Full Episode: Washington Week with The Atlantic full episode, 11/22/24

Jeffrey Goldberg: Matt Gaetz's improbable and ultimately impossible nomination soaked up a lot of attention this week. But many of President-elect Trump's other nominees are equally improbable. Tonight, his most controversial appointments and whether the Senate will deny any of them confirmation, next.

Good evening and welcome to Washington Week.

So, Matt Gaetz is out and Pam Bondi, an America First diehard, is Donald Trump's newest pick to be the nation's top law enforcement officer. Gaetz was too much for Trump's Republican allies, and some of his other selections are so controversial that it's an open question if their nominations will also survive. We'll look at some of the most important and most surprising cabinet picks tonight.

Joining me at the table, Laura Barron-Lopez, the White House correspondent for PBS News Hour, Andrew Desiderio is the senior Congressional reporter at Punchbowl News, Zolan Kanno-Youngs is a White House correspondent at The New York Times, and Ashley Parker is a senior national political correspondent with The Washington Post. Thank you all for joining me tonight.

Before we start, I want to note that this is a live show and what we're getting over our phones right now is that one new nomination every 30 seconds from the president-elect's office, a couple of notable people just in the last 10 or 15 minutes, Sebastian Gorka to be the chief counterterrorism adviser in the National Security Council. That's an America first diehard, and a little while ago Russ Vought, who ran or was one of the leading architects of Project 2025, which apparently, according to Donald Trump, had nothing to do with anything. But now the guy who basically ran it is nominated to run the OMB, Office of Management and Budget, which is obviously a central very important role. So, that's interesting and we're going to try to absorb this new data as we go forward.

But I want to start, Laura, with Matt Gaetz. So, it seems like, you know, the chaos is back. You know, I'm trying to figure out what happened here. You know, Trump nominates someone who's plainly unfit and plainly unconfirmable for a very important job, this is the second time Trump has been president. Is there no learning curve here or what happened? Why did it go so sideways so quickly for him?

Laura Barron-Lopez, White House Correspondent, PBS News Hour: Well, this time Donald Trump wanted pure loyalists, people that would do exactly what he wanted. And Matt Gaetz had promised that he would go in, he would chop off heads, he would do anything that the president asked him to. But, ultimately, Matt Gaetz is not necessarily well liked by his colleagues, including a number of Republican colleagues.

Jeffrey Goldberg: That was very diplomatic, I think.

Laura Barron-Lopez: Well, we are on live T.V.

Jeffrey Goldberg: We are.

Laura Barron-Lopez: So, he's not well liked by a number of his colleagues. I mean, one Republican texted me yesterday, problem solved, when he was -- when he withdrew. But it ultimately also came down to the sexual misconduct allegations and the drip, drip from the House Ethics Committee and the fact that there were clearly, potentially more things coming out even after he met with senators and he met with senators this week.

And it was essentially a day later that he realized that the votes were not there. He wasn't going to gain the support, that there were a number of Republican senators that were not going to line up for this nominee. And a lot of it had to do with those sexual misconduct allegations, which, you know, are pretty -- I mean, they're bad. It's detailed that he had sex -- there was women who testified that he had sex with a 17-year-old. And a source close to the committee told me that there was even more in the report that has not come out.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Andrew, quickly, so Gaetz is out not because of his qualifications or lack of qualifications to be attorney general, not because of anything ideological, it's purely the record here that Laura is describing combined with the active dislike on the part of many Republicans for Gaetz, right? This is not ideological and not about experience.

Andrew Desiderio, Senior Congressional Reporter, Punchbowl News: Well, I don't know about that. What I heard from Republican senators in the immediate aftermath of him withdrawing was, number one, relief, that they wouldn't have to take a vote on such a controversial nomination on the floor.

But even some of Donald Trump's closest allies who had been meeting with Gaetz, had been meeting with J.D. Vance, the vice president-elect, who was accompanying Gaetz for those meetings, felt like they were being hung out to dry, essentially, forced to go out there and stump on behalf of a nominee that they knew, that the transition team knew, was not confirmable, right?

And so took a lot of time. Less than 24 hours by the time those meetings wrapped and the time that Matt Gaetz, of course, announced that he was going to withdraw. But this is what you're seeing Senate Republicans do to -- you know, this is their blueprint to try to, I guess, kill a nomination, is not come out publicly against the nominee, not do anything that would anger Donald Trump necessarily, but do these maneuvers behind the scenes and make it clear to Trump either wink, wink nod, nod, or more directly to those in her, in his inner circle that this person is not confirmable, is not going to get 50 votes and let me tell you why. This was a blueprint for Republicans on how to kill a controversial nomination without having to actually vote on it.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Well, it's a nice transition to the subject of Pete Hegseth who's nominated to be secretary of defense. Ashley, I want to ask you about this. But I want to start by noting that this is, in my humble opinion, the most important job in the cabinet for a very simple reason. This person is the president's principal nuclear adviser. The president has sold unilateral authority to use nuclear weapons but the defense secretary is supposed to be right there advising.

And so, you know, you -- this is an area where you want somebody with maximum experience, maximum judgment, prudence, knowledge. And, you know, people don't understand this anymore, I think, but, you know, a president would have ten minutes from the time that NORAD alerts you that there's an actual attack happening to the decision to use nuclear weapons or not.

And so, you know, we're talking about a president, A, who almost got us into a real jam with North Korea by referring to its authoritarian nuclear armed leader as little rocket man, right, and the person that this person wants to be his nuclear adviser, among other things, a defense adviser, is a television morning show host.

Now, there's nothing wrong with hosting a television show, I want to note, but what is the possible argument for this nomination? When they go up to the hill and say, this is the guy, this is the best guy for the most important job in the cabinet, what are they telling senators?

Ashley Parker, Senior National Political Correspondent, The Washington Post: So, bits and pieces, which we're hearing, their argument in part is that he has military experience himself. He's been on the ground, he understands it from sort of a grunt level, and because of that is willing to blow things up, and because we're talking about defense, I don't mean literally, although potentially that as well, but to sort of upend the entire system in a way that Donald Trump wants.

And he has also been public about wanting to get rid of wokism in the military, and that's something that is very appealing. It's not necessarily a qualification, but it's something that is a very compelling argument to a number of Republican senators.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Talk about that. How important was this war against wokism in the military for Trump?

Zolan Kanno-Youngs, White House Correspondent, The New York Times: Very important, right? I mean, and also when it comes to whether or not he can get confirmed, like the big factor is also Trump picked him, right? And sort of showing that loyalty towards Trump is going to be a factor.

Hegseth's statements, you know, weren't just limited also to sort of targeting DEI and wokism. In his writings, he also describes that Marxism also is an enemy that really he has to bring the fight to. The issue is he basically calls everyone a Marxist from those working in public education, to journalists as well.

You know, the president-elect during the campaign wasn't shy about proposing and wanting to use the military against within the United States and targeting political enemies. And when you have someone like Hegseth, who has been so open also in describing people within the country as political enemies, you can see a direct sort of mirroring there of what the president-elect wants.

Jeffrey Goldberg: We've had good defense secretaries and bad defense secretaries throughout modern history. How do you place Hegseth on the experience continuum and knowledge continuum?

Andrew Desiderio: I mean, as low as you could possibly go, to be honest with you. And Republican senators, again, to Zolan's point and Ashley's point, they are focused on this idea that you are going to root out some of the corruption and wokism, as they call it, in the federal bureaucracy, and that that's the most important thing.

Now, I will note that there are a lot of national security hawks in the Senate Republican Conference, Mitch McConnell being one of them, and what they're looking for in a nomination like this is someone who wants to boost defense spending, someone who wants to continue to provide lethal aid to Ukraine. Those are questions that Pete Hegseth is going to face during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, which, by the way, is stacked with a lot of national security hawks both on the left and on the right.

Laura Barron-Lopez: And also Pete Hegseth may now be facing a lot of the attention. I mean, all the attention was focused on Matt Gaetz with his sexual misconduct allegations. Pete Hegseth has his own sexual assault allegations coming out of Monterey. And he says that he was cleared, but that there, again, it appears to be a steady details coming out about that in terms of the sexual assault allegations, and the question is, does that start to make senators or are senators able to use that, to your point, Andrew, as an excuse to not vote for him?

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Let's -- yes, go ahead.

Ashley Parker: Briefly, I was going to say, President-elect Trump is unhappy about that. Not so much the allegations, necessarily, it's the fact that he didn't know about them when he nominated Hegseth.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Well, let's listen to for a minute Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, who was speaking on this subject.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND): It's a pretty big problem given that we have you know, we have a sexual assault problem in our military. I'm not going to prejudge them, but, yes, it's a pretty concerning accusation.

Pete Hegseth, Nominated for Defense Secretary: As far as the media is concerned, I'll keep it very simple, the matter was fully investigated and I was completely clear and that's where I'm going to leave it.

Jeffrey Goldberg: So, Andrew, does he get through?

Andrew Desiderio: Look, I think the senators to watch on this nomination are going to be not just the National Security Hawks, but female Republican senators, like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, who are always the wild cards, but also someone like Senator Joni Ernst, for example. She has so far been quite complimentary of Pete Hegseth as the defense secretary nominee, but she herself has opened up as being a victim of sexual assault when she was in the military.

She served in a combat role. She's very open about her support for women in combat roles. Pete Hegseth is on the record espousing the complete opposite position. She's been asked about that. She's said simply, you know, I'll have to talk to him about that issue, but we'll see if that rises to the level of being a problem for someone like Joni Ernst, who, by the way, does sit on the Armed Services Committee. So, when you think about it at the committee level as well, these nominations have to be favorably reported to the Senate floor first.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Zolan, Mitch McConnell, free man, liberated, right? Are we going to start seeing Senator McConnell, who obviously we know from the record, doesn't like Donald Trump, Trump goads him whenever he possibly can, are we going to see Mitch McConnell sort of lead a lead an insurgent faction now that he's not going to be the Senate leader?

Zolan Kanno-Youngs: I mean, there might be a story of what he does behind closed doors compared to what you see publicly. I thought it was interesting that he was pretty quick to come out with a comment when Gaetz dropped out saying -- kind of complimenting him, saying this was an excellent decision. But you're right, I mean, now that he isn't in the role that we saw the first time Trump was in power in the White House, is now doesn't need to worry about sort of commanding each of the factions of the Senate. We know that he is somebody that is critical of the president-elect, and you are now kind of have the leeway to be more outspoken with that criticism.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Does that ring true with what we know of Mitch McConnell's personality, that all of a sudden he's going to become -- you're shaking your head.

Andrew Desiderio: No, that doesn't align with his personality. However, he has teased in a way that he's going to be more outspoken than he has been over the 18 years that he's been the Senate Republican leader. He told me earlier this year when I interviewed him right after the NATO summit, actually a foreign policy focus interview, that he wants to focus on rooting out what he sees as the dangerous isolationist drift in his party. He referred to the phrase America first and he said that's a phrase you heard in the 20s and 30s. I mean, that's a remarkable statement to make given that the standard bearer of his party, Donald Trump, won his presidential campaign and used that phrase, America First, all throughout his political life.

So, the question is, what will Mitch McConnell do, and will other senators, like Susan Collins, for example, who is very close to Mitch McConnell, and maybe some other national security hawks, like John Cornyn and Roger Wicker, for example, as well, will they move in lockstep with McConnell? Will he be a bellwether?

Laura Barron-Lopez: And that's just baseline, Jeff. Because then you add on the sexual assault allegations, and if it continues to be in the headlines, then that could be a problem for him. I mean, I was talking to a source close to Trump's transition today, who was saying that there is somewhat of a sense that they are having -- they're running into big challenges with Hegseth, and they're starting to get nervous about his possibility with getting confirmed.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Ashley, a larger question about the issue of hawks and isolationism, this cabinet doesn't have a coherence to it, especially on the national security front, Marco Rubio, traditional, almost John McCain-style interventionist hawk. And here's an opportunity for you to elegantly weave in the name Tulsi Gabbard into your answer. But you have a wide range of MAGA, America First, traditional hawks, et cetera. How does it cohere, or does it not have to cohere, because the policy of this administration is whatever Donald Trump says the policy is on any given day?

Ashley Parker: Right, well, that's certainly true. I mean, I would also add the incoming vice president, J.D. Vance, is much more isolationist, who is very much opposed to giving more aid to Ukraine, much like Donald Trump is.

I mean, the coherence, which has nothing to do with a foreign policy worldview, is, first and foremost, loyalty and, you know, unwavering fealty to Donald Trump himself, and then, secondly, a willingness to go in, upend things, destroy things, root out things, specifically what they believe, correctly or incorrectly, is the, you know, quote/unquote, deep state. But I think, at least with these nominees the coherence you will see is them doing Donald Trump's bidding. So, when we're thinking of a world view, the important world view is Donald Trump's.

Jeffrey Goldberg: So, the through line of everything here is loyalty. You know, we were talking before about someone who has not gotten a lot of attention. I just want to mention this because it's so interesting in this context, Mark Whitaker, former attorney general. I think he was attorney general for about ten minutes.

Andrew Desiderio: Acting attorney general.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Former acting attorney general, never confirmed, nominated to be the U.S. ambassador to NATO, has no defense or foreign policy experience or European geopolitics experience. How do we explain that nomination? Is there another explanation apart from, I will do whatever you tell me to do, Mr. President?

Zolan Kanno-Youngs: He was an attack dog on T.V. I mean, he was loyal to the president, but also he was willing to go out and criticize Bob Miller the first time around when Trump was in the White House.

Laura Barron-Lopez: And he's criticized NATO.

Zolan Kanno-Youngs: And he's criticized -- you know, correct. And for the president too, he wants --

Jeffrey Goldberg: But not from a position of being an expert on U.S. defense?

Laura Barron-Lopez: Not from a position necessarily, but he is aligned with Donald Trump on NATO and on the way Trump views American allies.

Jeffrey Goldberg: So, if you were in NATO, you would see this appointment as an ominous sign?

Laura Barron-Lopez: Yes.

Zolan Kanno-Youngs: It is somebody who is going to go and echo what the president-elect has said on the campaign.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Zolan Kanno-Youngs: That other NATO members need to pay their dues, and if they don't, then he will hold it over their head.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Let's come back to Gabbard for a minute. This is one of the oddest of all of the appointments. Not simply because her politics are so discordant from, let's say, the Marco Rubio strain of the party, but because she, at least rhetorically, has aligned herself at various points with not only Vladimir Putin, but Bashar al-Assad, the dictator of Syria. Does this one get through? Anyone should answer.

Andrew Desiderio: I think it's an open question at this point. I mean, the Senate Intelligence Committee, like the Armed Services Committee, is stacked with members on both sides of the aisle who believe in institutions, who believe in the national security tools that are used on a daily basis, things like Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Donald Trump has been railing against. He said, they spied on me and my campaign, which, of course, was not true. She has called for repealing the Patriot Act. She has said that Edward Snowden should be pardoned, that all charges should be dropped against him. There is a unanimous view on Capitol Hill that Edward Snowden did enormous damage to U.S. national security.

So, you're talking about a nominee here who's coming in with open hostility to the intelligence apparatus that she seeks to lead, even when you take a -- you don't consider the fact that her foreign policy views are so far out of the mainstream, not just of the Republican Party, but of our political discourse.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Ashley, one of the interesting sub stories of this is that the nominee to run the CIA, which nominally reports to the DNI, to the director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, was the DNI in the first Trump administration, was considered a true MAGA believer, et cetera, et cetera, but now, compared to Tulsi Gabbard, he looks like an establishment statesman.

Ashley Parker: Right. And it's not just compared to Tulsi Gabbard. It's also worth noting, you know, when you talk about him, people can easily point to, look, he was the director of DNI. Of course, he's qualified to lead the CIA. But what's interesting was Trump put him up in the first term twice to be the director of the DNI. The first time, he had to withdraw, not just because Democrats didn't want him to get through, but because Republicans were incredibly lukewarm on him.

So, he gets through a second time after a second effort, and the concern was he didn't really have any particular experience in this area, that he had overstated what he had done as a prosecutor in Texas, that even as a congressman, he'd shown no interest in this realm.

But, again, you know, they can make an argument that potentially he did serve as DNI director. He did learn on the job. The criticism, of course, is that he politicized the office. But, again, that's not necessarily what the senators want, but that is what Donald Trump wanted and wants. Politicizing the department, all these departments is precisely the point.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. There's so many other people to get to. We have to -- I have to ask the question, does RFK Jr. get through?

Laura Barron-Lopez: I think so. I think because if there is any of these picks that we're talking about that is potentially not going to get through, I think it's either going to be Hegseth or Gabbard. But RFK Jr., there appears to be no indication so far that senators are that opposed to him despite his past rhetoric.

Now, he's someone who, on the more standard side, has said that he wants to go after ultra-processed foods. It's something that I think a lot of people would get behind, but he is an anti-vaxxer. And I've talked to public health experts, pediatricians and vaccinologists who are gravely concerned that just his talk of being anti-vaccines could lead to more children not getting vaccines because their parents decide not to, and could ultimately lead to deaths of children.

Jeffrey Goldberg: No, it leads to more measles. Yes. And, Zolan, have you noticed this, and maybe tell me if I'm wrong, but he's being normalized at a fairly fast rate of speed. You know, it's the, yes, he's anti-vaccine, but he also hates high fructose corn syrup.

Zolan Kanno-Youngs: Right.

Jeffrey Goldberg: I mean, what's happening here?

Zolan Kanno-Youngs: Yes. It was interesting. You had the governor of Colorado as well come out, Democratic governor come out and initially kind of praised this decision, you know, pointing to RFK. Like he was saying, well, look, at least we're going to have somebody that can challenge big pharma.

I was talking to some Democrats about that and I actually think that speaks to like a broader political -- sort of like the political backlash Democrats are facing. They are worried right now that they are -- that for those who may support RFK, voters who support RFK, who may agree with one thing he proposes, or just agree that, you know, they want someone from outside the government to come up and things, that Democrats have alienated those voters.

So, I think part of the normalizing of RFK is actually an attempt to try and win back some of those voters that supported him.

Ashley Parker: Just a horseshoe theory of politics is some of the stuff he says, whether it's rooted in science or not, right, that the far right likes, the far left also comes around and --

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Raw milk has a lot of people on both ends of the spectrum.

Ashley Parker: Yes, wrong raw milk, like liberal mommy bloggers, same with vaccines.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right. Now, listen, there's so many other people to get to. Kristi Noem, we haven't talked about. Dr. Oz, we haven't talked about. I do want to ask about something that seems if you told me ten years ago that a professional wrestling executive would become the secretary of education, I would have laughed, obviously, but, Laura, here we are. Linda McMahon is going to probably get through, I would imagine. I would imagine the president, you know, the Senate Republicans want to let people through when they can, obviously.

What does this say about -- sorry, essay question. What does this say about the merging of -- remember that there is that great line in Gladiator, Russell Crowe, kills 50 different gladiators, and then looks at the emperor, whoever, and says are you not entertained? You know, I mean, I feel like this is the most --

Laura Barron-Lopez: I'm about to see the Gladiator 2.

Jeffrey Goldberg: We're all going to see Gladiator 2 and we could talk about that on our next panel.

Laura Barron-Lopez: Sorry.

Jeffrey Goldberg: We should do that, but -- a special Thanksgiving edition. But what does it say that this kind of just is like, oh, yes, we're just going to have the world wrestling person (INAUDIBLE)?

Laura Barron-Lopez: I mean, again, it goes to Ashley's point, which is that this is about loyalty, blind loyalty to Donald Trump. She's someone that has been in his corner for a while now. And this isn't necessarily the job she initially wanted. You know, she wanted Commerce Department, didn't get it. So, he's like, look, you're a loyal soldier, I'm going to put you at Education Department. Because, ultimately, she will do what he wants her to do.

I mean, what's striking though, is that this is someone who's about to run the Education Department who essentially lied about having a bachelor's degree in education, and she had to resign from an education board in Connecticut because of that, because her resume wasn't up to snuff. She also is involved in a lawsuit. She's accused in a lawsuit of failing to stop a WWE announcer ignoring allegations that he was grooming and sexually abusing children.

Jeffrey Goldberg: No, that's a serious charge, but she probably will still get --

Andrew Desiderio: Yes, absolutely. Republican senators are starting out with deference to Donald Trump's nominees, and the drip, drip is going to change things.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Unfortunately, that's all the time we have. We can talk about this cabinet forever. But I want to thank Laura, Andrew, Zolan and Ashley for joining me at the table. And I want to thank you at home for joining us.

For more on Pete Hegseth's beliefs, please read Jonathan Chait's latest at theatlantic.com.

I'm Jeffrey Goldberg. Good night from Washington.