Presidential Historian: Trump Has Tried to Introduce Fear in First 100 Days

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Now, as we’ve been discussing, despite some worrying economic results, President Trump has been taking a victory lap to mark the first 100 days of his second term. Going so far as to say his success surpasses any in U.S. history.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We’re here tonight in the heartland of our nation to celebrate the most successful first 100 days of any administration in the history of our country. And that’s according to many, many people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Well, perhaps not according to our next guest, the presidential historian Timothy Naftali, who puts the Trump presidency in full context for Walter Isaacson.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And Tim Naftali, welcome back to the show.

TIMOTHY NAFTALI, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Thank you. Pleasure to be with you, Walter.

ISAACSON: So, we’re at the a hundred-day mark of the second Trump administration. What’s your take on it so far?

NAFTALI: I think we should assess the Trump hundred days in light of the golden — gold standard for a hundred days. You know, that whole term comes from the first term of Franklin Roosevelt. And Franklin Roosevelt’s main theme was to banish fear from the American space. He wanted to restore the American people’s confidence in American institutions, banks, the federal government. He wanted Americans to feel that they had some capacity — predictive capacity over the future. And by those standards, I think Donald Trump has done the opposite. I think Donald Trump has tried to introduce fear into the American space, fear among American universities, fear among American law firms, fear among international students and recent immigrants, fear among members of the Republican Party on the Hill. So, in that sense, the hundred days that we have witnessed, which have been as active and revolutionary as FDR’s hundred days have had the exact opposite objective. And I think that’s why it’ll be safe to say that liberal and conservative historians in the future will look upon these hundred days as destructive.

ISAACSON: Well, one of the big differences between the hundred days of Franklin Roosevelt and of Trump is that Franklin Roosevelt did most of his work by passing laws through Congress. I think there were 12 major pieces of legislation. Trump has not followed that route. Why? And what does that mean?

NAFTALI: Franklin Roosevelt, even though it the — it was a hundred days a period led by Congress, many people associated this activity with Franklin Roosevelt. And Franklin Roosevelt, in his third fireside chat, after the hundred days, made clear to everyone that what he was doing was in the American tradition, that he was simply implementing laws passed by Congress. So, he too understood that the American tradition was not to have a dictator. Fast forward to our current time, President Trump has sought to act as if he were the only branch of government. We do not live in a dictatorship, but he has acted in the style of a dictator.

ISAACSON: Well, wait, let me stop you there, which is, whose fault is that? I mean, is Congress is the thing not standing up to him?

NAFTALI: Well, he has an encouraged two things. He has gone about his business acting both rhetorically and physically as if there is no other branch of government. And indeed, when branches of government have stood up to him, he has been vicious in denouncing them. We just saw a perp walk of an American judge — a judge. So, when the other branches of government have sought to oppose him, he has not acted in the spirit of Franklin Roosevelt by speaking of the national government, he has talked about the presidency as the seat of all power. So, yes. Whose fault is it that there is a permissive environment for this activity? Of course, it’s the fault of elected Republicans who have been, as we learned from Senator Murkowski, fearful of opposing their president. So, by — that’s why I’m talking about the installation of fear, not simply in private institutions, but in the Republican Party itself.

ISAACSON: Well, let’s go to that Senator Murkowski quote, because it struck me. She said, we are all afraid. We’re in a time and a place. I’ve not been here before. I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice. Retaliation is real. What do you make of that?

NAFTALI: It chills me. It’s a chilling statement by the senator, and it echoes something that Mitt Romney, I think wrote in his diary. It appears in his authorized biography, where he had hired — when he was senator, he had hired security for his family. And he wrote, I think it was during the first impeachment in 2019, that he understood why there were so many of his colleagues who knew that they should be voting for impeachment, but were afraid to because they were afraid of the effect on their families, physical effect. And he said, you know, they can’t afford 24/7 security the way I can. So, that echoed the fear that existed back in the first Trump administration. We saw that also with the way in which the Senate dealt with the confirmations of President Trump’s new cabinet. There were a number of senators who found a way to leak the fact they were not happy with some of President Trump’s choices. For example, secretary — now Secretary Hegseth at the Pentagon or John — or RFK Jr. at Health and Human Services. But in the end, they were so fearful of a primary challenge and I think also fearful of their own supporters that they fell into line.

ISAACSON: Well, wait. There’s a big difference between being fearful of a primary challenge because you voted against the way people in your district may want, or being fearful of physical harm and you got to hire a bodyguard. What do you think this is?

NAFTALI: Well, Walter, let’s make clear that the first branding of this new Trump administration, in my view, was the pardoning of the January 6th felons. When you pardon violent felons, you are sending a signal about law and order in America. And unlike President Andrew Johnson, not one of my favorites, but President Johnson, when he issued a blanket pardon to the leaders of the rebellion in 1868. He did not deny that they had committed a crime. His pardon talks about those who led a rebellion against the lawfully authorized government of the United States. But when Donald Trump issued his pardon, he issued it after he said — after four years of injustice, making the point that the January 6th insurrection was just. So, when you set that kind of tone, you are inviting vigilantism. I’m not saying that Donald Trump wants it. I want everyone to understand, I’m talking about a spirit here. But there are many Americans who might be troubled, who might see the way in which the president is speaking of January 6th as license to engage in violence against those who oppose Donald Trump.

ISAACSON: One of the historical comparisons that comes to mind is with Andrew Jackson, who very much was a populous expanding executive power. And in one of his actions, which was removal of Native Americans, the Indian removal, it’s almost, in some ways, echoes the removal of unauthorized immigrants that Trump is trying to do. And when the Supreme Court said, don’t do that to Jackson, just like they’ve just said it, don’t do that to Trump, the tale is that Jackson basically intimated Chief Justice Marshall has made his decision. Now, let us see him enforce it. Do you worry that Trump may just defy like that Supreme Court?

NAFTALI: I don’t know what Donald Trump will do when push comes to shove, because I anticipate Donald Trump will lose a series of very important cases. I suspect, I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on television, but I do know something about federal assistance to universities. I think Donald Trump’s DOJ will lose the case against Harvard. I suspect he’s going to lose the case regarding birthright citizenship. I assume he’s going to lose some of the immigration cases. He’s already started to lose them. And I think there will be enormous pressure from the MAGA wing on this president to defy the courts. And I cannot predict what Donald Trump will do. I hope that he will conclude that he can’t defy the courts, but I can’t predict that because this Donald Trump is an unleashed, unplugged Donald Trump from the person we saw in the first term. The first term Donald Trump accepted having people around him who could dissuade him from his impulses. In the second term, Donald Trump made clear in the campaign, by the way, that he wanted no guardrails. He wanted no so-called adults. He wanted unfiltered Trumpism in his second term. Whether or not unfiltered Trumpism means defying the court and talking like Jackson is something to be seen.

ISAACSON: What happens if he does defy a court order? Who could step in? We know the FBI is pretty much under his control, even to some extent it seems the top officers of the military, the U.S. attorney maybe in Washington, is a loyalist. Who could step in?

NAFTALI: Under my understanding of constitutional tradition, there isn’t anyone who can step in. Because we have three equal branches. The Supreme Court has a marshal service to protect the lives of the Supreme — members of the Supreme Court. And thank goodness. In this very pitched, dangerous moment it’s very important for us to have a Supreme Court that doesn’t have to worry about its physical security. But the Supreme Court doesn’t have an army. One salutary — one sign of hope is that in our country, when you take an oath — the oath of office, you take it to the Constitution. And even though Donald Trump doesn’t accept the norm, that — or might not accept the norm that the president must defer to the Supreme Court on matters of the Constitution, it is not clear that the leadership of the U.S. military would accept the commander in chief’s interpretation of this norm. I am not suggesting, nor do I wish that the U.S. military should have to intervene to preserve our Constitution because that puts us in a category of nations that where we do not wish to be. But keep in mind that the leaders of our military do not give an oath to the president, it’s to the Constitution.

ISAACSON: But wait do you worry then about the way he changed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the way he put a somewhat unconventional pick as Secretary of Defense all loyalists to him?

NAFTALI: Yes. I worry, I worry deeply, Walter, one of the lessons of of studying the periods in our history when we’ve had quasi authoritarians in power, is that the system can correct itself or right itself. And usually it rights itself because members of, of the, I don’t wanna use the term elite, but a among among those with power and influence in our society, come to an a bipartisan understanding that that authoritarian action threatens the fabric of, of who we are, of our society. And so, in 1974, you had elected Republicans come to the conclusion that Richard Nixon had to go. In the 1950s you had elected Republicans who came to the conclusion that Joe McCarthy’s reign of terror had to end. That’s how our system works. It, it, it doesn’t work because the opponents to the president succeed.

ISAACSON: Are you seeing some signs that that could happen? Are there things changing?

NAFTALI: Not yet. I saw glimmers of this when a few Republican senators decided to send a, a note of dis disapproval of the president regarding tariffs on Canada. But, but those senators understood that they lacked the power to change the president’s approach on tariffs towards Canada. But they did send a signal. What I’m seeing, though, are the beginnings of a retrenchment on the part of the President that indicate to me that the president’s, president and his inner team think they might be losing popular support. So we are seeing the president pull back a little bit on the issue of international students. We are, we are, it’s not quite clear what’s gonna happen to the Liberation Day tariffs, which have been universally denounced for being stupid, besides being high. They, they don’t actually have any economic logic attached to them, and the public isn’t buying them. The president’s approval ratings on the economy are lower than they have been, I believe they’re lower than they were in the first term, on the economy. So the president himself is retrenching a little. So I see a little bit of institutional pushback on the hill. I see a lot more institutional pushback on the part of universities and some law firms. So we are beginning to see a reawakening of the American constitutional order. But let’s be fair, let’s be clear about this. For the first two thirds of this hundred days, it, it appeared that the American constitutional system was asleep, and the President was acting without any pushback. The situation has changed, and I think will continue to change.

ISAACSON: One of the things that has driven his popularity is he’s tapped into resentments, resentments against the elite that you just mentioned might be there to save us. I think at one point in the campaign rally in 2024 he said, I am your warrior. I am your justice. For those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.

NAFTALI: Yes.

ISAACSON: He’s even pushed retribution against people like Cheney or against the law firms and others. Do you think this spirit of retribution is something that he’s actually tapped into? And how dangerous is that?

NAFTALI: Well, there’s no doubt in my mind that he has tapped into a popular desire for change, and in some cases for retribution. I think the disquiet in our country goes back to the Great Recession and the unequal recovery that American — that regions of this country experienced. I don’t doubt that the pandemic sharpened unhappiness and divisions in our country. I think about, you know, 15, 20 years from now, we’re going to have pandemic studies in various universities because I don’t think we fully absorbed or processed the actual effect, political, cultural, and social of the pandemic on our country, let alone the world. So, yes, there was a lot of disquiet and anger that he could tap into.

ISAACSON: Now, if you look at Nixon’s campaign, he ran on resentments to the elite, so did Andrew Jackson. We’ve had this before.

NAFTALI: He’s — he ran on resentments, but what he didn’t promise was retribution. That’s the key difference. He wanted retribution and he tried to use his government to achieve it but good government Republicans pushed back and wouldn’t allow him to do what he wanted to do with the IRS. You know, the enemy’s list was initially his idea as a tax list and he was never able to implement it. My point simply is that American leaders have tapped into resentment, whether it was resentment in the South for the Civil Rights revolution. Yes. What Donald Trump did that’s so different is that he made retribution his governing philosophy, and he told everyone he would, and now he’s doing it. Now, the question I have for fellow Americans is, is that who we are? Is that how we want to be governed? And I’m not convinced, Walter, that there is a sustainable, broad governing coalition behind a government of retribution. But maybe I’m an optimist. I don’t know.

ISAACSON: Tim Naftali, thank you so much for joining us again.

NAFTALI: Thank you for asking me on. Thank you, Walter.