A Wall Street Journal spokesperson said the paper is “proud of the on-the-record interview we conducted with President Donald Trump, which produced multiple, newsworthy articles.” Full transcript: Trump’s Wall Street Journal interview The president sat down with the Journal's editor-in-chief Gerard Baker in the Oval Office on July 25. 
 
 President Donald Trump called his son-in-law a “good boy” while thanking Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief Gerard Baker for a positive editorial about Jared Kushner and said the leader of the Boy Scouts told him his jamboree speech was “the greatest speech ever made to them.” 
 
 The comments, made to The Wall Street Journal and obtained in a transcript by POLITICO, show Trump holding forth at length with Baker and engaging in a familiar back and forth. Baker, according to the transcript, asked many of the questions and took the lead byline on the main piece about the interview as well, an unusual step for the editor in chief of a paper with a large White House reporting staff. 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 The Journal has not published a full transcript of the interview. The newspaper posted certain excerpts of the transcript online, but the full version has circulated around the Journal newsroom as well as among others in New York and Washington. 
 
 Matt Murray, the Journal's deputy editor-in-chief, warned staffers in a conference call in recent days about leaking the transcript, saying it would be a breach of trust, according to several sources familiar with the call. 
 
 "Damn right I told them that. It's true," Murray said on Tuesday via a Journal spokesperson. 
 
 According to the transcript, Ivanka Trump stopped by the Oval Office during the interview, telling Baker she heard he was there and wanted to say hello. Ivanka Trump has often made an appearance during interviews with her father, including with The New York Times and POLITICO, to make small talk. 
 
 Baker told Ivanka Trump, “It was nice to see you out in Southampton a couple weeks ago,” an apparent reference to a party thrown last month attended by many politicos, business titans and media elites thrown by Washington Post heiress Lally Weymouth, now the Post’s senior associate editor. Ivanka Trump and Baker also chatted about their daughters, both named Arabella. 
 
 The president and Baker also talked about golf and travel. 
 
 The interview renewed questions internally at the newspaper about Baker’s leadership and posture toward the White House. 
 
 The most reliable politics newsletter. Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. 
 
 Baker has defended his paper in the past from criticism, both internal and external, that the broadsheet has been too soft on the real estate mogul and reality-television star-turned-45th president of the United States. 
 
 In an internal town hall with employees in February, Baker said that anyone who claims the Journal has been soft on Trump is peddling “fake news,” and that employees who are unhappy with the Journal's objective, as opposed to oppositional, approach to Trump should work somewhere else. 
 
 The interview occurred on July 25 and was arranged by Baker after initial requests by Journal reporters, multiple sources familiar with the interview said. A White House official said the president was not personally involved in setting up the interview. 
 
 Present at the interview were three editors — Baker, Murray and Washington Bureau Chief Paul Beckett — and White House reporters Michael Bender and Peter Nicholas. 
 
 A Wall Street Journal spokesperson said the newspaper is “proud of the on-the-record interview we conducted with President Trump, which produced multiple, newsworthy articles.” 
 
 “We published the noteworthy excerpts from the interview. We saw no reason to publish the crosstalk that inevitably accompanies any conversation,” the spokesperson said. 
 
 The president and his daughter praised Baker for a Wall Street Journal editorial, published the day before, that commended Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, for setting “a disclosure example on Russia” in an 11-page statement released before meeting with Senate and House intelligence committees, describing his contacts with Russian figures during the campaign and after the election. 
 
 “And I liked your editorial today, very nice. (Laughs.),” the transcript quotes Ivanka Trump as saying. 
 
 “Oh, good, good. Well, you see, you know, my colleagues write those, so they’ll be — they’ll be —,” Baker said, likely referring to the editorial section that is separate from the news section at the newspaper, before being cut off by the president. 
 
 “You did a good job,” Trump said. 
 
 “Yeah, you really did,” Ivanka Trump added. 
 
 “Thank you very much. Thank you,” Baker replied. 
 
 “You did a good job,” Trump continued before referring to Kushner: “He’s a good — he’s a good boy.” 
 
 “They wrote a very nice editorial, so very good,” Ivanka Trump said. 
 
 “In keeping with our longstanding tradition of total separation between News and Opinion, opinion pieces are the sole responsibility of Paul Gigot [editor of the editorial page] and his team,” the Journal spokesperson said. 
 
 The spokesperson also pointed to Baker’s comment in the transcript about how the editorial the president praised was written by his colleagues, not him. 
 
 At one point, Trump seemed annoyed that one of The Wall Street Journal reporters in the room called the reaction to his July 24 Boy Scouts speech “mixed.” 
 
 “There was no mix there. That was a standing ovation from the time I walked out to the time I left, and for five minutes after I had already gone. There was no mix,” Trump said. 
 
 He added: “And I got a call from the head of the Boy Scouts saying it was the greatest speech that was ever made to them, and they were very thankful. So there was — there was no mix.” 
 
 The chief of the Boy Scouts subsequently apologized for the political nature of the speech. 
 
 The full transcript, unpublished by the Journal but obtained by POLITICO, is below. 
 
 The Wall Street Journal 
 
 Interview with President Donald Trump 
 
 Location: Washington, D.C. 
 
 Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 
 
 GERARD BAKER: Yes, yes. 
 
 PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Tax, other things. 
 
 BAKER: Yeah. Economy, trade, fate of the world — world economy, market – 
 
 TRUMP: As we speak. 
 
 BAKER: Consumer confidence at a 17-year high. 
 
 TRUMP: What did you say? 
 
 BAKER: Consumer confidence at a 17-year high. 
 
 TRUMP: Can you believe it? Isn’t that nice. There’s good reason for it, too, and I think we’re doing pretty well on health care. We’ll see. 
 
 BAKER: Yeah, yeah. 
 
 TRUMP: I call it a motion to talk, you know. It’s not a motion to proceed. 
 
 BAKER: The Senate view – 
 
 TRUMP: It’s not — basically, it’s a motion to talk. But once you get that motion, it’s in pretty good shape, once you get in. It’s hard to get in, but once you get in. So we’re going to see. John McCain was a great help, coming in as he did. And so it was something I very much appreciate, and we’ll see what happens. We’re going to know in about two hours. 
 
 BAKER: What have you been doing, Mr. President, sort of behind the scenes? 
 
 TRUMP: A lot. A lot. 
 
 BAKER: I mean, what do you think the crucial conversations have been? 
 
 TRUMP: Many conversations. I just had one with a certain senator that was very convincing to that senator. So I’ve done a lot. I mean, last night — last night it was amazing. I was at the — you know, I was in West Virginia doing certain things and making a speech to the Boy Scouts, and that was some crowd. That was an incredible crowd. 
 
 But I’ve been working hard, trying to get the senators to go along with it. And I — you know, I think I — you know, look, just don’t quote me on this unless it happens, but I think we have a pretty good shot. And that vote’s taking place at about 2:00 today, right? 2:00? 
 
 WSJ: A little bit later, yeah, exactly. 
 
 TRUMP: A little bit later? 
 
 WSJ: All depending on McCain’s plane landing. 
 
 WSJ: If you get the vote — if you get the vote today to go ahead, what will be the next hurdle that you — 
 
 TRUMP: Well, then you have to go and decide on what plan you want, which way you’re going to go. You want to decide on is it repeal or repeal and replace. If it’s repeal and replace, which one do you want to go? Which form of existing conditions? I mean, there’s many things. But once you’re in there, then you can really negotiate. This is actually the heart, though. Once you’re there, you can, you know, Gerard — oh, say hello. 
 
 IVANKA TRUMP: Hi, Gerard. How are you? 
 
 BAKER: Oh, hey. How nice to see you. How are you doing? 
 
 IVANKA TRUMP: I heard you were here. I wanted to come by and say hi. 
 
 (Cross talk.) 
 
 IVANKA TRUMP: How is your Arabella (sp)? 
 
 BAKER: Oh, very — (inaudible). She just got back from Costa Rica. She was there for two weeks. And how’s — and how’s yours? 
 
 IVANKA TRUMP: Oh, very good. (Inaudible.) 
 
 BAKER: It was nice to see you out in Southampton a couple weeks ago. 
 
 PRESIDENT TRUMP: So you do, you have a — is it the same spelling? 
 
 BAKER: I have an — exactly the same spelling, Arabella (sp). Yeah. 
 
 PRESIDENT TRUMP: How did that happen? I think you named your daughter after – 
 
 IVANKA TRUMP: It’s an English name, but it’s not particularly common, so. 
 
 BAKER: It’s not very common, yeah, no. Actually, we were there first. 
 
 IVANKA TRUMP: You’re the first. 
 
 BAKER: Mine is – mine is 15. How old is yours? 
 
 IVANKA TRUMP: Oh, OK. 
 
 PRESIDENT TRUMP: So he’s — I think you copied. 
 
 IVANKA TRUMP: So I copied that. (Laughter.) 
 
 BAKER: Yeah, yeah, no, it’s actually – 
 
 IVANKA TRUMP: And I liked your editorial today, very nice. (Laughs.) 
 
 BAKER: Oh, good, good. Well, you see, you know, my colleagues write those, so they’ll be — they’ll be — 
 
 PRESIDENT TRUMP: You did a good job. 
 
 IVANKA TRUMP: Yeah, you really did. 
 
 BAKER: Thank you very much. Thank you. 
 
 PRESIDENT TRUMP: You did a good job. He’s a good — he’s a good boy. 
 
 IVANKA TRUMP: They wrote a very nice editorial, so very good. 
 
 BAKER: Thank you. 
 
 WSJ: Thank you. 
 
 PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thanks, Honey. Stay around if you want. 
 
 IVANKA TRUMP: Yeah, yeah. 
 
 PRESIDENT TRUMP: So we’ll have the vote today at probably 3:00 or so. And we have the head of Lebanon coming in; that’ll be interesting, a little — a little change of pace. We keep it interesting. But so we’ll see what that’s all about. 
 
 BAKER: Are you recommending to the people that you talk to a particular — do you want — are you saying do this and then go for repeal, or are you going – 
 
 TRUMP: I’d rather see repeal and replace because I — I can do either way. If you remember, it was — you know, it was an idea that I had very early on, repeal. Trouble with repeal is you’ll have millions of people out there that — well, it’s like we just got the highest confidence in many years; you know, people out there that will say, well, you know, how do we know we’re going to have health care? And I hate to do that to people. 
 
 WSJ: But you’ve been concerned about that, right – 
 
 TRUMP: I’ve always — I’m always concerned about that. I don’t like it. I don’t like it from that standpoint. Now, with that being said, you might be able to make a very good deal because I think there’s a lot of pressure on the Democrats. But the Democrats are nothing more than obstructionists. That’s all they can do. That’s all they seem to be good at. So they’re obstructionists, so what they will do, even though it’s for the good of the country, they will obstruct. They can’t do anything about Obamacare, and I understand that. They don’t want to vote against it. But now, once it’s done — it was my original theory: Once it’s begun, now they can get together. They can do something. But they won’t do that. There’s too much — and this isn’t with respect to me; this is years. This is years, Gerry. I mean, if you look at what’s been going on over the last long period of time. I actually asked people that are political people — I could ask you people — you know, is it the worst you’ve seen it? And I’ve had every single person, no, actually there’s certain other times that were worse. There were certain times in Obama’s administration that were worse. 
 
 BAKER: The partisanship, you mean? 
 
 TRUMP: You think — yeah, the partisanship. So, anyway. 
 
 So I’d rather see — I’d rather see replace. I’d rather add the replace. And we have a very good plan. That’s the one thing, we really have a good plan. We’ve covered a lot of territory. It’s a very, very difficult situation because you move a little bit to the left and you lose four guys, you move a little bit to the right all of a sudden you have a bloc of people that are gone. You have about a one-inch road and it wheels through the middle of the valley, and if it’s even slightly off. It’s a very difficult – it’s a very difficult thing, always has been. 
 
 You know, if you think, Hillary Clinton, smart person, she was the first lady of the country, her entire life was spent — her entire eight years was spent trying to get health care. Never even came close. Obama — and one thing I have to say, I’m here now exactly six months. Obama took would you say a year-and-a-half? 
 
 BAKER: Yeah. 
 
 WSJ: He took a year and a half, yeah. 
 
 TRUMP: Because people were saying, Trump has not produced. I honestly believe for six months I have done more than just about any president when you look at all of the bills that were passed, 42, 43. 
 
 BAKER: What are you most proud of in the first six months? 
 
 TRUMP: A lot of things. I think I’m proud of the Supreme Court choice. And that’s not just a nomination, that’s getting him through. I’m very proud of opening up regulations. One of the reasons you see optimism is because people can actually use their land. They can farm their land. I’ve had tremendous and tremendous — look, I had 45,000 people there yesterday. It’s the biggest crowd they’ve ever had, and they were — they were going wild yesterday in West Virginia. But people can actually use their land and they can build. 
 
 And I think one of the things that I have to be very proud of is the VA. I think we have a great, great administrator, OK – 
 
 
 
 WSJ: Shulkin. 
 
 TRUMP: ... and a great secretary, David Shulkin. He’s — he was actually approved 100 to nothing, by the way. 
 
 BAKER: What about your disappointments? Any disappointments in the first six months? 
 
 TRUMP: Well, I’d have to let you know. I have to see where we are with this. Let’s see. Maybe it doesn’t work, but I think it’s going to. And, you know, it is — it would have been easier to start with taxes, but this is better if it works, OK? If it works, this is better. 
 
 WSJ: More general — generally. 
 
 TRUMP: But I think, you know, depending — so if you asked me that question in a month or really at the end of the year, because we hope to get this. We hope to get taxes and then infrastructure. And then I’m going to do a very big — we’re doing very big trade deals, and we’re looking forward to that. But we want to do, ideally, this first. 
 
 You know, a lot of people said you should have started with taxes or you should have started with infrastructure. Well, infrastructure, I’ll actually have bipartisan support, and I can use infrastructure to carry other things along. So I don’t want to waste it at the beginning, if that makes sense. 
 
 WSJ: Can I ask on that? I mean, are you confident? When you say the Democrats are obstructionists, and obviously they’re looking ahead to the midterms next year, it doesn’t seem like politically for Democrats there’s a lot of incentive, even on a bipartisan thing like infrastructure, that might be popular — [inaudible]. How tough a road is it going to be? In any case, it’s hard – 
 
 TRUMP: Well, they tried — they tried it with me. She spent hundreds of millions of dollars on negative ads. She didn’t do a positive ad, virtually. And she lost easily, you know, 306 to 223 I think, right – 223, something like that. ... 
 
 I mean, honestly, they — the ads were coming at me. Hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of negative ads. And when people went into the voter booth, they didn’t know what she stood for. I always said that. I said if I can take this onslaught personally, it’s going to be a great thing because nobody knew what she stood for. So now, they’re trying to change their message a little bit, you know. I mean, it’s — it’s one of those things, but now they’re trying to change their message and we’ll see what happens. 
 
 But I think that we’re doing very well. Every indication is that in every one of our swing states we’re substantially up, like Ohio. Tonight I’m going to Ohio — Youngstown, Ohio — and we’ll be up — we’re way up. You know, I won the state by 9 or 10 or something, by 9 or 10 points, without any governor support, OK? So you have the governor of Ohio not supporting you and you win by almost 10 points, which is pretty good because Ohio’s not — if you remember, you guys were always saying you have to win Ohio, right? 
 
 BAKER: No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio. 
 
 TRUMP: No, right, no, it’s — it was — and we won, you know, by a landslide. 
 
 WSJ: [Inaudible.] 
 
 BAKER: Yeah. [Laughter.] 
 
 TRUMP: But we’re up. We have now — are you going tonight? Are you going to the speech in Ohio tonight? 
 
 WSJ: We were in West Virginia yesterday. 
 
 TRUMP: Oh, you did? Was that a scene, though? Huh? 
 
 WSJ: That was a scene, yes. (Laughter.) 
 
 TRUMP: Biggest crowd they’ve ever had. What did you think? 
 
 WSJ: I thought it was an interesting speech in the context of the Boy Scouts. 
 
 TRUMP: Right. 
 
 WSJ: They seemed to get a lot of feedback from former scouts and – 
 
 TRUMP: Did they like it? 
 
 WSJ: It seemed mixed. 
 
 TRUMP: They loved it. [Laughter.] It wasn’t — it was no mix. That was a standing – 
 
 WSJ: In the — you got a good — you got a good reaction in – 
 
 TRUMP: I mean, you know, he writes mostly negative stuff. But that was a standing ovation – 
 
 WSJ: You got a good reaction inside the arena, that’s right. 
 
 TRUMP: ... from the time I walked out on the stage — because I know. And by the way, I’d be the first to admit mixed. I’m a guy that will tell you mixed. There was no mix there. That was a standing ovation from the time I walked out to the time I left, and for five minutes after I had already gone. There was no mix. 
 
 WSJ: Yeah, there was a lot of supporters in the arena. 
 
 TRUMP: And I got a call from the head of the Boy Scouts saying it was the greatest speech that was ever made to them, and they were very thankful. So there was — there was no mix. 
 
 BAKER: Sir, can I ask you about taxes? 
 
 TRUMP: Yes. 
 
 BAKER: So, you know, we’re awaiting the outcome of health, we’ll get a vote. I know you want to get tax reform done. Gary, you talked about it. 
 
 TRUMP: Yes, very much. Very important. 
 
 BAKER: So can – what’s – I mean, you’ve outlined the principles of tax reform. Can you tell us what you – you know, what you want to achieve fundamentally in tax reform? 
 
 TRUMP: Sure. I want to – 
 
 BAKER: What are the – what are the main goals? 
 
 TRUMP: I want to achieve growth. We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world, essentially, you know, of the size. But we’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. We have — nobody knows what the number is. I mean, it used to be, when we talked during the debate, $2.5 trillion, right, when the most elegant person — right? I call him Mr. Elegant. I mean, that was a great debate. We did such a great job. But at that time I was talking $2.5 trillion. I guess it’s $5 trillion now. Whatever it is, it’s a lot more. So we have anywhere from 4 [trillion] to 5 or even more trillions of dollars sitting offshore. 
 
 We want to get that back, No. One, at a very reasonable cost. And that cost is going to be 10 percent. And right now, it’s so high that, No. One: You would never do it on a business basis. But, No. Two: Bureaucratically it’s impossible. Did you know that? I have friends that try and get their money back. They say they have to go through years of writing out forms and this and that to bring money back into the country. We’re going to make that one — like a half-a-page document. It’s going to be very easy to bring your money back in. And it’s going to be taxed at 10 percent, which is a rate that’s — it’s within reason. And so that’s one of the things we want to do. That’ll be an easy one. That’s one that — you know, it’s — when you talk about a country that’s broken or a system that’s broken, there’s something — the $5 trillion, let’s call it — that the Democrats and the Republicans agree should come back in. It’s been out there for years. Nobody ever did anything about it. I mean, Obama ... 
 
 WSJ: Well – 
 
 TRUMP: Obama could have gotten that money back in very easily, even if they did a separate bill. But nobody ... 
 
 BAKER: Right. But a 10 percent corporate rate, that’s ... 
 
 TRUMP: Ten percent. 
 
 WSJ: Ten percent repatriation. 
 
 BAKER: Repatriation rate. 
 
 WSJ: A repatriation rate. A 10 percent repatriation rate. 
 
 WSJ: What do you think is a reasonable corporate rate? We’ve heard 20 percent, but — 
 
 TRUMP: Well, you know, we’re going for 15 [percent]. We’re going to see, and we’ll see. But, you know, I don’t want to say anything about negotiation. I mean, we are asking for 15 percent, and we think we’re going to grow tremendously. 
 
 So I deal with foreign countries, and despite what you may read, I have unbelievable relationships with all of the foreign leaders. They like me. I like them. You know, it’s amazing. So I’ll call, like, major — major countries, and I’ll be dealing with the prime minister or the president. And I’ll say, how are you doing? Oh, don’t know, don’t know, not well, Mr. President, not well. I said, well, what’s the problem? Oh, GDP 9 percent, not well. And I’m saying to myself, here we are at like 1 percent, dying, and they’re at 9 percent and they’re unhappy. So, you know, and these are like countries, you know, fairly large, like 300 million people. You know, a lot of people say — they say, well, but the United States is large. And then you call places like Malaysia, Indonesia, and you say, you know, how many people do you have? And it’s pretty amazing how many people they have. So China’s going to be at 7 [percent] or 8 percent, and they have a billion-five, right? So we should do really well. 
 
 But in order to do that — you know, it’s tax reform, but it’s a big tax cut. But it’s simplification, it’s reform, and it’s a big tax cut, 15 – 
 
 BAKER: And on the personal side, the Treasury secretary back – way back at the start of the administration said – 
 
 TRUMP: Yeah, we want to do personal. 
 
 BAKER: Yeah, want to do personal taxes and want to make – so whatever cuts in the rates that there are – the marginal rates there are will be balanced by the reduction in deductions, so that the people who benefit from especially at the high end would not – overall would not be net beneficiaries of tax cuts, right? 
 
 TRUMP: Right. Yeah, that’s – we don’t want – 
 
 BAKER: And that’s still the aim? That’s still very much the aim? 
 
 TRUMP: So I shouldn’t say it with everybody in the room, especially Gary, but – (laughter) – this is – 
 
 MR. : Yeah, let’s all worry about me. 
 
 TRUMP: The truth is the people I care most about are the middle-income people in this country who have gotten screwed. And this upward revision, it’s going to be on high-income people. 
 
 You know, I was with Bob Kraft the other night. He came to have dinner with me. He’s a friend of mine. And as he left, he said, Donald, don’t worry about the rich people. Tax the rich people. You got to take care of the people in the country. It was a very interesting statement. I feel the same way. 
 
 BAKER: Well, Gary’s a middle-income – (inaudible). (Laughter.) He works for the White House. He’s on a – 
 
 TRUMP: He had to pay 200 million (dollars) in tax, Gary. Gary wrote a check for 200 (million dollars). 
 
 (Cross talk.) 
 
 WSJ: There was some focus – Steve Bannon was saying that maybe you want a higher income tax than the 40 percent, you know, that you might be – 
 
 TRUMP: No, that was not right. That was not a correct statement, no. 
 
 MR. : That was not a – that was not a correct – 
 
 WSJ: OK. OK. 
 
 TRUMP: We want – look, the job producers we’re going to take great care of, but we have to take care of middle-income people in this country. They built the country, they started this whole beautiful thing that we have, and we have to take care of them. And people have not taken care of them, and we’re going to. 
 
 And I mean, I have wealthy friends that say to me I don’t mind paying more tax. And I’ll tell you what I sort of don’t like, is when they – you know, you’ll do your charts in The Wall Street Journal and they’ll be brilliantly done, very nice, and they’ll show that a rich guy who made, you know, $25 million last year is going to pay less than he was. In a certain way, I don’t like that. I’d rather take that difference and put it into the middle-income and put it into corporate. 
 
 BAKER: You should be able to get Democrat support for that, right? I mean, you can reach across the aisle – 
 
 TRUMP: Yeah, except they’re obstructionists. If they weren’t obstructionists, I would normally get Democratic support. So we don’t anticipate that. We don’t – 
 
 WSJ: How would you rate your chances of being able to make those permanent as opposed to temporary? 
 
 TRUMP: Well, do you mean 10 years versus? So it hasn’t really come up. I mean, the last time it was 10 years. When George Steinbrenner died, like with the estate taxes, the estate paid nothing. And if he would have died like two weeks later, they would have paid 50 percent of the Yankees. That would have been the end of the team, right? He had very fine tax planners. But it hasn’t come up. We’d like – 
 
 WSJ: Or doctors. (Laughter.) 
 
 TRUMP: We would like to make them permanent, but I assume you’re talking about like a – 
 
 MR. : So if it balances in the 10-year window, it’s permanent. The only way you have to end the tax plan is at the end of 10 years if it creates a deficit. We are working towards a plan that is permanent. To get the capital investment that the president wants – and that’s how you create jobs, and that’s how you create economic growth – businesses have to know it’s a permanent tax change. So that is our objective. 
 
 WSJ: Does that – [inaudible] – for businesses? 
 
 MR. : We think – we’ve spent an enormous amount of time working as a group to make sure that we get permanent tax change, simplification, and lower rates. 
 
 TRUMP: We think we’re going to have tremendous growth. We think money’s going to come pouring into the country. 
 
 Look, we’re losing companies. People don’t even realize how bad it is, but we’re losing companies every single day where they’re leaving because the taxes are too high. When we do this, we’ll have companies – I know companies that have left. They go to Ireland, they go to other – I own a lot of property in Ireland. They go to Ireland because of these incredible tax rates, and other places, right? We’ll have companies pouring back into our nation. I mean, it’s going to be – you know, it’s going to be beautiful. 
 
 I hope we can – I hope we can do the 15 percent, actually. By the way, 15 percent is not by any means the lowest, but at least we would go from the highest to one of the lower, lower taxes. 
 
 MS. : Another area of real focus has been skill training, as well, to ensure increased workforce participation and ensure that people are trained with the skills necessary for the jobs – (inaudible). 
 
 BAKER: We’ve read a fair bit about that. 
 
 MS. : So you’ve been covering that a lot, but it’s so important. It’s one of the number one things we hear from the private sector, that they don’t have people to fill the jobs they have and they are looking to fill. So we’re working to close that gap. 
 
 BAKER: Which is what makes immigration – 
 
 TRUMP: But one of the things we’re doing that, so Gary and I are working – because I said, you know, Gary, we’re going to have Foxconn come in. We’re going to have a lot of companies that are coming in. Foxconn’s coming in with a big plan. We have Tim Cook I spoke to, and he’s promised me three big plants – big, big, big. I said, you know, Tim, unless – 
 
 WSJ: Really? Where? 
 
 TRUMP: We’ll have to see. You can call him. But I said, Tim, unless you start building your plants in this country, I won’t consider my administration an economic success, OK? And he’s called me and he says, you know, they’re going forward, three big, beautiful plants. You’ll have to call him. I mean, maybe he won’t tell you what he tells me, but I believe he will do that. I really believe it. 
 
 But I said to Gary, I said, you know, Gary, you go to certain sections and you’re going to need people to work in these massive plants that we’re getting, that are moving in. Where do we have the people? You know where we have the people? In New York state that can’t get jobs, in many other places that can’t get jobs. And people are going to have to start moving. They’re going to move to Colorado and they’re going to move to Iowa and Wisconsin and places where – like if Foxconn goes to Wisconsin, which is one of the places they’re very strongly considering – but if Foxconn goes to Wisconsin and they have a very low rate and the governor’s done an excellent job, you’re going to have a situation where you got to get the people. But they’re going to start moving. And I’m going to start explaining to people when you have an area that just isn’t working – like upper New York state, where people are getting very badly hurt – and then you’ll have another area 500 miles away where you can’t – you can’t get people, I’m going to explain you can leave, it’s OK, don’t worry about your house. 
 
 You know, a lot of them don’t leave because of their house. Because they say, gee, my house, I thought it was worth 70,000 (dollars) and now it’s worth nothing. It’s OK. Go, cut your losses, right? 
 
 BAKER: While we’re on the economy, can I ask you, we’re coming up very soon to the time to decide whether or not to reappoint Janet Yellen as the – 
 
 TRUMP: Yes. 
 
 BAKER: – chair of the Federal Reserve or to appoint somebody else. Are you – have you reached a decision? 
 
 TRUMP: I have a lot of respect for her, and I like her. I’ve met her just a couple of times, but I like her. It’s early to make the decision. She doesn’t come up until February/March? 
 
 MR. : End of June. 
 
 WSJ: February. February 1st is – 
 
 WSJ: Yeah, yeah. 
 
 TRUMP: No, I have a lot of respect for her. I like her. She is – 
 
 BAKER: Does that mean it’s possible you would keep her? 
 
 TRUMP: I do like low interest rates. I mean, you know, I’m not making that a big secret. I think low interest rates are good. I like a dollar that’s not too strong. I mean, I’ve seen strong dollars. And frankly, other than the fact that it sounds good, lots of bad things happen with a strong dollar. 
 
 BAKER: So she’s definitely – she’s definitely in the running to be replaced this time? 
 
 TRUMP: I would say – you mean to stay? 
 
 BAKER: To stay. 
 
 TRUMP: I would say yes, she is in the running to stay. 
 
 WSJ: Is Gary a candidate? (Laughter.) 
 
 TRUMP: He doesn’t know this, but yes, he is. (Laughter.) 
 
 WSJ: Are there other candidates? 
 
 TRUMP: I actually think he likes what he’s doing right now. 
 
 BAKER: That’s what he tells us. 
 
 TRUMP: Don’t tell Gary what I just said. 
 
 WSJ: Are there other candidates? 
 
 TRUMP: Yeah, there are two or three. But she is – she is in the running, absolutely. I like her. I like her demeanor. I think she’s done a good job. I’d like to see rates stay low. She’s always been – you know, she’s historically been a low-interest-rate person, a believer. 
 
 WSJ: Do you have a time frame for announcing a decision? 
 
 TRUMP: I would say sometime by the end of year, probably. 
 
 WSJ: So you’re going to wait till it’s pretty – 
 
 TRUMP: I think so. 
 
 WSJ: So you’re not – 
 
 BAKER: It would need a confirmation process, which will take time. 
 
 TRUMP: Yeah, but it’ll go quickly. We’re starting to get them much quicker. You know, they’ve been really holding up – I mean, nine months, they have really been – that’s all they can do well. You know how many people I have in there? I have – I have a lot of people in there, and they complain to me. Like Woody Johnson. He’s the ambassador to the Court of St. James, which is England, you know, et cetera, et cetera. And I mean, he said what they did to him was unbelievable. The process was so ugly. I’ve had three or four people to be ambassadors, tremendous people, very successful people. They called me and they – their whole life they wanted to do this, and they gave up. It’s, you know – 
 
 (Cross talk.) 
 
 WSJ: Are there other names? 
 
 WSJ: Are there other names you might offer who are in the mix for the Fed? 
 
 TRUMP: I’d rather not do that. 
 
 BAKER: Kevin Warsh has been mentioned. Can we – [inaudible] – 
 
 TRUMP: I haven’t – I’d rather not get involved. But I would say she is, certainly. And Gary is somebody that I’ve gained great – I’ve known Gary for a long time – but I’ve gained great respect for Gary working with him. So Gary certainly would be in the mix. I just don’t know if he’d like – this is off the record – if he wants to sit down. Interest rates will be moving up one-eighth of a point – 
 
 BAKER: That’s the exciting stuff. (Laughter.) That’s the exciting stuff. 
 
 TRUMP: Right? Yeah, exactly. And then you leave. By the way, then the market crashes and it goes through the roof. You know, what you say. And then he goes off and he’ll play golf and relax for the next 30 or – 
 
 BAKER: So, Gary, Yellen, and there are other contenders you’re thinking of? 
 
 TRUMP: Yeah, there are people that are highly respected that I would certainly think about. I don’t know that Gary would want it. I think Gary loves what he’s doing, you know, and he’s doing a very good job. 
 
 WSJ: Who else – 
 
 WSJ: (Inaudible.) 
 
 WSJ: Sometimes needs to get a comment from Gary. (Laughter.) 
 
 TRUMP: You want to comment? (Laughs.) 
 
 WSJ: On the record. On the record. 
 
 MR. : This is an interview with the president. This is an interview with the president. 
 
 WSJ: We’ll call your office. 
 
 WSJ: This is an interview with the president. 
 
 WSJ: Can I ask another economics question, while we’re on the subject? 
 
 TRUMP: Yeah. 
 
 WSJ: You tweeted this morning about trade talks with Britain. 
 
 TRUMP: Yes. 
 
 WSJ: Can you tell us more about what’s going on? 
 
 TRUMP: No, but I can say that we’re going to be very involved with the U.K. I mean, you don’t hear the word Britain anymore. It’s very interesting. It’s like, nope. 
 
 WSJ: I work with a Brit. 
 
 BAKER: I’m English. We always make that point. You’re right, yeah. 
 
 TRUMP: Is Scotland going to go for the vote, by the way? You don’t see it. It would be terrible. They just went through hell. 
 
 BAKER: (Inaudible) – but they’re going to be – 
 
 TRUMP: They just went through hell. 
 
 BAKER: Besides, the first minister’s already made it clear she – 
 
 TRUMP: What do you think? You don’t think so, right? 
 
 BAKER: I don’t. 
 
 TRUMP: One little thing, what would they do with the British Open if they ever got out? They’d no longer have the British Open. 
 
 BAKER: [naudible.] 
 
 TRUMP: Scotland. Keep it in Scotland. 
 
 BAKER: We just had a – (inaudible). 
 
 TRUMP: By the way, are you a member there? 
 
 BAKER: No. I’ve played there, but I – 
 
 TRUMP: I thought that course showed well. 
 
 WSJ: It’s a gorgeous, gorgeous course. 
 
 BAKER: Did you see Jordan Spieth’s amazing – 
 
 TRUMP: I – well, I saw his first four holes. And I said, man, that’s the end of that, because – you know? 
 
 WSJ: Yeah. 
 
 BAKER: Yeah. 
 
 TRUMP: So for a guy to go – you know, to me, that’s almost worse than, like, a triple bogey, because – but for a guy to go through these horrible holes, hit a bad drive like I’ve never seen – I mean, he was 150 yards right. I don’t know what that – 
 
 WSJ: Come on, you and I have hit worse drives. You and I have hit – 
 
 TRUMP: No, no, but for – I know, but for a tour pro it was very unusual. But for a guy to then go birdie, eagle, birdie, birdie, that’s a special – 
 
 BAKER: He could – he could be a career major – he could be the youngest guy to do the career major – 
 
 TRUMP: Well, he’s actually sort of – he’s in with Tiger and Jack. He’s essentially even, you know, with a number of terms and a number of majors. 
 
 BAKER: Anyway, are you looking forward to doing a trade deal with the U.K.? 
 
 TRUMP: Yeah. I have a great relationship – 
 
 WSJ: It would be after, right? They have a time frame. 
 
 BAKER: Yeah. 
 
 TRUMP: Yeah. 
 
 WSJ: The one thing is there’s a – the one thing is there’s a ticking clock with Brexit, so. 
 
 WSJ: Well, yeah. Your tweet made it sound like you’re really talking and so you have – (inaudible) – 
 
 (Cross talk.) 
 
 TRUMP: We have a very good relationship. I have a very good relationship with the prime minister. And we are absolutely looking to do a major trade deal. 
 
 WSJ: Would the idea be that the trade deal will kick in pretty much as soon as Brexit happens? 
 
 TRUMP: As soon as it’s appropriate to have it kick in, absolutely. And it’ll be a big trade deal – much, much more business than we do right now, many, many times. 
 
 WSJ: Are there keys that would be the important pieces of it? What would – can you highlight specific – 
 
 TRUMP: There’ll be certain pieces. It’s not – there’ll be certain pieces. I mean, one of the things that – I have a very good relationship with the EU people and all, but they are very, very protectionist. You know, our farmers and others can’t even deal with – you know, you can’t sell in. It’s very unfair. And that’s what I’ve been talking about for a long time. It’s so stacked against the United States. Now, the EU was conceived to the point that they wanted to do something to compete with the United States. Well, you know, you could say that’s a friendly act or an unfriendly act. But it’s very protectionist. Among the most, we have farm products that you just can’t get into the EU. And we don’t do that to them. 
 
 BAKER: So you’d include an agriculture deal with the U.K.? 
 
 TRUMP: Well, I’ll tell you, you know, I did – I did thing that nobody even wrote about – although, you did. (Laughter.) But when I was with President Xi, who I have a very good relationship with, I said: Do me a favor. Would you allow cattle, please, to come in? I was last night in West Virginia, and I had farmers coming up to me and hugging me and kissing me because of the cattle stuff. They actually weren’t from West Virginia; they were from other places. (Laughter.) But, you know, it was the Boy Scouts, so they came from all over the country, but – 
 
 BAKER: Could you do a services deal with the U.K.? Could that include services? 
 
 TRUMP: Yeah. It would include everything. 
 
 BAKER: Including financial services? 
 
 TRUMP: Oh, no, it would be very – it would be – it would be very all-in with – 
 
 BAKER: That’s a big deal. 
 
 WSJ: Because we have a lot of financial companies already paring back their numbers, moving people to Frankfurt, already clearing out of London some. Do you think that’s a good idea right now, ahead of this? 
 
 TRUMP: That’s up to them. But we’re going to have a very good relationship with the U.K. And we do have to talk to the European Union, because it’s not a reciprocal deal, you know. 
 
 The word reciprocal, to me, is very important. For instance, we have countries that charge us 100 percent tax to sell a Harley-Davidson into that country. And yet, they sell their motorcycles into us, or their bikes, or anything comparable, and we charge them nothing. There has to be a reciprocal deal. I’m all about that. And you know, it’s very interesting, at the border – people may have problems with border, but when you say reciprocal, everybody says, oh, that’s fair. So people have a problem with charging a 10 percent tax, which they shouldn’t have but they do. But when you say you’re going to charge reciprocal charge – in other words, what they charge we’re going to charge – all of a sudden these same people – it might be much more money – but these same people, all of a sudden they’re OK with it. So we have got to be much smarter. 
 
 You know, our country was built, to a large extent, on protecting our manufacturers. If you go back to Jefferson, you go back to all of these great, great people that ran the United States properly, it was really based on a certain form of tariff and a certain form of protection. We’re just the opposite now. We’re the people that are getting beat up – one of the reasons I think I’m talking to – I’m sitting behind this beautiful desk as opposed to somebody else. 
 
 BAKER: What about – just, very quickly, on tariffs. On steel tariffs, you committed to imposing steel tariffs. You haven’t done that, but you still – 
 
 TRUMP: Well, we’re waiting – we’re waiting till we get everything completed. We don’t want to do at this moment. We’re going to – we’re going to wait till we get everything completed here. We’re going to see. It’s a very unfair situation. They’re dumping steel in our country. It’s extremely unfair. But we like to keep it as simple as – we like to keep very complicated subjects as simple as possible. So we’re waiting till we get everything finished up between health care and taxes and maybe even infrastructure. But we’re going to be addressing the steel dumping at a very – fairly soon. 
 
 We – just so you understand – we have massive reports. You know, a lot of this stuff you can’t just walk in and say I’m going to do this. You have to do statutory studies. And then you have to wait 90 days. And then you have to do another. And you have to wait another 20 days. It doesn’t go that quickly. It’s like NAFTA. You know, you have a six-month termination. I was ready to terminate NAFTA. I was looking forward to it, frankly, because NAFTA’s a horrible deal for the United States. And then I got a call from the president of Mexico, who’s a terrific guy, and I got a call from the prime minister of Canada. And they heard I was getting ready to terminate it. And they said: Would you have a meeting with us first? I said, yes. And if you look at my speeches, I’ve always said, either renegotiate it or terminate it. 
 
 Now, renegotiating it is easier. And we’re in the midst of a renegotiation right now. So we’ll see. And maybe we’ll have to terminate it. I happen to think NAFTA’s one of the truly bad deals – I mean, outside of the Iran deal, which is one of the worst deals in history – 
 
 WSJ: Do you think it’s salvageable? Do you think NAFTA’s salvageable? 
 
 TRUMP: It may be salvageable. 
 
 WSJ: What do you need for that? 
 
 TRUMP: I would say – I would say it may be salvageable. But certainly, I have an obligation to give it a shot. 
 
 WSJ: What are you looking for specifically – 
 
 TRUMP: I’m looking for fairness. 
 
 WSJ: But what does that – can you give an example? 
 
 TRUMP: No, it means – look, our automobile industry has just left us and gone to Mexico – I mean, a big chunk of it. And it’s very unfair for them to take our companies, built their cars, and then sell the car back into our country with no tax. It’s very unfair. They fire all our people in Michigan and Ohio, and they take it, and they build a car. And now they sell the car back in with no tax. It’s not fair. 
 
 WSJ: Do they get that – 
 
 TRUMP: We have a $70 billion trade deficit with China, as an example. 
 
 WSJ: What does the president of Mexico say when you say that? 
 
 TRUMP: He’s not thrilled. But that’s OK. I wasn’t thrilled about what he said to me. 
 
 WSJ: Does he – but does he disagree with you about that view, or does he – 
 
 TRUMP: Oh, there’s not much to disagree with. Look, we have a $70 billion – we have a $70 billion trade deficit. What is anybody saying? With China, we have 350 to 504. Nobody can really define it, deficit. We have a trade deficit of $350 to $504 billion each year. We’re not going to be – it’s just not going to happen that way anymore. 
 
 WSJ: You mentioned the Iran deal, but it’s been certified as in compliance twice now. It comes up again in September. Would you – is there going to come a point where you just – 
 
 TRUMP: Well, we’re doing major studies. Oh, I would be very surprised if they will be – look, we’ve been extremely nice to them. We’ve been extremely nice to them in saying they were compliant, OK? We’ve given them the benefit of every doubt. But we’re doing very detailed studies. And personally, I have great respect for my people. If it was up to me, I would have had them noncompliant 180 days ago. 
 
 WSJ: Do you expect them to be declared noncompliant the next time? 
 
 TRUMP: Personally, I do. I do. 
 
 WSJ: In September? 
 
 TRUMP: I think they’ll be noncompliant. I think they’re taking advantage of this country. They’ve taken advantage of a president, named Barack Obama, who didn’t know what the hell he was doing. And I do not expect that they will be compliant. 
 
 WSJ: Will you overrule your staff on that, if they come back with a recommendation – 
 
 TRUMP: Oh, sure. Sure. Look, I have a lot of respect for Rex and his people, good relationship. It’s easier to say they comply. It’s a lot easier. But it’s the wrong thing. They don’t comply. And so we’ll see what happens. I mean, we’ll talk about this subject in 90 days. But, yeah, I would be – I would be surprised if they were in compliance. 
 
 STAFF: Mr. President? I’m sorry. We just have time for a few more. 
 
 WSJ: Mr. President – 
 
 BAKER: OK, if I may, can I ask you quick, Mr. President, we’ve talked about your achievements and disappointments. I was reminded of President Eisenhower, when he left office, said that his two biggest mistakes in officer were both sitting on the Supreme Court. From things you’ve been saying in the – 
 
 TRUMP: So far I can’t say that, right? 
 
 BAKER: From the same – from the things you’ve been saying in the last week or so, and tweeting, it sounds as though you may think that maybe your biggest mistake is running the Justice Department. Is that – 
 
 TRUMP: I’m disappointed in Jeff Sessions, yes. 
 
 WSJ: Do you want him to leave? 
 
 TRUMP: Number one, they should go after the leakers in intelligence. I don’t mean the White House stuff where they’re fighting over who loves me the most, OK? (Laughter.) It’s just stupid people doing that. 
 
 BAKER: Anthony’s already taken care of that. (Laughter.) 
 
 TRUMP: I know, that’s just – and Anthony will handle that. [aughter.] I can – Anthony can do that out of his back pocket, OK? I’m talking about intelligence leaks. I’m talking like the story about Syria that was in The New York Times the other day. I’m – which by the way, was a decision made by people, not me. But, you know, they wrote it 100 – it was in the – 
 
 WSJ: The Post, I thought. It was in The Washington Post. 
 
 TRUMP: It was in The Washington Post. That was not something that I was involved in, other than they did come and they suggested. It turns out it’s – a lot of al-Qaida we’re giving these weapons to. You know, they didn’t write the truthful story, which they never do. So all of those things are very important. But, no, I’m very disappointed in the fact that the Justice Department has not gone after the leakers. And they’re the ones that have the great power to go after the leakers, you understand. So – and I’m very disappointed in Jeff Sessions. 
 
 WSJ: You can fire him. 
 
 TRUMP: Look, Jeff – I could. But we’ll see what happens. But I was – I appointed a man to a position. And then shortly after he gets the position, he recused himself. I said, what’s that all about? Why didn’t you tell me that you were going to do that, and I wouldn’t have appointed you? But I appointed him. And shortly thereafter, he recused himself. So I think that is a – 
 
 BAKER: You also suggested in Cleveland today they should be going – or, yesterday – they should be going after Hillary Clinton. Is that – 
 
 TRUMP: Well, I didn’t – I wouldn’t have wanted to. But I see the way they go after us on a witch hunt, you know? The Russian – the Russian story’s all an excuse for the Democrats losing. In fact, if you read the book, “Shattered,” they have a whole chapter where they sat the day after the election and they said: Yeah, Russia. It was Russia. And, you know, Trump was involved. OK, the one thing interesting, you never heard me even associated with anybody. But, no, that’s a total witch hunt, the whole Russia story. It’s a hoax. It’s a hoax. We had no collusion with Russia. We never dealt with Russia. 
 
 People that were on the campaign, like Corey, came in yesterday. It was very interesting. He was being interviewed. He said – I was watching, Corey Lewandowski – he says: I was here from the beginning. And I must be honest with you, I never dealt with any Russians. He was only the campaign manager. I can even look at Hope. She was here from virtually the same day that Corey started, those two. Hope, how many Russians have you seen involved in the campaign, OK? 
 
 HOPE HICKS: None. (Laughs.) 
 
 TRUMP: OK? You know, I mean, it’s sad. So they do that. And I say, that’s fine. But then we should really look at real crimes, because real crimes are what Hillary did with 33,000 emails, where she deleted them and bleached them after getting a subpoena. Real crimes are what’s happening and what happened with the uranium deal. And also – I mean, you can say the speeches made while she was secretary of state where they paid her a fortune, Podesta owning a big company in Russia – they talk about me. I have nothing to do with Russia. 
 
 You know, I put out a letter from a very – from the biggest law firm saying Trump has no involvement with Russia. I don’t. I have no involvement. I mean, I had Ms. Universe there, like, nine years ago, eight years ago, something like that. But I have nothing to do with Russia. So – and it’s very funny, because all of these people that have been on the campaign, some of them right from the beginning – Anthony’s another example. You’ve been there. You know – 
 
 ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI (?): (Inaudible) – I said from the podium on Friday that’s there’s nothing to the Russia story. I said on the weekend there was nothing to the Russia story. 
 
 TRUMP: You know, Anthony came in to see me before it all began. And he said, I want to back you for president. This was before the June 16th day. I said, Anthony, I’m not really sure that I’m running. I’m not sure. I may, but I’m not sure. He said, you got to run, you got to run. I want to endorse you. I said, but I’m not sure. This was a few months earlier than when I ran. And he was leaving and he was disappointed. I say, Anthony, what are you going to do? He goes, I got to back somebody, because that’s the way he is. That’s his personality. And he went to a very good guy named Walker. 
 
 Then I came after the hedge fund business. So he wasn’t in love with me for a short period of time. And he backed Bush. And that was OK. But his first choice was Trump. I think it’s important to say that because, you know. Is that a true story, by the way? 
 
 SCARAMUCCI (?): I was hitting you a little bit – (inaudible) – hedge funds first. 
 
 TRUMP: Give me those notes, Hope, come on, just give – I can’t read it. What do you think, I have 20/20 perfect – 
 
 HICKS: I was just saying, you self-funded. 
 
 TRUMP: Huh? 
 
 HICKS: You self-funded. 
 
 TRUMP: Oh, yeah, I self-funded much of my – 
 
 WSJ: Just on Sessions, just one thing. Would you like to see him step aside? Would you like to see him resign? Would it be in the country’s best interest just – 
 
 TRUMP: I’m just very disappointed in him. I’m disappointed in, you know, a number of categories. I told you, the leakers. He should have – he should be after them. So many people say to me: Why are they going after you on nothing and they leave Hillary Clinton alone on, you know, really major things? And it is – so I’m disappointed in him. And don’t forget, when they say he endorsed me, I went to Alabama. I had 40,000 people, you may have been there, remember, in Mobile? 
 
 WSJ: I remember. 
 
 TRUMP: I had 40,000 people. He was the senator from Alabama. I won the state by a lot, massive numbers. A lot of the states I won by massive numbers. But he was a senator. He looks at 40,000 people and he probably says, what do I have to lose, and he endorsed me. So it’s not like a great, loyal thing about the endorsement. But I’m very disappointed in Jeff Sessions. 
 
 WSJ: Are you willing for the status quo to continue, though? At what point do you say enough? 
 
 TRUMP: I’m just looking at it. I’ll just see. 
 
 WSJ: What about Bob Mueller? 
 
 TRUMP: It’s a very important, very important thing. 
 
 WSJ: I mean, but, Bob Mueller is also really the one leading this investigation. It’s his job to see – 
 
 TRUMP: Well, we’re going to see. 
 
 BAKER: And he’s investigating Russia – your Russian connection – 
 
 WSJ: He’s the Russian guy. So Sessions has recused himself, but is Bob Mueller’s job safe? There is speculation – 
 
 TRUMP: No, we’re going to see. I mean, I have no comment yet, because it’s too early. But we’ll see. We’re going to see. Here’s the good news: I was never involved with Russia. There was nobody in the campaign. I’ve got 200 people that will say that they’ve never seen anybody on the campaign. Here’s another – he was involved early. There’s nobody on the campaign that saw anybody from Russia. We had nothing to do with Russia. They lost an election and they came up with this as an excuse. And the only ones that are laughing are the Democrats and the Russians. They’re the only ones that are laughing. And if Jeff Sessions didn’t recuse himself, we wouldn’t even be talking about this subject. 
 
 WSJ: Would you consider – 
 
 TRUMP: You know, it was very interesting. Trey Gowdy said today – again, he’s a very straight shooter, he’s a good guy – he said, no, I understand the president. He was on Fox. He said: I understand the president. You put a man in office who really wanted that job. I actually said to him – and you know some of my lawyers, it’s not – you know, off the record, it’s not exactly – right? You know some of them. 
 
 BAKER: I know Marc quite well. 
 
 TRUMP: Well, but a lot of them. But I put a man in office – and he said this. And he goes in office, then he immediately recuses himself. I fully understand the president. You know, and a lot of people do, a lot of people. He – you know, I don’t go to loyalty. I think it’s disloyal to the office of the presidency, not necessarily me. I think it’s very disloyal to the office of the presidency. And if he didn’t do that, you wouldn’t have all this stuff. You know, you wouldn’t have it. 
 
 So, just a couple of things before we finish. Just – I’m sure you love Stuart Varney. But he just came out, $4 trillion in value in the stock market. RNC has more than 80 million in cash, whereas the Democrats owe money, OK, although they’re trying to come up with their new campaign. Trust me, it won’t work. And I said it the last time (and I was wrong ?). Immigration went down 78 percent at the border – 78 percent at the border. Kelly’s done a great job. 
 
 BAKER: You going to veto the Russian sanctions legislation? 
 
 TRUMP: Well, I haven’t seen them yet. I haven’t seen them in final form. I will say this, Congress, if they’re going to negotiate, they make the worst deals I’ve ever seen. They made NAFTA. They made – you know, they allowed the Iran deal to go through. 
 
 WSJ: You said you’re opposed – 
 
 TRUMP: I make good deals. I don’t make bad deals. I make good deals. So, but, I haven’t made my – I have not seen them. I have to see. 
 
 By the way, a lot of things have taken place in that agreement that are a lot different from what it was two weeks ago – a lot of things. 
 
 BAKER: You also – you brought in Anthony, obviously. Are you planning other changes – are you planning other changes in the White House? After you brought in Anthony, are you planning other changes? 
 
 TRUMP: I mean, we’ll see. We’ll see. I do say this, I believe we’ve done more than just about any president of the United States in six months. And I was going to tell you before, so a lot of times I’ll turn on television or I’ll read in The Wall Street Journal, right – 
 
 WSJ: Thank you. 
 
 TRUMP: – what’s Trump doing? He hasn’t produced health care. I’m not even six months yet, right? So these guys went eight years – Hillary Clinton, eight years, got nothing. Obama went a year and a half, almost two years, and they had to sell their soul. They had to give away the state of Nebraska in order to buy that vote. And that was two years. I’m six months. They got to give me a little break, OK? And today we’re having a big vote, and we’ll see what happens. But today’s vote is big, because once you get in – once you’re allowed to talk a lot of – 
 
 BAKER: But we can’t expect any more staff changes in the immediate – in the immediate future? 
 
 TRUMP: No, I don’t think so. 
 
 BAKER: No? 
 
 TRUMP: But I’m very happy with Anthony. I think Anthony is going to do amazing. 
 
 WSJ: Would you consider pardons, Mr. President, given the investigation is – 
 
 TRUMP: You know what? I don’t even think of pardons. Here’s why, nobody did anything wrong. Look at Jared, everybody – we do appreciate the editorial – but everybody said Jared Kushner. Jared’s a very private person. He doesn’t get out. I mean, maybe it’s good or maybe it’s bad what I do, but at least people know how I feel. Jared’s this really nice, smart guy, who’d love to see peace in the Middle East and in Israel, OK? 
 
 WSJ: Gerry, yeah, Gary and are bouncers from – (inaudible). (Laughter.) 
 
 BAKER: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. President. 
 
 WSJ: Thank you, Mr. President. Thanks. 
 
 WSJ: Tom Barrack as Mexican ambassador? 
 
 TRUMP: I’m thinking about it. What do you think? Do you like him? 
 
 WSJ: Yeah. 
 
 TRUMP: Tom Barrack, yes? Call him up, tell him I’m giving it to him. [Laughter.] ||||| In this Jan. 11, 2017, photo, President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York. The outgoing president somberly ruminated about the fragility of democracy... (Associated Press) 
 
 In this Jan. 11, 2017, photo, President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York. The outgoing president somberly ruminated about the fragility of democracy and earnestly implored Americans to reject corrosive political dialogue. Fourteen hours later,... (Associated Press) 
 
 WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday that top intelligence leaders told him and President Barack Obama they felt obligated to inform them about uncorroborated allegations about President-elect Donald Trump out of concern the information would become public and catch them off-guard. 
 
 In an interview, Biden said neither he nor Obama asked U.S. intelligence agencies to try to corroborate the unverified claims that Russia had obtained compromising sexual and financial allegations about Trump. 
 
 "I think it's something that obviously the agency thinks they have to track down," Biden said. He added later, "It surprised me in that it made it to the point where the agency, the FBI thought they had to pursue it." 
 
 In the hourlong session with The Associated Press and other news outlets, the vice president was sharply critical of Trump for publicly disparaging intelligence officials, saying Trump was damaging U.S. standing and playing into Russia's hands. He also took umbrage at Trump's comments accusing intelligence agencies of allowing the information to leak publicly and drawing a comparison to "living in Nazi Germany." 
 
 "The one thing you never want to invoke is Nazi Germany, no matter what the circumstances," Biden said. "It's an overwhelming diversion from the point you're trying to make." 
 
 Biden said that in the briefing he and Obama received from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and others, there were "no conclusions drawn" from the uncorroborated dossier, which was produced in August and then released publicly this week by the media. Biden said it was "totally ancillary" to the purpose of the meeting, which was to brief Obama on a report he ordered documenting Russian interference in the U.S. campaign. 
 
 "As a matter of fact, the president was like, 'What does this have anything to do with anything?'" Biden said. He said intelligence leaders responded by saying "Well, we feel obliged to tell you, Mr. President, because you may hear about it. We're going to tell him," referring to Trump. 
 
 Biden said intelligence leaders told him and Obama that they couldn't say whether or not the allegations were true or untrue. He said there was "hardly any discussion" about the allegations in the briefing. 
 
 "Neither the president nor I asked for any detail," Biden said. But he added of the dossier: "I've read everything." 
 
 Trump has vehemently denied the allegations included in a dossier about close coordination between Trump's inner circle and Russians. The dossier also included unsubstantiated claims about unusual sexual activities by Trump, attributed to anonymous sources. The Associated Press has not authenticated the claims. Trump has denied them. 
 
 The FBI has been working to corroborate the details in the dossier, although it's unclear how long that investigation has been running or how many resources are assigned. FBI Director James Comey has declined even to acknowledge the investigation publicly in line with FBI protocol. 
 
 The dossier was compiled by a former Western intelligence operative and had been circulating among news organizations and intelligence agencies in Washington for months. Its existence became known publicly following reports the intelligence community had briefed Trump on the dossier. 
 
 In the interview, Biden criticized Trump's rocky relationship with intelligence officials. The president-elect has publicly challenged their assessment about Russia's role in the election and suggested they have skewed evidence. Trump has received the President's Daily Brief, the highest-level intelligence document produced in the United States, a few times but has insisted he doesn't need it daily and suggested he knows more than intelligence leaders. 
 
 Biden said it would be a "genuine tragedy" if Trump refused the daily intelligence briefing presidents traditionally receive. 
 
 To illustrate his point, Biden took out the black tablet computer he uses to read his daily briefing and showed it to reporters as he sat next to a crackling fireplace in his office, just steps from the Oval Office. He said it is password-protected and includes a feature he uses to ask questions about the intelligence that are responded to the same day. 
 
 Biden said at least five foreign leaders have already contacted him expressing concern over Trump's second-guessing of U.S. intelligence agencies. 
 
 "It is really very damaging in my view to our standing in the world for a president to take one of the crown jewels of our national defense and denigrate it," Biden said. "It plays into, particularly now, the Russian narrative that America doesn't know what it's doing." 
 
 After nearly half a century in public office, Biden will exit the national stage next Friday, although he plans to stay active in Democratic politics and work on policy issues at a pair of institutes he's developing at the University of Delaware and the University of Pennsylvania. He also plans to continue with the cancer "moonshot" effort he launched after his son died. 
 
 Biden was full of praise for his successor, Vice President-elect Mike Pence. He said he's been sending Pence memos with his advice on how to handle certain relationships, such as with Iraqi and Ukrainian leaders, and on "the things that could explode most easily." 
 
 He said Pence had been receptive to his advice but had less time these days to speak to Biden due to the heavy role he's playing in setting up Trump's administration. Biden said he's made his national security adviser, Colin Kahl, available to Pence but hoped Pence would quickly name a national security adviser of his own. 
 
 "It would be better if they had been in a better position where he actually had somebody that Colin could sit down with every morning," Biden said. 
 
 ___ 
 
 Reach Josh Lederman on Twitter at http://twitter.com/joshledermanAP ||||| The dollar tumbled to its lowest level in a month after Donald Trump suggested to The Wall Street Journal he favored a weaker dollar, breaking with decades of tradition and intensifying investor concern over the incoming administration’s capacity to surprise. 
 
 The president-elect in an interview published Monday described the dollar as “too strong. ” He dismissed a major tax proposal that would favor U.S. exports over imports— known as a border adjustment—that was expected to further boost the dollar, as “too complicated.” 
 
 ... ||||| Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., right, accompanied by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo. leave a Senate Republican conference leadership election meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday,... (Associated Press) 
 
 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., right, accompanied by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo. leave a Senate Republican conference leadership election meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2016, after Senate Republicans re-elected McConnell to be majority leader in the upcoming... (Associated Press) 
 
 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on Donald Trump's transition to the presidency. (All times EST): 
 
 8:50 p.m. 
 
 Donald Trump's transition team says the incoming president is planning to require officials to pledge that they won't lobby the government for five years after leaving the Trump administration. 
 
 Transition spokesman Sean Spicer says Trump will require new government officials to terminate their role as either state or federal lobbyists before joining the administration. And he says government officials will agree to a five-year lobbying ban after leaving. 
 
 Trump has vowed to "drain the swamp" when he begins his White House administration next year. 
 
 Spicer says people leaving government "won't be able to use that service to enrich themselves." 
 
 ___ 
 
 6:28 p.m. 
 
 Kansas congressman Tim Huelskamp says someone "close to the transition" of President-elect Donald Trump has contacted him about becoming agriculture secretary. 
 
 Huelskamp lost the GOP primary in his agriculture-heavy Kansas district this year after he was booted from the House Agriculture Committee amid fights with Republican leadership. He also opposed a five-year farm law enacted in 2014. 
 
 The Kansas Farm Bureau, Kansas Livestock Association and National Association of Wheat Growers endorsed Huelskamp's challenger, Roger Marshall. 
 
 Huelskamp said Wednesday that the USDA needs major reform, including stronger work requirements for food stamps. 
 
 Some other possible candidates for agriculture secretary include Charles Conner of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, a former Bush USDA official; former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue; Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller; and Nebraska cattle rancher Charles Herbster. 
 
 ___ 
 
 5:45 p.m. 
 
 South Carolina's lieutenant governor says a member of Donald Trump's transition team has asked if he's interested in being attorney general. 
 
 Henry McMaster also says he's been told that South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is being considered for secretary of state. 
 
 McMaster tells The Associated Press he was contacted Wednesday. The former U.S. attorney and two-term state attorney general declined to specify who on the team called him. 
 
 McMaster was an early backer of Trump. 
 
 Haley endorsed and campaigned with Sen. Marco Rubio for South Carolina's first-in-the-South presidential primary. When Rubio dropped out, she backed Ted Cruz and continued to criticize Trump. 
 
 ___ 
 
 5:15 p.m. 
 
 President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence have received their first looks at the President's Daily Brief — the highest level intelligence document prepared in the United States. 
 
 Trump received his on Tuesday and Pence was briefed on Wednesday in Washington, according to an individual familiar with the briefings schedule. The individual, who was not authorized to discuss the briefings, spoke only on condition of anonymity. 
 
 Intelligence officials briefed Trump and Pence after the GOP convention, but the President's Daily Brief has more detail, including information about U.S. covert operations. 
 
 President Harry S. Truman started the practice because he first learned about the U.S. project to develop an atomic bomb only 12 days into his presidency. He pledged not to leave his successor in that position. 
 
 ___ 
 
 3:08 p.m. 
 
 Donald Trump is considering charter school advocate Eva Moskowitz to serve as education secretary, according to a senior Trump official. 
 
 The official says Moskowitz, the founder of Success Academy Charter Schools, was at Trump Tower Wednesday meeting with the president-elect's team. 
 
 Moskowitz is a former New York City councilwoman and a Democrat. She's clashed with Mayor Bill de Blasio over the expansion of some of her charter schools. 
 
 De Blasio was also at Trump Tower Wednesday meeting with the president-election. 
 
 The Trump official discussed Moskowitz on the condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to publicly discuss the internal transition process. 
 
 --By Julie Pace 
 
 ___ 
 
 2:40 p.m. 
 
 Vice President Joe Biden says he's not worried about the incoming administration's readiness to take over the White House. 
 
 Biden told reporters after meeting with Vice President-elect Mike Pence on Wednesday that he's "confident on day one everything will be in good hands." 
 
 Addressing reports of infighting within President-elect Donald Trump's transition team, Biden said that "no administration's ready on day one. We weren't really on day one." 
 
 Biden and his wife Jill spent nearly two hours with their successors Wednesday afternoon, sitting down for lunch with the Vice President-elect and his wife, Karen, and giving them a tour of the vice presidential residence and grounds. 
 
 Biden also said he's not worried about the new administration dismantling his legacy, despite the President-elect's very different policy agenda. 
 
 Biden said that he hopes the Pences enjoy the home at Washington's Naval Observatory as much as he did. 
 
 ___ 
 
 2:30 p.m. 
 
 The top Republican in the Senate says "it's time for the election to be over." 
 
 Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also declined to answer questions about President-elect Donald Trump's appointment of Steve Bannon as senior counselor, saying he wouldn't comment about White House staffing. Bannon's hiring has come under fire because of his Breitbart news site's derogatory comments about blacks, Muslims and women. 
 
 McConnell told reporters on Wednesday that he would not go back and re-litigate what was said during a hotly contested presidential race. He said the focus is on working with Trump to repeal and replace the health care law, overhaul the tax system and deal with other issues. 
 
 He also declined to comment on Trump's call for a ban on all executive-branch officials from lobbying for five years after leaving their government jobs. 
 
 ___ 
 
 1:55 p.m. 
 
 House Democrats have sent a letter to President-elect Donald Trump asking him to rescind the appointment of Breitbart News executive Steve Bannon as a senior White House adviser. 
 
 The letter, which has signatures from 169 out of the 188 Democrats in the House, says the appointment of conservative flame-thrower Bannon undermines Trump's ability to unite the country. It points out stories from the website that are derogatory toward Jews and Muslims, among other groups. 
 
 "Millions of Americans have expressed fear and concern about how they will be treated by the Trump Administration and your appointment of Mr. Bannon only exacerbates and validates their concerns," the letter reads. 
 
 Rep. David N. Cicilline, D-R.I, organized the effort. "Bigotry, anti-Semitism, and xenophobia should have no place in our society," he said. 
 
 ___ 
 
 1:10 p.m. 
 
 New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio says he met with President-elect Donald Trump and "let him know that so many New Yorkers are fearful" of what his administration could bring. 
 
 De Blasio spoke to reporters after his hour-long meeting at Trump Tower Wednesday, which he categorized as "respectful" and "candid" with a real "give-and-take." 
 
 The mayor, a liberal Democrat, and Trump have previously clashed. He said concerns with Trump's support of aggressive policing tactics, his tax plans and any move to deport immigrants living in the United States illegally. 
 
 De Blasio said that Trump "loves this city" and added that he urged the Republican president-elect to send a "sign of unity" to his hometown, which overwhelmingly voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton. 
 
 ___ 
 
 11:50 a.m. 
 
 A spokesman for President-elect Donald Trump says the transition team is "not going to rush" to put forward potential Cabinet selections. 
 
 Jason Miller said Wednesday that Trump's team wants to feel confident their choices will be able to be confirmed by the Senate and can implement the president-elect's vision. 
 
 Miller told reporters at Trump Tower in New York City that President Barack Obama did not have "his entire Cabinet formed within the first week" after his election in 2008. 
 
 He said the transition team has a "very solid plan" and they're taking a "methodical approach" to filling Trump's Cabinet and White House. 
 
 ___ 
 
 11:35 a.m. 
 
 Over 300 U.S. businesses have signed a statement calling on President-elect Donald Trump to support the Paris Agreement on climate change — including General Mills, eBay, Intel, Unilever, and dozens of other Fortune 500 companies. 
 
 Their statement reads "implementing the Paris Agreement will enable and encourage businesses and investors to turn the billions of dollars in existing low-carbon investments into the trillions of dollars the world needs to bring clean energy and prosperity to all." 
 
 The statement is addressed to Trump, President Barack Obama and members of Congress. It calls on elected U.S. officials to maintain the country's policy and financial commitments to lower carbon emissions. 
 
 Lara Birkes, chief sustainability officer of Hewlett Packard Enterprise, says "the Paris Agreement was a vital step forward, but its power is in our collective action." 
 
 ___ 
 
 11:32 a.m. 
 
 Czech President Milos Zeman has called U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's former wife, Ivana, to thank her for her "courage" and interest to become the new U.S. ambassador to Prague. 
 
 In a Wednesday statement, Zeman said he's pleased with that because "the U.S. cannot send a better ambassador to Prague" than her. 
 
 Zeman said he would be delighted to meet her at the Prague Castle, the seat of presidency and is looking forward to introduce her to his wife, also named Ivana. 
 
 Ivana, Trump's first wife and the mother of his three oldest children, is of Czech origin. 
 
 Zeman was among several European leaders, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who endorsed Trump during the campaign. 
 
 Zeman said he shared Trump's views of migration and the fight against the Islamic terrorism. 
 
 Trump's presidential transition team provided no readout of the conversation between the Czech leader and his ex-wife. 
 
 ___ 
 
 9:15 a.m. 
 
 The White House Correspondents' Association says it is "unacceptable" that President-elect Donald Trump is traveling without a regular pool of journalists to inform the public of his whereabouts. 
 
 Trump left his residence Tuesday night for a family dinner after his transition team had told journalists he would not be in public the rest of the day. A protective pool of journalists is supposed to join the president or president-elect's motorcade to record their whereabouts and be on hand in the event of breaking news. 
 
 Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks has said the team plans to respect the traditions of press access at the White House. WHCA President Jeff Mason says "the time to act on that promise is now." 
 
 Mason says it is critical that journalists covering the president-elect "be allowed to do their job." 
 
 __ 
 
 7:50 a.m. 
 
 Ohio congressman Tim Ryan says Democrats should get back to economic basics of manufacturing, not veer to its liberal wing in the wake of Republican Donald Trump's election victory. 
 
 Ryan is considering challenging Rep. Nancy Pelosi as House Democratic leader because he says the party risks sliding back into an ideological past rather than moving forward. 
 
 He told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Wednesday that Democrats "have to grab that idea of making things in America again." 
 
 "No one wants to hear about job retraining," he said. "They want jobs." 
 
 ___ 
 
 6:30 a.m. 
 
 President-elect Donald Trump is denying reports that efforts are underway to get security clearances for his adult children. 
 
 In a post on his verified Twitter account @realDonaldTrump early Wednesday, the billionaire businessman who's to be inaugurated as the nation's 45th president on Jan. 20, said, "I am not trying to get top security clearances for my children." 
 
 Trump, who has been immersed in transition planning at his office skyscraper in New York in recent days, added, "This was a typically false news story." 
 
 There had been rampant speculation in recent days that such an effort was being attempted. Asked about it earlier this week, Kellyanne Conway, who was Trump's campaign manager, said in a broadcast interview she wasn't "intimately' familiar with the issue and indicated she couldn't confirm it. 
 
 4:20 a.m. 
 
 Turkey's president has criticized protests in the United States against Donald Trump, saying the president-elect should be respected and given time to show how he will govern. 
 
 Speaking to reporters on Wednesday before a visit to Pakistan, Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the protesters were "attacking" Trump because "the person they wanted wasn't elected president." 
 
 Erdogan said: "Hold on a second. The election process just ended, show some respect! How will he govern, let's see that first." 
 
 The Turkish leader added: This is important in terms of showing who respects democracy in the world." 
 
 3:30 a.m. 
 
 President-elect Donald Trump hadn't been seen in public for days when he walked into New York's 21 Club to applause from fellow diners. The unannounced evening out with family was a contrast to the behind-the scenes machinations that suggested a struggling transition as names surfaced and sank for top administration positions. 
 
 Not to worry, Trump suggested in a Tuesday night tweet: "Very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions. I am the only one who knows who the finalists are!" 
 
 Before dinner at the midtown Manhattan restaurant— he broke with protocol and left his press contingent behind — Trump met with the head of his transition team, Vice President-elect Mike Pence, but another day passed without a Cabinet announcement. ||||| Trump/Xi could do a small deal 
 
 Editor's Note: This edition of Morning Money is published weekdays at 8 a.m. POLITICO Pro Financial Services subscribers hold exclusive early access to the newsletter each morning at 5:15 a.m. To learn more about POLITICO Pro's comprehensive policy intelligence coverage, policy tools and services, click here. 
 
 TRUMP/XI MAY DO SMALL DEAL — As we suggested was the most likely outcome earlier this week, reports are emerging that President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping could agree at the G20 in Buenos Aires to set up further talks in December and early next year on addressing major issues on intellectual property theft, joint venture rules, corporate ownership and forced technology transfers. In return for the agreement to address big issues, the White House would hold off for now on pressing forward with the next round of tariffs on an additional $267 billion in Chinese exports. 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 Trump himself before taking off for Argentina suggested a deal was very possible though he would not commit to it: “I think we're very close to doing something with China, but I don't know that I want to do it because what we have right now is billions and billions of dollars coming into the United States in the form of tariffs or taxes. So I really don't know. But I will tell you that I think China wants to make a deal. I'm open to making a deal. But, frankly, I like the deal we have right now.” 
 
 Interestingly Trump, who often tweets about how much tariffs are bringing in, referred to them as what they are – taxes – in this statement. He often seems to suggest it is China paying the taxes, when it is actually American producers and consumers. But the very reference to tariffs as taxes jumped off the page to MM when we read the transcript. 
 
 Here’s how WSJ’s Bob Davis and Lingling Wei described potential terms of a deal: “It isn’t clear what specifics the U.S. is asking for—or what Beijing is willing to entertain. One offer, according to Chinese officials: in return for the suspension of U.S. tariffs, Beijing would agree to lift restrictions on China’s purchases of U.S. farm and energy products. 
 
 “Such a deal would follow the model of partial agreements the U.S. has cut in recent months with the European Union and Japan, U.S. officials said. In those deals, the U.S. agreed not to levy more tariffs—in those cases, tariffs on automobiles—while the two sides negotiated over specific areas.” 
 
 In their write-up, Bloomberg’s Jennifer Jacobs, Shawn Donnan and Jenny Leonard report that Chinese Vice Premier Liu He could come to DC for further talks next month: “The two sides have also been eyeing a possible mid-December trip to … by Liu He, Xi’s top economic adviser … But whether that visit actually takes place would depend on a positive outcome in Buenos Aires.” Read more. 
 
 POSSIBLY SOURING THE MOOD — Just before leaving, Trump had to confront another guilty plea from his former lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen, this time to Robert Mueller’s prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. Trump tried to shake it off as not a threat. But one big concern among free-traders was that Trump would sour on any deals with China and want to look tough in Buenos Aires if he faced negative Mueller news. And that’s exactly what he got. 
 
 Our Andrew Restuccia and Gabby Orr: “White House aides had hoped that the G-20 summit would be an opportunity for … Trump to showcase his deal-making skills. Now, they’re worried that special counsel Robert Mueller’s latest bombshell could overshadow his latest tour on the world stage. And some think that’s just the way Mueller wanted it. 
 
 “In a Thursday statement, Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, called it ‘hardly coincidental’ that Mueller made a dramatic legal move ‘just as the President is leaving for a meeting with world leaders,’ adding that the chief Russia investigator ‘did the very same thing as the President was leaving for a world summit in Helsinki.’ … There’s no evidence that Mueller sought, in either case, to overshadow Trump’s travel.” 
 
 ** A message from The Clearing House: The Clearing House’s RTP network, designed for the digital age and for financial institutions of all sizes, has made real-time payments a reality in the U.S. A year ago this month, the first U.S. payment to settle and clear in real-time from end-to-end was made on the RTP network. https://www.bankingperspectives.com/the-rtp-network-turns-1-tchs-commitment-to-faster-payments/ ** 
 
 HOW A DEAL COULD DIE — China hawk Peter Navarro is now back on the list for the Saturday night dinner along with USTR Robert Lighthizer who also favors a tough line with the Chinese. So they will potentially offset the influence of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and NEC Director Larry Kudlow, who both favor a deal. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and hawkish National Security Adviser John Bolton are also on the list. Everything will come down to Trump but the numbers are not stacked in the free-traders favor. 
 
 GET SMART QUICK ON THE COHEN PLEA — Our Theodoric Meyer has a primer on who Cohen is, what he pleaded to and what it could mean for Trump: “Cohen … pleaded guilty on Thursday to lying to Congress about his role in negotiating a failed deal to build at Trump Tower in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign. … 
 
 “Cohen pleaded guilty to misleading Congress to ‘minimize links between the Moscow Project’ and Trump — identified as ‘Individual 1’ in the court filing — and make it seem like the project had ended before the Iowa caucus ‘in hopes of limiting the ongoing Russia investigations.’” 
 
 WHY TRUMP SHOULD WORRY — Noah Feldman on Bloomberg Opinion: “The key revelation … is this: … Mueller is one step closer to showing links between … Trump’s business interests in Russia and his conduct as a candidate for president. 
 
 The criminal information … states that in a period that lasted until the middle of June 2016, Cohen asked the press secretary to Russian President Vladimir Putin for a meeting with Putin in Russia as part of a deal that would have led to a Trump Tower being built in Moscow. … 
 
 “Until now, many have speculated that there must be some link between Trump’s business interests in Russia and his campaign conduct. The Cohen plea provides more concrete evidence of such a link.” Read more. 
 
 A PENTHOUSE FOR PUTIN — BuzzFeed’s Anthony Cormier and Jason Leopold: “Trump’s company planned to give a $50 million penthouse at Trump Tower Moscow to Russian President Vladimir Putin as the company negotiated the luxury real estate development during the 2016 campaign, according to four people, one of them the originator of the plan. 
 
 “Two US law enforcement officials told BuzzFeed News that Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer at the time, discussed the idea with a representative of Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s press secretary. … The revelation that representatives of the Trump Organization planned to forge direct financial links with the leader of a hostile nation at the height of the campaign raises fresh questions about … Trump's relationship with the Kremlin.” Read more. 
 
 SHUTDOWN FIGHT HEATS UP — Our Marianne LeVine and Sarah Ferris: 
 
 “Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) slammed … Trump Thursday for holding up spending talks and offered his own hard line as a fight over Trump’s border wall heats up. Schumer said Trump could either accept a bipartisan bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security or simply extend existing funding levels for one more year, a disappointment for a president who wants to increase border security spending. … 
 
 “Congress has until Dec. 7 to avoid a partial government shutdown, with funding for Trump’s border wall the biggest issue. … In his speech, Schumer blasted the Trump administration for not spending the $1.3 billion Congress already allocated for border security and accused the president of “trying to manufacture a shutdown to fire up his own base.” 
 
 KRANINGER MOVES AHEAD — Our Zachary Warmbrodt: “The nomination of Kathy Kraninger to head the CFPB advanced in the Senate .. in a party-line vote. The Senate agreed to move forward with her confirmation in a 50-49 vote. Once she receives a final vote next week, Kraninger will replace acting director Mick Mulvaney, who took the helm of the agency a year ago. 
 
 “Republicans and Democrats had expected the confirmation vote to be partisan, and that's what happened … Liberal and moderate Democrats have criticized Kraninger's nomination, arguing that the Office of Management and Budget official lacks experience. Democrats have also linked her to other Trump administration controversies, including the family separation policy along the U.S.-Mexico border.” Read more. 
 
 A COUNTER TO THE SLOW-DOWN NARRATIVE — Via Brown Brothers Harriman Chief Investment Strategist Scott Clemons: “Rumors of the demise of the US economic cycle are greatly exaggerated. There is no question that the pace of US economic activity is slowing down, but from lofty levels … We expect a moderation in economic activity, but no recession. … 
 
 “The fundamental supports of economic activity remain healthy. The housing market is beginning to feel some pressure from higher mortgage rates, but prices are strong. Housing prices nationwide are up around 5% year over year. … The labor market is providing similar economic support … and workers are finally seeing a slight acceleration in wages” 
 
 HAPPENING MONDAY: CANADIAN FINANCE MINISTER EVENT — Our POLITICO Pro Canada’s Luiza Savage and Alex Panetta will interview Canada’s Finance Minister Bill Morneau in NYC Monday morning. Details here. 
 
 GOOD FRIDAY MORNING — Happy weekend, everyone! Email me at bwhite@politico.com and follow me on Twitter @morningmoneyben. Email Aubree Eliza Weaver at aweaver@politico.com and follow her on Twitter @AubreeEWeaver. 
 
 THE ADAGE “WORK HARD AND GET AHEAD” is a waning reality in America today. The question is: What can Washington do to foster more opportunity and prosperity in struggling communities across the country? POLITICO convened a bipartisan group of 14 business leaders, thinkers and policymakers to explore the problem and identify solutions that have a realistic path forward with political leaders of both parties. Read the latest issue of The Agenda to learn more. 
 
 Let Women Rule your inbox: The Women Rule Newsletter is a weekly email that shares original content, practical advice, backstage stories, special events and impactful resources for women at any stage of their career. If you are a woman looking to lead or grow your professional network, look no further than Women Rule. No one rises to the top alone, so sign up for our newsletter and get started today. 
 
 SUMMERS ON TRUMP VS THE FED — Larry Summers in a Fox Business interview on the debut Friday of “WSJ at Large with Gerry Baker”: “I think we’re also in a more dangerous monetary environment because we’ve got a president sounding off about the Fed. That’s just got to increase uncertainty premiums everywhere, make it harder for the Fed to do its job, and I think that kind of political rhetoric about monetary policy is really quite dangerous. … 
 
 “[T]he ways in which the president spoke in, I don’t think any thoughtful economist would agree with. But I do think that there are more risks of over-tightening than there are of under-tightening right now.” 
 
 HANDICAPPING TRUMP/XI — Mohamed A. El-Erian on Bloomberg Opinion: “If it were only about economics, the outcome of the meeting between … Trump and Xi Jinping on the sideline of the G-20 Summit in Argentina on Saturday would be a lot easier to predict: an immediate easing of trade tensions as a step toward reaching concrete agreements down the road. … 
 
 “The economist in me says the U.S. and Chinese leaders will strike a constructive tone that defuses tensions … But this isn't just about economics. Both countries are also dealing with broader issues.” Read more. 
 
 WARREN LAYS ON FOREIGN POLICY/TRADE POSITIONS — Our Nahal Toosi: “Sen. Elizabeth Warren [called] on Thursday for a U.S. foreign policy that ‘works for all Americans,’ not just wealthy capitalists, and helps block the rise of authoritarianism. In a speech at American University, the likely 2020 White House contender also [announced] her opposition … Trump’s newly renegotiated trade deal with Canada and Mexico, while calling for a smaller defense budget, a pullout of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and a ‘no first use’ nuclear weapons policy.” Read more. 
 
 NO BIG TAX BILL COMING — Our Brian Faler: “Some top tax aides in Congress … cast doubt on the prospect of lawmakers agreeing to a big tax bill released this week by House Republicans. Lawmakers are more focused right now on heading off a government shutdown, said Aruna Kalyanam, staff director for Ways and Means Democrats. ‘This is kind of a sideshow — there is a [government] funding fight that still needs to be resolved’ and ‘my understanding is that they are not close — that there are a lot of problems there,’ she said. ... 
 
 “Senate aides, meanwhile, noted it would take lawmakers in that chamber a while to come to an agreement. ‘We need member feedback and that includes on-committee members, that includes off-committee members, that includes Republican members and Democrat members,’ said Jennifer Acuña, Republicans' chief tax counsel on the Finance Committee. ‘Building consensus is the name of the game.’” Read more. 
 
 RYAN BUDGET PANEL CRASHES — Our Sarah Ferris: “A special panel dreamed up by Speaker Paul Ryan to end the constant cycle of government shutdowns crashed and burned on Thursday. The special panel tasked with recommending budget fixes overwhelmingly rejected its own set of proposals, even after lawmakers admitted the package included only modest changes to the way Congress approves budgets and funds the government. 
 
 “The failed vote follows months of amicable work toward a bipartisan deal. In recent weeks, however, partisan feuding divided the group as members from each side of the aisle began accusing the other party's leaders of dooming approval in the Senate. ‘We got gamed here,” said Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), who, at one point, banged his fist on the table as he bemoaned the panel’s failure. ‘By leadership — House, Senate, Republican, Democrat.’ Perdue's long-time ally on budget issues, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), agreed: ‘On both sides, there is no interest in going forward in this Congress.’” Read more. 
 
 FLY AROUND 
 
 HOW POWELL REACTS TO TRUMP — WSJ’s Nick Timiraos: “Some wondered, with no evidence, if Mr. Trump’s attacks were starting to sway the Fed leader. Mr. Powell’s conduct so far suggests that is unfounded, and people close to him strongly dispute that notion. 
 
 “Mr. Powell has told others that he knows the president’s criticism could make his life unpleasant, but that he wouldn’t respond to political pressure. People close to Mr. Powell said he understood that history would judge him on policy decisions made over his four-year term.” Read more. 
 
 SANDBERG SOUGHT INFO ON SOROS — NYT’s Nicholas Confessore and Matthew Rosenberg: “Sheryl Sandberg asked Facebook’s communications staff to research George Soros’s financial interests in the wake of his high-profile attacks on tech companies, according to three people with knowledge of her request, indicating that Facebook’s second in command was directly involved in the social network’s response to the liberal billionaire. 
 
 “Ms. Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, asked for the information in an email in January to senior communications and policy executives. The email came within days of a blistering speech Mr. Soros delivered that month at the World Economic Forum, attacking Facebook and Google as a ‘menace’ to society and calling for the companies to be regulated.” Read more. 
 
 MORE TRUMP/XI DETAILS — FT’s Tom Mitchell and James Politi: “Chinese and US officials have discussed holding a further round of trade talks in Washington in December if Xi Jinping and Donald Trump agree to a trade war truce in Buenos Aires this weekend, according to three people familiar with the preparations. 
 
 “The people said that if Mr Xi and Mr Trump can reach a truce, Beijing’s lead trade negotiator, vice-premier Liu He, would lead a delegation of 30 Chinese officials to the US capital on a mission tentatively scheduled for December 12-15. The two sides remain far apart on a number of critical issues … According to the people briefed on the preparations, Mr Liu’s December trip would go ahead if Mr Trump agreed to a pause in any further tariff measures in return for the Chinese government’s willingness to negotiate possible changes to its industrial policies” Read more. 
 
 GM WORKERS DON’T BLAME TRUMP — WP’s Jenna Johnson: “Eight miles northwest of the General Motors assembly plant expected to close next year, two workers and a customer at an auto-parts store pointed fingers: Americans just don’t want to drive small cars like those produced at the plant. Gas prices are low, making big vehicles even more attractive. And GM can get cheaper labor elsewhere. 
 
 “But none of the three men pointed a finger at … Trump, who had promised residents here and throughout the industrial Midwest that he would stop the closure of factories. At one political rally in the area last year, he even urged residents to stay put and not sell their homes. … And even a customer who would like to see Trump impeached said he doesn’t fully fault the president.” Read more. 
 
 ** A message from The Clearing House: The Clearing House’s RTP network is the first new payments rail to be introduced in the U.S. in 40 years and the first designed and built for the digital age. The system delivers 24/7/365 real-time clearing and settlement of payments, along with rich messaging and data capabilities. Financial institutions are developing innovative products for consumers and businesses that rely on RTP’s speed, safety and convenience and RTP will support a wave of innovation that will revolutionize payments. RTP was designed with input from a broad range of stakeholders for financial institutions of all sizes. By the end of 2018, the RTP network will reach nearly 50 percent of accounts in the U.S. and is on path to reach nearly all accounts in the U.S. by the Federal Reserve’s Faster Payments Task Force’s goal of 2020. Read about The RTP Network Turns 1: TCH's Commitment to Faster Payments at https://www.bankingperspectives.com/the-rtp-network-turns-1-tchs-commitment-to-faster-payments/ ** ||||| Commander in chief reflects on the election results and how he'll spend his time post-White House 
 
 My final interview with President Obama in the White House had been scheduled for the day after the presidential election. I had hoped to look back on what he had achieved over eight years and the issues that mattered the most to him and to the readers of Rolling Stone, hear his advice for Hillary and about the road ahead. It was to be the "exit interview," his tenth cover for Rolling Stone, our fourth interview together. Before flying down to Washington, D.C., on the morning after the staggering election results, I called and offered to postpone. This had to be one of the worst days of Obama's political life, and he hadn't had a moment to reflect on it, to be angry or to accept it. 
 
 But his office called back; Obama wanted to go ahead with the interview as planned. It was a dull, cloudy day, and the White House was nearly empty when I arrived. It had been a long and unhappy night, and now only a skeleton staff remained. It felt like a funeral. 
 
 Ruven Afanador/CPi Syndication 
 
 The last time I had interviewed the president, in 2012, it was a lazy afternoon. I had gone over our time limit by a half-hour, and on leaving the Oval Office, I ran into Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, sitting by the desk of the president's assistant, waiting to come in. This time it was her ghost. 
 
 
 
 Rolling Stone has had a wonderful relationship with Obama over the years. I first met him at the beginning of his 2008 campaign, when he came up to my office for dinner. We backed him when he was up and when he was down. He viewed Rolling Stone readers as part of his base. A year ago, we went to Alaska with him and toured the melting glaciers. With extraordinary pride, we watched him ride the wave of history. 
 
 I had many more questions for him than time allowed: Why had no one responsible for the Wall Street frauds, which cost millions of people their homes, their savings, their jobs, been sent to jail? Likewise, why did the people who misled America into the Iraq War also go scot-free? Would the rise of Donald Trump have been possible had any of them been held accountable? What was his sense of accomplishment in preserving so many millions of acres of national lands? And what did it take to finally put climate change at the top of his agenda. ... 
 
 Alas. 
 
 Obama greeted me outside his office and walked me in. He was tired. He skipped the usual small talk, took off his jacket, sat in his customary chair and said, "Let's do this." He spoke slowly and with precision, staying true to his essential nature: controlled, analytical and cool. There are many things a sitting president cannot say, but this was his carefully reasoned message on a difficult and historic day. 
 
 Related Obama Takes on Climate Change: The Rolling Stone Interview "I don't want to get paralyzed by the magnitude of this thing. I'm a big believer that imagination can solve problems," says the president 
 
 I have to start with last night and ask you how you’re feeling about the election of Donald Trump. Could you believe what you were seeing? Were you blown away like the rest of us? And how are you feeling now? 
 
 Well, I'm disappointed, partly because I think Hillary Clinton would be a very fine president. As I said on the campaign trail, a lot of the work we've done is only partially complete. And we need some continuity in order for us to maximize its benefits. 
 
 Did you ever think this was possible? Did this result ever occur to you? 
 
 I will tell you, New Hampshire, 2008, I had just won Iowa and had this whirlwind tour of New Hampshire, huge rallies, huge crowds, and our internal pollster had us up by 10. And around 7:30, as I'm putting on my clothes to deliver my victory speech, I get a knock on the door by David Plouffe, David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs. And they've got sheepish looks on their faces [chuckles]. And they say, "Barack, we have some interesting news for you. We don't think we're gonna win this thing." 
 
 That's the thing about democracy. That's the thing about voting. It doesn't mean polls are irrelevant, but there is always a human variable involved in this. So I think the odds of Donald Trump winning were always around 20 percent. That [doesn't] seem like a lot, but one out of five is not that unusual. It's not a miracle. 
 
 But aren't you feeling chagrined, pissed off, upset, dismayed? 
 
 Well, I ... no. You know, I don't feel dismayed, because, number one, I couldn't be prouder of the work that we've done over the last eight years. When I turn over the keys to the federal government to the next president of the United States, I can say without any equivocation that the country is a lot better off: The economy is stronger, the federal government works better, and our standing in the world is higher. And so I can take great pride in the work we've done. I can take great satisfaction in the people we've helped. 
 
 I don't want to sugarcoat it. There are consequences to elections. It means that the next Supreme Court justice is going to be somebody who doesn’t reflect my understanding of the Constitution. It means that the work we've done internationally and domestically on climate is going to be threatened. It means that the Affordable Care Act, which has provided 20 million people with health insurance, is going to be modified in ways that some people are going to be hurt by. I think it doesn't take us all the way back to the status quo, because, despite the rhetoric, the Republicans are going to conclude that simply throwing millions of people off the rolls with no health insurance isn't smart politics. But probably the main reason that I don't feel dismayed, but do feel disappointed, is the incredible young people who have worked in my administration, worked on our campaigns. If you look at the data from the election, if it were just young people who were voting, Hillary would have gotten 500 electoral votes. So we have helped, I think, shape a generation to think about being inclusive, being fair, caring about the environment. And they will have growing influence year by year, which means that America over time will continue to get better. 
 
 Pete Souza/The White House 
 
 You think it's still a progressive country? 
 
 I think that nothing is determined, but that the number of people who have a strong belief in a fair, just, equal, inclusive America is the majority and is growing. 
 
 And part of the challenge, though, that we do have, and this is something that I've been chewing on for a while now, is that there is a cohort of working-class white voters that voted for me in sizable numbers, but that we've had trouble getting to vote for Democrats in midterm elections. In this election, [they] turned out in huge numbers for Trump. And I think that part of it has to do with our inability, our failure, to reach those voters effectively. Part of it is Fox News in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country, but part of it is also Democrats not working at a grassroots level, being in there, showing up, making arguments. That part of the critique of the Democratic Party is accurate. We spend a lot of time focused on international policy and national policy and less time being on the ground. And when we're on the ground, we do well. This is why I won Iowa. 
 
 But how did the Democrats miss the white working class in such great numbers, who clearly had these big economic issues? They have lost their jobs in industrial states. ... 
 
 It's not quite that simple, because this is not simply an economic issue. This is a cultural issue. And a communications issue. It is true that a lot of manufacturing has left or transformed itself because of automation. But during the course of my presidency, we added manufacturing jobs at historic rates, and think about it: In Michigan— 
 
 But, I mean— 
 
 Hold on. Let me finish. If you look at Michigan, which I won, not just in 2008 but in 2012, by a wide margin, we paid a lot of attention to manufacturing jobs, which is why the auto industry is on double shifts in plants that used to be shut down. If you look at minimum-wage laws or family-leave policy or the investments that we made in community colleges or, for that matter, the Affordable Care Act, these are all big investments for working families, white, black and Hispanic. The challenge we had is not that we've neglected these communities from a policy perspective. That is, I think, an incorrect interpretation. You start reading folks saying, "Oh, you know, working-class families have been neglected," or "Working-class white families have not been paid attention to by Democrats." Actually, they have. What is true, though, is that whatever policy prescriptions that we've been proposing don't reach, are not heard, by the folks in these communities. And what they do hear is Obama or Hillary are trying to take away their guns or they disrespect you. 
 
 
 
 One of the challenges that we've been talking about now is the way social media and the Internet have changed what people receive as news. I was just talking to my political director, David Simas. He was looking at his Facebook page and some links from high school friends of his, some of whom were now passing around crazy stuff about, you know, Obama has banned the Pledge of Allegiance. 
 
 I think it is really important for us, as progressives – set aside the Democratic Party as an institution, but just anybody who wants to see a more progressive America – to think about how we are operating on the ground and showing up everywhere and fighting for the support of folks and giving them a concrete sense of what it is that we think will make their lives better, rather than depending on coming up with the right technocratic policies and sharing that with the New York Times editorial board. If we are not on the ground, and people are not hearing and seeing us face-to-face, then we'll keep on losing, even though I genuinely believe that the Republican prescriptions are not going to be as helpful to these folks. 
 
 So what do you think is the future of the Democratic Party? A month ago, everybody was convinced that the GOP was in its final death throes; now you've got three branches of government in the hands of one party. You've got voter suppression, which is guaranteed to continue, you've got redistricting, all these things. Where's the Democratic Party going? This seems to be a hard-right turn. 
 
 Well, but there's not a hard-right turn. Take a look at, take a look at— 
 
 If you control three branches of government and you've got the Supreme Court ... 
 
 If you survey the American people, including Trump voters, they're in favor of a higher minimum wage. They're in favor, in large numbers, of decriminalizing marijuana. They, I think, are, increasingly and with shocking speed, accepting of the need to treat the LGBT community with respect. They are hugely suspicious of Wall Street, hugely suspicious of the Establishment. Part of what Trump did, as well as Bernie, was run against that Establishment. Now the irony, of course, is that one would think Trump would be considered part of that Establishment and not a genuine outsider like Bernie was. So this doesn't seem to be a moment in which there is a huge turn to the right. 
 
 What is true is that the ability of Republicans to win state elections, congressional elections and Senate elections is going to be a challenge for Democrats for a while, unless they can change perceptions about the Democratic Party and progressive causes in these rural or predominantly white areas, particularly in the Midwest. It's going to be harder to do in the South for a lot of historical reasons. 
 
 
 
 With respect to the presidency, the Democrats still, actually, are in a better place and will continue to be in a better place than Republicans. This was always gonna be hard, because people get weary of one party after eight years. It's only happened once in modern history where we had that kind of clear transfer of power – or at least in the last 40, 50 years. I don't think that voter-suppression laws are gonna be the norm or gonna be the main problem that we have to deal with. We are not gonna be in a situation in which Democrats can't win in any of these areas, but we're gonna have to reorganize ourselves more effectively. Look, in North Carolina, a state I won once by one point and a state I lost once by one point, a Democratic governor [appears to have] won in North Carolina despite Trump winning North Carolina. And part of the reason he won was North Carolinians were tired of a hard-right agenda by the sitting Republican governor, and these biased laws that had been passed directed at the LGBT community that people thought went too far. But part of the reason Roy Cooper, that North Carolina governor-elect, won is because he was on the ground in those communities and he was working hard. 
 
 
 
 So, do Democrats have to re-examine how they approach things? Do progressives have to re-examine how they approach things? Absolutely. When I sat here and talked to Bernie Sanders, one of the things that he and I both agreed on was that we have to reinvigorate the DNC so that it's not viewed as a Washington entity but rather that it is a grassroots organization that is out all across the country and making a common cause with working people. 
 
 What's your plan going to be going forward with this? 
 
 You know, I'm gonna sleep for a couple of weeks when I get out of here, take my wife on a well-deserved vacation. And I'll spend time in my first year out of office writing a book, and I'm gonna be organizing my presidential center, which is gonna be focused on precisely this issue of how do we train and empower the next generation of leadership. How do we rethink our storytelling, the messaging and the use of technology and digital media, so that we can make a persuasive case across the country? And not just in San Francisco or Manhattan but everywhere, about why climate change matters or why issues of economic inequality have to be addressed. So I will continue to be very active, and Michelle is going to continue to be very active – and [on] the very thing that brought us here, which is our belief that when you work with people on the ground at a grassroots level, change happens. When people feel disconnected from the institutions of government, they can swing back and forth in all sorts of ways. 
 
 Let me ask you about climate change. Trump says he's going to pull out of the Paris Agreements. Is that possible? 
 
 Well, historically what happens is that when you have an international agreement, it carries over into the next administration. There were agreements that President Bush made that I respected, because as president of the United States, it was important for me to project a sense of continuity in the U.S. government. There is no doubt that the Republican Party has taken a very hard-line position with respect to climate change. And so some of the progress that we have made, it is going to be tempting for them to roll back. 
 
 The good news is that a lot of these initiatives that we've taken work, and don't just work in terms of reducing emissions, they work from an economic perspective. And so over the course of my eight years, when we doubled clean-energy production or we cut [auto emissions] in half, that wasn't just a matter of regulations that can suddenly be erased; that had to do with investors and businesses and utilities and consumers all organizing themselves, figuring out that, you know what, being smart on energy is good for the planet and it's good for my pocketbook. So I think that the question for Donald Trump, for the Republicans in Congress [is]: Are they going to want to roll back hundreds of thousands of jobs in the solar industry that have been created? Are they suggesting that somehow the Big Three automakers retool to make more gas-guzzling cars, even though consumers are really happy saving money on gas? When it comes to power plants, contrary to the rhetoric, it hasn't been my regulations that killed coal. More than anything, it's actually been natural gas that’s been a lot cheaper, so it hasn’t been economical to build new coal mines. 
 
 Pete Souza/The White House 
 
 I understand all that, but you have nearly all of the science saying we are past the tipping point, and you've got the Koch brothers financing an absolutely obstructionist Congress. That's not going to change. Their ideology seems to be set on the subject. The money that's bought these votes is set on the subject. ... 
 
 Yeah, listen. If you want to persuade me that everything is going to be terrible, then we can talk ourselves into that. Or we can act. It is what it is. There's been an election. There's going to be a Trump presidency, and Republicans are going to control Congress. And the question is gonna be, for those like you and I, who care about these issues, do we figure out how to continue to make progress in this environment until we have a chance for the next election. And will we have mobilized ourselves and persuaded enough people that we can get back on a path that we think is going to be helpful for families, helpful for the environment, helpful for our safety and security and rule of law and civil rights and social rights? 
 
 And one of the things that I have been telling my younger staff, who in some cases have only known politics through my presidency, is history doesn't travel in a straight line. And it zigs and it zags and sometimes you take two steps forward and then you take a step back. You are absolutely right when it comes to us needing to feel an urgency about climate change, but what I've always said was, for us to get to where we need to go on climate, we got to have the American people [and] public opinion on our side. They've got to feel a sense of urgency about it, and that requires us persuading and winning their votes so that we can implement these policies. And we've made significant progress relative to where we were eight years ago – [but] nowhere near where we need to go. The Paris Agreement envisions us hitting targets a decade from now. I'm confident that America can still hit those targets. And it may be that more of those targets are met on the back end because there are different policies coming out of the Trump administration on this. But I think that we can still achieve what needs to be achieved. 
 
 There's no benefit that's derived from pulling into a fetal position. We go out there, and we work. And we slog through challenges, and over time things get better. 
 
 Let me ask about immigration reform. Where do we go? What’s the path forward on immigration? 
 
 Well, look, there are those in the Republican Party who recognize that regardless of how this election played itself out, over time, alienating a big chunk of the Latino voters, the Asian voters, is gonna be a problem. And that gives [Republicans] some self-interest in solving this in a sensible way. It's going to be important for Democrats and immigration-rights activists to recognize that for the majority of the American people, borders mean something. And so there has to be, what I've said before, both rule of law and values that stay true to our immigrant roots. Those things don't have to be contradictory, but there have been times where in our big-heartedness around immigration, we haven't adequately addressed how do we get the orderly and lawful part of it down. And we tend to dismiss people's concerns about making sure that immigration is lawful and orderly. And what that means, I think, is that there will still be an opportunity at some point to do comprehensive immigration reform. 
 
 I don’t think it's gonna happen over the next two years or maybe even not over the next four years, but what we can do is make smart changes, building on what we've already done around the legal-immigration system. What we can do is to work along the borders in a cooperative way with Mexico so that the pressure of what are now mostly Central American immigrants into our country is handled in a humane way. And what we can do, and I will share this with President-elect Trump when I see him, is continue to make smart investments in countries like Honduras and El Salvador and Guatemala that can help them deliver some sense of well-being for their people. 
 
 You can now buy marijuana legally on the entire West Coast. So why are we still waging the War on Drugs? It is a colossal failure. Why are we still dancing around the subject and making marijuana equivalent to a Schedule I drug? 
 
 Look, I’ve been very clear about my belief that we should try to discourage substance abuse. And I am not somebody who believes that legalization is a panacea. But I do believe that treating this as a public-health issue, the same way we do with cigarettes or alcohol, is the much smarter way to deal with it. Typically how these classifications are changed are not done by presidential edict but are done either legislatively or through the DEA. As you might imagine, the DEA, whose job it is historically to enforce drug laws, is not always going to be on the cutting edge about these issues. 
 
 [Laughs] What about you? Are you gonna get on the cutting edge? 
 
 Look, I am now very much in lame-duck status. And I will have the opportunity as a private citizen to describe where I think we need to go. But in light of these referenda passing, including in California, I've already said, and as I think I mentioned on Bill Maher's show, where he asked me about the same issue, that it is untenable over the long term for the Justice Department or the DEA to be enforcing a patchwork of laws, where something that's legal in one state could get you a 20-year prison sentence in another. So this is a debate that is now ripe, much in the same way that we ended up making progress on same-sex marriage. There's something to this whole states-being-laboratories-of-democracy and an evolutionary approach. You now have about a fifth of the country where this is legal. 
 
 You got up there and said legalize same-sex marriage, and you pushed it right over the edge. ... 
 
 Well, you know, no. I don't think that's how it works. If you will recall, what happened was, first, very systematically, I changed laws around hospital visitation for people who were same-sex partners. I then assigned the Pentagon to do a study on getting rid of "don't ask, don't tell," which then got the buy-in of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and we were then able to [repeal] "don’t ask, don’t tell." We then filed a brief on Proposition 8 out in California. And then, after a lot of groundwork was laid, then I took a position. 
 
 So we're in the groundwork stage? 
 
 One of the things that I think it's important for progressives to do when we're in a reflective mode after an election like this is, we can't have it both ways. We can't say, "Why aren't you reaching out to the folks who voted against us? And by the way, why aren't you maximizing getting 100 percent for the things that those of us, you know, who are already progressive and living on the coasts think should be done right away?" The point is that politics in a big, diverse country like this requires us to move the ball forward not in one long Hail Mary to the end zone, but to, you know, systemically make progress. 
 
 So how do you think we go about stitching the country back together? 
 
 Well, the most important thing that I'm focused on is how we create a common set of facts. That sounds kind of abstract. Another way of saying it is, how do we create a common story about where we are. The biggest challenge that I think we have right now in terms of this divide is that the country receives information from completely different sources. And it's getting worse. The whole movement away from curated journalism to Facebook pages, in which an article on climate change by a Nobel Prize-winning scientist looks pretty much as credible as an article written by a guy in his underwear in a basement, or worse. Or something written by the Koch brothers. People are no longer talking to each other; they're just occupying their different spheres. And in an Internet era where we still value a free press and we don’t want censorship of the Internet, that's a hard problem to solve. I think it's one that requires those who are controlling these media to think carefully about their responsibilities, and [whether there] are ways to create a better conversation. It requires better civics education among our kids so that we can sort through what's true and what's not. It's gonna require those of us who are interested in progressive causes figuring out how do we attract more eyeballs and make it more interesting and more entertaining and more persuasive. 
 
 Maybe the news business and the newspaper industry, which is being destroyed by Facebook, needs a subsidy so we can maintain a free press? 
 
 The challenge is, the technology is moving so fast that it's less an issue of traditional media losing money. The New York Times is still making money. NPR is doing well. Yeah, it's a nonprofit, but it has a growing audience. The problem is segmentation. We were talking about the issue of a divided country. Good journalism continues to this day. There's great work done in Rolling Stone. The challenge is people are getting a hundred different visions of the world from a hundred different outlets or a thousand different outlets, and that is ramping up divisions. It's making people exaggerate or say what's most controversial or peddling in the most vicious of insults or lies, because that attracts eyeballs. And if we are gonna solve that, it's not going to be simply an issue of subsidizing or propping up traditional media; it's going to be figuring out how do we organize in a virtual world the same way we organize in the physical world. We have to come up with new models. 
 
 Pete Souza/The White House 
 
 What kind of private moments have you had that define your last eight years? 
 
 Oh, well, you know there have been well-known moments like me walking across the colonnade and hearing the chants of "USA" after we had gotten bin Laden, or being up on the Truman Balcony with my young staff after we got the Affordable Care Act passed. There have been times just sitting in the Treaty Room reading letters from people who have a story to tell, a veteran who's not getting services they need [and] a young DREAM Act kid who describes how he's now gotten a degree and has gone back and is teaching in the school where he went, that move you deeply. 
 
 But I think the thing that I will miss the most about this place, the thing that can get me sentimental – and I try not to get too nostalgic, because I still got a bunch of work to do – it's the team we built here. The number of young people in this place who are just amazing. Somebody like a Brian Deese. Nobody outside of the White House necessarily knows Brian, must be 35, 37, something like that. He's our deputy chief of staff for policy. He engineered the Paris Agreement, the [Hydrofluorocarbons] Agreement, the Aviation Agreement, may have helped save the planet, and he's just doing it while he's got two babies at home, and could not be a better person. And there are people like him across this administration. What I will take away from this experience is them: seeing how they work together, seeing the commitments they have made toward the issues that we care about. 
 
 Do you think Michelle should run for office? 
 
 Michelle will never run for office. She is as talented a person as I know. You can see the incredible resonance she has with the American people. But I joke that she's too sensible to want to be in politics. 
 
 What advice do you have for Trump? 
 
 Well, I'll have a chance to talk to him tomorrow, and I think the main thing that I will say to him is, number one, however you campaigned, once you're in this office, you are part of a legacy dating back to those first Revolutionaries. And this amazing experiment in democracy has to be tended. So aside from any particular issue, the president needs to recognize that this is not about you. This is not about your power, your position or the perks, the Marine band. This is about this precious thing that we’ve inherited and that we want to pass on. And for me at least, that means you surround yourself with really good people, that you spend time learning and understanding what these issues are because they really actually have an impact on people. They're not games that we're playing. And that to the best of your ability, you're making the decisions that you think are right for the American people – even when they're not popular, even when they're not expedient. And the satisfaction you get from that is that when you leave this place, you can feel like you've been true to this immense privilege and responsibility that’s been given to you. 
 
 Do you think the weight of history will constrain him to some extent? 
 
 I think sitting behind that desk is sobering, and that it will have an impact on him as it has on every president. But I think the most important constraint on any president is the American people themselves, of an informed citizenry that is active and participating and engaged. And that is going to be something that I will, in my own modest ways, continue to try to encourage for the rest of my life.
– Interviews with Donald Trump and related stories about him and his policies are in full supply two days before he takes office. A sampling: The Washington Post has a feature on Trump's life in Trump Tower: He "rarely leaves, not even for a breath of fresh air," and generally stays surrounded by a close circle of family and advisers. Despite his regular tweets, Trump doesn't use email and almost never surfs the internet, but he does have one unusual access point: He answers his own cellphone, "something that acquaintances and colleagues speak of in almost reverential terms." Read the profile here. Axios has an interview with Trump, and the interviewers write that the president-elect "seemed moved" by his intel briefings. "I've had a lot of briefings that are very … I don't want to say 'scary,' because I'll solve the problems. But … we have some big enemies out there." Read it in full here. The Wall Street Journal also interviewed Trump, and it had real-world implications: "The dollar tumbled to its lowest level in a month after Donald Trump suggested ... he favored a weaker dollar, breaking with decades of tradition and intensifying investor concern over the incoming administration’s capacity to surprise." Read it here. In a wide-ranging interview with the New York Times Magazine, Joe Biden sounds worried about Trump's shifting foreign policy pronouncements. "It's like a Rubik's cube trying to figure this guy out," he says. "We have no freakin' idea what he's going to do." Read it in full here. Trump will enter office with only about half of his Cabinet in place. Politico takes a look here. Trump also will enter office as the most unpopular president in at least 40 years (see ABC News), while President Obama exits with his approval ratings at an all-time high (see CNN). The Hill looks ahead and sees five areas where Trump and Democrats can make progress, including a possible boost in minimum wage. The list is here. See Friday's inauguration schedule here.