Jonathan Swan

Our job is to dig out the facts that provide a foundation for these conversations.

These facts don't just come out of the ether.

It requires reporters to spend hours upon hours talking to sources, digging up documents.

Also, if the story is a story that a powerful person doesn't want in print, there's threats of lawsuits and all kinds of things.

So it's a really massive operation.

There aren't that many places anymore who invest at that level in journalism.

Without a well-funded and rigorous free press, people in power have much more leeway to do whatever the heck it is that they want to do.

If you think that it's worthwhile to have journalists on the job digging out information, you can subscribe to The New York Times because without you, none of us can do the work that we do.

Great to be back.

Great to be back.

I don't want to be like the Australian talking about American history here, but obviously... But here you are. Yeah, yeah. I mean, obviously, the benchmark is FDR's first 100 days where he pushed, I think it was 15 major bills through Congress and created a legacy that we still live with.

I don't want to be like the Australian talking about American history here, but obviously... But here you are. Yeah, yeah. I mean, obviously, the benchmark is FDR's first 100 days where he pushed, I think it was 15 major bills through Congress and created a legacy that we still live with.

So ever since then, presidents have used this, as Maggie said, artificial construct to measure their self-worth at an early point in the administration.

So ever since then, presidents have used this, as Maggie said, artificial construct to measure their self-worth at an early point in the administration.

I mean, there's a million places you could start, but if you just look at the series of reporting that we laid out, the first big element that we talked about was expansion of power and destruction of or elimination of any pocket of independence within the executive branch. I would put a big tick next to that one, maybe even a double tick. He's clearly done that

I mean, there's a million places you could start, but if you just look at the series of reporting that we laid out, the first big element that we talked about was expansion of power and destruction of or elimination of any pocket of independence within the executive branch. I would put a big tick next to that one, maybe even a double tick. He's clearly done that

firing checks on his power, getting rid of inspectors general and other elements within the executive branch. Another element, obviously, that we reported on in depth was immigration. I think we can talk about that later, but it's, I would say, a very mixed scorecard. Well, let's talk about it now. They've effectively started to do what they plan to do.

firing checks on his power, getting rid of inspectors general and other elements within the executive branch. Another element, obviously, that we reported on in depth was immigration. I think we can talk about that later, but it's, I would say, a very mixed scorecard. Well, let's talk about it now. They've effectively started to do what they plan to do.

It just, in at least one half of their program, isn't going so well. So the first half, sealing the border, tick, record low border crossings. They've absolutely achieved that in a very short space of time. If you talk to people internally, they're almost, I'm not going to say frustrated by their success, but it almost came too quickly, too easily.

It just, in at least one half of their program, isn't going so well. So the first half, sealing the border, tick, record low border crossings. They've absolutely achieved that in a very short space of time. If you talk to people internally, they're almost, I'm not going to say frustrated by their success, but it almost came too quickly, too easily.