The Journal. - Trump 2.0: ‘Just Getting Started’

Episode Date: March 7, 2025

President Trump delivered a celebratory speech to Congress, declaring that he had swiftly notched several wins for the American people. WSJ’s Andrew Restuccia joins Kate Linebaugh and Molly Ball to discuss the roadmap Trump laid out and what it means for the next few years. See The Journal live! Take our survey!  Further Listening: -The Trade War With China Is On  -Trump's Tariffs Cause Chaos in Auto Industry  -Inside DOGE's Campaign of Secrecy  Further Reading: -An Annotated Fact-Check and Analysis of Trump’s Speech to Congress  -How Trump’s Polite Meeting With Zelensky Descended Into Acrimony  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, Molly. Hey, you're not Ryan. I am not Ryan. No, Ryan's off this week, so you've got me. Wait, so who are you? I'm Kate Leinbach, co-host of The Journal. And I understand this podcast, Trump 2.0, is about Trump's first hundred days. You are correct. How many days about Trump's first 100 days. You are correct.

How many days into Trump's presidency are we? Let me see, 46 days. So we're not even halfway to that 100-day benchmark. But this week, we did hit an important milestone. Trump laid out his vision for the country in his first speech to Congress. Members of the United States Congress, thank you very much. And to my fellow citizens, America is back. What did you come away with from the speech? It was a defiant speech,

an unapologetic speech, a long speech, and a speech that I think gave us a real window into how Trump is seeing his very disruptive first several weeks in the White House in his second term. There's been nothing but swift and unrelenting action to usher in the greatest and most successful era in the history of our country. What did it tell you about where Trump is taking the country? It told me that he is determined to see through these incredibly disruptive changes that he's unleashed, no matter what the cost to his party, to his own political prospects.

And he is convinced that we are going to come out better on the other side once we get through it. From the Journal, this is Trump 2.0. I'm Kate Leinbach. And I'm Molly Ball. It's Friday, March 7th. Coming up, Trump's first speech to Congress, where he lays out how he wants to reshape the economy and foreign policy. shares from TD Direct Investing, you can own less than one full share, so expensive stocks are within reach. Learn more at td.com slash partial shares. TD, ready for you.

So Molly, on Tuesday night, you were there in the House chamber for Trump's presidential address to a joint session of Congress. And going into this speech, there was a ton going on. There had been this major fissure between the U.S. and Ukraine. There had been the launch of 25% tariffs against Mexico and Canada. And the stock market was tanking. So with that as background, what do you think was Trump's goal with this speech? The goal was really to explain

why all of this is good and necessary, right? Why he is winning, why all of the things he's done add up to a better future, a new golden age, as he likes to put it. Why all of this disruption has a purpose and is going to lead to better things and is already putting victories on the board. Is that always the goal with this kind of speech?

Yes and no. I mean, certainly presidents are always trying to justify their actions. I would say that there's a few things that are different about Trump than a quote unquote normal president at this stage, right? I think a normal president has much more of a bipartisan honeymoon and spends much more time trying to extend olive branches to the other side

to explain why the things that he is doing should be broadly acceptable to Republicans and Democrats. Trump actually began the speech by saying, Democrats hate me and they're not going to clap for anything I do. So it was almost like a, first of all, screw you. And so that's one difference. I think also just the level of disruption, and that being a feature, not a bug, right? Trump is very proud of how disruptive his agenda is.

And as he put it, there's going to be an adjustment period to some of the ways he's trying to reorder the economy with his tariffs that there will be some short-term pain. Sort of a refreshing honesty there, honestly, because presidents don't usually like to admit that. We wanted to bring in someone with some White House expertise to help unpack Trump's speech. So today, we're joined by our White House editor, Andrew Rastuscia. Hey, thanks for having me. Hey, Andrew.

So, Andrew, what is the White House's takeaway from this speech? What did they want going into it, and how do they think it went? I think they wanted to make a splash and they feel like they did. They are thrilled. They feel like Trump delivered on what he promised, which was to sort of explain to the public exactly what he's doing and to make no apologies for it. What was the splash? So there were a bunch of sort of theatrical moments throughout the speech and Trump, we're told, going in really wanted to emphasize those.

You know, he sort of sees his presidency as a reality show and that was sort of what we got. I mean, he announced that a 13-year-old boy with brain cancer would be an honorary member of the Secret Service. And tonight, DJ, we're going to do you the biggest honor of them all. I am asking our new Secret Service Director, Sean Curran, to officially make you an agent of the United States Secret Service. He said that a young man was admitted to West Point.

That's a hard one to get into. But I'm pleased to inform you that your application has been accepted. He revealed that they had captured one of the planners of a deadly 2021 suicide attack in Afghanistan. Tonight, I am pleased to announce that we have just apprehended the top terrorist responsible for that atrocity. And he is right now on his way here to face the swift sword of American justice. So it was about sort of finding moments that he knew would resonate on social media, on

cable news, and he sort of peppered those throughout the speech. And it wasn't, you know, notably, though he did talk about policy, there really weren't a whole lot of new policy details in there. It was more about the optics. And in the background here, while this is all going on, the Democrats are holding up little black signs and sitting down and looking grouchy. Yeah. And the White House, you know, kind of set up a trap for them there, right?

I mean, they, and their argument, both, you know, in the aftermath of the speech, is like, how could you not applaud for a boy with brain cancer or a guy getting into West Point? You know, you are callous and heartless, and you are the ones who are politicizing this whole dynamic. So those were like, as you said, the theatrical moments. But what about the kind of more meaty stuff? What did we learn about Trump's approach to the economy? I think the biggest thing we learned is that he is not really detailing, you know, a point-by-point

plan to deal with prices, other than saying he wants to drill more, and he believes once we drill more, then inflation will solely be dealt with. Drill baby drill. Yeah. He's blaming President Biden for all of the country's problems. He's not taking ownership of the issues that voters are facing. He blamed Biden for the price of eggs.

And he really hasn't talked at length about how he's going to deal with prices beyond the issue of energy. And that is worrying Republicans, both privately and publicly, who note that prices are one of the things that voters care about most. And it was actually the very thing that in part hurt Joe Biden in the last election. So there's a risk that if this isn't addressed, and of course there's quite a bit of time before the midterms, but if this isn't addressed in a serious way before then and prices continue to remain high, which we expect them to, that Republicans could see some political follow-up.

But at the same time, Trump is out there enacting tariffs, which will cause prices for Americans to jump. So how is all of this going to go down? The tariffs themselves are not necessarily popular, but it was certainly very clear that this was going to be a part of his economic prescription. And there's a lot of evidence in the polls that the American public is very much in this wait and see moment. They are giving the president the benefit of the doubt

to implement his agenda and see where things land. You know, markets render verdicts much more quickly and we do see the market expressing a lot of doubt about where this is all headed. But you certainly cannot say that Trump is not doing exactly what he said he would do. He, if anything, promised more tariffs than he has done so far. And he promised, I think, on an even more macro level, to bring major change to the way everything works, right?

To change the way the federal government functions, To change the way the federal government functions, to change the way the American economy functions, to change the entire world order and rearrange our alliances. And he has set all of that in motion, and it is very destabilizing, and a lot of people don't like it. But you cannot say that he didn't promise to do all of those things.

And part of what I think he was communicating in the speech was, this is all working, just give it a little bit of time to play out and we're going to get to a better place. Exactly. I think Trump has a couple aims. One is, I think first and foremost, to show that he is a strong man that will do what he's going to say and that he's going to punish countries for standing in his way. So it's a lot about showing strength and showing countries that he's going to say and that he's going to punish countries for standing in his way.

So it's a lot about showing strength and showing countries that he's serious when he makes these threats. He showed Canada and Mexico and China that this week. Secondarily, it is also about rejiggering the American economy to build manufacturing, more manufacturing in the US and to rely less heavily on products from China and other countries. That is a long-term project that will take years and decades to accomplish. The question really is, can these tariffs actually achieve that in the shorter medium term? Well, can they achieve it when they're constantly temporary or being put off 30 days and then rolled back and exemptions being given.

Certainly if this is just a negotiating tactic, it's a little bit harder to make the case that this is going to be a long-term play to reorient the economy. But his goal is to get concessions from Canada and Mexico and China on the border when it comes to Canada and Mexico and on Fentanyl, which he views as just a scourge on the country, particularly when it comes to China. But using tariffs as a way to encourage businesses to move manufacturing back to the United States feels like it can work. We talk to people who are doing it. Honda is going to make the Civic in the U.S. now. But if the policy keeps going on and off, will it achieve those aims? Yeah, I think the unstated sort of tension in the tariff policy that Andrew's talking about is

we can't tell if the point of the tariffs is to have the tariffs or to not have the tariffs, right? Because if what you're trying to do is extract concessions, tell if the point of the tariffs is to have the tariffs or to not have the tariffs, right? Because if what you're trying to do is extract concessions, that means that after threatening the tariffs, you have to not do the tariffs, right? Once they've given you what you want, they don't get tariffed as a reward for that. On the other hand, if what you're trying to do is rebalance the entire world economy and reshore American manufacturing, first of all, you have to actually do the tariffs and keep them on, right, in order to create that incentive.

And second of all, that does drive prices up. That does make things more expensive. The reason companies have outsourced all this manufacturing is because it is cheaper to make the things in other places. Now, I think the administration would say they are doing various other things to make that more cost effective for these companies, right? That by, say, deregulation, relaxing labor laws, making energy inputs less expensive, for example, they can bring down the cost at the same time as they're incentivizing that reshoring. But it's all

very complicated. And as Andrew said said it takes a long time and especially when you have this unstable business environment, it's hard to convince companies that this is something they can make long-term investments in. So a lot of turbulence right now and a lot of uncertainty about sort of what the end goal is and I don't think that Trump's speech really demystified any of that. Would you agree with that, Andrew? I would agree with that. And then the other thing I would point out is that companies and countries feel really

frustrated because they don't know the terms with which they're negotiating with Trump. It seems like it changes all the time. I think that Americans who voted for Trump love seeing him stick up for the country and advocate for bringing manufacturing back and American jobs? I think that's right. And I think it's right to a point. Certainly at the end of the day, people are going to vote with their pocketbooks. And if prices soar, particularly on core groceries and other household items, I think that will

really have an impact. Trump is aware of that and his advisors, many of whom have long sort of been skeptical about tariffs are even more aware of that. And they also are particularly concerned about the stock market and how it reacts. You saw Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary, go on TV multiple times this week and sort of signal that this is all a negotiation and things could change. And every time he did that, the stock market ticked up a little bit more. And so they're really conscious of those dynamics and how they'll play out in the coming days,

weeks, and months. How did the Democrats react to the speech? Being in the room for the speech, it was fascinating to observe. The Democratic reaction really, I think, epitomized how sort of lost and in disarray the party is at this point because you could see the different approaches being taken by different members and they just have not figured out a sort of cohesive, coordinated, much less effective way to express their opposition to Trump.

And I think it's that the sort of Democrats being lost and not knowing how to respond to Trump is a result of a strategy that the White House has put in place very deliberately to throw as much at both Democrats and the media as they possibly can. And that the effect of that is making it really difficult to respond in a unified, clear, direct way. When you're getting 100 things a day from the White House, like which one do you choose? And the Democrats are starting to get a little bit better

about focusing on Musk and the economy, but they're also sort of chasing their tails about every single thing that comes around. All right. It's time for a quick break, and when we come back, Molly's going to take one of your questions. Stay with us. Okay, Molly, we got a question from a listener named Nolan Bauer in St. Paul, Minnesota. Here he is.

Hi there. My name is Nolan, and I'm curious if you could comment on what feels like a significant shift in conservative foreign policy posture. I used to be a bit more active in the Republican Party, but I felt a bit left behind in this political realignment that's been going on. It seems as if there's an isolationist impulse that has emerged. And I'm a little concerned that it puts the US in a bad position when it comes to a battle for global influence with China. And so I'm curious if you have any insights or comments

as to the strategy here essentially. Thanks. Thanks so much, Nolan, for your question. It's a great observation and it's certainly one that I've heard from a lot of what you might call traditional or Reaganite Republicans over the last several years. They look at what Trump is doing as a takeover of the party by the isolationists.

And Trump has really articulated that. We see, you know, JD Vance when he was in the Senate sort of led a rising generation of younger conservatives who had a very different view of America's role on the world stage. Yeah, and that view was on full display last week in the Oval Office when JD Vance and Trump clashed with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. I said thanks in this cabinet. We gave you through this president, $350 billion. We gave you military equipment.

And your men are brave, but they had to use our military. If you didn't have our military equipment, if you didn't have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks. In three days. I heard it from Putin. In three days. This is something... In three days, I heard it from Putin, in three days. So, you know, I think certainly many people in Europe and other places looked at that Trump meeting with Zelensky a week ago and said, this is it, the transatlantic alliance

is over. The America that was a trustworthy partner for European allies and North American allies and NATO is no more and it's just never coming back. Now I would say to the China point, part of the justification that you hear for all of this from some Trump allies is that the point of cozying up to Russia is to rebalance against China. That if America is going to effectively counter China in this new world order, we

have to split Russia off from them. And that's part of the point of some of the more pro-Putin expressions coming from Trump. But it is absolutely a massive reorganization of the world order as it was previously conceived. Andrew, what do you think about this? I agree. I mean, I don't think we can overstate how big of a shift this is. You think back to the George W. Bush administration, where, you know, it really, it was sort of a core tenet to view the U.S. as a sort of agent of helping, you know, other countries

and stopping countries from taking or challenging the West. Trump views all of this as a waste of money, essentially. I mean, it regularly comes back to money for him. He feels really frustrated that the US is spending so much money in Ukraine and elsewhere, and he views this entire sort of thing as a negotiation. And for every criticism that you hear toward him about cozying up to Putin, he counters that, well, listen, it's a negotiation. I'm not going to attack the guy while we're negotiating.

But then it's like, Trump's approach, maybe it also kind of works? Because after that whole situation in the Oval Office and Zelensky leaving the White House, we see him going to Europe, meeting with leaders there about getting more military support, and then Zelensky tweets out that he's going to sign the Mineral Rights Deal and come back to the table, which is what Trump wants. Yeah. I mean, that's certainly what the White House would argue, is that these sort of forceful interactions lead to a deal.

And a deal, you know, in whatever form it takes, is ultimately what Trump is after. Alright, so looking ahead, what's coming up? What's on the docket for next week? Oh my gosh, Kate, I can't even tell you how excited I am about this. We might get a government shutdown. I don't actually, obviously. I'm not for or against a government shutdown. But it's always exciting times on Capitol Hill when they're trying to keep the government open, which is perpetually difficult.

And the deadline for government funding is one week from today on Friday, March 14th. So if they don't pass a new government funding bill by then, the government will shut down, at least in part. And where we stand right now is nobody has any idea how they're going to do this. There's kind of some negotiations going on with Democrats. There's a potential short-term bill, There's a potential long-term bill. And there's the potential that they even do this on a party line basis, which would be relatively unusual.

But it's all very up in the air. And this will expose fissures within the Republican Party about how to approach spending, how to approach the president's agenda. And those will continue in the coming months as Trump tries to extend tax cuts and put in place funding for the border. So it'll be an interesting moment. So we're going from theatrical big speeches in Congress to the brass tacks of getting a budget passed. Yeah, things are about to get real.

Hey, this was like tons of fun. Andrew, thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me. Thank you, Andrew. And Molly, thanks for letting me moonlight on your show. Thank you so much, Kate. It was really fun. Before we go, do you have any questions about what the Trump administration is doing? Please send us a voice recording to thejournal at wsj.com. That's thejournal at wsj.com. That's the Journal at wsj.com. Trump 2.0 is part of The Journal, which is a co-production of Spotify and The Wall Street Journal.

This episode was produced by Enrique Perez de la Rosa and edited by Catherine Whalen with help from Tatiana Zamis. Molly Ball is The Wall Street Journal's senior political correspondent. And I'm Kate Leimloch. The episode was engineered by Nathan Singapok. Our theme music is by So Wiley

and remixed by Peter Leonard. Additional music in this episode by Peter Leonard and Blue Dot Sessions. Fact-checking by Kate Gallagher. Artwork by James Walton. Trump 2.0 will be back with a new episode next Friday. See you then.