Why Trump's mobile phone is causing havoc in the White House
Credit: c-span
Ever since Rutherford Hayes installed the first White House telephone in 1877, a call from the president of the USA has not been something to be taken lightly.
The phone would ring. An intermediary – often a national security advisor – would ask the recipient of the call to 'hold for the president' before the president was put through. Immediately after the call, staff would provide 'readouts,' detailing what had been discussed. Even Barack Obama, the first president of the smartphone era, was persuaded to change his usage to fit the White House mould.
In his phone habits, as with so many aspects of his leadership, Donald Trump has broken decisively with tradition. He wields his iPhone just as he did in civilian life, relentlessly and with little thought of protocol or security. Friends, acquaintances, world leaders, journalists, golfers and people he has just seen on television are all liable to get a call out of the blue from Trump's personal mobile phone.
Hundreds of people are thought to have his personal phone number, while he has been known to pick up calls from unknown callers. As a result, the devices – Trump is said to have at least two and possibly three personal iPhones – have become arguably the most significant objects in world politics, as well as a source of consternation to his foes and security experts, and amusement to his supporters.
'Trump has no other management life, or business life, than on the phone,' says Michael Wolff, a journalist who has written four books about the Trump presidency, the most recent being All or Nothing. 'He is all broadcast. The phone is essentially another platform for him. He's calling and opening his mind. He's not really calling to talk to anyone.
'Being on the phone with him is a totally bizarre experience,' he adds. 'You get no words in edgewise. And the other weird thing is that he is the president of the United States and he doesn't get off the phone. You think the call is going to end almost immediately because it's the president, but it never ends. At some point you have to end it.' Last month, a press conference in the Oval Office was interrupted by the loud ringing of Trump's phone, which was sitting on the president's desk. 'It's only a congressman,' he said, before the phone rang a second time. 'It's a different congressman,' he said.
Trump's free and easy communications have caused much consternation among his security advisors, who fear that he risks opening himself up to an attack by a foreign power. In the days leading up to the election last year, it was reported in The Atlantic this week, China gained the ability to eavesdrop on Trump's personal phone, the latest in a series of increasingly severe breaches by foreign powers. While others in the campaign switched phones, or moved to encrypted communications apps, the Chinese hack left the president unperturbed. He had always used his phone; he wasn't about to stop now.
Ben Rhodes, a former speechwriter and deputy national security advisor to Obama, told The Atlantic that Trump's phone usage was 'an obvious massive risk – especially given what we know about Chinese penetration of phones in recent years'.
As well as straightforward hacking, experts fear that Trump's lack of concern for phone security might leave him vulnerable to other threats, including impersonation.
The National Security Agency (NSA), America's equivalent to Britain's GCHQ, 'will be tearing their hair out,' says Prof Alan Woodward, a cybersecurity expert at the University of Surrey. 'Trump has endless means of secure communications, but chooses to use his own phone. Your phone is no longer just your phone. If someone were to get spyware onto your phone, they all have microphones and a camera that can be turned on remotely. Imagine being able to be present in the Oval Office. They can tell you someone's location.'
None of this has deterred Trump, whose idiosyncratic comms style goes back to his first term. Where earlier presidents would tend to make outgoing calls, or receive only from a handful of known numbers, Trump is happy to pick up calls from a wide range of contacts. The British golfer Nick Faldo revealed the extent of his communications with Trump in a Telegraph interview this week, in which he stated that, for the past decade or so, the president has spoken to him after every major tournament, to go over the performances of players. Faldo claims to be able to call the president whenever he wants, as a party trick.
'For fun, I could be anywhere in the world and if somebody was talking about this and that, I'd say: 'I'll call him',' he said. 'And I always get through. Honestly. One hundred per cent of the time.'
The British journalist Piers Morgan is another recipient of Trump's phone calls. 'I've spoken with Trump on his phone probably for about 18 years,' he says. 'Unlike most world leaders he's just carried on using his phone. It's part of his daily routine. If he likes you and wants to talk to you he'll pick up, or he'll call you out of the blue. There have been other [world leaders] I could speak to on the phone, but none where it is so fluid and relaxed.
'A few months ago he called me when I was in a black cab, the day after Keir Starmer had been to the White House and promised him a state visit, to ask how it was going down in the UK. I was telling him and I could see the cab driver's face getting increasingly bemused and excited.
'After 15 minutes I put the phone down and said 'I'll see you soon Mr President'. The cabbie said 'Piers, I don't mean to intrude into your privacy but was that Donald Trump?' I said it was. He said 'I've been driving this cab for 35 years and never had anyone talk to the president of the United States in the back.''
For Morgan, Trump's phone style is an extension of the demotic, immediate style that his supporters love and his opponents loathe. 'It's what differentiates Trump to all the other boring, staid, formulaic politicians, whose first question in high office is 'How am I supposed to behave? Give me the rules.' Trump doesn't do that. He has taken a bet that more people than not like him just the way he is.' Those close to Trump say he has always been an avid phone-user, even before he entered politics. He was also the first president, or candidate, to realise the power he had to shape a news cycle by posting on social media.
'If he woke up and saw an anti-Trump story on the news, he would just tweet something,' Morgan says. '[The news reports] would all change in real time, dictated from the Lincoln Bedroom or whichever bedroom he uses. That was the power of his phone. How many world leaders would do that?'
'He calls a lot of people and a lot of people call him,' he adds. 'The phone is an extension of his office, as far as he's concerned. He's constantly calling people. That's how his gut instinct gets formed. It's a powerful use of presidential time.'
'I've been on the phone with him before, and he's just said, 'I've got to go. I have someone from another country calling,'' one external adviser told The Atlantic. 'He doesn't even know which country. He just sees the number and thinks, 'This might be a foreign leader I want to talk to'.'
Presidential communications have evolved over the years. Herbert Hoover (president between 1929 and 1933) followed Rutherford B Hayes by installing a phone directly to the Oval Office. Obama was determined to keep his BlackBerry, becoming the first e-mail president, but was forced to severely limit his contacts book. Announcing the compromise following a battle with Obama's handlers, the president's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said his boss would use the phone 'in a way that use will be limited and that the security is enhanced to ensure his ability to communicate'.
Trump is not the only world leader to have come under fire for their phone measures. 'For security reasons, they are supposed to keep a record of interactions between the president and other parties,' Alan Woodward says. 'If he has a call with Putin, a record is kept. But there's all these side conversations going on... Politicians, like everybody, feel like their mobile is a personal private space. But it's not. It's a radio device, communicating in all sorts of ways and communicating behind your back. You don't know what else is there.'
In 2021, when Boris Johnson was prime minister, it was reported that his personal mobile number had been freely available on the internet for 15 years, which Sir Keir Starmer, then the leader of the opposition, said was a 'serious situation that carries a security risk'. Starmer said he had switched to a more secure phone in 2008, when he became director of public prosecutions. Trump's government has already endured a catastrophic failure of cyber security – the editor of The Atlantic, Jeff Goldberg, was mistakenly added to a group on Signal, a messaging app, in which the US defence secretary Pete Hegseth, and others, discussed bombing Yemen (it was also reported that Hegseth had another Signal chat in which he had discussed the attacks).
Trump spokespeople have previously said that his phone has been modified to enhance security, without specifying any details. In an interview with Politico last year, Chris LaCivita, one of his campaign advisers, said he had given up trying to stop his boss from phoning people. 'I don't worry about it, because what are you going to do? Take his phone? Change his phone number? Tell him he can't make phone calls?'
Besides, Michael Wolff is not convinced Trump is divulging many secrets on these endless calls. 'I'm trying to think what the security risk is,' he says. 'It's not as if any of it is a secret. He tells everybody the same thing. There are no confidences here. There's no real discussion of anything here. It's just 'blah blah blah'.'
When you are the American president, even your 'blah blah blah' has ramifications. Callers may no longer 'hold for the president', but much of the world still hangs on his every word.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Few thought airstrikes could ‘obliterate' Iran's nuclear program. Then Trump said they did.
Experts long argued that airstrikes alone would not be capable of permanently ending Iran's nuclear program absent negotiations. WASHINGTON — A highly politicized debate is unfolding over the impact of June 21 U.S. airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, raising questions over the attack's goal and projected impact. President Donald Trump quickly claimed total victory in the strikes' wake, claiming that Iran's 'key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' Subsequent scrutiny of that claim amid early assessments from intelligence agencies has led Trump and his allies to double down on and even expand on his declarations of success. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed to CNN that the strikes 'obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.' Iran itself has acknowledged the impact of the U.S. and Israeli attacks. But in the years since Washington's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, experts and analysts have emphasized that airstrikes alone would merely delay Iran's nuclear ambitions rather than permanently derail them. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Illinois, reiterated that long-held understanding in a June 26 interview. 'The targets are hard targets, deep targets, mobile targets. So it was never meant to eliminate the program,' Quigley told USA TODAY. 'It was never meant to do anything but slow the program.' The congressman, who is on the House's intelligence committee and has regularly received briefings on Iran, added, 'We've always been told . . . the only way to end this (nuclear) program is with a lot of troops on the ground for a long time. A war.' The former head of the National Nuclear Security Agency's nonproliferation programs, Corey Hinderstein, struck a similar tone. 'The conventional wisdom that you can't destroy the Iranian (nuclear) program through air attack alone has actually held,' said Hinderstein, now a vice president at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'While some are saying that the airstrikes were tactically and strategically successful, I think that the jury is still out on that, and we don't actually have the information that we need to believe that this program is gone.' Third nuclear site, hidden centrifuges, missing uranium Iran may have another nuclear site that, if equipped with enrichment centrifuges and conversion equipment, could continue the process of preparing uranium for use in a nuclear bomb, if the regime wishes to pursue one. Shortly before Israel began its air campaign against Iran, the regime told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had a third nuclear enrichment site but did not reveal details. Analysts believe an undisclosed underground facility at Pickaxe Mountain near the Natanz nuclear plant may be even deeper under the surface than the Fordow enrichment plant that was severely damaged in the U.S. strikes. The Pickaxe Mountain facility was first publicly revealed in 2023 by experts who spoke with the Associated Press. And it's unclear how much of Tehran's approximately 880 pounds of highly enriched uranium was destroyed or buried during the strikes — satellite images show cargo trucks parked outside the Fordow enrichment plant in the days before the U.S. attack. U.S. lawmakers briefed June 26 and June 27 on intelligence assessments of the strikes acknowledged the missing uranium and called for a full accounting of the material, according to CNN. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told the news agency that the question of the uranium's whereabouts underscores the importance of Iran negotiating 'directly with us, so the (IAEA) can account for every ounce of enriched uranium that's there.' More: Where is Iran's enriched uranium? Questions loom after Trump claims victory. But whether Iran wants to negotiate is another question. Despite the country's obligations as a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran's Guardian Council approved a law June 25 halting the country's cooperation with the IAEA and its inspections of Tehran's nuclear sites 'until the safety and security of our nuclear activities can be guaranteed,' the country's foreign minister said on social media. Contributing: Tom Vanden Brook and Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.


USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Michelle Obama won't run for office, but her podcast may guide Democrats
As Democrats search to counter Trump it may not be Barack Obama, the party's most popular figure, that they should turn to, but Michelle. Michelle Obama is back – just not on the political stage. At a time when the Democratic faithful are hungry for dynamic leadership, the former first lady is getting cozy and personal in a podcast called "IMO," a breezy hour-long celebrity chat co-hosted by her brother, basketball executive Craig Robinson. "I feel like at 60, this is the first time where all my decisions are for me," Obama said on her June 19 episode with radio show host Angie Martinez. With her daughters Sasha and Malia launched in their own young adult lives, "this is a period of freedom." Each week, Obama and Robinson are joined by celebrities like comedians Damon and Marlon Wayans, producer Issa Rae or actress Keke Palmer – with just a glint of politics. It's her space to talk with friends. References to her husband, former President Barack Obama, or the eight years they spent raising young children in the White House are matters of fact, but the political wildfire of the second Trump administration is barely noted, except as a launching point to talk about how people are impacted by Trump's new policies. As recently as last July, an Ipsos poll revealed that only Michelle Obama stood a chance of besting Donald Trump in the presidential election. Even before leaving the White House in early 2017, a corner of the Democratic Party clamored for her to run. She has repeatedly slammed the door on that. But as Democrats search for a liberal counter to the right-wing media ecosystem that helped Trump win back the White House by reaching millions who don't pay attention to mainstream media, the online show of a relatable and popular Democrat could be what they are looking for. Regardless of what Democrats want her podcast to be, Michelle Obama has demonstrated she'll do her show her way. For now, she's using a platform that reflects the former first lady's larger, and perhaps more effective, cultural strategy that mirrors how Black women voters - part of the party's loyalist base - are coping after former Vice President Kamala Harris' loss in the 2024 election, said Democratic strategist Nina Smith. "So this is the best way that she can create space and show the multi-dimensional nature of Black women: our thinking; how we engage friends; how we engage with people across racial lines; how we engage with our siblings; and the fullness of us, while also allowing her to speak to the issues of the moment," Smith said. IMO (short for "in my opinion"), is largely devoid of juicy gossip, let alone talk about any current or former White House occupants. The Father's Day episode, which featured Bruce Springsteen and watched by roughly 216,000 viewers on YouTube, came just days after Trump berated the rock music icon for calling the administration "corrupt, incompetent and treasonous." While Trump's name never came up, they both chuckled when Michelle Obama made a joke about some people being president who need therapy. Instead, they talked about going to therapy, building relationships with absentee parents and being present for their children during formative years "I realized that parenting is pennies in the bank," Springsteen said. "It's that time when you were working and you didn't want to stop, but you did. That made a huge difference to me. I always felt that if I had failed with my kids I would have failed tremendously at life." More: Pop stars, massive crowds and history: How the Obama and Harris campaigns compare Michelle Obama responded with a story from her childhood about what it meant when her father, who worked long hours as a city worker in Chicago, turned his full attention to her and her brother. "When he was present he was present in very small but meaningful ways," she said. 'She hates politics' Michelle Obama, a corporate lawyer specializing in marketing and intellectual property law, was carried into the national spotlight when a skinny senator with a Muslim middle name beat the old guards in both parties with a message of a new America founded upon hope. For most of that time she had to be more mindful of her husband's agenda and image. Since Trump took office, she's been openly critical of him, but on her terms, such as at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in her hometown of Chicago, rather than on her podcast. Speaking up and what she considers the right moment will likely continue, said Democratic strategist Lynda Tran. "I would not be surprised to see her using her voice to rally Democrats in the future assuming the appropriate venues and strategic value. And I would expect an overwhelmingly positive response from Democrats when she does," Tran, who worked in the Obama administration, told USA TODAY. But her participation in politics might be through raising money and giving speeches, rather than a central role in the party's future. Her focus in the last few years has been on outside projects, her family and now the new podcast she co-hosts with her brother. Demands to do more from either Barack or Michelle Obama are often met with scoffs by longtime supporters, such as Natalie Graves, a clinical social worker who was at Chicago's Grant Park when the couple took the victory stage in November 2008. More: Obama warns Trump administration has 'weak commitment' to democracy in Connecticut speech "My first response is an eye roll," Graves, a 55-year-old registered Democrat, said of ongoing efforts to recruit the former first lady to run for president. "If a person says that they don't want to run, what are we talking about? They're ignoring the fact that she has made it very clear that she hates politics." 'Served their time' The former first lady firmly shut the door on running for president in March, saying her daughters, who are both in their 20s, had "served their time" in the limelight and should get to be private young adults. "I wanted them to have the freedom of not having the eyes of the world on them. So when people ask me would I ever run, the answer is no," Obama said on Kyle Kelcie's 'Not Gonna Lie' podcast. "If you ask me that, then you have absolutely no idea the sacrifice your kids make when your parents are in that role." Democrats are casting about for trusted voices to better connect with different voters and help create a left-wing media ecosystem to match that of the right. Some liberal strategists are asking donors to contribute to finding voices and influencers on the left to counter people like Steve Bannon and Joe Rogan who helped propel Trump to office, the New York Times reported last month. Democrats statistically have more trust in mainstream media than Republicans, said Texas Christian University political science professor Adam Schiffer. The Democratic brain trust is asking 'who is the Democratic Joe Rogan?' he said, but 'it's not necessarily clear that there could be one because Democrats don't necessarily find that gratifying and entertaining.' More: Town halls, f-bombs and Elon Musk: How Democrats are waging a new messaging war Younger people have a radically different media consumption than their parents, Schiffer said, and it "could become a critical problem for Democrats" if they don't figure out how to get in front of them. No matter how popular, a former first lady in her sixties might not be the best emissary to young people, he said. Influencers played a large role in Harris' abridged presidential campaign last summer and fall, but they couldn't compete with a Republican online juggernaut that has been building for over a decade. And not everyone is an "IMO" fan. Some are calling out the former first lady's complaints about living in the White House. For example, former Fox News host Megyn Kelly mocked the podcast in a June 26 video posted to X, later saying Michelle Obama was "trashing her children and husband again." When Michelle Obama does talk about politics in her podcast, it mostly orbits around the future for Americans in her daughters' generation and how political decisions impact ordinary people. She's often echoing the kind of kitchen table politicking that only voters in swing states get to hear about every four years from presidential candidates. "I'm talking to so many young people who are deathly afraid of their futures in this climate," she said in the May 21 episode. "They're not just worried about jobs, they're worried about being able to become the next entrepreneur, they're wondering whether, you know, they'll have healthcare and housing [and] whether they'll be able to pay off their student loans." In that episode, Obama and her brother spoke with Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky about the future of businesses under the Trump' administration's new tariffs. They talked about how the taxes on goods brought into the country are being passed on to consumers and hindering the ability of younger Americans trying to make it to reach their goals in the current economy. More: Will TikTok be banned? Donald Trump says he has a 'warm spot' for app as it faces January deadline "I mean, some people can hold on, but other people are not only losing their businesses, but they're losing their homes in the process," she said. "It's kind of scary." Michelle Obama did use the podcast to defend her decision not to attend Trump's January inauguration, which sparked rounds of criticism and speculation about her marriage. She insisted she was simply "making the choice that was right" for her. "Whatever the backlash was, I had to sit in it and own it. But I didn't regret it, you know? It's my life now, and I can say that, now," the mom of two said on a June 26 NPR podcast. Dems in a ditch Michelle Obama's show also arrives at a time when the Democratic brand remains in the ditch with progressive voters. About one-third of Democrats said they are optimistic about their party's future, a May poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found. Though several Democrats are starting to make moves toward 2028, liberals have struggled with the lack of a main character to match Trump's political moxie the way then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi did in his first term. Lately, Democratic officeholders have clashed with federal agents at press conferences, immigration hearings and ICE facilities, creating viral moments that have been cheered by mainstream and more left-leaning progressives. More: Vance defends using military to quell protests, refers to Sen. Alex Padilla as 'José' Such actions have never been in either of the Obamas' style, and some Black political activists and artists have been emphasizing the need for "self-care" over political action in the aftermath of the 2024 election. "It's important for her to stay within the public space, so it's good that she wants to be active. She endorses candidates and stuff of that nature. I have no problem with that," said Steven Uzoukwu, a 33, a cybersecurity analyst from Baltimore, Maryland. "I just think we shouldn't rely on the Obamas to save America."


New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
With Supreme Court Ruling, Another Check on Trump's Power Fades
The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6 to 3, will allow Mr. Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country — even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to undocumented immigrants or foreign visitors without green cards can be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that already took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the 'imperial presidency.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.