Inside Jonathan Karl’s Retribution: How Trump Turned Revenge Into a Political Strategy

Jonathan Karl has spent more than a decade at the center of America’s political storm, chronicling Donald Trump’s rise, presidency, and return to office. As ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent and co-anchor of This Week, Karl has reported on every major turn of the Trump era.

In his latest book, Retribution: Donald Trump and the Campaign That Changed America, Karl captures what he describes on Tuesday’s episode of Mediaite’s Press Club as “the greatest comeback in the history of American politics.”

Speaking to Mediaite founding editor Colby Hall, Karl reflected on the origins of his long-running relationship with the president. “I was a reporter for the New York Post,” said Karl. “I first interviewed him in 1994 at Trump Tower — had a big exclusive about Michael Jackson staying there right after he got married to Lisa Marie Presley — and Trump showed me all around. That began a relationship that far predated him as a political figure.”

Today, their relationship remains complex, coupled with the fact that Karl has now written four books on the president — Front Row at the Trump Show, Betrayal, Tired of Winning, and now Retribution. In his words, Trump “became the most famous human being on the planet — the star, the executive producer, and chief publicist of The Trump Show.”

If The Trump Show defined his first term, Retribution captures the sequel. “We’ve gone beyond The Trump Show,” he said. “His return is largely about getting even with those who went after him — legally, politically, or who ostracized him. Think about how he left the White House — social media companies had banned him; he was off Facebook, Instagram, Twitter… He was ostracized, a pariah to corporate America.”

Karl describes that comeback as both extraordinary and unsettling. “It’s the greatest comeback in the history of American politics. Nothing even comes close… In coming back, he’s got scores to settle. This is no longer just about being the center of attention; it’s about getting back at people who tried to screw with him.”

And if Trump’s second act has been marked by revenge, it’s also been defined by an ecosystem that amplifies it. “Flooding the zone is an actual tactic that’s worked for him,” Karl said. “In writing a book, you are going back and looking at all of these events that were coming at you with ten firehoses trying to get a sense of what broke through and what really mattered.”

To Karl, however, his books serve as more than just a reflection. “I felt like I was witnessing something that nobody had ever really seen in American history. I wanted not so much to make a judgment,” he said, but to “give people a sense, years from now, to be able to answer the question, ‘What was it like to be there?'”

He admits the work hasn’t been easy — or universally embraced. “People will say, ‘Yeah, right, he’s nonpartisan.’ I’ve gotten that from both sides — the louder voices are now on the right, but they used to be on the left,” he said.

Yet Karl hasn’t cultivated his relationships in Washington by accident. Many of his most revealing exchanges came from highly coveted sources — Hunter Biden, former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — all of whom spoke to him on the record for Retribution.

Those conversations, he says, reflect why people continue to trust him even when they know his reporting may sting. “I’m going to treat them fairly,” Karl emphasized. “I’m going to accurately represent them. I’m going to try to understand where they’re coming from.”

Fairness, Karl insists, is what earns trust — even from a president known for berating reporters. “I’ve always treated him and his team seriously and with the respect that comes with having won the presidency,” he said. “It’s not my role to be what Trump would say is the opposition party, and he taunts me with that… I get trolled. I’ve also firmly believed that as reporters, we can’t make it about ourselves.”

Karl’s Retribution is on shelves now.

You can subscribe to Press Club on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Read a transcript of the conversation below, edited for length and clarity.

Colby Hall: [Retribution] comes out this week, and you’ve been an expert inside the White House. You’ve been able to thread an impossible needle of maintaining the highest level of access, incredible respect among journalistic peers, and still receive insults from President Trump, which seems to be a badge of courage. How have you done that? That has to have been difficult. How have you been able to maintain all three of those seemingly mutually exclusive characteristics?

Jonathan Karl: The key is from the very beginning. First of all, I had a relationship with Donald Trump that far predated his entry into politics. I was a reporter for the New York Post. I first interviewed him in 1994 at Trump Tower — had a big exclusive about Michael Jackson staying there right after he got married to Lisa Marie Presley — and Trump showed me all around. That began a relationship that far predated him as a political figure.

That’s part of it, but more importantly, I’ve always treated him and his team seriously and with the respect that comes with having won the presidency. It’s not my role to be what Trump would say is the opposition party, and he taunts me with that. His people sometimes do. I get trolled. I’ve also firmly believed that as reporters, we can’t make it about ourselves. Who cares if he insults me? I’m not going to stand up there and say, “How dare you!” I don’t care. I try not to let it— of course, things bother you when somebody says something horrible about you, but I’m like, whatever. I’m just doing the job. And I think they also see that even when they don’t like my reporting, I’m accurate and fair.

Right. I’m fascinated by the psychological profile of getting called out on Truth Social. That has to have some dissonance because, in some ways, it’s recognition — like touché, you’ve touched him — but also at the same time, he’s got a massive following, and there has to be a moment of, “Oh crap, the president is calling me out.” I know you say that you don’t care, but walk me through that process — you must think, “I’m part of the news cycle now,” which I suspect you don’t necessarily want to be.

I always hate it. Not because I’m getting attacked, but because there’s a tendency for me to then become part of the story. Also, when you’re attacked — whether on social media or on live television — there’s a follow-on effect. You get threats, and terrible things are said about you. I try to compartmentalize and not pay attention to it. It definitely happens. But I also know that, for the most part, Trump doesn’t really mean it.

There was an incident in the Oval Office a few weeks ago where he really went after me. I was asking about free speech, and Pam Bondi was going to go after hate speech, and some of his own allies were saying, “Whoa, even hate speech is free speech.” I asked a series of questions about that. He really went after me. As I said, I’m used to it.

But as soon as it was over — as the press pool was being ushered out — Trump motioned to me. I walked toward the Resolute Desk, and he said, “We’re okay, we’re good.” And I said to him, “You were pretty tough there.” He said, “Oh no, you were tough.” And as I walked out, you can hear him on the pool feed saying, “Thank you, Jonathan. Thank you, Jon.” This was after he’d gone after me like he hated me, but then he was smiling and joking.

Do you think that’s a kind of battered spouse effect? Or is it more performative, like pro-wrestling — trying to put on a show and keep you in line? Or does he truly believe it? If anyone has some insight on that, it’s you. What do you make of that? Is it all for show, or is he trying to let you know you’re stepping out of line and you’re going to lose access?

My first book was called Front Row at the Trump Show, and that came out during the first Trump administration. And my point was that he viewed his entire presidency as the world’s greatest reality show. And by that metric, it was the most successful the world had ever seen. He became the most famous human being on the planet — I said he was the star of The Trump Show, the executive producer, and chief publicist. So part of it is that. In a show, you need different characters and conflict.

I think it’s a little different in the second term. We’ve gone beyond The Trump Show. It still drives him, but the title of this book is Retribution, and I track his return to power. His return is largely about getting even with those who went after him — legally, politically, or who ostracized him. Think about how he left the White House — social media companies had banned him; he was off Facebook, Instagram, Twitter.

He was not in a good place.

Major corporations in America had said, “Not only are we not going to give money to Donald Trump, we’re not going to give money to any Republican who voted to challenge the election results,” which is, of course, what Donald Trump wanted. He was ostracized, a pariah to corporate America — and he came back, in what you have to say is the greatest comeback in the history of American politics. Nothing even comes close. Richard Nixon lost the presidential election, lost the governor’s race — that’s kids’ play. This was done, and he came back, but in coming back, he’s got scores to settle. This is no longer just about being the center of attention; it’s about getting back at people who tried to screw with him.

Before we get into Retribution, let’s talk about the ‘opiniotainment’ media ecosystem. Without some very favorable outlets — independent podcasts, cable networks, social media influencers — it seems to me that Trump couldn’t have done that on his own. That seems to flout traditional journalistic standards. We’re in a weird media space as a result. What do you make of that?

People have talked about this since he first started running. I did the first network interview with Donald Trump of the 2016 cycle — in August 2013, two years before he came down the escalator. I went to Iowa; it was a slow news week, and I figured, “What the hell?” It was for This Week. We aired five minutes of it; I spent half an hour with him. It was a good and interesting conversation.

There was one part of the interview that we ended up not airing. I asked him, in 2013, if he were to run for president, what his campaign slogan would be. He said, “Make America Great Again.” I was mostly asking him about the other candidates, what he thought about the Democrats. I went through and asked him about Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan.

He was politics-curious at that point? He wasn’t fully in?

Yes. I took some heat for that interview — people asked why I was taking him seriously. They thought he’d never run and was just boosting ratings for The Apprentice. But he was going to Iowa, getting quite a reception — I thought it was worth talking to him. He became quite a spectacle over the years after he announced he was running. Cable news, especially CNN, was carrying his speeches live — even broadcasting the empty podiums before he spoke. People wanted to see. It was interesting.

You had these formulaic candidates, whether it be Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, who would give the same speech over and over, who did precious few interviews, who were very disciplined in what they were saying. Then you had Trump — freewheeling. There was entertainment value. I told you before we started this interview. I hate talking about the press.

You’re in the wrong interview, my friend.

And I hate when people say, “But what about the media?” I’m like, “What the hell is the media?” Is it Brian Glenn? But I’ll take this as the media — meaning the mainstream or legacy press — there was massive coverage of Donald Trump because it was a spectacle.

It was unique.

Covering someone who is making a splash like that is fine, but there wasn’t enough investigative reporting. Do you remember the group American Bridge? They do opposition research on Republican candidates. They produced a book — I have the hard copy — at the beginning of the 2016 cycle that had a chapter on all the major Republican candidates. You could go through and see…

…who kicked their dog.

Yeah. All those names: Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Jeb, Marco. No chapter on Donald Trump. They had nothing on Trump! Do you know why? Because they didn’t think he would run. They didn’t take him seriously. I think there was a little bit of that across the board. Before the presidential cycle, there’s a lot of investigative work that goes into all potential candidates. Not many people — not just the media — were thinking Trump was actually going to be a candidate. Therefore, by the time investigative work was done, he was already the runaway favorite for the GOP nomination.

I remember being at a dinner party in 2016 and his name came up, and the host said, “It’s a waste of time. Don’t even talk about it. It’s never going to happen.”

Yeah, and so was it that everyone was talking about it, or nobody was talking about it?

I would say you’re in the upper echelon of those who have access and report fairly — top-tier White House access people. You get criticism from the right because Trump insults you, and criticism from the left because they think you’re adding fuel to the fire. It’s almost like Trump has this jiu-jitsu effect on the media — letting them fall into his trap. Someone says something critical, and he can point to them. I guess your goal is to just keep it serious, but there must be moments when you can’t believe the stuff coming out of his or his minions’ mouths.

What I do is very different than if I ran a cable network — thank God I don’t. Then you’re deciding — he’s going to do an hour in the Oval Office just pontificating. Are you carrying that live? Is that journalism? Those are different questions. Thank God I don’t have to make any of those decisions.

Have you been to Mediaite.com? It’s something that I really struggle with. We’ve evolved into a place that answers the question, “What have I missed?” That plays right into Trump’s definition of the attention economy. By taking him seriously and covering his every whim, you can’t ignore him — but it’s also a wonderful distraction. The economy isn’t stronger today than a year ago, but that’s not being discussed.

Flooding the zone is an actual tactic that’s worked for him.

That’s almost an understatement — exponentially flooding the zone with fire hoses of every level. It’s insane. There almost needs to be a triage as a reporter, like what’s meaningful versus a distraction? How do you process that?

There are two ways to look at that. I wear two different hats here. One is covering him as a journalist, day-to-day, and as co-anchor of a Sunday show that has a rhythm — looking back at the week and making sense of what mattered, talking to key newsmakers, that’s one thing. But as a journalist who writes books, I never thought that I would be writing four books about this political era. I was dragged a little bit, kicking and screaming, to write the first one. There was a book agent — his name is David Larabell — who was trying to get me to write a book since before Trump came into office. You’re so busy with the day-to-day, it’s like, “Where am I going to find the time to do this?”

One day, he came to Washington and took me out for breakfast. Before we even ordered coffee, he slipped a piece of paper across the table. I looked at it, and it said ‘Front Row at the Trump Show.’ He said, “That’s your title, just do it.” And I did. I threw my heart and soul into writing that book. My motivation at that moment was that I felt like I was witnessing something that nobody had ever really seen in American history. I wanted not so much to make a judgment…

You weren’t preaching to a choir, which is rare.

I wanted to give people a sense, years from now, to be able to answer the question, “What was it like to be there?” But once I did that, I realized that that’s one way you deal with the tonnage. You take a step back and write a book. In writing a book, you are going back and looking at all of these events that were coming at you with ten firehoses…

The proverbial 30,000-foot view.

…trying to get a sense of what broke through and what really mattered. It’s tough. On a day-to-day basis, it’s really tough.

There’s a blurb on your book that I want to read because it’s really remarkable: “An exceptionally brilliant portrait of how politics pulled America kicking and screaming into 2025 by one of the best, toughest, nonpartisan reporters the U.S. is very fortunate to have.” That’s from someone named Bob Woodward — I’m not familiar with him. No, he’s legendary and not typically effusive. Congratulations. That’s high praise. The thing that stands out for me is that your books are becoming canon and are nonpartisan, which is exceptionally rare and I think adds value. When you say you write books that give the big view, there also has to be a sense of logic and reason. Those are not partisan beliefs, but some think they are. How have you maintained that voice in an increasingly divided us-against-them media ecosystem?

It’s tough, and people will say, “Yeah, right, he’s nonpartisan.” I’ve gotten that from both sides — the louder voices are now on the right, but they used to be on the left. Remember when I was the Chief White House Correspondent covering Barack Obama? I was asking some of the most pointed and toughest questions in the briefing room and breaking stories about things like all the problems with the Affordable Care Act and the website, and issues with how the stimulus funds were spent, and all that stuff. I was criticized pretty harshly from the left, and now it’s from the MAGA right. But look, I think it’s just about knowing that people are going to talk to me. I’m going to treat them fairly. I’m going to accurately represent them. I’m going to try to understand where they’re coming from.

Let me give you an example. In this book, there are a number of people who spoke totally on the record — people who often don’t, not in the way they did for this book. Hunter Biden, whom I was talking to over the course of the campaign, and whom I sat down with before the election, and after his father dropped out. I went out to California because I wanted to talk to him before we knew who had won the election — I didn’t want it colored by who was going to win or lose. I spent multiple hours with him, just the two of us, going through everything about the campaign. Why Hunter Biden? Because Hunter Biden was the one person who was talking to Joe Biden virtually every day, multiple times a day, throughout all of it.

It seemed like Hunter kind of became his spirit animal — his muse, his cheerleader.

And Hunter wasn’t giving interviews, wasn’t talking to people, but I developed this relationship. At the same time, I was talking to Bannon constantly, except for the four months when he was in prison. I had hours and hours of conversations with Bannon after he got out. So sometimes I had to coordinate both of those conversations. And then I’m talking to Bobby Kennedy — there’s Bobby Kennedy on the record. Nancy Pelosi agreed to do an interview with me before the election. Again, it was important to me to get people’s observations before we knew the results, because then things get colored. She agreed to sit down with me for an extensive interview, as long as it was going to be used after the next president was sworn in, for the book. So, why do those people talk to me? Because they know that I want to talk to them, not because I want to get them — I want to know where they’re coming from.

You’re reporting. You’re doing journalism. You’re trying to find the story underneath the story so that when it actually breaks, you will have created a realistic narrative in the eyes of history. That’s fascinating. Looking back at that time, this last election was unlike any other.

And of course, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s Original Sin came out — and I think they would admit — that could only have been written after the election, when everyone knew the outcome. History is written by the winners, right? If Kamala had won, no one would have wanted to say anything against their own party because they’d want to maintain their status and their access, and their jobs.

And by the way, what I did is — probably half the interviews for this book, maybe more — were done after the election. But there were key players I wanted to talk to before we knew what was going to happen, so it wouldn’t be colored.

What do you make of the cognitive decline story? I think it was self-evident to anyone really watching, particularly over the last year and a half. I think a lot of the media deserves some criticism for maybe being too kind, but it also almost felt like elder abuse. Fox News, for example, covered it extensively, but it was kind of akin to pointing and laughing at a guy falling off a bike. But there was very little reporting underneath that. Are you circumspect at all about your reporting in that time, with the wisdom of hindsight?

Yeah, I think everybody should look back and be critical about how we did anything, especially in this era. I have a slightly different take on the Biden story. There was a lot of reporting on Biden, and I think there’s a whole Shakespearean drama surrounding his decision to drop out and what happened there.

Well, you report that basically he was really isolated — that he wasn’t even including Jeff Zients, his chief of staff…

…in the meeting where he decided to pull the plug, which is stunning. He didn’t call Zients until after he decided to get out. “By the way, Jeff, I’m out of the race.”

“By the way, Chief of Staff, you might want to dust off your résumé.”

“Just FYI.” Yeah, it’s really interesting. But look, I don’t think there was a big cover-up regarding Joe Biden. I think everybody saw what was happening on the television screen. I recount in the book sitting down with Chris Coons, who was Biden’s co-chair and a friend, the Sunday after the CNN debate — the debate was on Thursday. He was trying to tell me that the campaign was actually doing better after the debate. “Yeah, our fundraising is up, the instant polling shows people thought Trump was lying,” and I’m like, “Dude, really?”

So to me — and I’m pretty pointed about this in the book — I say he was kind of like ‘Baghdad Bob’, Saddam Hussein’s spokesperson, who was giving a press conference as American troops were rolling into Baghdad, claiming “The infidels will be defeated.” There were major players within the Democratic Party turning their eyes away and not talking about what the world was seeing.

But I don’t think the idea that Biden was somehow totally out of it behind the scenes, in a way beyond anything you saw in front of the cameras, is true. I don’t think that’s the case.

He had lost a step, he had stiffened — it was clear to anyone — but he wasn’t repeatedly saying that Canada should be our 51st state. Every elected president ends up in what I call the bubble of sycophancy — surrounded by yes-men. Moving back to Trump…

Before we move back to Trump for a second, I want to make one point about Biden that’s important and that I really document in this book. Biden’s interactions with Donald Trump, beginning with the shooting in Butler and ending with January 20th at the inauguration, are fascinating. I spent a lot of effort reporting on what the two of them were saying — and in some cases, I talked to people who literally overheard the conversations and phone calls.

Sort of like after the assassination attempt?

Yes, exactly. The kind of almost camaraderie those two had is entirely at odds with the way Trump talks about Biden — and frankly, the way Biden talks about Trump as well. One thing about Biden that’s underappreciated — his presidency is going to get a harsh look from historians — but the way he handled the transition with a guy who refused to follow any precedent was quite significant.

He showed grace where Trump didn’t.

He showed grace, and he was honorable. And he was very much with it while doing all of that. He met with Trump for two and a half hours in November in the Oval Office, and the only people present besides Trump and Biden were Jeff Zients and Susie Wiles.

That’s fascinating. I want to go back to the book. Over the weekend, your notes from Vice President Mike Pence’s calendar broke. I suspect that when you’re a human being who is working hard to get scoops, when that landed, you must have been thrilled. Like, “Oh, wow, this is something new.” This is an archive of history that you will break for the first time. Tell us how that came about.

It’s an extraordinary historical document. Despite all the primetime January 6th hearings, despite all of the reporting that has been done, this has never been seen. It’s a fascinating document to see, because it’s literally on a Day-Timer, a paper calendar that says January 6th. It’s Pence’s handwritten notes from his conversation with Trump right before he goes up to the Capitol, and right before the mob breaks in and starts calling for Pence’s execution. “Hang Mike Pence.” You see that it’s obviously a very tense call.

He writes, “You will go down as a wimp. I made a big mistake five years ago when I chose you as my running-mate.” There’s one point on the notes where Pence writes a sad-face, angry-face emoji. Look, a big part is that I have had some very good help with this book — my colleagues at ABC, Declan Garvey, who is with The Dispatch. This was a monumental effort, the biggest reporting challenge I’ve ever done. Katherine Faulders at ABC is one of the best reporters there is in Washington. She has done just absolutely remarkable work on the investigations, on the legal trail, and was a big part of getting that across the line.

That’s great. Good for her. What’s a moment in the book that will surprise people most, or even most surprised you to learn in the reporting? For me personally, reading about the transition show at Mar-a-Lago — Steve Bannon was trying to get messages to Boris Epshteyn from Danbury via code. The way you lay out how this parade of very powerful people was bending the knee to this guy who had all of the power, suddenly, was really fascinating to read.

I love the Mar-a-Lago transition scene. There was a sense — and a lot of commentary at the time — that Trump was so much more disciplined than last time, that Susie Wiles really has the trains running on time, that he’s making his announcements of who he intends to nominate so much quicker. In reality, the process was just unbelievable. It was like Grand Central for political influence at Mar-a-Lago.

In a scene in that lobby — what they call the living room at Mar-a-Lago — I describe that a candidate for Attorney General was sitting next to a candidate for another cabinet post that I can’t say. You’ve got Pete Hegseth moseying past. The people on the couch are thinking that Pete Hegseth is there to interview Trump because he’s the Fox weekend anchor, and he wouldn’t be there for a job. And then he ends up getting announced the next day as the Defense Secretary nominee.

Secretary of War.

I’m sorry. You’ve got Kash Patel vying for the FBI, and Trump is skeptical at first. Kash Patel is waiting in the lobby so that when Trump walks in and out, he can do the elevator pitch as he’s walking across — all these scenes. And then there’s a yacht in the Intracoastal Waterway, just down from Mar-a-Lago, owned by a guy named John Rich, who’s a retired coal magnate. It’s the unofficial, ‘True Believer of MAGA’ transition team. I write about this, and I go visit the yacht. There’s stuff going on that’s just mind-blowing.

And of course, the Boris Epshteyn drama and how he gets targeted, almost gets fired — briefly does seem to be fired and locked out— and then he’s back within days. The whole scene is quite remarkable. Let me give you two very quick things.

When Pelosi meets with Biden, after she goes on Morning Joe and sticks the knife in and says, “He has to make a decision.” The guy has already decided he’s staying in. It’s the last real conversation that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have had. It’s in July of 2024. It’s a secret meeting — nobody knows it’s happening, not even the West Wing staff. One of Biden’s close family friends and aides, Annie Tomasini, was really the only one who knew. She made it so that Pelosi could arrive secretly, not through the West Wing, but through the residence — the East Wing, before it was destroyed. She comes in. I describe the meeting, where it was. It was in a room called the Yellow Oval, which is upstairs with a sweeping view of the South Lawn, the Truman Balcony. At the end of the meeting, keep in mind, there are only two people in this meeting — they are both Catholics.

Traditional, old-school.

They break out rosaries. Each one of them has a rosary with them.

Oh, wow.

And they say a prayer together. So that’s a very poignant scene for me, and now they’re enemies forever. But before they part ways, they have this moment, breaking out the rosary beads and saying a prayer.

That’s stunning. Getting back to the White House press team, you mentioned the rumor that under Susie Wiles, Team Trump’s second term is way more professional. From my perspective, it seems like the White House comms team is way more disciplined. They are way more buttoned-up. And yet they are so aggressively leaning into trolling their opponents in a really petulant and immature way. How should America, or the press corps, handle that? They don’t seem to take themselves too seriously, but they’re doing a really good job of mocking people in a mean-spirited way.

Let me surprise you a little bit. I think Karoline Leavitt is the most effective press secretary that Trump has had. There are two things that you look for in a press secretary. Does the press secretary actually have access and know what they’re talking about? Do they know where the president’s mind is at? Because you have some press secretaries who are very good at interacting with the press, but they don’t have any idea what’s actually happening. She does both. Sure, there’s all the trolling, but she reflects her boss. So if you’re furious and angry at Karoline Leavitt — how she speaks, what she says, her trolling — she is reflecting the person that she works for.

Right. That’s why he loves her.

He absolutely loves her. I don’t think there is a press secretary that he has had that he has more confidence in.

She’s a clear expression of Trump-ism.

Seriously. Sarah Huckabee Sanders understood, but I think that Karoline Leavitt — she works for somebody. Now, I can get up on my high horse about something that is absolutely true; the press secretary gets a paycheck from the taxpayer, from the U.S. government, and is there to speak on behalf of not just the political figure of the president, but the executive branch of the United States government, but we’re in an age where Trump has taken command of the executive branch in a way that no other…

Arguably, the legislative branch as well.

Is that still around? So look, I think that if you want to get furious at Karoline, then you need to direct your attention to her boss.

She’s a reflection of the boss. Last question: Third term?

I think that they’re trolling on that. You’ve got to pay attention to it. By the way, just a quick insight on that, Bannon is really the guy who started this thing.

He’s driving it.

He started it before Trump was sworn in. I think that the real reason why Bannon started it is because he was trolling J.D. Vance. He doesn’t want to give J.D. Vance a chance to get started on his own campaign to replace Trump, because if you’re seriously saying, “It’s going to be Trump again,” why is this guy preparing? So I think that’s how it started.

What I don’t know is: How does Trump walk away, and when? Because the minute he says, “Okay, I’m officially not running again,” I mean, the Constitution says he can’t, but “I’m officially not running and I endorse Marco Rubio,” or “I endorse J.D. Vance,” then the attention is on somebody else.

That won’t play well for him.

So I’m not sure when that happens, or how that happens. So, you have to watch it, but…

I saw a tweet that Mick Mulvaney said, “Trump, of course, will concede power gracefully if he loses in 2021,” and now, people cite that when they say, “Ignore the third-term stuff.” Well, we’ve been there before.

I personally feel like it’s performative trolling, pro-wrestling stuff. I love the concept that he’s trying to keep J.D. Vance in his place, but also, the bigger question that you just asked is, what does the next president look like? I recall a New Yorker article that had an illustration of Bill Clinton dressed like a Hollywood executive. Bill Clinton defined himself more as an ex-president than he did as a president. With Trump, it’s impossible to see him not being the main guy.

One thing I reported in Betrayal was that as Trump was getting more and more out there in challenging the election results, some of his people were like, “C’mon, it’s time to move on. Biden won.” One thing they were trying to do, to give him something else to worry about, was his presidential library. They were showing him plans — he didn’t want any part of it, he had no interest in it. Fighting the election results was everything. Now, he is actually. He’s certainly raising some money for this library. He has a big plane to feature in this library.

Jonathan Karl, the book is Retribution. Thank you for coming in.