Bulwark Takes - Trump’s Latest Interview Should Freak You Out

Episode Date: May 4, 2025

In his Meet the Press interview, Trump claimed credit for lowering the trade deficit with China through massive tariffs, downplayed rising costs by saying kids don’t need 30 dolls, and shrugged off due process concerns as nothing new. He hinted he’s not seriously pursuing a third term but made clear he no longer cares about public opinion. On foreign policy, he bizarrely refused to rule out military force to take Greenland, criticized Canada’s defense spending, and gave murky, evasive answers about Russia and Ukraine—blaming Biden for the war and refusing to name which side is less cooperative. As usual, he took credit for anything good and blamed Biden for everything else.

Bettering your business takes working with the best. With the James Hardy Alliance, you gain access to leads, training, networking, and support from the number one brand of siding in North America. Achieve new levels of success by joining the James Hardy Alliance today. Hey guys, it's me, Sam Stein, Managing Editor at The Bullock. I'm joined by Tim Miller. We're going to dissect the Trump Meet the Press interview from this morning. I like how I don't have a title. Everybody else gets like, Sam bill i'm just it's kind of like i'm like beyonce i'm like the beyonce of the bulwark you know we don't need any any description if you were the beyonce

we just we go this is tim yeah that's a good point miller i'll give you a title when i when i have the right words for the proper title. It's just so elated. All right. Meet the Press. Trump loves this show. I mean, I know he shuts on TV and networks all the time. He just can't get enough of this stuff because it feels like this is like third or fourth Meet the Press interview since the election.

But we'll put that aside. He had a lot to say. We're going to play four clips in total. My big picture takeaway is that in a way, and I know this sounds crazy, but in a way, I feel like I'm getting a little callous to Trump because he said a lot of very off-the-wall stuff. And I read the transcript. I was like, well, is it that crazy that he's questioning the Constitution, that he has to uphold his oath that seems like normal is it that crazy that he's like saying he might invade this country so i i'm worried about that i'm actually worried about that i'm too calloused at this point i'm worried about that for you too um my it but it is it's like uh there's like a dog bites man element to it's like he's oh he's doing the Greenland thing again. And it's like, okay. But I have no thoughts about it. Oh, he might not do due process. It's like, oh, yeah, we've been there.

My takeaway from it at the big picture, and this is something that I was thinking about going back to the interview at The Atlantic when Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer were asking him kind of if he's worried about the economy. And he says something to the effect of like, I already won. You know, like, no, i'm not worried i'm not worried about it like i won and people voted for this and we'll see what happens i i'm getting and i think that's in some ways a little dangerous for his political project and people around him that he does kind of seem more so than in the past like willing to be like whatever we can take some pain i don't care i've already like i do feel like in the first term, he obviously did crazy stuff. But a lot of times he got pulled back from the brink because he didn't like the bad press.

He didn't want his numbers to go down. He was very sensitive to that. He feels less sensitive to that now. So that's my big picture psychoanalysis. I haven't test run this idea, but I'm going to now. Because I've been thinking about that through the prism of, is he or is he not actually serious about a third term yeah and i don't think he's actually that serious because of this i think he doesn't give a fuck because i think i think he knows that this is it and public opinion doesn't actually materially matter for him at this point

and i don't really think he cares that much about jd vance or mark ruber whoever else would get the nomination i think it's all about him. Yeah. And I, it's gotten in my head that almost like, do I kind of want him to want a third term? Like, do I want him to be like reactive to, you know,

public opinion more because it seems like he's got a higher tolerance for pain at this point. Right. And this is a man who already has, obviously, just to be clear, you don't want, you don't want him to want it because you're hoping for four more years of trump but because because then he would be more

responsive to political realities i i thought that was self-evident okay i just wanted to say it explicitly no i actually want the i want the full you know 12 years um yeah i don't know it is so i agree with you on that and i think that the that thing is the thing that has always worried me about the third term and the potential chaos at the end is it's like, who knows what fucking 81-year-old Trump could want, right? You know what I mean? Truly off-rocker. And so I just think the unpredictability of that is the thing that worries me the most. But anyway, let's get to the clip. Let's get into the clip.

All right, first clip. Here we go. He's going to be talking about does he actually have any responsibility for this economy? And this is what he has to say. You've been arguing all week that this is President Biden's economy. Is this now your economy, sir? Well, I think certain aspects of it are. Costs are, I was able to get down the cost. But even that, it takes a while to get them down, but we got them down good. We lost $5 to $6 billion a day with Biden, $5 to $6 billion. And I've got that down to a great number right now in a record time. We're talking about 100 days. But just think of what that is,

$5 billion a day we're losing on trade. And we were very tough with China, as you know. We put 145% tariff on. Nobody's ever heard of such a thing. And we've essentially cut off trade relationships by putting that much of a tariff on. And that's OK. We've gone cold turkey. That means that we're not losing. We lost a trillion dollars to China, a trillion dollars. That means we're not losing, we lost a trillion dollars to China, a trillion dollars. That means we're not losing a trillion dollars when we go cold turkey because we're not doing business with them right now. And they wanna make a deal, they wanna make a deal very badly. We'll see how that all turns out, but it's gotta be a fair deal.

When does it become the Trump economy? It partially is right now, and I really mean this. I think the good parts of the Trump economy and the bad parts of the Biden economy, because he's done a terrible job. He did a terrible job on everything. Classic. I actually chuckled. And I only read the transcript, but I was chuckling. Is that because you're hungover?

I'm quite hungover, as you can probably tell. But I was reading it. I was like, oh, my God. I get the credit for the good parts and Biden gets the credits for the bad parts. Like, of course he says that. It is a classic Trump. I do think – not to be classic bulwark, but it's also kind of a sign of weakness. You know what I mean?

Like to have to do that. To have to do it. Yeah. You should want to take full credit. I get it. I get it. All right. That was not that exciting.

But then he was asked about this quote that he had given earlier this week where he was talking about you know this is at the cabinet meeting kind of infamously they're like look the cost of some goods are going up and like to your point he was like we can stomach this but he had this line about paying for more dolls or having only two dolls versus 30 dolls for your your little girl and and and welker kristen welker asked him about it. And he expands on it, and this is what he says. You were at your cabinet meeting. You said, quote, I'm going to quote what you said,

maybe the children will have $2 instead of $30. Yeah. And maybe the $2 will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally. Are you saying that your tariffs will cause some prices to go up? No, I think the tariffs are going to be great for us because it's gonna make us rich. But you said some dollars are gonna cost more. Isn't that an acknowledgement that some prices will go up? I don't think a beautiful baby girl needs, that's 11 years old, needs to have 30 dolls. I think they can have three dolls or four dolls. because what we were doing with China was just unbelievable.

We had a trade deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars with China. When you say they could have $3 instead of $30, are you saying Americans could see empty store shelves? No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying they don't need to have $30, they can have three. They don't need to have 250 pencils, they can have five all right so that was i thought that was wild too and then he went on and he talked about pencils and who needs 250 pencils when you can get five pencils i don't really have 250 pencils who has five pencils i mean i guess my kid does because he's in school but like

for the dolls and pencils his he is very much stuck in an alternate era. The 1950s era? Yeah, the 50s. Well, for starters, my daughter is finally radicalized against Trump. Why? The dolls? Yeah, over the dolls. Having to go down to two dolls would be an absolute Hiroshima event in my home. Have you ever tried to take a if you've ever tried to take a stuffy

away from your child it is like oh my god you always have to do it in secret you always have to do it in secret one at a time strategically until they wake up one day and they're like wait a second where's the tiger like tiger did you misplace it you might have misplaced it i don't know man anyway um she's radicalized but um i don't i like we i talked to derrick thompson about this a bunch on friday and it's like the whole thing is pointless like what is the point like we're we're creating shortages for what like on you do see some of this on um on the left particularly in around climate right where people are like we should consume less like they're they And they're like, there's a goal for this.

We've got to protect our natural resources, et cetera. So I think that's a very unpopular political opinion. And you notice most Democratic presidents don't run on that platform. But that exists, and that's a coherent worldview. What is even the point of this? We are going to stop. We have to nationalize our doll supply chain. We're going to stop importing dolls from China because we want to manufacture more iPhones in America. Like there's no.

Is there a goal to manufacture more dolls and pencils here? I don't think so. Is that like to create jobs for folks? Like it's just about some imaginary like balance sheet in his head where he doesn't like the trade deficit and so it's like so we can even steven the trade deficit i'm gonna make you know little janey like have fewer dolls for christmas it's insane it's insane i actually listened to your conversation with derek i thought it was i mean it was spot on because if the idea here is like look we need to we have to like shore up our supply chains on critical matters like

semiconductors or, you know, pharmaceuticals or whatever, like, cool. Like I get the idea behind tariffing those things and trying to initiate some sort of repatriation. I don't, I don't think we need to do this for dolls. Like I just don't. Who does? Nobody does. Trump does. But the only sort of charitable way to think about it is that I don't actually think he thinks this way. Maybe he does. Is that he wants to inflict pain on China, right? Like to get them to like a different spot in the negotiations.

And so maybe if you just inflict across the board pain and just hit everything and the american people suffer in the interim but in the long term you get better leverage in your trade negotiation i mean maybe that's it but i mean nobody has nobody has enunciated that strategy as clearly as you so if that is true i'd like to hear it from the administration so maybe uh maybe if we hear from but he's getting rid of the biggest china hawks in the administration waltz is more of a china hawk than these other guys so i know well that's and that is the weird irony of it is like what is who's running this because navarro is the china hawk and he's been sort of sidelined waltz has been sidelined and

it's kind of weird which makes me just think it's all in trump's head right like he's been sort of sidelined. Walsh has been sidelined. And it's kind of weird, which makes me just think it's all in Trump's head, right? Like he's just trying to like. Yeah, I think that's what's happening. Yeah, perfect. All right, let's switch to the two foreign policy elements on Meet the Press. First, this one was interesting because it comes in the wake of obviously the Canadian elections. He was asked about the new prime minister there, who is apparently coming to Washington, D.C. this week and also called Trump and talked about it. And look, it sounds like Trump has a better relationship with Carney than he did with Trudeau.

Here's what he had to say about Canada and in relation Greenland. You and I talked and I asked you if you would rule out military force to take Greenland. And you said, no, you don't rule out anything. Would you rule out military force to take Greenland. And you said, no, you don't rule out anything. Would you rule out military force to take Canada? Well, I think we're not going to ever get to that point. It could happen. Something could happen with Greenland. I'll be honest. We need that for national and international security. But not with Canada? I think it's highly unlikely. I don't see it with Canada. I just don't see it. I have to be honest with you. Okay, but you don't rule it out for Greenland. And by the way, Canada, they spend less money on military than practically any nation in

the world. They pay NATO less than any nation. They think we are going to protect them, and really we are. But the truth is, they don't carry their full share, and it's unfair to the United States and our taxpayers. But you are not ruling out military force to take Greenland. I don't rule it out. I don't say I'm going to do it, but I don't rule out anything. No, not there.

We need Greenland very badly. Greenland is a very small amount of people, which we'll take care of and we'll cherish them and all of that. But we need that for international security. All right. So I know you have some thoughts on this. Yeah. I mean, the interesting thing there is there is this gimmick that happens. It's like cat and mouse game with Trump on these interviews with the Christian Welkers of the world. And I, and it's, I don't really know there's a good solution to it. So this isn't really a critique, but you have this thing where the reporter will be like, well, you rule out insane thing X that he had bleeded about. And he does the, well, you can't rule anything out. And then like the

headline is Trump doesn't rule out doing insane thing X. And like, that's fair. I got, you know, but it also is a little bit like, well, the reporter actually inserted the idea into the conversation, you know? So I take it up with like a little bit more of well, the reporter actually inserted the idea into the conversation, you know, so I take it up with like a little bit more of a grain of salt. In this exchange, the reporter asks, will you rule out invading Canada? And he kind of does, actually, but then he volunteers, but I will not rule out going into Greenland with military strategy. And to me, that is now Trump inserting that idea into the conversation himself. And so it carries more weight.

And again, I just like we're in the middle of these negotiations, supposedly, you know, and the sub negotiations and the sub sub deals with Europe. And it's like, if you're Europe, if you're Denmark, you're the EU, like this is the president of the United States volunteering to a reporter that he's that we have serious national security issues in greenland and we might invade like it's it's on the table like that is like very serious and i think has very real implications in addition to just being like completely off the off yes it's off it's off chain and yes the fact that he was the one who brought it up adds an element of seriousness to it. I will just note, again, back to the being cast, it wasn't that he ruled out invading Canada. He just called it highly unlikely. I just want to be clear. The more normal thing to be would be like, of course, I'm not going to invade Canada. Highly unlikely at this point.

Good to know we're only 95 know so you're saying there's a chance small percent chance we might just do it but don't want to rule out anything obviously all right last one russia ukraine he's asked about again we were supposed to have this thing was supposed to be fucking resolved on day one here we are day 100 whatever and we're still dealing with this difficult shit uh but he's asked about Russia, Ukraine, here's what he says. Are you any closer to reaching a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia? I hope so. How would you characterize it?

I do believe we're closer with one party and maybe not as close with the other. But we'll have to see, I'd like to not say which one we're closer to. But we did do a deal for the American people that was good. We were able to get rare earth. The Europeans are getting paid back, they have a loan. We didn't, Biden just gave him $350 billion. He has no idea where the money is, what happened. And at least we'll in one form or another get our, I don't feel so foolish. And remember this, this is Biden's war. This was a war that was never gonna happen if I were president. This is a horrible, horrible war. And I get to see shots of soldiers through satellite that are just so terrible.

5,000 soldiers are being, look, 5,000 soldiers a week on average are dying. They're not American soldiers, but I want to solve the problem. They're Russian soldiers and they're Ukrainian soldiers. And if I can save 5,000 souls, I just love doing it. All right, so a bit cryptic there. I don't know. Am I reading it correctly? I'm reading it a certain way.

I want to know how you're reading it i i am genuinely unsure i could see it both ways i'll be interested to see which way you you land but let's play it out though because i want to give it out because this is a quote that is offensive and horrific no matter which way it means maybe he means that that we're closer to getting a deal with russia than with ukraine and like he knows that he is going to get in trouble if he says that zelensky is the problematic one so he's like he's being cheeky and he's like i don't want to say his name but you know it's a little jewish guy running ukraine that's the problem here and like he's not he's being stubborn and we need to nudge him along maybe that's what's happening i think it's probably

more like it's the other way where he's like actually i've been i met with zelensky with Zelensky recently and it's Russia that maybe we're a little further away than he had anticipated. But he doesn't want to say that because he doesn't want to admit it. But if that is what he's saying, that is horrible, though. Like this is like I don't want to offend Vladimir Putin. I can't. I mean, just think about how he's being critical. He can't be critical in public of Putin. Of Putin.

Yeah. He's berated Zelensky over and over again. And it's like he can't even say that Putin is not as amenable to this peace deal as I thought, as we hoped he would be. Like, you can't say that. I mean, that is, again, that makes him the junior partner to Putin in this negotiation. Correct. Yeah. Correct. And it's, I, it's,

so it's evident to me that this is what it is because Ukraine just signed the minerals deal. Yeah. Every, you know, they, they are comfortable with the 30 day ceasefire. Russia violated it. They have been, you know, relatively you know, stable negotiators on, on, on this piece deal. Obviously they're not wanting to recognize Crimea. Right. But it's evident across the board that russia's the aggressor here and i think it's dawning on trump a little bit finally that uh he is being completely played and bent over by putin and it's like

the problem is he can't admit it right right he can't he can't admit it because if as soon as he admits it he looks like such an idiot and so that's why you have answers like this it's bad it's bad but i think the other way would have been worse yeah no i hear that uh i mean it's really it's and it's not great he's in a pretty terrible situation i guess it would it's his own making though yeah it would be good it would be good only if it was like he was there's a chance that he could get so upset that it didn't work out that he would then turn to supporting ukraine but i think that he's cornered himself in such a way that's not possible he can't once you once you once you berate zelinski like that and whip up

your supporters to think that ukraine is a corrupt horrible place that is just sucking US money and that this could all be the beginning of World War III, you can't go back from that. You can't go back. I know. It's tough. All right, man. Thank you for watching this.

Appreciate it. Thank you for jumping on me. Appreciate it. Go Nuggets. Go Narcissus Hangover. Hey, congrats to the Nuggets. You're going to get your ass handed to you. We'll see.

We'll see. You always got the joker. You always got the joker. You are getting your ass i'm giving you i give you one win that's okay i'll take all right talk to you later