Jonathan Swan’s Dive into Trump’s Reality

The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart

Jon Stewart welcomes New York Times reporter Jonathan Swan to discuss Trump's evolving political playbook in his second term, the challenges

Key takeaways

• Trump's second administration is pursuing a radically different approach compared to his first term, with increased focus on controlling narratives and reality distortion.
• Despite widespread criticism and personal attacks from Trump, there has been notable silence from administration insiders in denying specific accounts detailed in 'Regime Change'.

Main topics

• Trump's second term political strategy
• Journalistic accountability in national security reporting

Notable quotes

"There hasn't actually been any specific denials of any of the scenes in the Situation Room or the Oval Office."

"We're just trying to make sure that everything we write is completely bulletproof and buttoned down."

Conclusion

Swan's insights underscore the challenges of truth-telling in an era where power

Transcript preview

Speaker 4 (0:00) Folks, Speaker 1 (0:00) you know, Speaker 4 (0:01) I am nothing if not a generator of ideas that may never work. Obviously, we've talked a little bit on the show about the crumple, which is the portable dog bed that you throw on the ground that makes a different topographical shape each time you do it. Or maybe I'll make an app. Maybe I'm always thinking of different apps. Or maybe I'll make an app that helps people create and run their great business ideas. Oh, wait, I don't need to do that because it's already existing. Speaker 4 (0:30) Shopify. Somebody probably sat around having a Shopify idea about an app that would help people bring their ideas to fruition, like the Crumple, and Speaker 1 (0:40) then they made that. And the damn thing's brilliant. It makes the whole process easy. Everything you need. Speaker 4 (0:47) It's easy to design your shop. It's easy to get paid. They handle the checkout process. You might think to yourself, like, oh, how are they going to complete their purchase? Shopify handles it. Gets them to come back as repeat customers. setup and checkout are all handled. You get to live your life, grow your business, which they help you do too. I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. I'm not that happy with them that they stole my idea, even though obviously they had it first and did the work you needed to do to make it come to fruition. So get Shopify for God's sakes. With Shopify, nothing stands between your idea and a real business. So go make it one. Start your free trial at shopify.com slash TWS. Start your free trial at shopify.com slash TWS. Speaker 1 (1:36) When Speaker 4 (1:36) you get older, you got to have yourself a little bit of the comfort. And that's where the avocado green mattress comes in, man. And unlike most mattress brands, they'll only sell you online. They do have stores too. You can go in the store. You can try them out. Unbelievably comfortable. Avocado mattress is designed for comfort, support. helping your body stay aligned. You know, the last time my body was aligned, it's been, I think it might've been the last time the Mets won the world series. That's how long it's been since it's been aligned. But these mattresses, avocado green mattress, Speaker 1 (2:11) responsibly sourced organic materials that are built to last. Speaker 4 (2:15) So get an avocado green mattress. Avocado products are made, not manufactured, and thoughtfully crafted with real materials to deliver lasting comfort and support. You can experience them in person at an avocado showroom or a premier retailer near you. Or shop online at avocadogreenmattress.com slash TWS to check out their mattress and furniture sale. It's avocadogreenmattress.com slash TWS. avocadogreenmattress.com slash TWS. Period. Speaker 4 (2:55) Hey everybody, welcome to the Weekly Show Podcast. My name is Jon Stewart. We are back from our summer hiatus, refreshed and ready to tackle. It is Wednesday, September 9th. Normally we would tape this on a Tuesday, we'd release it on a Wednesday. We had to shift over because of, obviously, Labor Day and some other concerns and events that I have to be a part of. And I know tonight, and we obviously can't cover it on the... the podcast today, but everybody is going to be tuned into the Republican Trumpapalooza National Committee Midterm Convention. 53 glorious speakers on night one. 53. Oh, what a... Speaker 4 (3:45) delightful items and speakers on, on, on Baywood. I imagine healthcare affordability with the top of the list, the immigration affordability. Oh, the Republicans are so on top of it. And, uh, I can't wait. And, and, uh, I really hope Ken Paxton, you know, it is Texas, uh, that Ken Paxton gets an awful lot of time. He deserves it. Uh, couldn't be a better guy and, uh, couldn't be a better representative for the state of Texas. And so I am going to be eyes glued. on the Republican midterm convention two-day Trump-a-palooza, and in no way will I actually be just watching football. Why would I be watching the Seahawks and Patriots play in a repeat of the Super Bowl when I could see Ken Paxton? the homunculus himself, stand on stage as a paragon of morality and good government. Motherfuckers. Speaking of morality and good government, our guest today is just one of the best in the business at holding said government officials to account. His name is Jonathan Swan. You may remember him as writing the book with Maggie Haberman on regime change, but he's so much more than that. He's just one of Australia's finest experts and just a fantastic reporter. And I'm delighted to get an opportunity to talk to him. So let's just get to it. Speaker 4 (5:18) So we are delighted today. We are joined by Jonathan Swan, White House reporter for The New York Times and co-author of Regime Change with Maggie Haberman. Jonathan Swan, welcome. Thanks for having me, John. And I know we so appreciate you being here. You've been on this wild book tour with Regime Change. Your family is expanding. You have a new baby at home as well. So we appreciate whatever time you want to stay awake for. Speaker 4 (5:47) During? Speaker 1 (5:48) I'll do my best. Thank you. I'll Speaker 4 (5:49) do Speaker 1 (5:49) my best. Yeah, yeah. Speaker 4 (5:50) So let's just catch up. I spoke to you when you first came out with Regime Change. Since the book came out, what has the response been? Not amongst readers and journalists, but of insiders. Is there anything, when you put a book out like that, Is there a sudden rush afterwards of people going, you think that's bad? Let me tell you. How do the insiders respond to it? Speaker 1 (6:20) Well, there's the president's response, and he's written several angry truth social posts about it. Right. You know, everything's fake. Maggot Hagerman, he calls me her flunky and her lightweight assistant. You know, that's fair. You Speaker 4 (6:40) got off easy. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker 1 (6:41) Maggot Haberman and you're clunky. Yeah, yeah, exactly. What's been interesting actually, and quite a few people have commented on this, is there hasn't actually been any specific denials of any of the scenes in the Situation Room or the Oval Office. And pretty early on, I think you got a – there's sort of been very little talk. publicly from anyone in the administration about the book. And early on, the vice president was actually on Megyn Kelly's podcast, and he said he thought that we might have tapes in the Situation Room. And I think that statement kind of... to me anyway, revealed that there were quite a few of them at the senior level who were probably reticent to make specific denials. We haven't commented one way or the other on that stuff. Until Speaker 4 (7:32) today. Today is Speaker 1 (7:35) the day Speaker 4 (7:36) Jonathan Swan Speaker 1 (7:37) announces whether or not the tapes are real. It's been notable for the lack of denials. Speaker 1 (7:48) I'm sort of constrained somewhat in, you know, there have been people who've reached out privately about different things. And particularly with Iran, you know, we've done some reporting since the book came out where we have heard from people saying the situation is worse than you understand. And in particular, we've done some reporting on how this war has... depleted America's weapons supplies to a really alarming extent. That reporting has become the subject of leak investigations and other things. It's been a very difficult time. Some of my colleagues had the FBI show up at their houses for another story. I would just say generally, in terms of the national security reporting right now, it's a pretty delicate. Speaker 1 (8:43) time. And we're just trying to make sure that everything we write is completely bulletproof and buttoned down. How Speaker 4 (8:49) do you do that? What's the process? So if people reach out to you and say, this Iran war, you're not getting the whole story. And not to frame it in, you know, these are the Pentagon Papers. But what is the process? So just stick with that larger claim, you know, we have a depleted supply of missiles or armaments or... The supply chain is broken because the attacks that Iran did on our bases in the Middle East were more damaging than they had first. How do you go about the process of making those claims bulletproof? What's the difference between accountability and actual sort of specific evidence? Speaker 1 (9:36) Well, it's difficult. for lots of reasons, but one is because during this war, information has been kept extremely tight. I mean, Central Command has been really, really secretive about all kinds of things. And they will say, you know, it tips off our enemies if they know how many air defense interceptors we have. The problem with that argument, and we have reported quite a bit on the lack of air defense interceptors and in some cases, gotten quite specific with numbers. The problem with that is China and Russia have pretty sophisticated ways of surveilling America's weapons supplies, both with human spies and also with electronic surveillance. So it's not like they're in the dark about this. And from our point of view, yes, there are probably things that shouldn't be published because they might endanger lives. But we lean pretty heavily on the side of the public has a right to know about the state of the American weapons stockpiles in a war that Congress had no role in approving, that the president went to war without even any kind of... I mean, under the constitution, the Congress is supposed to declare war. There was no such thing happened here. I'm sorry, Speaker 4 (10:56) you said the... Constitution? Let me write that. Speaker 1 (11:00) It's a quaint notion, right? We don't Speaker 4 (11:02) declare war anymore. We just have... military actions or martial- An excursion. An excursion. Yeah, Speaker 1 (11:09) that's right. Speaker 4 (11:09) It's now an excursion, not a war. Speaker 1 (11:10) So this is actually one area where it's hard and it's also in some ways easier because there are actual numbers that you can put to it. You can say there are X number of Patriot interceptors in the European command stocks. There are X number of Javelins, Tomahawks. Speaker 1 (11:34) JASMs, whatever. Is that accounting generally known? No. It's not? Well, sorry. Now, at this point, it is. Okay. Largely, frankly, largely because of our reporting and several other news organizations reporting. But the specifics of just how many interceptors we have total and in certain commands, that's still not publicly completely known. And that's stuff that we're still working on. Speaker 4 (12:02) What is the cat and mouse game like for reporters at the Pentagon? So Hegseth was very clear. You know, they've removed so many of the people who were placed at the Pentagon. Does that make it more difficult? Is this, you know, you talked about Russia and China have, you know, human intelligence, but also electronic surveillance and all kinds of other things. Are you relying on human intelligence? Is it purely based on whether or not. someone will be open to giving you that information without sort of exposing the Keebler-Elf secrets of how the cookies are made. I am curious how you are able to get specifics of those things. And obviously, you don't want to give away operational details that could in any way place people at harm. But you want the American public to be aware of whether or not there's a recklessness or what the... what the effects of this has been. Speaker 1 (13:02) Right. It's not about how the cookies made. What I'm very sensitive to is protecting sources because the people who are giving us this information are taking huge risks. And what would the, what, what is the risk that in your mind is, is what they're doing illegal? I really don't want to comment on the legal side of things because we're getting, but let's just say generically, you can go to prison for leaking classified information. And Speaker 4 (13:30) this information is classified. This is not the kind of thing that is known on a kind of military audit. Again, I don't want to say – Speaker 1 (13:40) no, I'm just – it's difficult, John. Being Speaker 3 (13:43) a Speaker 1 (13:43) reporter is hard. The position I'm in is I just don't want to give any legal ammunition to the people who are already trying to sue us and come after us and potentially have an espionage case. Let's just say generically, hypothetically. Speaking not anything I've reported on, but hypothetically, information about how many weapons America has of certain types is some of the most sensitive and guarded information that we have, particularly how many air defense interceptors we have left. That is very highly sensitive information. Very highly sensitive. Speaker 4 (14:19) Is the information about how we went to war a different category for you? than it is the specifics of operational specifics. Speaker 1 (14:30) Definitely. And although I will say we've done both. I mean, even though I'm not going to get into whether I'm going to describe stuff, both categories are areas that we've reported in great detail. The going to war is conversations in the situation room. What was the president briefed on? What were those conversations? And we, I think, did some of the most detailed reporting on that march to war and how those decisions were made and what was presented to the president. Right. Speaker 4 (14:59) Is this the kind of information, this classified information that Donald Trump might safely keep in a Mar-a-Lago bathroom? Is that, or maybe a box by a car? You know, Jonathan, have people then talked to you about not just this information, but their Their surmise of what this Middle East scenario is going to look like in the future. You know, obviously they came out a week into it and said, we won. We have utterly obliterated not just their nuclear program, but their ability to they don't have a Navy. They don't have an army. They don't have an Air Force. They don't have anything. We've won it. We control the straight. Clearly, the information you're getting is. The antithesis of that. Right. Does that have any accountability in Washington? And I guess this gets at sort of what I wanted to talk to you about, which is the frustration between great reporting and its consequence. Speaker 4 (16:07) And is it difficult, you know, and maybe I have a kind of hazy nostalgia, and this might have been born of a kind of Watergate fable. But I always think of it as, you know, the Pentagon Papers drop and suddenly the Vietnam War is no longer viable and the American public, their conscience is shocked. The Watergate reporting done by Woodward and Bernstein shocks the nation into accountability. The Speaker 1 (16:38) biggest difference between now and then is the congressional branch has just peaced out. When you have a Congress that is inert, you don't actually have – the only accountability mechanism is the courts. And they give the president a huge amount of deference in conduct, particularly foreign policy and national security. And then the press. And so the one thing I will say is it's pretty clear that the American public is very unhappy with this war. And I think that that is to a large extent based on what they're reading and seeing and hearing. And a lot of reporters have done very, very good work, not just New York Times, but other places to get out that information. When President Trump says the Iranian military is completely demolished, decimated, we published a story saying they regained access to 30 out of 33 of their missile sites, their cruise missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz. So you're not just saying you're wrong, you're actually saying here is real information. Because to me, it's all about, my job is about providing information. You can only act on information. You can't act on a vibe or a feeling. Every day I wake up and I try to get more information out there in the public sphere. We've done an enormous amount of reporting about this war and try to inform the public, but the accountability mechanism doesn't really exist. I'm sure if Democrats take the House, there'll be investigations and what have you, but I think people are Speaker 1 (18:27) under appreciating just how difficult oversight will be potentially in this administration and what happens when, if the administration essentially refuses to cooperate with congressional oversight, congressional subpoenas, there isn't a Congress jail. There's no place that, you know, Congress doesn't have. Right. It's not like a stadium where in the bottom of it, Speaker 4 (18:52) there's a dungeon where people that throw rocks get put in. Right. Exactly. Speaker 1 (18:56) The enforcement mechanism is Congress says, you know, this is really bad and we're going to refer it to the Justice Department, the Justice Department that is run by Donald Trump's personal lawyer, former personal lawyer. Okay. So that's what we're dealing with in terms of accountability. Speaker 4 (19:17) I hate the news. I hate what it's doing to me emotionally. I hate that you don't really know where the information is coming from. Sometimes you don't know how it's being manipulated and it adds to the creeping fog of sadness that grows. But I have to keep up. I have to understand what's going on in the world. And that's why Ground News, they've got a website. It's an app. It lets you compare news coverage across the board to understand how you're being Zoomed. Do you know what I'm saying? uh you can see how different news outlets will frame the same story they've got a blind spot feed so you can challenge yourself about your news consumption you'll see who owns what news outlet to understand why they're framing the stories the way they are this is the one this is the one you should get a hold of enlighten yourself please To get the same unlimited access to the Vantage subscription, go to groundnews.com slash Stuart and subscribe to get 40 % off. Discount only available for a limited time. That's groundnews.com slash Stuart or scan the QR code on screen. Speaker 4 (20:31) I hate to frame it in this way, but it's sort of the difference between information and evidence. You know, the information is just sort of a broad base. This is what's going on. But some of it is evidence of malfeasance or of secretive nature or misleading. And so much of the information that you put out there could also qualify. As evidence. And how do you look at the two of those as you're going through? Is there a goal in your mind of, okay, they're saying this and this and this have been depleted and otherwise. And you're saying, but the information we have, and when you discover the discrepancy, is that information now evidence? Speaker 1 (21:25) Well, evidence. In a sort of colloquial sense, yes. But I don't think there's any prospect of a legal proceeding. I mean, one thing that has been really notable about this term is just how influential the Supreme Court's 2024 immunity ruling was. You felt that you feel the difference of that. Speaker 4 (21:49) Oh. Speaker 1 (21:53) I think you just got nauseous. Oh, my gosh. Beyond. So in term one, covering Trump, it was, I can't overstate this. I'm not saying he changed that much, you know, in terms of his deep character or anything like that, but it's unrecognizable. I mean, they were, certainly in the White House Counsel's Office, quite cautious. I mean. People in the White House administration were prohibited from talking to the DOJ. There was like a real attempt to enforce some kind of a firewall. That's why Trump kept having to do these sort of talk to this person. Can you please whisper in Jeff Sessions' ear? That's all been obliterated. Speaker 4 (22:32) You felt there was real caution there. Who was – can you recall who were the White House counsel? people then. I know Sessions was the early- Don Speaker 1 (22:40) McGahn, Don McGahn, Pat Cipollone. Okay. And they're gone. Oh, beyond gone. But it's not really just a story about the White House. It's really just about Trump. I mean, he feels that no one can touch him. And understandably so. I mean, we had reporting in our book that he's been saying privately that he's going to pardon anyone who came within 200 feet of the Oval Office. He literally said that. And he says it in this sort of joking way, but you kind of know it's not a joke because certainly the way he was at the end of the first administration. I mean, I spoke to a senior official who was working in the first administration and they're actually kind of a clean sort of by the book type person. And they were sitting with Trump and Trump's like, do you want a pardon? And they were like, for what? What would I want to pardon for? But that was at the end of the first term. And now you've seen how the pardon system has evolved. So how would I even qualify? I'll give you another example that just shows how different it is and how much freer he feels to act. So term one, Trump used to say almost kind of yearningly. He'd say, you know, we talk about drugs. He'd say, you know, there's no drug problem in China because Xi just kills them. He just kills them, kills the drug dealers. And he goes, there's no problem in the Philippines because, you know, he just kills them. That's right. Well, this term, what happened? Donald Trump said, I am going to determine myself that people in fishing boats who are trafficking cocaine, maybe we actually don't. necessarily know that all of them were, but let's just take their word for it. Let's take their word for it that these people are all trafficking cocaine on fishing boats. Usually that's a law enforcement problem. The Coast Guard interdicts them, you're arrested, there's a proceeding. There's due process. Trump said, we'll just kill them. We're just going to call them enemy combatants, describe this as essentially a war, and kill them. And there's no appeal process when your body is scattered at the bottom of an ocean after being blown up. There's no appeal process. You can't put your limbs back together and go and say, hey, actually, you know, this way. So that's what's happening. they didn't really even bother to justify it legally. One of the biggest things that Stephen Miller and others did between term one and term two was change the types of lawyers that they staffed the administration. More aggressive lawyers, lawyers who are willing to push the envelope, lawyers who are willing to get to yes and not put up a no. Their internal legal opinion basically greenlit this whole operation of blowing up boats. In term one, you had People like Mark Esper, the defense secretary and others saying, absolutely not. This would never have flown in term one. Speaker 4 (25:43) It's interesting that they still feel the need to even make a kind of theatrical move towards justification legally. But Speaker 1 (25:53) they didn't really, John. It was like they didn't even publicize it. It's not like they put out and said, here's our legal theory. Here's the framework around it. Speaker 4 (26:00) Here's why we're doing it. No, no, no, no, no. It was Speaker 1 (26:01) like, you know, it was. Basically, take our word for it, this