\n
<\/p>\n
As 2026 begins, there\u2019s little doubt that U.S. President Donald Trump will remain a towering figure in geopolitics. He will mark one year in office by attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and will continue to be influential in global conflicts, trade, and immigration. At home, Trump will look to stave off his domestic opponents as they coalesce around a political platform based on affordability.<\/p>\n
What are the key events to keep an eye on as January kicks off? On the latest episode of FP Live, I spoke with Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent for the New York Times<\/em>, who has covered six U.S. presidencies and reported overseas from Moscow and Jerusalem, among other places. Subscribers can watch the full discussion on the video box atop this page or download the FP Live podcast. What follows here is a lightly edited and condensed transcript.<\/p>\n Ravi Agrawal:<\/strong> How do you think Trump is going to mark the country\u2019s 250th anniversary?<\/p>\n Peter Baker:<\/strong> I think he couldn\u2019t be happier to be the president who\u2019s in office when this happens. He loves nothing more than a big show. He loves nothing more than a patriotic display and wrapping himself in the flag\u2014he literally did that in his first term once. So I think he\u2019s going to find all kinds of ways to put this birthday on display and to associate himself with it.<\/p>\n It\u2019s going to be interesting to watch whether the Department of the Treasury, for instance, follows through on something they\u2019ve discussed doing, which is putting his face on a commemorative coin. We\u2019ve already seen him put his face on tickets, along with George Washington\u2019s, for National Park admissions in 2026. He likes to make himself out as the custodian, if you will, of American patriotism. So I would expect lots of showmanship, lots of military flyovers, and all that kind of stuff. It\u2019s hard to imagine somebody more eager for this kind of an event.<\/p>\n RA:<\/strong> Let\u2019s talk a bit about immigration. It\u2019s a World Cup year, but there\u2019s already some controversy<\/a> over how the tickets are the most expensive ever and the fact that the White House has banned travel now from several dozen countries, which will make it much harder for fans from many African countries, especially, to come and watch the games.<\/p>\n I want to use that as a way to talk more broadly about immigration policy and how it plays out in 2026. I have to say, Trump has not deported anywhere near as many people as we expected, or he suggested, he might one year ago. But instead he seems to have put a giant \u201cdo not come here\u201d sign on the southern border and elsewhere. What\u2019s your sense of how immigration plays out as an issue in 2026?<\/p>\n PB:<\/strong> I think you\u2019re right. He has successfully stopped the flow of people coming over the southern border. That was a big crisis during the Biden administration that didn\u2019t get fully addressed by the president, and it fueled the reelection of Donald Trump. No question about it.<\/p>\n Where things have been more controversial is the rounding up of people in the streets\u2014not just criminals but everyday residents of America who may be here unauthorized, without documentation\u2014in some cases with some documentation\u2014who are just living their lives, working their jobs, raising their families, and yet are suddenly handcuffed and put into detention facilities<\/a> by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. I think a lot of Americans have recoiled at that. The question is whether he has any kind of reboot in the second year. You\u2019re right to say that he hasn\u2019t even gotten to the goals that he himself set in terms of deportation. They were never realistic goals. He said he was going to deport every person who\u2019s in the country illegally. That was never possible according to anybody\u2019s assessment of the challenges involved with that.<\/p>\n But it\u2019s important to remember that it\u2019s not just illegal immigration and certainly not just criminals who are here. He is against a lot of legal immigration. He has changed the rules to make it harder to be here legally. It\u2019s not, \u201cOh, we just don\u2019t want people to come here illegally. We want them to follow the rules.\u201d He\u2019s changing the rules, and he\u2019s even going after people who are naturalized American citizens and trying to find ways of unnaturalizing them if he doesn\u2019t like them.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a really dramatic change. The question is whether there\u2019s backlash in 2026. You\u2019re right to talk about the World Cup because this is supposed to be a time when America brings the world to us and he\u2019s telling the world, \u201cWe don\u2019t really want you.\u201d Or, \u201cWe don\u2019t want some of you.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RA:<\/strong> Exactly. The other thing I\u2019m going to be looking out for in 2026 is to see how tariff policy plays out. It\u2019s interesting to see that there have already been some setbacks. The president was forced to reverse course on tariffs on some items, crucially coffee. Americans love their coffee, of course. But we\u2019re all also eagerly waiting for a Supreme Court judgment<\/a> on whether Trump can continue using the arcane national security exclusion on tariffs. If not, he might then turn to other sources to be able to continue his policy of using tariffs as a cudgel. What is your sense of how that plays out?<\/p>\n PB:<\/strong> What he likes about the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authority is that it is sort of like snapping your fingers. He doesn\u2019t have to make a finding. He doesn\u2019t have to convince anybody of anything. There are no real standards to meet, at least as he has pursued this policy. Remember, nobody\u2019s ever used this law in the way he has. I think he likes it that way.<\/p>\n If he loses at the Supreme Court, the other authorities he has to impose tariffs are more cumbersome. They require, in some cases, findings and time deadlines. He would be very unhappy if he loses that Supreme Court case, but it wouldn\u2019t mean the end of tariffs<\/a>. I think he likes tariffs because it doesn\u2019t involve Congress. It\u2019s the most raw exercise of power that he has. He\u2019s made clear that he uses it not just to influence economics but to influence policy. \u201cI don\u2019t like the immigration coming over the border. I don\u2019t like the fentanyl coming over the border. I don\u2019t like the fact that you put out an ad quoting Ronald Reagan.\u201d So, therefore, tariffs are an all-purpose weapon for him in foreign policy.<\/p>\n To some extent, it\u2019s been successful because other countries do tend to find themselves on the receiving end of economic pain and try to therefore satisfy him in one way or the other. But it\u2019s so volatile, so unpredictable, that it makes it really hard to accomplish things he says he wants to accomplish, which is to encourage people to build factories and create jobs here in America. If you\u2019re a business, and you don\u2019t know how much it\u2019s going to cost to do business a year from now, much less even actually a month from now, then how will you make plans for a large investment in an Ohio plant? I think some of that\u2019s getting through to him. We\u2019ll see whether that changes his approach in the second term. By the end of the year, he backed off a little bit, as you say, on some of the places where it was hurting Americans, but it\u2019s still a very volatile moment for the American economy and the world economy.<\/p>\n RA:<\/strong> Indeed. The big, big, big thing we\u2019ll be looking at toward the end of the year is the midterm elections in November. I feel as if that could end up determining the rest of the course of Trump\u2019s presidency and how much room he actually has to maneuver, not just domestic policy but foreign policy as well. What are the big trend lines you\u2019ll be watching this year on that front?<\/p>\n PB:<\/strong> First of all, there\u2019ll be some special elections in the early part of the year and some house races. We\u2019ll see how they go and whether they tell us anything. We ought to be careful about overanalyzing special elections and off-year elections because there\u2019s a different electorate that comes to vote, but they are instructive nonetheless.<\/p>\n What we\u2019ve seen so far is clearly a pretty sharp move to the Democrats since he took office. Now, if the Democrats were to win the House\u2014which seems very plausible, which is historically normal for a midterm election\u2014it may not hobble him legislatively because he actually hasn\u2019t asked the legislature to do very much. That\u2019s really interesting: Even though he controls both houses of Congress, he\u2019s not pursuing a legislative presidency. Every other president I\u2019ve seen in the first year of his term has tried to use that moment of maximum momentum and credibility to push some big priority through Congress\u2014Obamacare or, in George W. Bush\u2019s case, No Child Left Behind.<\/p>\n That\u2019s not been the way Trump has operated. So, if he loses the House, it doesn\u2019t mean that he can\u2019t get stuff done. What it does mean, though, is the Democrats, who have been largely voiceless, will have a platform to oppose him on various things. It will give them the committee gavel. They\u2019ll be able to have hearings. They\u2019ll have subpoena power. (He tends to ignore subpoenas, so we\u2019ll see if that makes a difference.) But, at the very least, they\u2019ll have more of an opportunity to showcase and highlight issues that otherwise get pushed under the rug because the Republicans on the Hill don\u2019t want to address them.<\/p>\n And as soon as the midterm is over, the 2028 presidential race starts in earnest. With every passing day after November 2026, Trump\u2019s influence, and the attention on him, begins to drain toward potential successors. That may actually make him upset\u2014he doesn\u2019t like to cede the stage to other people. So he may be more willing to be provocative to keep the focus on him.<\/p>\n RA:<\/strong> What is your sense of how those discussions about succession are going? How do you expect the fractures within MAGA world over a range of issues\u2014whether it\u2019s intervening in conflicts abroad or even domestic issues\u2014to play out?<\/p>\n PB:<\/strong> On the Republican side, we start 2026 with a pretty straightforward dynamic. There\u2019s a broad consensus in the party that the nomination in 2028 is J.D. Vance\u2019s to lose. He\u2019s been signaled now as the favorite heir apparent. The other person seen as his main competitor is Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Rubio has said now that if Vance runs, he will defer to him and support him for the nomination. That doesn\u2019t mean there won\u2019t be other people running. Of course there will be.<\/p>\n The question is whether or not MAGA continues to control the party even without Trump. Trump, again, is sui generis. Whether or not loyalty to him can be translated to another figure is a really open question.<\/p>\n On the Democratic side, it\u2019s a completely open field. I can name 20 people who may or may not run at this point. And there\u2019s no giant in the field. Somebody\u2019s going to have to prove themselves to be somebody who can take a broken party, find a way to fix it, and make it a success again.<\/p>\n RA:<\/strong> Trump\u2019s approval ratings are quite low. You just said that Trump is sui generis, but how do presidents usually respond to lower ratings in year two of their second term? If you put your historian\u2019s hat on, are there any parallels that we should keep in mind?<\/p>\n PB:<\/strong> It\u2019s a great point because, in fact, what\u2019s really interesting about Trump is that in some ways he is both the strongest president and the weakest president we\u2019ve seen in our lifetime. By strong, I mean that he is completely dominant in Washington. He sets the agenda. Whatever he says is what people talk about. He has complete control of his party, even though there are cracks, like Marjorie Taylor Greene deciding to leave. No other president I\u2019ve seen has been as dominant within his party as Trump is as we start the second year of his second term.<\/p>\n Having said that, his approval rating numbers are terrible, as you say. They\u2019re in the 30s, and that\u2019s as weak as it gets, absent a Watergate-type scandal. Every other president I\u2019ve ever covered who had low poll ratings like that, they smelled weak. You know what I mean? You could tell that they were weak. The fact that they were unpopular damaged them inside of Washington. It meant that other players in Washington didn\u2019t respect them as much, didn\u2019t fear them as much.<\/p>\n Trump plays a weak hand strong. He doesn\u2019t suffer the way other people do with low poll numbers. He just simply ignores them and moves on as if he had some big giant mandate, which he doesn\u2019t have. A lot of the political class responds to him as if that were correct because he has had the power to punish other Republicans through primary challenges and so forth. I\u2019ve talked to some Republicans, such as former Sen. Jeff Flake, for instance, who think that as soon as the primary filing deadlines pass for Republicans, we may start to see more Republicans move away from him when they no longer have to fear a more outspoken MAGA challenger. We\u2019ll see.<\/p>\n RA:<\/strong> Do you think Trump is going to continue to focus more on foreign policy in year two? Or are we beginning to see signs that he might try to pivot to cost of living and other domestic issues to combat the Democrats? In other words, is affordability the big new theme of 2026?<\/p>\n PB:<\/strong> We\u2019ll certainly start off the year that way. Absolutely. If he doesn\u2019t find a way to address it, if the economy doesn\u2019t start picking up, then it\u2019s to the detriment of Republicans.<\/p>\n Now, the Trump theory is that the tax cuts they pass in the first year will really begin to take effect in the two quarters of 2026, and you\u2019ll see the economy start to take off. We\u2019ll see. I\u2019m not an economist, and frankly, even economists can\u2019t tell you for sure. If he\u2019s right, then obviously he has a lot more room to maneuver, but if the economy continues to stagnate along, that\u2019s going to be the dominant thing going into the midterms.<\/p>\n People don\u2019t care nearly as much about what\u2019s happening overseas if they feel as if they can\u2019t afford a place to live, if they can\u2019t afford to pay their bills, or if they can\u2019t afford health care. One statistic I thought was really interesting was that in the first 10 months of Trump\u2019s presidency, the United States created about 500,000 jobs. In the first 10 months of 2024, before he came back to office, the United States created 1.5 million jobs. Job growth is down by two-thirds. Unemployment was starting to tick up at the end of 2025. So the trend lines aren\u2019t good for him. He\u2019s hoping for a jolt from these tax cuts. That\u2019s what he\u2019s really gambling on.<\/p>\n