Speaker 1: This week with George Stephanopoulos starts right now.

Speaker 2: A head-spinning kickoff.

Speaker 3: America's decline is over.

Speaker 2: From terminating federal diversity programs to deporting immigrants on military aircraft, President Trump aggressively begins his first week back in office with a blitz of executive actions.

Speaker 3: All illegal entry will immediately be halted.

Speaker 2: This morning, our Sunday exclusive with New Borders are Tom Homan. If they've been here 30 years, if they have a job, if they're working on a farm, they should be scared.

Speaker 4: If you're in the country illegally, you've got a problem, and we're looking for you.

Speaker 2: ABC's Matt Rivers on the border with American troops and Michigan's new Democratic senator, Alyssa Slotkin, responds. Presidential power. Trump pushes the limits of his authority, hardening more than 50%. 1,500 January 6th rioters.

Speaker 3: These were people that actually love our country. What happened to backing the blue?

Speaker 2: So what's legal and what's on shaky ground in these executive orders? Former U.S. Attorneys Chris Christie and Preet Bharara on what's next.

Speaker 5: So help me God. Congratulations, Mr. Secretary.

Speaker 2: Plus, after the narrow confirmation of new Defense Secretary Pete Pegg-Seth, will Trump's remaining nominees make it through? Our House Roundtable tackles it all. And Elon's influence.

Speaker 6: He takes risks. He sometimes blows things up. And that's what he's going to do in government.

Speaker 2: With the world's richest man now joining President Trump at the White House, Elon Musk's biographer explains what drives the tech titan.

Speaker 1: From ABC News, it's This Week. Here now, Martha Rabbits.

Speaker 2: Good morning. And welcome to This Week, the first week of Donald Trump's return to the Oval Office. And he wasted no time. The president ordering an end to federal diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, freezing federal hiring, and firing at least 17 inspectors general who serve as independent watchdogs of federal agencies. Trump also made good on his commitment to free those convicted for their actions during the January 6th, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, commuting or parking. Pardoning some 1,500 rioters, including those who violently assaulted police officers. And on the world stage, taking aim at Russia, warning President Vladimir Putin of possible economic sanctions if he doesn't engage in negotiations with Ukraine, declaring it's time to make a deal. The president also pledging to take back the Panama Canal, threatening tariffs against China, Mexico, Canada, and all of Europe. It is a rapid rollout of Trump's agenda, with no issue more central to his presidency than immigration. President Trump declaring a national emergency at the border, shutting down refugee arrivals, ordering 1,500 armed, active-duty military to the border. And all of this will now be overseen by his new defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, sworn in after Vice President J.D. Vance had to cast the tie-breaking vote for his Senate conference. He takes over a department already deeply involved in delivering on Trump's America First agenda. For the first time in history, military aircraft transporting undocumented immigrants back to their home countries, a practice Trump's border czar tells me will continue every day. We'll bring you that conversation in a moment, but we begin with ABC's Matt Rivers, who embedded with U.S. Marines headed for the border.

Speaker 7: This week, the beginning of President Trump's military buildup at the southern border.

Speaker 5: So right there, part of the very first steps of the U.S. military being deployed down here, those taking off from Camp Pendleton, making their way down here to the U.S.-Mexico border.

Speaker 7: 1,500 active-duty U.S. Marine and Army personnel deploying to the Mexican border to aid detection efforts and enhance physical barriers.

Speaker 5: Right now, those Marines are offloading concertina wire. They're going to bring right down to the border. It's clearly meant to be a deterrent against future migration, and flights like these might be happening a lot more over the coming months.

Speaker 7: The Pentagon releasing these images Saturday of additional troops now deployed in Texas and California to assist with Trump's latest border security mission. According to a U.S. official, the newly deployed troops will not be engaging in law enforcement duty and are being sent in support of the Department of Homeland Security, as President Trump's deportation efforts, get underway. U.S. military aircraft carrying undocumented migrants out of the country for the first time. The White House releasing these pictures of migrants in chains boarding two C-17 jets. Approximately 160 people in total taken to Guatemala Friday. President Trump touting these moves during remarks in Las Vegas this weekend.

Speaker 3: We're getting them out. You see it. You see it yesterday. First day.

Speaker 7: Our message could not be more clear. Meanwhile, thousands of migrants are now stuck in Mexico with no idea what comes next as the administration halts all applications for asylum through the CBP One app. One asylum seeker telling us, I lost my hope. I feel depressed, really. I don't know what I should do. But the Trump administration warns this is only the beginning of their border crackdown and thousands more troops could be flooding in soon. For this week, Matt Rivers along the U.S. border.

Speaker 2: Our thanks to Matt Rivers. One of the very first appointments Donald Trump made after winning the election in November was tapping one man to be what he calls his border czar. Tom Homan is a former Border Patrol agent and acting director of ICE with decades of experience in Republican and Democratic administrations. I sat down with him this week and began our conversation by asking him about the role of the U.S. military.

Speaker 4: We have military on the border. They're not helping us with the departure flights on military planes, but they're helping to build infrastructure. They're putting up a Constantino where they're down there to create a secure border and lock that border down. And DOD's helped administrations before, but not at this level. So it's a force multiplier, and it's sending a strong signal to the world our border's closed.

Speaker 2: So is this what we will see every single day, ending in what the president has promised is millions and millions being deported?

Speaker 4: Yes. But you're going to see the numbers steadily increase, the number of arrests nationwide as we open up the aperture. Right now it's concentrating on public safety threats, national security threats. That's a smaller population. So we're going to do this on priority base, as President Trump has promised, but as that aperture opens, there will be more arrests nationwide.

Speaker 2: When you talk about the aperture opening, the estimates of perhaps those who have been convicted or arrested in the past, 700,000 to over a million. So after you do that... Then you go after everybody who is there illegally.

Speaker 4: If you're in the country illegally, you're on the table. Because it's not okay to violate laws in this country. You've got to remember, every time you enter this country illegally, you violated a crime under Title 8, United States Code 1325. It's a crime. So if you're in the country illegally, you've got a problem. And that's why I'm hoping those who are in the country illegally, who have not been ordered removed by the federal judge, should leave.

Speaker 2: Well, you are emphasizing that you go after national security. Well, you are emphasizing that you go after national security. Well, you are emphasizing that you go after national security. Security threats, you have said, no one's off the table. If you're in the country illegally, you better be looking over your shoulder. You should be afraid and start packing now. Is that what you're doing to get hotel workers out or people working on farms, that they'll be so scared they just leave?

Speaker 4: Look, I think if you're in the country illegally, it's not okay. It's not okay to violate laws in this country. We have millions of people standing in line, taking the test, doing their best.

Speaker 2: We have millions of people in the country illegally, who do it because wegado pass Let's talk about the arrests so far. Numbers released the first day were over 500.

Speaker 4: And there were reports that one was a suspected terrorist, others were gang members. Were all of the people who were arrested on day one, as far as you know, convicted criminals or those who had been arrested before? Sanctuary cities lock us out of the jails. So instead of ICE being able to arrest the bad guy, the criminal alien, in the safety and security of the jail where the officer is safe, the alien is safe, and the public is safe, sanctuary cities release him back in the community, which endangers the community, putting the criminal alien back in the community. But when we find him, he's going to be with others most likely, many times with others. If they're in the country illegally, they're coming too.

Speaker 2: But were these arrests all in sanctuary cities? It doesn't appear so on the first day.

Speaker 4: The collaterals? Many more. I don't have the exact breakdown. But again, sanctuary cities.

Speaker 2: So the arrests in Massachusetts, in Chelsea, Massachusetts, which the governor said it's great to arrest the criminals who are convicted, but were there people taken there as well who were not convicted? I'm sure there were. Were they, as you say, collaterals?

Speaker 4: I'm sure they are.

Speaker 2: You talk about these numbers expanding, 500 the first day. What do you think you can get up to?

Speaker 4: As many as we can get.

Speaker 2: What can happen at this point, given your manpower?

Speaker 4: Look, I think we're in the beginning stages. We're bringing more resources into this operation. As a whole government, we're going to have DOJ assisting us. And the DOD piece, helping build infrastructure, helping the transportation, that takes ICE, badges and guns, out of those duties and puts them on the street.

Speaker 2: I want to go back to who you're deporting, aside from the long list of executive actions. The administration said it will no longer tell ICE agents they have to avoid sensitive locations, including schools, hospitals, churches. Benjamin Huffman, the acting Homeland Security Secretary, said in a statement, criminals will no longer be able to hide in America's schools and churches to avoid arrest. What criminals are hiding in schools? Middle schools, elementary schools. You're going to go into those?

Speaker 4: How many MS-13 members are the age of 14 to 17? Many of them. Look, if it's a national security threat, public safety threat, what you need to understand is that case by case, name another agency, another law enforcement agency that has those type of requirements, that they can't walk into a school or a doctor's office or on a medical campus. No other agencies have those standards. These are well-trained officers with a lot of discretion. And when it comes to sensitive locations, there's still going to be supervised review. So it's not like it's an open issue. But ICE officers should have discretion to decide if a national security threat or a public safety threat is in one of these facilities, then there should be an option for them to make the arrest.

Speaker 2: But someday, you could go into those schools and grab people who are just in the country illegally.

Speaker 4: On a case by case basis, depending on who they are, what the circumstances are. It's never a zero game.

Speaker 2: You know that this creates fear in the immigration, in the immigrant community. The chair of the U.S. Conference of Bishops Committee said turning places of care, healing, and solace into places of fear and fearlessness. That's right. It's a matter of having a place of fear and uncertainty for those in need while endangering the trust between pastors, providers, educators, and the people they serve will not make our community safer.

Speaker 4: Well, look, here's the thing. Congress has a job to do. We're enforcing laws Congress enacted and the president signed. If they don't like it, change the law. I find it hard to believe any member of Congress is telling us not to enforce the law that they enacted and they fund us to do.

Speaker 2: But opening up to anyone who's in the country illegally and going into schools, I mean, going into schools and grabbing them, does that, kids, adults?

Speaker 4: The message needs to be clear. There's consequences of entering a country illegally. If we don't show those consequences, you're never going to fix the border problem.

Speaker 2: Estimates are that there are 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country right now. How can you possibly afford to deport all of those people?

Speaker 4: Well, I'll leave it up to Congress. You know, I think Congress, the president has a mandate. This is his number one issue. The people voted on it. I think Congress has a mandate to give us money we need. How much? What price do you put on national security? More detention centers? What price do you put on all these young ladies that have been raped and murdered and burned alive? What price do you put on that? What price do you put on Lincoln Riley's life? What price do you put on national security? Like I just explained, when you have a surge like this, we don't secure that border. That's when national security threats enter the country. That's when sex trafficking goes up. That's when, you know, that's when the fentanyl comes in that kills a quarter million Americans. I don't put a price on that.

Speaker 2: And on those detention centers, do you need more beds? I think there's 41,000 now, 100,000. And so where do you get those beds? Do you build more camps? Do you do this military installations in Texas and elsewhere?

Speaker 4: A little bit of everything. We can build south side facilities, we can expand our contracts to outside contractors. So yeah, we're going to need more ice beds, a minimum of 100,000. Congress needs to come to the table quick and give us the money we need to secure that

Speaker 2: border. Let's talk about those flights again. With the host countries, you flew all of those people back. Were all of the people arrested on the first day, for instance, repatriated? And what about those countries that won't take them back?

Speaker 4: Oh, they'll take them back.

Speaker 2: What do you mean by that?

Speaker 4: We had President Trump come into power. President Trump puts America first. Mexico didn't want to remain a Mexico program under the first administration. They did it. They didn't want to put military on the southern border. They did it. El Salvador. How do you convince them? El Salvador didn't want to take MS-13 members back. It took President Trump 48 hours to make that happen. President Trump's going to put America first. And if it doesn't, then we'll face my third safe country.

Speaker 2: All appointments to the CBP app have been canceled. What is a legal way to claim asylum and get in the country? So what should people do who are seeking asylum? How do you do it?

Speaker 4: Go to the embassy. Go to the point of entry. Do it the legal way. You shouldn't come to this country and ask to get asylum, and the first thing you do is break our laws by entering illegally.

Speaker 2: So tell me what the definition of success is. Over the next six months, over the next year, by the end of the administration, what is mission accomplished here?

Speaker 4: Taking as many public safety threats off the street as possible. Watching illegal alien crimes in the United States decrease, deporting every illegal alien gang member in this country, including Trenda Awa and MS-13, making our country safe. When we see the crime rate from illegal aliens go down, that's success. Every public safety threat removed from this country is success. Every national security threat that we find removed from the country is success. There's no number on it. So my success can be based on what Congress gives us. More money, the better we're going to do.

Speaker 2: I noticed you didn't put in that list of things. It will be mission accomplished and success, getting every immigrant who is in the country illegally out. Why not?

Speaker 4: Because I'm being realistic. We can do what we can with the money we have. We're going to try to be efficient, but the more money we have, the more we can accomplish. If I don't have the money to remove that many people, I'm not going to sit here and...one thing I'm...no one can say I haven't been frank in everything I've said. Our success...everybody knows that. I'm not going to sit here and...one thing I'm...no one can say I haven't been frank in is that I'm...I've never...I don't think I have the money to do anything.

Speaker 2: Every day it's taking a public safety threat off the streets or getting a national security threat out of here. And our thanks to Tom Homan. I'm now joined by Michigan's new Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin, a former Pentagon official and CIA analyst who now sits on the Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees. Welcome, Senator. It's good to see you this morning. So let's get right to it. You heard Tom Homan there saying that while criminals are the priority, national security threats, public safety threats. He is warning everyone in this country illegally, and the estimates are 11 million, to leave. What effect do those warnings have?

Speaker 8: Well, look, I mean, clearly they're trying to deter people from coming and they're trying to send notice to people here, you know, to that this could be happening to them. I think, you know, they campaigned on this. And one of the things that to me has been a real hallmark when I listen to some of these immigration announcements lately is that it's like they're still in the campaign. Right now, you have to govern. Now you're in the seat. You have to actually make this work with the money you have available. So I think that's more of a signal to try and keep people from coming to the border, trying to get in. And it's part of this transition that they're not quite into yet between campaigning and governing.

Speaker 2: What about the schools and churches? You heard him there say you can go into a middle school, you can go into an elementary school. I mean, he said that's, you know, case by case. But your reaction to that?

Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean, I just don't understand, you know, if the focus and the priority is on criminals, I'm not sure going after an 11 year old is where you start. And this is, again, the inconsistency between what they're saying and then what we saw happen in this past week. Right. Going after places that were not sanctuary cities kind of in this sort of what felt sort of arbitrary way. So I think to me, you know, the idea of going into children and terrorizing children. I just don't believe in in in supporting that kind of action. And I don't believe it, that most Americans think that 11 and 12 year olds are the ones who are the hardened criminals that need to go back to their countries.

Speaker 2: He did make a point of saying that would be on a case by case basis. But let's talk let's talk about the military. Fifteen hundred on the way are already there. There's probably more to come. Those troops will be armed this time. First of all, your reaction to those military flights and the influx. Of troops going to the border and and the idea that they are armed.

Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean, look, I think we've had multiple administrations who have sent uniformed troops, active duty troops to the southern border in support roles. Right. According to our Constitution, you can go in supporting roles, logistics, driving, setting up facilities, setting up border locations, whatever. It's very different when you cross the line into law enforcement. Our military are not trained. They're not trained as law enforcement officers. They'll be the first one to tell you that that's not why they got into service. And it's also in violation of our Constitution. So I think it's very important that we keep that line. We knew that the administration was going to use military aircraft to start sending people home. They they are we're going to put that on TV. We knew that. But you're coming right up to that line of logistics and support and law enforcement. If there's people, as they say, that are criminals on those planes, who is the one enforcing order? If there's people, as they say, that are criminals on those planes, you just become really close to it. So it was something that I raised with Mr. Hegseth in his confirmation hearing. I just want to know, you know, not that you're pledging an oath to Donald Trump, but you're not going to use the uniformed military in ways that violates the Constitution and makes American citizens scared of their own military. That was you know, we were scared of the British when they occupied us. We don't want to repeat that.

Speaker 2: So I'm watching that very, very closely. And you brought up Pete Hegseth. Who was narrowly confirmed with. With J.D. Vance breaking the tie there. What are your concerns? You you voted against him and had some pretty tough questions for him about his his job going forward. What are your concerns?

Speaker 8: I mean, as I stated, I mean, I've been very consistent with all the people that I've been talking to in these hearings. Right. Whether it's the secretary, the agriculture candidate or Homeland Security or or secretary of defense. Confirm for me that you understand. You're going to be raising your right hand and pledging an oath to the Constitution, not Donald Trump, and that if Donald Trump asked you to do something that contravenes the Constitution, you would push back. It's not theoretical, right? The former secretary of defense under Trump, Mark Esper, said that Trump asked him to send in the 82nd Airborne to put down peaceful protests in Washington, D.C. He convinced him against it. I want to know that the secretary isn't a watered down version of the previous secretaries and is going to actually push back. He's going to push back if the president asks him to do something that wasn't constitutional. And that, to me, is why I couldn't confirm him. There's a lot of other things in his background I don't like, but I look at what is the strategic and irreversible threats to our democracy. And that's using the uniformed military in ways that violate the Constitution.

Speaker 2: You have the confirmation hearing this week of Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence. You spent a good part of your career in intelligence. What do you want to ask her?

Speaker 8: Well, I'm not technically in those hearings, but we will be voting on her. Look, I mean, people have been asking me, other senators have been asking me, you want someone of character and of competence, right? And I served with Tulsi Gabbard. We were on the Armed Services Committee together. She didn't spend a lot of time showing up to hearings, so I didn't get to, like, see her in action all that much. But from what I understand from people who have been meeting directly with her, and she hasn't asked to meet with me, is that she doesn't show the competence, the understanding, the depth. She wasn't prepared for her meetings. Not to mention the deeply questionable decisions she's made of cozying up to Vladimir Putin, flying and cozying up with Assad in Syria. You know, having someone in charge of our intelligence organization that shows a preference for our adversaries, to me, is just right off the bat a deep question. And so, again, I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who now have control of the Senate, control of the House, that they think about, again, their commitment to the country, not to any one party. I do not believe she's qualified for this role.

Speaker 2: Okay, thanks so much for joining us this morning, Senator. Much appreciated. Up next, just a week into the job, President Trump issues a slew of executive orders. Will some have a short shelf life? Our legal experts give their verdict when we come back.

Speaker 3: Since I became the 47th president at noon on Monday, I've been moving with urgency. To fix every single calamity of the Biden administration that they've created. Every single day of my term, we're living by the motto, promises made, promises kept. I kept my promises.

Speaker 2: President Trump speaking to supporters in Las Vegas Saturday, touting action on promises he made as a candidate. He's also issued executive orders at a furious pace on a host of issues. But will it all hold up in court? Let's ask our legal experts, former New Jersey Governor and U.S. Attorney Chris Christie and Preet Bharara, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Welcome to the show, gentlemen. Good to see you here, Chris. Let's start with you, Chris. President Trump issued the slew of unilateral executive actions. What is the legality here? What can he do? What can't he do?

Speaker 9: Look, Martha, it varies from subject to subject. And so there's some where it's very clear that he can do certain things. And particularly in the area of immigration and directing troops.

Speaker 2: He can't create new powers, though.

Speaker 9: No, he certainly cannot create new powers, although he'll try. And I think you'll see that. Look, Donald Trump, more than anything else, would like to have a presidency where his say goes no matter what. Now, the Constitution is a bit of an impediment to that. And what he'll do through these executive orders is throw as much up against the wall as he possibly can. And if it gets knocked out by the courts, he can blame the courts for his promises not being kept. If it gets upheld, he can say, look at what a strong leader I am. And so from a legal perspective, you will see a lot of court actions. We've seen them already. And you're going to see more of them. Now, I think that some of these executive orders will be struck down. One of them has already gotten a temporary restraining order against it. And I think you'll see more of that. The birthright. Yes, the birthright citizenship, which seems to me to be a pretty clear constitutional issue that he's on the wrong side of.

Speaker 2: And Preet, as you look at these 51 so far, what's precedent here in terms of numbers? And as Chris said, he's just kind of flooding the zone here. Is that the point?

Speaker 10: You know, I guess that's the point. As Chris sort of alluded to, this is a win win for Trump and his administration because either the policies are enacted and upheld and he gets his policy or they're not. And he gets to blame other people. And he still gets to rely on the message. The political system. The political message to his base that he wants to put forward. So on birthright citizenship, where I wholly agree with Chris and virtually every other legal expert and lawyer who's spent even a year or two in law school would agree, that's not going to fly. He sends a message to his base.

Speaker 2: The judge specifically said, is there any lawyer who could claim this order was constitutional? I take it you don't think so.

Speaker 10: No. I mean, he said it's maybe the most. You know, lacking in basis in the Constitution, argument that he's seen in 40 years on the bench. And he's no left wing liberal. But Donald Trump gets to make his point. Some of these executive orders are kind of superfluous, have no point at all. There's one about free speech and censorship, which, as I read it, is just an elongation of the First Amendment. It's already in the First Amendment. So some of these things are pure message. Some of these things are, you know, hopeful, aspirational policy. It's also interesting to me that you have an administration that constantly talks about wanting to live up to the letter of the law and the letter of the Constitution and promote such a blatantly unconstitutional executive order. So I think a lot of these things are not going to fly, but it's going to take a while. And meanwhile, Donald Trump and his allies and his supporters have the arguments that they want to make and bludgeon the other side with.

Speaker 2: And, Chris, I want to specifically talk about Trump firing this Saturday. I want to talk about Trump firing the 17 inspectors general. Should have told Congress about this 30 days in advance. What happens with this one?

Speaker 9: Well, first off, if you're Donald Trump and you've got a three-vote majority in the United States Senate and Lisa Murkowski and Mitch McConnell and Susan Collins have already shown themselves to be willing to say no to him, you don't want to tick off Chuck Grassley. And if you look at Senator Grassley's comments, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he's not happy about the fact that they didn't get notice and he's going to want to know what the extraordinary circumstances were for the firing of these inspectors general. So what I'd say to you, Martha, is from a legal perspective, he's not right. He needs to give this notice. On the other hand, he doesn't care. I mean, if he wants to get in a fight with Chuck Grassley over this, he's going to. To him, it's about letting all these people know who's in charge. And you can see that from some of the transfers he's made in the Department of Justice. You can see it from some of the other firings that he's made. You can see it even from the wholly irresponsible, selfish, vindictive action of pulling Mike Pompeo's security detail. This is a guy who helped to execute the assassination of Soleimani in Iran at Donald Trump's order.

Speaker 2: And John Bolton and Dr. Fauci.

Speaker 9: Right, at Donald Trump's order, Brian Hook. You know, these folks have all put themselves at risk, Fauci aside, the three on the foreign policy area. These are the ones I'm most concerned about. And there's an active death threat against all three of them because of what then-President Trump ordered them to do. These are the kind of actions, and you add it to the inspector generals and all the rest, where he says, remember, he said, I am your retribution during the campaign. This is how he's executing it in part.

Speaker 2: And Preet, I want to ask you about, specifically about the pardons of the January 6th rioters. And Joe Biden had some pardons there. What are some of the pardons that you see at the end as well?

Speaker 10: Yeah. Look, there are people who have been president of the United States who have engaged in pardons that are not necessarily appropriate or wise or are popular. Bill Clinton did it. In my opinion, Joe Biden did it at the end of his presidency just a few days ago. But then Donald Trump, as in so many areas, says, I see your pardons, hold my beer. And he goes far, far beyond. You know, again, as I said about the issue of aspiring to be a constitutionalist, as the Trump people say that they are, and belying that by the kinds of things they propose, they pretend to be law and order supporters. And you have, and I'm not going to repeat what so many other people have said this past week, dozens and dozens and dozens of officers treated violently at the hands of some of these people who were pardoned. And it doesn't matter to Donald Trump. You know, further to what Chris said a second ago, these executive orders and these actions are not just, you know, policy proposals. They're not just messages. They're also tests. You can put a lot of blame on some of these policies and proposals. And you can talk about flooding the zone on the part of Donald Trump. But there are mechanisms in place structurally and otherwise to stop these things. And the question is, will they? Will they stand up to him?

Speaker 2: And Chris, I want, I got about 10 seconds for you. I just want your reaction to the pardons.

Speaker 9: Look, I think the pardons by Joe Biden were disgraceful. And I think Donald Trump has taken it to his knees. He's taken it to another level as well. These are the two most selfish politicians in the presidency in my lifetime. Joe Biden parting his family proves it. And Donald Trump trying to whitewash January 6th proves it.

Speaker 2: OK, that was quite a 10 seconds. Thanks. Thanks for both of you for joining us this morning. Coming up with Elon Musk now working side by side with President Trump. We spoke with the man who literally wrote the book on the world's richest man. My conversation with the Elon Musk biographer, Walter Isaacson, when we come back.

Speaker 1: This is what victory feels like. Yeah. And this was no ordinary victory. This was a fork in the road of human civilization. One of the most American values that I love is optimism. And this feeling like we're going to we're going to make the future good. We're going to make it good.

Speaker 2: That was Elon Musk speaking at Donald Trump's inaugural rally here in Washington on Monday. Musk, the richest person on this planet, who has dreams of taking humankind to Mars, has been tasked by President Trump to make government more efficient. The man who's known for launching rockets and electrifying cars is an enigma to many. But few know him better than Walter Isaacson, who wrote the number one bestselling biography, Elon Musk. We sat down with Walter to pull back the curtain on Trump's favorite tech titan. You spent two years with him?

Speaker 6: Two years. Just by a side, yep.

Speaker 2: Following him around everywhere.

Speaker 6: And watching his mood swings and watching him do amazing things, but also watching him really become intense.

Speaker 2: And describe that a little more, really becoming intense.

Speaker 6: You know, he has a mode, that's engineering mode, where he can do things like figure out how to do a rocket landing upright and catch with the arms. And he has a very giddy mode and a silly mode. But he also has what one of his friends calls demon mode, which is when he gets really dark and he's really hungry, he'll go really intense about something, there's no distracting him, and he can leave a lot of rubble in his wake.

Speaker 2: You start the book by saying, as a kid growing up in South Africa, Elon Musk knew pain and learned how to survive it.

Speaker 6: Psychological pain he learned as a child, physical pain, he was beaten up, he was bullied. He's on the autism spectrum, so he had no friends, and he would sit in the corner of the bookstore reading X-Man comics and science fiction, and imagine himself as a sort of superhero avatar in his own video game.

Speaker 2: This week especially, it's been pretty extraordinary. There he was, by Donald Trump's side, basically in the cabinet, now has an office on the White House grounds. What is that about?

Speaker 6: You know, Elon Musk really wants to blow up and disrupt the bureaucracy and all the things he feels is choking American growth. And it's something that Trump, I think, wants to do. Loves billionaires and loves people who are kind of on the edge and crazy, and so they're suited to each other. They're kind of bonded on this project.

Speaker 2: You have made the point, however, that the federal government is not something Elon Musk owns. And I'm hearkening back to a statement that Robert Gates, the former defense secretary, spent a lot of time in the federal government. He said it's like a dinosaur, heavy feet, small brain, little hands. It's a new challenge for Elon Musk.

Speaker 6: This is the biggest challenge. And Musk doesn't own the federal government the way he owns Tesla or pretty much controls Tesla and SpaceX. And so he's going to have to keep Trump's backing if he's really going to blow up regulations and the bureaucracy. I think Musk is going to go hell-bent to get things done.

Speaker 2: And DOGE, as it's called, the Department of Government Efficiency, Ramaswamy's already out. And Steve Bannon isn't quite in that circle. He wasn't up there with the tech billionaires.

Speaker 6: You know, Elon Musk doesn't really have good partnerships in working well with others. He tends to want to be in charge. The big fight was with Bannon, sort of the populist type of Republican conservatism versus, in some ways, the tech utopian, tech bro populism of an Elon Musk. And Bannon said, I'm going to make sure that by inauguration day, I'm going to have a big deal. I'm going to make sure that by the end of the day, Musk is no longer around. But you saw the scene. There's Musk sitting in front of the Commerce Secretary, and Bannon's not to be found.

Speaker 2: On Tuesday, the day after the inaugural, President Trump announced a $500 billion infrastructure investment into Stargate AI. You had Sam Altman there. You had a few other tech heavyweights, but not Elon Musk. And then later, Elon Musk was saying, those guys don't have the money. Money.

Speaker 6: Can develop intense rivalries. And there are two chapters in the book of this sort of intensity against Sam Altman, because they started OpenAI together. This whole idea of artificial intelligence. They were going to create this company that was going to be open and non-profit. And when Sam Altman decided to make it a closed system and for-profit, Musk just never forgave him. And so you're seeing this battle happen just this week.

Speaker 2: So it wasn't against Trump in any way. It was just all about alt-man. And, in fact, Trump said...

Speaker 3: Elon, one of the people he happens to hate, but I have certain hatreds of people, too.

Speaker 2: Like they're bonding over hatred.

Speaker 6: You know, they are in some ways. They both have resentments, and that's exactly what Trump said. Obviously, you can see throughout the history the resentment that Musk has built up with Sam Altman. And I've seen them together. They'll talk, but there's a resentment. Likewise, Donald Trump's the same. He has deep resentments against people, but then sometimes he's sitting there joking with them, whether it's Adam Schiff or Barack Obama.

Speaker 2: Did anything surprise you about Musk and Trump so far?

Speaker 6: No. You know, if you read throughout his story of him being in weird ways attracted to the power of Trump, the larger-than-life quality of Trump, Musk's whole life has been leading up to having some role like this. And I think it's going to leave a lot of people in a lot of trouble. A lot of rubble in its wake, just like his rockets do. But I think it's going to get a lot done.

Speaker 2: If that relationship falls apart, if after one year or maybe before, do you think it would be Musk that ended it or Donald Trump?

Speaker 6: Oh, I think it lasts for a year, and I think that's all it's really destined to last for, maybe 18 months, because Musk doesn't want to stay in. And yes, there will be divisions because Trump doesn't like to share the limelight, and Musk has never worked for anybody before. And it's a relationship. And it's a relationship where they both have their interests being served. But you've never really had somebody this rich, this powerful and this intense be a partner of a president of the United States and to have his own mission and be willing at times, it seems to defy a bit what the president wants.

Speaker 2: Our thanks to Walter Isaacson and that terrific book. Coming up, Republicans have complete control of Congress. But does President Trump care? The roundtable on why executive action is taking center stage in Washington these days when we come back. We are back with the roundtable. John Harris is Politico's global editor in chief. David Sanger is the White House and national security correspondent for The New York Times, and Rachel Bade is an ABC News contributing political correspondent and Politico's capital bureau chief, who said a lot of Politico here today, but we need a lot of Politico today. And John, I want to start with you on that note. It was hard to miss your headline in your column this week right after inauguration saying time to admit it. Trump is a great president. He's still trying to be a good one. Explain. Sure.

Speaker 11: And that headline was maybe a little bit of a hand grenade to get people's attention. But the argument I was making is President Trump is great in the sense of being a large and consequential figure who is putting his imprint on every aspect of American politics, even American culture. That's quite distinct from saying. Oh, he's a good president whose policies are in the public interest and that are going to make the country better. That's, of course, the source of the terrific argument. And I don't weigh in on that.

Speaker 2: You said he has everything his supporters hope for and everything his adversaries feared.

Speaker 11: Absolutely. And I think the point that is obvious this week is that President Trump is not a fluke, as a lot of Democrats thought after 2016 and thought throughout his first term. And I think now you have to say he's also has legitimacy. He didn't. He didn't steal the 2024 election. He won it not by a huge margin, but by a pervasive margin geographically. And among these groups, what's the significance that if somebody is a movement president, that means Democrats have to reckon it with him. They can't just push him to the margins because he's singularly awful. He has the support of a huge swath of the American public, and he's using that very purposefully to achieve some big things. That's what we saw. It's not just a cult of personality. This time, it's tied to very disruptive ideas and programs that are dividing the country in historic ways.

Speaker 2: And boy, Rachel, you're seeing that on the Hill in your column this week. You basically said he's steamrolling Republicans.

Speaker 12: Yeah, I mean, absolutely. There's a lot of unity and excitement amongst Republicans right now with their takeover of Washington. But he is really sticking his finger in Republicans eye on a lot of issue issues right now. In particular, I mean, the January six pardon of rioters who went after police officers. The TikTok ban, stopping that when Republicans think that's the national security threat. This move just yesterday or over the weekend that he's going to fire all these inspector generals without notifying Congress, as he was supposed to do under the law. But look, this is an intentional strategy on the part of Trump's inner circle. I mean, I have talked to people close with Trump who have said the sooner Republicans on the Hill, you know, get it in their in their head that he's the one with the mandate, not them. The better their lives are going to be. So the question is, how much are they going to sort of take on this? I mean, right now, Republicans are not going to take on this. Republicans are not protesting. They're just sort of falling in line. You hear a little bit of criticism, but it's very gentle. And I think that's very telling about how the next four years are going to be.

Speaker 2: And David, of course, one of the things he has been doing is taking aim at Biden's policy and cutting staff, especially the National Security Council.

Speaker 13: Well, what he's done with the National Security Council in some ways has echoes of what you heard in your your interview on immigration with Mr. Helmand. He has told the national security staff. These are career staffers who work, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican. They usually come from the State Department or the CIA or the Energy Department. They said, you all go home. Don't call us. We'll call you after we review whether or not we think you are loyal enough to the president. So there's a built in assumption here that they are the deep state and will get in the way of his initiatives. And you see this to some degree. In. The way Secretary of State Rubio just announced a blanket halt on all international assistance. Right. So they're not going case by case. They're going to make a point. And in the international assistance case, to the horror of many of those career staff, they are stopping the flights in of Afghans who helped the United States during the war, of Ukrainians who have gotten visas, legal visas to the United States. So there's a sense in the city right now. That right now they are going blanket, not case by case.

Speaker 2: And John, he's also really getting what he wants, including Pete Hegseth. Just just barely. You covered the Pentagon decades ago. You watched those hearings. Pete Hegseth says he's going to bring back this warrior ethos. But when we talk about loyalty tests, the Pentagon, the military is supposed to be the most apolitical in the nation. So what what effect? Can he have on the Pentagon?

Speaker 11: I mean, I think the Pentagon is made up of professional soldiers and professional civil servants who are going to do their best to implement the policies from the commander in chief. I think this is a very, very, very high risk appointment for most of all for Donald Trump. This is a hard job. And we've seen time and again, we saw it in the Biden administration with the Afghan pullout. We saw it under President Bush the second. We saw it in the. Clinton years. Things can go wrong in national security in an instant, in 24 hours. You can have major setbacks that can shadow a presidency and at times even cripple it. So President Trump has put somebody without deep experience in the policy issues in a critical job. And to me, it's one of the big, big dramas of this administration. How is that going to how is that big bet going to work out?

Speaker 2: And everybody will be watching them. But was it a surprise to you? Was it a surprise to you that everybody nearly all the Republican senators supported Hegseth and what about Tulsi Gabbard next week?

Speaker 12: You know, I kind of feel like his confirmation was sort of locked in once you saw Joni Ernst support him. I mean, if you can have a woman who served in combat, who is sexual assault survivor herself questions in the beginning, a lot of questions and told Trump that she didn't think, you know, he could get there. She was concerned that he couldn't get there. And yet she got in line pretty quickly. I mean, I don't know if it's a question of how many Republicans would actually vote for him, but no, I mean, look, I think when we talk about, you know, these non-nations, it's important to keep in mind, you know, this frustration that a lot of Republicans are feeling privately, what I just talked about, because, you know, Donald Trump, he's burning capital with a lot of these members. The question is, how much capital does he have? And is it really bottomless at this point? I mean, Tulsi Gabbard is something to really watch this week. I mean, she's going to have this confirmation hearing. We're hearing a lot from Senate Republicans privately that they don't like her. They feel like, you know, she's a Democrat. She's on the other team. She's flip-flopped on her foreign policy, national security positions way too much. If they want to make a point and send a signal to Donald Trump that he needs to actually respect them, she could potentially go down. But, again, I'm going to believe it when I see it, because a lot of these guys, they don't want to be crosswise with the big guy.

Speaker 2: And that was clear certainly from this week. You brought up Marco Rubio, David. What else have you seen that he's doing? I mean, he seems like the most conventional pick from Donald Trump. And yet what does he do about Panama?

Speaker 13: So he is the most conventional pick. And I don't think there was anybody who thought, even among the Democrats, he is qualified for the job. The fundamental question that came up about Hegseth was, is this somebody who can think deeply about China and reorienting the force and move the whole thing? You know all those questions about Rubio. We know what you are getting there. Rubio is now in two odd positions with President Trump. The first is, if you listen to his hearings, he was much more hawkish on China and the long-term threat than you have heard from President Trump, who is fundamentally a dealmaker. And, you know, in the TikTok discussion, suddenly he isn't discussing the threat anymore. He's just talking about what kind of deal he can put together. The second interesting thing for Rubio is that as he makes his way around the world here, he's now got to explain why it is that, you know, he's going to have to do this. Why it is that Russia taking, just announcing that it was going to take all of Ukraine is a huge violation of sovereignty. But a president who told me back in early January at Mar-a-Lago, he wouldn't take military force off the table for going after Panama or going after Greenland.

Speaker 2: And, John, I just want to end with you, and we literally have ten seconds. What do you think when you see him on the world stage there, Marco Rubio?

Speaker 11: Look, he's, it's one of the most interesting fault lines. He has a good reputation. He has a different world view than the vice president, J.D. Vance. And so as we look to the second term, who's the next generation of the Republican Party, that's an interesting debate.

Speaker 2: Very good, keeping to time. Thanks, all of you. Great to see you. Thanks for sharing part of your Sunday with us. Check out World News Tonight and have a great day.