How Donald Trump tried to court the Atlantic – and why the liberal magazine landed an interview
Hell hath frozen over: At the White House the other day, Donald Trump "was launching a charm offensive, directed mainly at Goldberg," as in Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic's editor-in-chief. "There was none of the name-calling or hostility he regularly levels at our magazine."
That's according to Atlantic reporters Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer, who wrote the magazine's cover story, which was posted yesterday.
For all the insights gleaned from the interview, nothing is more fascinating than how it came about.
They called the president on his cell phone. (Wha? Who do I have to court to get that? The reporters ain't saying.)
Trump says he did the initial phone interview to see if the liberal magazine could be fair.
So I'm here to pronounce that the entire, seemingly endless piece is fair. The president hasn't taken a shot at it on Truth Social, at least so far.
He has, however, ripped new polls from the "Failing New York Times" and "ABC/Washington Post" as "FAKE POLLS FROM FAKE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS," saying they should be "investigated for ELECTION FRAUD, and add in the Fox News Pollster while you're at it." His lowest approval rating, in the Post-ABC survey, was 39 percent.
Meanwhile, we may now look back on Trump's 2024 victory as inevitable, but after Jan. 6 it was anything but. On the cell call, "The president seemed exhilarated by everything he had managed to do in the first two months of his second term."
And then came the transaction: "As ever, Trump was on the hunt for a deal. If he liked the story we wrote, he said, he might even speak with us again."
Goldberg describes the session: "What I found in this particular meeting was a Trump who was low-key, attentive, and eager to convince us that he is good at his job and good for the country. It isn't easy to escape the tractor beam of his charisma, but somehow we managed, and we asked him what needed to be asked.
"But squaring Trump the Charmer with the Orcish Trump we more frequently see is difficult…Trump posted on the social-media platform he owns that Ashley is a 'Radical Left Lunatic' (she is not) and that Michael 'has never written a fair story about me, only negative, and virtually always LIES' (also false). It is our task at the Atlantic not to be bullied by these sorts of attacks."
The most interesting Trump sound bite is his comparison of the two terms:
"The first time, I had two things to do—run the country and survive; I had all these crooked guys. And the second time, I run the country and the world."
Parker and Scherer did many other interviews, such as with Steve Bannon. "Our reality is that we won," and he cited the conspiracy theory that the FBI had incited the crowd on Jan. 6. The reporters said that was simply untrue.
"Now, here's the interesting thing," Bannon said. "Who's won that argument? I think we have…
"This time it's 'Hey, f**k you, Greenland's ours…When you've come back from such long odds, you clearly feel, 'I can do anything.' "
What about the four criminal investigations, including the conviction on the weakest one – Alvin Bragg's hush money case? Trump says his numbers kept going up.
"Shockingly, yes," Trump said. "Normally, it would knock you out. You wouldn't even live for the next day. You know, you'd announce your resignation, and you'd go back and 'fight for your name,' like everybody says—you know, 'fight for your name, go back to your family.' …Yeah, it made me stronger, made me a lot stronger."
He also said in the phone interview: "I got indicted five different times by five different scumbags, and they're all looking for jobs now, so it's one of those things. Who would have thought, right? It's been pretty amazing."
After the 2016 election, Trump told oil executives at Mar-a-Lago:
If I'm not president, you're f***ed. Look at your profit-and-loss statements. You realize what would have happened to you if she was president? What's wrong with you?") She was Kamala Harris, of course.
One turning point: When he went to East Palestine, Ohio after the derailment of a train carrying toxic chemicals, while Joe Biden didn't do squat.
On the Kennedy Center: "I didn't really get to go the first time, because I was always getting impeached or some bulls**t, and I could never enjoy a show." So he fired the Democrats and made himself chairman.
All right, enough quotes. Wait, one more that captures the tone of the piece:
"I got 38 percent of the male Black vote. Nobody knew that was possible. That's a lot. I got 56 percent of Hispanics. How about that one? Every county along the Texas border is Hispanic. I won every one of them." Though every single number he cited was wrong, the general thrust of his observation was correct."
The reporters chronicled how things have gone south for the president, especially on tariffs and the economy, and how he pressured Hill Republicans into backing his nominees with primary threats.
After the March phone interview, the reporters tried Trump's cellphone again. Just got voice mail. But at 1:38 am, he tried them back. No message.
Trump believes he can win over even his worst enemies. In 2015 or 2016, I watched him make a beeline in the New York green room for Karl Rove, who was very rough on him. At worst, he thinks, he can neutralize the person. Or soften him or her up for the next time. He enjoys the challenge.
The mainstream media almost uniformly can't stand Donald Trump. He does invite some of his own negative headlines, while providing unprecedented access, but much of the press is back in Resistance mode.
Still, the Atlantic's original pitch is undeniable, that he's "The Most Consequential President of the 21st Century."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
20 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump Polls Best on...Immigration
The Left is going to be furious over the latest polling on immigration… I'm Tomi Lahren, more next. By the looks of the overtaken streets in deep blue cities like LA, Chicago and New York, you may be tempted to think the president is underwater on his handling of illegal immigration…but NOPE! Actually, according to recent polling by CBS/YouGov 54% of US adults approve of the deportation effort compared to 46% who disapprove of it. This survey was conducted prior to the LA raids and riots but I'd venture to guess after looking at the absolute anarchy in the streets, foreign flags, and utter disregard for the rule of law, the approval numbers might actually tick UP! Of all the measures, President Trump polls BEST on immigration! This polling shouldn't be surprising, Donald Trump RAN on, and I argue, WON on immigration and mass deportations. He promised the largest mass deportation effort in American history to correct the Biden open border invasion and now he's following through. Democrats would be wise to adjust their radical open border views but I won't count on that one! I'm Tomi Lahren and you watch my show 'Tomi Lahren is Fearless' at Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
E&E News
24 minutes ago
- E&E News
Interior advances first offshore mineral lease in decades
The Interior Department on Thursday took a step toward launching what could be the first mineral lease in U.S. waters in more than 30 years. The department announced it plans to publish a request for information and interest in the coming days to mine the deep seas off of American Samoa, a U.S. territory in the Polynesia region of the South Pacific. Upon publication in the Federal Register, the agency will take public comment for 30 days. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in a statement said the administration is putting 'America first' and moving to unlock vast stores of offshore minerals and ease the nation's reliance on countries like China. Advertisement President Donald Trump in April inked an executive order to boost deep-sea mining, part of a broader push to open the nation's land and waters to more mining and production of minerals.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Wants to Make It More Expensive to Sue Over His Policies
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump and his allies are pursuing an alternative strategy to defend against mounting court orders blocking his policies: Raise the financial stakes for those suing the administration. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire Republicans want to force people suing the US to post financial guarantees to cover the government's costs if they win a temporary halt to Trump's policies but ultimately lose the case. A measure in the House's 'big, beautiful' tax-and-spending bill would condition a judges' power to hold US officials in contempt for violating their orders to the payment of that security. A new proposed version of the bill announced by Senate Republicans on Thursday removes the contempt language but would broadly restrict judges' discretion to decide how much of a security payment to order from challengers who win initial pauses to Trump's policies, or to waive it altogether. While the legislation faces hurdles, the push to make suing the government more expensive is gaining steam. Critics say it's part of a broader effort to discourage lawsuits against the Trump administration. In addition to the tax bill provision, Republican lawmakers have introduced a plan to require plaintiffs who lose suits against the administration to cover the government's legal costs. Meanwhile, Trump has directed the Justice Department to demand bonds from court challengers when judges temporarily halt his policies. Trump has also targeted law firms over everything from past work for Democratic rivals to their diversity policies. Courts historically haven't required bonds to be put up in lawsuits against the government. In recent cases, the Trump administration's bond requests included $120,000 in litigation over union bargaining and an unspecified amount 'on the high side'' in a fight over billions of dollars in frozen clean technology grants. Judges in those and other cases have denied hefty requests or set smaller amounts, such as $10 or $100 or even $1. 'Having to put that money up is going to prevent people from being able to enforce their rights,' said Eve Hill, a civil rights lawyer who is involved in litigation against the administration over the treatment of transgender people in US prisons and Social Security Administration operations. The Trump administration has faced more than 400 lawsuits over his policies on immigration, government spending and the federal workforce, among other topics, since his inauguration. A Bloomberg analysis in May found that Trump was losing more cases than he was winning. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement that 'activist organizations are abusing litigation to derail the president's agenda' and that it is 'entirely reasonable to demand that irresponsible organizations provide collateral to cover the costs and damages if their litigation wrongly impeded executive action.' Dan Huff, a White House lawyer during Trump's first term, defended the idea but said the language needed fixes, such as clarifying that it only applies to preliminary orders and not all injunctions. Huff, whose op-eds in support of stiffer injunction bonds have circulated among Republicans this year, said that Congress wanted litigants 'to have skin in the game.' Some judges have already found in certain cases that the administration was failing to fully comply with orders. Alexander Reinert, a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, said the timing of Congress taking up such a proposal was 'troubling and perverse.' 'Defy Logic' Some efforts by the Trump administration to curb lawsuits have already paid off. By threatening probes of law firms' hiring practices, the White House struck deals with several firms that effectively ruled out their involvement in cases challenging Trump's policies. Other aspects of the effort have been less successful. Judges have overwhelmingly rebuffed the Justice Department's efforts that plaintiffs put up hefty bonds. A judge who refused to impose a bond in a funding fight wrote that 'it would defy logic' to hold nonprofit organizations 'hostage' for the administration's refusal to pay them. Several judges entered bonds as low as $1 when they stopped the administration from sending Venezuelan migrants out of the country. In a challenge to federal worker layoffs, a judge rejected the government's push for a bond covering salaries and benefits, instead ordering the unions that sued to post $10. The clause in the House tax bill tying contempt power of judges to injunction bonds was the work of Trump loyalists. Representative Andy Biggs, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, pushed to include the provision, Representative Jim Jordan told Bloomberg News. Jordan, who chairs the committee, said Biggs and Representative Harriet Hageman, another Republican, were 'very instrumental in bringing this to the committee's attention.' Biggs' office did not respond to requests for comment. Hageman said in a statement that the measure will 'go a long way in curbing this overreach whereby judges are using their gavels to block policies with which they disagree, regardless of what the law may say.' Liberals have slammed the proposed clause in the tax-and-spending bill as an attack on the judiciary, but it may not be the controversy that dooms it in the Senate. Reconciliation, the process lawmakers are using to pass the bill with only Republican support, requires the entire bill to relate directly to the budget. 'Make It Happen' Several Republicans have expressed skepticism the measure can survive under that process. But, Jordan, the House judiciary chair, said Republican lawmakers will seek an alternative path to pass the measure if it's ruled out in the Senate. 'I'm sure we'll look at other ways to make it happen,' Jordan said. The bond fight stems from an existing federal rule that says judges can enter temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions 'only if' the winning side posts a security that the court 'considers proper.' The bond is to cover 'costs and damages' if they ultimately lose. University of Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, a proponent of injunction bonds, said courts should account for whether litigants have the ability to pay. Still, he said, defendants should be able to recover some money if a judge's early injunction — a 'prediction' about who will win, he said – isn't borne out. 'If courts routinely grant zero dollars, what they are doing is pricing the effect of a wrongly granted injunction on the government's operations at zero,' Bray said. Courts have interpreted the rule as giving judges discretion to decide what's appropriate, including waiving it, said Cornell Law School Professor Alexandra Lahav. The bond issue usually comes up in business disputes with 'clear monetary costs,' she said, and not in cases against the federal government. 'It's not clear to me what kind of injunction bond would make sense in the context of lawsuits around whether immigrants should have a hearing before they're deported,' Lahav said. 'I'm not really sure how you would price that.' (Updates with Senate proposal in the third paragraph.) American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
