The Daily - An Interview With the President

Episode Date: January 9, 2026

Four White House reporters from The New York Times sat down with President Trump on Wednesday for an extended interview in the Oval Office.David E. Sanger, one of the reporters, walks us through their conversation.Guest: David E. Sanger, a White House and National Security Correspondent for The New York TimesBackground reading: The many faces of Mr. Trump: what we saw when we interviewed the president.On topic after topic, President Trump made clear that he would be the arbiter of any limits to his authorities, not international law or treaties.Photo: Doug Mills/The New York TimesFor more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.  Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

All righty, we are on our way up through the West Wing, past the press secretary's office, past the cabinet room, sitting under a great portrait of George Washington on his younger days. Come on guys. You ready for us? From the New York Times, I'm Michael Bilbaro. This is the Daily. How are you? Good, good to see, Ms. President. Did you see that just came out?

Number one on TikTok, Trump. All right. I'm a little older than the average age on Tick. On Wednesday night, in the middle of a defining moment for President Trump's second term. Well, thank you, Mr. President, Christina. You know everybody. I do, I do. I do. I do. And Katie Rogers.

Hi, Katie. And, of course, Tyler. Nice to see you. Four White House reporters from the Times sat down with him for an extended interview in the Oval Office. Did you see my various truths today? They were sort of sparkling. Spockling, Today, one of them, David Sanger, walks us through their conversation.

It's Friday, January 9th. So, David, four New York Times reporters walk into the Oval Office. What could possibly go wrong? Sounds like the setup to a punchline. Tell us about this experience. Well, the president's second term is about to hit its one-year mark. And I think it's a considerable understatement for anybody who's been listening to the daily or reading the Times to say that this is truly one of the most pivotal moments in modern American history. Trump has just executed his most audacious overseas intervention.

I've been talking to him for a couple of weeks about sitting down for a full, on-the-record New York Times interview. As you know, the relationship between President Trump and the New York Times has been occasionally slightly fraught. Yeah, and litigious. And litigious. He sued us over the past few months. Only for $15 billion. But in the end, he very happily agreed to it. And we were told that the moment would be 5 p.m. on Wednesday night.

And we actually thought that was a good piece of timing because we figured we would probably be his last appointment of the day. Right. And anybody who has dealt with Donald Trump, and I've dealt with them for a few years, knows that if you're the last appointment of the day, you're likely to be sticking around for a while. We didn't leave the White House till after 9 p.m. Right. You got a meaningful chunk of his time. We did. Interrupted some by a few side moments, including the president wanting to show us some of his architectural plans and visit what he's done up in the residence.

and so forth. But a good, oh, just shy of two hours of it was an actual deep probing conversation about this past year, foreign and domestic issues. And our goal, Michael, was to try to do something deeper and hopefully more revealing than what the president does every day when he stands up briefly in front of reporters on Air Force One or does a gaffe, as they call it, around the resolute desk. And readers and listeners are going to have to determine... If you succeeded. Yeah.

All right, well, to that point, walk us through the interview. Sit down, please. So we settled in, sat down a raid around the resolute desk. It was me and Tyler Pager, Zolencano Young's, and Katie Rogers. Marco, why don't you join us for a couple of minutes? Is that okay? Right. Already inside the Oval Office was Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

We were about to learn why. And right away, Michael, we had to sort through a few logistics. So we haven't understood this is only used for your reporting. So this is what we wanted to ask you about. I think in two different interviews in the first term, we used the audio to go on the daily. The first thing we had to go do was negotiate that we could actually use this recording for the daily. Right. Thank you.

Because without that, negotiation. we don't have this episode. Anything for the Daily, Michael. Let's leave it for a little while. It's fine. For a little while, we'll see how it goes. And we were just a few minutes into the conversation. Is he on the phone?

So can you turn that off for a second? When an aide came in and handed the president a note. He's about to have a call of President Petro, and this call is off the record. Okay. Saying the president of Columbia was on the phone. The country, not the university. That's right.

Can you turn a call? them off you. Give me your word. Yeah. And what did that mean to you, knowing that the president of Columbia was calling him in this moment? The first thing that came to mind was, oh, we have to get up and walk out. But just as I was getting up to go do that, the president waved at me just like, no, David, please stay. And the second thing that I thought was, if the president of Columbia is calling, it's because he's worried about the fact that President Trump said just the other day, he better watch his ass because he could be next. After Nicholas Maduro's ouster, he could be next to be ousted.

That's right. And just that moment, J.D. Vance came in and settled in next to Marco Rubio to listen to the conversation. Got it. Now, the conversation itself was off the record, but it turned out that. Some of our colleagues down in Columbia had just sat down with President Petro. So we had New York Times reporters at both ends of this conversation. They had left before the call happened. But Petro was very clear with them.

He said, this is a scary moment for Columbia. This is Donald Trump. We could well get the Venezuela treatment. So presumably he's calling to beseech President Trump to treat him kindly. That's exactly right. Got it. So the call ends. Okay, let's go.

We turn our recorders back on. I hope that was interesting. Was that interesting? Very interesting. And that began a really wide-ranging conversation. And in the first part, not surprisingly, we spent a lot of time on foreign policy. So let me tell you where we want to start. Your decision to capture Maduro and declared that the U.S. was in charge for the foreseeable future,

I think raised a question of whether you believe, as your aide, Stephen Miller, put it so clearly the other night, that international niceties are gone, that countries operate by strength. I think he said governed by strength, government by force, governed by power. And I think that left a lot of people wondering whether you believe you of the right as the world's largest superpower

to go in and extinguish any threat or seize any resource you think is in the U.S. interest, particularly in the Western Hemisphere. If there's a threat, you use the word threat, you certainly would have the right. Any country would have the right to do that. Without the threat, much less so. And frankly, I do believe in the niceties. I get along with a lot of people.

For most presidents, military power is the very last resort. After everything else, every form of diplomacy has failed you. So I wanted to get the president focused on the question of what criteria he uses to exercise the most extreme and deadly form of American power, which is the military. But also try to figure out how much of a motivation in Venezuela was the fact that it's sitting on the world's largest reserves of oil. You've gone in in part to get a resource, which you just declared today. I got in for numerous reasons. Number one, the drugs are pouring into the country. You know that.

Number two, the people are pouring into the country were, except now we have 100% strong border. That all this talk about a threat from drugs, from criminals and all that might be secondary to his true motivation here. No, the oil happened to be there. Don't forget the oil will take... a while. But we have it said, although we did get, you know, many barrels of oil today, as you probably know. And that's fine, but we didn't do that. We didn't even know about the oil of the oil that was being stored there. So supposing you're Xi Jinping, and you've watched the events of the past few days, and I wanted him to talk a little bit about the long-term implications of this, the precedent it sets. You may also be thinking, if you're Xi, that you could use the same logic to decapitate and control Taiwan, or why couldn't Putin use that argument? Same argument. It's a threat to grab the rest of Ukraine or go beyond into other former Soviet states. Have you created a precedent that you may come to regret later on? No, because this was a real threat. You didn't have people pouring into China. You didn't have drugs pouring into China.

that what happens if you're Xi Jinping and you're watching this thinking, boy, this is useful when I'm justifying going after Taiwan. The president engaged on this, but I'm not sure you've given it a huge amount of thought before we started discussing it. And that's up to him what he's going to be doing. But, you know, I've expressed to him that I would be very unhappy if he did that. And at some point, Tyler Pager jumped back in. to bring the topic back to the central question of Venezuela.

How long do you think you'll be running Venezuela? Only time we'll tell. Three months, six months a year, longer? I would say much longer than that. Much longer. And we have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We're going to be using oil,

and we're going to be taking oil, we're getting oil prices down, and we're going to be giving money to, money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. One of the things that we all really wanted to know was, what would it take for the president to actually send American forces back on the ground in Venezuela? On the importance of the military, what would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela? I wouldn't want to tell you that because, you know, I can't give up information like that to a reporter as good as you may be.

I just can't talk about that. There's a possibility I would do that. Absolutely. Because the U.S. has really never tried an experiment like the one that we're seeing play out now, which is a kind of virtual or remote control occupation. By running a foreign country, kind of by phone. Or by having an armada floating just offshore.

Would you do it if you couldn't get at the oil? Would you do it if they didn't kick out the Chinese and the Russian? I can't tell you that. I really wouldn't want to. tell you that, but they're treating us with great respect, as you know. We're getting along very well with the administration that is there right now. They're giving us everything that we feel is necessary. But President Trump insisted to us that right now he's getting from the Venezuelan government, which is essentially all filled with Maduro's appointees,

everything that he wants. And most of what he wants is access to the oil. oil. Given what has happened in Venezuela, the threats against Colombia, the discussions about taking Greenland, buying Greenland, however, you're framing this right now, is there anything that you think can constrain your power on the world stage if you believe that something is against national security? Do you see any checks on your power on the world stage? Is there anything that could stop you if you wanted to? Yeah, there's one thing. My own morality, my own mind, It's the only thing that can stop. Not international law.

And that's very good. I don't need international law. I'm not looking to hurt people. I'm not looking to kill people. I've ended, remember this, I've ended eight wars. Nobody else has ever done that. I've ended eight wars and didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize. Pretty amazing.

Obama got it. He was there for a few weeks and he got it. He didn't even know why he got it. They asked him, why did he get it? He was unable to answer the question. I ended eight wars. If you look at those wars, these were tough wars to end, too. And let me tell you India and Pakistan were going at it.

As you know, they were going at it. But that was one of eight. But we ended eight strong wars, some going on for more than 30 years. But do you feel your administration needs to abide by international law on the global stage? Yeah, I do. You know, I do. But it depends what your definition of international laws. But the answer is I do.

But we have to keep the United States. We have to keep parts of the world safe that we feel responsible for. NATO is not feared by Russia or China at all, not even a little bit. We're tremendously feared. David, I found this exchange that the president had with Katie Rogers really fascinating because he is saying that at a moment when he is exercising power, arguably as never before, that international law is not much of a constraint on him, the old. only constrained, really, is his personal judgment.

And he goes on to say that he thinks that situation, him exercising American power kind of at his whim, is what instills in our foes and even in our allies like NATO, the respect and fear required to operate in this world. I think this is one of the most fascinating windows into the way President Trump thinks. Because as you just heard there, he views the only check on his power to be his own moral compass. And that outside institutions, whether they're the UN or an international treaty, only means what he interprets it to me. And that tells you that he wants to operate as a leader with fundamentally no check at all because he thinks he's a. a good person and therefore the world can rely on his good judgments. His good judgment and his good heart. And so we thought we'd sort of stress test that by turning to Greenland.

Can I circle back to what you had said about NATO? If you had to choose between obtaining Greenland and preserving NATO, what's your higher priority there? Well, I don't want to say that to you, but it may be a choice. You have to understand, Russia is not at all concerned. concerned with NATO other than us. China is not at all concerned with NATO other than us. Because sadly, Europe is becoming a much different place. And they really do have to shape up. I want them to shape up. I think we'll always get along with Europe. What he's essentially saying is the U.S. holds all the card, has all the power, and NATO's

not going to have a choice, because there is no NATO without the United States. And therefore, if the price of keeping the alliance together is handing the U.S. the right to control Greenland, they're going to do it because they don't have another choice. Are you prepared to send troops to Greenland if they do not give over the territory? Well, we already have troops. More troops to military take it over? I mean, we already have. Don't forget, we have, you know, a good section of troops. And I've had troops there and I've, you know, upped it.

I was there this summer and you could send as many troops as you want. And you haven't done it. How come? Because I want to do it properly. And properly means own it? Really, it is. To me, it's ownership. Ownership is very important, you know.

Why is ownership important here? Because that's what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can't do, whether you're talking about a lease or a truck. Treaty ownership gives you things and elements that you can't get from just signing a document that you can have a business. So you're going to ask them to buy it? Psychologically important for me.

Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I've been right about everything. And you would use military force to get that? I didn't say that. You said that. I'm asking you. Would you? Yeah. I wouldn't comment on that.

I don't think it'll be necessary. And can you just explain what he means by that? the psychological value of owning Greenland, not just controlling it, not just having a lot of influence over it, but owning it. The way I read it was, hey, I spent my life as a real estate developer,

and I know that you have way more controlled if you own than if you lease. But that also means I fundamentally don't believe in relying on alliances. And the fact that Denmark, a member of NATO, a member of NATO, which basically controls and protects Greenland, it's not enough for him to have an ally that he's got to do it himself. Now, you're going to ask yourself, where does that logic end? Right. Does it end with China taking over Taiwan? Does it end with Russia taking over Ukraine?

Does it end with the United States demanding that it doesn't stop at Greenland? Maybe we need Iceland as well. So, David, based on how the president talked about the use of American power overseas, and especially the use of American military power overseas, what were you left thinking by the end of this part of the interview? I was left thinking that the president feels himself unconstrained by law, convention, or the systems that the United States itself built at the end of World War II after the world had gone through too horrific. NATO and the entire system of international law.

That's right. But at the same time that he's not a war monger, right? He actually does want that peace prize. He does want to be known as a president of peace. And yet, when he's given the choice between long, slow, boring diplomacy and quick action by special operations breaking down doors, he'll go for the special operators. What you're describing is a set of extraordinary contradictions, even for Donald Trump. Absolutely. And that is what is both maddening and fascinating about covering the Trump presidency. Because you're not going to fit this man into some simple set of theories. He is a bundle of contradictions.

Well, David, after the break, we are going to turn to a similar bundle of contradictions. when it comes to domestic affairs. We'll be right back. I want to make sure we have time for domestic policy, too. Yeah. ICE did shoot and kill an American citizen today, according to early reports. David, tell us about the conversation

that the four of you had with the president about domestic issues. Well, Zoland kicked it off with questions about this horrifying scene. We had all just seen play out in Minneapolis just hours before. We have also seen protests. met with violent tactics and pepper spray. In some cases, American citizens have also been

wrongfully detained. Do any of these incidents or tactics make you think ICE has gone too far? Well, I think that ICE has been treated very badly. Don't forget, ICE has gotten rid of thousands and thousands of killers, murderers. They've gotten rid of thousands of people that were led into a country during the Biden administration so stupidly. They're very brave. They're very strong. citizen was shot today. Does this make you uncomfortable? Well, everything makes me uncomfortable.

I want to see nobody get shot. I want to see nobody screaming and trying to run over a policeman either or law enforcement. That's disputed by local officials and the federal officers. Well, if you take a look at the tape, I saw the same tape that you must have seen. I just saw it. There were several angles on it. Well, I know, but if you take a look at that, that was a vicious situation that took place.

And if you go before that, and in my opinion, And the screamer, that woman that was screaming, shame, shame, shame, that's not normal. That was a practiced, rehearsed, professional agitator. Even so, are those appropriate policing tactics for somebody to fire into a vehicle like that? In your mind, is that so? Well, they ran them over. I mean, they ran. And Trump just sort of reflexively defended the officers and claimed that the driver had run over one of them.

And we had all seen this video. Right. immediately sort of stepped in to challenge the account. The video didn't look like he was run over. Well, I'd play the tape for you right now. Do you want to just whip it out? Look to me to be very bad. I've just put out the tape.

And so Trump said, well, let's just watch it together. And to our surprise, that's exactly what happened. Have any of these tactics made you uncomfortable? You know, you've had citizens that have also been wrongfully detained here. Yeah, we've seen that one. We've seen that video. Yeah. One of his aides brought over a laptop, slowed down a version of the tape.

Does not look like the ICE officer has been run over there, and then maybe from a different angle we would see. The way I look at it, it's a... Oh, Sher, if you look at that? It's a terrible scene. Yeah. We all agree on me. You say it's horrible to watch. You said that on truth social.

I think it's horrible to watch. No, I hate to see it. It was sort of a... strange form of real-time fact-checking of the president. With it clear that the president wasn't entirely comfortable with what he was seeing on that laptop or what these ICE agents were doing. So just take a step back here. And then from there, Zol and the president sort of turned to a different topic about what the real aim of the president's immigration restrictions are and who they're supposed to target.

legal challenge, but I do. Your administration has also suggested that some people who are naturalized citizens could see their citizenship strict. Which groups do you think should lose citizenship? Well, I think Somalia is a disaster, to be honest with you. I look at what's happening in Minnesota, and you look at this country. It's one of the worst in the world. It's acknowledged to be truly one of the most corrupt, one of the most vicious, violent countries in the world.

Even the ships, they go after the ships. They don't do that anymore because if they go after the ships, you know what, they get hit by the same missile that we hit the drug dealers with. So, one's question is, would you strip them of their nationality? If they deserve to be stripped, I would, yeah. So what would the criteria you would? Well, we're looking at criteria right now, but if they deserve to be stripped, David, I'd do it in a heartbeat, yeah. You don't think that your comments about those of Somali descent have painted a broad brush on your own citizen? I don't care.

I want great people in this country. I want people that love the country. and I think that many of the people that came in from Somalia, they hate our country. And not only do they hate our country, they've ripped off our country, they've ripped it off, they've stolen billions of dollars. It's shocking. From where they came, they had nothing.

And they come here and they steal. And it's an embarrassment to the intelligence of the people of Minnesota and to the people of our country. That they would be allowed to do it. I've heard many people that say this is generalizing a population. Well, I sure. You call it whatever you want. I want to ask if part of your immigration agenda is also aimed at changing the racial makeup of this country?

No, not at all. Is part of this agenda aimed at making a country in white as well? It's very simple. I want people that love our country. I want people that respect our country, respect the laws of our country. And I want people that can embrace our country. Because you've shut the door to all refugees That can make America

You have a traffic man on the majority African Americans Solon raises an interesting point The only immigrants who can come in right now are white South Africans Refugees The way of refugees Well I haven't seen that I mean I certainly haven't seen that

But over the years It's been very much the opposite of that Very very much the opposite of that People are coming into our country Nobody's doing it based on race Trump is positing to you all that his immigration restrictions are not about race.

They're not intentionally about race when the reality is that they are allowing for very few people of color to enter the country, the people who are banned from entering the U.S. right now and there are bans on a lot of countries.

They are almost uniformly from countries where the populations are black and brown, the very few people he is letting in are white. The pattern becomes difficult to ignore. It sure does. And look, he says he just wants people who love this country to be allowed in. But what we're learning is he basically only wants to favor white South Africans, as I raised with him,

or the immigrants he wants the most are those who bring special skills that can help our economy. And that's a very select group. Do you think some industries still need immigrant labor? Yes. Which ones? They need inexpensive. Well, there are different things. We need people to come in, just so you understand something.

I'm all four people coming into our country through the border legally. if they come in legally, I want them more than they want me and more than they want this country. And if you look at my first term, and if you look at this term, I want, we need people. We're building factories all over the country. You said, but I want them to come in. Respectfully, I want them to come in legally.

But you said agriculture and hotels that you wanted ICE to use common sense against them, right? I want them to use companies. Have you directed ICE to ease deportations against those industries? Yes, I am. Are there other industries that you've directed ice to ease these sports? Because I watch farmers and I deal with farmers and I want 90% of the farmers more than that. And they're great people. And they have great people working for them who have been working for them for 25 years.

They're almost like a member of the family. Are there other industries or companies that you've thrown out of the country? Are there other industries or companies that you've directed ice to ease deportations on? South Korean states. Some service industries. Some, I'll give you an example in Georgia with South Korea. career. They make batteries. Batteries are very complex and they're very dangerous to make, and they make them. And they brought in three or four hundred people who specialize in the balance. And they throw them out,

and I was very angry about it. You know why? Because they have to open a factory. And you can't take a person off the street who's never seen a battery before and think that they're going to make highly complex factories. He actually invoked the ice raid on that Hyundai plant in Georgia, where they deported a whole bunch of South Korean workers who were there setting up a car battery factory. You have to allow them to bring some of their experts with them, or they're never going to be able to open their plant or their factory. It sounds like you were angry at at ICE for this raid on the Hyundai facility. I was not happy about it. No, I was not happy about it. They're making batteries. Batteries are very dangerous and actually very complex, and they brought

people that make batteries, and those people would have trained our people how to make batteries, and at some point they would have gone back because they want to go back to their country. So in Trump's telling here, and I was struck by this, that a fair number of American workers just may not be qualified to do the kind of highly technical manufacturing that he's prioritizing right now, something like, you know, car batteries. And what's interesting about that, of course, is, you know, President Trump runs on a message of remembering forgotten America, the blue-collar, working-class Americans, you know, many of whom used to be in the manufacturing sector, who need jobs now in the new economy. And he's kind of saying, let's be honest, a lot of those people, they can't do this work. Well, I think what he's saying is they certainly can't do it at the beginning.

Immigrants can. That's right. You can't just drop a car battery factory and expect it to be up and running without the help of the technical workers that they need to get it up and running and the American workers aren't going to catch on until that happens. To be honest, I'd love to be able to create an immigration policy that works for everyone. You'd like a comprehensive immigration officer? I would love to do it if it was possible. Is Congress willing to go do that? George Boyce tried.

If the Democrats would do it, I'd do it. I'd love to have a comprehensive. of immigration policy, something that really worked. It's about time for the country to have. What would that look like? Excuse me? I don't want to go into that because it's a very, it's a very ticklish subject. But I believe that there is a plan that can work for everybody.

David, I wonder if you were as surprised as I was in listening to this interview by the president's sudden enthusiasm for something like comprehensive immigration reform. I'm sure you remember this as well as I do. Comprehensive immigration reform is a word that if a Republican invokes, they are in big, big trouble. Because it almost always implies that you're going to create a legal path for those here illegally. That's the comprehensive part of immigration reform. in the past President Trump has sought to kill any form of comprehensive immigration reform. And suddenly he's saying, I want this?

You know, Michael, to hear President Trump come back and discuss this, I was sitting there thinking, how is his own base going to go react to this? Because, yes, the core of it is you do find a pathway for at least some to get to citizenship. and I'm not sure the current Trump base is ready for that. Can we move on to the economy? I would like to ask you about Republican pollsters lately are warning that you and the party are losing ground with young voters, particularly young men who are concerned with job prospects for the rise of AI.

Can I have the TikTok thing? But what would you say to those young voters? Well, I'd say they're rigged. Look, the polls are rigged just like the riders are. But these are Republican pollsters who are warning. your party that you are not doing enough to focus on American jobs. I can't tell you. I think I'm very popular.

This just came out from TikTok. It came out just recently that Donald Trump was number one on TikTok and the most popular person. So you can have these. David, on the economy, the president pretty forcefully waves off the idea, which we keep finding in poll after poll and in election results from, the last off-year election, that voters, including many Republican voters, are persistently feeling anxious about the economy, and they don't think he is focused enough on it.

You know, we kept trying to steer him back to this, to try to get him to think about the economic anxieties of ordinary Americans. Mr. President, so many voters voted for you because of the economy, and I think Katie just wanted to get back. The economy is probably the best. It's, look, the economy right now, I have trillions and trillions of dollars coming into this economy, more than any nation has ever had by far. Our economy is unbelievable, and I'm bringing down the prices. Remember this. I did cause the high prices. Biden did.

Wait, wait, wait, one second. I inherited a mess. Listen, I inherited a mess. I inherited a highly inflated, horribly run country. The borders were bad, the military was bad, the Afghanistan was the worst day in the history

of our country, maybe in the history, I think it was the lowest point. Do you know what? That was the lowest point, and we may right now be at the highest point in the history of our country. The economy is growing, wages are keeping up with inflation, but there are other indicators that people are hurting. High earners, there may be. There may be. And you know

what? I'm bringing, they're hurting because of Biden. I'm bringing down. They're not hurting. It's the low earners. It's the middle earners. It's the people that you have promised to help. What do you say to them? If you look at my achievements, the greatest percentage-wise, the greatest beneficiaries of my economy

in my first term were low-income workers. And it's turning out to be right now blue-collar workers are doing better than anybody else, percentage-wise, as they measure that. I inherited a mess. It was high prices. It was high inflation. It was high crime. Did you see where murders are the lowest they've ever been?

Did you see where crime is at the lowest point it's ever been? Do you know why? Because they closed the border, and we don't have criminals pouring into our country. Mr. President, do you, a few more on the economy. Do you think, are you basically telling Americans that they have to wait a little bit longer, particularly low and middle-income Americans? Yeah, I can't fix what they destroyed in four years immediately. But if you look at it, I have more investment.

income coming in than any president and any country has ever had. What I've done... I mean, it felt in these exchanges that this concept of the president as insulated from the American economic challenges of this moment was very vividly on display. And you don't sense that he is empathetic to those who are worried about the economy. In fact, he kind of disputes the premise that there is. anything wrong with the economy? That's right.

Or that new technology like artificial intelligence would bring about more economic anxiety. Just on AI, there are many Americans who are concerned that AI is going to take their jobs and they will not be out of work. I think just the opposite. I think AI is going to be a tremendous job producer. I think that we have so many jobs. My biggest problem isn't taking the jobs is that we don't have enough. people to fill the jobs. And that's where robots come in.

And so I think you've got to come to your own conclusion about whether or not there's anything in this interview that would make an ordinary American feel better about supermarket prices or tightening job market or the anxieties that come from the arrival of a new and somewhat terrifying new technology that's going to have. effects that none of us can predict. So, David, how does this interview ultimately come to an end? Well, the president had stuff he wanted us to see. These are two personnel actions that Skavino's team asked the president to...

Oh, I'll sign it into his... So, sir. There's a much more important thing to do. So this is the ballroom right here. It's beautiful. People love it. And after nearly two hours of conversation, he got up, started pointing out paintings. He had dug out of the vault of the White House and all.

Oh, get me the model real fast. I'll show up. Should I? Talked about his plans for the White House complex. All a reminder that while he is taking out the leader of Venezuela and threatening to re-engage with the Iranians and denying that there's any reason for people to be anxious about the economy. As an example, have you seen the white marble floor there? No.

No. But I'm going back up. So if you want, you can follow them. He's also busy thinking about rebuilding the White House. Yeah, let's go. Come on. We had enough. Nice setup, right? Katie, good? Two hours, Katie. I could go nine hours. We're going to continue. Sir, can I get two signatures? You know, I did a treadmill. Well, David, thank you very much for walking us through this fascinating conversation with the president. When we come back, we're going to ask that all four,

four of you who conducted this interview, sit down together and briefly reflect on the conversation and what you all took from it. So we'll be right back. So Tyler, Katie, Zolan, David just walked us through the highlights of the interview that the four of you did with him. Because this went on for so long, there's inevitably a lot of material that we couldn't cover. So I want to begin by just asking each of you, what's one thing he said that we probably didn't cover with David that's really going to stick with you when you reflect back on this interview? Katie? I think it's the degree to which the president throughout this interview really wanted credit and he wanted gestures of goodwill from people he wanted respect from, be it Democrats,

Republicans, members of the news media, the American public. And one of the ways I felt that that was manifesting during this whole encounter was he's building a ballroom where the East Wing used to be, big enough to host an inauguration inside for future presidents. And he kept going back to this idea that he's a builder. He mentioned that maybe he was a better builder than he ever has been at politics. And at one point he summons a military aid to bring in an architectural rendering with miniature models of the ballroom and is sort of almost telling us and himself that building being built over there, they'll be thanking me as if this is the project that will do it, that will give him this credit that he has been seeking in this term, his last term and throughout his time and public life. Zolan, what about you? Katie made the good point of how the president is so motivated by whether or not he's getting credit. And it's not just about whether he's getting credit now,

but it seems he's also motivated by whether or not he got credit in the first term. And he did not seem bothered at all when we asked him about his relatives and the business deals and the money that they've made across the world throughout his second term. when we pressed him on this, he was saying, well, in his view, his family showed restraint in the first term and he didn't get credit. Showed restraint in terms of what he was willing to do in the name of making his family money. That's right. And thus, now in this term, he said that he was pretty much unbothered about the business deals that his family has been able to pursue. All this, I think, speaks to a president who's so much more emboldened in this second term. and I think we saw up close and personal just how emboldened he is.

Tyler. One thing that I think stood out to me, Michael, is a conversation we had about anti-Semitism because it's become such a flashpoint within the Republican Party as we see this inter-party warfare over whether or not there is space in the Republican Party and the broader Make America Great Again movement for people who espouse anti-Semitic views. Right. Right. And J.D. Vance, his vice president, said basically that as long as you love America, you're welcome, and he didn't want to institute purity tests.

Even if you're anti-Semitic. Right. And I asked President Trump whether or not there was room in his movement for people with anti-Semitic views. And he said, no, I don't think we need them. I don't think we like them. And that puts him at odds with leading Republican figures, including his vice president, who seemed more open to including people who spread hateful views within the party. It was a moment where he really came out quite strongly against people who spread anti-Semitism when this debate is coursing through his movement. among his supporters. Right. He's drawing a pretty bright red line there. So one last question for each of you. What is your ultimate takeaway from this conversation? For me, there were moments in this interview where almost seemed like the president was a bystander to his own policies, to his own agenda. There were times where he would speak, for example, about an interesting comprehensive immigration reform and a potential pathway to citizenship. Well, he has also directed his aides to go pursue mass deportations. And, you know, he talked about, well, ice needs to be careful around

certain industries. You run ice. Yeah, you run ice. And also Stephen Miller works for you. Stephen Miller has been clear about pursuing mass deportations as well. So it was that distance he almost seemed to sort of try to create between himself and in some of the actions that his administration is taking. Yeah, that is fascinating. Katie, what about you? My major takeaway from this is that there are many faces to President Trump. And even throughout that interview, it was a real exercise in wrangling those different personas because he was combative. He was upbeat at times. He was very almost docile when we were asking him probing questions about his health. And so instead of being the President Trump who has called reporters seditious for asking questions about his health,

health. He allowed Tyler to ask him if he'd ever taken a GLP1 medication before. He said no. Quick an injection. What did he say? He said he had not, but he probably should. David asked him if he was on any blood thinners besides aspirin. The answer was no. Yeah, very personal questions. I asked him if he had ever had a heart attack. These are questions. The answer was no. The answer was no. But the point is, this was a different version of him. And you never know which version of him you are going to get, and he knows that. He knows that if a foreign leader calls him, that person does not know who is on the other end of the line. Which persona? Yes. And that means that this president can dangle consequences, can show up as magnanimous, he can show up as threatening. I think that

is my main takeaway going forward. It's fascinating. David, you know, all presidents in their second term turn more to foreign policy, not only because they've got greater leverage and greater freedom, but because they want to establish a legacy. And I think the first thing I took away from it is this is somebody who thinks about building a foreign policy legacy and building buildings. The second thing that really jumped out at me was that he was spending this time with the New York Times, because he really wants an approval for this new vision of a muscular America. And I think he was making what he thought was a significant investment in trying to explain a new approach to managing the globe. Tyler? What was remarkable to me as we were in there

for quite some time was just watching how the Oval Office operated and the bubble around the president to support all of his needs, whether that's him pressing the red button on his desk to get a Diet Coke or the aid that runs out multiple times of the Oval Office to pick up different pieces of paper that he has requested cheap print out as evidence for whatever point he's making, or just the people walking in and out of the Oval Office with notes, whether that's a foreign leader is on the call or an aide is waiting outside. To him combining meetings, there were documents he had to sign, and he just had that person come in with the paperwork as we were sitting there for the interview.

His phone, his personal cell phone was ringing multiple times. He took one call from the Fox News anchor, Brett Baer. Wow. But it was really just quite amazing to see how chaotic, frankly, the Oval Office can be. and we've reported on how this unfolds, but I think sitting in the Oval Office for an extended period of time and watching it up close

really gives you the sense of how Trump makes decisions, how he thinks, and how his world operates. Well, to all four of you, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. Here's what else you need to another day. The A's are 52, the next.

Mays are 47, the motion is agreed to. The joint resolution will be placed on the calendar. On Thursday, a bipartisan group of senators voted to advance a resolution that would force President Trump to seek congressional authorization for continued military operations in Venezuela. Five Republican senators joined all Democrats in backing their resolution. One of them, Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, said that one ferned, behind his vote was Trump's suggestion made in his interview with the Times that the United States might remain involved in Venezuela for years. And in Minnesota, local authorities are accusing the federal government of blocking them from investigating why an ICE agent killed a 37-year-old

woman in her car. The accusation came as federal immigration agents in Portland, Oregon, shot two people in their car on Thursday, apparently under similar circumstances. Federal officials accused the two people in Oregon of weaponizing their car against the agents. Today's episode was produced by Astha Chatharvaney, Stella Tan and Mary Wilson. It was edited by Rachel Quester,

with help from Paige Cowett, contains music by Rooney Misto and Dan Powell, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Special thanks to Afim Shapiro. That's it for the daily. I'm Michael Boboro. See you on Monday.