Analysis of the week's top stories by the best reporters in Washington. Moderated by The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. Friday nights at 8/7c on PBS.
3,886 followers 3 following 226 posts
view profile on Bluesky
"I think this is a generally optimistic country, and I think people want the system to work and to succeed," Balz added. "But if you chart it, I mean if you chart trust in government, it fell off the cliff during Vietnam and Watergate, and it's basically been down ever since."
Over the course of the 50 years that I've been doing this, I think that the most important shift is that, with each kind of iteration of that, politics has gotten tougher, coarser and meaner," Balz told Goldberg.
On Friday’s episode of Washington Week with The Atlantic, Dan Balz of The Washington Post joined moderator Jeffrey Goldberg for a special conversation about Balz's retirement after 47 years with the paper and how politics has changed over the 12 elections and eight presidencies he's covered."
"I think the danger is a president who is solely focused on, A: the accumulation of power and being at the center of everything — that he wants to be the impresario of all events," said Dan Balz. "But the second aspect of that is a kind of hunger for retribution."
"[Social media] is a different way of targeting a message, aiming at people, doing it in a way that is designed to inflame the debate. ... We go from cameras in the House chamber ... to the internet disrupting everything and democratizing information, to social media," said Dan Balz.
"[Newt] Gingrich changed politics because what Gingrich did was he brought, as I say, a confrontational style, and a flamboyance and a willingness to attack his opponents in ways that other politicians would have been hesitant to do," said Dan Balz.
How has politics shifted? "You played politics by a set of rules, and Congress was supposed to work in a particular way, and presidents worked with Congresses in a particular way," said Dan Balz. "In those days, committee chairs were gigantic figures. We don't think of that today in the same way."
"Over the course of the 50 years that I've been doing this, I think that the most important shift is that, with each kind of iteration of that, politics has gotten tougher, coarser and meaner," said Dan Balz.
"It appears as though they're not going to stop with this," Barrón-López added. "They've taken actions against D.C. and they could very well take actions against other Democratic-led cities."
"I think it's aimed at political opponents or who Trump perceives as his political opponent." "The fact that they raided and searched John Bolton's house in Maryland is a step that we had not seen them take to this point," said Laura Barrón-López of MSNBC.
Washington Week moderator Jeffrey Goldberg discussed the pattern of retribution in Trump's second term with his panelists on Friday. "This action among others sort of gives a sense of political retribution," said Matt Viser of The Washington Post.
On Friday, the FBI searched John Bolton’s home in Maryland and office in Washington, D.C. Bolton was a national security adviser in Trump’s first administration, and since leaving in 2019, he has become a sharp critic of Trump, attacking his foreign policy and national security decisions.
The names included those who worked on a review of possible Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. In a memo, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard accused the staffers of "politicization or weaponization of intelligence for partisan purposes."
Earlier this week, the Trump administration announced that it would be revoking the security clearances of 37 current and former national security officials.
"On Thursday this week, Trump had a social media post talking about [Russia's war in Ukraine] almost as a sports fan watching two teams," said Matt Viser. "It was also him kind of seeing things through Ukrainian eyes — that they need to push back on Russia in some way."
"This is Trump's faith in his own dealmaking ability. ... He thinks that Putin really wants to make him happy," said @jonathankarl.bsky.social. "It is remarkable how he has gone from sounding like he is echoing Kremlin talking points to sounding like he is ready to go to war on Ukraine's behalf."
"The question I have is, at what point do European leaders ... consider their options about moving forward without the U.S.?" said @lbarronlopez.bsky.social. "Do they consider NATO operations that don't necessarily rely on the U.S. in order to try to deter and push back Russia?"
"What we're seeing here is the takeover of American foreign policy by New York real estate dealmakers," said @michaelscherer.bsky.social. "They have a view of the world that comes out of the business deals they made when they were younger in their lives."
"Putin also knows who he's dealing with," added Vivian Salama of The Wall Street Journal, noting that Russia's president is "completely tapping into Trump's ego on this very issue because he feels that Trump wants to be that peacemaker."
"He hasn't done that yet, but with an event like this, he can continue with this campaign to try and get a Nobel Peace Prize, which does matter to him."
"It's about establishing himself as a peacemaker on the global stage, even though he has yet to make substantial progress on the two conflicts that he talked about the most during the campaign: Israel and Gaza, and ending this war in Ukraine,” said Zolan Kanno-Youngs of The New York Times.
After the summit Friday night, Washington Week moderator Jeffrey Goldberg asked his panelists how important the cause of peace is for Trump in terms of global acclaim.
Hours later on social media, Trump dropped his demand for a ceasefire in Ukraine and instead backed a comprehensive peace deal to end the war with Russia, aligning himself with Putin's demands.
The 2.5-hour meeting ended with the two leaders appearing briefly at a joint news conference to give statements and both leaving shortly after without taking any questions from the press.
President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday for a high-profile summit to discuss the war in Ukraine.
"You know who else would like some declarative information? How about the Congress, which will have to appropriate something for Ukraine possibly in short order," said @macfarlanenews.bsky.social. "It's a wedge issue inside Trump's base. ... He didn't give any clarity on that today either."
"I think they knew that there was a low chance that they would actually come out and have something substantial to announce that indicated progress to establishing peace in Ukraine after promising during the campaign to end this war in 24 hours," said Zolan Kanno-Youngs.
"You could say this is the anticlimax in Anchorage. We all had such expectations ... and it seems nothing was agreed," said David Ignatius. "I think there clearly is an impasse in these negotiations, which to me means that Trump is not willing to cave to what Putin wants."
"Trump is someone who we know likes theatrics in general, and staging is part of that, so that was a big part of it," said Vivian Salama. "Trump wanted it to be splashy because he knew that people around the world were watching this moment. Regardless of what came out of it."
“It's not his power,” added Jonathan Karl of ABC News. “There is a very serious legal case underway now. I think there is a very good chance that his so-called reciprocal tariffs will get declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.”
This week, the Trump administration imposed sweeping tariffs on more than 60 countries and the European Union, sending U.S. import duties soaring to their highest levels in nearly a century.
Tariffs are "something he believes he can execute unilaterally," said Jonathan Lemire of of The Atlantic. "It is a personal power here, which is deeply attractive to him, that he can settle scores, that he can go after whatever country is up or down."
On Friday’s episode of Washington Week, moderator Jeffrey Goldberg and his panelists discussed President Donald Trump's move to impose additional tariffs in an effort to dramatically reshape America’s economy.
"It's tariffs — something he's believed in, but it's also something he believes he can execute unilaterally. It is a personal power here, which is deeply attractive to him, that he can settle scores, that he can go after whatever country is up or down," said @jonlemire.bsky.social.
"What he sees in tariffs is an economic weapon. He sees leverage, and Trump is someone who wants to make deals, cut deals and in order to make a deal, he thinks he needs to have leverage over them. So he's trying to reset the global economy with this sort of cudgel," said @tylerpager.bsky.social.
"I think Trump is sensitive to the idea that Putin has played him. When he has a conversation with Putin that he thinks went fine and then, you know, Russia goes forward with a massive drone attack on cities in Ukraine, it angers him," said @jonathankarl.bsky.social.
"The genuine frustration that Trump has toward Putin is largely based on the fact that Trump promised to end this war within 24 hours, and he has been unable to do so," said @tylerpager.bsky.social. "I think Trump is hopeful that he can sort of work Putin over in this in-person meeting."
"The Biden-era mantra of 'nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine' is now ancient history under the Trump administration," said Vivian Salama. "[Meaning] that you cannot negotiate the future of Ukraine without Ukraine at the table."
"The totality of that, I think, compelled the president to say something, and I think, arguably, he was moved by the photos that he did see," Youssef added.
"And so we started to hear from aid agencies, even inside Israel, and organizations sort of assessing that there was an increased starvation risk in Gaza."
"Netanyahu said that there wasn't starvation happening, amid sort of evidence to the contrary," Youssef said. "We started to see more photos coming out of people starving. The United Nations agency responsible said one in three Gazans are not getting meals for multiple days in a row."
"That's real starvation stuff. I see it, and you can't fake that. So we're going to be even more involved," said Trump. On Friday's episode of Washington Week, guest moderator Franklin Foer asked Nancy Youssef of The Atlantic why Trump felt compelled to weigh in that way.
While meeting with British Prime Minister Starmer in Europe last week, President Trump said there was "real starvation" in Gaza when discussing the worsening humanitarian crisis there, breaking with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who had previously claimed that "there is no starvation in Gaza."
"What you're going to see, at least in the short term, is increased pressure to ramp up the aid going in," said @nancyayoussef.bsky.social. "The images that you're seeing, there's no sign of them stopping. When you have this level of starvation that we know about, there is a tipping point."
"The [Gaza Humanitarian Fund] plan did not work. Israel stopped aid from going in for a long time. The Trump administration did not act when that happened, right? And so, they know what the answer is," said Alexander Ward.
"The occupiers, which in this case is Israel in Gaza, have an obligation — a legal obligation and a moral obligation, but a legal obligation — to feed the people there," said Andrea Mitchell.
"On Sunday, Netanyahu said that there wasn't starvation happening, amid, sort of, evidence to the contrary," said @nancyayoussef.bsky.social. "The totality of that, I think, compelled the president to say something, and I think, arguably, he was moved by the photos that he did see."
"The job numbers were not as good as the Trump administration wanted," said @lacaldwelldc.bsky.social. "This is a continuation of a pattern of this president — when he doesn't like something, when something does not go his way, then he sometimes takes extreme actions to change it."
"We know that Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were friends. We know that Donald Trump and him hung out a lot," said @eugenedaniels2.bsky.social. "Donald Trump has clearly made the calculation that he can't be connected to Jeffrey Epstein in any way, shape or form."
"[Trump] now has total command of the Republican Party," @jonathankarl.bsky.social. "He also has an administration and a staff that is based entirely on loyalty. So you don't hear any dissent, either within the administration or within the Republican rank and file or leadership in Congress."
"It's notable that some members of Congress who stick with Donald Trump through the most outrageous untruths are demanding answers from him that he doesn't want to give right now," said @sbg1.bsky.social.
"He brings this on himself by looking like he's trying to hide something, by denying the obvious right there," said @peterbakernyt.bsky.social. "His habit is to deny, deny, deny, even provable truths. It's just never in his DNA to admit, much less acknowledge or apologize."
“The dream is that ... when they control the House and the Senate, that means they'll control how all the purse strings are set. They'll basically be able to cut Democrats out of the process.”
"Historically, when Republicans control the House and the Senate, you still need 60 votes to get a budget through the Senate, and that means you need a bipartisan process," Scherer added. "The Trump administration's goal here is to break that process.”
“What I think will be remembered of this vote is that it was a test case in whether they could change the way the government appropriates money,” said Michael Scherer of The Atlantic.
Friday night, Washington Week moderator Jeffrey Goldberg’s panel dissected the Republican Party’s strategic use of rescission.
Early Friday, the House approved the final version of President Donald Trump’s rescissions package, which claws back more than $9 billion of already approved federal funding, largely for foreign aid programs and public broadcasting.
"When the story came out, it really seemed like it was a galvanizing force among his supporters and instead of focusing on the content of the reporting or whatever was revealed, it was — they called it a hoax," said Meridith McGraw. "And they were very quick to dismiss it."
@lacaldwelldc.bsky.social: "The MAGA part of the party that is furious about this are not necessarily partisans. They are the people who are anti-establishment, ... feel like they have been wronged. ... The reason they found a savior in Donald Trump is because he promised to be different."
"[President Trump has] been successful in convincing his hardcore base to believe him," said Stephen Hayes. "Virtually all of the other conspiracies he has either spun or embraced or amplified had a bad guy. And the bad guy was 'Them' with a capital 'T.'"
"Historically, when Republicans control the House and the Senate, you still need 60 votes to get a budget through the Senate, and that means you need a bipartisan process," said @michaelscherer.bsky.social. "The Trump administration's goal here is to break that process.”
She added that a policy requiring Noem to review any spending over $100,000 played a role in slowing the response time. "They also didn't pre-position assets close to the impacted area as they have done in past disasters, so they weren't able to quickly move assets and resources in,” Parti said.
Tarini Parti of The Wall Street Journal noted that Noem was "leaving out what actually happened." "Based on our reporting, we know that at DHS, there was widespread confusion about how they should respond, how they should move resources," Parti said.
Washington Week guest moderator Ashley Parker of The Atlantic discussed with her panelists how Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem outlined at a Cabinet meeting Tuesday what she described as a new, streamlined version of FEMA envisioned by Trump.
President Donald Trump visited Kerrville, Texas, on Friday to meet with first responders and those hit by the devastating July 4 floods that have left over 120 dead and more than 160 people still missing.
"What [President Trump] has found out is that embracing Vladimir Putin comes with few results," said Zolan Kanno-Youngs. "But his Republican allies, you know, were also telling him in, in recent weeks, like they could all be getting played."
"Now, what Trump has discovered is what Zelenskyy told him is basically right. You cannot assume that Putin is your friend. You cannot assume he wants a peace deal — because he doesn't. He's made that very clear," said @peterbakernyt.bsky.social.
"The problem is, so many people focus on the shipment and what Hegseth said. To me, what's critical is once you start turning weapon systems on and shipments on and off, it is very hard for Ukrainian military planners to, to defend themselves," said @nancyayoussef.bsky.social.
"Based on our reporting, we know that at DHS there was widespread confusion about how they should respond, how they should move resources," said Tarini Parti. "They also didn't preposition assets close to the impacted area as they have done in past disasters."
Zolan Kanno-Youngs: "We have to look at President Trump's record with FEMA and its entirety in this second term." @nancyayoussef.bsky.social: "It's been striking to me how much we've been looking at responsiveness across government and not able to really get at what level the system broke down."
Tarini Parti: "[President Trump] was more empathetic than we've seen him in the past. ... But he also wanted to, of course, tout his administration's response. ... It's been a very scaled back federal response. They're relying more on state and local officials, and he also tried to make that point."
"The other thing is, the idea that young people only want tiny little silly things is not true. They watch substantively, but it just depends on where they're watching," said Swisher. "If you aren't hurtling towards YouTube right now, you're making an enormous mistake as a media company."
When asked by Goldberg if the journalism values of traditional media are transferable to the digital platforms she’s familiar with, Swisher said they “absolutely” could, adding that the issue lies in “understanding the product you’re making.”
On Friday’s episode of Washington Week, moderator Jeffrey Goldberg sat down for a special conversation with Kara Swisher, co-host of the podcast “Pivot,” to discuss the state and future of journalism as Americans turn to streaming, social media and digital platforms for their news.
"The idea that young people only want tiny little silly things is not true. They watch substantively, but it just depends on where they're watching," said @karaswisher.bsky.social. "If you aren't hurtling towards YouTube right now, you're making an enormous mistake as a media company."
"[President Trump] is right, in fact, that cable has gone down precipitously and that viewers are going elsewhere and everything else, but he has a fixation on it," said @karaswisher.bsky.social. "He's really good at media — or the new media — almost by accident, but also intuitively."
“She's trying very quickly to get the intelligence in her statements about it to line up with the president's political preferences. That is dangerous in the conduct of intelligence.”
"When the president made the decision that we're going to attack Iran, she had to scramble to quickly say, 'Oh, well, oh, but what I meant was,' and there are these caveats in the intelligence," Harris added.
“She gave this testimony back in March in which she just plainly said what the intelligence assessments have been for years, which is Iran is not trying to build a nuclear weapon," Shane Harris of The Atlantic told Washington Week moderator Jeffrey Goldberg.
It's the latest conflict between the president and the U.S. intelligence community. A day before Trump ordered the strikes on Iran, he told reporters that Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, was "wrong" about the objective of Iran's nuclear program.
In the week since President Donald Trump involved the United States military in the war between Israel and Iran, a leaked early intelligence report appeared to contradict his administration's claims that U.S. airstrikes "obliterated" Iran's nuclear facilities.
"The president should not be coming out within an hour or so of this strike and say we 'obliterated,'" said Andrea Mitchell. "There was no bomb damage assessment. He should probably say we will wait for an assessment, but the early reports are very positive."
"When you politicize intelligence ... it is so self-defeating," said Andrea Mitchell. "When you have intelligence that is politicized and pressured, as it was by, you know, Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, and trying to satisfy the White House — that's what you get. You get into mistaken wars."
"What [President Trump] prefers are these sort of short bursts of kinetic energy," said @ashleyrparker.bsky.social. "He doesn't see this as being drawn into a forever war in the Middle East. He sees this as a one and done or maybe one and done and then another one."
"It's important to keep two things in mind," said @shaneharris.bsky.social. "There's the highly enriched uranium, which is the core ingredient that you need to create the weapon. ... And then there are the centrifuges, which you need to enrich that uranium to its state where it can be a bomb."
"Whatever the final bomb damage assessment, it was an extraordinary use of military power halfway around the world — something that no other country could do. ... The reason that it matters exactly what the bomb damage was is that that will condition what now follows," said David Ignatius.
“But, look, he is really conflicted here. And, you know, he's facing a deep divide within his own movement,” said Karl. “He will face, actually, I think, maybe for the first time ever a significant blowback from his prominent supporters if the U.S. gets dragged into a protracted conflict.”
“He just sounded jazzed, frankly,” Jonathan Karl of ABC News told Goldberg. "He saw success and he wanted to take part in that success." On Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt relayed Trump's announcement that he would decide within two weeks whether or not to strike Iran.
As President Trump navigates the Israel-Iran war, plus the potential involvement of the U.S. military in that conflict, Washington Week moderator Jeffrey Goldberg spoke to his panelists Friday about how Trump felt in the initial aftermath of Israel's strikes on nuclear and military sites in Iran.
What does the war between Israel and Iran look like if the U.S. gets involved? "I think the risk is that Iran has less and less to lose and is willing to take more and more risks," said @nancyayoussef.bsky.social. "It triggers the climbing of the escalation ladder."
"[President Trump] is really conflicted here. ... He's facing a deep divide within his own movement," said @jonathankarl.bsky.social. "He will face ... I think maybe for the first time ever, significant blowback from his prominent supporters if the U.S. gets dragged into a protracted conflict."
"I think one of the reasons that [Israel has] been rushing is that they have worried that Donald Trump wanted to intervene in negotiations," said David Ignatius. "I think that's one of the urgent issues for the Israelis over the next two weeks."
"The state of play right now is the Iranians are not doing terribly well in day 7 here," said @sangernyt.bsky.social. "I would say you probably have several weeks left of this."
Were Israel's strikes on Iran carried out over the objection or approval of the U.S.? "So, there's no indication that there was objections from the U.S. side on this," said Matt Viser. "There may not have been coordination ahead of time, but there's certainly coordination now."
"I think one of the interesting things just to look at is how his base is reacting to these attacks," said @tylerpager.bsky.social. "You look at the sort of MAGA online-influencer-younger-men crowd who were very supportive of President Trump in large part because he promised an end to wars."
"The biggest tension is that [Trump] sees himself as someone who can make deals," said @eugenedaniels2.bsky.social. "He's dealing with — and his team is dealing with — all of these promises they made the MAGA base for years, really, saying that we're not going to be entangled in wars."
@nancyayoussef.bsky.social: "We saw Iran launch hundreds of ballistic missiles across Israel. ... This comes as the Trump administration is trying to negotiate a deal. ... Broadly, it means that Israel has just lost confidence in Trump's diplomatic efforts to try to reach a nuclear deal."
"There's one way to end this war. You say to Vladimir Putin: 'If you don't stop the war, and we agree to the ceasefire terms I dictate, we are bringing Ukraine into NATO in 30 days. Which part of that sentence don't you understand? Do you want to mess with me? Test me.’ That's how you end this war.”
One of those issues being Trump’s handling of the war between Russia and Ukraine and the United States' ability to mediate the conflict. "Trump came in and said, 'I can end this war,'" said Friedman.
On Friday’s episode of Washington Week, moderator Jeffrey Goldberg was joined by Thomas Friedman of The New York Times to unpack the start of President Donald Trump’s second term and his efforts to address critical issues around the world.