Jeffrey Goldberg: Let me play you something.

This is from Wednesday.

I thought this was fairly remarkable.

This is the president the day after the election.

Listen.

Donald Trump, U.S.

President: The kitchen is underneath because if I put the kitchen on top -- we have large staircases coming from the kitchen.

If I put the kitchen on top, you would lose three walls, because the kitchen takes about 30 percent of the space.

So, the kitchen is all the space that you have right underneath, and it's going to be top of the line.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Interestingly, we had the same problem in our house.

We used the sliding doors to get to the kitchen to the dining room.

And if anybody's looking for advice at the White House I'm here.

But what struck me, Leigh Ann, is that, I couldn't understand, was this his way of trying to deflect from Tuesday?

Did he not fully understand what just happened to him and to the party he ostensibly leads on Tuesday?

Does he not care and is this -- going to Steve's point, this is what he cares about.

What was going on there?

Leigh Ann Caldwell, Chief Washington Correspondent, Puck: I mean, I think that this is his happy space.

This is where he's most comfortable.

When you have a bad day, you do what makes you feel good, and I think going to visit a construction site is exactly what that is for Donald Trump, you know?

But the fact -- it was also very telling, it was odd that that's what he's talking about the day after the election, but it's telling.

The fact that he was so intricately aware of the details of what walls would have to be moved, of where the kitchen is, shows what he has been focused on when, you know, the party was hoping he would be focused on winning.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes, right.

Adam Harris, Host, Radio Atlantic: And on top of the fact that he was at the Reflecting Pool on Monday talking -- like the idea that he was not focused on the issues that the rest of the country cared about.

He wasn't focused on affordability.

He wasn't focused on ending the war in Iran because he has these pet projects.

Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent, The New York Times: After Bush loses the Congress in '06, he comes out and says it was a thumping.

He acknowledges the defeat.

After 2010, when Obama loses the Congress, or the House he says it was a shellacking.

He acknowledges the defeat.

You heard nothing like that from Trump this week.

In fact, the clip you played is him at his most engaged, at his most energetic.

He gave a speech tonight in Florida.

He was very flat, about space policy, barely acknowledged there was an election.

He seems a little dazed, a little confused, uncertain about what this means.

He may have actually fooled himself into thinking that the polls were all fake, as he told us, and maybe he didn't expect it to be as bad as it was.

But he hasn't yet found his footing.

Jeffrey Goldberg: So, what does he do for the next two years of his presidency, apart from worrying about where the kitchen walls are in the ballroom kitchen?

I mean, this is the biggest subject of all, A, what he wants to do with his remaining two years.

He still runs the executive branch.

He's still the commander-in-chief.

And what do the Democrats who are going to run in Congress do to contain -- let's say that we're - - you're all correct, and that Miller is this concentrated version of MAGA.

What do -- how did, what power do they have to contain that?

Stephen Hayes, Editor, The Dispatch: I mean, not much.

I mean, we all expect that they're going to launch a number of investigations or maybe an impeachment effort related to Pete Hegseth.

I would imagine there would be an impeachment effort with the new Congress on President Trump.

I think the question about the president is does he sort of continue to check out and sort of back out and turn the White House over to Stephen Miller?

I don't think that's inconceivable.

He doesn't seem to be engaged in the job anyway.

We all know that there are many aspects of the job he didn't like.

He would rather watch commentary on Fox News than participate in some of the cabinet meetings, some of the things that you do as president.

It seems to me entirely possible that he just steps further back and Stephen Miller steps into the void.

Jeffrey Goldberg: And where does J.D.

Vance fit into that formula?

Stephen Hayes: He's going to be tweeting.

Jeffrey Goldberg: He's going to be posting tweets?

Stephen Hayes: Long posting on Twitter analysis, pundit.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Leigh Ann, talk a little bit about the Democrat -- I mean, first of all, should we, is it safe to assume at this table tonight, that Hakeem Jeffries is fine?

Leigh Ann Caldwell: Yes.

Jeffrey Goldberg: And that Chuck Schumer is fine?

Leigh Ann Caldwell: Yes.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Okay.

So, Jeffries and Schumer, what do they -- what power do they have to contain?

What power do they not have?

What is their strategy going forward?

Leigh Ann Caldwell: So, it's going to be really interesting to watch.

If you remember back in Trump 1.0, there were all these meetings with Pelosi and Schumer in the Oval, and there was a lot of theatrics, attempts to try to do something with Congress.

I don't know if there's going to be any of that.

I think that the president is going to dictate a lot of that, not necessarily based on how engaged he wants to be.

He didn't care about Congress when his party was in charge.

After they passed the one big, beautiful bill, he said, we have done everything we need to do legislatively.

And so I expect the president to continue to govern from the executive branch, focused on his things and what the Democratic leaders are going to do.

They're going to try to pass bill after bill after bill that addresses the issues that they think people care about regarding healthcare, housing, affordability, tariffs, ending the Iran war.

And we'll see where it goes and what the president does with it if it reaches his desk.

Then there's the whole investigative side of it as well, and the challenge for Democrats is, do you investigate without that overtaking the entire narrative, which is what the leaders do not want.

But, you know, we know the Democratic Party.

They sometimes overstep.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

And where are the crisis points?

In other words, now that we have Miller in charge, is it going to be immigration that causes massive confrontation between the legislative branch, Democratic-controlled legislative branch, and the executive, or are there other issues that I'm not thinking of?

Adam Harris: I think immigration, I think the war in Iran, right?

For the last eight months, people have been asking, what can Congress actually do to stop this war, right, been calling it an illegal war.

How do you actually contain that, so legislation there to attempt to contain the war.

I think if you look at ICE and the ways that the president is trying to utilize ICE or the way that they're trying to utilize the National Guard in cities across the nation, right?

There are a lot of these really central touchpoints that we've seen over the last couple of years that have really driven people to anger, to the polls.

And there's -- I mean, on top of everything, right, some people will say it's -- it may be retribution from Democrats, but a lot of voters will say that it's accountability, right?

We are trying to hold them accountable to the Constitution.

We're trying to hold them accountable to what they're -- Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

You know, you mentioned something interesting, the National Guard.

Relatively small in the scheme of things, but Pete Hegseth has doubled down in the last couple of days in Washington, saying they're going to do now Humvee patrols and boat patrols.

Was that meant to impress Donald Trump, whose loyalty maybe he's worried about?

Was that just a manifestation of, I don't know, you're going to have to come up with a hook for this, but like pure MAGA, like this is it, like we're going to just do everything we want to do?

Adam Harris: You know, there's always probably a little bit of both with Hegseth.

The ways that if you look at the video that he released on Thursday where he was talking about, you know, the war in Iran is right because we want to make sure that they don't get a nuclear weapon when, you know, voters you know, went to the polls and said, well, my gas is expensive, because you've closed the Strait of Hormuz, or because the Strait of Hormuz is closed, right?

There is a little bit of, I'm trying to impress the president.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

But it would be dangerous for the Democrats to concede too much to Iran.

Is that fair, Peter?

Peter Baker: Yes, of course.

I mean, I think, look, Trump is going to -- he's going to, you know, rattle the saber for a while and so forth.

But in the end, I think he wants out.

I think he wants to find a way out of this thing that looks like victory, because I don't think he sees a path forward.

I don't think he loves this war at this particular point, but he doesn't want to look embarrassed, right?

J.D.

Vance gave voice to that wing of the party in his 600-word online message this week.

And Pete Hegseth's video, in some ways it was a pushback against the impeachment, but it was also a pushback against Vance.

And you see in that the beginning of the parameters of the debate of the '28 cycle, right?

What does this party stand for?

Is it a hawkish conservative party on Iran as the president has sort of positioned it to be, or is it return to the J.D.

Vance, you know, more isolationist America First?

Jeffrey Goldberg: Let's stay on this for a minute.

Is it -- J.D.

Vance is quasi isolationist.

Pete Hegseth is a classical muscular interventionist.

Where's Miller, and where's -- and where, generally speaking, is Marco Rubio?

Peter Baker: Where is Marco Rubio is a great question.

He is out -- Jeffrey Goldberg: Laying -- trying to lay low.

Peter Baker: -- of the loop every time you need to ask that question, right?

He wants nothing to do with this war.

He was more than happy to turn it over to Witkoff and Kushner in terms of the diplomacy part of it, right?

When it came time to have the ceasefire talks, it was J.D.

who was sent, not Marco Rubio.

And he has been very careful about making sure to straddle that line.

He may be the only person in this administration who's successfully, to some extent, straddled that MAGA, non-MAGA line, at least to the point he hasn't been crucified by one side or the other.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Yes, go ahead.

Leigh Ann Caldwell: I was just going to say when you asked where Miller is on the war.

What's interesting is Peter's paper, The Times, they reported tonight, Maggie Haberman, that the -- one of the ways he got -- that Miller got the chief of staff job is he said that he would help the president end, wind down this war.

So, we know that Miller is focused on domestic policy.

He was also big on the boat strikes because that had to do with domestic policy.

So, I think it's a real unknown of what the future of the president's foreign policy is going to look like if Hegseth is there or not, what Miller is focused on, and where Marco Rubio is -- Jeffrey Goldberg: But should we anticipate some open fracturing among this small group, Hegseth, Vance, Rubio, in the coming year?

Is that a fair thing to worry about?

Stephen Hayes: I would think you have to.

And it's also important to point out that Stephen Miller's going to run the White House very differently stylistically than Susie Wiles did.

I mean, she was sort of a conciliator, you know, somebody who moved things around, set up meetings.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Miller tells people what to do.

Stephen Hayes: Yes, Miller says, I believe these things.

I mean, there's a long tradition of White House chiefs of staff who don't really weigh in unless they're asked, and they, you know, merely create access to the president, allow people to make their arguments.

That was -- Susie Wiles was more in line with that.

Stephen Miller, he'd never be able to do that.

He has opinions about everything, and he wants the president to know them.

Peter Baker: Remember what he said on T.V a few months ago, right?

The world is run by power.

Whoever has the power makes the decisions.

He was very open about that.

It's a very - - I mean, real politic doesn't even really begin to get at it.

It's so, you know, almost authoritarian, his outlook.

Jeffrey Goldberg: So, this is his moment.

Peter Baker: Yes.

Jeffrey Goldberg: This is his moment.

Steve, so things are objectively quite awful for the Republican Party quite obviously.

Give us your understanding of what may unfold.

Is this the end of MAGA?

Stephen Hayes: I think it has to be the end of MAGA, but it could be a very long and slow end of MAGA.

I don't expect that you'll see many Republicans here in Washington start to speak out robustly against the president.

They -- you know, you'll have moments.

You had some moments before the election.

I think you'll have more of those, people who say like we're not following you anymore.

But remember, he still has leverage because he'll be a powerful player in primaries, both at the House and Senate and for the White House.

I think where you're likely to see more Republicans speak up is in the states.

You're going to have governors.

I mean, you've already seen Ron DeSantis running to cameras in the last couple of days, sort of like who's this Donald Trump you speak of?

What?

I mean, it hasn't been that.

But, you know, he clearly is putting himself forward.

I think you're going to see other governors who have managed states maybe quietly.

Jeffrey Goldberg: It seems like Chris Christie is running for president again.

Is that fair to say?

Stephen Hayes: Chris Christie's already running.

I think we know that Ted Cruz is going to run.

Right.

I bet that Rand Paul is going to run, Brian Kemp, maybe Kevin Stitt.

Jeffrey Goldberg: So, like, literally, a ton of guys and it will be on a MAGA, non-MAGA, anti-MAGA spectrum.

Stephen Hayes: Well, J.D.

Vance -- I mean, I think the conventional wisdom has been wrong about J.D.

Vance as long as he's been vice president, that he is sort of the de facto Republican nominee in 2028.

I didn't believe that before.

I certainly don't believe that now.

And I think it's going to be a big field and a big scrappy fight.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Adam, probably a final question to you.

Was this -- what happened on Tuesday, was this a repudiation of Trump himself?

Did this represent genuine enthusiasm for the Democrats and their policies, or at least their candidates?

Or is it -- what's the mix?

Adam Harris: I think there is a mix of both.

I think it was more of a repudiation of the president and his policies, right?

If you consider the, the high prices of gas, you consider an unpopular war, right?

If you are -- if you have told voters that you are not going to start an unnecessary war, and then you go and start an unnecessary war, that is the -- you can do a one-to-one of, I have been lied to here.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Adam Harris: And this is -- I'm going to vote against that.

But then also you look at the South and a place where they tried to gerrymander people out of power.

That's a very strong message for black voters in particular in the South where you saw numbers that approached, you know, presidential numbers in a midterm.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Well, so many things that he did backfired, pushing Cornyn out of the Texas race, gerrymandering that didn't work.

I think he's not actually that skilled at politics sometimes, Donald Trump.

Adam Harris: Yes.

And when the base at times used to be able to be activated, right, he tried to activate the base this time around and it didn't necessarily.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

And he blamed the base.

Adam Harris: Blamed the voters.

Jeffrey Goldberg: He blamed the voters, which is not the usual playbook, but this is not a usual presidency.

We'll see in over the next couple years.

Peter Baker: He said 47 times, pretend I'm on the ballot.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Peter Baker: And then after the election, he says, I wasn't on the ballot.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.