First Look with The Post's Jonathan Capehart, Dan Balz, Eugene Robinson and George F. Will
33:05 Share

You're listening to a podcast from Washington Post Live, bringing the newsroom to you live. Welcome to First Look, Washington Post Live's one-stop shop for news and analysis. I'm Jonathan Capehart, Associate Editor at The Washington Post. We are just days away from the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th President of the United States, and there's a deal between Israel and Hamas for a ceasefire and hostage release. Who better to have here to bring us up to speed than Dan Balz?

Chief Correspondent for The Washington Post, Dan, welcome back to the last show of First Look. Thank you, Jonathan. It's nice to be here on the last First Look, or the first Last Look. The first, yes, the last First Look. Well, Dan, let's start with the Israel and Hamas deal, which the Israeli government still needs to approve

the deal before it can take effect. President Biden said in an interview with Lawrence O'Donnell last night that his team and President-elect Trump's negotiators worked as, quote, one team. But that's not stopping Trump from trying to take credit. What was Trump's role? And was it as vital as he claims?

Well, there's some indications that the Trump team did play a vital role, that his special envoy was intimately involved in the discussions and the negotiations, and that at times he was working very, very closely with the Biden team. So I think that the president is stating accurately that

that they were working together. I think it's in the nature of Donald Trump to take credit for a lot of things. Obviously, the President of the United States takes and deserves a lot of credit for this. They have been at this for many, many months, and the broad outline of this deal was something that he laid out last spring.

You know, I think ultimately it doesn't matter who claims credit. I think the important thing is that it get done and that it get done on time. And then the question is how, you know, how sustaining is it? And that will be, you know, that will be in Donald Trump's lap.

Right. It's a three, if my reading is right, it's a three-step process. And it seems like this first step is going to be the easiest one, if you can believe that. Dan, let's turn our attention to Inauguration Day, which is on Monday. You've written that a different and more threatening world awaits Donald Trump when he becomes president. Again, explain what you mean and how you expect his first 100 days to play out.

Well, Jonathan, I mean, if you look at the world today compared to the world that existed when Donald Trump left office, it is a more dangerous world. I mean, the most obvious is Vladimir Putin and Russia and their invasion of Ukraine.

and the degree to which the Russian president is in a more hostile and adversarial position than he was even then. And that's something that Donald Trump is going to have to deal with. He has said, though they've backed off this, he had said during the campaign he could end this war in 24 hours. I think the question is, how is he going to deal with

Vladimir Putin, and on what terms is he prepared to end the war? And will that be one in which he leaves Ukraine in a more precarious position simply in order to get a deal and to claim a deal? China is more challenging than it has been, than it was before. He has China hawks in his incoming administration.

designee for Secretary of State Marco Rubio was on the Hill yesterday testifying about this. He is very hawkish about China. Donald Trump, when he was president, took a different stance toward China than past presidents. But China is aggressive, particularly in its area of influence. He's going to have to worry about that. And even though there is now the

the makings of a ceasefire and a peace deal in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas. The Middle East is always a dangerous place, and we'll see how he is able to handle that. So this is a much, much more dangerous world and one that

Donald Trump's approach to foreign policy is unconventional and unorthodox. We'll see whether he is able to work his will in ways that are good for the national security of the United States and for our traditional allies.

Meanwhile, Dan, stateside, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, they're all just, those are just some of the Silicon Valley leaders who will be seated on the platform for Trump's inauguration. What message does that send? Well, I think it speaks very loudly to the way lots of different people are approaching the second

Trump term as opposed to the first Trump term. People have rushed to Mar-a-Lago. People have tried to send signals that they want to work very constructively with the new administration, and no more so than the tech leaders who will be on the stage and the platform on

on Monday on the West Front of the Capitol. Inaugurations are not partisan events, they're nonpartisan events. They're a time when the country does come together to celebrate the arrival and inauguration of a new president. But I think that what we are seeing this time is materially different in the degree to which people are acknowledging that

that Donald Trump, in fact, won this election cleanly, both a popular vote victory and a quite comfortable electoral college victory, and that he's going to be in charge for four years. If you're in positions of power elsewhere in the corporate world or wherever, your first instinct is to say, "How do I get along?" as opposed to be at war with a new administration.

These are also the final days of the Biden administration. This week, we heard President Biden give a thinly veiled reference to these tech billionaires. Let's listen. I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern. This is a dangerous concert. And that's a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultra wealthy people. The dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked. Today,

An oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead. Dan, what did you make of President Biden's message there?

Well, a couple of things, Jonathan. One, Biden is a union guy and union guys don't like bosses and they don't like those in positions of great power who can exercise it abusively toward the working person. I think that's, we know that's in his bones and has been, excuse me, for a very long time.

So I think that's part of it. I think he was also stating some reality that there is now this concentration of wealth, symbolized by the leaders of the tech community and the tech companies, the enormous wealth that's concentrated there.

and the enormous power that those companies have over everyone's lives. And I think what he was saying, he likened it to Eisenhower's talking about the military industrial complex when he left office with his farewell address. President Biden was talking about a tech industrial complex. And I think it is a way to send a signal, send a warning, get people tuned up to the idea that

that these companies cannot operate totally unfettered and that there need to be some checks on them. Now, that's an enormously difficult thing as we've seen over the years, regulating these tax companies is fraught business. And so the question of what do you do about that and whether the incoming president feels the same way about it are two important questions.

We're running out of time, so I'm going to cram two questions into one, Dan. You wrote a column about how Biden's decision to run again in 2024 will be a part of his legacy. Our colleague Paul Kane has noted in his writing how Democrats are uncharacteristically quiet in Biden's final days.

Why do you think that is? Is it because he decided to run again that maybe Democrats are still mad at him and Democrats lost the White House, didn't take the House, lost the majority in the Senate, and that accounts for why Democrats are, as Paul writes, uncharacteristically quiet?

Well, to some extent, I think that's right. I think a losing campaign, particularly one where they had hoped to be able to win it, leaves a party demoralized and in some turmoil. We've seen that within the Democratic Party ever since the election results were known. Defining President Biden's legacy is a

something that everybody will have a slightly different view on. He has things that he can point to as successes as he did in his farewell address the other night. But there were also mistakes that he made, certainly on immigration and inflation, the two issues that were decisive in the outcome of the election. And I think a lot of Democrats, on the one hand, have always had great affection for President Biden, but there was a lot of

consternation when he decided to run again for reelection. And we know how all of that played out. And so I think Democrats are quiet in part because they're not quite sure how they want to address this and what they want to say about it. History ultimately is the ultimate, is the judge of presidents and their legacies, but there are short-term debates about that. And we're having one right now about President Biden.

Dan Balz, Chief Correspondent for The Washington Post, thanks for coming to First Look and being truly a vital part of what's been a fun four-year ride. Jonathan, thank you. It's always been fun to be with you. I appreciate it.

All right, thanks. Have a good weekend. It is time for the Opinions Roundtable, so let's go to the opinion side of The Washington Post, where we will find Washington Post associate editor Eugene Robinson and Washington Post columnist George Will. Eugene, George, welcome back to First Look. Glad to be with you. Great to be here, Jonathan.

So, Eugene, I'm going to start with you and keep talking about President Biden's legacy. You've said there are two reasons why Biden leaves the White House with barely 40 percent approval, his handling of the border and his age. Talk more about that.

Well, no, I mean, I think those were the sort of unpardonable offenses he committed. He did not see the border crisis as a crisis for a long time. He let it get worse. And that hardened views against him, that hardened perception that events were out of his control.

And that was one of the huge issues in the election, one of the issues that voters most often mentioned. And the other thing, you know, he committed the sin of growing old and growing visibly and audibly old. And so his voice was soft, his gait was tentative. And of course, he had that atrocious voice.

evening at the debate, which just made him staying in the race untenable.

And so, look, that's all part of the Biden legacy, and that will be balanced against the other side of the ledger, which I think was very positive for the country. Some of it will not bear fruit for years, but I think historians will look back on the Biden presidency much more kindly than perhaps contemporary observers.

are tempted to right now. - That always seems to be the way, George,

It is safe to say you are no fan of the Biden administration, but I'm wondering, are there any lessons from Biden's presidency that Republicans should be taking into consideration as they officially take over Washington governance on Monday? Yes, be careful of the choices you make. Biden's problems, Jonathan, were not like Hoover's. Hoover was inaugurated in March, as they did it back then.

and 29, and less than eight months later, the bottom falls out of the economy and it just wasn't his fault. What did end Mr. Biden was the inflation, the border, and the botched Afghanistan withdrawal. All three were choices, things they did not need to do or do in the way they did them. So that's part of his problem. The second is he's going to remember primarily for this vast deception

in which the leaders of the Democratic Party were complicit about his condition and whether or not he was suitable to be president. He wasn't fit to be a candidate. He wasn't fit to be a president at that point. And a lot of what he did, Jonathan, turned out to be notional and aspirational. He's got billions appropriated for electric vehicle chargers, seven or eight of them built.

Billions spent for broadband connectivity around the country. No house yet, I think, has been connected under the program that he funded. It turns out it's really difficult to move government. It's not nimble. It's not supposed to be in some ways. And it certainly is hard to build your legacy on legislation and three years later expect to have dramatic, noticeable changes in the country.

I won't quibble with your comment about a mass deception, but talking about President Biden, a mass deception covering up his condition, I don't recall reading any reports about any sort of medically diagnosed condition of the president. But Eugene, let's talk about incoming President Donald Trump. As we speak right now,

Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota, and the pick for Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, her hearing is going on right now. But this week, we have seen hearings for Pete Hegseth for defense, Marco Rubio for state, Pam Bondi for attorney general. What stood out in these hearings, and how likely is it that all these folks will get confirmed?

I think it's very likely that they all get confirmed. I mean, the two whose hearings have not yet been scheduled, Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr., I think it's up in the air as to whether or not they get it.

But I think Pete Hexer, for example, it certainly sounded to me as if he's going to be confirmed pretty much on a party line vote. And that is outrageous. This is a person who is in no way qualified to be Secretary of Defense.

I think you heard that at his hearing, I think. But I am critical of the way Democrats approach the questioning. I wish there had been more substantive

questions to Hegsath about our defense posture, about our defense readiness, about how many warships we're building, how many cruise missiles and artillery shells we are stockpiling or not stockpiling. What is the state of readiness of the U.S. military, given that

that state of readiness is what can deter future conflicts and, Paris had thought if necessary, wage future wars. And he got almost no questions on that. It was all about his personal failings, which are germane. But I

I think we would have seen his lack of qualifications and more stark relief, certainly, if more substance had been part of it here. GEOFF BENNETT: George, do you agree with Gene there? Did Democrats miss an opportunity to have a more substantive conversation about America's defense posture and what he would do as secretary of defense?

Gene's absolutely right, with one exception. The opening statement by former chairman, now ranking Democratic member of the Armed Services Committee, Jack Reed, a West Point graduate, laid out in detail all the reasons that Mr. Hexler should be rejected as Secretary of Defense. Let's stipulate.

because he said as much that he was a misbehaving, rowdy, undisciplined lout for many years. Let's stipulate to be charitable that he's misbehaving.

his third wife has, as he said, changed him and he's a different man. Don't care if Mr. Hex is happy. That was saintly. He would still be unqualified to be Secretary of Defense for all the reasons and doesn't more. Gene was mentioning the fact is Mr. Hex is obsessed with the woke in the Pentagon. He's not wrong about that and he talks about the warrior ethos, but you can correct the DEI excesses in a morning.

The Pentagon could issue an order on Tuesday morning, and it would be over because the military does obey the chain of command. Fixing the defense industrial base, restoring our capacity to build attack submarines. These are projects for years, and we better get started, and not with this fella.

- You know, Pam Bondi, the nominee for attorney general said she will not politicize the Justice Department. Do you believe her? - She says she won't politicize the Justice Department. She says there won't be an enemies list. We'll see. I don't know. She on paper is qualified to be attorney general. She has experience. She's not a Pete Hegseth.

And, you know, you know a bit about the Justice Department, as do I. You know, these are actual people, right? This is not, it's not an abstraction. There are career public servants in the Justice Department who have the experience and the expertise and the ethics that they won't,

give up. They're not going to surrender just because Pam Bondi becomes attorney general. So we'll just have to see if she lives up to the commitment she made at her hearing. GEOFF BENNETT: George, as Eugene just said, Pam Bondi says she won't have an enemies list.

However, Kash Patel, Trump's nominee to lead the FBI, actually has one. It was published in the back of his latest book. How concerned are you that Patel, if confirmed, will actually follow through and seek retribution?

Well, with a number of these nominees, Jonathan, we have the following choice to make. We can either say they mean what they say, in which case they're dangerous, or they don't mean what they say, in which case they're winning the toady sweepstakes. In either case, this should not be voted on. The idea that Mr. Patel, I've got his book sitting here somewhere. You can read it quickly, and I'd recommend doing so.

He should not be director of the FBI. Again, he's got cable television-itis. That is, he developed these habits of speaking extravagantly. And then along comes someone who says, well, let's put you in a position of high public responsibility. And they have a choice. They can say I never meant it or I've had a conversion experience, a road to Damascus moment.

I don't care what the explanation is. We've seen the quality of their minds revealed in the quality of their rhetoric. And let's get someone else. - George, you are on fire today. I have so many lines from you today. Let's turn our attention to this incredible ceasefire deal, which is making its way to approval between Israel and Hamas.

In his confirmation hearing, Senator Marco Rubio, first secretary of state, said, quote, all involved deserve credit. But he especially praised Steve Witkoff, who's Trump's Middle East envoy, George. Who deserves credit? And is it a fool's errand to even engage in this kind of conversation about credit?

Yes, to your question. It's certainly until historians have had a chance to sort out what actually happened. Ronald Reagan used to have a sign on his office saying there's no limit to what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit for it. And let's spread the credit around amply, but understand that this is at most an armistice. And I would expect the...

Within the next four months, there are going to be renewed hostilities. Israel is not going to live next door to an entity controlled by Hamas, period. And I don't think what's been achieved on the ground so far guarantees that that will not be the case. Gene?

Well, I certainly agree with George on who gets credit. I don't think that's a discussion to have. And from what we know now, both President Biden and President-elect Trump deserve some credit for this breakthrough. And I completely agree with George that this

strikes me as an armistice and we'll see how long it holds. I don't rule out the possibility that it's a, that the cessation of hostilities or exchanging fire, that that lasts a while, but

Hamas has not been eradicated. It may not be nominally in control in Gaza, but it hasn't been completely wiped out because it never was going to be completely wiped out by the blunt force of arms that Israel applied.

ATTITUDES HAVE HARDENED ON THE ISRAELI SIDE.

as well, this is not the Israel of 20 or 30 years ago. It's much further to the right. The settlers are extremely powerful, and they are in no mood to sort of compromise. And so, you know, an armistice to what end? Ultimately, the goal for many years has been a two-state solution. And I

I don't think this has brought that two-state solution any closer. Gene, let's talk about another feud. This is the one between Steve Bannon and Elon Musk. You've written a column where you, and I'm quoting you, you wrote, "Donald Trump hasn't been inaugurated yet, and already two bellicose titans of the MAGA universe are waging total war against each other."

What's up with these two and what does this reveal about MAGA World? Well, that it's like the court of the Borgias. It's all everybody wants to curry favor with President-elect Trump and down in Mar-a-Lago.

It used to be that Steve Bannon was there at the dinner table with him whispering in his ear, and now it's Elon Musk. The specific issue on which they have gone to war is the immigration and H-1B visas that have allowed

talented foreign engineers, especially for the tech sector, to come into the country and work. It's how Elon Musk got here. It's a program that is used by not just

companies, but by Amazon and by Google and by all the big tech companies. And they want it basically expanded. And Bannon is a xenophobe to his core. He's against immigration and he wants to shut down

immigration period for some period and criticizes the H-1B program. And so that's the casus belli between Bannon and Musk. But jealousy and intrigue is also part of it.

Right. And last question on this, George, Steve Bannon recently told Politico that while Musk might have a lot of influence, he doesn't have that much power. I mean, doesn't Bannon have a point there? Of course he has a point. Power, let's define the term just for the fun of it. Power is the ability to achieve intended effects. We don't say that a bull in a china shop has power. He can make a mess, but it's not achieving intended effects.

And Mr. Musk is the head of a committee, and the committee is parted up as a department because we don't use the English language respectfully. It's not a department. Departments are created by Congress.

When I think all this dawns on Mr. Musk, who I think perhaps cut school when they talk about American government, he's going to find out that he does not have power and he's bored and he's going to leave. Mr. Bannon will still be here, but he doesn't have power either. So I wouldn't worry about either of those two. Yeah, I would just, I would, George is absolutely right. I would just say they don't have power

in terms of the ability, inside the government, they don't have power. Elon Musk has plenty of power outside of the government because of his immense wealth, because of his companies, SpaceX, which is, has colonized space essentially. And he has this network of satellites that no one else

nation state has. So he's got power that way. Right. Also, his social media platform, X, which, you know, lots of people still use that as a news source. On a final note, real fast, what do you think the next four years will be like, George?

the president will be a lame duck, the Democrats will sort themselves out. And I think what we've learned, Jonathan, recently is that you can't have just one healthy party. When one party goes mad, the other one goes too. And I think we're going to see both parties trying to recuperate. You're going to see the Republicans maneuvering because you have a lame duck president and you have a Republican, of course, vice president.

and you've got an ambitious former senator as Secretary of State, it's going to be good for journalism, Jonathan. I mean, okay, George. And Gene, question to you on a final note. What do you think the next four years will be like? I sure hope George is right.

And I think he might be. I think because the history suggests that our political parties do eventually reform. They, after losses particularly, they, you know, pull themselves up off the ground and they

start trying to figure out how they can connect with voters again. And that usually makes things better in the long run. So I hope that's the case. But Donald Trump is going to be president for four years, and he will be a lame duck. And they don't have the powers of the presidency. And there's no telling

from one day to the next, whether tomorrow will be just fine or tomorrow will be some disaster. We just don't know. So who wants to go through this sort of edge of the seat four-year period again, but here we are. And so buckle up.

Gene, you are optimistic to say we go from one day to the next. I'm of the mind we go from one morning to one afternoon. Well, yeah, yeah, yeah. The hills on that roller coaster are steep and plentiful.

Eugene Robinson, George Will, it has been an honor to share this time with you over the last four years. Thank you for helping to make First Look so much fun. Have a great weekend. You too. Same to you, Jonathan. And it's been an honor and a pleasure coming on with you.

Well, thank you. Thank you, thank you. Well, everyone, it is the end of an era, but not the end for us. This virtual version of First Look comes to an end today. We want to thank you, all of you, for watching today and for being loyal viewers all these Friday mornings. And we also want to thank our fine producers and our dedicated Control Room team for making this all happen every week for the last four years.

Never fear. We plan to be back with new and exciting programming later this year. So watch this space. Now, for the last time, once again, I'm Jonathan Capehart, associate editor at The Washington Post. Have a great weekend. Thanks for listening. For more information on our upcoming programs, go to WashingtonPostLive.com.