Transcript: Angry Trump Vents at Media as GOPers Start to Break on War

Source: The New Republic · Bias: Left

Summary

The following is a lightly edited transcript of the April 7 episode of the Daily Blast podcast. Listen to it here.Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR Network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.Donald Trump is now facing tough questions about his threats to bomb Iranian power plants and bridges. Speaking to reporters Monday, he lost it at one of them who asked about this, attacking his news outlet and ranting that his colleagues seem to want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. This comes as another report says that Republicans may be reaching a “breaking point” with Trump over the war, which raises a question. If Trump seems ready to go through with his threat to carry out massive war crimes, will Republicans be willing to rein him in at that point? Probably not. And what would it mean if Trump can get away with war crimes without Congress raising a peep about it? We’re talking about this with one of our favorite analysts of this kind of thing, Columbia political scientist Elizabeth Saunders, who had a hair-raising thread on Bluesky about where we are. Elizabeth, good to have you on.Elizabeth Saunders: I wish I could say it’s a pleasure to be here, but I seem to be only invited when things are truly terrible. So we have to stop meeting like this.Sargent: Well, let’s start with Trump’s angry tirade. He was asked by a New York Times reporter about his threat to bomb Iranian power plants and bridges. And the reporter points out that this would violate the Geneva Conventions. And that triggered Trump. Listen.Reporter (voiceover): Deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure violate the Geneva Conventions and international law.Donald Trump (voiceover): Who are you with? Reporter (voiceover): I’m with The New York Times. Zolan from The New York Times—Donald Trump (voiceover): Failing. The failing New York Times. Reporter (voiceover): Are you concerned? Donald Trump (voiceover): Circulation way down at the New York Times. Reporter (voiceover): Are concerned that your threat to bomb power plants and bridges amount to war crimes?Donald Trump (voiceover): No, not at all, no, I’m not. I hope I don’t have to do it.Sargent: So it’s worth clarifying something here. Trump is threatening to bomb all power plants and bridges in Iran, as opposed to merely targeting ones that might be connected to military uses in some way. Elizabeth, threatening to bomb all power plants and bridges is a clear and unequivocal threat of a war crime, right?Saunders: If he’s really threatening to bomb all of them or to bomb them indiscriminately, then yes, it would be a war crime. He sees it as an escalation from where we have been, which has been mainly—not exclusively, but mainly—targeting military targets, regime targets. Of course, there have been civilian casualties as well. But in terms of intention, and declaring openly that his goal is to bomb as many bridges—he can’t literally bomb every power plant and bridge in Iran, it’s just too big—the fact that he’s saying that probably means it’s going to be indiscriminate. That is clearly a violation of the law of armed conflict, of basic morality. I could go on. I’m no expert in international law, but ... you don’t need to be to see that that is just horrifying.Sargent: So Trump kept on ranting at that reporter. He went on for over a minute. It continued this way.Donald Trump (voiceover): If you think it’s OK for people that are sick of mind, that are tough, smart, and sick, really sick, you know, from a policy standpoint, from any which way you want to say—mentally—these are disturbed people. If you think I’m going to allow them—and powerful and rich—to have a nuclear weapon, you can tell your friends at The New York Times, not gonna happen.Sargent: Elizabeth, note how Trump lashes out at the reporter by suggesting that anyone who raises questions about war crimes being bad is somehow okay with Iran getting nuclear weapons. He seems to have simply just discarded the idea that his use of American military power should be bound or constrained in any way by international law, by concern about civilians, or anything. There are no limits here. Your thoughts on that?Saunders: I think that this particular exchange—including the attack on The New York Times—it’s like we’ve reached some sort of Trump norm-busting singularity. There’s so many things that are wrapped up in this little exchange. He’s denying that the press should have any right to ask basic questions. He’s attacking the press directly. He’s of course continuing to deny that there would be any problem with bombing these power plants indiscriminately.

Related Coverage

Daily Analysis

Read the full Parallax Pulse for April 7, 2026 — an AI-powered analysis of how Left and Right media covered the biggest stories this day.

More Headlines From April 7, 2026

arallaxNews.io
Transcript: Angry Trump Vents at Media as GOPers Start to Break on War
The New Republic

Transcript: Angry Trump Vents at Media as GOPers Start to Break on War

Left

The following is a lightly edited transcript of the April 7 episode of the Daily Blast podcast. Listen to it here.Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR Network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.Donald Trump is now facing tough questions about his threats to bomb Iranian power plants and bridges. Speaking to reporters Monday, he lost it at one of them who asked about this, attacking his news outlet and ranting that his colleagues seem to want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. This comes as another report says that Republicans may be reaching a “breaking point” with Trump over the war, which raises a question. If Trump seems ready to go through with his threat to carry out massive war crimes, will Republicans be willing to rein him in at that point? Probably not. And what would it mean if Trump can get away with war crimes without Congress raising a peep about it? We’re talking about this with one of our favorite analysts of this kind of thing, Columbia political scientist Elizabeth Saunders, who had a hair-raising thread on Bluesky about where we are. Elizabeth, good to have you on.Elizabeth Saunders: I wish I could say it’s a pleasure to be here, but I seem to be only invited when things are truly terrible. So we have to stop meeting like this.Sargent: Well, let’s start with Trump’s angry tirade. He was asked by a New York Times reporter about his threat to bomb Iranian power plants and bridges. And the reporter points out that this would violate the Geneva Conventions. And that triggered Trump. Listen.Reporter (voiceover): Deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure violate the Geneva Conventions and international law.Donald Trump (voiceover): Who are you with? Reporter (voiceover): I’m with The New York Times. Zolan from The New York Times—Donald Trump (voiceover): Failing. The failing New York Times. Reporter (voiceover): Are you concerned? Donald Trump (voiceover): Circulation way down at the New York Times. Reporter (voiceover): Are concerned that your threat to bomb power plants and bridges amount to war crimes?Donald Trump (voiceover): No, not at all, no, I’m not. I hope I don’t have to do it.Sargent: So it’s worth clarifying something here. Trump is threatening to bomb all power plants and bridges in Iran, as opposed to merely targeting ones that might be connected to military uses in some way. Elizabeth, threatening to bomb all power plants and bridges is a clear and unequivocal threat of a war crime, right?Saunders: If he’s really threatening to bomb all of them or to bomb them indiscriminately, then yes, it would be a war crime. He sees it as an escalation from where we have been, which has been mainly—not exclusively, but mainly—targeting military targets, regime targets. Of course, there have been civilian casualties as well. But in terms of intention, and declaring openly that his goal is to bomb as many bridges—he can’t literally bomb every power plant and bridge in Iran, it’s just too big—the fact that he’s saying that probably means it’s going to be indiscriminate. That is clearly a violation of the law of armed conflict, of basic morality. I could go on. I’m no expert in international law, but ... you don’t need to be to see that that is just horrifying.Sargent: So Trump kept on ranting at that reporter. He went on for over a minute. It continued this way.Donald Trump (voiceover): If you think it’s OK for people that are sick of mind, that are tough, smart, and sick, really sick, you know, from a policy standpoint, from any which way you want to say—mentally—these are disturbed people. If you think I’m going to allow them—and powerful and rich—to have a nuclear weapon, you can tell your friends at The New York Times, not gonna happen.Sargent: Elizabeth, note how Trump lashes out at the reporter by suggesting that anyone who raises questions about war crimes being bad is somehow okay with Iran getting nuclear weapons. He seems to have simply just discarded the idea that his use of American military power should be bound or constrained in any way by international law, by concern about civilians, or anything. There are no limits here. Your thoughts on that?Saunders: I think that this particular exchange—including the attack on The New York Times—it’s like we’ve reached some sort of Trump norm-busting singularity. There’s so many things that are wrapped up in this little exchange. He’s denying that the press should have any right to ask basic questions. He’s attacking the press directly. He’s of course continuing to deny that there would be any problem with bombing these power plants indiscriminately.

Read Full Story at Source
Transcript: Angry Trump Vents at Media as GOPers Start to Break on War | ParallaxNews.io