How to Get an Interview With Donald Trump: Just Call Him
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
White House officials frequently say Donald Trump is the "most accessible" president ever – and judging by how easy he can be to get on the phone, they're not wrong.
In a new interview with Trump to coincide with his 100th day in office, journalists from The Atlantic magazine revealed how the unscheduled conversation came together: with a simple phone call out of the blue.
Trump answered his personal cell phone on a Saturday morning late last month while at his country club in Bedminster, New Jersey the same way most people do when they pick up an unknown number.
"Who's calling?" the president of the United States asked, according to the magazine.
On the other end of the line were the two Atlantic reporters with whom Trump had previously agreed to an interview, Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer. But just days before the planned White House sitdown, Trump unloaded on the pair on Truth Social.
President Trump welcomes the 2025 Super Bowl champion Philadelphia Eagles at the White House on Aprill 28.
President Trump welcomes the 2025 Super Bowl champion Philadelphia Eagles at the White House on Aprill 28."Ashley Parker is not capable of doing a fair and unbiased interview," Trump wrote. "She is a Radical Left Lunatic, and has been as terrible as is possible for as long as I have known her."
Trump also fiercely criticized Scherer, claiming the writer had never penned a "fair" story about him, while deriding The Atlantic as a "third rate magazine" that would soon fold. But the leader of the free world picked up himself when the pair called on a lark days later, delivering on an impromptu interview the White House had previously cancelled.
That appeared to be water under the bridge by the time Parker and Scherer got Trump on the line, with the journalists reporting he was "eager to talk about his accomplishments" while acknowledging in a rare bit of self-reflection how his second administration felt different.
"The first time, I had two things to do — run the country and survive; I had all these crooked guys," Trump told the magazine. "And the second time, I run the country and the world."
The story of how The Atlantic interview came to pass reflects how unusually reachable Trump has always been to reporters — an accessibility that he has carried with him to the Oval Office a second time, and one that comes with considerable security risks, according to experts who spoke to Newsweek.
'It's Sloppy'
The Atlantic did not specify how it obtained Trump's cell number, but noted how White House staff have "imperfect control" of his personal communication devices.
Some cybersecurity experts told Newsweek they were troubled by the report, especially considering how many people and entities could likely access the president's personal number.
"If he's just using a standard Google or Android device, you have to assume there must be multiple governments listening to his every call, not the U.S. government," said Lee McKnight, an associate professor at Syracuse University's School of Information Studies.
Even if the phone is secure, like most devices used by military and other government officials, McKnight said he's still concerned about how widely Trump's cell number has been disseminated.
"That doesn't get away from the issue — who has access to the number?" McKnight asked. "Who can reach him directly? How many people can? That's been his freewheeling style — he's always been known to like to be, you know, reachable and bypass the normal filters of protecting somebody in the office of the president from all kinds of folks."
If Parker and Scherer managed to track down Trump's cell number, other reporters in Washington and New York would likely have the digits as well, creating potential vulnerabilities, McKnight said.
Donald Trump talks on the phone in the McLaren garage prior to the F1 Grand Prix of Miami at Miami International Autodrome on May 05, 2024, in Miami, Florida.
Donald Trump talks on the phone in the McLaren garage prior to the F1 Grand Prix of Miami at Miami International Autodrome on May 05, 2024, in Miami, Florida.
AFP/Getty Images
"In general for cybersecurity, the weakest link is the problem," McKnight said. "So even if the chain around him is secure, now there's all kind of potential bad scenarios happening."
If someone can reach the president directly, AI-powered deepfakes of world leaders could potentially be used against Trump, McKnight said.
"It's sloppy," he said. "From a cybersecurity point of view, the Trump administration has been incredibly sloppy."
McKnight noted how Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic's editor in chief, had previously been mistakenly added to a Signal group chat with White House national security officials that discussed sensitive military plans. North Korea, China, Russia, Iran and "other bad actors" are most likely taking heed, he said.
"That's my major concern," McKnight said.
McKnight believes amateur sleuths or hackers already know Trump's cell number, which could lead to unsolicited spoofing calls or other threats – much like the fake phone call the son of Altanta Falcons defensive coordinator Jeff Ulbrich made on Friday to NFL prospect Shedeur Sanders.
"So, you could have an audio deepfake of Putin, with little snippets of Putin's voice and interacting with it for whatever purpose," McKnight said. "You could walk through that scenario. It could be other world leaders, but deepfakes. If it's just Trump directly, he doesn't have time, he's a busy guy. Cybersecurity's not his thing, he shouldn't be the one filtering who's real and who's not on his own personal device. That's just not prudent."
Matthew Hicks, an associate professor of computer science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, said he didn't see Trump's personal cell phone as a potential security threat so long as he limits whom he contacts to reporters, friends and associates
"Now, if he is giving orders via a personal cellphone, that could open the door to an attacker who can use a SIM swap attack to steal the president's personal cellphone number then deepfakes to issue executive orders, acting as him," Hicks said.
Hicks also questioned how extensively Trump used the device.
"I can assure you that any adversary that we care about already has this phone number," Hicks told Newsweek. "I think the important question is what the device is used for; if it is just to chat with reporters and friends, then I don't see the threat."
Messages seeking additional details from the White House about Trump's usage of his personal cell phone were not returned Monday. Attempts to reach Trump directly on Monday were unsuccessful.
"This is not president trump," Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., told Newsweek in a text message, declining further comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
13 minutes ago
- New York Times
Appeals Court Allows Trump Order That Ends Union Protections for Federal Workers
A federal appeals court on Friday allowed President Trump to move forward with an order instructing a broad swath of government agencies to end collective bargaining with federal unions. The ruling authorizes a component of Mr. Trump's sweeping effort to assert more control over the federal work force to move forward, for now, while the case plays out in court. It is unclear what immediate effect the ruling will have: The appeals court noted that the affected agencies had been directed to refrain from ending any collective bargaining agreement until 'litigation has concluded,' but also noted that Mr. Trump was now free to follow through with the order at his discretion. Mr. Trump had framed his order stripping workers of labor protections as critical to protect national security. But the plaintiffs — a group of affected unions representing over a million federal workers — argued in a lawsuit that the order was a form of retaliation against those unions that have participated in a barrage of lawsuits opposing Mr. Trump's policies. The unions pointed to statements from the White House justifying the order that said 'certain federal unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda' and that the president 'will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions.' But a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a famously liberal jurisdiction, ruled in Mr. Trump's favor, writing that 'the government has shown that the president would have taken the same action even in the absence' of the union lawsuits. Even if some of the White House's statements 'reflect a degree of retaliatory animus,' they wrote, those statements, taken as a whole, also demonstrate 'the president's focus on national security.' The unions had also argued that the order broadly targeted agencies across the government, some of which had no obvious national security portfolio — including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency — using national security as a pretext to strip the unions of their power. The panel sidestepped that claim, writing in the 15-page ruling that 'we question whether we can take up such arguments, which invite us to assess whether the president's stated reasons for exercising national security authority — clearly conferred to him by statute — were pretextual.' The order, they continued, 'conveys the president's determination that the excluded agencies have primary functions implicating national security.'
31 minutes ago
Trump administration freezes $339M in UCLA grants and accuses the school of rights violations
The Trump administration is freezing $339 million in research grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, accusing the school of civil rights violations related to antisemitism, affirmative action and women's sports, according to a person familiar with the matter. The federal government has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges but this is one of the rare cases it has targeted a public university. Several federal agencies notified UCLA this week that they were suspending grants over civil rights concerns, including $240 million from the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health, according to the person, who spoke about internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity. The Trump administration recently announced the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.' Last week, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government's allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants. The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation. The National Science Foundation said in a statement it informed UCLA that it was suspending funding awards because the school isn't in line with the agency's priorities. UCLA's chancellor Julio Frenk called the government's decision 'deeply disappointing.' 'With this decision, hundreds of grants may be lost, adversely affecting the lives and life-changing work of UCLA researchers, faculty and staff," he said in a statement. The Department of Energy said in its letter it found several 'examples of noncompliance' and faulted UCLA for inviting applicants to disclose their race in personal statements and for considering factors including family income and ZIP code. Affirmative action in college admissions was outlawed in California in 1996 and struck down by the Supreme Court in 2023. The letter said the school has taken steps that amount to 'a transparent attempt to engage in race-based admissions in all but name,' disadvantaging white, Jewish and Asian American applicants. It also said UCLA fails to promote an environment free from antisemitism and discriminates against women by allowing transgender women to compete on women's teams. Frenk said that in its letter the federal government "claims antisemitism and bias as the reasons' to freeze the funding but 'this far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.' Earlier this week, UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus. UCLA initially had argued that it had no legal responsibility over the issue because protesters, not the university, blocked Jewish students' access to some areas. The university also worked with law enforcement to thwart attempts to set up new protest camps.
The Hill
42 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate approves more than $180 billion in 2026 funding before August recess
The Senate on Friday passed its first tranche of government funding bills for fiscal year 2026 ahead of its upcoming August recess, but Congress is bracing for a potentially messy fight to prevent a shutdown when they return in September. The chamber approved three bills that provide more than $180 billion in discretionary funding for the departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), military construction, legislative branch operations and rural development. The bills passed in two parts: on an 87-9 vote for military construction, VA, agriculture and FDA funding; and an 81-15 vote for legislative branch funding. The votes cap off days of uncertainty over whether the Senate would be joining the House on a monthlong recess with any of its 12 annual funding bills passed out of the chamber. Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), who heads the subcommittee that crafted the full-year VA funding bill, said Friday that he sees the first batch of bills as more of a 'test run.' 'It's just been so long since we've done our appropriations bills. A lot of people just [forgot] the procedures,' he told The Hill, noting that in the previous congressional session senators 'really didn't do bills.' Appropriators say the vote marks the first time since 2018 that the Senate has passed funding legislation before the August recess. 'It's really a matter of just kind of legislating again, and the more we do it, the easier, the easier it'll be as we go back,' Boozman said. In the past week, senators had gone through several iterations of their first funding package of the year, as leaders on both sides worked through frustrations in their ranks over proposed spending levels and actions by the Trump administration that incensed Democrats. Well over half of the funding approved Friday is included in the annual VA and military construction bill, which calls for upwards of $153 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2026. That includes about $133 billion for the VA and roughly $20 billion for the Department of Defense military construction program. More than $113 billion in discretionary funding would go toward VA medical care. The annual agricultural funding plan calls for $27 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2026. It includes $8.2 billion for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), about $7 billion in funding for the Food and Drug Administration, roughly $1.7 billion for rental assistance, and nearly $1.23 billion for the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). Democrats have also highlighted $240 million in funding in the bill for the McGovern-Dole Food for Education program, which was targeted in President Trump's latest budget request. The annual legislative branch funding plan calls for about $7 billion for House and Senate operations, the U.S. Capitol Police and agencies like the Library of Congress (LOC), the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the Architect of the Capitol. Capitol Police would see a boost under the plan, along with the CBO, while funding for the LOC, the CRS and the GAO would be kept at fiscal 2025 levels. Lawmakers also agreed to $44.5 million in emergency funds aimed at beefing up security and member protection, citing safety concerns following the shootings of Minnesota lawmakers earlier this year. Republicans had previously been uncertain about whether the third bill would be passed as part of the package this week until Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a senior appropriator, said a deal was worked out to allow him to vote on the measure separately from the other bills. Kennedy has criticized the legislative branch funding bill for its proposed spending levels. 'It just doesn't seem appropriate for us to be spending that much extra while everybody else has to take a cut,' he told reporters in late July. 'Now, some of my colleagues point out, yes, but the extra spending is for member security.' 'If you're going to spend extra money on member security, find a pay-for within the bill. I just think the optics are terrible and the policy is terrible,' he said. 'We ought to hold ourselves to the same standard we're holding everybody else, and that's why I'm going to vote no.' Republicans also blame Sen. Chris Van Hollen's (D-Md.) resistance to the Trump administration's relocation plans for the FBI's headquarters for weighing down efforts to pass the annual Justice Department funding bill. Senators had initially expected that bill, which also funds the Commerce Department and science-related agencies, to be part of the package until those plans fell apart earlier this week amid a clash over Trump administration plans to relocate the FBI headquarters. Speaking from the Senate floor on Thursday, Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the subcommittee that crafted the annual funding deal, said he had been pushing for an amendment aimed at ensuring the FBI would 'have a level 5 security headquarters.' He noted his previous attempt during committee consideration that temporarily led to the adoption of an amendment to the DOJ funding bill that sought to block President Trump's plans to keep the FBI's headquarters in Washington, D.C. However, the change was later scrapped after staunch GOP opposition threatened to tank the bill. 'It didn't happen because members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Republicans and Democrats, didn't think that was the right thing to do – to preserve what we had set out before and make sure that the men and women [of the FBI] have a level 5 security headquarters,' he said. 'We did it because the President of the United States was going to throw a fit if that provision stayed on.' Van Hollen said he hopes the bill will be able to 'get back on track' in September. However, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), chair of the subcommittee alongside Van Hollen, offered a rather gloomy outlook for the bill's next steps after recess. He argued much of the focus in September is likely to be on getting a deal on a funding stopgap, also known as a continuing resolution (CR), to keep the government funded beyond the Sept. 30 shutdown deadline. 'When we get back from recess, we'll move to working on the CR to get us so I would guess if the CJS has a path, it's probably just the CR and will continue,' Moran said. 'All the work that we've done goes away, and we'll go back to CR and fund those agencies at the same level and same way that we did last year.' 'Every time we say we want to do appropriation bills, then there's someone who has a reason that, 'Not this time,' 'Not this one,' 'Not – because I didn't get what I want,'' he said. 'And this time we're arguing over an amendment that was allowed to the senator who's objecting, but he wanted a commitment that he get the outcome he wants.' 'And he didn't win in committee, and he wouldn't win on the Senate floor, but he can, I wouldn't think, but he can make his case. But he rejected that option,' he said.
