US Donald Trump - 2024 TIME Person of the Year

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
By Eric Cortellessa | Photograph by Platon for TIME
December 5, 2024, 5:31 PM EST

1734012994251.png

Mar-a-Lago was quiet three days before Thanksgiving. Donald Trump’s Moorish palace seemed all but deserted late that morning, the seaside estate’s cavernous living room traversed intermittently by a junior staffer or silent aide. Totems to Trump were displayed everywhere. Framed magazines with him on the cover hung by the front door. On a table near the fireplace sat a cast-bronze eagle awarded him by the singer Lee Greenwood. In the men’s lavatory, a picture of him with Arnold Palmer hung near the urinals. Adorning a wall in the library bar, a painting titled The Visionary depicted Trump in a tennis sweater, trim and youthful. The empty rooms felt less like a millionaire members’ club than a museum.

By midafternoon, the President-elect’s imminent arrival had stirred signs of life. Discreetly placed speakers offered up selections from Trump’s personally curated 2,000-song playlist. A handful of transition honchos and soon-to-be Administration officials arrived, perching on overstuffed sofas and huddling in corners. Incoming chief of staff Susie Wiles conferred with Trump’s designated National Security Adviser, Mike Waltz. Vice President–elect J.D. Vance strode in with a retinue of staffers. An aide posted up near a window overlooking the patio, setting down Trump’s personal cell phone, which lit up occasionally with calls and texts from favored media personalities and Cabinet picks. You could sense Trump before you could see him, the small group of senior aides rising to their feet in anticipation.

The world’s most powerful man entered with an air of unhurried bonhomie. Dressed in his trademark navy suit and red tie, Trump, 78, appeared a little older than he had some seven months earlier, when he last met with TIME—more subdued, less verbose, the same discursive speech patterns but with the volume turned down. Sitting under bright lights for a 30-minute photo session ahead of a 65-minute interview, he’s asked to explain the bruising on his right hand. “It’s from shaking hands with thousands of people,” he says.

1734013009336.png
The President-elect, pictured at Mar-a-Lago on Nov. 25 Platon for TIME

Trump’s political rebirth is unparalleled in American history. His first term ended in disgrace, with his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results culminating in the attack on the U.S. Capitol. He was shunned by most party officials when he announced his candidacy in late 2022 amid multiple criminal investigations. Little more than a year later, Trump cleared the Republican field, clinching one of the fastest contested presidential primaries in history. He spent six weeks during the general election in a New York City courtroom, the first former President to be convicted of a crime—a fact that did little to dampen his support. An assassin’s bullet missed his skull by less than an inch at a rally in Butler, Pa., in July. Over the next four months, he beat not one but two Democratic opponents, swept all seven swing states, and became the first Republican to win the popular vote in 20 years. He has realigned American politics, remaking the GOP and leaving Democrats reckoning with what went awry.

Trump has a ready explanation for his improbable resurrection. He even has a name for its climactic final act. “I called it 72 Days of Fury,” he says as the interview gets under way. “We hit the nerve of the country. The country was angry.” It wasn’t just the MAGA faithful. Trump harnessed deep national discontent about the economy, immigration, and cultural issues. His grievances resonated with suburban moms and retirees, Latino and Black men, young voters and tech edgelords. While Democrats estimated that most of the country wanted a President who would uphold the norms of liberal democracy, Trump saw a nation ready to smash them, tapping into a growing sense that the system was rigged.

If America was craving change, it is about to see how much Trump can deliver. He ran on a strongman vision, proposing to deport migrants by the millions, dismantle parts of the federal government, seek revenge against his political adversaries, and dismantle institutions that millions of people see as censorious and corrupt. “He understands the cultural zeitgeists,” says his 2016 campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, who remains a close adviser. “Donald Trump is a complicated person with simple ideas, and way too many politicians are the exact opposite.”

1734013034064.png
Trump takes the stage at the GOP Convention in Milwaukee on July 18 Jim Watson—AFP/Getty Images

Trump also promises to attack the sources abroad that he blames for the country’s malaise: economic interdependence, transnational criminals, traditional allies he sees as free riders on America’s long-running global beneficence. He believes he has tools to fight back: punitive tariffs, bare-knuckle negotiations, and threats to withdraw U.S. military, humanitarian, and economic support. Willing to upend the nation’s postwar role as a bulwark against authoritarianism, he promises to usher in a foreign policy rooted in “America First” transactionalism.

Much still stands in his way. The Republicans have narrow majorities in the House and Senate. A conservative Supreme Court may not bless all his boundary-pushing policies. Enduring institutional resistance inside the federal bureaucracy could thwart his designs. The public also remains a powerful check on any President. Trump has proved twice now that he can surf to power on anti-incumbent sentiment, a cult of personality, and divisive rhetoric, including racist and xenophobic attacks. He has yet to prove that he can enact the radical vision he campaigned on. Those closest to the President-elect say that he will surprise people by fulfilling his promises. “Most politicians don’t,” says Wiles, “and he will.”

Whether Trump can actually fix the root causes of Americans’ anger is another question. He will now have to contend with the same forces he rode to the White House—a globalized economy, mass migration, the rise of China—that have bedeviled predecessors from both parties and ousted incumbents around the world. He will also see just how far the nation is willing to let him go. If he succeeds, he could reshape the country. Along the way, he risks tearing down the constitutional norms and institutions that have seen America’s great experiment in democracy through 2 1⁄2 centuries.



Trump was in the private cabin of his plane, flying to an April 2 campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., when he picked up a document Wiles had placed atop a stack of papers. The heading was not subtle: “How a national abortion ban will cost Trump the election.” Trump raised his eyebrows. “Kind of a nasty title, huh?” he said.

1734013061088.png
Trump campaign aides arrive in Fayetteville, N.C., ahead of an Oct. 4 rally Evan Vucci—AP

1734013064290.png
Trump gestures at supporters as he exits a campaign rally at Mullet Arena in Tempe, Ariz. on Oct. 24 Rebecca Noble—AFP/Getty Images

The episode was a turning point for an issue central to the race: whether Trump could find a position on abortion that would limit his electoral losses with women after playing a pivotal role in the fall of Roe v. Wade. That in turn was part of Trump’s larger challenge: how to offer change to everyone who wanted it, including voters put off by his positions or behavior. “There are not enough MAGA people to actually win an election,” a Trump campaign official tells TIME. “So who do you go get? How do you broaden that?”

Before he considered the memo, Trump had been on the verge of supporting a 16-week federal abortion ban. Conway had showed him polling that indicated barring the procedure after 16 weeks of pregnancy was more popular than doing so after 24. But Trump’s speechwriter and policy adviser, Vince Haley, had raised an objection on a late-March conference call, according to three people present: “Does he know that the 16-week ban will be stricter than existing law in a lot of the states?” There was a silence. “Probably not,” said Trump’s political director James Blair, who set to assembling a slide deck that argued such a ban would hurt Trump in the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, all of which offered women the opportunity to obtain the procedure until at least 20 weeks of pregnancy.

After flipping through Blair’s presentation on the plane, Trump perked his head up: “So we leave it to the states, right?” Advisers agreed. “Great,” Trump said. “We’ll do a video.” Within a few minutes, he was dictating his remarks to Haley. A few days later, Trump released the clip on his social media platform. For the rest of the race, a politician who had once asserted that “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who undergo abortions stuck to his stance of treating it as a states’-rights issue.

1734013104169.png
Trump backers, seen from Harris’ campaign bus, near Pittsburgh on Aug. 18 Julia Demaree Nikhinson—AP

The same month, Trump made another fateful decision: to end his crusade against vote by mail and early voting. For more than a year, senior advisers urged him to embrace a practice Trump had baselessly maligned as rife with fraud since the 2020 election. Several of his top lieutenants, including Wiles and Blair, were Florida operatives trained in the science of banking early votes. Wiles wrote Trump a memo showing the data on how spurning mail ballots cost Republicans in a series of razor-thin races in 2022. It would be self-defeating to oppose the practice, argued Wiles and Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara, whom he had handpicked as co-chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC).

Trump listened, but it took a visit from Rob Gleason, a former chair of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, to frame the matter in terms that made him agree. “Sir, your people are so excited to vote for you that they want to as soon as they can,” Gleason told him during an April meeting at Mar-a-Lago, according to two Trump officials familiar with the conversation. “They don’t want to wait. But you gotta tell them it’s OK. You gotta give them permission.” From then on, Trump promoted absentee and early voting, and directed the RNC to launch a mobilization drive targeting mail voters.

By the summer, Trump had the confidence of a man holding history in his hands. In late June, Joe Biden’s weak debate performance spurred an open revolt among panicking Democrats. On July 13, Trump survived the assassination attempt, prompting an outpouring of support and sympathy. To many Americans, his defiance in the aftermath of the shooting—rising bloodied, fist in the air, chanting “Fight!”—made him an inspirational figure for the first time. “A lot of people changed with that moment,” Trump tells TIME, sipping Diet Coke from a glass at Mar-a-Lago.

1734013128945.png
Platon for TIME

Trump’s strengthening position prompted Biden to drop out of the race and endorse Vice President Kamala Harris. Within a matter of days, Harris consolidated support, raised hundreds of millions of dollars, and galvanized a moribund Democratic base. In the wake of a successful Democratic National Convention, Trump’s inner circle experienced a creeping sense that he could lose. It was the moment of “maximal worry,” says Vance. “There was this sense of, Is this honeymoon with Kamala Harris going to last all the way until the election?”

Trump is a devotee of the Don Draper maxim: If you don’t like what’s being said, change the conversation. And so his team did. Trump’s son Don Jr. had long cultivated a rapport with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose independent campaign for the presidency in 2024 had garnered surprising levels of support, especially among disillusioned young men. Don Jr. worried Kennedy’s candidacy risked siphoning key votes, and he began clandestine negotiations as the conversations progressed. Trump Jr. and Wiles began coordinating with Kennedy’s campaign manager, his daughter-in-law Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, about removing him from the ballot in swing states and endorsing Trump. As Vance tells it, the pitch was simple: “You’re not going to win. You’re not going to have any effect on this race other than taking votes away from Donald Trump. So why don’t you actually join the team, set differences to the side, and focus on the big things that we care about?”

Once Kennedy bought into the plan, Wiles advised waiting to announce it until after the Democratic convention, believing it would stall Harris’ momentum. To Wiles, the endorsement was one of the campaign’s key moments. It neutralized the threat that Kennedy would peel off votes from Trump. But more importantly, “he allowed us to broaden the base of the party,” she says. “He was a key way to do that.”

1734013148130.png

Other new voters were devotees of Elon Musk, who endorsed Trump after the attack in Butler. Musk ended up pouring more than $250 million into supporting him, turning X into a de facto campaign organ, and serving as a key validator with the tech execs and corporate chieftains who had shied away from Trump for much of his time in the political arena. Now Musk will be among the array of billionaires with direct access to the Oval Office, creating a web of competing conflicts of interest.

To boost the contrast, the campaign maneuvered to portray Harris as too left-wing. It called attention to a questionnaire Harris filled out for the ACLU in 2019, during her last run for President, in which she supported taxpayer-funded sex-change operations for undocumented migrants held in detention. Trump’s adviser Taylor Budowich and admaker Pat McCarthy drummed up a line that would define his most influential campaign advertisement: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” The Trump campaign spent nearly $20 million to air the ad some 55,000 times in the first half of October, making it a key part of its closing message.

Strategists from both parties are divided over whether the Trump team’s blueprint made the difference in a close race, or if Harris’ headwinds—from pandemic-induced inflation to broad disquiet over Biden’s age—were just too much to overcome in a truncated campaign against the world’s most famous person. “We were up against a caricature of being dangerously liberal,” Harris campaign chief Jen O’Malley Dillon said at a Harvard Institute of Politics conference Dec. 6. The Vice President’s unwillingness to distance herself from her unpopular boss may have made as much of a difference as anything Trump did right. “It was a big looming negative hanging over us the whole time,” said Harris deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks.

1734013165096.png
During his speech at the RNC, Trump discusses the attempt on his life in Butler, Pa. Morry Gash—AP

On election night, Trump campaign staff set up a war room in Trump’s office at Mar-a-Lago, poring over incoming returns as the candidate schmoozed in the club’s ballroom with Musk and UFC chief Dana White. After North Carolina and Georgia shifted into his column, Trump peeked in. “Anything concerning you?” he asked.

“Nope,” an aide replied. “Feel good.”

“Good,” Trump said. When he returned to the ballroom, the jubilant crowd was dancing to “YMCA” by the Village People—a Trump rally staple that has become a cultural touchpoint, with everyone from professional athletes to TikTok aficionados mimicking his signature moves. Trump stood for a moment, taking it all in, before turning to an aide and asking when they should head to the nearby convention center where he would give his victory speech.



The election gave Trump political capital to address the sources of American discontent at home and abroad. The question now is how he intends to spend it. By his own account, Trump will push the limits of presidential power and the law.

One of the first official acts of his presidency, Trump tells TIME, will be to pardon most of the rioters accused or convicted of storming the Capitol to block the certification of Biden’s victory. “It’s going to start in the first hour,” he says. “Maybe the first nine minutes.” Trump also plans early actions to reverse many of Biden’s Executive Orders and expand the drilling of oil on federal land.

1734013193855.png
The pro-Trump mob swarms the Inauguration Day stage, waving flags and chanting on Jan. 6, 2021 Nate Gowdy

Trump’s most aggressive moves will be on immigration enforcement. He vows to tighten the U.S. border with Mexico through a slew of Executive Orders, and aides say he would end the U.S. “catch-and-release” program and resume construction of a border wall. At the same time, he says, he will order U.S. law-enforcement agencies—and potentially the military—to embark on a massive deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million undocumented migrants from the country. While the Posse Comitatus Act forbids the deployment of the military against civilians, Trump says he is willing to enlist the military to round up and deport migrants. “It doesn’t stop the military if it’s an invasion of our country,” he says. Pressed on how he would respond if the military refuses to carry out those orders, Trump says, “I’ll only do what the law allows, but I will go up to the maximum level of what the law allows.”

Trump tells TIME he doesn’t plan to restore the policy of separating children from their families to deter border crossings. But he doesn’t rule it out, either. “I don’t believe we’ll have to, because we will send the whole family back,” he says. “I would much rather deport them together.” Trump’s incoming border czar, Tom Homan, says “there is no deliberate policy being worked on to separate families.” But he also leaves open the possibility of children again being ripped from their parents. “You can’t say zero, it’s not going to happen,” Homan says.

For a mass-deportation operation of this scale, Trump’s advisers are planning to build more detention centers to hold migrants until they can be deported to their home countries, a process that can take weeks, months, or even years to negotiate with receiving governments. It’s not clear if all will be willing to take the migrants back. “We just don’t arrest an alien and remove them on the same day,” says Homan. “We’re going to need beds.” Trump says he will use access to the U.S. market as leverage to force foreign governments to cooperate. “I’ll get them into every country,” Trump says, “or we won’t do business with those countries.”

1734013215165.png
Trump at a section of the border wall in Sierra Vista, Ariz., on Aug. 22 Doug Mills—The New York Times/Redux

The operation would come at a steep cost. The nonprofit American Immigration Council estimates the tally for Trump’s mass-deportation plans could be upwards of $300 billion. Trump is likely to seek funding from Congress, according to aides. “It’s going to be expensive,” Homan says.

American taxpayers could bear the brunt in other ways. Economists say deporting many of the low-wage workers who bolster multiple industries could lead to higher prices. “If you eliminate the jobs of the people who are working on building houses, those who are also doing the accounting and the supervising and the personnel and running the company—those kinds of jobs disappear also,” says Douglas Rivlin of America’s Voice, a progressive group that supports immigration reform. “It’s a self-inflicted disaster.” That’s before factoring in the social and psychological costs to watching friends and neighbors rounded up and removed from their communities. “When you see the nightly news and there’s a raid at Joe’s Pizza,” adds Hiroshi Motomura, an immigration scholar at UCLA, “that becomes very real.”

Just how radical Trump can be depends in part on the buy-in of the Justice Department, which is set to be led by former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, one of the defense attorneys on his first impeachment. Trump has vowed to seek retribution against his political enemies—saying the likes of Biden, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, special counsel Jack Smith, and others would face investigation and potential prosecution. Trump was coy in his interview with TIME about whether his DOJ will target his domestic political adversaries, saying only that the decision will be left to Bondi if she’s confirmed. “That’s up to her,” he says. Either way, his victory spells the end of federal prosecutions that charged him with crimes ranging from election subversion to willfully retaining classified documents. (Trump denied the allegations.)

1734013240247.png
Trump at Manhattan criminal court during jury deliberations in his criminal hush money trial in New York, May 30 Mark Peterson—Pool/AP

To dismantle the federal bureaucracy, Trump has enlisted Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to head a commission, dubbed DOGE, aimed at slashing the size of government. Musk and Ramaswamy have touted massive layoffs to the federal workforce, especially civil servants, and cuts to regulations on everything from the water we drink to the air we breathe. They promise to finish the job in time for the 250th anniversary of American independence, July 4, 2026.

Experts in government administration say the commission risks degrading the state’s ability to function. “It’s going to be harmful to the government’s capacity to carry out the missions that Congress has assigned by statute,” like administering Social Security and Medicare, says Peter Shane, a New York University law professor. If the Musk-Ramaswamy commission eliminates large numbers of civil servants, the government will likely have to rely on private companies instead. “There’s no guarantee,” says Shane, “that the contractors are going to be either cheaper or more competent.”

On the campaign trail, Trump said he would not order the DOJ to enforce the Comstock Act, a 19th century law that prohibits the mailing of abortion pills. When he spoke with TIME before Thanksgiving, Trump’s position on women’s reproductive rights changed in the span of a few sentences. First he left open the possibility that the Food and Drug Administration could reverse approvals for medication abortion, then said it was “highly unlikely,” before declaring, “We’re going to take a look at all of that.” Asked to clarify whether he was committed to preventing the FDA from stripping access to abortion pills, Trump replied, “It’s always been my commitment.”

1734013258317.png
Former First Lady Melania Trump, center right, and Elon Musk, during a Trump campaign event at Madison Square Garden in New York, on Oct. 27 Adam Gray—Bloomberg/Getty Images

While Trump’s GOP will have majorities in the House and Senate, he has telegraphed few major legislative pushes beyond extending his first-term tax cuts and funding an immigration crackdown. Trump says he supports preserving the filibuster, which allows a minority in the Senate to block legislation. If that prevents the passage of bills through Congress, he says he will use executive action. “If I have even a little bit of trouble,” he says, “I go to an Executive Order because I can get it done.”

It was a glimpse of how Trump’s expansive view of executive power will shape his second term, when he meets with inevitable obstacles. “The idea of the imperial presidency is not new, but he’s taking it further than anyone,” says presidential historian Julian Zelizer of Princeton University. “He doesn’t care about the kind of restraints that still guided even Richard Nixon. None of that matters to him. So the potential is for an extraordinarily aggressive use of presidential power.”



For all the focus on Trump’s domestic agenda, much of the activity when TIME visited Mar-a-Lago was on foreign affairs. Waltz, the incoming National Security Adviser, ducked in and out of meetings, speaking with Vance and Steve Witkoff, the incoming special envoy to the Middle East. A source present in the national-security meetings says the goal was to ensure that America’s adversaries—and allies—were not tempted to take advantage of the handoff between administrations.

Many of Trump’s answers to the nation’s problems, including his immigration and trade policies, rely on successful diplomacy. “America First” may be both a campaign slogan and a governing North Star, but ending forever wars and boosting U.S. economic advantage requires working with others.



Trump’s plans threaten to upend relationships with allies and traditional trading partners by imposing a blanket tariff on all imports. Already, he has floated 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, a move that most economists predict will cause prices to rise. And he plans to increase tariffs on Chinese imports, aiming to coerce manufacturers to make their products in the U.S.

On the campaign trail, Trump liked to brag about brokering a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine in 24 hours. In person, he acknowledged this is trickier than he let on. “The Middle East is an easier problem to handle than what’s happening with Russia and Ukraine,” he says. “The numbers of dead young soldiers lying on fields all over the place are staggering. It’s crazy what’s taking place.” Trump criticized Kyiv for launching U.S.-made missiles into Russian territory last month. “I disagree very vehemently with sending missiles hundreds of miles into Russia. Why are we doing that?” he says. “We’re just escalating this war and making it worse.” When pressed on whether or not he would abandon Ukraine, Trump says he would use U.S. support for Ukraine as leverage against Russia in negotiating an end to the war. “I want to reach an agreement,” he says, “and the only way you’re going to reach an agreement is not to abandon.”

In phone calls during the campaign, Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to wind down the war in Gaza by the time of his Inauguration, a timeline that now looks highly unlikely. In Israel and the U.S., many suspect Netanyahu is prolonging the fighting to prevent snap elections that could result in his ouster. “He knows I want it to end,” Trump tells TIME. When asked whether he trusts Netanyahu going into a second term, Trump takes a second before answering, “I don’t trust anybody.”

1734013296267.png
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, left, meets with Trump in New York, Sept. 27 Doug Mills—The New York Times/Redux

1734013299750.png
Trump meets with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at Mar-a-Lago on July, 26 Doug Mills—The New York Times/Redux

Trump also wants to expand the Abraham Accords he brokered between Israel and several Arab states to include Saudi Arabia. But he’s less specific on a resolution between Israel and the Palestinians. In his first term he put forth the most comprehensive plan for a two-state solution since President Bill Clinton and prevented Netanyahu from extending Israeli sovereignty over roughly 30% of the West Bank. But on Nov. 12, he nominated as incoming U.S. ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, a zealous supporter of the settlement movement who advocates for Israel’s annexing the West Bank.

The sudden collapse of Assad’s rule in Syria on Dec. 8 adds another layer of complexity to the Middle East. It brings to power a rebel group once affiliated with al-Qaeda, but also marks yet another setback for an Iran regime already weakened in Lebanon and Gaza. Some analysts fear the losses may make Iran more likely to push for a nuclear weapon. Since Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, Tehran has edged ever closer to acquiring a nuclear weapon. As of April, the International Atomic Energy Agency estimated that Tehran has enough weapons-grade uranium to build a bomb in a matter of weeks. Iran and its proxies have waged a multi-front war against Israel and have targeted U.S. assets in the region. During the presidential campaign, the Iranians plotted to assassinate Trump, according to federal charges brought in November by the Department of Justice. While the President-elect prides himself on not entering into any new wars in his first term, he leaves open the possibility that one may be necessary in a second. Asked about the chances of war with Iran, Trump pauses, then replies, “Anything can happen.”



By the time the dinner hour is approaching, the crowd has swelled in the ornate reception area at Mar-a-Lago, transforming it into a buzzing king’s court. Job seekers camp out on sofas, waiting to buttonhole Howard Lutnick, the Wall Street executive who co-chairs his transition. Lutnick, who is also Trump’s chosen Commerce Secretary, has been tasked by Trump with vetting Cabinet appointees for the trait Trump values most: loyalty.

1734013335957.png
Illustrations by Sam Kerr for TIME; Source photos by Getty Images: Trump: Saul Loeb—AFP; Bondi, Musk, Vance: Andrew Harnik; Lutnick: Christopher Goodney—Bloomberg; Vought: Stefani Reynolds—Bloomberg; Homan: Bill Clark—CQ-Roll Call, Inc; Rubio: Chip Somodevilla; Walz: John Nacion; Miller: Tom Williams—CQ-Roll Call, Inc; Wiles: Jabin Botsford—The Washington Post; Twitter: Blair, Budowich

Trump has selected unconventional nominees who have demonstrated fealty to him and his agenda: Fox News host Pete Hegseth for Defense Secretary; Tulsi Gabbard to become the Director of National Intelligence; and Kash Patel as his FBI director. He rewarded Kennedy by nominating him to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, and chose a pro-union Labor Secretary in a nod to working-class voters while also installing billionaires in top positions to appease the donors who like Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation. The Cabinet taking shape reflects the fragmented coalition that powered him to victory, with Trump diehards mingling with mainstream choices like Senator Marco Rubio for Secretary of State and financier Scott Bessent at the Treasury Department.

As Trump gears up for his war on Washington, Washington’s institutions are carefully pushing back. Republican Senators forced Trump to abandon his first choice to run the Justice Department, the far-right former Congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida, recoiling at his bombastic style and allegations that he had sex with a 17-year-old girl. (Gaetz denies this.) When it became clear the votes weren’t there, Trump told Gaetz, “Matt, I don’t think this is worth the fight,” he tells TIME. In a matter of hours, he announced Bondi, another loyalist, as a replacement. Senators have expressed alarm at Hegseth’s lack of experience and allegations of sexual assault and alcohol abuse, which he denies. Some also worry about putting Gabbard at the helm of the U.S. intelligence community, given her prior positions in support of Russia and Assad’s Syria.

Trump says he will honor the Senate’s role in confirming or rejecting his appointments but does not rule out using recess appointments or installing acting agency heads to circumvent Senate approval. “I really don’t care how they get them approved,” he tells TIME, “as long as they get them approved.” Are recess appointments off the table? “No,” says a senior Trump adviser. “He’s not going to accept being d-cked around.”

1734013365740.png
Trump during his Election Night Watch Party in West Palm Beach, Fla. on Nov. 6 David Butow for TIME

Trump says he will not ask members of his Administration to sign a formal loyalty pledge. “I think I will be able to, for the most part, determine who’s loyal,” he says. Anyone who gets crosswise with him, he says, will be gone in short order. That includes firing not only his own Cabinet secretaries and political appointees, but also civil servants who work in the Executive Branch. “If they’re not following my policies,” he says, “absolutely.”

Trump’s aggressive use of presidential powers will test the judiciary, the last line of defense against actions that threaten constitutional norms. His critics worry that even if the high court strikes the President’s actions, his Justice Department may not enforce the rulings. Trump and his aides are getting ready for an onslaught of lawsuits from groups challenging everything from his immigration measures and attacks on the federal bureaucracy to his attempts to withhold congressionally appropriated funds. “We’re constrained by realities of government and process in certain ways,” says a Trump official, “but he’s gonna try to do big sh-t.”

With unified control of Washington, there will be more pressure on Trump to deliver on his campaign promises to lower the cost of living, revive the manufacturing sector, reverse America’s trade deficit with China, and make peace abroad. Donald Kettl, an expert on government administration and former dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, argues that Americans are not prepared for the level of disruption that Trump’s second stint in the White House is poised to bring, from potential changes to the education system to revisiting routine childhood vaccines, which Kennedy falsely linked to autism despite scientific evidence to the contrary. “The scale of change that we’re going to see is unprecedented, and the implications for government are enormous,” he says. Voters believe the government is wasteful and untrustworthy, Kettl adds, but if Trump follows through on his pledge to slash a wide range of programs, “you could end up with blowback very quickly that affects the lives of lots and lots and lots of ordinary Americans.”

1734013387223.png
Platon for TIME

By the end of Trump’s first term, voters were exhausted by the chaos, fed up with his antics, and frustrated by his management of an unprecedented global health crisis. He left office with low approval ratings. Trump’s victory in November may be partly the product of short memories. For his part, Trump puts faith in his negotiating abilities. “We can use the same words,” he says, “but maybe it’s a look in your eye that works.” Yet already, the President-elect is moving the goalposts on some of his pledges, like lowering the price of groceries. “It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up,” Trump says. “You know, it’s very hard.”

If his approach doesn’t work and Trump feels boxed in, critics worry he will become ever more extreme. To his closest aides, the President-elect’s unpredictable style will give him an edge over America’s competitors. “People are genuinely afraid that if they don’t listen to him, bad things can happen, and there are consequences for disregarding him,” Vance says. Faced with the challenges of governing, Trump seems almost wistful that his last campaign is behind him. “It’s sad in a way,” he says of his election win as the shadows begin to fall on the manicured lawns around his mansion. “It will never happen again.”

But a lot can happen in four years under President Donald J. Trump.

—With reporting by Leslie Dickstein and Simmone Shah/New York and Philip Elliott/Cambridge, Mass.

Source (Archive)
 

Read the Full Transcript of Donald Trump’s 2024 Person of the Year Interview With TIME​

1734013667367.png
Photograph by Platon for TIME

By TIME Staff
December 12, 2024 7:49 AM EST

President-elect Donald Trump, TIME’s 2024 Person of the Year, sat down for a wide-ranging interview at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., on Nov. 25.

Over the course of the interview, Trump discussed his election victory, the economy, and the situations in Ukraine and the Middle East. He also spoke about his plans for a second term, including deporting millions of migrants and pardoning Jan. 6 defendants, as well as the future of the MAGA movement.

Below is a transcript, lightly edited for clarity, of the interview, which was conducted by TIME National Political Correspondent Eric Cortellessa, Executive Features Editor Alex Altman, Washington Bureau Chief Massimo Calabresi, and Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs. Click here to read our fact-check.

TIME: You had an extraordinary year. You lived it and you know it. You cleared the field in the Republican campaign. You spent part of your campaign in a courtroom. You were almost shot to death on the trail. Your opponent dropped out, and then you won the swing states, which many people did not expect. What's one thing that we should know about your experience this year that we don't know?

TRUMP: Well, I think we ran a flawless campaign. It was, it was really quite something. I called it 72 Days of Fury. There were no days off. There were no timeouts. If you made a mistake, it would be magnified at levels that nobody's ever seen before. So you couldn't make a mistake. And I think we just really ran well. It was a drive to go through it. It started 72 days out. For some reason, it just seemed to be it. And I worked very hard. I've been, I've been given credit by, actually, the reporters that followed me, because it was, you know, just, it just was all the time, every day, and we said the right things. We said things that were on the minds of the country. I think the Democrats didn't get it. They just kept going back to the same old nonsense. And it was nonsense, especially in where we are right now. And we hit—we hit something that was very special. We hit the nerve of the country. They don't want to see jails emptied out into our country. They don't want to see people from mental institutions being dismissed from their institutions.

Mr. President, what did the Democrats not get? You just said “they didn’t get it.” What did you mean by that?

I don't think they got the feel of the country. The country was angry because of immigration, because of the people, you know, millions and millions of people. I was saying it could be 21 million people. They were saying a much lesser number, but it wasn't a much lesser number. But even if it was, it was irrelevant, because it was—they were allowing anybody to come into our country. They are right now. They opened it up again. You see what's going on? They're coming. They're pouring up through Mexico and other places. And they weren't using common sense. I said, We’ve become the party of common sense. As an example, they really don't want to see men playing in women's sports. You can have a—and this is one: They don't want to see, as another example, open borders. They want to see people come in. Everyone's okay with it, and I am certainly. I want to have a lot of people coming, because we're going to, we're going to bring back a lot of jobs. We'll bring record numbers of jobs, and we'll do it through good taxing policy, and, you know, using some basic business intelligence. But we're going to bring back record jobs. Record companies are going to come into our country. They're not going to be able to be able to steal our companies anymore. And I talked about that, but I differed, maybe, perhaps, from you people, I thought the economy was a big factor, especially the real economy, which is the economy of going out and buying groceries or buying a car or buying a house, which was, you know, between interest rates and between costs—as an example, the cost of a house is—a big chunk of the cost of the house is just the approval process and the regulations.

The economy was certainly a big factor in your victory—

But what was a bigger factor, I believe, was the border. I think the border and, you know, I won it in 2016 on the border, and I fixed the border, and it was really fixed, and they came in and they just dislodged everything that I did, and it became far worse than it was in 2016—

I want to come back to immigration a little bit later. Let's start out on what's happening right now. You were elected on a promise to change Washington. By all accounts, the fight over that has already begun. One of your nominees was effectively blocked by the Senate. There are other senators who have expressed doubts about some of your other nominees. What are you going to do if the Senate continues to balk at your choices for these key cabinet positions?

Well, I don’t think they will. And he wasn't blocked. I had the votes if I needed them, but I had to work very hard. And you know, I'm not—there were numerous hard no’s, all of whom agreed with me to do it.

So you decided to give up on Gaetz?

No, I didn’t give up on him. I talked to him, and I said, you know, Matt, I don't think this is worth the fight. I had the—he was there when I convinced five people to go that were hard no’s, but we want to speak to the President. And the beauty is that we won by so much. The mandate was massive. Somebody had 129 years in terms of the overall mandate. That's a lot of years, but people respected that. As an example, many places were thinking that they could go down and they could riot, make trouble, protest, on the election night. You know what happened? When the numbers started coming in, everyone just left. They left. I mean, you see signs of it, Washington, DC, where people were gathered.

Did I hear you say that you met in person with Gaetz and the five hard-no Senators?

Not with the senators there. No, I called the senators, and my relationship with the Senate is very good. Many of them I endorsed. Many of them I got elected. If I didn't get involved in those races, those Senators would have lost. We wouldn't have the majority.

Mr. President, will you use recess appointments to fill vacancies if you can’t get them through?

I really don't care how they get them approved, as long as they get them approved.

So you might do it?

It's up to the Senate. But I think I have a very good relationship with Senator Thune and the others, all of them. I think almost, almost everybody, many of them I was very instrumental in getting, if not this season, last season, the season before that, I would say more than half.

Will you commit to honoring the Senate’s authority to reject or confirm your nominees?

Well, sure, I want them to do that. I think—I don't think there are too many. I don't think that— look, everybody has, that's why they have menus in restaurants. You have different choices. Some people love certain candidates. I’ll tell you, I put up some that I thought would be a little more controversial, and they turned out not to be necessarily the ones that are controversial.

One of them who is controversial, who I just want to ask you a quick question about, is RFK Jr, who is a noted vaccine skeptic. If he moves to end childhood vaccination programs, would you sign off on that?

We're going to have a big discussion. The autism rate is at a level that nobody ever believed possible. If you look at things that are happening, there's something causing it.

Do you think it’s linked to vaccines?

No, I’m going to be listening to Bobby, who I've really gotten along with great and I have a lot of respect for having to do with food, having to do with vaccinations. He does not disagree with vaccinations, all vaccinations. He disagrees probably with some. But we'll have it. We're going to do what's good for the country.

So that could include getting rid of some vaccinations?

It could if I think it’s dangerous, if I think they are not beneficial, but I don’t think it’s going to be very controversial in the end.

Do you agree with him about the connection between vaccines and autism?

I want to see the numbers. It’s going to be the numbers. We will be able to do—I think you're going to feel very good about it at the end. We're going to be able to do very serious testing, and we'll see the numbers. A lot of people think a lot of different things. And at the end of the studies that we're doing, and we're going all out, we're going to know what's good and what's not good. We will know for sure what's good and what's not good.

Mr. President, some foreign officials have expressed concern about sharing intelligence with Tulsi Gabbard, given her positions in support of Russia and Syria. Would her confirmation be worth the price of some of our allies not sharing intelligence with us?

I'm surprised to hear it, because I think she's, like, a really great American. Hey, look, they said I was friendly with Russia until they saw the tapes, and then they said, you know, he's not actually. He was the one that ended the Russian pipeline, Nord Stream 2. He was the one that put all the sanctions on Russia. And I get along with Russia. I get along with a lot of people that people would think I wouldn’t get along with, but we get our way because I'm for this country, I'm not for other countries. By the way, do you want hors d’Oevres or anything?

No, that’s generous, thank you.

You sure?

Yes, but thank you. If you learn that foreign officials are withholding intelligence because she is the head of your intelligence, would that change your calculus?

I don’t know. I’m surprised to hear it. I heard that the first time the other day. I mean, I think she's a great American. I think she's a person with tremendous common sense. I've watched her for years, and she has nothing to do with Russia. This is another, you know, a mini Russia, Russia, Russia scam. I think probably, if that's what's happening. No, I don't see it. Certainly, if something can be shown to me.

During the campaign, you disavowed Project 2025, but so far at least five people you’ve appointed to top positions in your cabinet have ties to it. Doesn’t that undermine what you told Americans on the campaign trail?

No look, I don't—I don't disagree with everything in Project 2025, but I disagree with some things. I specifically didn't want to read it because it wasn't under my auspices, and I wanted to be able to say that, you know, the only way I can say I have nothing to do with it is if you don't read it. I don't want—I didn't want to read it. I read enough about it. They have some things that are very conservative and very good. They have other things that I don't like. I won't go into individual items, but I had nothing to do with Project 2025. Now, if we had a few people that were involved, they had hundreds of them. This is a big document, from what I understand.

More than 800 pages.

It’s a lot of pages. That’s a lot of pages. I thought it was inappropriate that they came out with it just before the election, to be honest with you.

Really?

I let them know, yeah, I didn't think it was appropriate, because it's not me. Why would they do that? They complicated my election by doing it because people tried to tie me and I didn't agree with everything in there, and some things I vehemently disagreed with, and I thought it was inappropriate that they would come out with a document like that prior to my election.

Did you express those frustrations with them?

Oh I did. It wasn’t a frustration, it was a fact. It's totally inappropriate. They come up with an 800-page document, and the enemy, which is, you know, the other party, is allowed to go through and pick out two items, 12 items out of, you know, 800. No, I thought it was an open—I thought it was a very foolish thing for them to do.

I understand, sir.

These are people that would like to see me win. And yet, they came out with this document, and they had some pretty ridiculous things in there. They also had some very good things in there.

I understand, sir. Let’s shift to a topic that I know you care quite a bit about: immigration. You recently said on Truth Social that you plan to use the military to deport migrants. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. What will you do if the military does not or refuses to carry out your orders?

Well, it doesn’t, it doesn’t stop the military if it's an invasion of our country, and I consider it an invasion of our country. We have criminals coming into our countries that we've never seen, we've never seen before. We have people coming in at levels and at record numbers that we've never seen before. And I'll only do what the law allows, but I will go up to the maximum level of what the law allows. And I think in many cases, the sheriffs and law enforcement is going to need help. We’ll also get National Guard. We'll get National Guard, and we'll go as far as I'm allowed to go, according to the laws of our country.

If you can't negotiate agreements with the receiving governments, and none seem receptive, will you of necessity have to hold these detained migrants in camps?

I’ll get them into every country, I’ll get them into every country, or we won’t do business with those countries.

So you won’t need to build more detention facilities, sir?

No, because, look, we may have to do it anyway. Because, look, they brought in millions of people, and many of those people have been, you know, taken out of jails and prisons. You look at prison populations, what's happening all over the world, except here. No, they—I can't even conceive of why they would allow criminals, known criminals, people from jails that have tremendous records. Look, if you look at the 13,000-plus, 13,099 which was issued by border patrol, they said those people were murderers, and they allowed them into our country. Why would somebody do that? Why would somebody do that? And that's why the Democrats lost, because of many things like that. That's a bad one, by the way. You know that's a bad one, but there are many things that—

So you’re saying there won’t be new camps, more camps to hold detained migrants?

Well, there might be. Whatever it takes to get them out. I don't care. Honestly, whatever it takes to get them out. Again, I'll do it absolutely within the confines of the law, but if it needs new camps, but I hope we're not going to need too many because I want to get them out, and I don't want them sitting in camp for the next 20 years. I want them out, and the countries have got to take them back, and if they don't take them back, we won't do business with those countries, and we will tariff those countries very substantially. When they send products in, they will have substantial tariffs, and it's going to make it very hard for them to do business with us.

A question on the minds of a lot of Americans: Will you restore your policy of separating families?

I don’t think—I won’t have to, because, first of all, it wasn’t my policy. It was Obama’s policy. I didn’t build jail cells for children. He did. If you look at the 2014—

I don’t want to litigate the past. I’m just asking if you will do this—

Well you said, your policy. This was a policy of the country. I don’t believe we’ll have to, because we will send the whole family back to the country.

Deport them together?

I would much rather deport them together, yes, than separate. By the way, when you talk about separation, we have 325,000 children here during Democrats—and this was done by Democrats—who are right now slaves, sex slaves or dead, and they were allowed. So I mean, those are the and what I will be doing will be trying to find where they are and get them back to their parents.

Many of the people who voted for you, as you mentioned a moment ago, cited high prices, particularly of food and groceries. If you deport millions of migrant agricultural workers, won’t the price of food rise sharply?

No, because we're going to let people in, but we have to let them in legally. We don't want people to come in from jails. We don't want the jails of Venezuela and many other countries, and not just South American countries. We don't want the jails to be opened up into our country. We're not accepting their prisoners. We're not accepting their murders. We're not accepting their people from mental institutions. We're not doing it.

Your transition co-chair Howard Lutnick said your appointees would be vetted for loyalty. Are you going to ask your appointees to take a loyalty pledge?

I don't think I'll have to. I think I will know who–I mean, look, all you can do is feel comfortable with people. There's always disloyal people, and every President's had them. I've had them, and every President has had them. But no, I think, I think I will be able to, for the most part, determine who's loyal. I want them to be loyal as to policy, as to the country. It's gotta be loyal.

If they don’t follow your orders, will you fire them?

If I think it’s appropriate, I’d fire them.

Does that go for civil servants as well, Mr. President, who work in the executive branch but aren’t appointees?

Well, it depends. We have some interesting things happening in rules and regulations, but we're going to see. But sure, if I'm allowed to do that, I would do that. If they're not following my policies, absolutely.

You've put Elon Musk in charge of DOGE, giving him the power to—

Along with—

Along with Vivek Ramaswamy, yes, absolutely. But on Musk specifically, giving him the power to oversee the agencies that regulate his companies. Isn’t that a conflict of interest?

I don't think so. Look, we have a country that is bloated with rules, regulations and with, frankly, people that are unnecessary to do. We are going to need a lot of people in a lot of other jobs. We're looking to get people into private sector jobs where they can do better and be more productive. We're going to see what happens. We have some interesting months coming up, at the beginning. We're going to see what happens. But this country is bloated.

I think everybody agrees that there’s waste in the federal government—

Waste, fraud, and abuse.

But Elon Musk is talking about cuts that would directly affect NASA, which would then directly affect SpaceX, his company. Isn't that the textbook definition of a conflict of interest?

I think that Elon puts the country long before his company. I mean, he's in a lot of companies, but he really is, and I've seen it. He considers this to be his most important project, and he wanted to do it. And, you know, I think, I think he's one of the very few people that would have the credibility to do it, but he puts the country before, and I've seen it, before he puts his company.

Well, ultimately, Congress controls spending. Would you veto a budget or appropriations that does not comply with the Musk-Ramaswamy Commission, DOGE?

I might. But there are many things you can do without Congress. When it comes to cutting, harder to get, but to cut, you can do a lot of things without Congress.

What do you plan to do?

I mean, I'll give you an example. We want to move the schools back to the states. We want to, you know, we're at the bottom of every list in terms of education, and we're at the top of the list in terms of the cost per pupil, and we want to move them back to the states, and we'll spend half the money on a much better product. We'll get—I believe we can compete with Norway and Denmark and Finland and other countries. And I will tell you, China is right at the top of the list too. Most lists.

What does moving back to the states mean? Does that mean closing the Education Department?

A virtual closure of Department of Education in Washington.

Virtual closure?

Well, you're going to need some people just to make sure they're teaching English in the schools. Okay, you know English and mathematics, let's say. But we want to move education back to the states. If you look at the states, if you look at some of the individual countries, Norway is a very strong educational country, but many. I think Iowa, and I think Indiana, and a lot of these states that are well-run states. We have a lot of them that are very well run. When they run their own educational program, I think it's going to, I think they'll be able to compete with anybody. Then you're going to have the badly run states, like a guy like Gavin Newscum [sic] in California, where he does a poor job, and he'll, but even in California, you'll give it to Riverside. You'll give it, you know, you'll give it to areas of California where I think they'll run a great school program.

Last question on your transition, why have you declined to sign the ethics agreement as part of—

I don’t know anything about it.

The ethics document.

I don’t know. I would sign an ethics document.

Will you disclose who the donors are to your transition?

To my campaign?

No—to paying for the transition.

Taylor Budowich: There will be an announcement on that this week.

I really, I have no problem disclosing anything.

That’s great, Mr. President.

Just so you know. I had heard this a couple of days ago. I have no problem. I'd rather disclose it right up front. I have no problem with it.

I’ve got a question for you about the campaign. Was there a moment when you thought you might lose?

I like not to think of that. The power of positive thinking, right? But there were some moments when, you know, there was, there was some bad things done in the campaign. There were a lot of fake polls. They were absolutely fake. Look at an example, a very good pollster was in Iowa, and I thought I was winning at the end. But it wasn't like she was a bad—she was great. For years, she was the best. She was the gold standard in Iowa. And then a couple of weeks before the election, she had me up four, and that brought it down way below the 18 or 19 that we thought we were, we were up with 18 or 19 points, which is, you know what I get, the farmers like me, but she did it in gradual steps. She did it up four. That was a big story, because I was only up four and then she did where I was down three, and that became headlines all over the place just before the election.

When you saw that, did you think you were going to lose?

I thought it was a wrong poll, because we had an Emerson poll that had us up 18, you know.

What was the darkest moment for you then in the campaign?

By the way, I’m just using that as an example. I didn't think I was going to lose. I thought it was a dishonest poll, and we're going to probably prove that because, you know, we're taking people to court because we think, I think, we have an obligation to. When 60 minutes interviews my opponent, and that's a news program, that's their most important news program, and she gave a really horrible answer. That was a bad answer. And they took that answer and replaced it, and this is her speaking, and they replaced it with another answer from a half an hour later in the interview that had nothing to do, but it was a much better answer. That's really dishonest.

Speaking of Kamala Harris. What do you think were her worst mistakes in the campaign?

Taking the assignment. Number one, because you have to know what you're good at.

Did she make any tactical mistakes you think that cost her?

I think that when she wouldn't talk to anybody, it shone a light on her. In other words, if she would have gone out and just did interviews where they're comparable to Steve, if there is anybody comparable, would say, could you do an interview here? An interview there? You know, she didn't do anything. And people said, Is there something wrong with her? Why would they? I mean, I'm doing this interview with you. I did interviews with, if I had the time, anybody that would ask, I'd do interviews. I think the Joe Rogan interview, you know, that went on for almost three and a half hours.

I watched the whole thing, sir, yes.

Oh good, I hope you liked it. But I found it to be a pleasure to do it, you know. He was an interesting guy. I wish I could have even done it longer. I had a rally that I was two and a half hours late for in Michigan. It was very cold. And, you know, we didn't lose anybody. But I explained to him, Listen, I just did an interview. We got to win this thing and—but I was two and a half hours late. I didn't know it was going to be three. I thought it was going to be an hour or something.

You had to wrap it up at the end.

I had to say, listen, I have a rally where you have thousands of people that are standing. I think one of the big advantages I had is the rallies. I think, you know, nobody else gets the people we had. We had the biggest rallies. Nobody's ever seen rallies like that, and they were enthusiastic rallies. And when you see that, and then somebody else comes to town the following day, and they have a few hundred people, you would say, you have a big advantage. But, but it's an interesting question when you ask about her. I think they made a big tactical mistake by literally not talking to the press, even if a really friendly, I mean, and they had almost all friendly, somebody would come up with a really friendly—like you guys, maybe—but a friendly interview, and they turned everybody down. They wouldn't do the basic. And people, including me, would start to say, is there something wrong with her? What's wrong? Why wouldn't you do some basic interviews? And then she had some pretty failed interviews, and maybe it was highlighted more than it would. In other words, if she did those same interviews, but she did another 15 interviews, you know, you wouldn't have really noticed it that much.

The bad ones would have been drained out.

She put so much emphasis on interviews. Somebody thought there was something wrong, and I don’t think she ever recovered from that.

I’m going to shift to foreign policy. Have you spoken to Vladimir Putin since your election?

I can’t tell you. I can’t tell you. It’s just inappropriate.

If Ukraine doesn’t agree to a peace deal that you have said you will broker, will you cut military, humanitarian, and intelligence assistance to them?

The reason that I don’t like to tell you this is that, as a negotiator, when I sit down and talk to some very brilliant young people: young, young, young, young. Compared to me, you’re very young. But when I talk to people—when I start I think I have a very good plan to help, but when I start exposing that plan, it becomes almost a worthless plan.

Will you commit to protecting Ukrainian sovereignty, though, from Russia?

I would like to see Ukraine—okay, ready? You have to go back a little bit further. It would have never happened if I were president. Would have never happened—

But it has happened. So the question people want to know is, Would you abandon Ukraine?

It makes it so bad. And I had a meeting recently with a group of people from the government, where they come in and brief me, and I'm not speaking out of turn, the numbers of dead soldiers that have been killed in the last month are numbers that are staggering, both Russians and Ukrainians, and the amounts are fairly equal. You know, I know they like to say they weren't, but they're fairly equal, but the numbers of dead young soldiers lying on fields all over the place are staggering. It's crazy what's taking place. It's crazy. I disagree very vehemently with sending missiles hundreds of miles into Russia. Why are we doing that? We're just escalating this war and making it worse. That should not have been allowed to be done. Now they're doing not only missiles, but they're doing other types of weapons. And I think that's a very big mistake, very big mistake. But the level, the number of people dying is number one, not sustainable, and I'm talking on both sides. It’s really an advantage to both sides to get this thing done.

The question that many Americans and many people around the world have is, Will you abandon Ukraine?

I want to reach an agreement, and the only way you're going to reach an agreement is not to abandon. You understand what that means, right?


Right. Well, no, tell me.

Well, I just said it. You can't reach an agreement if you abandon, in my opinion. And I disagree with the whole thing, because it should have never happened. Putin would have never invaded Ukraine if I were president for numerous reasons. Number one, they drove up the oil price. When they drove up the oil price, they made it a profit-making situation for him, the oil price should have been driven down. If it was driven down, you wouldn't have had it wouldn't have started just for pure economic reasons. But when it hits $80, $85, and $90 a barrel. I mean, he made, he made a lot of money. I'm not saying it's a good thing, because he's also suffered, but they are moving forward. You know, this is a war that's been—this is a tragedy. This is death that's far greater than anyone knows. When the real numbers come out, you're going to see numbers that you're not going to believe.

Well, another war with a high death toll is happening in the Middle East. You reportedly told Prime Minister Netanyahu that you wanted him to end the war in Gaza before you took office. What did he say?

I think that, before I talk about that, I think that the Middle East is an easier problem to handle than what's happening with Russia and Ukraine. Okay, I just want to say that up front. The Middle East is going to get solved. The Middle East has been—it's a horrible thing. October 7 was a horrible thing. Everyone is forgetting conveniently about October 7, but that was a horrible day for the world, not for Israel, for the world. And I think the Middle East is going to get—as we speak, things are happening very productively on the Middle East. I think the Middle East is going to get solved. I think it's more complicated than the Russia-Ukraine, but I think it's, it’s, it’s easier to solve.

Did Netanyahu give you assurances about when he would end the war?

Um, I don’t want to say that, but I think he feels confident that—I think he feels very confident in me, and I think he knows I want it to end. I want everything to end. I want, I don't want people killed, you know? I don't want people from either side killed, and that includes whether it's Russia, Ukraine, or whether it's the Palestinians and the Israelis and all of the, you know, the different entities that we have in the Middle East. There's so many different entities. But I don't want people killed.

When you say productive things are happening, can you be more specific?

No, I can’t. I mean, I'd love to be, I would so love to be, but I can't. I will be. We're going to sit down in a period of time, hopefully soon, and I'll tell you all the things that are happening. But there are some very productive things happening. I do think—okay, because I'm looking at two, two primary fronts, right? You have the Russia-Ukraine, and you have this, and there are other problems also. But look, when North Korea gets involved, that's another element that's a very complicating factor. And I know Kim Jong Un, I get along very well with Kim Jong Un. I'm probably the only one he's ever really dealt with. When you think about it, I am the only one he's ever dealt with. But you have a lot of very bad complicating factors there, but we'll sit down and we'll at the end of each of these, or both, maybe simultaneously, we'll sit down and I'll show you what a good job I did.

You mentioned the Palestinian people. In your first term, your administration put forward the most comprehensive plan for a two-state solution in a long time. Do you still support that plan?

I support a plan of peace, and it can take different forms. When I did the Abraham Accords, that should have been loaded up with people, you know. I made a statement. I think they didn't add one country. Think of it. They didn't add one country to the Abraham Accords. We had the four countries, very important countries, but that should have been loaded up with Middle Eastern countries.

Do you still support a two-state solution?

I support whatever solution we can do to get peace. There are other ideas other than two state, but I support whatever, whatever is necessary to get not just peace, a lasting peace. It can't go on where every five years you end up in tragedy. There are other alternatives.

Your incoming ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, supports the settlement movement and Israel annexing the West Bank. The real question at the heart of this, sir, is, do you want to get a two-state deal done, outlined in your Peace to Prosperity deal that you put forward, or are you willing to let Israel annex the West Bank?

So what I want is a deal where there's going to be peace and where the killing stops.

Would you tell Israel—Bibi tried last time and you stopped him. Would you do it again this time?

We’ll see what happens. Yeah, I did. I stopped him. But we'll see what happens. October 7 was a very terrible day. You know, October 7. People are forgetting about it. They don't ever mention. It was a tragic day. The other thing that's happening are the hostages, where are the hostages, why aren't they back? Well, they could be gone. They could be gone. I think Hamas is probably saying, Wow, the hostages are gone. That’s what they want.

So there’s a scenario where you would allow Israel to annex the West Bank?

I will—what I'm doing and what I'm saying again, I'll say it again, I want a long lasting peace. I'm not saying that's a very likely scenario, but I want a long lasting peace, a peace where we don't have an October 7 in another three years. And there are numerous ways you can do it. You can do it two state, but there are numerous ways it can be done. And I'd like to see, who can be happy? But I'd like to see everybody be happy. Everybody go about their lives, and people stop from dying. That includes on many different fronts. I mean, we have some tremendous world problems that we didn't have when I was president. You know, when I left, we had, we had an Iran that was not very threatening. They had no money. They weren't giving money to Hamas. They weren't giving money to Hezbollah.

Iran recently plotted to have you assassinated. What are the chances of going to war with Iran during your next term?

Anything can happen. Anything can happen. It's a very volatile situation. I think the most dangerous thing right now is what's happening, where Zelensky has decided, with the approval of, I assume, the President, to start shooting missiles into Russia. I think that’s a major escalation. I think it's a foolish decision. But I would imagine people are waiting until I get in before anything happens. I would imagine. I think that would be very smart to do that.

Do you trust Netanyahu?

I don’t trust anybody.

Can I ask, Did Elon Musk meet with the Iranians at your behest?

I don't know that he met with them.

Reportedly he met with the Iranians.

I don't know. He didn't tell me that.

Let's shift back to some domestic issues. Will you vow that your FDA will not do anything to limit access to medication abortion or abortion pills?

Well, we’re going to take a look at all of that. That's why I'm here. We're going to take a look at all of that.

So it’s possible they may?

You’re talking about the abortion pill?

I’m talking about the abortion pill. FDA approvals—

It’s unlikely, very unlikely.

But possible? If they tried to, would you stop them?

You know my stance from a long campaign. A long and hard campaign. I was against that. I was against that. Strongly against.

Can you be specific? Strongly against?

Strongly against. You’re talking about the abortion pill.

You’re against the abortion pill?

No, I was against stopping it.

Right. Okay, just to clarify.

So I don't see any reason why it changed, but somebody could come up with something that, you know, this horrible thing.
 
Last edited:
You won’t rule it out, though?

Look, I’ve stated it very clearly and I just stated it again very clearly. I think it would be highly unlikely. I can't imagine, but with, you know, we're looking at everything, but highly unlikely. I guess I could say probably as close to ruling it out as possible, but I don't want to. I don't want to do anything now. I want to do it at some point. There will be a time in the future where people are going to know everything about subjects like that, which are very complex subjects for people, because you have other people that, you know, they feel strongly both ways, really strongly both ways, and those are the things that are dividing up the country. But you know my stand from a very long, hard thing, and I think it's highly unlikely that I ever change that. Is it 100% unlikely that I change or that I stay—

I think what the women of America want to know is, Are you committed to making sure that the FDA does not strip their ability to access abortion pills?

That would be my commitment. Yeah, it's always been my commitment.

Can I shift to the transgender issue? Obviously, sort of a major issue during the campaign. In 2016, you said that transgender people could use whatever bathroom they chose. Do you still feel that way?

When was that?

In 2016.

I don’t want to get into the bathroom issue. Because it's a very small number of people we're talking about, and it's ripped apart our country, so they'll have to settle whatever the law finally agrees. I am a big believer in the Supreme Court, and I'm going to go by their rulings, and so far, I think their rulings have been rulings that people are going along with, but we're talking about a very small number of people, and we're talking about it, and it gets massive coverage, and it's not a lot of people.

But on that note, there’s a big fight on this in Congress now. The incoming trans member from Delaware, Sarah McBride, says we should all be focused on more important issues. Do you agree?

I do agree with that. On that—absolutely. As I was saying, it's a small number of people.

It was a big issue, though, on the campaign. I mean, one of the ads that your campaign put the most money behind was the: Trump is for us and Harris is for they / them.

Well, it's true, Trump is for us.

Right. It obviously strikes a chord.

I mean, Trump is definitely for us, okay? And us is the vast, vast majority of people in this country. And also, I want to have all people treated fairly. You know, forget about majority or not majority. I want people to be treated well and fairly.

Last question on the trans issue. Will you reverse Biden's protections for trans kids under Title Nine?

I'm going to look at it very closely. We're looking at it right now. We're gonna look at it. We're gonna look at everything. Look, the country is torn apart. We're gonna look at everything.

Do you plan to fire your hand-picked FBI director, Christopher Wray?

I'll be announcing something in the future. I'm looking at people, and we'll make a decision in the not-too-distant future.

Are you considering Kash Patel as a replacement?

Yes, I am. One of the people, yeah.

[Editor's note: On Nov. 30, Trump announced he intends to nominate Patel to be FBI director.]

Have you decided yet whether you're going to pardon all of the January 6 defendants?

Yes.

You’re going to do all of them?

I'm going to do case-by-case, and if they were non-violent, I think they've been greatly punished. And the answer is I will be doing that, yeah, I'm going to look if there's some that really were out of control.

So you will not include those who committed violent acts?

Well, we're going to look at each individual case, and we're going to do it very quickly, and it's going to start in the first hour that I get into office. And a vast majority of them should not be in jail. A vast majority should not be in jail, and they've suffered gravely. And I say, why is it that in Portland and in many other places, Minneapolis, why is it that nothing happened with them and they actually caused death and destruction at levels not seen before? So you know, if you take a look at what happened in Seattle, you had people die, you had a lot of death, and nothing happened, and these people have been treated really, really badly. Yeah, it's an important issue for me. They've suffered greatly, and in many cases they should not have suffered.

We're sitting here moments after Jack Smith dropped the case against you. Over the course of the campaign, you vowed to or suggested prosecuting a long list of political rivals, whether it's Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Smith, Alvin Bragg, Adam Schiff, Mark Milley. Did you raise these prosecutions of these people with Pam Bondi?

No.

You haven’t spoken to her about it?

No.

How do you expect her to proceed?

I think she's going to be fair to everybody. She's very respected. She's a very, very smart and even brilliant person. She was a successful at the highest level Attorney General—

Are there going to be investigations of these subjects, of these people?

That’s up to her. That’ll be up to her.

Steven Cheung: We’re coming up on 45 minutes.

Is there anything positive we can talk about?

Actually we do, but it’s a complicated world. Let’s do some rapid fire questions—

I did win the greatest election that a lot of people say we had in hundreds of years.

Well, here's something we can talk about. The GOP will have full control of Congress. You're gonna have a governing trifecta after you won. What are your first priorities in Congress?

Well, my first priorities are, I don't really need Congress for it, frankly, securing the border and drilling for oil.

Are you going to push for any major legislation in your first year in office?

Yeah, sure.

What will that be?

Well, we have to extend the tax cuts, very importantly. I think it's a very important thing, but, and our Secretary of Treasury has been really well received, as you see by the stock market, et cetera, but very important, we have to extend the tax cuts. But you know, a lot of the things when, when the Democrats were saying, you know, they need Congress to secure the border. They don't need Congress. All you have to do is say, I want the border secured. I had the most secure border we've ever had, and I never had to go to Congress for it.

Do you think Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito should resign in the next two years so you can appoint younger successors?

I think they're incredible, actually. So that's up to them, but I think they're incredible. I think they've been great justices.

Everyone across the political spectrum recognizes the nature of your comeback, the historical nature of comeback, your resilience. What do you understand about the American psyche that your opponents do not?

See, I don't view it as a comeback. And people have said it was the greatest comeback in political history, and beyond even political history plus. They said, add sports and add everything else. But I don't view it that way. I think I ran a great campaign. I think I was popular. I think I did a very good job the first term. We got hit by COVID at the end. But even with COVID, we did a very, very good job that people are starting to recognize. But you take a look at those first few years, we've never had an economy even even close to that. So I don't, I don't view it as a comeback. I know it's considered that. I should allow it to be that, and I will allow it to be that. But, you know, come back from what? I've always been here, you know.

I think more the point that sort of the question was driving at is, you know, you've won twice now.

Right.

You've realigned both political parties, you've changed America. There's got to be something that you understand about winning votes or the American people that your opponents maybe don't give you credit for. And I guess I'm curious what that is.

It’s, you know, I think people want to lead a good life. I think they want to be able to buy groceries at a reasonable price and not have to turn off their heat in order to buy two apples. I think that, I think that people want security. I don't think people want to have our borders rushed by—it's really an invasion of our country by foreign countries, and not just South America. I mean, these are countries all over the world. It's really, I think our people want common sense applied to their life, and they don't want to see a girl be beat up in a boxing ring by a man, as happens. They don't want to see somebody in a weight lifting contest, a woman against a man. It makes no sense. They don't want to see, you know, men playing in women's sports. They don't. They don't want to see all of this transgender, which is, it's just taken over. And then you take a look, and not very many years after the person who went through this process is saying, Who did this to me? As you know, it's a very high percentage. I really think that the people of this country have tremendous hearts. They understand and they want common sense applied to their lives. Most of the things I talk about are common sense. They don't want to see their food prices go up by 57% in a short period of time. And I think that's why I won. I think—I think that's why I won. The Republican Party has become the party of common sense, and it's so many of the things I mentioned, and other things too. They don't want to have all electric cars. They might want an electric car. Electric cars are great, but they're not for everybody. They also want gasoline-powered cars or hybrids or anything else that happens to come out. They don't want to have a mandate on cars where they're forced to buy a car that they don't want. There are so many things. I mean, they're too innumerable. There's too many to mention. I could go on all day long giving you crazy, crazy stats—

But your appeal pre-exists a lot of this stuff—

Yeah, Eric, but in the end, they want to see our country run with common sense. They don't want to be invaded by 100 and 182 at this moment. We've had during the course of the last three years—182, people don't realize how many countries there are. There are a lot of countries, 182 is not even close to the number, okay, but we had 182 countries where people invaded our country, essentially invaded our country. We don't know who they are, we don't know where they are. We don't know anything about them. They just walk into our country and they take over. You see what's happening with the Venezuelan gangs. They're in all—they're in many different states. They're in like 12 states as of this moment, and they are causing tremendous havoc and violence. People don't want that.

I know that obviously you're only about to enter office, but I'm sort of curious about kind of the legacy component. Lindsey Graham says Trump's policies don't work without Trump. You said that you believe in some ways that's true. If that's the case, how does MAGA endure as a political movement after you leave office in four years?

Well, my policies—I heard that statement. I thought it was actually a very interesting statement. We can use the same words, but maybe it's a look in your eye that works. You know, for a country like Mexico, we're not going to allow Mexico to continue to invade our country by allowing people to be dropped off in Mexico and come into the United States. We're not going to allow that to happen. And I will say it to Mexico one way, and somebody will say the same thing to Mexico another way, and maybe my way is accepted, and somebody else, with the same words, it's not accepted. So I sort of agree with him, but there are others that maybe can do it, maybe they can't do it as well, but my policies work. I mean, my policies work. We have to be—what's happening with the people coming through Mexico and Canada also, you know, we can't forget Canada. We have tremendous illegal immigration coming in through Canada. Drugs are coming in through Canada in large numbers. We're not going to allow that to happen. And I'll take action against Canada and Mexico. We're not going to allow this to happen.

You have galvanized a social and political movement that has transformed this country. What do you think will happen to the MAGA movement when you leave office or when you are no longer on the scene?

Well, I hope when I leave office, I'll be able to also leave people that are extremely competent and get it. And we do have those people. We have far more than you think. We have some great warriors. We have some great people that want to see this country take care of—

Do those people include members of your family?

Say it.

Do those people include members of your family?

I think, yeah, I have some very competent members of my family. My kids are very competent. I don't know that they're going to choose to go through this. They've been treated very badly. I mean, my son Don has spent hours and hours in front of, essentially, grand juries and Congress over something he never had anything to do with: Russia. He'd come back and say, “Dad, I have nothing to do with Russia.” He didn't know anything about Russia, and it would turn out to be a hoax.

He’s very politically active.

He is.

Do you think he might have a future in politics?

I think he’d do well, especially in certain areas. I think he'd do very well. I think he's a very capable guy. Eric is very capable, and a very different type. Lara. You look at some of these people. Ivanka would be, if she wanted to be, would be a superstar in politics. I think she, she, she's a great person. I think she probably, she's so family-oriented, Ivanka, and I understand that also it makes it more difficult. It makes it definitely more difficult. But, you know, they're very capable people. Well, they have a name, which seems to be a very good name.

Do you think there will be a Trump dynasty?

I think there could be, yeah. I see the people we're talking about. Lara has been amazing. Look, she was the head of the Republican Party. She's a young, a young woman, and she was the head of the Republican Party. And look at the job we did. This cheating would have been breathtaking, breathtaking. And we, we, we got it down to a minimum. And they cheat, but we got it down to a minimum. They were very effective. The RNC was very, very effective.

What would your father think of your political comeback?

I think he maybe would not call it a comeback. He would have said it's just Donald.

But what would he think of your political career?

Oh, he would have been amazed, yeah. My father would have been amazed, because my father didn't make speeches. He didn't make, you know, it wasn't, he probably could have done it well, but it wouldn't have been his thing. I don't think it would have been his thing. It's sort of a combination of both the mother and the father. You needed a lot of energy to do that. You know, I did, I did rallies. We did, what, 12 rallies in three days, and these were full rallies. Because, you know, when people are waiting for two days and three days to get in, you can't do—people say, Well, maybe you keep it down to 25 minutes or 15 minutes. If I ever went up for 15 minutes, they're waiting for days. You know, they have tents. We had many people that followed the rallies. They followed it and it'll never happen again. It’s sad in a way. It will never happen again.

You get some things from your father. What do you get from your mother?

So my mother was a woman. She was born in Scotland. She had great respect for the queen, Queen Elizabeth. It was a long time. She was there for 75 years. And she liked the pomp and ceremony. She thought it was a good thing, not a bad thing. But she was glamorous and my father was hard nosed. It’s sort of an interesting combination. Maybe there's a combination. Here we sit in Mar a Lago. Maybe there's a combination of that.

Will the First Lady be joining you at the White House for this term?

Oh yes. She was, she was very, she actually became very active towards the end, as you saw with interviews. And she does—she does them well. People really watch. She's very beloved by the people, Melania. And they like the fact that she's not out there in your face all the time for many reasons. Many political people have that, you know. But she's, she's really, they really like her. They really love her. Actually, in many ways, when I make speeches, we love our First Lady. they have signs, we love our First Lady. No, she'll be–she'll be active, when she needs to be, when she needs to be.

I’ve been keeping a list, Mr. President, of things you mentioned that you intend to do early in your administration. It sounds like a reasonable number of things: turning the Department of Education virtual.

Well, virtual, turning it back to the states.

J6 pardons. Do you have in mind what the first 24 to 48 hours will look like?

I'll be looking at J6 early on, maybe the first nine minutes. I'll be looking at oil prices bringing down, you know, coming down very substantially—meaning energy, energy costs coming down. And with energy comes everything else. See, they really hurt themselves. It went away from my energy policies, totally. It was going to crash. The numbers were through the roof. And then they went back to them. They said, Okay, just let it be. That was the difference between the energy, what they did on energy, and what they did at the border. At the border, they just opened it up to the world. They didn't stop it. You know, we had Remain in Mexico. We had—that border was in was in great shape. Not easy to do. But on that one, they just said, open it up. And they didn't change. They just did that. With energy, they opened, you saw what was going on. The energy was going through the roof. And then they said, just go back to Trump's policy. And they went back. Now the difference is that I would have had three times as much now. They have essentially, sort of, they tried to get to equal but if they didn't do that, you'd have energy, you'd have you'd have inflation that would have been much worse than it is. And it already was probably the worst this country has ever had. We've had the inflation. They lost on inflation, they lost on immigration, they lost on—as a part of immigration, I think a very big part is the border, the border itself. You know, if you can self subdivide the word immigration. They lost on the economy. But it was a different kind of—it was the economy as it pertains to groceries and small things that are actually big things for a family.

If the prices of groceries don't come down, will your presidency be a failure?

I don't think so. Look, they got them up. I'd like to bring them down. It's hard to bring things down once they're up. You know, it's very hard. But I think that they will. I think that energy is going to bring them down. I think a better supply chain is going to bring them down. You know, the supply chain is still broken. It's broken. You see it. You go out to the docks and you see all these containers. And I own property in California, in Palos Verdes. They're very nice. And I passed the docks, and I've been doing it for 20 years. I've never seen anything like it. You know, for 17 years, I saw containers and, you know, they'd come off and they'd be taken away—big areas, you know, you know, in that area, you know, where they have the big, the big ships coming in—big, the port. And I'd see this for years as I was out there inspecting property and things, because they own a lot in California. And I look down and I see containers that are, that are 12, 13, 14 containers. You wouldn't believe they can hold each other. It's like crazy. No, the supply chain is is broken. I think a very bad thing is this, what they're doing with the cars. I think they lost also because of cars. You know, there are a lot of reasons, but the car mandate is a disaster. The electric, the EV mandate.

And does Elon agree with that?

Oh, it’s very interesting. I tell people that Elon is a friend of mine. He's a great guy. Gave me the best endorsement you could ever have. And here I am talking against the electric car. Think of that. But see, I'm not really talking against the electric car, because the electric car, I think, is fantastic for some people, for a slice of the audience, but not for 100% and, you know that Elon, a big part of his business is the Tesla, which is a great car, but Elon has never once, it's actually hard to believe. He's never once even talked about the subject. He'll hear me speaking, you know, speaking, “We must stop. I will immediately terminate the mandate.” Because I think he thinks I'm right. I'm a big fan of the electric car, but not for everyone.

Some people say his competitors benefit from the mandate. He's got the head start.

He makes a great product.

But I do think it’s interesting, because when he talks about how he came to be such a full-throated supporter of yours, it's cultural issues that are core to that. And I think that when you kind of give your taxonomy of the reasons why you won that—I mean, you did, you mentioned the trans issues, but I feel like it's one that also was, was integral in a lot of ways, it seemed.

So he was not, he wasn't a—

No, he described himself like, basically, a moderate Democrat, a centrist, more or less.

He was a Democrat. And I think over time—you know, something happened when I got shot. I got called by people that weren't fans, and they became fans. And I don't view it as bravery. I view it as whatever it was that it was, you know, but, but something happened, and I think that sped up. I think Elon was getting there, but I think it sped up the process a lot with him and many other people. Mark Zuckerberg—

Budowich: It’s now five a clock. We’ve got about 12 meetings left.

I’m curious. You have control of Congress, both houses. Much of your agenda is executive driven. Why?

Um…

You have the power to do things legislatively.

Yeah?

So why is so much of your agenda executive driven?

I don't know what you mean by that.

Well, you said lots of what you can do is without—

Oh, like executive orders.

Yeah.

Well, I think that Congress should have behaved differently when it came to the border. I ended up taking the money. You know, I built, you know, hundreds of miles of wall, but I took it from the military because I considered it an invasion. I got—look, I passed the biggest tax cuts ever, bigger than the Reagan tax cuts. I passed a lot of things in Congress, but I also did a lot of executive orders. I think that this Congress is going to be a better Congress for me. I didn't get along with Paul Ryan. I didn't like him. I didn't respect him. I didn't get along with Mitch McConnell, and I thought it was—I thought some of the things that he did were terrible. The way he was handing out money for the Green New Deal was just terrible. I do get along with, I mean, it's a new relationship, essentially, because we didn't really know each other very well. But I do geta long with Sen. Thune. I do get along with Mike Johnson. I think, you know, Mike is doing a really good job. Both of them are doing a good job. If I have, if I have even a little bit of trouble, I go to an executive order because I can get it done. And some of the things I did as an executive order, I had them approved then later on through Congress. In other words, I'd get it done now and get it—look, the great thing about an executive order is you can do it, get it done immediately. The bad thing, or the good thing, depending on where you're coming from, is you can undo it. Look, I can undo almost everything Biden did, he through executive order. And on day one, much of that will be undone.

Do you support ending the filibuster?

I want to leave the Supreme Court the way it is, most importantly. The filibuster is a mechanism that you're not going to totally overturn every single thing that was ever done. You know, it makes it very difficult in the Senate. It makes it very, very difficult to overturn things. Now, in one way, that's good. In another way, maybe you'd say it's bad. But you know, some of the things—I have great respect for Manchin and for Sinema, for the fact that they really held out. Look, she lost her career because of it. And you could say he maybe lost his career because of it. Actually, he became hotter because of it. And then he made the mistake of going for the Inflation Creation Act—which is my nickname, by the way, for the Inflation Reduction Act. Had he not gone for that because he was very popular. But no, I—and I think we have to do, we have. Our Supreme Court was under siege, and perhaps it still is, but now they don't have, now the other side doesn't have the power to do. I mean, I've heard as many as 25 justices, and they were all psyched. They were going to do a number on our Supreme Court that now it's not going to happen.

Cheung: Let me just interject here. But we’ve got to make this the last question.

So I have respect for the filibuster.

You’d want to keep it in place?

Yes.

I want to go back to that moment you talked about, Mr. President, how people changed when you were shot. I'm curious how you changed.

I try not to think about it. That was a big moment. It was a big moment. I had a big crowd. We had 55,000 people RSVPed. We had 107,000 when we had the memorial a few weeks later, but we had a few months later actually. When you think, late October, yeah. We had, I think it was a very big moment. I think a lot of people changed with that moment. I think a lot of people became much more religious in that moment.

Is that true of you?

I think I have family members that became more of a believer than they would have been. A lot of people, a lot of people change. That was—that was a horrible day, it was a horrible moment in our country, but I think it, it did change a lot of a lot of minds.

Thank you so much, Mr. President.

Thank you very much.

Source (Archive)
 
Last edited:

Why Donald Trump Is TIME's 2024 Person of the Year​

1734013811805.png

By Sam Jacobs
December 12, 2024 7:40 AM EST

Three days before Thanksgiving, the former and future President of the United States is sitting in the sun-filled dining room of his Florida home and private club. In the lavish reception area, more than a dozen people have been waiting for nearly two hours for Donald Trump to emerge. His picks for National Security Adviser, special envoy to the Middle East, Vice President, and chief of staff huddle nearby. All afternoon, Trump pipes music throughout the 1927 oceanfront estate from a 2,000-song playlist he curates: Sinéad O’Connor’s “Nothing Compares 2 U,” ABBA’s “The Winner Takes It All,” James Brown’s “It’s a Man’s Man’s Man’s World.”

For 97 years, the editors of TIME have been picking the Person of the Year: the individual who, for better or for worse, did the most to shape the world and the headlines over the past 12 months. In many years, that choice is a difficult one. In 2024, it was not.

Since he began running for President in 2015, perhaps no single individual has played a larger role in changing the course of politics and history than Trump. He shocked many by winning the White House in 2016, then led the U.S. through a chaotic term that included the first year of a pandemic as well as a period of nationwide protest, and that ended with his losing the election by 7 million votes and provoking the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The smart money wagered that we had witnessed the end of Trump.



1734013860045.png
Photograph by Platon for TIME

If that moment marked Trump’s nadir, today we are witnessing his apotheosis. On the cusp of his second presidency, all of us—from his most fanatical supporters to his most fervent critics—are living in the Age of Trump. He dispatched his Republican rivals in near record time. For weeks, he campaigned largely from the New York courtroom where he would be convicted on 34 felony counts. His sole debate with President Joe Biden in June led to his opponent’s eventual exit from the race. Sixteen days later, he survived an assassination attempt at a campaign rally. In the sprint that followed, he outlasted Vice President Kamala Harris, sweeping all seven swing states and emerging from the election at the height of his popularity. “Look what happened,” Trump told his supporters in his election-night victory speech. “Isn’t this crazy?” He almost couldn’t believe it himself.

Trump has remade American politics in the process. He won by enlarging his base, seizing the frustration over rising prices and benefiting from a global turn against incumbents. With those tailwinds, exit polls suggest that he won the largest percentage of Black Americans for a Republican since Gerald Ford and the most Latino voters of any GOP nominee since George W. Bush. Suburban women, whose anger over restrictions to reproductive rights was thought to be a bulwark for the Democrats, moved not away but toward him. He became the first Republican in 20 years to win more votes than the Democrat, with 9 of 10 American counties increasing their support for Trump from 2020.

Now we watch as members of Congress, international institutions, and global leaders once again align themselves with his whims. The carousel of Trumpworld characters spins anew. This time, we think we know what to expect. Supporters cheer even his promises to take revenge on his enemies and dismantle the government. In a matter of weeks, Trump will be returning to the Oval Office with his intentions clear: tariff imports, deport millions, and threaten the press. Put RFK Jr. in charge of vaccines. Chance war with Iran. “Anything can happen,” he told us.

Sitting with TIME three weeks after the election, Trump was more subdued than when we visited him at Mar-a-Lago in March. He is happiest to be in a fight, and now that he has won, he sounded almost wistful, recognizing that he had run for office for the final time. “It’s sad in a way. It will never happen again,” Trump told us. And while he is thinking about how that chapter has ended, for Americans and for the world, it is also the beginning of a new one. Trump is once again at the center of the world, and in as strong a position as he has ever been.



Over time, we’ve seen the Person of the Year franchise shift: from Man of the Year to its current designation; from the period between the world wars, defined by leaders like Mohandas Gandhi and Wallis Simpson, to the first quarter of the 21st century, an era marked by the tremendous changes ushered in by a technological revolution. Although the American presidency has evolved across these eras, its influence has not diminished. Today, we are witnessing a resurgence of populism, a widening mistrust in the institutions that defined the last century, and an eroding faith that liberal values will lead to better lives for most people. Trump is both agent and beneficiary of it all.

For marshaling a comeback of historic proportions, for driving a once-in-a-generation political realignment, for reshaping the American presidency and altering America’s role in the world, Donald Trump is TIME’s 2024 Person of the Year.

Source (Archive)
 
Last edited:

The Story Behind TIME’s Donald Trump 2024 Person of the Year Cover​

1734013955526.png
Photographer Platon (left) and President-elect Donald Trump at Mar-a-lago on Nov. 25 Mike Foley

By Katherine Pomerantz
December 12, 2024 7:43 AM EST

As Platon guided President-elect Donald Trump to a simple wooden box on the set of the TIME Person of the Year photo shoot at Mar-a-Lago in November, he declared, “More world leaders have sat on that apple box than on any other seat!” Platon has traveled the world with that very box, and on it he has posed some of the most influential figures in modern history including Barack Obama, Muammar Gaddafi, Robert Mugabe, Vladimir Putin, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Benjamin Netanyahu, Imran Khan, Paul Kagame, Jacob Zuma, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Hugo Chávez, and Boris Johnson.

1734013966232.png
Photograph by Platon for TIME

Capturing the essence of power while provoking what he hopes is “respectful debate” about a subject’s place in history has long been Platon’s approach to portraits. This is evident in his images of subjects posing with an American flag, something he often brings to his shoots as well. The flag was wrapped around a pregnant Pamela Anderson in 1998, draped on the shoulders of Muhammad Ali in 2009, and hugged by Edward Snowden in 2014. For the shoot at Mar-a-Lago, Platon decided to use a flag that was already on-site, asking Trump to recall the moment at CPAC where he kissed the flag on stage.

1734013986076.png
Platon

Platon has photographed more than 20 TIME covers since 2005, and his ability to consistently execute a nuanced portrait was the reason TIME selected him to photograph the 2024 Person of the Year. Yet even with decades of experience—and a previous photo shoot with Trump—under his belt, he understood the weight of the moment: This would be the first major photo shoot since Trump won the election. Here, Platon describes the experience of photographing the 47th President of the United States in his own words:

I first met Donald Trump 22 years ago in Trump Tower. I built a small studio in his office. He had charm and charisma. Even back then, it was clear to me he knew his “best side.” He was a master communicator and storyteller, and I was convinced he saw the media as a powerful instrument. After the portrait session, he invited me to sit in on some of his business meetings that day while I took some less formal pictures. He then wrote about the entire shoot in one of his books.

While my team set up our studio, adjacent to the main lounge, at Mar-a-Lago, the President's personal playlist was piped through hidden speakers. “My Way” by Frank Sinatra, “What a Wonderful World” by Louis Armstrong, “Nobody Does It Better” by Carly Simon, “Nothing Compares 2 U” by Sinéad 'O'Connor, “Beat It” by Michael Jackson, and “The Winner Takes It All” by ABBA. After a three-hour delay, he finally appeared, surrounded by his team and Secret Service. Today, Trump's power dominates the room. We briefly talked about our last meeting – so much had happened to him since then. I asked him about the playlist I had been listening to. “They are all my favorite songs–I chose every one of them, 2,000 in all.” I told him I felt each song was a message–he smiled. “I chose them for a reason,” he said.

We talked about that moment at CPAC when he hugged and kissed the flag on stage–something no other politician would do. “Would you let me photograph you with a flag to honor that moment?” I asked. As he stood with arms around a flag and pole, he gestured a kiss for a second and I caught it on film. He squeezed the fabric and said, “We are gonna fix it.”


1734014008143.png
Platon for TIME

Source (Archive)
 

Fact-Checking What Donald Trump Said in His 2024 Person of the Year Interview With TIME​

1734014563150.png
Trump takes the stage at the GOP Convention in Milwaukee on July 18 Jim Watson—AFP/Getty Images

By Simmone Shah and Leslie Dickstein
December 11, 2024 7:44 AM EST

For the 2024 Person of the Year issue, former and future President Donald Trump sat down for a lengthy interview with TIME on Nov. 25 at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla.
TIME has published the transcript of that conversation. In addition, below is a review for facts and context of several of Trump’s statements from the interview.

What Trump Said: “I was saying it could be 21 million people. They were saying a much lesser number, but it wasn't a much lesser number. But even if it was, it was irrelevant, because it was—they were allowing anybody to come into our country.”

The Facts: Trump was referring to how the undocumented population has grown under President Biden. There are an estimated 11.7 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.

International and domestic laws require the U.S. to offer asylum to those who fear persecution in their country of origin; asylum seekers must prove their life or liberty is at risk, usually through interviews and in immigration court, and receive a background check. The Department of Homeland Security removed and returned more than 700,000 people in fiscal year 2024, the highest number for any fiscal year since 2010. A recent New York Times analysis found that the immigration surge of the past few years—both those entering legally and illegally—has been the largest in U.S. history, and that total net migration during the Biden Administration will likely exceed eight million people.

What Trump Said: "I won it in 2016 on the border, and I fixed the border, and it was really fixed, and they came in, and they just dislodged everything that I did, and it became far worse than it was in 2016."

“I had the most secure border we've ever had, and I never had to go to Congress for that.”

The Facts: Trump has often asserted that he fixed the border during his first term, at times pointing to his expansion of the border wall. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, there were 450 miles of “new primary and secondary border miles” constructed on the Southwest border between January 2017 and January 2021. Much of that construction was built to replace “dilapidated and outdated designs.” About 80 miles of primary and secondary barriers were built where no previous barrier existed.

Apprehension numbers at the border provide another metric, but there’s disagreement over whether an effective border strategy should translate to a high apprehension rate or a low one. ICE arrests increased during Trump’s previous term, but they did not reach the levels seen under Obama. Southwest border encounters hit a record high last year, but dropped 77% by August 2024. The spike in migrants seen early in Biden’s term began in the spring of 2020, during Trump’s final year, according to Politifact.

Trump also did appeal to Congress for help with border enforcement. In his first year in office, he addressed the nation about the immigration crisis, calling on Congress to secure the border, and later asked Congress for $4.5 billion in emergency border funding.

What Trump Said: “The autism rate is at a level that nobody ever believed possible. If you look at things that are happening, there's something causing it."

The Facts: Trump made this comment while discussing vaccines. The false claim that there’s a link between vaccines and autism traces back to a retracted study from the 1990s. Even though that study has been widely debunked and refuted, and modern studies continue to consistently show that shots are safe, the idea that vaccines are linked to autism persists, without evidence, among some vaccine skeptics.

While it’s true that autism is diagnosed much more frequently now than in the past, it is not because vaccines are causing the condition. Researchers have explored possible reasons for that uptick, including rising parental ages and environmental triggers. But much of the increase, research suggests, stems from changes to diagnostic criteria, widespread awareness of the condition, and improvements in screening. Detection jumps have been particularly steep among children of color, girls, and young adults, all of whom have historically been diagnosed less frequently.

Read more: 'There's Something Causing It.' Trump Draws False Link Between Vaccines and Autism in TIME Interview

What Trump Said: "Look, if you look at the 13,000 plus, 13,099 which was issued by border patrol, they said those people were murderers, and they allowed them into our country."
The Facts: Trump is likely referring to a Dept. of Homeland Security letter sent to Representative Tony Gonzalez, a Texas Republican, in September. The letter states that there were 13,099 noncitizens convicted of homicide on ICE’s “non-detained” docket as of July 2024. That figure includes people who were incarcerated, but not held at that time by immigration authorities. A DHS spokesperson told CNN that the 13,099 figure “includes many who are under the jurisdiction or currently incarcerated by federal, state or local law enforcement partners.” Additionally, she said, “the data goes back decades; it includes individuals who entered the country over the past 40 years or more.”

What Trump Said: "It wasn't my policy. It was Obama's policy. I didn't build the jail cells for children. He did. If you look at the 2014."

The Facts: Trump was responding to a question about his border policy in 2017 and 2018 of separating children from parents or guardians with whom they arrived. The Obama Administration did hold undocumented migrants in detention facilities, though it did not systematically separate families. From late 2013 to mid-2014, a surge of unaccompanied minors from violence-torn Central America arrived in the U.S. After border detention cells in McAllen, Texas, filled to capacity, border patrol agents placed immigrant families in “sally port” areas outside of the detention centers. Amid an outcry over the dismal conditions, the government converted a nearby empty warehouse into a new holding facility.

What Trump Said: “By the way, when you talk about separation, we have 325,000 children here during Democrats. And this was done by Democrats who are right now slaves, sex slaves or dead, and they were allowed.”

The Facts: There is no evidence that 325,000 immigrant children are slaves, sex slaves, or dead. These numbers likely refer to an August 2024 report from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General stating that the government failed to “monitor the location and status of unaccompanied migrant children” after they were released from government custody. That report covered a period from October 2018 to September 2023, which includes more than half of Trump’s first term. According to the report, some 320,000 unaccompanied migrant children did not receive a notice to appear in immigration court, or they received a notice but did not make their court appearance. Experts say this doesn’t necessarily mean the children are “missing” or exploited. Rather, this is likely a bureaucratic failing. Nevertheless, the report says, children who are unaccounted for are at higher risk for trafficking, exploitation, or forced labor.

What Trump Said: “Why is it that in Portland and in many other places, Minneapolis—Why is it that nothing happened with them and they actually caused death and destruction at levels not seen before? So you know, if you take a look at what happened in Seattle, you had people die, you had a lot of death, and nothing happened, and these people have been treated really, really badly.”

The Facts: Trump is comparing those jailed for involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol to protesters who broke laws following the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in May 2020.

The Justice Dept. reports that “more than 1,265 defendants have been charged” in the Jan. 6 riot, and "approximately 718 individuals have pleaded guilty to federal charges, many of whom faced or will face incarceration at sentencing.”

In 2021, the Associated Press reviewed thousands of pages of court documents in hundreds of federal cases connected to the George Floyd protests. The investigation found that “dozens of people charged have been convicted of serious crimes and sent to prison.”

The comparison between how law enforcement handled the Capitol riot and the Floyd protests is flawed, Kent Greenfield, a professor at Boston College Law School told the AP in 2021. “The property damage or accusations of arson and looting from [the George Floyd protests], those were serious and they were dealt with seriously, but they weren’t an attack on the very core constitutional processes that we rely on in a democracy, nor were they an attack on the United States Congress.”

What Trump Said: “They don't want to see all of this transgender, which is, it's just taken over. And then you take a look, and not very many years after the person who, you know, went through this process is saying, Who did this to me? As you know, it's a very high percentage.”

The Facts: A 2021 review of 27 studies involving nearly 8,000 transgender teens and adults who underwent any kind of “gender-affirmation surgeries” found that an average of 1% expressed regret. In October, a study published in JAMA Pediatrics found that the majority of transgender youths who received gender-affirming medical care such as puberty blockers or hormones are satisfied with their care. Of the 220 youths surveyed, only 4% expressed regret.

What Trump Said: “They don't want to see their their food prices go up by 57% in a short period of time. And I think that's why I won.”

The Facts: Polls found that the economy was the top issue for voters in the election, with many feeling the impact of higher prices that economists say were largely due to supply chain disruptions amid the COVID-19 pandemic and global conflicts like the war in Ukraine. Since President Biden took office in January 2021, grocery prices have increased by about 20%, according to the USDA’s Consumer Price Index.

What Trump Said: “I passed the biggest tax cuts ever, bigger than the Reagan tax cuts.”

The Facts: During his first term, Trump passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, sweeping tax cuts that overhauled the federal tax code. That legislation temporarily cut personal income and estate taxes and permanently reduced the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.

At the time of its passing, and in the years since, Trump has referred to the TCJA as the biggest tax cuts ever. But it was not the largest tax cut in American history. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that Trump’s tax cut was the eighth largest since 1918, as measured by percent of GDP. However, Trump’s corporate tax cut, which lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, is considered the largest corporate tax cut in U.S. history—larger than Regan’s corporate tax cut, which reduced the rate from 46% to 34%.

What Trump Said: “We had 107,000 when we had the memorial a few weeks later”

The Facts: Trump has repeatedly claimed that over 100,000 people attended his October rally in Butler. Pa., which was held after an assassination attempt on him during a July rally.
Newsweek conducted a fact-check of the claim, using photos from the site, crowd-mapping software, and expert analysis. They found that, if every part of the venue was packed in, the site could still only hold 94,000 people. Photos from the event show tents and seats would have further limited the crowd size. Experts told the publication that the number of attendees was likely closer to 30,000, a figure consistent with an estimate reported by CBS.

What Trump Said: “I thought it was a wrong poll, because we had an Emerson poll that had us up 18, you know.”

The Facts: Trump was referring to a poll just before Election Day that showed Kamala Harris leading him in Iowa. While Emerson College never had Trump ahead over Harris by 18 points, a Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll from June found Trump ahead of President Joe Biden by 18 points.

What Trump Said: "When 60 Minutes interviews my opponent—and that's a news program, that's their most important news program—and she gave a really horrible answer, that was a bad answer, and they took that answer and replaced it, and this is her speaking, and they replaced it with another answer from a half an hour later in the interview that had nothing to do, but it was a much better answer, that's really dishonest."

The Facts: In October, 60 Minutes issued a statement debunking Trump’s claim that they had deceitfully edited their interview with Harris. The show says that they gave an excerpt of their interview to another CBS show, Face the Nation, which “used a longer section of her answer than that on 60 Minutes.”

“When we edit any interview, whether a politician, an athlete, or movie star, we strive to be clear, accurate and on point,” the show said in the statement. “The portion of her answer on 60 Minutes was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide ranging 21-minute-long segment.”

What Trump Said: "And the beauty is that we won by so much. The mandate was massive. Somebody had 129 years in terms of the overall mandate."

The Facts: Trump won both the popular vote and the Electoral College by a clear margin, but it was not the largest margin in 129 years. Trump won 312 of the 538 Electoral College votes, more than the 306 Joe Biden won in 2020 and more than George W. Bush’s electoral wins in 2000 and 2004. However, Barack Obama won 365 electoral votes in 2008 and 332 in 2012, and Reagan won 525 electoral votes in a true landslide in 1984.

What Trump Said: "I did interviews with, if I had the time, anybody that would ask, I'd do interviews."

The Facts: Trump backed out of an interview with 60 Minutes during his campaign, in part over the show’s fact-checking process. He also said he needed an apology from the show following his interview in 2020, saying that, during the interview, correspondent Lesley Stahl said that Hunter Biden's controversial laptop came from Russia. (Stahl did not say that, according to CBS.)

In the final months of his campaign, Trump prioritized interviews with podcasts over mainstream media, appearing on podcasts like Theo Vonn’s, “This Past Weekend” and “The Joe Rogan Experience.”

With reporting by Eric Cortellessa and Jamie Ducharme

Source (Archive)
 

‘There’s Something Causing It.’ Trump Draws False Link Between Vaccines and Autism in TIME Interview​

1734014633684.png
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and President-elect Donald Trump shake hands during a campaign rally at Desert Diamond Arena Glendale, Ariz. on Aug. 23. Rebecca Noble—Getty Images

By Jamie Ducharme
December 12, 2024 7:51 AM EST

President-elect Donald Trump said in a new interview that he would consider altering childhood vaccination programs in the United States and questioned whether vaccines cause autism—a widely disproven claim.

When asked in an interview for TIME’s 2024 Person of the Year whether he would approve of an end to childhood vaccination programs, Trump said he would have a “big discussion” with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the vaccine skeptic he has tapped to run the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). “The autism rate is at a level that nobody ever believed possible,” Trump continued. “If you look at things that are happening, there's something causing it.”

Trump did not explicitly say in the interview that vaccines cause autism, a false claim that traces back to a retracted study from the 1990s. When pressed on the issue, Trump said his administration will complete “very serious testing,” after which “we will know for sure what's good and what's not good.”

But merely by suggesting that there may be a connection between vaccines and autism, Trump has reaffirmed his alignment with the misinformation that has for years fueled anti-vaccine movements.

The origins of a debunked claim​

It’s true that autism is diagnosed much more frequently now than in the past—but not because vaccines are causing the condition. Researchers have explored possible reasons for the uptick, including rising parental ages and environmental triggers. But much of the increase, research suggests, stems from changes to diagnostic criteria, widespread awareness of the condition, and improvements in screening. Detection jumps have been particularly steep among children of color, girls, and young adults, all of whom have historically been diagnosed less frequently.

Why do vaccines get dragged into the discussion? In 1998, British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield published a study in The Lancet, reporting an apparent association between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and an increased risk of autism. The research sparked widespread concern about the safety of childhood vaccination.

In the years following, however, multiple other studies refuted that claim, finding no evidence of a connection between MMR vaccination and autism. And in 2004, 10 of Wakefield’s original co-authors published a statement saying their data were “insufficient” to prove that the MMR vaccine causes autism. It also came to light that Wakefield had not properly disclosed a conflict of interest: he was a paid adviser in lawsuits brought by families allegeding vaccines had harmed their children.

In 2010, more than a decade after it was originally published, The Lancet officially retracted the paper. At the time, the journal’s editor told The Guardian that the study’s conclusions were “utterly false.” The same year, Wakefield lost his U.K. medical license, with regulators saying he had acted “dishonestly and irresponsibly” in his research.

Even though Wakefield’s study has been widely debunked and refuted, and modern studies consistently show that shots are safe, the idea that vaccines are linked to autism persists, without evidence, among some vaccine skeptics—including Kennedy who, if confirmed, will run the federal health agencies responsible for vaccine approvals and recommendations.

Trump’s previous anti-vaccine stance​

Trump has questioned the safety of childhood vaccines and mused about a possible link to autism for more than a decade. “When I was growing up, autism wasn’t really a factor,” Trump said in a 2007 interview with the South Florida Sun Sentinel. “And now all of a sudden, it’s an epidemic. Everybody has their theory. My theory, and I study it because I have young children, my theory is the shots. We’ve giving these massive injections at one time, and I really think it does something to the children.”

He has repeated similar claims on social media and in other interviews. In 2015, Trump boasted that he had never gotten a flu shot. “I don’t like the idea of injecting bad stuff into [my] body, which is basically what they do,” he said on a radio show.

During his first term as president, however, Trump oversaw Operation Warp Speed, a historic effort to create a vaccine in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, Trump called the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines “one of the greatest miracles of the ages”—one from which he has since distanced himself.

A vaccine-skeptic in the administration​

Judging by his recent comments—and his selection of Kennedy to run HHS—Trump seems to be reverting to his older, more negative views on immunization.
Kennedy has said in post-election interviews that he does not plan to take vaccines off the market. “I’m not going to take away anybody’s vaccines. I’ve never been anti-vaccine. If vaccines are working for somebody, I’m not going to take them away,” he told NBC in November.

In his Person of the Year interview with TIME, Trump allowed for the possibility that the future of some approved vaccines might be in doubt. “He does not disagree with vaccinations, all vaccinations,” Trump said of Kennedy. “He disagrees probably with some.”

Trump added that he “could” move to get rid of some vaccines “if I think they are not beneficial”—then added that his policies are unlikely to be “very controversial in the end.”
Pulling already-approved vaccines off the market without a clear safety imperative would likely lead to legal challenges. “If the FDA were to have a record of approving a vaccine for many decades and then all of a sudden withdrew that approval, the courts would demand scientific justification for it,” Lawrence Gostin, director of Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, told TIME in November.

Both Kennedy and Trump have said that the incoming administration intends to conduct more research on vaccine safety, despite the fact that vaccines are already widely studied and safety and efficacy data is publicly available. “We're going to be able to do very serious testing,” Trump said in the interview with TIME. It’s unclear exactly what sort of studies he and Kennedy would like to oversee. Trump told TIME he wants “to see the numbers,” without specifying which numbers.

Experts have raised concerns that calls for more data and other vaccine-skeptical policies and rhetoric from the incoming administration could have a chilling effect on immunization efforts. Health agencies under the Trump Administration could use federal funding to pay for vaccine-skeptical research, spread misinformation, require new warning labels on shots, change recommendations about routine vaccinations for children, and more, as Arizona State University Professor James Hodge recently laid out for KFF Health News.

Such actions could endanger an achievement that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called one of the most impactful of the early 21st century: reducing cases of and deaths from vaccine-preventable illnesses. Diseases that are currently rare—such as polio, measles, and whooping cough—could make deadly returns if vaccination rates plunge under a skeptical administration.

Trump has not even taken office yet for his second term, but many public-health experts are already deeply concerned. In November, after news broke that Trump would pick Kennedy to run HHS, Gostin told TIME that he “can’t think of a darker day for public health and science itself.”

“The minimum qualification for being the head of the Department of Health and Human Services is fidelity to science and scientific evidence,” Gostin said, “and he spent his entire career fomenting distrust in public health and undermining science at every step of the way.”

Source (Archive)
 
His grievances resonated with suburban moms and retirees, Latino and Black men, young voters and tech edgelords.

So everyone, Time? Just say it resonated with everybody.

But of course, the point of the press is to divide us and pit us against each other so you have to categorize people into groups.
 
I did read it and here's the unironic tldr

"Trump won and everyone (who is not smart like us) loves him but he's MEAN AND HE LIES AND ORANGE MAN BAD"
Sounds about right

Love all those brilliant, intelligent people who are against trump keep losing, again and again.

Reminds me of our own crew of mentally ill faggots, who are currently stuck in the trump enslavement thread because they get shouted down instantly when they peak their head out of their hole.
 
Back
Top Bottom