Jeffrey Goldberg: Just a week after the latest attempt on his life, President Trump has been, for him, relatively calm and controlled.

Take, for example, his reaction to bad news about high gas prices.

Donald Trump, U.S.

President: Gasoline, the oil, will go down rapidly as soon as the war's over.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Uncharacteristically self-deprecating answer when asked if he'd wear a bulletproof vest after the violence at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Donald Trump: I don't know if I can handle looking 20 pounds heavier.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Tonight, President Trump confronts the dangerous realities of his life and political troubles ahead, next.

Good evening and welcome to Washington Week.

I don't want to overstate any of this.

While it is true that in the immediate aftermath of the dinner incident this past Saturday, Trump spoke of unity and praised the journalists, yes, he praised the journalists, who organized the dinner.

But he's still very much Donald Trump obsessing over his legacy, saying the most outlandish things, and providing the American people with almost no understanding of what he hopes to achieve in the Middle East, which causes many Americans, including this American, to wonder if he knows what he wants in the Middle East or knows the pathway to get there.

We'll talk about the president's dilemmas tonight and we'll discuss the state of the economy, which is everyone's problem, with my guests, Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent at The New York Times, Susan Glasser is a columnist at The New Yorker, Idrees Kahloon is a staff writer at The Atlantic, and Ashley Parker is a staff writer and a White House correspondent at The Atlantic.

Thank you all for being here.

Let's start with the chaos of last Saturday night.

Peter, how has the president been handling this latest apparent attempt on his life?

Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent, The New York Times: Yes.

It's fascinating display of Trumpian, you know, surprise, right, because the first reaction is one that you might have seen from other politicians.

He goes to the White House briefing room at 10:00 at night.

He is subdued.

He is taking it seriously.

He is sober.

He is praising the journalist.

He's recognizing the serious of the moment without using it as an opportunity to bash somebody and to attack somebody.

That lasts all of 12 hours, of course.

And by the next day, he's bashing Nora O'Donnell.

He's -- within days, the president, who had just been at a dinner, supposed to be about the First Amendment, is using his administration to go after ABC, trying to get them to pull off Jimmy Kimmel because he didn't like a joke.

And now his administration has criminally prosecuted the former FBI Director James Comey for speech for his social media post with seashells and a slogan that they interpreted as a threat to the president.

So, within days, of course, you saw Trump at his normal velocity.

But it's a tragic moment, of course, that politics and violence have become so interweaved that we didn't even really pause for very long to think about what it meant and what it tells us about our politics today.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Susan, is there any evidence that this kind of incident, which is terrible, that it changes him at all?

Have we seen anything at all?

Susan Glasser, Columnist, The New Yorker: Well, I mean, look, you know, there is a strong sense, and I think Donald Trump believes that the two attempts on his life during the course of the 2024 campaign, you know, that they -- in a way, the fact that he survived them you know, gave him a different sense of mission in winning a second term in office.

And I do think you do see a more messianic, a more legacy-obsessed version of Donald Trump in his second term than in his first term.

But, you know, the normalcy shouldn't be overstated in Donald Trump's reaction.

Remember that one of his immediate impulses upon being told that someone had come close to threatening his life at this dinner was to immediately go on and on and on about how the country needed the $400 million ballroom that he's planning to build for the White House.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

I guess I was just I was so struck after, because it's so unusual, Ashley, that he was magnificent to the press.

He was praising the White House Correspondents' Association even, and even talking about unity, which is not traditionally a theme of the Trump administration.

I don't want to push people to a conclusion that they can't draw, but for a moment there, it seemed like there was a completely different president.

Ashley Parker, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: Yes.

It did, but I think anyone who has covered him for even just a couple of years understands that that is not the authentic Trump, that those words coming out of his mouth are not authentic.

Although I will say it is authentic Trump in this sense, which is Donald Trump is often trying to win over whoever is directly in front of him when he's not trying to insult them, right?

And in this moment, he has a room full of journalists.

I think he was perhaps a little bit shaken.

You also remember the Secret -- J.D.

Vance gets off the stage first, and the reason he doesn't move as quickly is because, as he admits, he sort of waves off his Secret Service detail and is sort of like, wait a minute, I want to see this show.

So, he's seen this show.

He's been impressed for whatever reason how the room comported itself.

And so in that moment, he's faced with a bunch of journalists.

He wants to win them over and he can be when he chooses to be incredibly charming.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

We have both experienced that on occasion.

The White House Correspondents' Dinner does it have a future?

Should it have a future?

Ashley, you have profound thoughts on the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Why don't you share them?

Ashley Parker: Well, I will just share my little claim to fame, which is that The New York Times famously does not go to the dinner, and that is because when I was a young research assistant for Maureen Dowd, I was assigned -- I was not invited to the dinner, but I was assigned to cover it.

It was during the Iraq War.

The Times had invited his guests because you used to bring a ton of guests, Karl Rove and Sheryl Crow on famously opposite sides of this war.

They got in a big fight at the dinner.

And then I got the tip and I reported it and it just felt too -- there was a sense from up high that it felt too queasy that The Times had made news by inviting these guests and then covered the news they had made.

And I think they, like a lot of news organizations, felt gross about this dinner anyhow, wanted a reason to leave and did what a lot of organizations have wanted to do but have not been able to.

Peter Baker: Well, I think that predates Trump.

But Trump then becomes the, you know, proof of the pudding, right?

Why should we be having dinners with presidents who we are covering, and particularly if you have a president who is calling us enemies of the people, who is using the power of government to go after us, literally threatening The New York Times this week with sedition for daring to write stories he doesn't like.

You know, his administration is suing you, you know, his FBI director.

This is not an administration that has the same commitment to the First Amendment that the rest of the people in that room had.

And is this an uncomfortable and, you know, it's icky because of what you described, but it's also uncomfortable in another way.

We have a job to do and it's covering him, not celebrating with him.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Idrees, you're naturally contrarian.

What's the best argument for keeping the White House Correspondents' Dinner going?

Idrees Kahloon, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: I guess tradition, you know, history is made there.

Donald Trump was mocked by Barack Obama, and that might have been the thing that caused him to say, you know what, I'm going to become president and I'm going to become arguably a more influential person than Barack Obama, to your article's point, you know, vying with Napoleon and other things.

So, you know, history is made there.

I will say it was my first White House Correspondents' Dinner and -- Jeffrey Goldberg: This was your first one?

Ashley Parker: I cannot believe that.

Idrees Kahloon: It only lasted ten minutes.

Peter Baker: They're not even like that.

Jeffrey Goldberg: They're longer.

They're usually much longer.

Peter Baker: Much longer.

Jeffrey Goldberg: No, but I'm serious because I will share my view, not that you care, but I will share it anyway, I'm in the chair.

Seeing a bunch of journalists in tuxedos hobnobbing with powerful people, I don't think does much for our image in the country.

I mean, just from a pure optic -- well, it's more than optics.

It's like we are literally -- I mean, I didn't go this year, but we are hobnobbing with people we're supposed to be holding adversarially.

Susan Glasser: If I could just say, I think that's really an important point, Jeff, that's gotten lost because it was such a dramatic moment here.

But like in the end, you know, journalists are part of a broader civil society in this country that has been under siege.

And what I think a lot of people, when they look at Washington, you know, and they say we're revolted by the spectacle, they include the press in that because there's a sense that people are not walking the talk, you know, living the principles that they -- either you believe that Donald Trump poses an existential threat to freedom of speech and other pillars of our constitutional order or you don't.

And what the message from these journalists that we've seen amplified a lot, frankly, in the days since this dinner and the debacle that happened there, the message that's received to people is we actually care more about having access to people in the White House, even if they are calling us enemies of the people, suing us for billions of dollars and undermining our ability to tell the American people the truth and do the job that we're here for.

Jeffrey Goldberg: I literally think it's the tuxedos and the gowns that people see that, that turn -- Peter Baker: And the celebrities and the red carpet and the spectacle of the parties.

Ashley Parker: You're taking the people writ large who have the absolute lowest approval rating in the country.

Journalists, members of Congress, and often the president, you are putting them in a ballroom, you are dressing them up, you are feeding them.

We didn't get to this course, but you're feeding them filet and lobster, and you are throwing celebrities into the mix.

It's very understandable, even though there's legitimate freedom of the press and First Amendment reasons for this dinner, why the entire country rightfully hates it.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Would you like to know my compromise solution?

I bet you do.

My compromise solution is that continue the dinner, but everyone has to dress like John Fetterman.

Make it seem more excessive.

And no more lobster.

No more lobster, like, you know, chicken fingers or something like that.

No, it's actually a serious thing.

I mean, there's a technical issue here, which is that in our new security reality, how do you pull these things off, right.

We'll revisit this subject.

But it is not just a subject of domestic or parochial concern because it does go to the way we are perceived in the country and the way we perceived.

No, it's not very good.

Ashley, the -- I mean, as I noted before, the president is still the president.

You and Michael Scherer this week wrote a piece.

I want to read something.

I mean, you talked about the president's grand vision of himself.

You wrote, Trump's heightened tendency to view himself as a world historical figure, capable of brash, misunderstood greatness, has transformed his second term not necessarily in a good way.

Republicans are in a panic about the political costs of the attack in Iran, which has increased prices and interest rates ahead of an election that will hinge on affordability.

I want to go to Idrees in a second to talk about the actual core issue here, but give us a little sense of the argument of the piece and what you have seen in Trump that's changed, that caused you to want to write this.

Ashley Parker: Yes.

So, Trump's second term feels so demonstrably different than his first term.

And we were sort of reporting and thinking about questions of legacy.

He's not behaving the way you rationally would as a second term president who has a party that is facing what's looking to be an increasingly close midterm election.

And he's also doing another thing that most presidents do, which is remaking the city in his image and putting his physical image on just about anything he can in building arcs to himself.

And so we started to ask these questions, and one thing we heard was that Trump privately had begun comparing himself to Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and Julius Caesar.

And what we realized in talking to people around him, someone told us, look, he is talking about himself as potentially one of the most powerful men who has ever lived and will ever live.

And he has seen himself in these terms.

He has seen himself in the broader scope of history and there is a sort of freeing of his ambition and his whims.

The guardrails are gone and he doesn't particularly care if Republicans hold the House.

He cares a little more if they hold the Senate because that may make a difference in an impeachment trial and he sort of cares about a successor, but that too is complicated because he doesn't want anyone usurping him.

And that's sort of what our piece explores.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

So, Idrees, before you can be Caesar or Napoleon, you've got to get gas prices down.

Idrees Kahloon: Yes.

Jeffrey Goldberg: I mean, they had that same problem.

Talk about the president's economic woes and how long lasting they might be meaning into the fall, into the election season.

Idrees Kahloon: Yes.

I mean, the fact that the oil is not flowing will be a problem.

You know, you can't just restart these refineries in the Gulf like that.

They take a while to come back online.

It's unclear even if they will.

America's exposed to international markets.

So, Asia is going to be affected a lot sooner than America because of their dependency on Gulf oil.

Europe will as well.

That will affect American markets.

But even here, you see gas prices are up 50 percent, consumer confidence from the University of Michigan's surveys at its lowest point ever, ever right now.

You know, the U.S.

economy is still, on the whole, doing a lot better than Europe, but people have been feeling glum about the economy for a really, really long time.

This is really not the set of economic priorities that you want to be sending before you go into the midterms.

Mortgage rates are going to go up.

Farmers, you know, the constituency that Trump really professes to care about have been affected not just by tariffs, but now added fertilizer prices because of the Gulf, increased diesel prices, you know, airlines are going to get more expensive.

It's just not the right condition for a president who wants to win the midterm elections.

And, really, it's also not the right condition if he wants to run for a third term, which it doesn't seem like he is at all, right?

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

What would it take and how long would it take to unwind these things in a way that, by September, give him a better shot, give the Republicans a better shot at holding Congress?

Idrees Kahloon: I don't think it goes back just like that.

I mean, there are, you know, these -- Jeffrey Goldberg: Not just on the flow of oil, but all these things?

Idrees Kahloon: Yes.

No, it takes a while.

You know, like business uncertainty, for example, has gone up a lot, right?

The Federal Reserve is not going to cut, as was expected.

So, people who were going to buy a house this summer just won't be able to.

And even if this stuff is resolved tomorrow, all of that does not change and all of those economic conditions are just going to persist for at least a while.

And that's to say nothing if this goes on for longer and countries like Japan are affected, Europe's affected, you know, that then it gets really bad.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Peter, there's been some compelling reporting that that says that the Iranian economy is on the brink of collapse because of the blockade.

So, does the president actually have a patient plan to bring about regime change that would really change the Middle East over time?

I'm not asking in relationship just to the midterms, but, more generally, is he on a pathway that is actually smarter than conventional wisdom would have it?

Peter Baker: Well, look, we'll see.

But I think that in Washington, we have traditionally, historically over overestimated our ability to affect other countries' governmental systems, right?

We have been squeezing Iran historically under presence of both parties now for decades with sanctions that are tougher than most countries have ever endured, and it made no difference whatsoever in terms of who was running Iran.

We've been - - we've had Cuba in a chokehold for 60, 70 years.

It did not change who runs Cuba.

We have not changed who runs North Korea by cutting off all the things we have cut off from them.

So, I think that, yes, maybe this could happen.

I don't want to rule anything out, but history suggests that we have limits to our ability to affect other countries' governments.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Susan, Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, went to war against Congress and the Democrats this week.

Let's watch this.

Pete Hegseth, Defense Secretary: The biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless naysayers and defeatist words of Congressional Democrats and some Republicans.

Jeffrey Goldberg: I would argue that the biggest adversary we face is some combination of Shia and Sunni terrorist extremism, Russia, and, as a long-term threat, China.

But also, you know, Pete Hegseth is arguing that Congressional Democrats are the same.

He was incredibly pugnacious in these hearings.

And the administration, as we know, just announced in anger that it's going to withdraw 5,000 American troops from Germany as a way of punishing the German chancellor because -- who said that Iran is humiliating the United States.

Give us your sense of this brittleness and this anger coming out of the Pentagon.

How serious is it?

And what does it mean for that, for the war effort and for relations with Congress that has to fund this war, this war effort?

Susan Glasser: Yes.

I mean, Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth have thumped their nose at Congress since the very beginning of the administration.

And what's been notable is that while Republicans control both chambers, they've done almost nothing to it.

You know, in fact, it was remarkable to hear King Charles of Britain give a speech to Congress this week where he mentions the Magna Carta and says, you know, that this is a great progenitor of America's checks and balances and the great members of Congress who've done nothing to serve as a check on Donald Trump rose in a bipartisan standing ovation.

As far as Pete Hegseth goes, I'm really -- Jeffrey Goldberg: Do you think the king was smirking a little bit on the inside, like he got a funny joke over Congress?

Susan Glasser: You know, the British do dry wit better than the Americans do.

What's amazing is that Donald Trump didn't seem to get the joke and he later called it a fantastic speech.

But I want to answer about Pete Hegseth.

I'm really glad you played that clip.

Because, to me, that gets at the essence of what he and Trump have been doing that is so different.

They redefined national security from the very beginning of this administration as about the enemy within.

Donald Trump gave a famous interview in October of 2024 in which he was asked about who was America's greatest adversary.

And he said, you know, there's Russia, there's China, and then there's the enemy within.

And of those, the greatest threat is the enemy within, Hegseth now defining a new set of enemy within.

I think they've redefined how they see the role of the military.

And it's a vision, by the way, of unchecked executive power.

Because what it means is that if Donald Trump or Pete Hegseth identifies someone as an enemy, they could use this vast powers at their disposal without anyone in Congress or anywhere else doing anything about it.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Idrees, do you remember any period in American history in which a Secretary of Defense has argued that the greatest enemy facing the United States is -- are members of the opposing party?

Idrees Kahloon: I mean, I don't.

But, you know, there's traditionally a sense of gravitas, of purpose that the defense secretary has when they carry themselves, that the president has when they carry themselves, that obviously you don't see here.

And the fact that you have, you know, as you pointed out, the king talking about checks and balances, which we are very different from the English system, right?

He's sort of reminds, he's sort of giving constitutional lessons to the president.

I found that very odd.

And also the fact that he got tariffs removed on scotch whiskey was also a kind of inversion of, you know, 250 years ago, we're protesting tea tariffs imposed arbitrarily by the king of England.

Now, the king of England is sort of begging our leader to please remove these tariffs, so we'll see.

I mean, it's all very odd.

And this is obviously, of course, a power that is core to Congress, right?

Article 1, it's right there.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

It is actually astonishing, if you think about it, that a descendant of King George III is lecturing appropriately, in many lights, the United States on democratic behavior, but here we are.

I want to ask about the Democrats.

They're very fired up right now, Peter, so fired up that the populous seemed to be on the march.

Graham Platner in Maine has a clear shot of the Democratic nomination for Senate.

And this just really struck me.

Democrats seem very inclined to forgive him for having a tattoo -- an SS tattoo, a Nazi tattoo.

I've been surprised at the double standard here, a Republican candidate for Senate had an SS death head tattoo.

I don't think the Democrats would be so forgiving.

What's going on?

Peter Baker: No.

Well, they want to win.

That's what's going on.

Look, when it's your side, you're always more forgiving than it's the other side.

Why are Republicans always forgiving of Donald Trump?

Because it's their side.

So, Democrats are being forgiving of Graham Platner because they want that Senate seat.

And that's one of the most vulnerable Republican-held Senate seats in the country.

Now, is he the guy to take it?

You know, he says, by the way, in fairness to him, that he didn't know it was an SS symbol, but he said plenty of other incendiaries and provocative things that he's had to take back and apologized for over the years.

And it gives a lot of people some, you know, a concern about whether he is up for that job.

But he is a champion right now of the progressive left.

He has now essentially defeated without even getting to the primary, the sitting Democratic governor who was the choice of Chuck Schumer and the establishment of the party, forcing her to drop out.

So, the progressives feel like they have a little bit of head of steam there.

Whether that works in the general election, I don't know.

It works in the Democratic primary maybe.

That's the question.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Well, that's the question, Susan, is the populist surge great for certain candidates in the primary season?

And then the reality is he has to run against Susan Collins as a Maine institution.

Susan Glasser: Well, that's right.

I mean, she's much more vulnerable, I would say, now than in her previous bids for reelection.

But, you know, look, it's always hard to generalize, right?

In Texas, you had a Democratic Senate primary in which it was James Talarico, who was, you know, really the more centrist candidate who won that contested primary.

And he's now giving Democrats a shot, a very unlikely shot, I'll believe it when I see it, but, you know, at least a shot in deep red Texas at a seat because, in fact, he didn't come from the far left of the party and he's preaching a very different kind of message.

So, I think it's hard to generalize, Jeff.

I do think Democrats are in verging on what might have been called a little bit of irrational or maybe rational exuberance headed into these midterm elections.

There's a lot, including redistricting, that could still go wrong for them.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Susan Glasser: But Donald Trump's numbers make them the favorites in many respects.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Idrees, quickly the decision by the Supreme Court overturned this gerrymandered district in Louisiana portends not such good things for the Democrats.

Idrees Kahloon: Yes, but it's close enough to the primary dates and not that many states are going to modify their lines.

Jeffrey Goldberg: It's too late to modify the line.

Idrees Kahloon: Louisiana will try to do that.

Florida will try.

But the real effect will be felt in 2028.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Ashley, last word to you on the Democrats and this rational or irrational exuberance on the left.

Ashley Parker: I mean, I think this is -- you're seeing it in different states, but this is going to be the key debate we see play out this divide in the party in the 2028 primaries.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Well, thank you very much.

We're going to have to leave it there.

There's so much to talk about, but I want to thank our guests for joining me and thank you at home for watching us.

To read Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer on the subject of Donald Trump's grandiose self-image, please visit theatlantic.com.

I'm Jeffrey Goldberg.

Goodnight from Washington.