JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Moving at breakneck speed, Donald Trump is pushing revolutionary and destabilizing ideas while trying to bend Washington and the world to his will.

Tonight, we'll take stock of the President's first 100 days, his most important decisions, and what else he's planning, next.

Good evening and welcome to Washington Week.

So, technically, we're not at a hundred days yet.

That's on Tuesday.

If the president's goal is to exhaust everyone, well, mission accomplished.

It's hard to reckon with how much has changed in the economy and foreign relations across the institutions that have made us acknowledge knowledge-based democracy.

Tonight, we'll discuss what Trump has accomplished and what he hopes to achieve in the remaining 1,362 days left in his second term.

I want to make a brief note.

some very online Washington Week viewers may have caught wind of the fact that along with two colleagues, I interviewed President Trump yesterday.

The reason people even know about this interview is that President Trump helpfully posted about it before we even showed up in the Oval Office.

That interview will be part of a story that comes out on Monday on theatlantic.com.

Joining me tonight for our discussion on the first a hundred days, Kaitlan Collins, an anchor, and the chief White House correspondent for CNN, Stephen Hayes is the editor of the Dispatch, Asma Khalid is a White House correspondent for NPR and a co-host of the NPR Politics podcast, and Ashley Parker is my colleague and a staff writer at The Atlantic, and also one of my co-conspirators in the White House meeting yesterday.

Thanks for everyone for joining us Special White House Correspondents' Weekend episode.

We have nothing different actually, just noting that for the record.

Ashley I do want to note that we had a weird day.

ASHLEY PARKER, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: Yes, it was a real journey.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: It was a journey.

It was an emotional journey.

And I wanted to ask you one question because I think a lot of people did see this post from Donald Trump on Truth Social.

I won't read the whole thing, put it up on the screen, but, you know, about four hours before we are scheduled to go see the president in the Oval Office, he basically has a -- puts up a long rant against us and saying that we're bad reporters, but he's having us come in as a kind of a competition with himself.

And, I mean -- ASHLEY PARKER: He also totally blew up our spot.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Yes.

ASHLEY PARKER: Right.

You want to get in and out.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Yes, exactly.

Yes, we want to just sneak in and sneak out.

And what's interesting is, because, you know, you've done this as well, I've interviewed presidents in the past in the Oval Office.

I don't recall President Obama ever beginning an interview by announcing how terrible I was and saying, welcome to the White House, but this is an unusual presidency.

What's the thinking behind the whole like I'm going to invite them in and then I'm going to insult them before they come?

ASHLEY PARKER: Well a couple things.

As you know, with Trump, everything is sort of a negotiation.

He's trying to woo you.

He's trying to browbeat you into submission, but without revealing too much because I want everyone to read our cover story.

It was interesting in sort of the pleasantries as we approached the Resolute Desk, he kind of said two things.

He referred to his Truth Social post and said, look, I did it to up the pressure, make it a little more interesting, and then always sort of the savvy media mogul that he is, he said, and also it's really going to help you sell subscriptions.

And you know what?

I don't know that he is wrong.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: No.

He is right on both counts.

It was just an unusual way to start what was a very substantive and interesting meeting.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: We will read about it on theatlantic.com on Monday.

I want to turn to -- first to the war on Ukraine.

We'll get to a hundred days issues in a minute, but I want to start with Ukraine and I want to remind you at home about Trump's evolving views on ending the war that Russia started against Ukraine.

I want you to listen in.

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. President: Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the disastrous war between Russia and Ukraine settled.

You're not in a good position.

You don't have the cards right now.

With us, you start having cars.

You're gambling with the lives of millions of people.

You're gambling with World War III.

MARCO RUBIO, Secretary of State: If they're serious about peace, either side or both, we want to help.

If it's not going to happen, then we're just going to move on.

DONALD TRUMP: You have no idea what pressure I'm putting, right?

We're putting a lot of pressure.

REPORTER: Can you maybe tell us -- DONALD TRUMP: We're putting a lot of pressure on Russia.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: And then just as one additional note, Trump posted this on Truth Social on Thursday, quote, I am not happy with the Russian strikes on Kyiv.

There was a fatal attack.

It was the night before.

Not necessary and very bad timing.

And this is the notable part, Vladimir, stop, all capital letters, stop.

5,000 soldiers a week are dying.

Let's get the peace deal done, all caps.

Steve you've covered foreign affairs for a while and American presidents in their role in the world.

Have you ever seen this approach telling Vladimir Putin to stop?

And do you think that this has any effect, whatsoever?

STEPHEN HAYES, Editor, The Dispatch: I don't think he's likely to stop.

STEPHEN HAYES: No.

I mean, what was notable about that actually, I think, is what preceded it.

Remember going back to Easter weekend, Vladimir Putin declared a ceasefire, then violated the ceasefire, promptly didn't adhere to his own ceasefire, and Donald Trump put out a statement two days later blasting Volodymyr Zelinsky as the problem, as the obstacle here, which was sort of typical of the way that Trump has talked about the conflict from the beginning.

He very clearly blames the Ukrainians and hasn't been critical of Vladimir Putin.

I thought that was the sort of harshest criticism we've seen of Vladimir Putin from Donald Trump, but I don't think it was very substantive.

I think he was sort of embarrassed into having to say something because Putin continues to attack despite the fact that Donald Trump says he wants peace.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Kaitlan, how far can Vladimir Putin push Trump before he actually takes Ukraine's side?

KAITLAN COLLINS, Anchor and Chief White House Correspondent, CNN: I think if you ask that question in January or February, it would be different.

I'm not sure he'll ever take Ukraine's side.

I mean, there is such bad blood between President Trump and President Zelenskyy.

But as he is getting closer to his 100 days, he is becoming a lot more frustrated with President Putin, and especially given those strikes.

I mean, that message yesterday was incredibly personal, telling him in those two words to stop.

And so I think this is the real question at this moment, is how frustrated he is by this.

But I think the reality is it's proving a lot harder to solve than he thought, I mean, he just told TIME Magazine that it was in jest and that he was just being figurative when he was repeatedly saying that he could solve the war in Ukraine in 24 hours.

Obviously, we're approaching day 100 and they have not brokered a peace agreement.

And so it's a real question in terms of his frustration, how that changes this process, but most people seem to think if they walk away from the negotiations, it only benefits Russia here.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Right.

Asma, at what point does this administration throw up its hands and what's the consequence of throwing its hands up?

ASMA KHALID, White House Correspondent, NPR: So, at what point they do.

I think they're certainly inching closer to suggesting they're going to do that, though I think that's also somewhat of a negotiating tactic to build the pressure on both Ukraine and Russia.

In terms of what the consequences are, look, I mean, I think it would be extremely devastating for Ukraine if the U.S. were to walk away.

The United States has been a major military supplier, a major aid supporter throughout this entire conflict now.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: And you think walking away in this context would mean cutting off arms sales?

ASMA KHALID: I think that's certainly what the president has suggested.

There might be some Republican lawmakers willing to defy him and push back.

But the reason I think it could be so devastating is, thus far, in this first 100 days, we have seen, by and large, most Republican lawmakers fall in line with what the president has wanted to do.

So, my question is, why would Ukraine be the one exception?

He campaigned on ending this war.

I mean, to Kaitlan's point, he said he'd do it on day one.

And I was struck by that comment too, where he says, no, I was saying that figuratively.

And the reason he's trying to sort of backpedal on this now is, look, domestically, many of his supporters want this war to be over.

Polling has shown that this is not a popular war in terms of the base of the Republican Party.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: When he said that in the campaign, I took it -- I mean, I didn't take it literally, but I think he meant it literally he was going to end the war.

Was that fair?

KAITLAN COLLINS: I think he thought he could get it done even maybe before he took office.

I mean, look at what happened with the war in Gaza and negotiating a hostage release in that situation.

He thought and has always argued that he's the best dealmaker, the best negotiator that he could get to Putin.

And, of course, Putin experts have said all along, he's playing you.

You know, they're just using tactics that they've always employed to try to convince him that he is the one here, when, really, you know, what other world leaders have been telling Trump is that Putin is stalling and delaying and using this negotiation to just carry out his goals in Ukraine.

STEPHEN HAYES: I think if you're Donald Trump and, you know, coming in that you're prepared to make multiple concessions to Vladimir Putin and to Russia, you think I'm going to be generous to Putin.

He'll agree to do this and we will cut off with or threaten to cut off arms to Ukraine, I can do this quickly.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: This is a kind of a classic, we see this in foreign policy throughout history, Americans projecting their own deal-making pragmatic selves onto people who are highly ideological.

STEPHEN HAYES: Yes, I think it is, but it's even sort of more so because it's Donald Trump.

It's his own personal sense of his deal-making abilities, you know, literally wrote or has his name on the Art of the Deal.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Right.

And, Ashley, one more question on this.

Just remind us why there's such bad blood between Trump and Zelenskyy, or probably the more accurate way of putting this is why does Trump dislike the man so much?

ASHLEY PARKER: I mean, absolutely.

You saw a bit of that in the Oval Office where he kicked Zelenskyy out and basically said, you don't have the cards.

But what Donald Trump's operating principle is, you know, he does not want America to be getting taken advantage of.

He has no belief in sort of soft power or, you know, exporting democracy abroad or doing anything that is not a very clear quid pro quo.

And his sense is the United States has sent billions of dollars to Ukraine and what are we getting in return and why isn't Zelenskyy more grateful?

And that is what he is conveying.

There is no sense of Russia invaded, with no provocation, a smaller country, and it is part of the United States' role as a moral leader, democratic leader in the world, to defend, and just we've sent you all this money and why can't you be more appreciative?

KAITLAN COLLINS: I also think Trump views it very much in the lens that he's viewed a lot of things, winners and losers, right?

He does not view Zelenskyy as a winner.

I mean, he's irritated with him because he feels like he got impeached over him in his first term, but he does not view him as a winner.

He has been told by allies, Ukraine cannot win this war.

And once that is in his brain, I mean, he's like, of course, you have to settle because you're going to lose, right?

Why you -- STEPHEN HAYES: And Zelenskyy defied him.

Trump asked -- I mean, it was a quid pro quo.

Trump asked Zelenskyy to launch an investigation of Joe Biden who was the going to be running for president against Donald Trump.

And Zelenskyy said, no.

Zelenskyy wouldn't do it.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: It is so interesting.

It's probably a topic for a PhD thesis, not this panel discussion, but it's so interesting, Steve and I have been thinking about these things for years together, to shift from McCainism to Trumpism in the Republican Party.

McCain was -- these are the stalwart heroes who are standing up against the bullies, and that was the ethos of the Republican Party.

And now the ethos of the Republican Party is great powers.

Everybody else who is in the orbit of a great power just suffers.

You know, we've left the McCainism so far in.

STEPHEN HAYES: Yes.

I mean, the ethos is, sadly, we are the bully and we're unapologetic about it.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Right.

I want to go to your analysis of 100 days.

How many days did I say?

1,362 left.

It's kind of a -- yes, it's amazing.

That includes weekends though, although we don't have weekends anymore.

ASMA KHALID: I was going to say your White House correspondent feels like there's a call (ph).

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: We don't really, we don't really have weekends.

But let's just talk about two main things.

I did give the panel homework, by the way.

I asked them not to use ChatGPT to do the homework assignments.

KAITLAN COLLINS: No promises.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Yes, no -- and the first part of the homework assignment was what's the most consequential action he's taken or what's the biggest change we've seen in the 100 days in American governance.

Let me start with Steve.

Give us your -- STEPHEN HAYES: Well, I did what I always do on this, which is not entirely answer the question directly because I have two -- JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Future political officeholder.

Right?

STEPHEN HAYES: No.

I think I sort of bookend of the first 100 days.

The first came on day one when he pardoned all of the January 6th rioters.

And then the second part came in the Oval Office just a week ago when he announced from the Oval Office that he wants his Department of Justice to investigate two people he perceives as his political enemies in Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor.

And I think the effect of those was that the first one, Donald Trump was telling people, if you break the law on my behalf, not only will it be tolerated, but it'll be rewarded.

And on the second, he campaigned for more than a year on retribution.

Retributions were core to Donald Trump and who he is.

And he's saying, I'm going to use the official levers of government to get this retribution.

ASHLEY PARKER: And can I just - - on Chris Krebs in particular, I'm so struck by that.

Because the reason Chris Krebs is like -- JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Can you remind people exactly what role he played in the government?

ASHLEY PARKER: Yes.

So, he ran a cybersecurity agency under Trump.

And in that capacity, his agency basically came out and said the 2020 election was secure, and Joe Biden is the legitimate winner.

And that is his crime, right?

So, it's not that he was even a political opponent.

Donald Trump is punishing Chris Krebs for his acknowledgement of objective reality.

That's why that one stands out to me so viscerally.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Right.

Ashley, since I have you what is the thing that really struck you about the difference between this administration and previous administrations?

ASHLEY PARKER: I mean, I have been struck -- well, the difference between Trump now and Trump previously is one thing I've been struck by, which is just how much more confident, bold, aggressive, creative he has been at sort of wielding the levers of power at his disposal to bend, you know, the city, the country, and the world to his will.

And the other thing that has struck me is Donald Trump traditionally is someone who is trying to get through the minute, the hour, the day.

He's trying to win over the person directly in front of him, whether that's you and I and Michael in the Oval Office, or a huge rally of MAGA supporters.

And what was surprising to me, and, again, he did hit his limit, but on tariffs, he had the stomach at least initially for more pain as the market's plummeted and he was getting, you know, lobbied behind the scenes and some pretty public criticism.

He stood by that much longer than I would expect it for someone who is traditionally pin-balling between whatever is politically expedient in that moment.

KAITLAN COLLINS: Yes.

The pain threshold is something that we did not see as much in the first term.

It's not just on the markets, it's also negative coverage in terms of the headlines before he'd be screaming his head off if he didn't like a chiron on a show or what someone said.

He still gets angry about the coverage and thinks it's unfair, to be clear, if that hasn't changed.

But his pain threshold with the markets is much higher than it used to be.

It's not in totality given we saw what he did with the 90-day tariffs.

But he does view this stuff a little differently.

And I think a lot of it is he's emboldened.

And I think the one key part is it's not just that he won reelection.

He said he won the popular vote.

And that has changed basically the entire way he approaches office this time.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Right.

Asma, what's the most consequential moment?

ASMA KHALID: So, this is going to sound wonky, but I do think it's really important, and it kind of goes on what you were saying, Ashley, a moment ago, which is I think that he is acting in a way that is both quicker, deeper, more aggressive than he did in his first term.

And to do this, and this is why I say I think it gets wonky, you know, we talk a lot about executive power and the breaking of institutions, and these are things that, you know, any political science student talks about, and I think it sounds wonky and abstract.

But to me, that is the longest possible long-term legacy that he's leaving.

You look at his interactions with courts, possibly defying courts in some situations.

You talk about trying to sort of, I would argue, undermine law firms, universities media institutions, in some cases.

There is a total, I think, willingness to expand his power in ways that I didn't see in the first term.

There's just a far more freedom that he's engaging with.

But there's also, I would argue, less defiance or resistance from the outside to this.

I mean, look, I'll be blunt, I thought it was very surprising initially the way that we saw universities, at least initially, willing to appease or possibly acquiesce or play ball with him.

That was surprising.

ASHLEY PARKER: The top law firms.

ASMA KHALID: Exactly.

Very surprising, I thought.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Yes.

Kaitlan, most consequential?

KAITLAN COLLINS: I think there's so much here that it's really hard to think of -- JEFFREY GOLDBERG: It's all consequential.

KAITLAN COLLINS: It's actually not, but a lot of it is.

A lot of it, I mean, in terms of what they're doing at the agencies, you know, firing federal workers.

What does that look like from the Department of Health and Human Services?

We don't know.

I do think one change that the White House feels better about that, that Trump is less likely to fire people, that he typically before, if this had happened eight years ago with, you know, what happened with Signal gate, as it's now known, that might have resulted in a departure.

But they are so resistant on giving the media or Democrats as they view it a scalp, that they're not firing people.

But I've heard from people who think, you know, when it comes to the Pentagon.

Obviously, it's such a critical place that you never know as a president what crisis could become -- fall upon you that you have to deal with in that moment.

I've heard from some people who say the way the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, is running the Pentagon, the way he is choosing to lead, the president's resistance to fire him, he could come to rue the day over that.

Because if there is a real crisis, there's been these instances where Pete Hegseth has disappointed him in the White House with some of his actions or responses, there's a question about that.

They're standing by him for now.

They fought very hard to get him confirmed.

They're not on the verge of firing him, but does the president regret actually not firing people and correcting mistakes could be something that we see play out.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Yes.

Asma quickly, why haven't they fired Pete Hegseth?

ASMA KHALID: Why haven't they fired him?

I do think it goes back to the level of confidence the president feels.

I mean, he's operating in a different way than he was last time, where I think he believes -- also I think it's a matter of loyalty.

I mean, he appreciates loyalty.

It seems thus far Hegseth has been rather loyal to him, and that's a key issue to him.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Right.

Steve, let me ask you this question.

What's the most surprising thing?

I mean, we all spent a lot of time, especially in the, you know, post-election, pre-inauguration period, trying to game out what we thought would happen.

We were all, to some degree or another, I was very wrong, thinking that this was going to be a continuation of Trump 1, when this feels like a very much a new kind of administration.

But what's the most surprising thing?

STEPHEN HAYES: So, I thought it was likely going to be a more aggressive Donald Trump that we saw in the second term, and I'm going to invite scorn and ridicule by what I say.

I anticipated we would see more resistance from Republicans, not just on policy issues, you know, the tariffs and Vladimir Putin and Russia, I mean, these sort of issues that have been at the core of the Republican Party going back decades.

They're just rolling over you.

Rarely, Rand Paul will occasionally offer a gentle critique of the tariffs.

You'll have a senator send out a gently-worded tweet about Russia, but not really fighting him on policy at all.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: So, Steve, not to be scornful or mocking, but what in the behavior of the Republican Party over the previous years suggested to you that there would be more opposition?

STEPHEN HAYES: So, it was both on the policies that I think these were so core to the Republican Party.

I mean, you know, to the extent that there are Republicans who believe things in Washington, many of them still believe the things that they believed when they were elected.

And that was a long time ago.

And they were Ronald Reagan Republicans and George Bush Republicans, more traditional Republicans.

They didn't want to fight.

The thing that really surprises me though goes to what Asma said.

They're not fighting him on rule of law questions.

They're not fighting him on separation of powers questions.

These are fundamental issues, challenging the president or even raising questions in public about what the president is doing on those sort of core constitutional questions.

KAITLAN COLLINS: Or their job.

STEPHEN HAYES: Or their job, eagerly giving away congressional prerogatives.

ASMA KHALID: But doesn't it seem like Democrats have also struggled, I think, at least in the initial weeks, with how to respond?

And maybe that goes back to the question of speed and just -- I mean, there's so much happening at the same time but I was surprised that Democrats -- JEFFREY GOLDBERG: So, you're most surprised at the speed of the demolition?

ASMA KHALID: I think the speed of it, right?

And we're not just talking about -- I mean, look, in his first term, it felt like he was operating on the margins of institutions.

I mean, now you're talking about sort of virtually dismantling USAID, Department of Ed.

These are like institutions and agencies that have existed in Washington for decades.

And I'm just surprised by the scope and the depth of that.

I guess, look, I'll also say that I'm surprised by the ways in which DOGE has operated and gone into sort of all across government.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: DOGE was not -- ASMA KHALID: I didn't anticipate that, that we didn't hear about on the campaign.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: What's the Monty Python line?

No one's expecting -- no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

No one expected DOGE, I think, right?

That was -- ASMA KHALID: I don't know.

Maybe people did.

I did not -- ASHLEY PARKER: The president's top advisers expected this.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Yes.

Well, that's always the case.

Kaitlan any thoughts on just the thing that really took you by surprise?

KAITLAN COLLINS: Well, I just think at this moment -- here's the thing I think to reflect on when it comes to 100 days, is they have been - - and this is the view of the White House.

This is not something that I came up with.

This is what I've heard from multiple people is, the first 100 days has been the easy stuff for them, the executive orders, the fights with the courts, just battle it out in the court, we'll play it out later.

All of those things are coming to a head.

The courts are getting involved in this now.

It's going up to the Supreme Court in several instances.

All of that is playing out.

They very well may not win, and they're also getting to the more difficult issues when it comes to what's happening legislatively with his tax bill, what all of this is going to look like.

And so in a sense at the White House, they've left the glow and realized they're in the moment where it's going to be a lot more difficult these days.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: A perfect pivot to Ashley, I'll give you the last word, the next 100 days.

We're going to just do this in 100-day increments, because thinking about 1,300 days is a lot.

The next a hundred days significantly harder.

Polling numbers are down for him.

He's very sensitive to that.

Where do you see the real friction points?

ASHLEY PARKER: Well, I think everything was so streamlined in the first 100 days, more or less, and we have started to see the cracks, Signal gate kind of being the first one, that feels a bit more like Trump 1.0, that clown car chaos of it.

And it is less the streamlined, the ruthless efficiency.

And so they're getting into a harder period as they're revealing themselves to have more challenges that have echoes of the more sort of floundering president.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Right.

Well, we'll gather here in another 100 days and we'll make gentle fun of Steve for his idealism and optimism.

But we are going to have to leave it here for now.

I want to thank our guests for joining me, and I want to thank you at home for watching us.

And, again, please check out theatlantic.com on Monday for a comprehensive look at Trump's return to power, reported by Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer.

I'm Jeffrey Goldberg.

Goodnight from Washington.

(BREAK) END