100 days of payback

Noelle King, host of Today Explained. We're here at 100 Days of Trump Part 2.
They say they like to flood the zone, and boy did the zone feel flooded. Can you remember everything? Oh my gosh.
Liberation Day. Backing off Liberation Day.
Greenland. Canada.
Canada. Ukraine.
The Oval Office meeting with the yelling. Thank you.
The penny. They were going to get rid of the penny.
I think I still see pennies. Showerheads.
Showerheads. Immigration.
Daylight savings. I think we still have that too.
Deporting some people who are citizens. Fighting with the courts.
Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords. Doge.
Aid. Project Esther and anti-Semitism.
Everything is computer. Going after Harvard.
Rewriting history. You did a show on that.
Donald Trump said there are two genders. The Pope's funeral.
Yep, the eggs are still pricey. A weird number of Sigh-Hiles.
Today I think we focus on one main theme. How about that? Yeah, which one? Revenge, Sean.
Revenge. Coming up on Today Explained.
At UC San Diego, research isn't just about asking big questions. It saves lives and fuels innovation, like predicting storms from space, teaching T-cells to attack cancer, and eliminating cybersecurity threats with AI.
As one of America's leading research universities, they are putting big ideas to work in new and novel ways. At UC San Diego, research moves the world forward.
Learn more at ucsd.edu slash research. The PC gave us computing power at home, the internet connected us, and mobile let us do it pretty much anywhere.
Now Generative AI lets us communicate with technology in our own language using our own senses. But figuring it all out when you're living through it is a totally different story.
Welcome to Leading the Shift, a new podcast from Microsoft Azure. I'm your host, Susan Etlinger.
In each episode, leaders will share what they're learning to help you navigate all this change with confidence. Please join us.
Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. You're listening to Today Explained.
Okay, Andrew, go ahead as always. Give me your full name and tell me what you do.
I'm Andrew Prokop, senior correspondent, Vox, covering politics. All right, so we're talking today because President Trump has now been in office for a thousand days.
How would you say the first thousand days have gone? Time flew. I didn't really realize that it was the year 2028.
100 days in for clarity. What are sort of the big themes of the second Trump administration? I've been thinking about it as I tried to, you know, rise above the day-to-day headlines and focus on the recurring stories, things where big things have happened already that have made a difference.
And I think there are really four stories of that nature so far. The first is the economy and tariffs.
It's a big deal. It's a big deal.
This is the beginning of making America rich again. The second, I would say, is immigration, as Trump attempts to impose his mass deportation agenda, as he is making the U.S.
a less welcoming place for foreigners generally. All sorts of big, high-profile battles and showdowns, and we're probably just at the beginning of that.
I'd like to go a step further. I mean, I said it to Pam.
I don't know what the laws are. We always have to obey the laws, but we also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways that hit elderly ladies on the back of the head with a baseball bat.
The third, I would say, is Elon Musk and Doge and this general agenda of kind of dismantling government, cutting government spending. This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy.
Firing federal workers. But the fourth, I think, and one in which in some ways is the most ominous, is what I view as Trump's agenda of retribution.

I am your warrior. I am your justice.
And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution. I am your retribution.
He has been more willing than any other president in recent memory to use the power of the federal government against people who he views as his political enemies or people who are viewed as being on the left. There's a strong argument that no one should be surprised by this because when President Trump was candidate Trump out on the campaign trail, he repeatedly said he was going to go after people, places, things, institutions.
Is what we are seeing, I know you were watching that carefully, is what we are seeing what Trump promised? Well, he said different things at different times. There were some moments.
I remember one moment when he was on Fox News and the host was basically begging him to say, I'm not going to seek retribution against my political enemies. My question is a very serious one.
You know, people are claiming you want retribution. People are claiming you want what has happened to you done to Democrats.
Would you do that ever? Look, what's happened to me has never happened in this country before. And it has to stop because.
Wait a minute. I want to hear that again.
It has to stop. Well, it does have to stop because we're not going to have a country.
If you're elected, what does that mean? Define that. Look, what I've gone through, nobody's ever gone through.
I'm a very legitimate person. I built a great business.
And I think he has chosen pretty much a maximally aggressive course as compared to, you know, all of the possibilities that had been expected as to how far he could go on this. If we focus at first just on Washington and on the mix of politicians and lobbyists, etc., who inhabit this place.

Who's Trump gone after?

Well, he's gone after a lot of people involved with the Biden administration,

you know, Biden himself, several of his top officials.

The security detail for Anthony Fauci was terminated last night, sir.

Do you have a comment?

No, I think, you know, when you work for government, at some point your security detail comes off. He's gone after people who are involved in sort of the legal resistance against Trump

or were involved in the cases that were about investigating or indicting Trump.

But he's also gone after some of his own people or people who used to be some of his people. They all made a lot of money.
They can hire their own security, too. Then there's the case of Mike Pompeo, who was Trump's secretary of state in his first term.
He seemed to be in line for another top appointment as recently as perhaps October 2024. But somehow, people behind the scenes convinced Trump that Pompeo was somehow against him.
And then suddenly, during the transition and at the beginning of the administration, we see these personal public attacks on Pompeo and then yanking his security details. A top aide associated with Pompeo, Brian Hook, as well.

Someone who was on Trump's State Department transition team

before suddenly being kind of penalized by Trump's retaliation.

So he's really sort of used it, you know, against Democrats,

against his critics, but also people on his own side

who he feels like stepped out of line in some way or demonstrated insufficient loyalty. Mike Pompeo and Brian Hook are very interesting because the security detail for them would appear to matter.
These are both men that have had threats to their lives. They both worked on Iran.
How unusual is what Trump did when he said no more security protection for you guys, even though there seem to be credible threats on your lives? Oh, this is extremely unusual. It's unprecedented as far as I know.
It's extremely petty. You know, the justification that they give is, oh, this is expensive and we don't want to, like, fund it.
But,, that's that's just silly. It's a rounding error in expense.
It's just like a personal form of payback that's like, hey, if you step one toe out of line, I'm not going to, you know, make sure that a hostile foreign power doesn't assassinate you. I'm going to, you know, leave you open to that possibility.
I'm not doing anything for you. Let's move on to the colleges,

universities, Columbia, Harvard, etc. We've covered on the show how Trump has gone after them.
What is Trump's rationale for going after these colleges, which seem to fall mainly in the category of like elite? Elite universities were kind of in right wing thinking, were basically deemed of certain of Trump's top donors, the center of wokeness. Like, they were what unleashed wokeness on society.
Right-wing activists like Christopher Rufo want to really kind of smash the universities. But, of course, the public universities under left-wing bureaucratic rule are hostile to open inquiry, hostile to civic debate.
To really go after, as we've seen Harvard and this belief that the universities are the power centers of the left, and if you can take away their research funding, if you can threaten their tax-exempt status, if you can threaten all kinds of other consequences, you will force them to behave in ways that are more accommodating to the right. He seems to understand that for some percentage of the population, it's going to feel really good that he's going after Harvard.
He talks less about his campaign of revenge on law firms. Again, these are elite law firms in Washington, D.C.
and other urban centers. What is Trump doing to them? So this is more related to kind of the prosecutions and investigations of Donald Trump, which often involved certain people who either used to be or are at these law firms.
And so I think he has some resentment about that. And then there's also, again, there's this right-wing agenda, activist agenda as well, where they argue that, oh, these big law firms are kind of in their own way, centers of progressive activism as well in what's known as the pro bono work that they offer to do for various causes.
So, you know, you have this Trump effort to kind of punish these big law firms and as we saw in universities as well of kind of deals or agreements in which they say, oh, okay, we will do these things differently. We will pledge this amount of pro bono work or money to these causes that Trump likes and so on.
Yeah, you said earlier that a lot of this is unprecedented. And I wonder, presidents can do a lot legally.
They have a lot of leeway, even things that look a lot like revenge. How much of this is in the purview of what a president is allowed to do, but maybe ordinarily doesn't for reasons of self-control? And how much is actually testing the power of what the executive branch is allowed to do? The president can do a lot of things that with his authority that he perhaps due to older notions of decorum or fairness or ethics that seem out of date in this administration, that he would not have previously done.
But they're also just doing a lot of stuff that seems completely illegal. And so why not both? They're pursuing both and they're going to see what sticks because they fundamentally view politics and the purpose of government as about punishing their enemies.
And which in this case they've defined so broadly as to define like as to encompass all sorts of liberal or left leaning institutions as well as the as the specific people and groups that have run afoul of Donald Trump personally. Vox's Andrew Prokop.
Sean Ramos-Furram, you're up next. Who do you got? We got actually someone who was a victim of President Trump's retribution season.

I don't think he got mentioned in your conversation with Andrew, but former Ambassador John Bolton, who also lost his security clearance on day one.

We're going to hear your level of work. Because as a small business owner, you want to be able to grow your business.
But you don't want to take on more than you can handle. It's all about scalability.
And with Upwork, they say they'll help you find the right people to grow your business at your own pace. Upwork says they can help you find specialized freelancers in marketing, development, and design experts that can help you take your business to the next level.
And even more, they say companies at every stage turn to Upwork to get things done by assessing a global marketplace filled with top talent in IT, web development, AI, design, admin support, marketing, and more. You can visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free.
That is Upwork.com to post your job for free and connect with top talent ready to help your business grow.

That's UPWRK.com, Upwork.com.

Support for Today Explained comes from the NPR Politics Podcast.

Politics might move fast, but the NPR Politics Podcast

is there to help declutter it all for you. Every day.
It comes on every day. The NPR Politics Podcast team focuses on one thing and boils it down to 15 minutes or less.
Each episode makes it easy for you to understand what's going on in politics. from the complete restructuring of the federal government to immigration policy to tariffs and trade to unpacking the first hundred days of Donald Trump's second presidency.
You can tune in to hear about what's been done, what's to come, and what might change, and of course, what it means for you. You can listen now to the NPR Politics Podcast, only from NPR, National Public Radio, they call it, wherever you get your podcasts.
The regular season is in the rear view, and now it's time for the games that matter the most. This is Kenny Beechamoff basketball is finally here on small ball we're diving deep into every series every crunch time finished every coaching adjustment that can make or break a championship run who's building for a 16 win marathon which superstar will submit their legacy and which role player is about to become a household name with so many fascinating first round matchups will the West be the bloodbath we anticipate? Will the East be as predictable as we think? Can the Celtics defend their title? Can Steph Curry, LeBron James, Kawhi Leonard push the young teams at the top? I'll be bringing the expertise, the passionate, genuine opinion you need for the most exciting time of the NBA calendar.
Small ball is your essential companion for the NBA postseason. Join me, Kenny Beecham, for new episodes of Small Ball throughout the playoffs.
Don't miss Small Ball with Kenny Beecham. New episodes dropping through the playoffs available on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.
Today, Explain is back. And here's the reason I wanted to hear from John Bolton today.
Bolton served in the first Trump administration as a national security advisor. He served alongside former chief of staff John Kelly, who last October told The New York Times that that he thinks Donald Trump is a fascist.
Well, I'm looking at the definition of fascism. It's a far-right, authoritarian, ultra-nationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized hypocrisy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy.
So certainly, in my experience, those are the kinds of things that he thinks would work better in terms of running America. But when John Bolton was asked about John Kelly's assessment, he basically said Trump's too dumb to be a fascist.
I wanted to ask him if he still feels that way a hundred days into Trump too. I mean, I don't disagree with John Kelly on his assessment about Trump, what Trump does and what's wrong with it.
But to be a fascist, you have to think in at least some conceptual level, which Trump never does. Trump is a problem without that label.
And he has caused a lot of damage he did in his first term. He will in his second term.
I just don't like to get lost in the bumper sticker argument rather than arguing about substance. And I would say, I don't think John Kelly disagrees with me on that.
So you would quibble with the term fascist because it's just, what, simplistic or it's a slogan? It's too far above Trump's capabilities. I mean, he has no philosophy.
He has in the national security space, he has no grand strategy. He doesn't do policy as we conventionally understand that term.
This is difficult to accept. I know it was difficult for me to accept that anybody could be so totally transactional, so totally focused on what's in it for him.
But that's Trump. There are plenty of people around him with problematic philosophies, people who do have the ability to think at a more conceptual level.
But what they say may ultimately be reflected in certain Trump decisions, but it's not because he shares their worldview or anything like that. What was your impression of his approach, if not something leaning towards fascism or authoritarianism, when you were in his administration the first go-round? Well, I think he wants to be the center of attention.
I think that's probably his principal motivating factor. And I think his approach was once described by Charles Krauthammer very well.
And Krauthammer said it to me, but I think he said it publicly on any number of occasions, that he began by thinking Trump was an 11-year-old. But he realized after a close evaluation that he was about 10 years off, Trump's really a one-year-old

who just sees everything in the world and asks the question, what's in this for me?

Somebody else who I don't remember the name observed that Trump doesn't have ideas, he has reactions.

And I think that's also an important insight.

So in my book, I said, if you took all of his decisions in his first term, they'd be like a big archipelago of dots. A lot of the dots I agreed with.
But if you try to connect the dots, you know, you're welcome to it. Trump himself couldn't connect the dots.
What have you thought of the first hundred days of the second administration so far? Well, I think it's even more incoherent, but what you're seeing in public now that many people find surprising, I think, is what many of us who were in the first term saw in private, but that he never said in public. A lot of these ideas have been kicking around.
I think, obviously, they spent the four years in exile at Mar-a-Lago planning.

Their first 100 days, much more was accomplished from Trump's point of view than in his first 100 days in the first term. I'm not sure, though, that history will record that after this burst of activity in the first 100 days, there's much more follow-up.
that I think Trump will get bogged down in a lot of subsidiary issues that he happens to, that happened to catch his attention. For example, he's now chairman of the board of the Kennedy Center.
And I can think of nothing more important than for a man who knows so much about buildings and the hospitality industry to spend a little time on the question of the rugs at the Kennedy Center, the carpeting, the curtains and the stages. I mean, I think really some high level attention is required for that.
And I think if really I get his ear, I could get him over at the Kennedy Center for a day a week for the next several months. I think you're getting at something that I'm constantly struck by, which is while this seems like a serious administration with serious ideas of Project 2025, what have you, there's also all of these distractions that make this seem like a bit of a clown car.
The doge firings and then hiring back of nuclear safety personnel, the infamous Houthi PC small group chat, the tariffs, no tariffs, tariffs, just kidding, no tariffs. I saw someone say, I wonder if the fall of the Roman Empire was this stupid.
And that really hit for me. But at the same time, you've got the campaign of retribution we've spoken about.
You've got defying court orders and challenging the judiciary. You've got the silencing of speech, left and right, the First Amendment.
I mean, when you see these constitutional infringements, are you worried for the state of the republic? I don't think Trump is an existential threat. I think our institutions are a lot stronger than him.
And not so much the fall of the Roman Empire, but the fall of the Roman Republic began with Sulla and then Pompey and then Catiline and then Julius Caesar. And I tell you, Donald Trump is none of those four.
Thank goodness. So I think we will survive.
But I think many of the things you've mentioned, he has singled out by executive order, for example, Chris Krebs, the former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Bureau at the Department of Homeland Security, in his first term for prosecution because he dared to say that the 2020 election was safe and free from interference in cyberspace, which Trump didn't want to believe. He singled out a fellow named Miles Taylor, who had been chief of staff to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
These are actions by a president that with no predicate for a criminal investigation that I think are very threatening. But I think you've got to evaluate all this.
And there are many more. You've named some.
We could name others. That's Trump making the first move.
And he's done all this, as you say, in the first hundred days. He's done it in Trump time because he stays up until 2 in the morning.
He's constantly active. The judicial system obviously doesn't normally react with such speed.
So Trump makes his headline and then moves on to something else. And the real question is what has followed up? And I think if we come back in a couple of years, we'll see a lot of the effort of the first 100 days just in ashes because the courts will have held.
I believe they will. I think they are fully independent.
I'm not worried about that. I think that is the ultimate check.
It obviously will have cost people money for attorney's fees and time and aggravation and concern. But I think a lot of these efforts will fail and they will set precedents that will make it even harder for a future president to try this kind of thing.
I'm hoping, for example, that on tariffs, not directly what you're asking about, but I hope, you know, it was 95 years since the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which were an act of monumental stupidity in 1930. I think history will record that Trump-Vance tariffs is another monumental act of stupidity, and hopefully it'll be another 95-year-long lesson.
So from that perspective, a lot of what has happened in the first 100 days, we have to say, is incomplete, because while Trump has moved his pawn to King 4, the rest of the system is still reacting.

You, of course, I believe, have worked under four presidential administrations,

from Reagan to George H.W. Bush to George W.
Bush to, of course, President Trump. Does that historical long view that you personally possess work to your advantage in these trying times of

ours? Well, we've suffered a lot worse in this country. We did have a civil war where over 600,000 soldiers died of one cause or another and the country moved on.
So I'm not, I'm not underestimating the problems that Trump is causing. I just, I just think it's important to bring as many people along on the proposition that this is unacceptable.
And I think sometimes, you know, using the rhetoric that says this is existential turns people off. And I'm looking to convince as many people as possible that this is an aberration in American politics, that it's not sustainable, and particularly in the Republican Party, that beginning in 2026, certainly in 2028, we've got to move on from it.
Since you were looking ahead to the 2028 election, let me ask you quickly before we go about the 2024 election. I believe you said you wouldn't vote for either candidate and that you would write in a true conservative like Dick Cheney.
Of course, Dick Cheney went on to endorse Kamala Harris. Did that change your mind when you were in the voting booth there? Yeah, absolutely.
I voted for Mike Pence. Justice for Mike Pence.
Who did his job, according to the Constitution, on January the 6th, 2021. Are you hoping he's going to run in 2028? I don't know what he wants to do.
America owes Mike Pence a big debt of gratitude, a lot that happened during the Trump administration. Maybe I should say a lot that didn't happen during the first term of the Trump presidency, you can attribute to him.
And I hope he's not looking for publicity, but I hope he's kept careful notes of everything he did for posterity to know. Well, no one's ever said that on this show before, sir.
I appreciate you bringing that to light. Thank you for your time, Ambassador Bolton.
Thanks for having me. Appreciate it.
John Bolton of the Bolton Pack, Noelle.

Wonderful to hear from him.

Today's episode was produced by Devin Schwartz and Victoria Chamberlain.

We were mixed by Andrea Christensdottir and Patrick Boyd.

Amina El-Sadi is our editor.

Laura Bullard and Gabrielle Burbay were on The Facts.

I'm Noelle King.

Sean Ramos-Vurham.

Today Explained.