The Daily Beast Podcast - Trump Going off His Rocker as Judges Say No: Wolff

Episode Date: September 5, 2025

Trump chronicler Michael Wolff joins the Beast’s Joanna Coles to go inside the rage-filled White House where Trump is reacting to blows from judges—including to his tariffs. They explore what happens when judges say no to Trump. And they examine how tariffs have become a unilateral tool of punishment and power, why the courts are pushing back, and how Trump reacts with rage when confronted by these limits. From attempts to deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles to efforts to expand emergency powers, this episode examines what it looks like when one President attempts to circumvent a republic’s rules and insists that no one can oppose him. At stake are the checks and balances of American democracy and the question of whether the system can withstand Trump’s defiance. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I'm Joanna Coles. Oh. Can you remember who you are? I'm Joanna Coles. No, you're definitely not Joanna Coles. I'm Michael Bulls. And where are we going on today's trip? We are going, alas, inside Donald Trump's head.

It's the first week back of school, and it should feel like a school outing. I've sent my kids back to school this morning. Do you remember those school outings where you all went on a bus, and there were always people who were sick? Always, always. And I have gone as an adult on those buses, and they really rattle like something crazy. You think, my God, you put children on these.

It's the yellow school bus. I know that's a very American thing. We don't have those in England. Anyway, we're going on a trip inside Trump's head, and we're going to be talking about people who say no to Trump. What happens when people say no? What happens when people say no? What happens to them?

but what happens inside his head. The chemistry of no for Donald Trump is combustible. The chemistry of what happens when you say no to Donald Trump. So come with us on our magic school bus ride. Buckle up. I have a feeling it's going to get bumpy. So, Michael, one of the things I wanted to talk to you about was this decision which says by a federal judge

that Trump's policy, for tariffs is in fact unconstitutional and that the tariffs, the central point of his economic policy, are in fact void. Okay. And let's just just fill in there. Trump has these tariffs that Trump has set, and they've been a theme since the beginning of the administration, have been unilaterally set. I mean, even people in the White House talk about when I've talked to them about this, And I said, where did you get these numbers? Everybody goes, I don't know.

He just came up with these numbers. I mean, this is a true unilateral decision. You know, in the past, trade decisions like this have been very complicated. They've been arrived at through complex formulas. They have passed through Congress. It is a – these are meaningful decisions. which have a major impact on the country's economy. He comes in unilateral tariffs.

We want tariffs. Tariffs are going to be used to raise money. They're going to be used to punish other countries. They're very punitive some of them. They're all kinds. There's something, why, why, it's something I can do. I can declare tariffs. Okay.

The court comes along. and this was late last week and says, obviously, no, you can't. And so what is essentially, I think a fundamental question is how does Trump react to that? And let's set that in the context of, you know, in our system of government, the president is told no a lot. And that's a check and balance. And you have to adapt to it, work around it, rethink it. Again, a, it's, that is all about process. Trump doesn't do that. Trump is literally in people, when this happened, I think this decision came down on Friday and I called people in the White House, the response was, the response was. was one person is, uh-oh.

Another person I spoke to said, bad weather. Is that why we didn't hear from him over the weekend because he was just fuming about this. Yeah, well, I can't answer that, but I know that that was, that when this happens, and let's just just set this. And I think it's a, it's a, it's a, a baseline to understand Donald Trump.

You can't say no to him. I mean, you just, can't say no. And when someone does say no, he flies into a rage. He goes off his rocker. You know, Steve Bannon used to talk to me about this, and it was like, like, you know, I mean, just don't try it. Don't try.

If you try to any situation in which he faces opposition in which someone might be able to actually say no to him. He goes crazy. But these are judges saying no to him. So they're not in the room, right? I mean, you think also of the decision that came down on Tuesday that his insistence on putting the National Guard into L.A. was violated federal policy. Let me go back and set this. One of the other things that's happening here is Trump and the people around him. The people around him know that he must get what he wants. He must, A, no one must say no to him, B, he must get what he wants.

So, and what he wants is never particularly grounded in law, convention, the normal things that people in political life have to have to have to figure on, have to calculate. So one of the ways that this happens is that the people around him go through. Each of the pertinent laws is looked at, and then they look for the soft language. Now, the soft language can be, is defined at those. There is often an exception built into the law for crisis situations. I mean, what if we're attacked? What if there's an economic collapse?

What if there's another country that we're having to deal with who is being threatening and unreasonable? all of those kinds of exceptional situations. For instance, in tariffs, yes, the president cannot unilaterally set tariffs, but in an emergency situation, you might, you can argue that the president does have that power. If it becomes a national security issue, then the president might have that power. Okay. Is that the same as him saying, okay, it's an accrual. emergency in D.C.

I'm sending the national guard. Exactly. So you would not say, I mean, it's very well-trod ground that American forces are not used to police American citizens, except if there is an emergency, invasion, for instance. And in that case, in the case with using troops in cities in Los Angeles, he would was essentially saying, well, there's an invasion. So anyway, they're interesting. So he was saying there's an invasion, i.e. there's an invasion of illegal immigrants. I assumed he was saying it because he thought that there was so much crime. He's using crime for DC, an invasion in L.A. And then

crime in Chicago, if they go into Chicago. He's mulling that now. But the other, so we identify the soft language here in where you might be able to define. a crisis. And that's step one. But step two is then to argue that the person who can define the crisis is the president of the United States. And only him. Right. So this is entirely circular and it entirely adds up to I can do what I want on my own say so. This is now, the courts have now said, at least in the federal appeals court in terms of tariff saying, no. you can't. We've seen other decisions related to mass deportations and now in the, in sending troops into specifically Los Angeles, that you've overstepped, to say the very least. Right. Okay. Trump then

reacts to this. Someone's saying, no, violently. I mean, violently. It is as, as it's a personal affront. It's a, it, to the extent that he has any philosophy about how government works, it's an offense to that. And what he does is essentially then say, how am I going to oppose this? I am not going to take this. I'm going to war against this. I mean, there is this whole thing about him going to war. When this happens, he has to upend it. He has to upset it. He has to upset it. he has to reverse it. He has to, and then he has to punish the people who have done that to him. So you're inside Trump's brain. He's been told no, and he's had a week of being told no. The courts are beginning to fight back. Well, to be fair, the courts have fought back since the beginning,

but these are consequential decisions. Right. But let me, there, before, hold that. that thought, and just let me add, because it's an important point here, is that the courts for the first time are in the position of a being intimidated, consistently intimidated by the president, and then defied. Because again and again and again, the courts, the president has defied the courts. And it's very complicated. What do the courts do? And so I think we're in a situation where we're kind of relying on the courts to do something, but it's by no means clear that the courts are up to this. Well, it's also very stressful, I would imagine, for the judges in the center of this because he calls them out. They get doxed online. It's

intimidating. Their families get intimidated. Absolutely. Can the courts do this? And can they, and what do they do if the president defies them? So I have a question for you, which I go back and forth on. And I have a lot of resistance to, as I think a lot of people do, perhaps because I'm an optimist. But is this actually what an autocracy looks like? That this is one man calling the shots. The people around him seem unable to do anything. I mean, I was struck in the three and a half our cabinet meeting last week. There is a picture of Marco Rubio looking like this. And you think, is there nothing they can do? How do they handle this, as you say,

completely otherworldly species of human that's defying the way this job is normally carried out? Well, I think it is this, I mean, is this, you know, what do we want to call this, autocracy, fascism, whatever we want to call this, We're in a uncharted territory, and we are, when we have departed from the most basic democratic conventions and traditions of this country. So where are we?

Let's put that aside. This is, we are a long way from where we were and where we were, and where we were. we always thought we would be. And that still seems beating around the Bush. So I think you have to actually, you have to get to the point and say, yes, this is autocracy. This is, this is, this is fascism in a, in a kind of classic sense of one-man rule in which opposition is, is not a lot, opposition is always the threat. It's not the norm, which it used to be. It's not the expectation, which it used to be. It's not part of the acceptable structure. It is, opposition is to be fought against, crushed, crushed, I think. But you can't crush Twitter. You can't crush social media where a lot of

these conversations are going on. Or can you? I mean, at one point, it looks as if his partnership with Elon Musk might actually somehow impact opposition, please. We've, we've, we've, we've, we've, I mean, he's set out to crush or certainly inhibit the media and has been pretty successful there. True. So what happens? I mean, remember, this is all somewhat incremental, although it's happening very fast.

And it is kind of drip, drip, drip. And there's never a memo that goes out. We are now in a fascist dictatorship or an autocracy. Decision by decision. No one says that. I am an autocrat. I'm a fascist. They don't.

This is kind of a judgment of history or a judgment when it's, when it's, everybody wakes up and it's a fate accompli has happened. Right. The systems haven't held. So, you know, you know. I mean, when I wrote my last book and. which was about the campaign, which was right up through the, you know, until the inauguration. And it really seemed to me, the thematically, it seemed to me to be binary. The system would crush Donald Trump, all of those trials, or he would crush the system.

And, you know, I didn't know what it was going to be, but I think we are very, clearly seen that it is that it is the latter. And I'm not sure. And everybody is like, well, what do we do about this? I mean, there's, you know, many people are trusting that the Grim Reaper will solve the problem. And, you know, there are the courts. We come back to the courts and will they say no, but we don't know if they can say no. Well, they may be saying no, but does it make any difference? Exactly. And then there is also, well, the people, the electorate. What happens?

And, you know, from my mind, this is where we are. There is nothing left between except this. If he loses his majority in the house in 2026, then that would seem to me a new ballgame. However, of course, he's going to do everything possible. within his power, within the imagination of the people around him, to be able to construct a rationale for interfering in this election in his favor. Michael, we need to stop for a moment. Why? Our sponsors.

And we're back with Michael Wolfe discussing, is this the end of democracy? And you saw him pardoning the January the 6th rioters. You saw this week him announcing that Ashley Babbitt, who was shot during the riots, was going to get full military honors at some kind of memorial, I guess. It's all, I mean, January the 6th, which I think a lot of people thought was a strange band of unlikely people coming together, suddenly looks much more ominous given the moment where I'm now. I mean, I don't know if I'm actually less worried about violent interference with the election than I would be about systemic subversions as in the gerrymandering in Texas, as in this which would otherwise seem to be ridiculous and misguided effort to outlaw. male in voting.

But I guess I meant in terms of if we woke up the day after the midterms and it was clear that the Republicans had lost, is there then violence? I don't know. But yes, I mean, possibly. I mean, everything, at this point, everything becomes more uncertain. We don't know what will happen. We have never been there before. This is alarming.

It's an alarming conversation. No, no, it is alarming. And I, too, am a fundamental optimist. I have always basically believed that Donald Trump, because he's fundamentally incompetent, is and fundamentally interested in just the look of, the performance, that this would all somehow pass. And to your point about incompetence, that he makes so many announcements that actually it doesn't. doesn't add up to anything other than a show of, a sort of show of presidents, a performative presidency, which doesn't actually mean it. Yeah, so the announcements putting troops in the streets are, you know, many announcements and many, you know, darkness at noon scenarios, but there aren't that many troops. Right. And I know lots of people who live in L.A., nobody saw a troop. Nobody saw a troop. They didn't even know they were there. Well, in the neighborhoods where you know people. Well, I know some people that, you know.

No, you don't. Well, I know a few people that live downtown. But, but, but, but yeah, so, so that, that is that you can, you can take, and I have largely looked at it like that. It's just Trump being Trump. Right. And to, you know, to no effect except the, the, to, to center the attention on Donald Trump. Recently, I've been, you know, I mean, I mean. I'm not sure that that is so reassuring anymore.

I mean, you know, I think that this is, he's entered a period of, you know, more arrogance, more hubris, more rage. He wants it. He believes that he can have it. He believes that he has the power to get it. And that's, And that's, and he's not going to be satisfied until, until nobody says no.

So let me ask you something. This week we saw the Shanghai conference run by Xi Jinping. There was him, there was Modi, there was Vladimir Putin. They were all holding hands at one moment in a very strange, it was a sort of strange international gesture. I had thought the axis of opportunism, someone called it. but I had thought that Trump wanted to be the fourth and turn that trio into a quartet. Is that not, is that not? Well, I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I think the more important point is that this is just an indication that everything,

that the fundamental premise, the fundamental pillars of American foreign policy, which is, which, I mean, you can argue at least, you can argue has kept world peace for the last 70 years, almost 80 years. And it is no longer operative. And, you know, I mean, many people as well, there's, you know, I mean, there is, there is, there is, certainly a critique that says American foreign policy has been deeply flawed. But to exchange it for this, essentially empowering our traditional enemies, empowering Vladimir Putin, arguably the worst person on earth. It's hard to see how Donald Trump's, Trump's voters benefit from this in any way.

Higher prices, less national security. What is the benefit here? I mean, I agree with you. It feels like we are at a tipping point. The National Guard going in. It may be performative, but nevertheless, it's rule of one. It's totally, you're totally right, and we get to this other aspect of this, which no one seems capable of making the argument against.

Donald Trump. No one seems capable of making an argument that says, look at this, you're getting nothing out of this. This is, the consequences here are all negative. And partly no one can make the argument because when he makes the argument or when he, his hysteria, and that's always, there's always a level of hysteria that he's, that he's, that he's, that he greets anything. with. I need to put troops in the street. I mean, it's essentially that's his governing principle, hysteria. It's an emergency. American carnage. And that then crowds everything else out. I mean, this is perfectly in term, in media terms, hysteria rules. So no one else can get attention. He gets all the attention. Attention is the currency of our.

time and it's zero sum. He gets it. Nobody else gets it. So therefore, you can't, there are no arguments that can oppose Donald Trump. So Democrats watching this, and I think our audience is largely Democratic, would say, well, Gavin Newsom has taken a page out of Trump's playbook. He's, you know, sending out funny tweets. He's coming back at Trump. Is there any validity to that? Yeah, no, I mean, I think it's the one indication that somebody is understanding that Donald Trump speaks in a different language, that there is that Democrats have to have to be responsive in some way that they haven't been. And, you know, a couple of weeks ago I had dinner with a likely Democratic presidential candidate. I mean, an estimable person in every way. And, you know, a serious person, a person who obviously has is approaching all issues in, you know, not to mention a logical,

but also a moderate way. Someone who you might, it ought to be easy to respect. There's no reason not to respect this person, except that he's a complete dweber. You mean, oh, God, is he just very boring? Yeah, completely. Because you say that.

When you spoke to him, he responded in policy paragraphs. Come on, you know, just, you know, and this is sitting a few people at a table over, over dinner. I mean, you know, a social occasion, actually. And there it was incredibly rehearsed, incredibly, you know, he talked, he talked, you turn, everybody turned off. Right. And that's what the Democrats, that, you know, that is what passes for, for moderate politics. Michael, we need to take a pause. Sponsors.

Michael and I are back discussing, is this an autocracy? Is it fascism? Is it just Trumpism? What the hell is it? Is it the end of everything? Well, so you say that Donald Trump doesn't speak in the same language as everybody else, but the audience has stopped hearing the familiar language of politics and they like what he's saying, right? Well, I don't think it's a question of like. It's a question of like. It's a question of, You can't hear anyone else. And your attention, it's not a question of like. It's just a, it's a, it's a question of attention. You don't like a car crash, but, you know, you're going to look at it. And, and that's what he understands.

The Democrats are still thinking, you know, people will like this. Well, that's, that's, that, it doesn't work like that. You know, that's not the nature of attention. But it does look like some of the Republicans that went home and held town halls were shocked and surprised by the vehemence against the big beautiful bill about people complaining about their local hospitals closing about people being wiped off Medicaid. Well, I mean, I've been hearing about the Republicans going home to town meetings since 2017. I mean, this is, and this is partly because we're, this is partly because we're, Republicans also can't talk the talk, the Trump talk. And then when Trump comes out again, matter of fact, the Republicans tend to lose when Trump is not on the ballot. They tend to win when he is on the ballot.

So the Republicans don't know what they're doing either. But. Right. That's a great point. And that's an issue. And I think that there is reason, strong reason, to hope and anticipate that the Democrats will win at least in the House in 2026 in a normal world. But Donald Trump also knows that. So he is going to do everything possible. And in a divided electorate, you know, you don't need a lot of movement there to either take or to protect. So I'm just going back to the question that I've asked you before, where is Elon Musk's America party in this? Has he just given it up? Was it also a performative

gesture, fit of peak against Trump? Or do you actually think he might be able to wrestle 10 seats away from the Republicans? You know, I don't know. I think that he's probably, he's, you know, there are forces within the Republican Party, notably J.D. Vance, who have tried to talk him down and may have succeeded in talking him down. Elon has a set of his own problems, obviously, you know, business problems. You know, but, you know, Elon is also, you know, I suspect, you know, what's, where is his attention, where is his focus at any given moment? You know, within his business practices, you know, he has a, you know, the philosophy of the surge.

So you can ignore a problem. And then in order to fix it, you suddenly go all in. Could he do that? And essentially, he did that in the 2024 election. Right. You know, he did not become involved in the election truly until August. And then he went into Pennsylvania all in $300 million. Right.

Post the assassination attempt, right? Well, this was not the conversation I was expecting to have, but it is one that I think is truly depressing. It is, and I think we have to have it. More people have to have it. Have we slipped beyond the point here? Is this, you know, a lot of people say, in a lot of comments that I get, is, will you tell us when we have to be worried? We have to be worried.

We have to be worried, yeah. We have to be worried. Let's know what you think. A bit more of a sober inside Trump's head than perhaps we were expecting. But nevertheless, asking lots of questions. And as you say, people write to us all the time and say this is just the beginning of something that's irrevocable for America. I've always said that this is an anomaly. And it's just, is this weird Trump moment.

And it's all about Donald Trump. And when he goes away, there's no one to replace him. He's a singular figure. Because of by the hand of the angel of death or otherwise, there's no one to replace him. But for now, he's very much there. If you have been, thank you for joining us. Please subscribe to The Daily Beast. Leave us your comments.

What do you think about the conversation we've just had? How worried are you? You can subscribe wherever you get your podcast, Spotify, Apple, YouTube, and don't forget, wherever she is. And she may be a little worried, too. The first lady, she would have us be Beast. And thank you to our production team, Devin Roderino, Annivan Erson, and our editor, Jesse Milwood. Want more great listens?

Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the DailyBeast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.