抗，特朗普反而宣称自己需要“复仇”。哈伯曼对此解释，外界不能将特朗普的军事行动视为理性的地缘博弈，而必须将其置于特朗普四年在野期间形成的极端“围攻心态”（siege mentality）与人身安全恐惧中去理解。 哈伯曼与斯旺的调查显示，在野的四年使特朗普及其核心团队深度激进化。除却多项刑事起诉之外，一系列致命威胁彻底击碎了他的心理防线： - **涉伊暗杀图谋**：2024年特朗普在纽约因向成人影星支付封口费并伪造商业记录被定罪后不久，拜登司法部起诉了一名与伊朗有牵连的巴基斯坦男子，指控其受雇策划针对特朗普的暗杀代理阴谋。 - **巴特勒暗杀事件与黑客袭击**：宾夕法尼亚州巴特勒的刺杀未遂事件（右耳中弹）成为整个竞选的转折点，强化了受迫害感；几乎在同一时期，伊朗官方黑客成功攻破了其竞选团队操盘手苏茜·威尔斯（Susie Wiles）的电子邮箱并泄露机密，使整个团队蒙受奇耻大辱。 在特朗普混沌的认知体系中，司法围剿、外部暗杀与外国网络袭击被揉碎融合成同一种生存威胁。哈伯曼披露，在此次战争爆发、伊朗最高领袖遭清除后，特朗普曾私下向记者乔纳森·卡尔（John Karl）吐露心声：“他们两次试图杀我……我搞定过他们一次。他们曾两次想做掉我。”这种将国家对外战争直接等同于个人反暗杀复仇的极端心理，主导了他对伊朗的非理性强硬。 ### [06:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=406s) 从80年代人质危机到战情室密谋：通往政权更迭之路 克莱因指出，特朗普对伊朗的敌意早在20世纪70至80年代便已定型。在当年接受采访的历史影像中，年轻的特朗普就对伊朗扣押美国外交人质表现出持久的屈辱感，愤慨地坚称美国坐在那里受辱简直荒唐，力主必须派军队强行救人。入主白宫后，他更不顾全体幕僚反对单方面撕毁伊核协议（JCPOA）。然而，从长期的口诛笔伐走向一场以“政权更迭”（regime change）为目标的全面战争，其直接推手是外部势力的精准操弄。 哈伯曼还原了白宫内部走向战争的关键决策节点： - **战情室的史无前例之约**：2025年2月11日，以色列总理内塔尼亚胡直接现身白宫战情室。外国领导人亲临美国绝密情报中枢与美国总统共商极度敏感的军事行动，在现代白宫历史上几乎找不到任何先例。 - **正中虚荣心的说辞**：内塔尼亚胡向特朗普兜售了一套极具诱惑力的政权更迭方案。深谙特朗普心理的内塔尼亚胡断言特朗普正是“成就此番历史伟业的唯一伟人”。特朗普当场被彻底说动，表态称“听起来很合我意”。 - **情报界的严厉警告**：然而次日，中央情报局局长约翰·拉特克利夫（John Ratcliffe）与国务卿推演该设想时却提出了截然不同的评估。情报部门认定，以色列提出的领导层“斩首”行动以及削弱伊朗弹道导弹能力在战术上确实可行，但内塔尼亚胡随身携带的政权更迭方案——包括一份描绘战后政权如何顺利和平交接的演示视频——在绝大多数美国专业情报高官看来极其幼稚荒诞，拉特克利夫等人甚至私下直斥其“愚蠢至极”。 ### [09:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=565s) 对伊强硬与致命误判：特朗普为何深陷中东战火 在评估对伊朗采取军事行动的风险时，当时的政治圈看法存在巨大裂痕。马可·卢比奥对此表现得更为直白，而特朗普则轻描淡写地表示，政权更迭将是“他们自己的问题”——这里的“他们”究竟是指伊朗还是以色列，他并未说清，但他坚信为了达成其他既定目标，这场冒险完全值得一试。尽管以色列总理内塔尼亚胡确实极力游说，但根据记者的深入调查，早在2024年宾夕法尼亚州巴特勒集会刺杀未遂事件发生后不久，内塔尼亚胡为了修补两人破裂的关系特地前去海湖庄园“登门效忠”（kiss the ring），特朗普当时就在私下对其许诺：“这一次，我对伊朗会激进得多。” 这种鹰派作风早已深植于特朗普的执政直觉中。他在第一任期内就不顾多位高级顾问的反对，毅然撕毁奥巴马时期的伊核协议；在2020年初下令刺杀伊朗圣城旅指挥官苏莱曼尼（General Soleimani）时，同样顶住了核心幕僚的劝阻，这也使他成为伊朗长期针对的报复目标。相比中东其他地区，特朗普对伊朗的强硬程度屡屡超出助手们的预判。许多现任幕僚严重误读了他，私下仍坚称“他其实并不喜欢内塔尼亚胡”或“他根本不想打仗”；虽然特朗普习惯看人下菜碟、对不同的人说不同的话，但他对伊打击的决心却始终比外界想象的更加坚定。 真正让局面失控的，是特朗普基于虚假安全感而做出的巨大误判。在经历了前一年的“12天战争”后，由于伊朗对美军盟友的反击相当微弱、且充满刻意编排的表演性质，特朗普便认定伊朗不过是一只“纸老虎”。加上当年早些时候美方成功策划抓捕委内瑞拉总统马杜罗的行动，更助长了他自认“无所不能”的膨胀心态。正如他曾对塔克·卡尔森（Tucker Carlson）所说的那样，他盲目坚信“事情最终总会冲着有利于我的方向发展”——这种缺乏理智的过度自信，最终直接诱发了这场难以抽身的地缘政治灾难。 - **刺杀苏莱曼尼的余波**：2020年初击杀苏莱曼尼的指令直接违背了部分高级智囊的意愿，自此特朗普成为伊朗情报系统的头号暗杀目标。 - **“纸老虎”与马杜罗行动的错觉**：伊朗在“12天战争”中温和且受控的回击，叠加美方对马杜罗的抓捕行动，让特朗普误以为外科手术式的打击不会招致全面战争。 --- ### [11:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=687s) “没有所谓的特朗普主义，只有特朗普本人” 面对层出不穷的外交政策乱象，埃兹拉·克莱因提出了一个核心论点：现实中根本不存在系统性的“特朗普主义”（Trumpism），从头到尾只有“特朗普其人”。华盛顿政策圈耗费了惊人的智力资源，试图为特朗普的冲动拼凑出一套自圆其说的宏大理论——例如一度甚嚣尘上的“海湖庄园协议”（旨在通过关税与汇率手段全面重构全球货币体系），或是所谓的“唐罗主义”（即门罗主义的特朗普变体，声称美国应战略收缩至西半球，彻底远离中东战争）。然而，这些知识分子眼中的所谓宏图，在现实中总被特朗普随性瓦解。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 特朗普个人意志与MAGA知识分子理论的错位 accDescr: 展示智囊机构试图构建的系统性意识形态如何被特朗普不可预测的本能冲动瓦解。 subgraph Intellectuals ["知识分子构想的『特朗普主义』"] A["门罗主义变体<br>（专注西半球，不介入中东）"] B["海湖庄园协议<br>（全球货币再平衡）"] C["万斯路线<br>（绝不发动新战争）"] end subgraph Reality ["特朗普的实际决策逻辑"] D{"本能冲动与个人绝对主权"} D -->|直接干预中东| E["轰炸伊朗并陷入战火"] D -->|关税目标反复横跳| F["摇摆不定的贸易战执行"] D -->|凌驾一切意识形态| G["『MAGA 就是我说了算』"] end Intellectuals -.->|被现实彻底击碎| Reality ``` 特朗普确实在少数议题上展现出长期的执念，比如他在移民问题上数十年如一日的极端鹰派立场，但在贸易和外交方面，他的目标总是飘忽不定。当副总统J.D.万斯（J.D. Vance）等民粹保守派坚称MAGA的核心底线是“绝不卷入新战争”时，他们无一例外全被特朗普的实际行动打了脸。正如特朗普在接受《大西洋月刊》采访时对迈克尔·谢勒（Michael Scherer）所言：“MAGA就是我说了算（MAGA is whatever I say it is）。” 哈伯曼对此表示，把特朗普钉在任何特定意识形态框架上的企图，从来都是徒劳的愚人游戏。特朗普的行为完全受他本能的“本我”（id-like impulses）驱使，只要情势需要，任何理念都可以被随时置换。不过哈伯曼认为，MAGA虽然算不上涵盖整个共和党的庞然大物，但它确实是党内一个极为真实、却又脆弱怪异的派系联盟。这个联盟内部派系林立、诉求互斥，成员们之所以愿意咽下与自身诉求完全相左的政策，仅仅是因为特朗普这个特殊人物维系着他们的忠诚；在当今政坛，没有任何第二个人能把这样一帮同床异梦的人捏合在一起。 --- ### [13:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=783s) 联盟撕裂的暗涌：爱泼斯坦危机与战情室里的公关会议 MAGA内部不可调和的裂痕，早在伊以战事全面爆发前就已浮出水面，其真正的导火索是去年“12天战争”结束后迅速引爆的杰弗里·爱泼斯坦（Jeffrey Epstein）档案风波。多年以来，正是MAGA运动的核心意见领袖和草根群体在最前线摇旗呐喊，将爱泼斯坦案渲染为两党精英勾结恋童癖的惊天黑幕，强烈要求彻底公开涉案档案。然而，在特朗普重返白宫后，这些呼声却迎头撞上了墙壁——特朗普本人不仅对彻查毫无兴趣，更极力阻止任何内部档案外流，这直接引发了右翼基本盘和受害者群体的强烈反弹。 这场风波将白宫拖入了荒诞的治理泥潭。在原本用于运筹帷幄、决策对伊发动战争的白宫战情室（Situation Room）里，高官们频繁闭门召开的却是焦头烂额的危机公关会议，苦思如何平息支持者对爱泼斯坦案的怒火。哈伯曼指出，如果非要寻找特朗普开始丧失部分基本盘绝对信任的转折点，爱泼斯坦档案事件正是那一刻。 尽管克莱因提出质疑，认为特朗普在共和党内的控制力似乎从未减弱——那些敢于同他公开发难的托马斯·马西（Thomas Massie）或玛乔丽·泰勒·格林（Marjorie Taylor Greene）无一例外在党内沦为边缘人，且特朗普依然能主导党内初选——但哈伯曼强调，两种看似矛盾的现实在此刻并存： * **惩罚公开叛徒的威慑力依旧**：任何挑战特朗普权威的共和党政客确实会迅速丢掉饭碗，因为选民对特朗普的个人崇拜依然牢不可破。 * **私下民调与立法的罕见倒戈**：白宫内部私调显示，死忠基本盘的支持率已出现轻微下滑。更为破天荒的是，国会居然有足够多的共和党议员顶住白宫压力，投票通过了《爱泼斯坦档案透明法案》（Epstein Transparency Act）。这是极罕见的历史时刻：特朗普在台前高喊“相信我，别信那帮人说的话”，而他的忠诚追随者们这次却选择对他关上耳朵。 --- ### [16:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=976s) “人体打印机”与信息黑洞：第二任期白宫的封闭生态 第二任期的特朗普政府在决策运作与信息闭环上，与第一任期相比发生了根本性的质变。如今的联邦行政中枢事实上被高度压缩，仅由五六名能在椭圆形办公室随时接触到特朗普的核心亲信掌控。由于第一任期内联通各部委的国家安全委员会（NSC）跨部门协调机制已被彻底荒废，其他部门的高级官员往往被完全蒙在鼓里，重大的国家决策在他们毫无知情的情况下便已盖棺定论；白宫的对外传播更退化为了纯粹的网络对抗与舆论挑衅（pure trolling）。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 特朗普第二任期的信息过滤机制 accDescr: 展示白宫如何通过极少渠道将外界信息过滤为纯粹的赞美，并隔绝负面现实。 subgraph Inflow ["受限的信息输入源"] A["Truth Social<br>（算法推荐的狂热回音室）"] B["福克斯新闻<br>（全面力挺对伊战争）"] C["周末偶看 MSNBC<br>（搜寻与自身相关的报道）"] end subgraph TheFilter ["核心过滤网关"] D["『人体打印机』娜塔莉·哈普<br>（Natalie Harp）"] E["恐惧传递坏消息的高级幕僚"] end subgraph Bubble ["白宫决策黑洞"] F["特朗普接收到完全失真的外部现实"] end Inflow --> D Inflow --> E D -->|只打印吹捧信件与极右好评| Bubble E -->|隐瞒坏消息/顺从其本能| Bubble ``` 更触目惊心的是特朗普与真实世界信息源的全面隔绝。在第一任期，他热衷于刷当时被称为Twitter的平台，翻看网友的评论跟帖和热门趋势（Trending Topics），至少能接触到纷杂的舆论交锋；如今，他几乎只待在自己创办的Truth Social生态中。更具代表性的人物是被称为“人体打印机”（the human printer）的贴身助理娜塔莉·哈普（Natalie Harp）——她整天随身带着设备跟着特朗普，源源不断地为他打印来自右翼媒体的溢美之词和狂热粉丝的赞美信。 幕僚们因为极度恐惧激怒特朗普，对所有负面消息避之不及。甚至连右翼媒体生态的基石——福克斯新闻（Fox News），在第二任期对特朗普的批评也远少于以往，其新闻栏目不仅整体呈现高度赞赏的基调，甚至成为了右翼媒体帝国中最后一群不知疲倦地为中东战火擂鼓助威的啦啦队。尽管特朗普偶尔在周末看一眼MSNBC（比如他碰巧看到了哈伯曼和斯旺讨论新书的节目），但这丝毫无法打破整座白宫由阿谀奉承与信息茧房共同铸造的高墙。 ### [18:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=1121s) 战火下的白宫信息茧房：“去给我搜真正的数字” 在开场的强硬战争言论中，强硬派高调宣称对伊朗的军事行动必须以“伊朗人的彻底投降”甚至“彻底毁灭”告终，并盛赞特朗普和以色列总理将因直面危险而“名垂青史一千年”。埃兹拉·克莱因随即抛出一个核心疑问：在重大决策背后，特朗普所处的信息环境究竟发生了怎样的畸变？他接收到的究竟是事实，还是经过精心过滤的奉承？ 麦吉·哈伯曼坦承，外界目前很难完全知晓特朗普到底被蒙在鼓里多深。一个最典型的问题在于：他究竟是否清楚美军弹药库因这场冲突而消耗到了何种枯竭的境地？五角大楼的军政高官显然掌握实情，但没有人确切知道他们敢向总统汇报多少。哈伯曼在书中披露了一个极具象征意义的切面：在去年所谓的“贸易战解放日”前夕，商务部长霍华德·卢特尼克等经济顾问正试图向他汇报严谨的经济数据，特朗普却毫不客气地当面打断，斥责那些数据都是编造的，并直接命令助手：“娜塔莉，去给我找真正的数字。”于是助手只能当场在 Google 上盲目搜索。哈伯曼指出，尽管偶尔会有下属试图抗辩，但相比第一任期，如今的特朗普更加完全依赖个人直觉与自我构筑的“现实”来统治国家。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 决策信息流向对比 accDescr: 展示白宫专业顾问团队与特朗普个人直觉及外部干扰对决策的影响路径差异。 subgraph 传统决策机制 A["专业顾问 / 五角大楼 / 商务部"] -->|"提供客观数据与战备消耗"| B["政策研判"] end subgraph 特朗普第二任期决策模式 C["顾问汇报官方统计"] --> D{"特朗普直觉判断：<br/>'去搜真正的数据'"} E["临时访客 / 极右翼拥趸"] -->|"递交清算名单与诉求"| D D --> F["即兴口头指令：<br/>'快去办好'"] end ``` ### [20:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=1213s) 无边界的椭圆形办公室：从劳拉·卢默到移动扯皮会 克莱因指出，哈伯曼在书中描绘了一种极其反常的权力场景：白宫高层会议呈现出一种完全“无边界”的状态，各色人物随意进出，根本不存在严格依照日程表的专业参谋机制。这种极度随意的决策场景，直接导致谁能在特定时刻出现在总统面前，谁就能在很大程度上决定国家政策。 哈伯曼证实了这种观察，并指出这种混乱正是“特朗普本人的刻意设计”，而现任白宫幕僚班子也彻底放弃了抵抗。回想2017年首任幕僚长赖因斯·普里伯斯掌权时，白宫曾试图通过排满清晨会议来阻止特朗普发推特，甚至试图监控其私人通话，但最终全盘溃败。如今的白宫已经变成了一场流动的“漫谈扯皮会”（rolling bull session），奉行彻底的敞门政策。书中记录了一个荒诞的真实案例：极右翼活动家劳拉·卢默通过私下运作直接进入椭圆形办公室，当面呈上一份她认为“不忠诚、必须开除”的国家安全委员会工作人员黑名单；正当特朗普听得津津有味并准备照单执行时，众议员斯科特·佩里突然推门而入，带着自己的一长串诉求加入混战。特朗普毫不在意这种程序崩坏，只是盯着眼前的人大吼：“快点搞定，我要快！”任何人试图建立信息防线都不过是徒劳。 - 第一任期建制派的控管尝试（如限制晨间推特、监控通话、锁定日程表）已彻底失效。 - 极右翼活动家与强硬派议员可以直接跳过正常国安审查，当面递交人事“清洗名单”。 - 政策的形成完全取决于总统视野正前方坐着谁，指令通常是缺乏深思熟虑的即兴口谕。 ### [22:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=1347s) 崩塌的现实与膨胀的自我：特朗普眼中的“完美世界” 面对政府政策在现实中的全面溃败，克莱因梳理了一张惨淡的成绩单：备受吹捧的全面贸易战沦为一场灾难，不仅遭到最高法院的无情否决，引发民众广泛愤怒，而且既没有换来制造业岗位的回归，也未削弱中国的地缘经济地位；司法部在数月的政治倾轧后陷入瘫痪；美国国际开发署（USAID）遭到毁灭性清洗，直接导致援助中断、人员死亡；对伊战事深陷泥潭；政府既拿不出任何连贯的立法议程，也提不出缓解生活成本危机的方案。然而令人困惑的是，白宫内部的特朗普似乎对这种败局毫无所知。 克莱因尖锐地指出，身处重重包围的谄媚圈套中，特朗普只相信自己缔造的神话。如果周围的人整天对他阿谀奉承，将一切媒体批判归咎于“特朗普臆想症”（Trump Derangement Syndrome），国际足联（FIFA）主席等各路名流争相为他颁发和平奖项，各行业CEO络绎不绝地上门极尽奉承，特朗普便坚信自己再次战胜了外界预测。他历史上多次打破民调逆境的经历，更让他对专家的警告嗤之以鼻。 ### [24:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=1456s) “天选之子”的道德风险：前所未有的自肥与不败神话 哈伯曼将讨论引向了一个甚至更为严重的制度性危机：特朗普家族史无前例的疯狂“自我谋利”（self-dealing）。特朗普一生都在用财富来衡量成功，而如今他在流动资产层面的富裕程度超过了以往任何时期。这些财富直接来自他所监管的行业，源自竞选期间创立、现由他的儿子们与特使之子共同操盘的商业实体。在以往不可想象的利益冲突面前，国会共和党人保持死寂，而公众对此类隐蔽腐败往往脱敏，直到视觉符号的冲击爆发——例如白宫东翼遭遇大兴土木式的破土改建、计划修建凯旋门，以及为了遮掩施工而挂起的巨大幕布。 哈伯曼深刻剖析了特朗普这种“行走的道德风险”背后的心理机制。他的人生历程充斥着侥幸逃脱惩罚的奇迹： 1. 1991年大西洋城赌场深陷过度杠杆危机，整个商业帝国濒临破产，却因银行的妥协与父亲的资助而起死回生； 2. 转型成为真人秀明星，随后在毫无基层公职经验的情况下奇迹般问鼎白宫； 3. 面临四次刑事起诉却毫发无损，主要政治对手接连自乱阵脚，拜登执政后期表现平庸； 4. 甚至在遭遇暗杀枪击后大难不死，这让他的幕僚与拥趸赋予了他某种宗教神圣感，私下半开玩笑地直呼他为“天选之子”。 这种屡屡脱险的经历让特朗普形成了一种绝对偏执——正如他曾对塔克·卡尔森所言：“事情总能解决，因为过去一向如此。”他厌烦讨论枯燥的经济数据，只热衷于煽动移民犯罪的阴暗叙事。拥有最高法院广泛总统豁免权裁决的庇护，并放话准备特赦任何踏入椭圆形办公室周围的人，第三次被弹劾对他来说早已毫无震慑力。尽管共和党可能在中期选举面临灭顶之灾，但在这个自我构建的堡垒中，特朗普坚信自己永远立于不败之地。 ### [28:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=1699s) 丑闻为何无法扳倒特朗普：名人效应与党派部落化 埃兹拉·克莱恩指出，私下与知情人士交谈时，特朗普政府的腐败程度被形容为一种“宏伟壮观级别的腐败”（majestic in its grandeur），其规模和肆无忌惮在历史上前所未见。克莱恩提出疑问：放在以往任何一个历史时期，哪怕只是被披露出来的个别事件，就足以彻底吞噬华盛顿的政治议程并击沉一届总统任期。例如克林顿执政时期的“旅行门”（Travelgate）和期货交易争议；甚至在特朗普第一任期内，卫生与公众服务部长汤姆·普莱斯（Tom Price）也仅仅因为违规乘坐包机出差就被迫辞职。然而当下，尽管《纽约时报》和《纽约客》等媒体做出了大量详实的调查报道并掌握了确凿数据，这些惊人内幕却似乎对特朗普毫发无伤。特朗普究竟是如何通过在腐败指控上“海量灌水”（flood the zone），进而逃脱所有传统政治后果的？ 玛吉·哈伯曼将这一现象拆解为媒体生态与国会生态的双重剧变。首先，新闻周期引发的公众反弹机制已经失效。哈伯曼强调，如果今天的记者还抱着“报道必须迫使现实产生某种结果”的期望入行，必然会大失所望，因为当下的媒体充斥着“自主选择式”（choose-your-own-adventure）的党派偏见，受众只选择听自己想听的信息。其次，媒体本身没有传票权，过去能推动实质问责的独立督察长（Inspectors General）在特朗普第二任期伊始就遭到了大规模清洗，而原本由国会两党合力展开的调查也荡然无存。如今的众议院共和党人完全退化成了特朗普行政部门的马前卒，党派阵营的部落化程度超越以往任何时期。 更为荒诞的现实在于国会共和党人面对特朗普时的心理状态。哈伯曼指出，除了害怕政治前途被特朗普摧毁的恐惧感之外，这些议员更把特朗普视作耀眼的名流巨星。在“空军一号”上，特朗普经常从被称为“诱饵储藏室”（the chum closet，专门存放总统专属周边和纪念品的小隔间）里拿出好时（Hershey's）巧克力棒随手扔给众人，台下堂堂的众议院成年议员们竟会争先恐后地叫嚷“分我一个！”。克莱恩补充提到，甚至有议员会因为特朗普叫出了自己的教名而欣喜若狂。在他们眼中，正在和自己对话的不是美利坚合众国的总统，而是一个他们看着真人秀《学徒》（The Apprentice）长大的超级巨星。 - **前朝先例对比**：克林顿政府时期的“旅行门”（Travelgate）及期货投资争议，以及特朗普第一任期卫生部长汤姆·普莱斯因乘坐私人包机而被迫辞职。 - **权力谄媚细节**：众议员在“空军一号”上抢夺特朗普从“诱饵储藏室”扔出的总统定制好时巧克力，沉浸在与电视巨星私下接触的亢奋之中。 - **调查基准崩塌**：记者受制于调查手段，缺乏传票权；特朗普早期直接解雇多个联邦部门督察长，使行政系统内部的监督机制瘫痪。 --- ### [31:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=1900s) 调查疲劳与“规范对抗法律”的失效机制 公众心理层面的“扁平化效应”（flattening effect）也是特朗普免受问责的关键屏障。自 2017 年宣誓就职的那一刻起，特朗普就几乎没有一秒钟不在接受各种调查。久而久之，公众对所有曝光产生了严重的审美疲劳与预期钝化，所有新的重磅黑幕在受众眼中最终都会被简化、拉平成特朗普口中所谓的另一场“猎巫行动”（witch hunt）。哈伯曼指出，向大众清晰解释“这次出现了性质不同的新事实”已成为整个新闻界难以逾越的障碍，而这种麻木感恰恰成为了特朗普最坚固的护盾。 当被问及若民主党在国会中期选举中夺回多数席位并获得传票权是否会改变局面时，哈伯曼持极为悲观的态度。她认为这绝不会重演 2019 年民主党控制众议院时的情景。特朗普的应对逻辑始终是“把对手耗死”：他完全可以动用总统特权赦免身边的所有人，并下令整个政府系统拒绝配合传票，通过冗长的司法诉讼一路硬拖到最高法院做最终裁决。即使国会发出藐视国会的传票并转交司法部，以司法部高官托德·布兰奇（Todd Blanche）为代表的亲信也绝不会主动发起实质性调查。更重要的是，特朗普身边的幕僚早已极度激进化，他们抱有一种强烈的“被捕猎者心态”（hunted mentality），深信一旦失去权力，无论众议院是否翻盘，未来的民主党政府都会指控并起诉他们。因此，他们抱定“不惜一切代价先下手为强”的心态，与特朗普彻底捆绑。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 传统华盛顿问责机制与特朗普抗衡体系对比 accDescr: 图表对比了传统华盛顿丑闻调查的链条与特朗普利用规范漏洞、司法拖延及极化防御瓦解问责的闭环逻辑。 subgraph TRAD["传统华盛顿问责机制"] A["媒体曝光 / 机构哨兵检举"] --> B["独立督察长 / 两党联合调查"] B --> C["国会传票与公开听证会"] C --> D["形成舆论风暴与政治问责"] end subgraph TRUMP["特朗普式防御与反击模式"] E["解雇督察长 / 部落化党派掩护"] --> F["全盘无视国会传票与司法死拖"] F --> G["滥用总统赦免权与亲信司法部"] G --> H["公众调查疲劳 / 归为猎巫叙事"] end ``` 这种制度性破局印证了一位民主党策略师在 2016 年特朗普胜选后对哈伯曼说的话：整个国家即将彻底明白，美国的宪政体制在多大程度上其实仅仅依赖于“政治规范”（norms）而非硬性的“成文法律”（laws）。一旦掌权者毫无顾忌地践踏每一条不成文规范，整套防御系统就会土崩瓦解。从公然为特别检察官罗伯特·穆勒（Robert Mueller）的去世喝彩，到对好莱坞导演罗伯·莱纳（Rob Reiner）的家庭惨剧冷嘲热讽，再到对任内中饱私囊的指控毫不避讳，特朗普政府一边坚称“绝无腐败”，一边全方位突破底线。 --- ### [34:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=2082s) Truth Social 变现乱象与传统问责机器的瓦解 特朗普将政治权力直接货币化的行为正在突破全新界限。哈伯曼和克莱恩提到了一个极度荒唐却正在推进的商业企图：特朗普团队正试图将其个人社交媒体平台 Truth Social 的发帖内容直接变现，用于高频证券交易。具体操作方式是，向金融机构或交易员收取极高的费用（据称单笔额度高达 10 万美元），以便让他们在特朗普发布具有市场影响力的言论之前获得“提前通知”（advanced notification）。由于总统的言论随时能左右股市和特定行业的涨跌，这种利用发帖时间差进行高频套利的模式充满了潜在的道德危机与制度风险。然而在法律层面，由于美国总统并不受适用于普通行政工作人员的同等道德守则和法律条规约束，这种行为在制度真空中肆无忌惮地推进。 克莱恩指出，无论是权力自肥还是逃避制衡，一切问题的根本源头最终都归结于“共和党人”。在过去的任何一届政府中，哪怕面对同党派总统，执政党议员在触碰某些基本红线时也会站出来说“不”。尽管共和党此前在国税局（IRS）所谓的“小金库”公款问题上曾因司法质疑和纳税人钱财被滥用的极度露骨而产生过微弱动摇，但整体而言，国会共和党人已经彻底放弃了制衡功能。传统华盛顿的丑闻调查依赖于特定的运作序列：行政机构或司法部保持一定程度的专业独立性以回应传票，国会召开展开层层盘问的听证会，每一次突破都会催生新一轮的媒体报道，从而在公众认知中拼凑出一桩完整的“政治丑闻”。而当国会共和党人彻底切断这一配合链路时，这套问责机器便彻底停摆。 哈伯曼坦言，近期共和党人在监督问责上做出过“最接近”的举动（哈伯曼强调“最接近”一词已经经过了极大的让步修饰），也仅仅是众议院监督委员会主席詹姆斯·科默（James Comer）最初在涉及杰弗里·爱泼斯坦（Jeffrey Epstein）的相关案件中，曾向司法部长帕姆·邦迪（Pam Bondi）发出过一份让白宫颇为不满的传票。但这项调查很快就跑偏成对克林顿家族等政敌的攻击，随后便被无限期拖延。哈伯曼最后总结道，在当下的华盛顿，已经根本不存在任何对等的监督力量；两党上一次尝试进行稍微具有实质意义的跨党派调查，已经是调查国会山骚乱的“1月6日特别委员会”（J6 Committee）了。 - **Truth Social 交易内幕变现**：计划以约 10 万美元的高价出售特朗普 Truth Social 发帖的毫秒级提前访问权，供华尔街高频对冲基金利用政策言论引发的金融市场波动进行套利。 - **总统法律豁免盲区**：美国行政伦理法规对普通白宫雇员和内阁官员有严格的利益冲突与内幕交易规约，但总统本人在宪政框架下长期免于同等伦理法规的制约。 - **爱泼斯坦案监督闹剧**：众议院监督委员会（科默主持）曾就爱泼斯坦案卷宗向司法部长帕姆·邦迪发难，但很快偏离核心、转向党派清算并陷入停滞。 - **两党监督绝响**：在国会山骚乱调查委员会之后，华盛顿彻底丧失了跨党派展开行政监督与追责的政治意愿和制度土壤。 ### [37:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=2273s) 国会的“屈从者”角色与单边行政权力扩张 埃兹拉·克莱恩指出，在哈伯曼的新书中，国会所扮演的角色小得令人震惊。哈伯曼对此表示赞同，并直言在特朗普第二任期内，国会完全沦为了一种“屈从者”（supplicant）的角色。众议院议长迈克·约翰逊与特朗普之间的关系在历史上极为罕见——在以往的美国政治中，几乎从未见过一位议长如此彻底地对总统唯命是从，姿态近乎于“请给我下达进军指令吧”（give me my marching orders）。这种顺从无关政策理念，纯粹是总统要什么就给什么。除了通过那部被称为“大而美法案”（one big beautiful bill）的综合法案（对医疗补助计划 Medicaid 和食品券造成深远冲击）之外，本届政府根本没有任何真正的立法议程，因为他们自始至终清楚，在国会走立法途径难成气候。 克莱恩进一步质疑：如果一切都不通过法律固定下来，那么这种执政究竟是在建设长久制度，还是随时会随风瓦解？关税与贸易议程本可通过国会立法巩固权力，白宫却选择绕道而行，导致最终遭受重创；在边境移民问题上，白宫掀起了滔天巨浪，却依然没有修改任何底层法律。对此，哈伯曼剖析了核心智囊斯蒂芬·米勒的真实心态：修改法律旷日持久，而且白宫预设无论立什么法，下一届政府都会全盘推翻。米勒花了整整四年复盘 2017 年“穆斯林禁令”因起草拙劣而在机场引发混乱、并在法庭惨败的教训，精密测算了行政权力的合法边界究竟能延伸到何处。 白宫宁可卷入旷日持久的法庭诉讼，也绝不愿按部就班地走国会程序。在他们的算计中，常规立法程序效率过于低下，而诉诸单边行政令并在法庭对决，他们有很大概率能在多数判决中获胜。至于贸易政策的溃败，哈伯曼毫不客气地指出，那不仅是因为绕开国会，“还因为那套计算公式根本就狗屁不通”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 特朗普第二任期决策与行政执行路径 accDescr: 展示白宫如何绕过国会，通过激进单边行政手段推行政策，并依靠法庭博弈维系权力的运作流程。 subgraph 决策层["白宫核心驱动"] Trump["唐纳德·特朗普<br/>（追求快速单边行动）"] Miller["斯蒂芬·米勒<br/>（4年法律极限推演）"] end subgraph 传统途径["被边缘化的国会通道"] Congress["国会 / 议长迈克·约翰逊<br/>（沦为下达指令的屈从者）"] Legislation["常规立法路线<br/>（耗时漫长、缺乏持久意愿）"] end subgraph 单边执行["激进行政执行机制"] ExecOrder["单边行政命令与规程"] CourtFight["直接诉诸法庭博弈<br/>（押注司法裁决赢面大）"] end Trump --> Miller Trump -. 绕过.-> Congress Congress --- Legislation Miller --> ExecOrder ExecOrder --> CourtFight ``` --- ### [41:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=2470s) 白宫内部的派系碰撞：沃特、马斯克与米勒 在司法部与联邦官僚系统的改组问题上，克莱恩指出，要想彻底重构行政体系，必须推进深层次的文官制度改革，但特朗普团队目前仅仅是在推行“F计划”（Schedule F）和人事清洗。哈伯曼强调，外界常常将本届政府视为铁板一块，但实际上根本不存在一个步调一致的“他们”。虽然内部核心成员都共有“粉碎左翼、扩张权力”的宏观目标，但各派系的手段与认知存在巨大撕裂。 这种撕裂在关键幕僚的作风上体现得尤为鲜明： - **罗素·沃特（Russ Vought）**：真正深谙联邦政府运作机制，善于利用复杂的行政规程和预算杠杆推进议程。 - **埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）**：对政府运作完全缺乏认知，其行事风格就像“直接冲进来砸墙破壁”，甚至在物理层面破坏行政设施。 - **斯蒂芬·米勒（Stephen Miller）**：完全沉浸在法律极限边缘的行政权力榨取与强硬移民路线上。 这种派系间互相冲突的行事哲学在白宫内部不断引发剧烈撞击，若再叠加毫无主见的国会层级，导致整体治理结构高度混乱且碎片化。 --- ### [42:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=2528s) 权力天平的微调：鲁比奥、米勒与赫格塞斯的受宠之道 面对白宫内部的权力流动，哈伯曼分析了过去一年核心圈权位格局的变化。权力分布时刻处于动态剧变中： - **马可·卢比奥（Marco Rubio）**：尽管此前积累了大量政治资本，但在棘手的伊朗冲突上几乎处于隐形状态。克莱恩推测这或许是鲁比奥主动回避，哈伯曼证实了这一点——如果让卢比奥坐上测谎仪，现在的战局绝对不是他希望看到的局面，特朗普虽乐见他更深介入，但卢比奥显然不愿引火烧身。 - **苏西·怀尔斯（Susie Wiles）**：依然在白宫内部维持着无可替代的巨大影响力。 - **斯蒂芬·米勒（Stephen Miller）**：此前有媒体报道称，在明尼苏达州发生勒内·古德尔（Rene Goodale）和亚历克斯·普雷迪（Alex Preddy）被杀事件后米勒遭到削权，哈伯曼指责这类报道被“严重夸大了”。尽管白宫叫停了像去年在芝加哥派黑鹰直升机索降大楼抓人那种耸人听闻的武力秀，转而采取看似低调但致命的交通拦截拦截，米勒的权力丝毫未损。虽然他将无证移民的每日抓捕指标从去年的 3000 人微调至 2000 人，但他依然在内部电话会议中极具攻击性地施压。米勒牢固的地位源于他能向特朗普承诺“我能以最快速度给你想要的结果”。 - **皮特·赫格塞斯（Pete Hegseth）**：在特朗普面前相当有权势。作为最初对伊动武的积极鼓吹者，赫格塞斯非常懂得上位的艺术。他深知自己的战术短板，因此每次去给特朗普做简报时，经常拉上现任参谋长联席会议主席丹·凯恩（Dan Cain）。凯恩与上一任动辄扯住特朗普衣领争执、强硬指导总统该怎么做的马克·米利（Mark Milley）截然相反，凯恩从不认为自己的职责是教总统做事。 哈伯曼形容，赫格塞斯是一个不折不扣的“特朗普死忠信徒”，而非泛泛的 MAGA 追随者。他形象好、善于在电视上表现强硬，既能充当完美的顺从者，又能借助专业军官完成战略沟通，这种特质让他在特朗普面前获得了极高的信任筹码。但归根结底，在这座宫廷里拥有终极权力的，“唯有唐纳德·特朗普本人”。 --- ### [45:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=2709s) 视觉化呈报：如何给一位“电视总统”汇报工作 当被问及幕僚们究竟学到了哪些给特朗普汇报工作的秘诀时，哈伯曼揭示了白宫简报室内极其独特的生态。白宫上下如今已经彻底顺应了特朗普对“高度视觉化”的执念。在第一任期内，建制派官僚还曾对此极为抗拒，甚至觉得不可思议，但现在所有人完全顺从： - **拒绝文字长卷**：特朗普极度厌恶厚重冗长的简报文件，他根本不看这些纸质文字。 - **视觉化呈现**：向他汇报必须做成大幅图板或图像直观展示。哈伯曼解释，人们常说特朗普是个“电视人”，但大家往往只想到《学徒》摄制组，而实质上，**电视正是他理解与吸收现实世界的唯一底层逻辑**。如果在讨论中仅对他进行枯燥的事实罗列，沟通注定彻底失效。 但比起第一任期，现在的危险在于简报的信息质量发生了质的崩塌。第一任期哪怕使用图板呈现，其背后的情报基底大体上是可靠且经过层层核实的事实。而如今，白宫内部针对信息质量爆发了激烈的暗斗——大量未经证实的传闻、粗糙且未经分析的原始情报（raw intelligence），甚至捕风捉影的流言，都被肆无忌惮地包装成视觉材料直接递送到了总统案头。 ### [47:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=2850s) 视觉奇观的闭环反馈：从打击视频到争议传播法则 埃兹拉·克莱恩指出，特朗普不仅是用视觉来感知世界，他本身就是创造视觉奇观的大师——无论是挑选内阁成员时观看候选人在有线电视新闻上的高光剪辑蒙太奇，还是像挑选演员一样将皮特·海格塞斯（Pete Hegseth）等人安插进政府。克莱恩提出一个核心问题：一个既通过“奇观”做内部决策、又通过“奇观”对外沟通的政府，究竟意味着什么？麦吉·哈伯曼对此表示完全认同，并直言这已经演化成一个自我强化的“闭环反馈回路”（self-reinforcing feedback loop）。她在书中披露，海格塞斯非常痴迷于美军打击船只的实战视频，这些画面在私下甚至被戏称为海格塞斯的“杀戮短片”（snuff films）；海格塞斯会特意将这些视频呈送给特朗普，因为他深知特朗普极度渴望看到这种直观的视觉刺激。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 特朗普政府的视觉注意力闭环 accDescr: 展现视觉输入如何驱动内部决策并转化为外部争议性传播的循环结构 subgraph Input ["视觉信息输入"] A["高冲击力画面<br/>(打击视频 / 受袭照片)"] B["排斥相左观点<br/>(视觉直觉替代深度思考)"] A --> B end subgraph Decision ["椭圆形办公室决策"] C["触发直觉反应与固有偏好<br/>(如派驻国民警卫队)"] B --> C end subgraph Output ["奇观化对外传播"] D["配乐煽动性宣传<br/>(电子游戏音乐 / 挑衅性选曲)"] E["艺人抗议与媒体批判"] F["争议提升声量<br/>(Controversy Elevates Message)"] C --> D D --> E E --> F end F -.->|"强化叙事与注意力"| A ``` 哈伯曼分析道，特朗普是注意力经济（attention economy）的绝对行家。这种全视觉化的运作方式让决策者陷入一种“眼中所见即为全部现实”的幻觉，彻底排除了互相竞争的客观观点。例如书中记载的一个关键转折点：史蒂芬·米勒（Stephen Miller）拿着几张照片径直走进椭圆形办公室，照片上是一名网名为“Big Balls”（真名叫做 Ed）的政府效率部（DOGE）年轻成员被人殴打的惨状；这些照片是米勒从在 DOGE 与马斯克共事的妻子手中拿到的。这一组极具冲击力的视觉画面，瞬间点燃了特朗普长久以来的冲动，使他下令向华盛顿特区派驻国民警卫队。在哈伯曼看来，过度依赖视觉输入会彻底改变人的思维方式，将决策降级为纯粹的“刺激-本能反应”。 这种视觉逻辑同样主导着白宫的对外宣传。白宫通讯联络办公室主任史蒂芬·张（Steven Cheung，一位狂热的 UFC 格斗爱好者）在制作轰炸袭击的宣传视频时，不仅会配上类似真实电子游戏的背景音乐与动态效果，甚至还会故意使用那些明确反对特朗普的音乐人的作品。克莱恩和哈伯曼指出，这完全是一种蓄意的挑衅策略——诱使艺人跳出来抗议“你怎么敢滥用我的音乐”，进而零成本引爆新一轮新闻周期。正如贾里德·库什纳（Jared Kushner）在上一届政府期间常对人提及的“特朗普法则”（Trump rules）所言：“争议提升声量”（controversy elevates message）。这既是以最快速度放大传播的捷径，也是特朗普向既有规则宣战的招牌姿态。 - 史蒂芬·米勒通过妻子从埃隆·马斯克主导的 DOGE 处获得网络代号为“Big Balls”的员工被殴打照片，促成了特朗普向华盛顿派遣国民警卫队的决策。 - 特朗普团队的视频剪辑策略将军事打击画面游戏化，并刻意侵权使用左翼艺人音乐以制造二次舆论发酵。 --- ### [51:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=3065s) 特朗普与马姆达尼的会面：面对面的人际“回避”与意外投缘 谈及左翼政客佐兰·马姆达尼（Zohran Mamdani）与特朗普的会面，哈伯曼表示自己对会面结果毫无意外。尽管共和党阵营一直试图将马姆达尼定性为“社会主义者或共产主义者”，特朗普本人也在公开演讲中不断进行此类政治攻击，但特朗普私下却对马姆达尼抱有非常独特的例外态度，甚至在两人交谈中表现出由衷的喜爱，这让特朗普的核心幕僚团队感到十分错愕与不安。马姆达尼在互动中展现出了极高的政治智慧，据知情人士透露，在两人的首次会面中，马姆达尼就巧妙地向特朗普指出，在自己的竞选集会上存在相当一部分曾经投票给特朗普的交叉选民，成功切中了特朗普对选民忠诚度与自身吸引力的敏感神经。 克莱恩指出，特朗普与马姆达尼的互动折射出书中极具黑色幽默的一幕：特朗普对待那些他在公开场合极力诽谤、甚至其政府正在全力打压的对象时，只要转为一对一的面对面接触，往往会表现得极其亲切和善、甚至近乎逢迎。对于一个在公共舆论场中如此嚣张跋扈、攻击性极强的人物，私底下一对一交谈时却像一只“温顺的小猫”（a bit of a pussycat）。 哈伯曼对此解释称，特朗普一生都有一个恒定不变的性格特质——极度厌恶面对面的人际直接冲突。在某些商务或政治场合，他这种出人意料的温和态度可能是为了故意让对手放松警惕；但就马姆达尼的案例而言，特朗普似乎是真的在个人层面上很喜欢对方。这种公开场合的雷霆咆哮与私密空间里的回避退缩，构成了特朗普行事风格中最鲜明的反差。 --- ### [52:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=3155s) 年龄的痕迹与健康疑云：“纯粹的特朗普”与日益老化的身体 当克莱恩询问年龄是否在以实质性的方式让特朗普减速时，哈伯曼给出了极为细致的观察。如果回顾特朗普十年前的录像（例如他在2016年共和党全国代表大会上的演讲），对比之强烈是显而易见的：现在的特朗普语速明显放缓，不断重复完全相同的故事，正如播客主持人乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）所形容的那样，特朗普演讲中招牌式的“语言编织”（the weave）如今已经散得太开、跨度太大。然而，哈伯曼与合作者乔纳森·斯旺（Jonathan Swan）在当年3月16日进入椭圆形办公室与特朗普进行长达一小时的面对面事实核查访谈时，并未发现任何类似老年痴呆或心智本质突变的迹象。 哈伯曼赞同史蒂夫·班农（Steve Bannon）的定义，即眼前的特朗普更像是“纯粹的特朗普”（pure Trump）。年龄没有改变他的本质，反而让他更加毫无顾忌地做自己——对政治报复的执念更加强烈，对自身关注的事项更加固执。在伊朗战争爆发的第17天，特朗普对前线战局表现得仿佛毫无挂碍，反而极度兴奋地向两位记者反复展示白宫新宴会厅的建筑模型。 在身体机能方面，哈伯曼明确指出了几项不容忽视的健康隐患： - **心血管与静脉病症**：特朗普患有慢性静脉功能不全综合征（chronic venous insufficiency），导致下肢血液无法正常回流心脏，这也解释了此前外界注意到的脚踝肿胀问题；此外，他在2018年公开的首次医疗报告中，心脏冠状动脉钙化积分（calcium score）高达133，表明存在一定程度的心脏疾病，而此后白宫再未披露过该项数值。 - **病史与就医不透明**：他在2020年曾因感染新冠病毒而病情极度严重，但白宫始终掩盖真实病情；如今他前往沃尔特·里德国家军事医疗中心的频率增加，但官方发布的信息却越来越少。 - **神秘的医疗记录**：特朗普曾接受过未对外公开具体类别的医学影像检查，并声称自己接受了“22位专家”的联合诊治；而对于其手部频繁出现的异常瘀青，官方给出的“过度握手”或“服用阿司匹林”等解释始终难以令人信服。 哈伯曼总结道，虽然高龄导致皮肤变薄容易出现瘀伤，但他显然算不上身体健康的典范。将国家权力交给一位年届八旬的老人本就是一场巨大的豪赌。 --- ### [55:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=3323s) 对白宫翻修与个人纪念碑的执念：不可剥夺的永久印记 在特朗普目前的日常精力分配中，白宫翻修工程占据了惊人的比重。哈伯曼估算，如果绘制一张特朗普的大脑关注度分布图，足足有大约70%的心思都扑在建筑改造与设计上。然而，这种强烈的“政治遗产”（legacy）情结与传统政治家对历史功绩的追求截然不同。对于特朗普而言，所谓的遗产不是“我能为这个世界留下什么福祉”，而是“我能在这个世界上留下什么，才能让这个世界无法把我彻底抹杀或驱逐”。 哈伯曼进一步剖析了特朗普内心的深层恐惧：他一生都在防范自己被主流社会“取消”、被媒体剥夺平台、被银行切断金融服务（debanked）、被曼哈顿的大楼剥离特朗普的名字，或者被纽约市政府收回他在布朗克斯区租赁的高尔夫球场。因此，他在白宫大兴土木的根本驱动力，是去创造那些物理意义上绝对无法被剥夺的个人纪念碑。 这种执念在一次新闻互动中展现得淋漓尽致：哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS）记者爱德·奥基夫（Ed O'Keefe）在椭圆形办公室的办公桌上注意到一个缩尺模型，那是特朗普下令设计的、被称为“凯旋门”（Arc de Triomphe）的宏大建筑构件。当奥基夫忍不住开口询问“那是什么”时，特朗普没有给出任何宏大的政策包装或政治修饰，而是无比直白、毫不掩饰地回答道：“这是一座拱门。” ### [56:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=3397s) 特朗普的“凯旋门”构想与给马克龙的突发电话 麦琪·哈伯曼（Maggie Haberman）指出，从肯尼迪艺术中心（Kennedy Center）到宴会厅扩建，唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）对白宫建筑改造的执念，本质上都是在为自己树立丰碑。埃兹拉·克莱恩（Ezra Klein）随即请她讲述特朗普就建造“凯旋门”一事给法国总统埃马纽埃尔·马克龙（Emmanuel Macron）打电话的荒诞逸事。 哈伯曼回忆道，特朗普当时正在思索为自己建造一座宏伟的拱门，甚至琢磨拱门顶端该放置何种雕塑，其中一个备选方案竟然是将他在宾夕法尼亚州巴特勒（Butler）遇刺幸存后高举拳头呐喊“战斗、战斗、战斗”（fight, fight, fight）的形象铸成一尊黄金雕像立于其上。更令人啼笑皆非的是，特朗普在另一场会议开到一半时，突然心血来潮直接拨通了法国总统马克龙的电话，向对方详细打听巴黎凯旋门（Arc de Triomphe）的构造细节。特朗普在电话里抛出一连串具体而清奇的询问：巴黎凯旋门究竟是什么样的？里面设不设游客问讯台？会不会有人从上面跳下去？哈伯曼直言，在正式政务会议中突然致电外国元首探讨自建凯旋门的设计细节，充分体现了特朗普当下真正痴迷和关注的重心所在。 - **黄金拳头雕像**：特朗普曾设想在自建拱门顶端矗立一座镀金雕像，复刻自己在巴特勒遭遇暗杀企图时挥拳高呼“战斗”的标志性瞬间。 - **致电马克龙的焦点**：特朗普向马克龙询问巴黎凯旋门是否配有接待台、是否有安全隐患或跳楼事件，借此构思属于自己的纪念性建筑。 --- ### [57:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=3448s) 政策雄心的消亡：“伟大人物”幻觉与白宫的求生模式 克莱恩转向传统意义上的总统政治遗产，追问特朗普在政策层面是否还有真正想要达成的目标，其大脑是否还会像关注建筑装修改建那样投入到某项具体政策中。哈伯曼给出了极为明确的否定答案。她回忆说，在2019年至2020年期间，特朗普确实还有清晰的政策追求；但到了第二任期的当下，除了极力避免“成为赫伯特·胡佛（Herbert Hoover）”——即避免因全球性重大危机而身败名裂之外，他在政策上几乎没有长远规划。虽然他重启了贸易战，并试图终结自己亲手挑起的伊朗战事，但这纯粹是对自身行为的被动应对，根本算不上主动的政治成就。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 特朗普第二任期的心智占用分布 accDescr: 图表展示特朗普在第二任期中将大部分心智投入到宏大丰碑与个人复仇，而将传统政策置于边缘。 subgraph CoreFocus ["高度占据心智的核心领域"] M1["个人纪念碑式工程<br/>（白宫改造、宴会厅、凯旋门）"] M2["政治清算与霸凌施压<br/>（诉讼打击媒体、对抗行业机构）"] M3["历史『伟大人物』自我神话<br/>（追求单名流传的史诗地位）"] end subgraph NeglectedPolicy ["心智枯竭被边缘化的领域"] P1["繁琐的立法谈判与国会公关"] P2["走访各州推介法案（如爱荷华州基层政治）"] P3["两党全面移民改革立法"] end CoreFocus -.->|"彻底挤占有限精力<br/>导致陷入生存模式"| NeglectedPolicy ``` 在立法方面，即便核心圈内有人幻想着推动某种形式的全面移民改革并寻求民主党合作，哈伯曼也认为这绝无可能，因为民主党断不可能送给特朗普这样的政治胜利，更不会接受任何特朗普风格的苛刻条款。在过去一年半中，特朗普心智排名前三的头等大事始终是政治报复（retribution）以及对民事社会各行业开展霸凌威慑；他在律所面前碰了壁并被法庭阻截，但通过无休止的民事诉讼对媒体的打压却成效显著。 正如哈伯曼与乔纳森·斯旺（Jonathan Swan）在《政权更迭》（*Regime Change*）一书结语中所描绘的，特朗普对日常国内政治已经彻底冷漠，而是陷入了一种神秘主义式的“大写‘G’的历史伟大人物”（capital-G Great Man of history）的幻觉之中。他渴望像历史上的传奇君王一样仅凭一个单名就被全人类铭记，留下超越所有“常规总统”的史诗印记。这种自我神话让他对通过法案的枯燥流程、去爱荷华州基层为具体政策站台等传统政治事务毫无兴趣。哈伯曼总结道，当前的白宫团队在政治精力上已经严重枯竭，“油箱里完全没有剩余空间”去系统规划重大政策蓝图，整个核心层已全面陷入深度的政治求生模式。 - **避免胡佛式结局**：特朗普的核心心理底线是不被历史定格为胡佛式的大萧条与危机代言人。 - **立法动力的瓦解**：特朗普对任何需要耗费数月进行国会妥协的常规立法程序失去耐心，仅对能通过行政手段直接邀功的移民变动保持兴奋。 - **历史人物的执念**：他不再将自己定义为按部就班治理国家的普通总统，而是追求在世界历史上留下断层式印记的历史巨头。 --- ### [01:01:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=3663s) 推荐书单与节目尾声 在访谈的最后，克莱恩按照惯例邀请哈伯曼为观众推荐几本近期的阅读书目。哈伯曼分享了三本不同类型的著作，涵盖了总统行政权力史、社会话题畅销书以及个人回忆录： 1. **查理·萨维奇（Charlie Savage）著《接管：帝国总统职权的回归》（*Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency*）**： 哈伯曼正在重读或研读这本经典之作。该书极其深入地剖析了“9·11”事件之后，小布什政府时期（尤其是副总统迪克·切尼主导下）美国总统行政权力的剧烈扩张，对理解当前白宫权力的运作机制具有高度的启发意义。 2. **比尔·伯登（Bill Burden）著《陌生人》（*Strangers*）**： 哈伯曼谈到，这是一本在当下随处可见、极具话题度的作品，因此她觉得有必要一读。她评价该书行文流畅、推动力极强，但同时也坦言，在当下的时代背景下，阅读书中描写的巨额财富与离婚纠葛显得有些令人五味杂陈，毕竟现实中绝大多数经历婚变的人根本不具备书中主角那样的优渥资源。 3. **基思·麦克纳利（Keith McNally）著《我后悔一切》（*I Regret Everything*）**： 纽约知名传奇餐厅老板基思·麦克纳利的回忆录。克莱恩赞叹该书读起来妙趣横生，哈伯曼也表示内容确实精彩绝伦，但由于近期高强度的突发新闻报道工作，她不得不暂时将其搁置。 最后，克莱恩向哈伯曼表达了诚挚的感谢，哈伯曼致谢道别，节目在片尾音乐中圆满结束。 ## Notable quotes > [03:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=235s) 他们两次试图杀我……我搞定过他们一次。他们曾两次想做掉我。 — 唐纳德·特朗普 > [09:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=565s) 这一次，我对伊朗会激进得多。 — 唐纳德·特朗普 > [09:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=565s) 事情最终总会冲着有利于我的方向发展 — 唐纳德·特朗普 > [11:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=687s) MAGA就是我说了算（MAGA is whatever I say it is）。 — 唐纳德·特朗普 > [18:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=1121s) 娜塔莉，去给我找真正的数字。 — 唐纳德·特朗普 > [20:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=1213s) 快点搞定，我要快！ — 唐纳德·特朗普 > [24:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=1456s) 事情总能解决，因为过去一向如此。 — 唐纳德·特朗普 > [37:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=2273s) 请给我下达进军指令吧（give me my marching orders） — 迈克·约翰逊 > [47:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=2850s) 争议提升声量（controversy elevates message） — 贾里德·库什纳 > [55:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk&t=3323s) 这是一座拱门。 — 唐纳德·特朗普 ## Mentioned 唐纳德·特朗普 (Donald Trump), 埃兹拉·克莱因 (Ezra Klein), 玛吉·哈伯曼 (Maggie Haberman), 乔纳森·斯旺 (Jonathan Swan), 埃隆·马斯克 (Elon Musk), 斯蒂芬·米勒 (Stephen Miller), 尤瓦尔·列文 (Yuval Levin), 苏茜·威尔斯 (Susie Wiles), 乔纳森·卡尔 (John Karl), 本雅明·内塔尼亚胡 (Benjamin Netanyahu), 约翰·拉特克利夫 (John Ratcliffe), 马可·卢比奥 (Marco Rubio), 卡西姆·苏莱曼尼 (Qasem Soleimani), 尼古拉斯·马杜罗 (Nicolás Maduro), 塔克·卡尔森 (Tucker Carlson), J.D.万斯 (J.D. Vance), 迈克尔·谢勒 (Michael Scherer), 杰弗里·爱泼斯坦 (Jeffrey Epstein), 托马斯·马西 (Thomas Massie), 玛乔丽·泰勒·格林 (Marjorie Taylor Greene), 娜塔莉·哈普 (Natalie Harp), 霍华德·卢特尼克 (Howard Lutnick), 劳拉·卢默 (Laura Loomer), 斯科特·佩里 (Scott Perry), 汤姆·普莱斯 (Tom Price), 托德·布兰奇 (Todd Blanche), 罗伯特·穆勒 (Robert Mueller), 罗伯·莱纳 (Rob Reiner), 詹姆斯·科默 (James Comer), 帕姆·邦迪 (Pam Bondi), 迈克·约翰逊 (Mike Johnson), 罗素·沃特 (Russ Vought), 皮特·赫格塞斯 (Pete Hegseth), 丹·凯恩 (Dan Cain), 马克·米利 (Mark Milley), 史蒂芬·张 (Steven Cheung), 贾里德·库什纳 (Jared Kushner), 佐兰·马姆达尼 (Zohran Mamdani), 乔·罗根 (Joe Rogan), 史蒂夫·班农 (Steve Bannon), 爱德·奥基夫 (Ed O'Keefe), 埃马纽埃尔·马克龙 (Emmanuel Macron), 赫伯特·胡佛 (Herbert Hoover), 查理·萨维奇 (Charlie Savage), 迪克·切尼 (Dick Cheney), 比尔·伯登 (Bill Burden), 基思·麦克纳利 (Keith McNally), 《政权更迭：唐纳德·特朗普的帝国式总统内部》 (Regime Change), 《接管：帝国总统职权的回归》 (Takeover), 《陌生人》 (Strangers), 《我后悔一切》 (I Regret Everything), 《纽约时报》 (The New York Times), Truth Social, 美国国际开发署 (USAID), 政府效率部 (DOGE), 福克斯新闻 (Fox News), MSNBC, 中央情报局 (CIA), 五角大楼 (Pentagon) ## Video description The first year of President Trump’s second term was a whirlwind of action: on immigration, on trade, on political retribution. But things seem to me to be slowing down quite a bit. Trump is incredibly unpopular, and he’s now bogged down in a war with Iran that he doesn’t seem capable of ending. He often appears more concerned with his many White House renovations than with whether the Republican Party can hold the House and the Senate in November. So what’s going on in this administration? Where is this all going? It’s hard to think of a journalist more qualified to answer those questions than Maggie Haberman. As a White House correspondent for The New York Times, she’s published some of the hardest-hitting reporting about Trump’s second act as president and the group of loyalists that now surrounds him. Haberman, alongside her New York Times colleague Jonathan Swan, just published an extraordinary chronicle of this extraordinary political moment, “Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump.” In this conversation, we discuss how decisions get made in this White House, what Trump has achieved so far and what’s really motivating him as we head toward the midterms. 0:00 Intro 1:15 Trump 2.0, Year 1 versus Year 2 3:55 How Trump views Iran 11:27 Does Trumpism even exist? 13:03 How Jeffrey Epstein exposed MAGA fissures 16:16 What does Trump actually know? 22:27 Trump’s self-dealing 38:49 Governing by executive action 42:08 Which cabinet members actually have power? 47:30 The spectacle feedback loop 51:05 Trump And Mamdani 52:35 Is age impacting Trump? 55:23 Why Trump is obsessed with renovations 57:28 Does Trump even care about policy? 1:01:03 Book recommendations Read the full transcript here: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/31/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-maggie-haberman.html Watch more on @EzraKleinShow Thoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com. You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.html [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFTtJrz7Gk)

[3:55] 唐纳德·特朗普: 他们两次试图杀我……我搞定过他们一次。他们曾两次想做掉我。 [9:25] 唐纳德·特朗普: 这一次，我对伊朗会激进得多。 [9:25] 唐纳德·特朗普: 事情最终总会冲着有利于我的方向发展 [11:27] 唐纳德·特朗普: MAGA就是我说了算（MAGA is whatever I say it is）。 [18:41] 唐纳德·特朗普: 娜塔莉，去给我找真正的数字。 [20:13] 唐纳德·特朗普: 快点搞定，我要快！ [24:16] 唐纳德·特朗普: 事情总能解决，因为过去一向如此。 [37:53] 迈克·约翰逊: 请给我下达进军指令吧（give me my marching orders） [47:30] 贾里德·库什纳: 争议提升声量（controversy elevates message） [55:23] 唐纳德·特朗普: 这是一座拱门。

[3:32] Donald Trump: They tried to get me twice. I got them once. [6:46] Donald Trump: sounds good to me [9:25] Donald Trump: regime change will be their problem [9:25] Donald Trump: I'm going to be much more aggressive on Iran this time. [11:27] Donald Trump: MAGA is whatever I say it is. [13:03] Donald Trump: believe me, not what you're hearing over there [18:41] Donald Trump: Natalie, get me the real numbers [20:13] Donald Trump: Get it done. I want it fast. [37:53] Maggie Haberman: marching orders [46:41] Jared Kushner: controversy elevates message [52:35] Steve Bannon: pure Trump [55:23] Donald Trump: It's an arch. [56:46] Donald Trump: fight, fight, fight

[0:00] He is playing for history, capital G [0:02] great man of history, to be remembered, [0:05] to be remembered by one name, to have [0:07] left a mark on the world that is just [0:10] different [music] than [0:11] a typical president or what he would say [0:13] is a a normal president. [0:15] >> Maggie Haberman is a White House [0:17] correspondent [music] at The New York [0:18] Times, a Pulitzer Prize winner, and the [0:20] co-author, alongside Jonathan Swan, of [0:22] Regime Change. I'd say the single best [0:24] book [music] [0:25] on the first 14 months of Donald Trump's [0:28] second term. She joins me now. [0:30] >> [music] [0:36] >> Maggie Haberman, welcome back to the [0:37] show. [0:38] >> Ezra, thank you for having me. [0:39] >> So, I want to talk about the experience [0:42] I had reading the book, which is [0:44] remembering how much [0:46] energy and ferocity [0:49] there was in the first 6 to 8 months [0:52] of the Trump administration. [0:53] >> Right. [0:54] >> And then knowing how many of the things [0:57] that you all were tracking here, from [1:00] the terrorists to DOJ to [1:03] um parts of society bending the knee to [1:05] Trump, to the Iran war, [1:07] >> Mhm. [1:07] >> by now feel like they have like deeply [1:10] run out of some kind of steam, or [1:12] they've ended up trapping the Trump [1:13] administration in its own decisions. So, [1:15] so I want to start with the big picture. [1:16] Um [1:18] this book is really about Trump's year [1:19] one mostly. What does year two feel like [1:21] to you? [1:23] >> First of all, thank you for having me, [1:24] and I wish Jonathan were here, but uh [1:25] his wife is having a baby soon, so and I [1:28] have permission to say that. So, uh [1:31] there's a reason that the first section [1:32] of the book is called whirlwind, and [1:35] I was thinking as you were talking about [1:37] the running out of steam piece, [1:40] I would put it a little differently. I [1:41] think it's a little it's not black and [1:43] white. Um [1:44] and Elon Musk is obviously not working [1:46] for the government anymore. [1:47] I do think it's remarkable how much of [1:49] DOJ is memory hold. Um he came in, he [1:52] was supposed to [1:53] uh change the way government was going [1:55] to work. In reality, DOJ didn't do [1:57] anything close to what it was supposed [1:58] to do. [1:59] But it did do things like show how Trump [2:01] was going to govern um [2:03] by fiat in large measure. Elon Musk shut [2:06] down USAID. Just shut it down. Shut down [2:08] an entire congressionally created [2:11] agency. [2:12] One of Trump's first unilateral actions [2:14] was firing a bunch of inspectors [2:16] general. Uh did not notify Congress, [2:18] which he's supposed to do, about why. [2:20] And he was supposed to give Congress a [2:21] 30-day notice. None of that happened. [2:23] Stephen Miller in particular rolled out [2:24] with a bunch of executive actions that I [2:26] would say some of them didn't run out of [2:28] steam. The ones focused on DEI in [2:30] particular. The one about trans women in [2:33] sports in particular. Um and certainly a [2:36] lot of their activities at the border [2:38] have not. If you were Trump supporter [2:40] and you voted for him for those reasons, [2:42] which were things he did talk about on [2:43] the campaign trail, just those three, [2:46] you would be happy. [2:47] They didn't vote for most of his base. [2:50] Um [2:51] another potential forever war in the [2:53] Middle East. So that is I think not just [2:55] running out of steam. That is um [2:57] injecting fresh chaos. He has now just [2:59] launched a fresh trade war. And so [3:01] there's the combination of [3:03] uh [3:04] new tariffs [3:05] plus escalation back to [3:08] uh engaged combat with Iran. Um could be [3:11] really interesting for the economy. And [3:13] so [3:14] I don't know that I think it's that it's [3:16] run out of steam. [3:18] But things tend to end one way with [3:20] Trump. [3:22] And it's usually in some form of uh the [3:25] lack of strategy being apparent. And I [3:27] would say that's what you're seeing [3:28] right now. So I don't know that it's [3:29] running out of steam. It's running into [3:31] Trump reality. [3:32] >> I think often of something that uh the [3:34] conservative analyst you've all loved [3:35] and said to me early in the term. He [3:37] said that [3:38] administrations have a rhythm. [3:41] At first, they are the master of events. [3:43] Everybody's responding to them. [3:44] >> It's true. [3:45] >> And then they are responding to events. [3:47] And [3:48] in Trump's case, he's often, even now, [3:52] responding to events created. [3:53] >> Correct. Which is what I was thinking [3:54] when you were saying that. [3:55] >> There's been a lot of reporting, for [3:57] instance, on Iran right now. And then [3:59] Trump, he's in the mood for revenge. And [4:02] I thought it was such a strange word [4:04] that was being chosen. Like he attacked [4:08] Iran, decapitated the leadership, [4:10] threatened to end the civilization. Iran [4:12] has not completely capitulated to him. [4:14] So he's like, he needs revenge. Like is [4:15] revenge the right word there? [4:17] I'm sure he feels it is. [4:19] >> I saw that reporting, and I actually [4:20] wondered um [4:22] whether it was just about what you're [4:23] describing, which is some kind of [4:25] retribution for a military intervention [4:27] that he began. [4:29] Or whether it was [4:31] part of this ongoing [4:34] anger at Iran that really is quite real [4:37] with him about the threats against his [4:40] life. [4:40] >> Do you want to talk through that because [4:41] I think that's an important thread of [4:42] the book. [4:43] >> Sure. I It's very much an important [4:45] thread of the book, and I think it was [4:46] incredibly I don't think, I know. I [4:47] mean, Jonathan and my reporting really [4:49] did show us how [4:52] how radicalizing those four years out of [4:55] power were, not just for the [4:57] investigations that he was facing and [4:59] that a lot of his advisors got swept up [5:00] in. [5:01] But what also happened in 2024 right [5:03] after he was convicted in a state court [5:07] on falsifying documents in connection [5:10] with a hush money payment to a porn star [5:12] who said he had [5:13] an affair with her was um [5:15] was a Pakistani man who was indicted in [5:17] connection with a murder-for-hire plot [5:19] that was supposed to be allegedly [5:22] engaged in by Iran. This was a proxy. [5:24] >> The allegation is Iran what had a proxy [5:27] was trying to hire a murderer to kill [5:29] Donald Trump. [5:29] >> Correct. And was indicted, by the way. [5:31] You know, under the Biden Justice [5:32] Department. Was indicted. But the [5:35] assassination attempt in Butler happens [5:37] right after that, where he was shot. And [5:40] it was a galvanizing moment for the [5:41] campaign. It was a galvanizing moment [5:43] for him. Um [5:45] all of that in his mind becomes one big [5:47] blur. [5:48] And around that time [5:51] is when and I don't remember it was [5:53] right before or right after, but Iran [5:54] had successfully hacked the campaign [5:56] manager's emails, Susie Wiles. According [5:58] Iran according to officials was behind [6:00] it. And they start releasing them. And [6:02] that was hugely embarrassing to the [6:04] entire campaign. It also added to this [6:06] sense of siege that they all have. They [6:09] all went back into the White House this [6:11] way for different reasons in some cases. [6:14] But for that core group and for Trump [6:15] himself [6:17] Iran and this feeling of being under [6:19] threat is constant. You heard it when he [6:21] spoke to John Carl after the Ayatollah [6:24] was killed at the beginning of this war. [6:27] And Trump said something to John Carl [6:29] that I don't think I've heard him say [6:30] since as a repeat, but it was they tried [6:33] to get me twice. I And some I'm [6:35] paraphrasing, but it was I got them [6:36] once. They tried to get me twice. Um [6:38] whatever he's referring to I don't [6:40] exactly know in terms of the twice, but [6:43] it tells you what his mindset is. [6:46] >> One story that we've heard a lot is that [6:48] Netanyahu talked Donald Trump into this [6:50] war. [6:51] Um you know, there's another [6:52] [clears throat] story that Trump himself [6:54] had distinctive views on Iran has for [6:57] some time has always said they cannot [6:58] have a nuclear weapon tore up the Obama [7:01] nuclear deal over the objections of his [7:03] own advisers has always had a very hard [7:05] line on Iran going back years. I mean [7:07] you can find old interviews way before [7:09] the presidency where he talks about Iran [7:11] humiliating us. [7:12] >> When you get the respect of the other [7:14] countries, then the other countries tend [7:15] to do a little bit as you do. And you [7:18] can create the right attitudes. The the [7:21] Iranian situation is a case in point. [7:23] That they hold our hostages [7:26] is just absolutely and totally [7:29] ridiculous. That this country sits back [7:32] and allows country such as Iran to hold [7:35] our hostages to my way of thinking is a [7:38] horror. [7:39] And I don't think they'd do it with [7:41] other countries. [7:43] I don't honestly think they'd do it with [7:44] other countries. [7:45] >> Obviously you're advocating that we [7:46] should have gone in there with troops, [7:48] etc. and brought our boys out. [7:50] >> I absolutely feel that, yes. [7:52] >> I mean you you're right about this, but [7:53] a lot of Trump's politics seem very [7:56] rooted in the 80s and things that [7:58] happened to America in the you know, the [7:59] 70s and the 80s. [8:01] But what at this point is your view [8:04] of why Donald Trump decides [8:07] to actually do a regime change oriented [8:09] war in Iran? [8:11] >> The final piece of reporting that we did [8:13] in regime change was about the lead up [8:15] to the Iran war and it was not there [8:17] there were there were things that [8:18] happened that you know, I'm sure will be [8:20] either unearthed or could fill out a [8:22] fuller picture. But we were really just [8:24] focused on a a few discreet meetings and [8:26] conversations and these were situation [8:27] room meetings, one of which included [8:29] I I have to say that I went and I tried [8:31] to find some other example that was an [8:33] analog and I couldn't of [8:35] a foreign leader coming to the situation [8:36] room to have a very sensitive [8:38] intelligence conversation with the US [8:39] president. And so Netanyahu comes on [8:41] February 11th and [8:43] Netanyahu paints this pretty compelling [8:46] to Trump's ears story about why now is [8:48] right for a regime change. [8:50] And Trump is always very receptive to [8:53] you could be the person to do XYZ and so [8:55] Trump says some version of sounds good [8:56] to me. [8:57] His own CIA director, his own Secretary [9:00] of State the next day, they have run [9:01] these scenarios. They say some of what [9:03] Netanyahu is proposing and in what the [9:05] Israelis would call their decapitation [9:07] scenario of take out the certain [9:08] leadership and then some of it could be [9:10] done. They could degrade the ballistic [9:12] missiles program in Iran for instance, [9:14] but that the regime change scenarios [9:16] that Netanyahu had presented including a [9:18] video of like who could take over and [9:20] and most of the Americans found it to be [9:23] silly. [9:24] John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, called [9:25] it farcical. Marco Rubio was much more [9:28] explicit, said it's In other [9:29] words, it's [9:31] And Trump said regime change will be [9:32] their problem. It wasn't quite clear [9:33] whether he meant Iran or Israel. [9:36] But he still thought it was worth a try [9:38] to accomplish the other objectives. [9:40] So, [9:42] that yes, was definitely Netanyahu [9:44] making a case, but [9:46] number one, Netanyahu in our reporting [9:49] in 2024 has this meeting with Trump to [9:52] essentially go kiss the ring and make [9:54] nice after a break in their [9:55] relationship. [9:57] And Trump says to him privately, [9:59] "I'm going to be much more aggressive on [10:01] Iran this time." This is right after [10:02] Butler. [10:03] Uh remember that as you said, he was [10:06] Trump was doing things against the [10:07] objections of his own advisers on the [10:09] nuclear deal, certainly the Obama [10:10] nuclear deal. Taking out General [10:12] Soleimani at the beginning of 2020 was [10:14] also against what some of his advisers [10:17] wanted. Um it is part of what has made [10:19] him such target for Iran. [10:21] Um [10:22] but he is more hawkish on Iran than he [10:24] is about [10:25] other parts of the Middle East to a [10:27] degree that is always surprised some of [10:29] his own aides. And that his current [10:31] aides have really misread, I would say. [10:33] Um you know, they will continue to [10:35] insist that he doesn't he doesn't like [10:38] Netanyahu, he doesn't like this, he [10:39] doesn't like that. And he definitely [10:41] says different things to different [10:42] people depending on who he's talking to, [10:43] but [10:44] it's always been pretty clear that he [10:46] has a firmer view here. And [10:48] Trump believed Iran was a paper tiger [10:50] after the 12-day war of last year cuz [10:52] their response was pretty tepid to the [10:54] strikes that the US engaged in. It was [10:57] sort of some choreographed strikes [10:59] toward allies. Okay, US allies. Uh Trump [11:03] believed that was going to be the extent [11:04] of it. It it was just a massive [11:06] miscalculation on his part and a and and [11:08] a lack of understanding what was [11:10] happening. And he was also fresh off of [11:13] this Venezuela [11:14] effort to capture Maduro earlier this [11:16] year. That also made him believe we can [11:18] do these things. [11:19] I'm not saying that's a rational belief. [11:21] I am saying that was his belief. And he [11:22] believes things will work out for him [11:24] always. And he said that to Tucker [11:25] Carlson, which was in the book as well. [11:27] >> It it gets to something that I think [11:29] comes through in the book and I think [11:31] about a lot from our coverage from the [11:33] first year even just on this show. [11:35] There's really, in my view, [11:37] no Trumpism, there's only Trump. [11:39] >> Correct. [11:39] >> Which is to say that the amount of [11:41] energy that gets wasted chasing down [11:45] purported doctrines. [11:47] Um, the Mar-a-Lago accords that were [11:49] getting floated at one point to do a [11:51] massive, you know, currency rebalancing [11:53] all across the world. The Don Road [11:55] doctrine, right? We'd be focusing on the [11:57] Western Hemisphere, we wouldn't be [11:58] entangled in all this [12:00] >> Right. [12:00] >> war and conflict in the Middle East. [12:04] Trump just weaves in and out of [12:07] theories. I mean, there are things he [12:08] holds to, right? He is hawkish on [12:10] immigration, has been for a very long [12:11] time, that has sustained. He has his [12:13] views on trade, but even trade, right? [12:16] The objectives [12:18] have flitted back and forth on that. [12:21] And everybody who says, "I know what [12:24] MAGA is." [12:26] "I know what Trumpism is, right? If it [12:28] is anything, as, you know, J.D. Vance [12:30] would put it, it's no new wars." [12:32] They end up wrong because Trump is [12:34] right. I think he It's possibly you he [12:36] said it to, like [12:36] >> Michael Schur at The Atlantic, he said [12:38] it to. [12:39] >> He's the one who decides [12:40] >> Right. [12:40] >> what it is. [12:41] >> "MAGA is whatever I say it is" is what [12:43] he said. Now, I think that's true now. I [12:45] guess that I I I have a slightly [12:47] different take on it, though I generally [12:48] agree with you that [12:50] trying to pin him to some ideology is [12:53] just an absolute fool's errand, and has [12:55] always been a fool's errand. He does [12:56] have these id-like impulses that he is [12:59] very interested in, but it doesn't mean [13:00] they can't be sublimated if the occasion [13:02] calls for it. I think MAGA is is a [13:05] movement, I do. I don't think MAGA is [13:07] the entire Republican Party. I think [13:08] MAGA is a movement within the Republican [13:10] Party. [13:11] And the coalition that exists around [13:14] Trump in that framework has always been [13:16] very uncomfortable and strange because [13:18] he will say different things to [13:19] different parts of it. [13:20] And I think that they would only be [13:21] willing to ignore the parts that don't [13:24] match their own view for him. I cannot [13:26] think of another figure who can unite [13:29] these different facets of this movement. [13:33] But, I do think that this movement is is [13:36] sinking not just I shouldn't say [13:37] sinking. I think that it's it's having [13:39] fissures not just because of Iran and [13:41] Israel. It started with Epstein last [13:44] year. We get into that extensively in [13:45] the book. Um right after the 12-day war [13:50] is when the Epstein crisis and I'm [13:52] calling it a crisis what it actually is [13:54] is a multi the administration failure to [13:57] deal with a pedophile. Um [14:00] who [14:01] people of both parties found [14:02] entertaining or useful or whatever. Um [14:05] but it was the MAGA movement leaders who [14:08] had been talking about it the need for [14:10] transparency over many years leading up [14:12] to Trump's [14:13] election in 2024. [14:15] And they then got caught up in that [14:17] because Trump wants nothing to do with [14:18] this. He doesn't want anything released. [14:20] Uh so it becomes a crisis because there [14:23] is growing anger by Trump's fan base [14:25] about what's happening. There's growing [14:26] anger by victims about why have these [14:29] files not been released? Why is nothing [14:30] being looked at? So you end up in this [14:33] remarkable series and we've read about [14:34] these in the book these situation room [14:36] meetings. [14:37] Same place where Trump decided to take [14:39] the country to war in Iran was what they [14:41] were using for crisis comms on how do we [14:43] get ourselves out of this mess. But if [14:45] you want to track a moment that Trump [14:46] started losing his own base, it was [14:48] then. [14:49] >> But did he lose his base? I mean, I had [14:51] people I've had people on the right on [14:52] to talk about Trumpism cracking up and [14:54] him losing his base. [14:55] >> Yes. [14:56] >> And then, you know, you look at the [14:57] polls and the base is almost entirely [14:59] with him. He's able to intervene in any [15:01] primary he wants. [15:02] He [15:03] >> That's true. [15:04] >> has not actually seemed to lose [15:06] influence in this way. Tucker Carlson [15:07] kind of breaking with him at least on [15:09] some issues. These things really [15:10] happened. [15:12] And yet his influence with Republicans [15:15] seems pretty undimmed. The people who [15:16] challenged him like Massie, like [15:18] Marjorie Taylor Greene, [15:20] >> They lost. No question. [15:20] >> They lost. They're gone. [15:21] >> They're gone. There is no I think two [15:23] things can exist at once though. A, [15:25] there was polling last year showing that [15:26] even with his own base [15:29] private mostly private polling, his [15:31] numbers were ticking down. Now, there is [15:33] no question that people who have opposed [15:35] him because the Republican base is so [15:38] Trump dependent will find themselves out [15:40] of a job. That is absolutely true. At [15:42] the same time I never thought that I [15:44] would see enough Republicans cross over [15:47] and vote for the Epstein Transparency [15:49] Act when Donald Trump openly telling [15:51] them don't do this. [15:53] It's the only time I can think of Ezra [15:55] where he would say believe me, not what [15:57] you're hearing over there. [15:59] And there were people who didn't [16:00] including in his own base. Now, what [16:02] they what their voter preference ends up [16:04] being in the midterms or in a primary, [16:07] it doesn't necessarily correlate to that [16:09] and I realize it sounds like I'm saying [16:11] two things that are contradictory. [16:13] I think these are two facts that exist [16:15] at the same time. [16:15] >> A very real threat of the book is this [16:18] what does Trump know anymore and when or [16:22] how does he know it? I mean, you have [16:23] this I wasn't really familiar with [16:25] Natalie Harp before [16:28] I read the book but this person who kind [16:30] of follows him around gets some [16:31] printouts of adoring fan mail and [16:34] positive news stories from right-wing [16:35] media. [16:36] But you know, he's on Truth Social. He's [16:38] not really on other platforms. [16:41] He clearly has some contact, you know, [16:43] with people like Carlson and and others [16:45] and you know, so he gets some [16:47] information. [16:48] But how would you describe the [16:49] difference in Trump's second term from [16:51] his first in terms of what he knows [16:55] of the world outside the White House? [16:57] >> You know, I can't stress enough how [16:59] radically different Trump 2.0 is from [17:02] term one. [clears throat] [17:03] So, this government is run basically by [17:05] a half dozen people who [17:08] are in the room with him and if you are [17:11] a senior official in this government [17:12] somewhere else, [17:14] major decisions can get made and if [17:16] you're not in the room, like you will [17:17] literally have no idea. [17:19] The interagency process, in particular [17:21] with the National Security Council, just [17:22] really doesn't exist the way it used to [17:24] and that was often how other agencies [17:27] would be brought in. That's just not [17:28] happening now. [17:30] The comms process is not quite what it [17:32] was. It was Now it's just sort of pure [17:34] trolling. Um [17:36] and he gets his information, as you [17:38] said, from Truth Social. It used to be [17:39] that he would get on what was known as [17:41] Twitter and he when he was president [17:42] last time and he would look at the [17:44] replies and he would look at the [17:46] trending topics. Uh he would talk to [17:48] more people. He does watch other cable [17:51] channels besides Fox. Um [17:54] We We learned recently that he watches [17:56] uh MSNBC a lot on the weekends. We [17:58] Jonathan and I learned that as after he [18:01] appeared to have watched one of our [18:02] appearances talking about the book. Um [18:05] So, it's a little more variegated than [18:07] it seems. [18:08] But most of the information is coming [18:10] from [18:12] Natalie Harp, who's known as the human [18:13] printer. [18:14] From people who know that he wants a [18:16] constant supply of positive [18:17] reinforcement. And his aides are afraid [18:20] of giving him bad news. And I just want [18:21] to make one other point. Fox is so much [18:23] less critical of him this term than they [18:25] were last term. Um even on the the news [18:28] shows, it is all [18:31] pretty positive and especially about the [18:33] war. They are like the last in anything [18:36] that would be considered the MAGA uh [18:38] media ecosystem that is really [18:40] championing this war. [18:41] >> We have stopped the fighting in the C [18:43] spot on the 20-yard line. We take it [18:44] into the end zone. [18:45] >> Once you start this, there needs to be a [18:47] finish and the only finish is complete [18:50] surrender by the Iranians. I hate to say [18:52] it, but complete annihilation. [18:54] >> The reason this president [18:57] will go down in history for a thousand [18:58] years, [19:00] the reason the prime minister of Israel [19:01] will go down in history for a thousand [19:03] years, [19:04] is because they saw the danger and they [19:06] stood up to the danger and they're [19:08] fighting the danger. [19:10] >> So, how much do you think [19:13] the decisions being made [19:16] reflect an altered informational [19:18] environment for him? [19:20] >> Well, it's a it's a great question that [19:22] I don't think that we have the full [19:23] answer to. I mean, one question that [19:24] keeps coming up is [19:26] does he understand how depleted the US [19:30] um munitions are from this war? Now, [19:34] that's not an unknowable thing for his [19:36] own Pentagon leaders, [19:37] but I don't know how much they're [19:38] telling him. [19:40] Uh we have a scene in the book where his [19:42] advisers, his economic advisers, [19:45] particularly Howard Lutnick, are trying [19:47] to uh [19:48] Commerce Secretary, are talking about [19:50] numbers, about uh economic numbers, and [19:53] Trump this is ahead of the trade war [19:55] liberation day last year, [19:57] and Trump says those are those numbers [19:58] are Natalie, get me the real [19:59] numbers. And so she's Googling to find [20:02] these numbers. [20:03] Um [20:04] there was pushback in this meeting, but [20:06] his willingness to operate on his own [20:08] gut and on what he thinks is reality, I [20:11] would say is much sharper um this term. [20:13] >> There There's something else I talked in [20:15] there, [20:16] which is [20:17] you describe his meetings as having this [20:20] borderless quality. [20:22] That people are [20:23] flowing in and out of the White House. [20:26] It's not necessarily, I'm sure it is [20:28] sometimes, but you know, from 10:15 to [20:31] 10:45 we're meeting with the Joint [20:32] Chiefs from 10 you know, that ends, they [20:34] all leave 10:45. [20:36] So, can you talk just a bit about that [20:38] kind of [20:39] that free-flowing nature? Because I [20:41] think the way he ends up getting [20:43] information, making decisions actually [20:44] reflects that, the slightly random [20:47] assemblage of people who might be around [20:50] on a certain issue at a certain time. [20:51] >> There's no question about that, but it's [20:53] also um [20:54] yes, that is by his design. [20:56] Uh this White House group of staffers is [20:59] much more willing to work with that as [21:01] his preferred state than term one. You [21:04] had Reince Priebus come in as the first [21:06] White House Chief of staff in 2017. [21:08] He kept trying to put things on Trump's [21:10] schedule. First it was we're going to [21:11] schedule early meetings to try to get [21:13] him to stop tweeting in the morning. [21:15] Then the meetings started sliding back [21:16] and that wasn't working. They tried [21:18] monitoring his phone calls. That didn't [21:19] work either. Um [21:21] this has always been a facet of Trump is [21:23] just there's a big long kind of day and [21:26] sometimes he has all the time in the [21:27] world, but [21:28] there is no sort of this person cannot [21:31] come in. There might be certain moments [21:33] like that or specific meetings, but in [21:35] general [21:36] he does have an open door policy. [21:38] Everything becomes this rolling bull [21:39] session. [21:40] And it so I'll give you another for [21:41] instance in the book. Laura Loomer comes [21:43] into this meeting in in April. Um I [21:45] think it was liberation day actually. [21:47] And she hands him this list of and she'd [21:49] negotiate this meeting with him [21:51] directly. Um [21:52] of of uh national security staffers who [21:55] who she believed were being disloyal to [21:57] him and that should be fired. And he's [22:00] listening and you know, he acts on it. [22:02] But in the middle of that meeting um [22:04] Congressman Scott Perry comes in to join [22:06] with his own list of things that he has [22:07] an issue with and Trump just has them [22:09] there. And so [22:11] yes, the focus is whatever is in front [22:13] of him. [22:13] >> And he just barks an order at somebody [22:14] and they go off and do it. [22:15] >> it's just get it done. I want it fast. [22:17] Fine. Whatever is in front of his face. [22:19] Uh you are correct that it does have to [22:20] do with the the the information he's [22:22] getting, but trying to stop that is also [22:25] useless because many have tried. [22:27] >> This maybe goes back to the the [22:30] question I circled at the beginning and [22:31] and maybe out of steam is not the right [22:33] way to put it, but [22:35] I always wonder with him [22:38] and probably around reporting like this [22:40] what picture he has of the way things [22:43] are going. [22:45] Because, you know, from where I sit his [22:48] trade war has been a disaster. It is [22:50] wildly unpopular. It has been shredded [22:52] by the Supreme Court. It has made people [22:54] very angry with him and it has [22:55] accomplished nothing. We're not seeing a [22:56] huge resurgence of manufacturing jobs. [22:59] China's not weaker now. I think the [23:01] broad and correct view is China's in a [23:03] much stronger position today than when [23:05] Trump stepped back into the White House. [23:07] So, sort of everything they promised on [23:09] the trade war [23:10] has not happened and the politics of it [23:12] have been bad. [23:13] DOJ completely collapsed after a couple [23:16] months. It did terrible damage. It did [23:18] terrible damage. USAID is gutted and [23:20] gone. People have died. [23:22] But [23:23] it did not then cohere into what many I [23:26] think people thought you might get, [23:28] which is like a DOJ 2.0 where, you know, [23:30] Russ Vought and others like actually [23:32] create something institutionalized. [23:35] He's not popular. The Iran war, I think, [23:37] is not going well. [23:40] >> [snorts] [23:40] >> They have no legislative agenda that I [23:42] can tell. [23:42] >> No. [23:43] >> They don't have a affordability agenda [23:45] that makes any sense. But if you're him [23:48] and you got somebody following you [23:50] around all day telling you you're [23:51] wonderful. [23:52] >> Right. [23:52] >> You think the media that is mad at you [23:54] just has Trump Derangement Syndrome. [23:57] You're getting presented with uh piece [24:00] of words by the head of FIFA. [24:03] Different CEOs are coming in and [24:05] constantly kissing your ass and telling [24:07] you how great you are. [24:10] Maybe you don't buy any of it. You have [24:12] defied the polls many times. [24:14] >> Well, you you just hit on what it is. [24:16] You've you're suddenly we've left out [24:18] one piece that we haven't discussed at [24:19] all that [24:20] I think we will all be talking about [24:22] after the midterms a lot, which is the [24:23] incredible [24:25] massive self-dealing. Uh you are richer. [24:28] If you are Donald Trump and you've spent [24:30] your whole life talking about wealth and [24:33] measuring [24:34] success through wealth uh and you are [24:36] now [24:37] wealthier liquid-wise assets than you [24:40] have ever been from an industry that you [24:42] regulate, from a company that was [24:44] created during your campaign that your [24:46] sons are running with the sons of your [24:50] special envoy. [24:52] Um [24:53] It's a sentence that it's really was [24:55] would have been unimaginable not that [24:57] long ago. Um [24:59] and you're you're doing it and [25:01] Republicans in Congress say nothing and [25:03] the Senate say almost nothing and [25:05] voters have only started to care about [25:08] some of it in polling I'm seeing and I [25:10] honestly think the main reason is less [25:12] the money made, although I do think that [25:13] that is a factor. [25:15] It's that they can see visual signs with [25:17] all of the monuments and [25:20] all of the [25:21] you know, [25:23] literally blasting through uh [25:25] long-standing [25:27] um buildings or structures like the East [25:29] Wing, planning to build an arch, um [25:34] putting down drapes so people can't see [25:36] your construction projects and so forth. [25:38] Symbols are a lot easier for voters to [25:40] understand. Um [25:42] and voters tend to think all politicians [25:43] are corrupt, but this is different than [25:46] anything we have ever seen in the US [25:48] system. But if you're him, you have been [25:50] this kind of walking moral hazard, your [25:52] company almost sank [25:55] in 1991 [25:58] and I think people don't understand [26:01] how close to ruin he was [26:03] when his casinos were [26:05] uh [26:05] >> [snorts] [26:05] >> over-leveraged. [26:06] It was across his properties, it wasn't [26:08] just there. [26:09] You come back through variety of [26:10] reasons, but partly because the banks [26:12] decided it was worth staying with you. [26:15] And your father helped you. [26:16] You become a reality TV star. [26:19] You win the presidency after never [26:21] having run for city council before. [26:24] You are indicted four times, your [26:26] opponents [26:28] keep doing things that are pretty [26:29] self-harmful. Uh Joe Biden has a pretty [26:33] non-spectacular [26:35] last 2 years at minimum of his term. [26:38] Uh [26:39] you are shot at, you survive, you have [26:41] take on this mystical quality with your [26:43] not just your followers, but with your [26:45] advisers who [26:47] refer to him or then anyway would refer [26:49] to him as the chosen one, um only [26:51] semi-joking in some cases. [26:54] And you believe everything works out for [26:55] you. [26:56] Which is literally what he said to [26:57] Tucker Carlson. [26:59] You know why the Iran war is going to [27:00] work out? Things are going to work out [27:01] because they always do. [27:04] And so you [27:05] believe that your reality is better than [27:08] what experts have been telling you. [27:10] He thinks the economy is boring. He [27:12] literally will tell advisors he finds [27:14] it's boring to talk about. He wants to [27:15] talk about [27:16] immigrants, you know, committing rapes [27:19] or [27:20] murdering people or committing crimes. [27:21] Um, [27:22] and he's going to do what he wants to [27:23] do. And he is Look, he obviously doesn't [27:25] want to be impeached again. [27:28] But when you have to say again on [27:29] impeached, it stops mattering as much [27:31] sort of I think to some extent in his [27:32] head. [27:33] >> It's also not even the first again. [27:34] >> Well, that's exactly correct. It would [27:36] be again three. Um, and so again, well, [27:38] again two, I guess. [27:39] Um, he's already told people that he's [27:41] going to [27:42] pardon everyone who walks in you know, [27:44] we write about this in the book, who's [27:45] come within a certain radius of the Oval [27:47] Office. And he has an immunity ruling [27:49] from the Supreme Court that [27:51] it's still [snorts] not entirely clear [27:52] what would qualify as a presidential act [27:54] where he has no criminal [27:56] uh, exposure, but I suspect it would be [27:58] most of them if it was pressed. So, if [28:00] you were him, [28:02] yes, it this moment could be very bad [28:04] for other Republicans, but he's not that [28:05] worried for himself. [28:07] >> Let me ask you about the corruption [28:08] dimension of this. [28:09] So, [28:11] when you talk to uh, Republicans off the [28:13] record, [28:15] often they will admit they know that we [28:19] are dealing with a level of corruption [28:21] that is majestic in its grandeur. [28:23] >> Mhm. [28:24] >> That is like nothing we've really seen [28:25] before. [28:26] >> It's not even It's not even a debatable [28:27] point when you talk to them off the [28:28] record. [28:31] >> One thing I hear people say all the [28:32] time, [28:33] um, in the media, elsewhere, just [28:35] voters, Democrats, [28:37] is any one of these stories [28:40] would have consumed Washington at [28:42] another time. [28:43] >> Mhm. [28:43] >> Would have sunk another presidency. [28:46] >> Mhm. [28:46] >> You think of, you know, [28:48] Travelgate and pig futures in the [28:51] Clinton administration. You think of [28:53] the, you know, the [28:55] Trump um cabinet member who had to [28:57] resign. I think it was Andy Price. [28:58] >> Yeah, Tom Price I think it was. [29:00] >> For what was it? Taking charter jets? [29:02] >> using jets. Yes, and we we reference [29:04] that in the book actually. Yeah. Yeah. [29:07] >> Why is it [29:09] that stories that would have consumed [29:12] Washington, even would have been a [29:13] problem for, you know, members of Trump [29:15] administration another time [29:17] seem to slide off of him, right? There's [29:19] great reporting being done at The New [29:20] York Times, at The New Yorker, at other [29:22] places. But, you know, we know a lot. We [29:24] have numbers now that we didn't used to [29:26] have. [29:27] >> Yep. [29:28] >> But, [29:29] why has he been able to flood the zone [29:34] on corruption [29:35] and then escape the consequences that [29:39] would have attached [29:40] to another administration? [29:42] >> Well, there I would break that down a [29:44] little bit. So, [29:46] what you're describing in terms of [29:47] consequences from what you just ticked [29:49] through was primarily [29:51] the consequences of a news cycle, the [29:53] consequences of public information. And [29:56] number one, I think that at this point, [29:57] if you were [29:59] a journalist [30:00] and you get into journalism [30:03] in the hopes that or the or I shouldn't [30:05] say hopes, in the expectation that what [30:07] you write is going to force an outcome [30:10] and that that is your that is your end, [30:12] you're going to be disappointed very, [30:13] very often because it is [30:16] a totally different media landscape [30:18] because there this [30:18] choose-your-own-adventure partisanship [30:21] really actually allows people to just [30:23] hear what they want to hear, number one. [30:24] Number two, [30:25] um [30:27] you know, we don't have we don't have [30:28] subpoena powers, right? We can only [30:30] write up to what we know. [30:32] In the past, investigations would have [30:34] been done by the inspectors general. [30:36] He's fired inspectors general at the [30:37] start of his term. [30:39] They would have been done by Congress on [30:41] a bipartisan level [30:42] uh basis. [30:43] Everything is tribal now. Like beyond [30:46] anything we have seen in the past. It [30:47] was pretty bad before in terms of [30:48] partisanship. Um [30:51] Uh the House GOP acts like an arm of the [30:53] the Trump administration. [30:55] The Republican House members uh and some [30:57] senators, they still look at him as a [30:59] celebrity. Yes, there's obviously a fear [31:01] factor. He has shown he is willing to [31:04] destroy their careers and really [31:05] humiliate them. [31:08] But the way that they grown men and you [31:10] know, he'll take chocolate bars out of [31:12] the what they call the chum closet that [31:14] has the presidential merch or whatever. [31:16] Um [31:17] and he'll like throw them. It's like [31:19] Hershey bars. And these are House [31:20] members who are like, "Ooh, me." They [31:22] love you know, they love being on Air [31:23] Force One with him. And [31:26] >> And a house member gushing that he knew [31:27] his first name. [31:28] >> Yes, correct. It's [31:31] this celebrity is talking to me, not [31:33] this president. This celebrity. I [31:35] watched The Apprentice. I knew Donald [31:36] Trump. [31:38] So that's one reason why. The other is [31:41] he has been investigated since almost [31:42] the second he stepped Actually, [31:44] literally the second he stepped into [31:45] office in 2017. [31:47] So I think there is a flattening effect [31:49] with the public in terms of their [31:51] expectation. [31:53] At a certain point it all becomes one [31:55] you know, Trump would smear it that way, [31:57] witch hunt. [31:58] Explaining to people that there is new [32:00] information is I think a challenge for [32:02] journalists across the board. [32:04] All of that occurs in his favor. There [32:06] is not one single reason why. And I [32:08] don't think there will ever be another [32:09] politician who will have this same [32:11] experience as he does, but we'll see. [32:13] >> Do you think that changes if Democrats [32:15] get subpoena power? [32:17] >> Uh no, I don't because I [32:20] think that if you were Donald Trump and [32:22] you can pardon everyone around you and [32:24] you can instruct your entire government [32:27] not to respond to subpoenas with [32:28] anything timely and only do it once the [32:31] final stop in a court challenge makes [32:34] you. [32:35] I mean, they look Trump's whole thing is [32:37] waiting people out and we have seen this [32:40] over and over and over again. So, there [32:43] are um [32:45] a number of members of his government [32:46] and I talked about how radicalized they [32:48] all are who do believe that they are [32:49] going to be not just subpoenaed, but [32:51] prosecuted. And I'm not just talking [32:53] about when the house flips, I'm talking [32:54] about under a Democratic presidency. [32:58] They genuinely believe, and I'm not [33:00] endorsing this view, I'm just saying [33:01] this is their perspective, um you know, [33:04] we are going to be indicted by um you [33:07] know, an an an illegitimate hunter of [33:10] the Democrats. At some point, they are [33:12] going to come after us when we are out [33:14] of power. [33:15] You know, so we are going to do [33:16] everything we can. That is entirely the [33:19] mindset. They have the same hunted [33:21] mentality that he does. Uh [33:24] I don't think it's I just think that the [33:25] people who think that the house is going [33:27] to flip and this is going to look like [33:28] it did in 2019, [33:30] I'm struggling to see that. I could be [33:33] wrong, but what happens when they issue [33:35] contempt of Congress subpoenas and they [33:37] send them [snorts] to Attorney General [33:38] Todd Blanche? Does he rush to start an [33:40] investigation? [33:42] Like I I just don't know what this looks [33:44] like. Um [33:45] but I don't see it looking like anything [33:47] we've seen before. [33:49] A Democratic strategist said to me in [33:50] 2016 right after Trump won that the [33:52] entire country was about to finally [33:54] understand how much of our system is [33:55] norms and not laws. [33:57] And fundamentally, I still come back to [33:58] that every time. If you have somebody [34:00] who [34:01] is willing to violate every norm. By I [34:05] mean, I'm really every norm. I don't [34:07] think I can think of one that he I'm [34:08] sure there's something, but [34:10] it's hard not it's hard to go down the [34:12] list and find something that is still [34:14] firmly in place. We have a president who [34:16] cheered when Robert Mueller died. Um he [34:20] he cheered when Rob Reiner was killed by [34:24] his own son according to prosecutors. Um [34:27] he is making a ton of money and they're [34:29] almost they're very blasé about it. Um [34:32] but but you know, they will say, "This [34:34] is There's no corruption here." as they [34:36] continue doing what they're doing. [34:37] They're about to start trying to [34:38] monetize his Truth Social posts for [34:39] advanced notice. It's a It's a recipe [34:42] >> you talk through that for a minute? Cuz [34:43] that that the Truth Social uh the [34:47] >> I'm sorry. [34:48] >> I I know. [34:48] >> I know. It's [clears throat] like it's [34:49] hard to describe because I remember I [34:50] started to like what? [34:51] >> it. They're trying to monetize um rapid [34:54] trading. [34:54] >> Correct. [34:55] >> on Truth Social. But but can you explain [34:57] how? [34:57] >> Yes, what they're trying to do is [34:59] sell for very, very high dollar amounts. [35:02] I think it's like $100,000. [35:05] >> Advanced notification of Trump's Truth [35:09] posts [35:10] because they can move markets and do [35:12] move markets. [35:14] It seems [35:16] ripe for even if even if it's not [35:18] violating a law for Trump because [35:20] presidents are actually not held to the [35:22] same ethical standards and laws um [35:26] uh and regulations as their staff. [35:29] I mean, how does this not become [35:30] something else? So, anyway. [35:33] >> Well, it it goes to something I think in [35:35] what you were just talking about, which [35:36] is [35:37] I think the deep answer to the question [35:40] we were just discussing is Republicans. [35:42] >> I It's It's the It's the fundamental [35:44] answer on Trump. [35:45] >> On some level, right? Like in other [35:48] administrations [35:50] even your co-partisans on something like [35:52] this would say, "No." Now, arguably [35:53] Republicans did that a bit on the IRS [35:56] slush fund. [35:57] >> It was [35:58] I mean, that was so brazen that it was a [36:00] little hard um [36:02] not to have problems with it. And I [36:04] actually I don't even remember if had [36:06] the judge already raised questions about [36:08] that? Once they did, did that give them [36:10] cover? I don't even remember, but but [36:12] yes, I mean, this was [36:14] this was you're taking taxpayer money [36:16] and doing this. [36:17] It's the taxpayer money. [36:18] >> of how not just accountability, but [36:21] investigation worked in Washington [36:23] was it I I either the other side was in [36:26] power, so they were able to structure [36:28] investigation and that the agencies are [36:31] run more professionally, the Department [36:32] of Justice run more independently, and [36:34] so they responded to investigation and [36:36] responded to subpoenas. [36:38] And that creates a [36:40] structure of and a sequencing of [36:43] information coming out and, you know, [36:45] possible consequences and people being [36:47] hauled before Congress and each one is a [36:48] new news story. [36:49] >> Correct. [36:49] >> And that's how you get the connection of [36:52] like a congressional [36:54] operation and like media coverage that [36:56] people understand as a scandal. [36:58] >> Yes, well, that is true. I mean, [36:59] >> how it works. And right, Republicans [37:02] just are not going to do that. [37:05] >> No, they're not. Um, [37:07] you know, the closest that they have [37:09] come would have been, and I'm really [37:12] stretching the word closest here, so [37:14] just [37:15] roll with me for a second, but before [37:17] you say this is absolutely not at all [37:18] parallel, cuz I'm not saying it is, but [37:20] it the closest would have been [37:23] some of what they were doing around [37:25] Epstein, but of course that took a [37:26] detour into the Clintons and all kinds [37:28] of other stuff. Um, [37:30] and by that I just mean James Comer's [37:31] committee initially, uh, which was [37:33] filing a subpoena to Pam Bondi that [37:36] the administration [clears throat] was [37:36] not happy with and then they slow rolled [37:38] that. But no, there's no there's no [37:40] analog. I mean, if you look back at the [37:41] last real [37:44] effort that attempted to be [37:46] moderately bipartisan, it would have [37:48] been the J6 committee. And uh, the [37:50] select committee that was investigating [37:51] what happened [37:53] uh, in the lead-up to the January 6th [37:56] riot at the Capitol and Trump's efforts [37:57] to overturn the election. [37:59] But even that devolved into partisan [38:00] politics, and so there you have it. [38:03] >> It was striking to me how small of a [38:05] role Congress played in this book. [38:08] >> Uh, well, [38:10] there's a couple of reasons. It's a good [38:11] It's a It's a It's a point. [38:14] But the reality is that Congress plays a [38:16] supplicant role. We did talk about that. [38:18] We talked about Mike Johnson's role with [38:20] Trump and how incredibly unusual it is [38:21] historically. There's just There has not [38:23] been a relationship like this between a [38:24] house speaker and a president that I can [38:27] think of where it's literally give me my [38:28] marching orders this way that is not [38:30] about policy. It's about just whatever [38:33] you want it to be. But the reality is [38:35] there is no legislative agenda as you [38:36] said. There was the one big beautiful [38:38] bill and we did talk about that and we [38:39] do get into [38:41] what went into that, but [38:43] this administration knew that it was [38:45] never going to be able to do much [38:46] legislatively. [38:48] Um [38:49] >> But this again goes to me to to this [38:51] question of what is actually being [38:54] built here versus what is just kind of [38:58] collapsing or being like left left left [38:59] alone. [39:00] On even a lot of these issues. Okay, so [39:02] the big beautiful bill did pass. It's a [39:04] big change and you know, as the actual [39:07] changes to Medicaid and food stamps and [39:09] other things will have a lot of will [39:09] have a lot of [39:11] um political upheaval around that. [39:13] >> Yes, there and there will be more focus [39:14] and there will be more and there will be [39:15] more coverage and interest. I agree with [39:17] that. [39:17] >> Look, their trade agenda got gutted. [39:19] >> Mhm. [39:20] >> They could have gone to Republicans in [39:21] Congress to get more power on tariffs. [39:25] They chose not to do that. Did [39:27] Republicans Congress keep them from ever [39:28] changing the filibuster? [39:30] I don't know. Like they've been kind of [39:31] tough on that, but they've also like [39:34] nicked it around the edges a little. [39:36] >> A little. [39:36] >> Immigration. Um they've done a [39:38] tremendous amount on immigration. I [39:39] think of everything you can look at they [39:41] have done the most on immigration. [39:42] >> Correct. [39:43] >> What they have not done is change the [39:44] laws. [39:45] >> Well, because that takes time. I mean [39:47] this isn't complicated. This is [39:49] >> But it also means that another [39:50] administration can [39:51] >> I understand that, but they also assume [39:53] that's going to happen regardless. I [39:54] mean I think that just to try to explain [39:56] the mindset here. [39:57] Um [39:58] the person who spent the most time, and [40:00] I'm glad you brought up immigration, the [40:01] person who has spent the most time [40:02] thinking about a Trump 2.0 and not just [40:05] from the perspective of of immigration, [40:07] but obviously that's his [40:08] driving issue and defining issue is [40:10] Stephen Miller. And he's spent 4 years [40:12] focused on [40:14] not just what he wanted to do [40:17] differently this time to be more of a [40:20] you know, the the initial Muslim ban was [40:22] a disaster um and a court challenge [40:25] disaster and it was poorly written and [40:26] so forth in 2017. [40:28] And it it created mass chaos on flights [40:31] and so forth. [40:32] Stephen Miller spent 4 years looking at [40:34] how far the law could go on a number of [40:37] things. What was in the executive [40:38] branch's control? What could be claimed [40:40] as an executive branch power, which [40:42] they've done a lot and they've gotten [40:43] caught in courts on this. So as you [40:45] know, and that's sort of part of what [40:46] you're saying I think is if you don't [40:48] want to have a big court fight, go work [40:51] through the actual process. [40:53] They would rather have a big court fight [40:54] because if you go through the process, [40:56] it's going to move slowly and their [40:58] gamble is that they can win [41:00] much of the time, not every time. The [41:02] trade agenda was a calamity for a [41:04] variety of reasons, [41:06] but it wasn't just because they didn't [41:07] go to Congress. It was because the [41:08] formula made no goddamn sense. [41:10] >> But DOJ is another example where [41:12] >> DOJ is a great example where [41:12] >> what they wanted to do, you actually [41:14] need to do civil service reform. [41:15] >> And they've done a little bit of that, [41:17] but it's not civil service reform. It's [41:19] just doing schedule F and it's [41:20] correcting the Yes. [41:22] >> But that's not again [41:24] who This actually gets to a different [41:26] problem. They don't all There's no There [41:28] isn't a they actually. They don't total [41:30] They don't all work in harmony even [41:32] though they collectively want the same [41:35] thing, which is crush the left, expand [41:37] our power, [41:38] focus on a a specific set of issues and [41:41] we've gone over many of them on this [41:42] show. [41:44] But Russ Vought actually understands how [41:46] government works. [41:48] Elon Musk did not. He just came in and [41:50] started punching through walls. Um [41:52] in some cases literally you know, [41:54] physical aspects were impacted by by how [41:57] he handles things. [41:59] That is different also than how Stephen [42:00] Miller wants to handle certain things. [42:03] And so that creates its own internal [42:05] crash. Then add Congress to that as a [42:06] layer, it's hard to say. [42:08] >> Has there been a shift in who holds [42:10] power in the court in the last year? [42:12] >> Yes, but it can change quite rapidly. [42:15] Marco Rubio had a lot of capital with [42:17] Trump um for a long time. I think he [42:19] still does, but he is really not that [42:21] involved in the Iran issue. Um [42:24] >> He is Because Trump doesn't want to be [42:25] because he doesn't want to be near it. [42:27] >> I I think it's more the latter, [42:28] honestly. I think that Trump would [42:30] welcome his [42:31] um involvement more, but and he may get [42:33] more involved now, but uh we you know, [42:36] he's been talking about it a little bit [42:37] more, but uh [42:39] I think that Rubio, if you strapped him [42:41] to a polygraph, this is not where he [42:43] wants things to be. [42:45] Um Susie Wiles is still hugely [42:47] influential. Stephen Miller, despite [42:48] these stories about how he was getting [42:50] his wings clipped and whatever after [42:53] Rene Goodale and Alex Preddy were killed [42:54] in Minnesota, that was vastly [42:56] overstated. The showy displays of, you [42:59] know, repelling into a building in [43:01] Chicago from a Blackhawk, which I still [43:03] can't really believe happened last year, [43:06] but [43:07] they have stopped the [43:09] the great displays of force. They are [43:11] still using force, and it but it's not, [43:14] you know, these ICE drives the same way. [43:16] It's the traffic stops. That's what the [43:17] latest shootings were about. Stephen [43:19] Miller has taken down his arrest number [43:22] for undocumented immigrants from last [43:24] year. It was 3,000 a day last year, now [43:26] it's 2,000 a day. And he's back to [43:27] pushing people, and he's very, very [43:29] aggressive on these calls. So, [43:31] >> [snorts] [43:31] >> Miller still has power because Miller [43:33] can also tell Trump, "I can get you what [43:35] you want very quickly." Which is also [43:37] again why they don't go to Congress. [43:38] They want to act unilaterally. Trump [43:40] wants to act unilaterally. He just wants [43:41] to do what he wants. Um [43:44] Hegseth is still actually pretty [43:45] powerful with Trump. Ratcliffe is on [43:47] certain issues, but the person who is [43:48] most powerful is Trump, period. [43:50] >> Hegseth is powerful with Trump. Trump [43:52] listens to him? [43:53] >> He listens to him on certain issues. [43:54] Hegseth has figured out how to have [43:57] conversations. [43:58] Look, Hegseth, if there was anyone who [44:00] was in favor of Iran, it was Hegseth. Um [44:02] but I I don't think he fully envisioned [44:05] it going this way, either. Hexseth often [44:08] shows up for these briefings with Trump [44:10] with Dan Cain. He has figured out how to [44:13] handle these discussions so that he is [44:15] turning to somebody who actually has [44:16] better tactical understanding. [44:18] Uh but Trump does listen to him and he [44:19] likes him. [44:20] >> general who [44:21] >> The former general who's now the [44:22] chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, [44:23] but whose style is very different than [44:25] Trump's last choice for chairman of the [44:26] Joint Chiefs of Staff, which was Mark [44:27] Milley, who would get into these sort of [44:29] grab Trump by the lapels arguments. He [44:31] did see his job as telling Trump which [44:33] way to go. Cain has told people he [44:35] doesn't see that as his job. Um [44:38] Hexseth is a um a die-hard Trumper, not [44:41] MAGA Trumper, and so that buys you a lot [44:44] of cachet internally. [44:45] >> Yeah, so that that was my question with [44:46] him. Is he somebody who Trump enjoys as [44:48] a yes man or who Trump listens to for [44:50] strategic advice? [44:52] >> More the former than the latter, but the [44:55] strategic advice is also channeled [44:57] through these joint conversations with [44:59] Hexseth. Um [45:01] but he does listen to him and he likes [45:02] him. You know, he's good on TV, he's [45:04] tough. He [45:06] he doesn't he doesn't take crap, etc., [45:07] etc. And he is a devotee. [45:09] >> What have the people uh in the inner [45:11] circle learned about how to brief Trump? [45:13] >> It's a good It's a good question. [45:14] >> This is it It sits around the edge of a [45:17] lot of the stories in your book of [45:18] people bringing in poster boards, right? [45:20] You know [45:20] >> still faulty. That's one person, but [45:22] yes, I understand. [45:23] >> But But I've heard from other people [45:24] around the briefing books that they're [45:25] very visual. [45:26] >> totally. [45:27] >> Tell Tell me what people have learned [45:29] about how you brief Donald Trump. [45:30] >> He Trump is very visual, as you said, uh [45:33] and this was a a big facet of term one, [45:35] too. Now they all submit to it. I think [45:37] they resisted it the government cuz it [45:38] was so unusual to them in term one, but [45:42] he really doesn't like long briefing [45:44] books. Um he doesn't really read them. [45:47] He wants to be shown how things look. [45:49] That is how he absorbs them. [45:51] This is People describe him and they'll [45:53] say he's a TV guy and they tend to think [45:54] of it as him [45:56] on the set of The Apprentice, but it's [45:58] actually really how he absorbs the world [45:59] is through TV. And so [46:01] he likes to see [46:03] how things look. [46:04] Just having a dry recitation of facts in [46:06] discussions with him [46:08] doesn't work very well. But, [46:11] even when it was visuals in term one, [46:13] the quality of the information was [46:15] fairly reliable. There's a much bigger [46:18] fight now about the quality of the [46:19] information. [46:21] Whether you include a like essentially [46:24] raw intelligence, whether you tell him [46:26] reports that are unverified, whether it [46:28] is just a different type of discussion. [46:31] >> The amount that he relies on [46:34] a sense of how things are either playing [46:36] visually, right? There are moments in [46:38] the book where and that I've heard [46:40] about, too, [46:41] where he sees what it's looking like [46:43] when the Israelis are doing something. [46:45] Now, he wants to be involved. Or if the [46:47] flip, right? Where he is being shown [46:50] possible cabinet appointees. [46:52] And they give him little [46:55] montages of them on cable news. [46:58] There is something very deep about [47:00] Trump's He doesn't just apprehend the [47:03] world visually. He is a somewhat a a [47:05] master of creating visuals for the [47:08] world. [47:08] >> 100% yes. [47:09] >> He, you know, Hegseth [47:11] is one of many people he sort of cast [47:13] into his administration. [47:16] He was a an innovator in this. I mean, I [47:18] think you have to see Mamdani as having [47:21] like a different version of this, a kind [47:23] of visual mastery of the world. I just [47:25] had Morris Katz on the show. They very [47:26] much [47:27] found Graham Plater and cast him in a [47:29] very particular position. But, [47:32] again, this operates on the the the [47:33] edges of the book, but I'd be curious to [47:34] hear you bring it to the the center of [47:36] the stage, which is [47:38] what has it meant [47:41] to have this [47:42] administration that both [47:44] makes internal decisions through [47:47] spectacle [47:48] and then communicates [47:50] through spectacle. [47:52] That that judges visually and acts [47:54] visually. [47:55] >> It becomes a self-reinforcing feedback [47:57] loop sometimes, right? I mean, so when [47:58] you were talking about Heggseth, we have [48:00] a bit in the book about how he [48:03] you know, he got very into these these [48:05] videos of the boat strikes and um they [48:08] would be privately described as [48:10] Heggseth's um snuff films. Um but, you [48:13] know, he would he would he would want to [48:16] have some sent to Trump because he knew [48:17] Trump would want to see them. Um [48:21] Trump is a [48:23] master of the attention economy, which [48:27] is what I was thinking about when you [48:28] were talking about Momadou Ndiaye. I [48:29] think that that is [48:31] part of the attention economy is [48:33] creating a visual and is getting [48:34] something that will grab people. [48:36] Momadou Ndiaye was exceptionally good at [48:38] that in his campaign. Um and still is, [48:40] honestly. I mean, when I look at his [48:42] social media just as mayor, it is [48:44] actually quite striking how much of it [48:45] still comes into my feed. Even if I'm [48:47] not looking for it, even if I'm not [48:48] looking at his thing. Um [48:50] but it becomes a way to tell yourself [48:52] that your view of reality is what's [48:54] happening. So, for instance, um we would [48:57] see in the book where Stephen Miller [48:59] comes into It was really an important [49:01] moment. He comes into the Oval Office [49:03] and he's got these pictures of this kid [49:05] from Dodge whose name [49:08] online was Big Balls. That's what he was [49:10] known as. And his actual name is Ed [49:13] something. But, um he um [49:16] he had been beaten up and he he's got [49:18] these photos that Stephen Miller gotten [49:20] from his wife who [49:21] had been working with Musk at Dodge. [49:24] That then fires up something that [49:25] Trump's been wanting to do forever, [49:26] which is send National Guard into DC. Um [49:30] it becomes a way of [49:33] it isn't just about seeing visuals that, [49:35] you know, [49:36] reaffirm your point. Um [49:40] It is basically that your world is no [49:42] competing viewpoints and that everything [49:44] is just going in through the eyes. It [49:46] stops you from thinking the same way. [49:47] It's [49:48] because part of I I this is my this is [49:50] my opinion now. I'm getting a little [49:51] inside his head, which I'm [49:53] try not to do cuz it's not very very [49:55] worthwhile endeavor, but [49:56] I do think that when people are [49:58] consuming their own content that way, [50:01] so much of consumption of visuals is is [50:04] about you you react you react. And so, [50:06] it's just a constant reaction. And that [50:08] is what they try doing with these videos [50:10] that [50:11] um Steven Cheung does when he's [50:13] trolling. You know, they set the the [50:15] what else communications director [50:17] who's a big [snorts] UFC guy, for [50:18] instance. They set these videos of these [50:21] strikes like to to like actual video [50:24] game music [music] and dynamics. [50:38] >> Or um I thought this was a fascinating [50:40] detail in the book, [50:41] to the music of artists who are going to [50:43] protest. [50:43] >> Correct. That's what they're [50:44] >> to say, "How dare you use my music in [50:47] this way?" And then that's another news [50:48] cycle for them. [50:49] >> Correct. Um one of the things that [50:51] Kushner used to tell people in the White [50:53] House last time was that [50:55] he would describe what he called Trump [50:56] rules, and one of them was controversy [50:58] elevates message. And so, [51:01] there's no quicker way to do that. But [51:02] it's also a way to say, "I'm not going [51:04] to follow your rules." [51:05] >> What did you make of the Trump-Mam Dani [51:06] meetings? [51:07] >> Uh I was so not surprised, and it went [51:10] exactly as I thought it was going to in [51:12] all seriousness. But [51:14] Trump's uh own team is a little um [51:17] uh jarred by uh [51:20] how much he enjoys talking to Mam Dani [51:21] and how [51:23] as much as Republicans are trying to [51:25] talk about how, you know, [51:27] socialists or communists, and Trump is [51:29] even doing that in his own speeches, but [51:30] he seems to have a real carve out for [51:31] one particular person. And I know he's [51:32] attacked him a few times recently, Mam [51:34] Dani, but [51:35] Mam Dani is um [51:37] he's very good. I mean, apparently in [51:38] their first meeting, Mam Dani was [51:40] referring to the crossover of voters [51:42] that that were Trump voters at his own [51:44] rallies. Mam Dani's been quite smart. [51:47] >> The Trump-Momdani meetings, uh [51:50] they reflect what I thought was the [51:52] funniest part of your book, [51:54] which is Trump's tendency [51:57] to be incredibly conciliatory and [51:59] friendly [52:00] when he meets one-on-one with people who [52:03] he has been [52:05] slandering, who his administration might [52:06] be entirely persecuting. [52:10] But for somebody who is so brash and [52:12] aggressive, [52:14] he's a bit of a pussycat one-on-one. [52:17] >> Um he does not like one-on-one [52:19] interpersonal direct conflict. Uh this [52:22] has been a a constant in his life. Um [52:25] sometimes he does it intentionally just [52:27] to [52:28] sort of make the person be off guard. [52:30] But with Momdani, he seems to genuinely [52:32] like him. So, for whatever that's worth. [52:35] >> Do you feel Trump is changed with age, [52:37] or the age is [52:39] slowing him in meaningful ways? [52:41] >> I mean, define meaningful. I I [52:44] when I watch him on television from even [52:47] 10 years ago, I mean, I was watching his [52:49] RNC address in 2016 recently, and it's a [52:52] a pretty jarring [52:53] uh [52:54] comparison to [52:56] just how his words flow now. Um [52:59] he speaks much slower. Um he's telling [53:01] the same stories a lot. The weave is [53:02] getting wide, as Joe Rogan would say. [53:04] That's definitely true. [53:06] I will say that Jonathan and I spent an [53:09] hour with him in the Oval Office on [53:10] March 16th of this year for a fact-check [53:12] interview for the book. We didn't notice [53:14] anything meaningfully different. Um what [53:16] we did notice is that he seemed like [53:17] what Steve Bannon describes as pure [53:19] Trump. There was just much more [53:22] focus on payback, much more focus on [53:24] what he wants to be focused on. Um very [53:27] obsessed with the renovation projects, [53:28] very. And and you know, here's the [53:30] models of day 17, here's the models of [53:32] the ballroom and so forth of the war day [53:34] 17 of the war. Here's my models of the [53:35] ballroom and so forth. That was It was [53:37] like he didn't have a care in the world, [53:38] but [53:39] I don't subscribe to this dementia [53:40] conversation. I don't think Trump is [53:42] some fundamentally different human [53:43] being. I just don't. Um [53:46] Uh but I think he is much more himself, [53:48] um which is a product of age in general. [53:50] >> There was a sense [clears throat] [53:52] maybe the better way to put it is that [53:54] there was a [53:55] thread on practically lefty social media [53:59] 6 8 months ago around the sort of [54:01] strange bruising people were seeing. [54:03] >> is weird. I mean, yes. [54:04] >> The sort of the ankle swelling [54:07] that he was quite sick. [54:09] >> In terms of physical health, he has [54:11] chronic venous insufficiency [54:13] syndrome disease, whatever it's called. [54:15] That means that the blood is not going [54:16] to his heart properly. So, [54:18] that's not a good thing. Um you know, on [54:20] his first medical report in 2018, [54:24] he had a calcium score of I think 133. [54:26] That suggests some level of heart [54:27] disease. They have not put out a calcium [54:29] score since. Um [54:31] he was very sick with COVID in 2020, and [54:33] we still don't know the extent of that. [54:35] I mean, I reported some on that from [54:36] information we got well after he was out [54:37] of office, but [54:39] you know, we don't we don't know what we [54:40] don't know. And his health notes read as [54:42] if he's written part of them. So, you [54:44] know, he goes to Walter Reed with more [54:46] frequency, and they release less [54:47] information. Um [54:49] he got imaging. We don't even know what [54:51] they were. Um [54:52] he can't tell us. He says he was treated [54:54] by 22 specialists. What 22? I don't even [54:58] know what that could be. And the the [54:59] bruising thing, the explanation has [55:00] never made sense. It's always been hand [55:03] shaking, aspirin. I It could be that [55:05] 80-year-olds have thinner skin, but [55:08] I he's he's clearly not the the picture [55:10] of great physical health, but I don't [55:12] know what that means. You know, I what I [55:13] know what I generally know what it means [55:15] is that [55:15] um electing 80-year-olds is a bit of a [55:17] gamble, right? I mean, electing anybody [55:18] isn't a gamble. You don't know how [55:20] somebody's health is going to be, but [55:21] you can guess where it's going when [55:23] they're older. [55:23] >> How much of his time actually goes into [55:25] the renovation now? [55:26] >> A lot. If you looked at like [55:29] like a chart of his mind share, like [55:31] this I will say about getting into his [55:33] mind, um like 70% of it would be on his [55:36] renovations. It's It's It's a legacy [55:39] thing, but it's [55:41] It's I always think of legacy with him [55:43] different than the way we usually use [55:44] the word legacy. It's all It's [55:47] Um it's not what am I leaving behind for [55:49] the world, it's what am I leaving behind [55:50] so the world can't kick me off the world [55:53] or deplatform me or take my name off [55:56] buildings in Manhattan or take away my [55:58] Bronx leased golf course, you know, or [56:00] debank me. It's what can I do that [56:04] cannot be taken away. [56:05] >> Yeah, how can I create monuments to [56:07] myself? [56:07] >> Correct. I mean literally. I mean he [56:09] literally said that when Ed O'Keefe from [56:10] CBS asked him, he noticed the arch, [56:14] um which he's calling the Arc de [56:15] Triomphe um design on the Resolute desk [56:19] and he asked her on the desk I don't [56:20] know if it was the Resolute. I think it [56:21] was back up by then. [56:22] Ed said, "What is that?" And Trump's [56:24] like, "It's an arch." [56:35] And he was quite quite clear about it. [56:37] There was no further conversation. [56:38] Um the Kennedy Center, um the ballroom, [56:42] um [56:43] you know, I mean I can go on and on, but [56:45] it is all monuments to himself. [56:46] >> Can you tell the Macron story with the [56:48] arch? [56:48] >> Yeah, I'm [56:49] going to eff this up a little bit, but [56:51] he in a in a meeting he um [56:54] he calls it So one of the things he was [56:56] musing about was um [56:58] like what should go on top of the arch [57:00] and it was like should he put a version [57:01] of the gold version of like the fight [57:02] fight fight fists from Butler up there. [57:05] But he calls Macron in the middle of [57:06] another meeting and starts asking him [57:08] about the Arc de Triomphe in uh [57:11] in France and you know, what's it like [57:13] and and how many people you know, does [57:14] it have a visitor's desk? Do people jump [57:16] off of it? I mean, this was the [57:18] conversation that he was interested in [57:19] and he's still talking about this kind [57:22] of thing. Um but calls up a foreign [57:24] leader to inquire about what his Arc de [57:27] Triomphe should look like. [57:28] >> Speaking of the other side of legacy, [57:29] the more traditional way we would talk [57:31] about legacy. [57:32] Does he have things he still wants to [57:34] achieve politically? It's a really good [57:36] It's a really good question. [57:39] I could answer that pretty clearly in [57:41] 2019 and 2020. There were things that he [57:43] still wanted to achieve. [57:45] Um [57:46] I [57:48] If they are If there are things that he [57:50] wants to achieve, um beyond just sort of [57:52] not being Herbert Hoover as he would [57:54] say, [57:55] meaning with a a giant global crisis, um [57:57] not really. I mean, he Look, he's [57:59] resumed his trade war as you as you [58:01] said. Uh I think he'd like to achieve [58:03] getting out of Iran. I think he would [58:04] like to figure out an end to that the [58:06] war that he started. Um [58:08] But that's not an achievement. That's a [58:09] reaction to his own behavior as we [58:12] started this episode with. [58:14] There are people around him who would [58:16] him who would like to see some form of [58:17] comprehensive immigration reform to your [58:19] question about legislation. [58:21] That's something that we can work with [58:23] Democrats on. [58:24] I Boy, do I have a hard time seeing [58:26] Democrats wanting to give him some kind [58:28] of a political win that way, especially [58:30] when it would be, I suspect, a bill they [58:32] would find less than palatable as they [58:33] have almost every single other bill [58:35] involving anything related to [58:36] immigration with him. [58:37] >> Maybe another way of of asking this is [58:39] are there actual policy issues his mind [58:42] is gravitating towards in the way it [58:44] does towards the renovation right now? [58:47] >> what you're asking. [58:47] >> Yeah, I know. I [58:48] And the answer is no, right? [58:49] >> Yeah, I mean, I I I I would give I mean, [58:51] that could change. They could be having [58:52] conversations we're not aware of. Um [58:55] But certainly not in anything that we [58:57] have heard. I mean, if anything, what he [58:59] spent the last [59:00] year and a half focused on, [59:03] you know, as issues top one, two, and [59:04] three were [59:06] retribution, [59:08] were these bullying campaigns across [59:10] various industries and aspects of civil [59:12] society, where he was pretty successful [59:14] for a time. The law firms won, the [59:15] courts caught up with him, but media, [59:17] he's [59:18] done pretty well, I would say, in terms [59:20] of his attacks on the media. Not not not [59:22] through the government levers, but [59:24] through lawsuits. [59:25] But renovations is really a huge part of [59:28] it. I mean it it's [59:30] the degree of mind share on these [59:32] projects is is vast. Um, he is vastly [59:36] less interested in and reactive to [59:38] domestic politics this time. Just just [59:41] beyond. And one of the things that we [59:43] started seeing in 2024 [59:45] and we get into this. This relates to [59:47] the in the book it relates to the [59:48] mystical quality. He sees himself as big [59:51] on a level that I think people really [59:52] don't understand and and they're [59:55] it was quite clear when we were sitting [59:56] with him and we write about that in the [59:57] epilogue of the book, but he is playing [60:00] for history. Capital G great man of [60:02] history. Um, to be remembered to be [60:05] remembered by one name to have left a [60:08] mark on the world that is just different [60:10] than [60:11] a typical president or what he would say [60:13] is a a normal president. [60:15] That doesn't [60:17] involve the boring work of trying to [60:19] pass a bill. That doesn't involve the [60:21] boring work of going to [60:23] Iowa to talk about XYZ. See all those [60:25] numbers are not great in Iowa now [60:26] either. I mean this is [60:28] this is fundamentally less interesting [60:29] to him. Immigration, very interesting to [60:32] him. I think that if he could find some [60:33] way to [60:34] even further change the immigration [60:36] system and claim credit for that [60:38] he would. Um, that did not involve [60:40] legislation. He may still end up trying [60:42] to do something legislatively. It [60:43] wouldn't surprise me at all. I just [60:44] don't see it going very far, but [60:47] >> [snorts] [60:47] >> but who knows. I'm willing to be [60:48] surprised. But no, there is not [60:50] room in the tank for [60:53] here is how we are going to map out XYZ. [60:56] They are in survival mode politically to [60:59] a degree that I I kind of can't express. [61:02] >> I think that's a good place to end. Also [61:04] final question, what are a few books you [61:05] recommend to the audience? [61:06] >> Okay, so I'm reading Charlie Savage's [61:08] Takeover, The Return of the Imperial [61:10] Presidency, which was a very very good [61:12] look at how particularly Dick Cheney [61:14] expanded [61:15] executive power under W. Bush post 9/11. [61:19] I am reading [61:21] Bill Burdens [61:22] Strangers because a book that is that [61:25] everywhere I sort of feel compelled to [61:27] have some sense of. [61:29] >> I haven't read it yet. Is it good? [61:31] >> It's interesting. [61:33] It's interesting. It's well written. [61:35] It's definitely propulsive. [61:37] It's an interesting choice to write [61:39] about such wealth [61:42] in this moment. It was [61:44] that was a little hard to [61:46] to get through because there are many [61:48] people who go through divorces who [61:50] don't quite have the same [61:52] resources. [61:53] And then Keith McNally's I Regret [61:55] Everything. [61:56] >> Oh, that book has been fun. [61:57] >> It's actually fantastic. So, but I've [61:59] had to cycle out of that one from [62:02] uh [62:03] for news and for other reasons. So. [62:05] >> Maggie Haberman, thank you very much. [62:06] >> That's right. Thanks for having me. [62:10] >> [music] [62:18] [music]