The Daily Beast Podcast - This Is How Melania Is Profiteering From Trump

Episode Date: September 2, 2026

Description Michael Wolff and Joanna Coles look at the extraordinary power dynamics surrounding Donald Trump, beginning with Melania Trump’s increasingly independent role—and how she has managed to monetize the position of First Lady while largely avoiding its traditional obligations. They also examine Trump’s White House ballroom and a Supreme Court decision that may allow construction to continue, the president’s attacks on NBC’s Kristen Welker and the growing fear his administration inspires across the media, and Pete Hegseth’s purge of experienced military leaders at a moment of heightened global danger. Then the conversation turns to an unlikely political flashpoint: data centers, as growing public opposition to their enormous demands for power and water collides with Trump’s fierce support for the AI industry—and his own financial interests. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

There's a lot of people around Trump, supporters, friends, family who have gotten these incredible deals who are getting rich off of Donald Trump. But the price for them is abject loyalty. She is the only one who not only doesn't have to appear loyal, in matter of fact, appears quite disloyal, but who has achieved this level of independence. How did she get such a good deal? She clearly detests her husband, doesn't live with her husband, and yet gets to monetize her role, her theoretical role, as the first lady. How come she's getting away with this? Michael Wolfe. Joanna Coles.

I'm here. You're not. That's right. You are in the studio, in the inside Trump's head. I'm just merely inside Trump's head today. In your old bedroom. Is that your old bedroom? No, this is my dad's study, actually.

This is my dad's study. We would like to see your old bedroom. I don't think you would, actually. It's very depressing. And it's sort of covered in my chaos at the moment. And, you know, I'm doing that thing, which we all have to do at some point, which is clearing out my mum's stuff. I know you've done it. and it's really odd and difficult.

But what better to take my mind off it than a trip inside Donald Trump's head and the chaos there where it's just so manic at the moment that we can't think about anybody else? Well, we can think about Dolly Parton because apparently everybody is thinking about Dolly Parton. And it might even be that everyone is thinking about your Dolly Parton's slur. My Dolly Parton's Flare, which I will say was somewhat inspired by the Times of London, which ran, and I hope people can see this, a cover of its feature section, which is called Times 2. And in it they quoted Dolly, saying most people just see me as tits and hair, but that's part of the fun. So I was actually using Dolly's own words, but I don't think we've ever had such. an outpouring of angry comments.

Yeah, no, just to flagging someone's bosom that's all it does, one of the most famous bosoms of all time. Well, and a bosom that she constantly flaunted herself, but I think the thing that people loved about her, now I think about it, was just this sense in which she wouldn't take either political side. She had great values, and she just got on with it, and didn't ask any kind of, you know, she wasn't snuggling up to politicians in any way. She twice turned down the Medal of Freedom from both Trump and Biden

and remained determinedly her own person. There's also a kind of thing. I think it's a new cultural thing in which death of a beloved figure demands that one only say beloved-like thing. So, and we, well, more you veered off the beloved script. Well, I would say that's true, except for if Donald Trump is giving the eulogy and that person, Lindsay Graham, who was lying before him in quasi-state, of course Donald Trump couldn't remember his name, so he kept saying that person. But he was reading the eulogy, which you will remember this, as a couple of months ago now. and clearly hadn't read it before and suddenly went off script in the middle

and said, let's face it, Lindsay wasn't loved by everybody. And again, giving an example of actually why people every now and then like Donald Trump. I would say that's, I mean, politicians are seldom beloved enough to arrive at that moment of death and then having an outpouring of, of appreciation and grief. So we can sort of eliminate politicians.

Everybody wants most politicians dead anyway. So therefore. But certainly, Dolly Parton, if you're looking for, and I think actually people are looking for figures that many people, everyone, except Joanna Coles, can come together around. Well, I think people are looking for people who seem moderate politically and are people to admire. She made a lot of money. She gave a lot of it

away. She cared about people that were ignored traditionally by society. And she'd been married to the same man for a long time. Those are values that I think people like. I think people like Dali Parton's music. We can, there's all kinds of justifications. I think she was a, you know, she was a major, she was a big star and a major. cultural presence and for a very long time with a very big bosom. Is there anything else left to say? No, I think there's nothing else left to say except that we want to talk about Melania today. We want to talk about speaking of bosoms.

Well, actually, sort of speaking of bosoms, yes, correct. I think we saw quite a lot of her bosoms in some of the photo spreads that she did. Enhanced bosoms. Are they enhanced bosoms? Are they? You're the former Cosmo editor? I've no idea. Because Melania was not the kind of model we ever used in either Cosmo or Mariclau, or indeed, any of the Hearst titles, at least when I was there.

But we are going to talk about Melania. Where is she? We are going to talk about the ballroom. It's going ahead. The ballroom is going ahead. Or is it? You're going to fill us in. Kristen Welker, is she going to be banished from the airwaves?

Is NBC News going to be banished from the airwheres? We are going to talk about it. And Michael's favourite topic at the moment, not Pete Hegseth firing the army secretary, because Pete Hegseth is turning out to be a bit Macbethian. And I saw that someone had referred to Jennifer, his wife, as Lady McHigeth, which I guess has moved us on from Lady. McBiden. But Lady McHexeth, well, what can we say? Pete's gotten paranoid and he seems to be firing

everybody and he's firing anybody that was a friend of J.D. Vance. So we're definitely going to come to that. But I know your favorite subject at the moment is data centers. So we're going to talk about data centers too. Everybody's favorite subject after Dolly Parton is data centers. It's data centers. But first we're going to ask people to subscribe to the Daily Beast if they haven't yet subscribed to The Daily Beast, wherever you get your podcast, YouTube, Spotify, Apple. Where do you get your podcast, Michael? Oh my God, you know, the truth is I've never listened to a podcast in my life. Is this true? I don't think that's true because occasionally I send you things. I don't listen to them. That's not true and you've certainly listened to yourself. No, but I do,

Well, I watch things on YouTube. I don't listen to things. So the whole podcast era of audio podcasts actually went by me. Okay, so you went straight to YouTube. Yeah, no. And I mean, which is curious because I don't understand why people go to YouTube to watch us doing nothing but talk. You know, we have our own channel now. We have a 24-7 channel on.

YouTube called Inside Trump's Head. You mean you can see us around the clock? You never need to be alone. You never need to be alone. If people are having difficulties going to sleep, they can turn to Inside Trump's Head TV channel. And Michael will pretty much always be talking. I think that that is completely untrue. I've studied this. It's you who are always talking over me. Is that true, Michael? Is that true? All right. So let's commence with your substack on Melania, pointing out something which we're both obsessed with,

which is issues that are not even hiding in plain sight. They are in plain sight. Well, this is, well, that's what that means. Hiding in plain sight means that they're in plain sight. but it's like the emperor with no clothes. Everybody can see it, but no one acknowledges it, which is actually one of the really prevalent themes of the Trump administration and certainly relevant

to the first marriage. So, I mean, which I was thinking about the other day, and I am somewhat forced because we are in litigation to think about Melania often. But if you think about it, then you think, well, wait a minute. There has never been a situation like this, never been a first lady who, A, gets not to live in the White House, a first lady who clearly doesn't want to spend any time with her husband. And, I mean, there may have been first ladies who don't want to spend time with their husband, but by the nature of the role, they have to. Not for Melania Trump.

But in addition to that, she gets paid millions upon millions upon millions of dollars for being the first lady. She's the first person who has, again, hiding in plain sight, gone out and built a business around being a first lady in which she pocketed herself individually, $17 million last year, many, many millions of dollars to come this year and the next, well, as long as this presidency last. But this is extraordinary. I mean, this, I mean, among all of the extraordinary things in the Trump administration, among all the norm breaking, this one is right out up front. She's monetizing the role of First Lady.

As the same time, she's abdicated the role, because she doesn't do anything as the First Lady. Again, she doesn't live in the White House. She doesn't, you know, what are the two roles of being the First Lady to sort of be a model of domestic propriety at some level and to support good causes? Well, she's clearly not a model of domestic propriety. And the cause that she supports is her own interests, her own business. interest. Do you think Melania Trump has ever cooked anything in the White House kitchen with or without help from the White House kitchen stuff?

Well, that I don't know. There it is. You've heard it. The first thing I genuinely don't know. Maybe she does cook. I don't know. She doesn't probably sit down and eat with her husband and nor her son, who has never Certainly during the first administration, nobody ever saw Baron at the White House, and nobody ever sees them anywhere now.

Can you give us a quick update on where you are with your case? Because lots of people who watch and listen to this podcast feel very strongly about your case with her. You're the first person to sue her in such a way. and a lot of people have raised money for you. And of course, the wheels of justice take forever. So just give us a quick update. It's not just the wheels of justice, but the wheels of Trump justice. So the Trump strategy here is just to run out the clock.

Delay, delay, delay, delay, which is not just with me across the board. This has always been his strategy. And so that's what's going on right now. And they've just caught, the Trump people have kind of created a recently created a cul-de-sac here by moving for sanctions against my lawyers. And that's where we are right now. They've moved for sanctions against my lawyers. The judge in question has said, hey, if you move for sanctions, this is really ridiculous.

So if you move for sanctions, then the other side, my side can move for sanctions against you. Well, they don't really care about that, and they move for sanctions anyway because this will mean several more months of separate litigation, which will cost, you know, the costs are certainly not insignificant of that, insignificant for me. They have unlimited resources. So again, it's create more time, create more or create more delay, create more costs. Now, we have raised enough money, thank goodness, and thank you to everyone who has contributed to this, that this is the kind of thing that would really create problems, I think, for many people in this situation.

We have enough money, at least for the moment, that it doesn't, and we will go through, and they're, they are hoping that this will force us to go away. It will not force us to go away. As a matter of fact, we have just, just, just the other day filed papers to oppose their motion and call them out a whole variety of ridiculous claims that they have. But again, this is an offshoot to the main discussion or the main issue and the main issue, which is to get back to trying to get her to testify about her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Well, whobotide anybody, Michael, that thinks that they can wait you out. You have one thing in common with Donald Trump, which is you also can double down when you need to.

I've known you for 27, 28 years at this point. I would never count you out. So if only the first lady had called me in advance and just said, Joanna, thinking of suing Michael, is this going to work? I could have said no, Melania, absolutely not. He will sue you. Remember the moment when you were going to work for Melania? Well, that was actually, I wasn't going to work for Melania.

What I got was a call from Ivanka's office in the first term, just as Trump had been elected. And at the time, Ivanka was going to run the first lady's office. And she needed someone to run it. And they called me to ask if I would be interested in doing it because I knew Ivanka and I'd talk to her throughout the campaign. And I said no. Which is why I don't understand when people say, oh, proximity to power, it's intoxicating. people never turn it down. And I remember thinking I would get spit out by these people very quickly.

Yeah, no. And that's, I mean, a lot of people turn down Trump. I mean, it's one of the reasons why the White House is filled with such second raiders because clearly the first raiders. I mean, there's another complication that he doesn't want the first raiders because they're smarter than he is. Well, so many people are smarter than Donald Trump is. Yes.

But the other interesting thing about this Melania situation, is there's a lot of people around Trump, supporters, friends, family who have gotten these incredible deals who are getting rich off of Donald Trump. But the price for them is abject loyalty. So she is the only one who not only appears doesn't have to appear loyal, a matter of fact, appears quite disloyal, but who has achieved this level of independence. And so, One of the things that I'm wondering is, how did she get such a good deal? What does, and when you begin to think about this, she clearly doesn't, she clearly detests her husband, doesn't live with her husband, and yet gets to monetize her role, her theoretical role as the first lady. How come he's letting her do this?

How come she's getting away with this? Well, let me ask you something. Do you think anybody cares? When I raise it with people, I'm often quite surprised about how people say, well, I don't think it matters. And the First Lady is such an old-fashioned role now. And so I wonder, does this act against him in the midterms? Does the presence of Natalie Harp act against him with the female suburban voters that have traditionally actually, you know, against or, you know, against or. odds in some ways come out to support him. I'm wondering which way the Natalie Harp thing goes. That's actually not true. I mean, female voters have traditionally not come out and support him. That's the group that he is always. No, no, white suburban women. White suburban women didn't like Hillary and they didn't like Carmelah. Actually, white suburban women did like him. This is wrong. But, you know, I mean, they, they, they, they.

That would be among the weaker groups, the weaker Trump groups, strong with their husbands, not with them. Or strong with the men in that category, not with the women. But nevertheless, he could get even less support, which I suspect that he will get even less support in the midterms from suburban women, as you say. Okay, so we'll come back and discuss this, but I firmly remember being surprised at the percentage of suburban women who voted for Donald Trump, especially against Hillary. We'll come back to this point. But my question remains, do people care? I mean, he does have a level of support.

It's just a lower level of support than in other groups. Okay, so let's ask this then. Do you think the Natalie Harp omnipress? presence, helps Trump or harms him in the midterms? Does Melania's absence harm him with voters? Does anybody care? Well, you have to, again, this divides. In other words, it certainly doesn't help him with voters who are disinclined to like or support Donald Trump anyway, which is a substantial part of the voting population. On the other hand, voters who are inclined to support him who do like him, who are completely

enamored with him, will that have any effect? Well, I think the answer is obvious. Obviously, with the first group, it will just confirm what they've always thought with the second group. They won't care at all. So the question is that group in the middle, the independence, if there are any left. And I think with those people, and this will be the basic question of the midterms, are they, has the aggregated issues of Trump's perfidity, Trump's grossness,

Trump's, when we can make a list here, does that really change the numbers for that group, which I think it will change them. And Natalie Harp will not win him any favors with that group. But I want to do the Melania thing again, because I think the Melania thing is partly the result of the media being so reluctant to go there. They're reluctant to go there. And I think this probably goes back to 2016 when she sued the Daily Mail or the president's lawyers on her behalf, or Trump's lawyers on her behalf, sued the Daily Mail for suggesting that she had been an escort before she met and married Donald Trump. I think it begins there. And then it's sort of segued into the bias that the media has always had.

had about First Families and First Ladies. We don't really ask too many questions. We don't really go there. When I used to work at Vanity Fair, the editor, Graydon Carter, when you wrote about his friends, he would say, can you just give it the courtesy brush? And I think that's what people, that's what the media has done to first families traditionally. And even to this first family, which seems so out of the ordinary and so diverges from form in practice so radically, nevertheless, they have gotten the courtesy brush. Okay. Can you remind people what happened in the Daily Mail case?

Well, as I said, they suggested that she was an escort before she got involved with Donald Trump. She sued them for that, and they settled and apologized and retracted. And I think how much money did they pay her? I don't know. A substantial amount of money. So that was, and that was one of the first times, maybe the first time, a member of a candidates, then candidates family has sued the presidential candidates, sued the media, and that very much had a chilling effect. And then she has gone on. This has now become quite a knee-jerk reaction

on her part. You say something against her, you get a lawyer's letter for a billion threatening for a billion dollars. So do you think that Melania will be around to dance in the ballroom because it looks like the ballroom is now going to get built. The Supreme Court said, yes, carry on, carry on. Trump is claiming it's 65% built. That's very clear from the pictures. It can't possibly be true. You pointed out last week. It was just nonsense. What happens now? Does he just get away with it? Well, he apparently is just, I mean, the Supreme Court has just ruled that he can go ahead with this. And the Supreme Court, that was one of their other interesting rulings, the ruling was that the group that was suing, which is the historic

preservation council, advisory, something group, which has been empowered by Congress to do this exact job. The court ruled that this group has no standing to sue. So it was that weird. ruling, that's their job. But in carrying out that job, they have not personally been hurt so that they can't sue. In other words, the court has done what they now seem to consistently do. They don't rule on the merits of the case and of the argument. They find some pretext in which the Trump administration can continue to do what it wants to do without the court having to say it is correct. And in fact, the group of four on the court was a four to five ruling. The group of four, including the chief justice, who most often votes with the Trump side, said, well, this did appear

to be illegal. But nevertheless, they will, by the court, by refusing to rule now on the merits, has created a situation where there will not be time enough to stop the building of the ballroom. And just it's the national trust for historic preservation in the United States. That's the congressionally chartered nonprofit group that's, you know, brought the case. And, essentially being elbowed out of the way by Scotus. So it's remarkable. And it's just, as we've said before on this podcast, a classic New York developer move. You take the building down quickly.

You build it when you haven't got permission. And then the thing is up and running. And everybody seeks to accommodate you. Yeah. No. And one of the arguments that the Trump White House made to the court is that it's too late to stop this. And I don't know if the court agreed with that or with the five justices agree with that, but they probably did. And they probably thought, oh, my God, you know, if we stop this, this is going to be a, this is going to cause so much put us at such odds with the White House that it would then, it might then damage the court.

So again, what they've done here, there's another decision that we'll be talking about. I think today involving mail and voting, which again, they seem to have, they seem to have cleared the way for this to go forward without ruling on whether this is legal or not. So it's as though the justices, even the conservative justices, understand this is all, this is all at best dodgy in any constitutional sense. But it would be more difficult to tell Donald Trump no. Well, also what happens if the Democrats win the House in November, will the ballroom be then actually perhaps 65% finished,

at which point, well, what does Congress do? Do they say you have to halt? This was illegal. I mean, the previous court that ruled on it said it's illegal. You're not allowed to do this. You know, Congress must be consulted. All of this will be a major issue. If the Democrats win, I mean, if the Democrats win the Congress, there's still the Senate,

but let's assume that they win both houses. Yeah, I think it becomes a very, very, very big problem and a major issue for the Trump White House in all regards, not just the ballroom, across the board, but which is why they are doing everything they possibly can, including this mail-in voting thing, which is now looking more and more like it could be profoundly disruptive to save themselves in this midterm election. I remember we used to have a weekend house in Lakeville, Connecticut, and someone on the lake, Lake Womod Skopomac, which is the deepest lake in Connecticut, built a house that was clearly

out of sync with all the other houses around the lake. They put a third floor on it, which they weren't zoned for, and they were told to take it down. So all I can hope is that Congress adopts the zeal with which the people of Lakeville, Connecticut, insisted that these people took the third floor of their house off so as not to interrupt the Lakeview for everybody else and also to abide by the same rules as everybody else. People know, people, you know, voters understand the pain of zoning when you're trying to do alterations and things. Why should Donald Trump get away with it? And why should he build this eyesore on the White House, which just makes it look out of all balance. He has no appreciation for the historic nature of it. It's just astonishing.

You won't get an argument from me there, but I think it doesn't even require, at some point, the cost, the massiveness, the reality of it means that no argument wins. It just is there. But it can't sit there, or perhaps it can just sit there. for months, possibly years, at the center of a tug of legal war? Well, again, what he will try to do, as he always tries to do, is in the dead of night, bring it to the point where it can't be turned back. And even Democrats, I mean, I don't know. Is there a moment in which Congress rises up and says,

tear that thing down? Take it out of there. dig it up. What is that? We should ask people to comment on YouTube, please write us a comment of what you think they should do with the ballroom. Let's assume that the ballroom goes ahead. It's finished.

It's this enormous sort of weird wail on the minnow of the White House at this point. Does, first of all, people should declare that it's not going to be named after Donald Trump, right? And then we should think of some other. use for it, which would upset Donald Trump. Jump ahead. It's not just this Congress, but just imagine that there is a Democratic president in 2029. What does that person do? This is a house that he or she has to live in. Well, they throw parties all the time. And theoretically has the same power. If Donald Trump has the power to erect, they have the power

to destroy. Yes? I don't know. Well, presumably they would do. They could demolish it or they could repurpose it. Perhaps they could turn it into a school. They could do something with it that would annoy Donald Trump, something that would highlight his corrupt values here. Well, and this is actually suggest a whole other issue of how does the Trump administration,

these four years and the prior four years, how is all. of this deconstructed. A Democratic president is elected, possibly even a Democratic Senate, a Democratic House. How do they go about? I mean, this will be at some point relatively soon as we approach 2028 will be an issue. What do we do? How do we undo Donald Trump? That's one of the things that voters are going to want to know. Literally, how do we undo this? How do we go back to the baseline from which we depart this Trump era departed? It feels like a song that Dolly Parton should do, doesn't it? A song about the White House. Ballroom, ballroom, ballroom, ballroom, ballroom. You're just going to get yourself into more or more trouble on here.

I am. I am. But I do think Dolly would have had a point of view on it. Sadly, she's not here to discuss it with, but I think she would have had a very strong point of view on the very big ballroom. Okay, Kristen Welker. Kristen Welker, is she going to be reported to the FCC for saying the truth, which is the polls are very bad about Donald Trump right now? He's the most unpopular president that turns out ever to have lived since polls have been done. So, Kristen Welker, what she merely described, yes, I mean, that's, that's, she was just literally giving a, an uninteresting and not a very notable report on the background to, to the news,

which is what she's supposed to do. She suggested that a certain set of facts. I don't think it's supposed to be uninteresting. I don't think she's supposed to make it uninteresting. Well, in a way she is. In a way, this is a, she's supposed to run a, the news as it is. She's not a tabloid reporter. She's not interest. In theory, to make the news interesting is not her job. To report the news, what the news is, is her job. And if the news is boring, it may be boring, but it may also be important. Therefore, it has to be, she should be, she should, she should be reporting. I mean, a matter of fact, she did in this instance, she was doing what reporters are so often

accused of not doing, of sexing it up, of turning news into entertainment. She merely was reporting the most basic, the most basic aspect of what is going on now. The polls are against Donald Trump. Donald Trump then responded and said she was going to be reported. So it's like going to the principal and that she should be punished. He's got a thing about Kristen Walker, because do you remember he walked out on an interview with her when she was interviewing him in, I want to say, Wisconsin or possibly Wyoming, with a lot of hay bales in the background and a tractor possibly.

And he stormed out of the interview. Yeah, it's true, but he also gave her her first interview when she took over the show. He was her first interview, and that was a little, and that was testy too. I mean, she's been, you know, pretty consistent, a fairly tough interviewer on Donald Trump. She's a good interview. But certainly not the toughest. And as I say, you know, just she's basically, you would observe her job and not. I think it would be hard to find anything in which you would say, oh, my God, that's really out of network news bounds.

Well, and we should make a point. I was thinking this the other day when you were down on Dana Bash at CNN for trying to figure out how to respond to RFK Jr. in an interview that she was doing on State of the Union, I think it's called on CNN. It's difficult interviewing these people when they don't, not even obey interview rules, but when they frequently lie straight at you and start attacking you, which is what RFK did with Dana Bash. But it's made it much more difficult, I think, for people to talk to them and interview them. And Donald Trump in particular, you can see the interviewers wrestling with is he going to storm out? How do I stop him storming out? Will it be good for me if he storms out,

but only three quarters of the way through? Well, you know, I don't know. I mean, I think what goes through their heads is that they're afraid of controversy. They're afraid of Donald Trump. And they try to pull punches. They don't want that kind of conflict. It's like the Supreme Court. Everybody is afraid to go head to head with this guy or RFK Jr. The people, who are around him, who represent him. That's what's going on here. The spittle flecked, RFK Jr., who goes puce when he's sort of unspitting with rage and kind of hysteria, which is the way that they think they appeal to the public, I suppose.

And amazingly, it's worked. And again, I think it's fear. I think they are afraid of this. They don't know how to predict what a crazy man will do. And that's what everybody is kind of thinking. Now, in this case, actually, Kristen Welker was not in that position. She was merely going along and filling in the background of the news of the day. The polls are against Donald Trump, which they obviously are.

And at which point Donald Trump says, because he doesn't like, it's really not that he doesn't like what she said, is that he doesn't like what the news, what reality is. So then he turns around and blames reality on her and says, you know, you're going to be, I'm going to report you and you're going to be punished. Now, this is partly Donald Trump script. Things are bad. Blame the media. Single out some person in the media and make that the issue for the next two news cycles. So it's just Donald Trump doing this.

and it's not exceptional in any way. What I find interesting is that everybody knows this is not exceptional. Everybody knows this is baloney. Everybody knows nothing is going to happen here. Everybody knows this is hot air. And yet this is in those two news cycles reported as genuine conflict, meaning Donald Trump wins. Meaning Donald Trump wins.

I don't know. I think there are people who stand up to him. Caitlin Collins at CNN is pretty good with him. I mean, she just goes straight back at him. The woman at ABC that he came after recently, it was pretty good. I think people are just weary of it. And you're trying to make it not about you as a reporter. You're trying to make it about the news or about the president's,

not the president's reaction to you. And he loves to make it about his. reaction to you and he particularly does it to attractive women. Yeah, I'm not exactly, I'm sort of missing your point here. My point is that I don't think everybody is scared of him. I think people are apprehensive about him. Let me, let me be very precise. Everybody is scared of him.

You're trying to also do your job at the same time. You're trying not to be, not to look like a look ridiculous, not to be humiliated. in the face of him. But everybody, nevertheless, is scared. The producers you work for are scared. The lawyers who they have to report to are scared. You can go all up the chain to the CEO of the company. Everybody is scared of Donald Trump because that's what he's done.

That's one of his weapons. I'm going to scare you. You're never going to know what I'm going to do. Nobody, no media organization wants to be sued by the president of the United States. Even if they know they're going to win, the likelihood is that they are going to win. They also don't want it because it undermines their credibility for the whole range of things. Donald Trump, the difference here is that no administration in history would have sued these media organizations. So he has taken this to a new level, an authoritarian tactic, which is scary.

It's just, it's just, it just is. It is not that he has an enormous amount of power. And even if he doesn't have right on his side, which he certainly doesn't, he has power on his side. He has power on his side. And that makes everybody, you know, everybody has the second- that? So is Pete Hegzeth scared of him? The Army Secretary has just resigned. The Chief of Staff to the Army Secretary resigned earlier this year. Pete Hegzeth is clearing through generals.

Donald Trump has already said that Pete Hegzeth, along with Benjamin Netanyahu, persuaded him to go into Iran. We know that he is contemplating a run for president because he was trotting around Iowa a couple of weeks ago. Is Pete Hexeth scared? Well, Colonel Vodka, as his boss at Fox News, Roger Ailes called him, is deathly afraid of General Bonespur? Absolutely. I mean, he exists, He only exists in the shadow of General Bonespur. And he has that job because he is afraid of Donald Trump, because he's a, you know, a yes man, alcoholic, former alcoholic, he says, suck up. And he is in contrast, remember, in the first administration, the Secretary of Defense was James Mattis, a very highly decorated. a well-respected general.

And Mattis used to tell Trump that he was wrong. And that was, and Trump came to hate him for that. So he, Trump course corrected, instead of hiring a highly respected four-star, I believe, general, He hired someone who had been a second lieutenant in the National Guard and a co-host of a weekend television show. Now, and people, there are some people I know who point out, well, he was a major. Actually, he received a promotion when he finished with his service. His experience in the Army in the military is as a second lieutenant. And, you know, so, and to set the scene on this, which is really a critical scene, I mean, we're at this, we're at this, we're at a moment in time where there has been in, in basically over the last few years, a revolution in munitions, logistics, and supply. I mean, I mean, all of the things that Pete Hegsteth now has to, is in charge.

of has them in expertise, he has to master in expertise, which he doesn't have. And at a moment when there is probably a greater likelihood of conflict in more theaters than at any time since the Second World War. And who do we have looking out for us? Well, we only have Colonel vodka in general bone spurs because they have fired everybody else. Anybody layer upon layer of experience and expertise is gone from the United States military at this point. It's just alarming. And I mentioned I'm in Europe at the moment, and well, specifically in the UK. And on the front page of the Times today, I'm just going to redo the first paragraph of a story on the front page.

and the headline is threat of water supply catastrophe upgraded. The risk of a catastrophic loss of water supply to one million people has been significantly upgraded by government officials in part because of the threat from hostile states. I mean, again, it's just astonishing to be living in Western Europe or staying in Western Europe right now and to read that on the front page of the Times. and, of course, the hostile state they're talking about is Russia. But it may be because this is the subject you're trying to skip data centers also. I'm not trying to skip data centers.

Data centers, because if you don't like them, Michael, according to Donald Trump, you are. Have you got the exact quote? I do, which is Donald Trump has said, the only reason that communities throughout the USA should not want data centers, is if they want to end up being backwards and poor. If they want to be successful and rich with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let data rain.

I'm just going to say one thing. I'm just going to say one thing. We should come back and do a special episode on Heggers and what's happened to the military just since we've gone into Iran and the changing nature of munitions. Because as you say, never has there been, or never in living memory, has there been so many different actors

potentially hostile to the US and potentially hostile to Europe and who essentially have been given a kind of wink and a nod by Donald Trump? It's amazing. But I know you are thirsting to come on to data centers. If we can do a whole episode about data centers, which may well be the leading issue in the midterm campaign. And the background of this is why we're chortling. Are we chortling?

Somewhat chortling here. But you're teasing me. I think you're teasing me because we once had a conversation offline and it turned out that we didn't. You love data centers. I don't love data centers. And I don't love data centers that don't have proper planning permission. But I think it's ridiculous that people say that we can't have data centers. centers, when they want everything online, they want Amazon to deliver within three hours of them

ordering something, and you want all your things stored in the cloud. You agree with Donald Trump. I think that data centers properly planned, and of course the issues are that they use enormous amounts of electricity, threaten local grids, an enormous amount of water. I think they have to be properly planned. But there is the interesting thing, profoundly interesting. is that so many people are against data centers. So either they are just wrong and stupid and dumb, or there is, and we're talking 60, 70, more than 70% of people oppose data centers,

or they understand something. Well, I think data centers have become a proxy for big tech, and people feel like big tech has gotten very rich at the expense of people. People are very anxious about what AI is going to do to their jobs. Which would be totally legitimate. And this is represented by data centers. Right.

But at the same time, people want access to AI. They want access to all their information stored in the cloud. This is what data centers do. Well, maybe they don't. That's an assumption. That's an assumption that you're making there. The industry, the technology industry has made that assumption. People want this. Well, they haven't been given any kind of choice in this, any kind of say in this matter. This has been imposed on everyone. And that is one of the things that's going on right now. People are saying, whoa, wait a minute, stop this. And what is this? Trying to understand, actually. What are the implications here? What is the future here? What am I being made to do?

What are my children being made to do? What effect is this going to have? Nobody has said this except people who we don't trust for very good reasons. And it's also the data center itself. Have you seen these places? Have you ever been in a data center? I haven't been in a data center. It's truly unholy.

What does that mean unholy? You mean it's just full of computers and wires and racks and racks and racks? Yes, you feel no people, you feel it's an evil place. And I think people perceive this. You know, satanic Mills. William Blake, William Blake's satanic Mills. And apparently has united everyone across political spectrums. Well, it's interesting that both Texas and New York are the first two states to a decontal. a moratorium on any other data centers being built until there is full research around them. Well, it's clear that big tech has a ton to do to repair its reputation for just sort of pushing through these things. And obviously, they have to be done in conjunction with the local population. Not everybody agrees on them. Nobody wants them in the center of town.

But, you know, Amazon warehouse is also hideous, you know, less hideous if they're on the edge of places or built where they're supported by, you know, local infrastructure, but not taking over residential areas. Yeah, you know, I mean, they said the same thing about box stores at one moment. And I think that this is, that this is part of the issue here. It's actually part of just the physical issue. These places are plop down. They destroy everything around them. And they are, you know, as I say, there is this feeling of unholliness of, you know, of bad men create bad buildings. Bad buildings create bad men.

You know, you can get into the cancer metaphor here, which I think works incredibly well and is incredibly threatening to people. And people understand this. and are saying, and it's one of the interesting things, to find a thing. There's so many things that people would like to say no to, but they can't because things move on too fast or because they don't quite understand it or because there's so much money behind it and it just happens. It's like buildings. It's like Donald Trump's building. Suddenly it's 65% done. Suddenly it's 75% done. suddenly you can't stop it. And so at this moment in time, people are saying, no, stop, stop.

And I think it's fantastic, actually. Well, do you think it's a proxy for big tech being too involved in our lives, people just feeling fed up with it? I think it's a proxy for everything that feels unexplained, unthought out, that people have not been consulted about. I think now it's somewhat becomes a proxy for Donald Trump or the age of Donald Trump. I think people say just stop. Stop.

And I think staying just stop is great. Let's just stop. So Donald Trump coming out and saying if you're not pro data centers, you're going to be backwards and poor. Does that help Republicans in the midterms, or does it further help them dug into a hole? No, it's just, I mean, again, this is a Donald Trump thing. It's like, let's go screw some friends.

Let's go, you know, let's go stab the Republican Party in the back. I mean, and remember. It's almost as if he's trying. to lose the election at this point. Maybe he wants to make it about them and not him. I mean, he keeps saying they don't like Republicans, but they do like me. I think that's probably, yes, part of it. But also don't remember, Donald Trump is making a lot of money on AI.

This is, I mean, he has gone heavy into this. His support is from that industry. His, you know, he has, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, and his supporters and family and friends have invested heavily in this industry. So he is looking out for number one, big surprise. We do have two Limericks, which I think I should read. First is from Garfried, our Limerick Lorette. He's been Limerick Lurier for a year now, and I think, don't you change the Lurates here every year? Or is it every five years? I think you, in your country, you have.

you have poet laureates. We're a little... You have poet laureates. Billy Collins was the poet laureate. Yeah, I know, but that's just the... It's not like you have them, when they mean something. They do mean something. And when someone gets crowned, there is a poem.

There are poems for the birth of princes. In fact, we should dig out the poem that was written by the then-Loreate, who I think might have been Job Benjamin, actually, for Prince Andrew, because I'm sure it was full of hope. And sadly, he didn't hold up his end of the bargain. All right, Garfried, if the midterms should hand him defeat, he'll indict the machines for deceit. Will his yes men grow spines or toast fraud with fine wines

and anoint him as king with a tweet? And our second one is from edits. A presidency of destruction and dismay with our icons being slain by the day. And his rantings and his lies, it would come as no surprise to find Mustang steak ta-ta on his breakfast buffet. Score. Score. Okay, Michael. Joanna.

Data centers are going to be the big, I mean, strangely so. are going to be the big debate of the midterms. We should go on, I've been in data centers, and it is freakish. So maybe we should go and find one. You think they would let us in? We should do a podcast from a data center. I'm less anti-data center than you are, because my concern is that China then wins the AI rights.

You're pro-data centers. Well, I'm pro-data centers when they're put up properly with discussion with the local community. I'm not with throwing them up overnight. I would be for a ballroom at the White House as long as it fit with the style of the White House, not this huge, as King Charles would say, carbuncle, monstrous garbuncle

on the side of a familiar, well-loved face. We have your number. Pro data centers, pro ballrooms. Okay. Oh, dear. Oh, dear. I'm not doing well here. And, you know,

then there was Dolly Parton. Dear Dolly. All right, Michael, it's always good to see you. I'll be back on Thursday. You'll be back on Thursday all being well. Hugh Docherty will be in the chair tomorrow talking to someone for our Daily Beast podcast. So look out for Hugh, who's back from his well-deserved vacation.

And Michael, I will see you on Thursday. We'll be back inside Trump's head. We'll put some crampons on and climb around what's left in there. Big thanks to our production team, Ryan Murray, John Romero, Rachel Passer, Heather Pissarro and Neil Rosenhaus. So the good news is we have so many Bee Beast tier members now. There are too many names to read out. And we really appreciate your support.