JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Right.

I want to go to your analysis of 100 days.

How many days did I say?

1,362 left.

It's kind of a -- yes, it's amazing.

That includes weekends though, although we don't have weekends anymore.

ASMA KHALID: I was going to say your White House correspondent feels like there's a call (ph).

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: We don't really, we don't really have weekends.

But let's just talk about two main things.

I did give the panel homework, by the way.

I asked them not to use ChatGPT to do the homework assignments.

KAITLAN COLLINS: No promises.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Yes, no -- and the first part of the homework assignment was what's the most consequential action he's taken or what's the biggest change we've seen in the 100 days in American governance.

Let me start with Steve.

Give us your -- STEPHEN HAYES: Well, I did what I always do on this, which is not entirely answer the question directly because I have two -- JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Future political officeholder.

Right?

STEPHEN HAYES: No.

I think I sort of bookend of the first 100 days.

The first came on day one when he pardoned all of the January 6th rioters.

And then the second part came in the Oval Office just a week ago when he announced from the Oval Office that he wants his Department of Justice to investigate two people he perceives as his political enemies in Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor.

And I think the effect of those was that the first one, Donald Trump was telling people, if you break the law on my behalf, not only will it be tolerated, but it'll be rewarded.

And on the second, he campaigned for more than a year on retribution.

Retributions were core to Donald Trump and who he is.

And he's saying, I'm going to use the official levers of government to get this retribution.

ASHLEY PARKER: And can I just - - on Chris Krebs in particular, I'm so struck by that.

Because the reason Chris Krebs is like -- JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Can you remind people exactly what role he played in the government?

ASHLEY PARKER: Yes.

So, he ran a cybersecurity agency under Trump.

And in that capacity, his agency basically came out and said the 2020 election was secure, and Joe Biden is the legitimate winner.

And that is his crime, right?

So, it's not that he was even a political opponent.

Donald Trump is punishing Chris Krebs for his acknowledgement of objective reality.

That's why that one stands out to me so viscerally.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Right.

Ashley, since I have you what is the thing that really struck you about the difference between this administration and previous administrations?

ASHLEY PARKER: I mean, I have been struck -- well, the difference between Trump now and Trump previously is one thing I've been struck by, which is just how much more confident, bold, aggressive, creative he has been at sort of wielding the levers of power at his disposal to bend, you know, the city, the country, and the world to his will.

And the other thing that has struck me is Donald Trump traditionally is someone who is trying to get through the minute, the hour, the day.

He's trying to win over the person directly in front of him, whether that's you and I and Michael in the Oval Office, or a huge rally of MAGA supporters.

And what was surprising to me, and, again, he did hit his limit, but on tariffs, he had the stomach at least initially for more pain as the market's plummeted and he was getting, you know, lobbied behind the scenes and some pretty public criticism.

He stood by that much longer than I would expect it for someone who is traditionally pin-balling between whatever is politically expedient in that moment.

KAITLAN COLLINS: Yes.

The pain threshold is something that we did not see as much in the first term.

It's not just on the markets, it's also negative coverage in terms of the headlines before he'd be screaming his head off if he didn't like a chiron on a show or what someone said.

He still gets angry about the coverage and thinks it's unfair, to be clear, if that hasn't changed.

But his pain threshold with the markets is much higher than it used to be.

It's not in totality given we saw what he did with the 90-day tariffs.

But he does view this stuff a little differently.

And I think a lot of it is he's emboldened.

And I think the one key part is it's not just that he won reelection.

He said he won the popular vote.

And that has changed basically the entire way he approaches office this time.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Right.

Asma, what's the most consequential moment?

ASMA KHALID: So, this is going to sound wonky, but I do think it's really important, and it kind of goes on what you were saying, Ashley, a moment ago, which is I think that he is acting in a way that is both quicker, deeper, more aggressive than he did in his first term.

And to do this, and this is why I say I think it gets wonky, you know, we talk a lot about executive power and the breaking of institutions, and these are things that, you know, any political science student talks about, and I think it sounds wonky and abstract.

But to me, that is the longest possible long-term legacy that he's leaving.

You look at his interactions with courts, possibly defying courts in some situations.

You talk about trying to sort of, I would argue, undermine law firms, universities media institutions, in some cases.

There is a total, I think, willingness to expand his power in ways that I didn't see in the first term.

There's just a far more freedom that he's engaging with.

But there's also, I would argue, less defiance or resistance from the outside to this.

I mean, look, I'll be blunt, I thought it was very surprising initially the way that we saw universities, at least initially, willing to appease or possibly acquiesce or play ball with him.

That was surprising.

ASHLEY PARKER: The top law firms.

ASMA KHALID: Exactly.

Very surprising, I thought.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Yes.

Kaitlan, most consequential?

KAITLAN COLLINS: I think there's so much here that it's really hard to think of -- JEFFREY GOLDBERG: It's all consequential.

KAITLAN COLLINS: It's actually not, but a lot of it is.

A lot of it, I mean, in terms of what they're doing at the agencies, you know, firing federal workers.

What does that look like from the Department of Health and Human Services?

We don't know.

I do think one change that the White House feels better about that, that Trump is less likely to fire people, that he typically before, if this had happened eight years ago with, you know, what happened with Signal gate, as it's now known, that might have resulted in a departure.

But they are so resistant on giving the media or Democrats as they view it a scalp, that they're not firing people.

But I've heard from people who think, you know, when it comes to the Pentagon.

Obviously, it's such a critical place that you never know as a president what crisis could become -- fall upon you that you have to deal with in that moment.

I've heard from some people who say the way the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, is running the Pentagon, the way he is choosing to lead, the president's resistance to fire him, he could come to rue the day over that.

Because if there is a real crisis, there's been these instances where Pete Hegseth has disappointed him in the White House with some of his actions or responses, there's a question about that.

They're standing by him for now.

They fought very hard to get him confirmed.

They're not on the verge of firing him, but does the president regret actually not firing people and correcting mistakes could be something that we see play out.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Yes.

Asma quickly, why haven't they fired Pete Hegseth?

ASMA KHALID: Why haven't they fired him?

I do think it goes back to the level of confidence the president feels.

I mean, he's operating in a different way than he was last time, where I think he believes -- also I think it's a matter of loyalty.

I mean, he appreciates loyalty.

It seems thus far Hegseth has been rather loyal to him, and that's a key issue to him.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Right.

Steve, let me ask you this question.

What's the most surprising thing?

I mean, we all spent a lot of time, especially in the, you know, post-election, pre-inauguration period, trying to game out what we thought would happen.

We were all, to some degree or another, I was very wrong, thinking that this was going to be a continuation of Trump 1, when this feels like a very much a new kind of administration.

But what's the most surprising thing?

STEPHEN HAYES: So, I thought it was likely going to be a more aggressive Donald Trump that we saw in the second term, and I'm going to invite scorn and ridicule by what I say.

I anticipated we would see more resistance from Republicans, not just on policy issues, you know, the tariffs and Vladimir Putin and Russia, I mean, these sort of issues that have been at the core of the Republican Party going back decades.

They're just rolling over you.

Rarely, Rand Paul will occasionally offer a gentle critique of the tariffs.

You'll have a senator send out a gently-worded tweet about Russia, but not really fighting him on policy at all.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: So, Steve, not to be scornful or mocking, but what in the behavior of the Republican Party over the previous years suggested to you that there would be more opposition?

STEPHEN HAYES: So, it was both on the policies that I think these were so core to the Republican Party.

I mean, you know, to the extent that there are Republicans who believe things in Washington, many of them still believe the things that they believed when they were elected.

And that was a long time ago.

And they were Ronald Reagan Republicans and George Bush Republicans, more traditional Republicans.

They didn't want to fight.

The thing that really surprises me though goes to what Asma said.

They're not fighting him on rule of law questions.

They're not fighting him on separation of powers questions.

These are fundamental issues, challenging the president or even raising questions in public about what the president is doing on those sort of core constitutional questions.

KAITLAN COLLINS: Or their job.

STEPHEN HAYES: Or their job, eagerly giving away congressional prerogatives.

ASMA KHALID: But doesn't it seem like Democrats have also struggled, I think, at least in the initial weeks, with how to respond?

And maybe that goes back to the question of speed and just -- I mean, there's so much happening at the same time but I was surprised that Democrats -- JEFFREY GOLDBERG: So, you're most surprised at the speed of the demolition?

ASMA KHALID: I think the speed of it, right?

And we're not just talking about -- I mean, look, in his first term, it felt like he was operating on the margins of institutions.

I mean, now you're talking about sort of virtually dismantling USAID, Department of Ed.

These are like institutions and agencies that have existed in Washington for decades.

And I'm just surprised by the scope and the depth of that.

I guess, look, I'll also say that I'm surprised by the ways in which DOGE has operated and gone into sort of all across government.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: DOGE was not -- ASMA KHALID: I didn't anticipate that, that we didn't hear about on the campaign.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: What's the Monty Python line?

No one's expecting -- no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

No one expected DOGE, I think, right?

That was -- ASMA KHALID: I don't know.

Maybe people did.

I did not -- ASHLEY PARKER: The president's top advisers expected this.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Yes.

Well, that's always the case.

Kaitlan any thoughts on just the thing that really took you by surprise?

KAITLAN COLLINS: Well, I just think at this moment -- here's the thing I think to reflect on when it comes to 100 days, is they have been - - and this is the view of the White House.

This is not something that I came up with.

This is what I've heard from multiple people is, the first 100 days has been the easy stuff for them, the executive orders, the fights with the courts, just battle it out in the court, we'll play it out later.

All of those things are coming to a head.

The courts are getting involved in this now.

It's going up to the Supreme Court in several instances.

All of that is playing out.

They very well may not win, and they're also getting to the more difficult issues when it comes to what's happening legislatively with his tax bill, what all of this is going to look like.

And so in a sense at the White House, they've left the glow and realized they're in the moment where it's going to be a lot more difficult these days.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: A perfect pivot to Ashley, I'll give you the last word, the next 100 days.

We're going to just do this in 100-day increments, because thinking about 1,300 days is a lot.

The next a hundred days significantly harder.

Polling numbers are down for him.

He's very sensitive to that.

Where do you see the real friction points?

ASHLEY PARKER: Well, I think everything was so streamlined in the first 100 days, more or less, and we have started to see the cracks, Signal gate kind of being the first one, that feels a bit more like Trump 1.0, that clown car chaos of it.

And it is less the streamlined, the ruthless efficiency.

And so they're getting into a harder period as they're revealing themselves to have more challenges that have echoes of the more sort of floundering president.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Right.

Well, we'll gather here in another 100 days and we'll make gentle fun of Steve for his idealism and optimism.

But we are going to have to leave it here for now.

I want to thank our guests for joining me, and I want to thank you at home for watching us.