'I don't even think it's disputable' losing 2020 was the best outcome for Trump: Haberman & Swan

[0:00] And joining me now are New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan. [0:04] They are the authors of the new book, Regime Change, Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald [0:09] Trump. Maggie and Jonathan, thank you both for being here. Had a little time off this week, [0:13] dove into this incredible read. It is so good, and I'm so glad that you're here to talk about it. [0:18] I want to start with the midterms. It's interesting coming off our conversation with [0:21] Senator Marshall. Your reporting suggests that President Trump may not share the same [0:25] concerns that Republicans have about maintaining their majorities this fall. You write, quote, [0:31] Trump had already climbed his own mountain with his improbable comeback in 2024. [0:35] If Republicans were wiped out in the 2026 midterm elections or in 2028, [0:40] he could simply boast that they couldn't win without him. Trump could barely be stirred to even [0:45] think about the midterms. Jonathan, does President Trump actually care whether or not Republicans win [0:51] in the fall? Well, it's not black and white, and it's not to say he doesn't care at all. [0:55] But what we found in our reporting for the book is that his closest aides, his top aides, [1:01] wish he cared more. Okay? And there was a very revealing comment that Trump made last year when [1:09] Republicans did extremely poorly in the off-year elections. He said, people have been saying they [1:16] can't win without Trump on the ballot. And he said, that's a great honour. Okay? So play that forward [1:22] a little bit. He obviously doesn't want to get impeached again. But at the same time, you know, [1:29] he's not going to get convicted. There's no universe in which he gets convicted. The Supreme [1:33] Court gave him sweeping immunity in 2024. We have reporting in our book that he has told people [1:39] privately that he's going to pardon anyone who came within 250 feet of the Oval Office. He uses [1:46] different distances. Sometimes he says 200 feet. Sometimes he says 25 feet. But there's some [1:52] radius around the Oval Office, which is a pardon zone. Yeah. So really what he's spending his time [1:58] doing is trying to make his own imprint on Washington, physical and figurative, and on the world. [2:04] Yeah. So one of the other striking portraits in your book is of Vice President J.D. Vance. He appears [2:10] to be someone, at least on some level, willing to tell President Trump things he doesn't [2:13] necessarily want to hear. The best example, of course, being Iran. You write, quote, [2:18] Vance believed a regime-changed war with Iran would be a disaster. In front of his colleagues, [2:23] Vance had warned Trump that a war with Iran could break apart his political coalition [2:27] and would be seen as a betrayal by many voters who had bought into his promise of no new wars. [2:34] How did Vice President Vance's willingness to push back ultimately affect his standing with President [2:39] Trump? So it's a really interesting dynamic because he was not the only person who opposed [2:45] this war in Trump's world, to be clear. In our reporting, and we write about this in the book, [2:50] none of Trump's senior advisors, none of his cabinet really thought this was a good idea. Although we [2:55] should make clear that the people who were let into these discussions were so tiny as a group that it [3:01] excluded the Treasury Secretary and the Energy Secretary, the people who would have to manage the [3:05] aftereffects of an energy fallout from this war because they were concerned about leaks. But Vance [3:12] was the only one who really vocally took issue with this with Trump. And it irritated Trump. It [3:19] cost Vance with Trump. But he was the only person who was really sort of rattling the cages. [3:25] There were other advisors who did make cases against this. We should note that Dan Kane did lay out [3:31] the scenarios for what could happen. Munitions, depletion, which clearly the U.S. is seeing right [3:37] now in a real way, despite the fact that the administration keeps insisting otherwise. The fact [3:42] that Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz. So the president will keep saying he wasn't warned. He [3:47] absolutely was warned. But Dan Kane is not Mark Milley of Term 1. He is not engaging in these angry [3:53] arguments with Donald Trump. And you do sort of see that play out. But there is an interesting [3:58] dynamic between the vice president and the secretary of state, Marco Rubio. Many view them [4:02] as one of his potential successors. In any way, did the Iran debate maybe tilt that competition [4:08] toward Secretary Rubio? Trump likes to play games with people. That's not new to anybody. He has been [4:13] doing this version of poll testing. Who do you like? Do you like Marco or do you like J.D. Vance? In fact, [4:19] we have this pretty remarkable scene in the book where at a dinner with Rupert Murdoch and a bunch of other [4:24] people in the Blue Room of the White House last October. Vance is there. Rubio is there. Several [4:31] other people are there. And Trump starts asking Murdoch, you know, what do you think of Vance? And [4:36] Murdoch, who did not want Vance to be the VP, says that J.D. has the potential to be great. And Trump [4:41] says, what about Marco? And Murdoch just sort of flatly says Marco is brilliant. So I don't know that [4:47] it needed too much tilting. I will say there is nothing in our reporting that suggests that Rubio is [4:52] doing the things one would be doing to run. And it is still Vance is to lose, which also doesn't [4:57] necessarily thrill Trump, who doesn't, as Jonathan said, like the idea of somebody coming next. [5:02] Yeah. Well, let's talk about the backdrop of Iran. And that's President Trump's relationship [5:06] with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And you describe a very tense phone call between [5:12] the two leaders when President Trump suspected that Netanyahu was trying to back out of negotiations [5:17] around the ceasefire in Gaza. I'm sure many people have seen this quote many times. I'm going to read it [5:21] anyway. Bellowing, Trump told Netanyahu that he was sick of his antics. I've done everything to [5:26] protect you. You better effing going along with this. It's been going on for too effing long. [5:32] Everybody's sick of you. Everybody's sick of you, BB, Trump said. All the Jews are sick of you. [5:38] Even the two Jews on this call are sick of you. Trump added, referring to Kushner and Wyckoff. [5:44] And Jonathan, you've gone on to write that President Trump has used his leverage with Netanyahu in a way [5:48] that President Biden never could have. Why is that? In that instance, he did. And what was [5:53] really notable about that instance was it was the first time that Trump had used his leverage [5:57] against BB. He got him to go along with the hostage deal with Hamas. And they released, [6:02] it was a genuine accomplishment. They got the final hostages out of Gaza. And we write about how [6:07] Trump in that moment squeezed him. What's been notable for the rest of the presidency until pretty [6:11] recently is Trump hasn't used his leverage with Netanyahu. The first bombing campaign last June, [6:19] Operation Midnight Hammer, initially Trump was very skeptical about going to war in Iran. And he'd [6:24] been warned by people like Tucker Carlson and others that this would ruin his presidency. He wanted to do [6:30] a deal with Iran. Netanyahu did a months-long charm offensive. He brought him a gold-plated pager [6:37] that they used to blow up different Hezbollah operatives and others. And so in the end, [6:45] Trump decided to go along with it. He didn't use any of his levers against Netanyahu. So that was a [6:50] very interesting moment because you can see what he's capable of. Israel can't fight alone. It's just [6:56] a fact. There's a perception that they can. But when you actually look at the numbers and what they're [7:00] using in terms of air defenses, they absolutely cannot fight this war alone. But Trump, so far, [7:05] it's mostly been rhetorical. He hasn't really used his full leverage. [7:08] Let's talk now about the Epstein files. That's been an issue that has been very difficult [7:12] for the Trump administration. President Trump's decision to move on from the Epstein files, [7:17] that launched a series of top secret meetings in the Situation Room. Maggie, [7:22] what did those moments reveal about how Trump's top advisors handled that crisis? [7:27] So you have to set this picture here, Ryan. This had been something that top officials in the [7:33] Trump government, J.D. Vance, Kash Patel, the FBI director, Dan Bongino, the deputy FBI director. [7:38] They had spent years talking about how there was a secret cabal of pedophiles. And once they were in [7:43] charge, they would open this up and make this visible. Trump, to be fair, had never actually [7:48] really quite gone that far. He had talked about it more in 2015, but it kind of went away. [7:52] He certainly didn't reject it, though. [7:53] He said, I'll look into it. Yeah. I mean, it was, as he often does, he sort of leaves it on the, [7:58] as an option. And there were a number of senior officials in Trump's White House who didn't [8:03] understand what a driving force this was for the MAGA base, for Trump's own base. Trump wanted [8:09] nothing to do with any of this. He didn't want anything out. He was snapping at people who would [8:12] talk about it. And then he started attacking his own supporters and saying this is a hoax. So we write [8:18] about a series of meetings in the White House Situation Room, which is intended to deal with [8:23] national security crises, with foreign wars, you know, with sensitive matters, but not usually [8:28] matters about, you know, Epstein PR crisis comms. And there were several of these, but we zeroed in [8:36] on a few. These start, the ones we write about, right after the White House has used all of its [8:42] political capital on the one big, beautiful bill, which, you know, was what they would have [8:45] rather been talking about. Instead, they find themselves, and it's the top levels of government, [8:50] uh, J.D. Vance, White House Chief of Staff, Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General Kash Patel, [8:56] uh, you know, several lawyers, and that's like half the crew who are in some of these, [9:01] talking about how to get themselves out of this. And this goes on and on and on. And all it does [9:08] is allow a greater clamor, uh, among Trump's supporters, including this surreal meeting that [9:16] we end up writing about where they were planning on putting out some public-facing website with [9:21] things old and new. And, you know, they were discussing what universe it would be. And then [9:25] somebody had looked up in that mock website they were setting up Trump's name, and up pops up this [9:31] unverified, already public claim, uh, with an allegation that Trump, you know, was made second [9:37] hand. But it was about Trump, and that was sort of the end of that. Yeah. If there's a thesis in [9:43] your book, and there are so many great points that you raise and so many inside conversations that you [9:48] guys reveal, it's this idea that perhaps losing the 2020 election ultimately ended up benefiting Trump. [9:55] What you write is, the indictments, the convictions, the assassination attempts, the four years of [10:01] exile that allowed him to shed the restraining forces of his first term, to assemble a team of [10:06] true loyalists who'd spent years studying the levers of government and plotting how to seize them, [10:11] all of it had paradoxically made Trump stronger, more ruthless, and more commanding than he could [10:18] have been otherwise the most powerful president of our lifetimes. Trump himself has kind of hinted at [10:24] this, right? That maybe losing, well, he would never say that he lost, but not retaining the White [10:29] House in 2020 had made him more powerful. Was losing the 2020 election the best thing that ever [10:34] happened to Trump? I don't even think it's disputable. I mean, if he had won that election, [10:40] he would have been hobbled. He was already pretty unpopular. COVID was raging. Inflation was raging. [10:46] Instead, Biden was the one who ate all of those conditions. And now, the whole point of this book, [10:52] the title, Regime Change, is we're watching presidential power expressed in a way that [10:57] we haven't seen in our lifetime. When George W. Bush took America to a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, [11:02] it went through Congress, the branch of government that under the Constitution authorizes wars. [11:08] Trump didn't even talk to Congress. He just did it. When he went and snatched a sovereign head of [11:12] state out of his bedroom in his pajamas in the middle of the night, he didn't talk to Congress. [11:16] He just did it. When he started a trade war with the whole world, he didn't talk to anyone. He just [11:21] did it. And then, of course, it takes weeks and months for the court system to catch up. He just [11:26] changes facts on the ground. So he is governing like no president in our lifetime. And it occurred [11:31] to us that we were covering a form of regime change in our own country. There's no universe he [11:37] would have been able to pull that off if he had just won a consecutive term. [11:41] And, Meg, I'll let you have the last word. [11:42] No, I was actually thinking about exactly this listening to your interview with Roger [11:45] Marshall. One of the things that that interregnum period let him do is continue grinding out [11:50] any pockets of resistance to him in the Republican Party. And you saw it systematically. Remember, [11:56] one of the first things that he did was start targeting the people who had voted to impeach him. [12:01] And he would merrily write about, you know, 10 to go or something like that when he had to win. [12:05] And he couldn't do a lot of what he was doing even without going to Congress. Congress in other [12:11] times would have voiced an objection even without being consulted. You do hear some of that now, [12:17] a little, but it's not at all what it would have been under other circumstances. Yeah, [12:20] I would argue a very little. Yes, that's an excellent point. Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan, [12:25] this is an excellent read, a terrific reporting, really well put together. Thank you guys so much for [12:29] being here. We thank you for watching and remember, stay updated on breaking news and top [12:35] stories on the NBC News app or watch live on our YouTube channel.