Jeffrey Goldberg: I don't want to overstate any of this.

While it is true that in the immediate aftermath of the dinner incident this past Saturday, Trump spoke of unity and praised the journalists, yes, he praised the journalists, who organized the dinner.

But he's still very much Donald Trump obsessing over his legacy, saying the most outlandish things, and providing the American people with almost no understanding of what he hopes to achieve in the Middle East, which causes many Americans, including this American, to wonder if he knows what he wants in the Middle East or knows the pathway to get there.

We'll talk about the president's dilemmas tonight and we'll discuss the state of the economy, which is everyone's problem, with my guests, Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent at The New York Times, Susan Glasser is a columnist at The New Yorker, Idrees Kahloon is a staff writer at The Atlantic, and Ashley Parker is a staff writer and a White House correspondent at The Atlantic.

Thank you all for being here.

Let's start with the chaos of last Saturday night.

Peter, how has the president been handling this latest apparent attempt on his life?

Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent, The New York Times: Yes.

It's fascinating display of Trumpian, you know, surprise, right, because the first reaction is one that you might have seen from other politicians.

He goes to the White House briefing room at 10:00 at night.

He is subdued.

He is taking it seriously.

He is sober.

He is praising the journalist.

He's recognizing the serious of the moment without using it as an opportunity to bash somebody and to attack somebody.

That lasts all of 12 hours, of course.

And by the next day, he's bashing Nora O'Donnell.

He's -- within days, the president, who had just been at a dinner, supposed to be about the First Amendment, is using his administration to go after ABC, trying to get them to pull off Jimmy Kimmel because he didn't like a joke.

And now his administration has criminally prosecuted the former FBI Director James Comey for speech for his social media post with seashells and a slogan that they interpreted as a threat to the president.

So, within days, of course, you saw Trump at his normal velocity.

But it's a tragic moment, of course, that politics and violence have become so interweaved that we didn't even really pause for very long to think about what it meant and what it tells us about our politics today.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Susan, is there any evidence that this kind of incident, which is terrible, that it changes him at all?

Have we seen anything at all?

Susan Glasser, Columnist, The New Yorker: Well, I mean, look, you know, there is a strong sense, and I think Donald Trump believes that the two attempts on his life during the course of the 2024 campaign, you know, that they -- in a way, the fact that he survived them you know, gave him a different sense of mission in winning a second term in office.

And I do think you do see a more messianic, a more legacy-obsessed version of Donald Trump in his second term than in his first term.

But, you know, the normalcy shouldn't be overstated in Donald Trump's reaction.

Remember that one of his immediate impulses upon being told that someone had come close to threatening his life at this dinner was to immediately go on and on and on about how the country needed the $400 million ballroom that he's planning to build for the White House.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

I guess I was just I was so struck after, because it's so unusual, Ashley, that he was magnificent to the press.

He was praising the White House Correspondents' Association even, and even talking about unity, which is not traditionally a theme of the Trump administration.

I don't want to push people to a conclusion that they can't draw, but for a moment there, it seemed like there was a completely different president.

Ashley Parker, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: Yes.

It did, but I think anyone who has covered him for even just a couple of years understands that that is not the authentic Trump, that those words coming out of his mouth are not authentic.

Although I will say it is authentic Trump in this sense, which is Donald Trump is often trying to win over whoever is directly in front of him when he's not trying to insult them, right?

And in this moment, he has a room full of journalists.

I think he was perhaps a little bit shaken.

You also remember the Secret -- J.D.

Vance gets off the stage first, and the reason he doesn't move as quickly is because, as he admits, he sort of waves off his Secret Service detail and is sort of like, wait a minute, I want to see this show.

So, he's seen this show.

He's been impressed for whatever reason how the room comported itself.

And so in that moment, he's faced with a bunch of journalists.

He wants to win them over and he can be when he chooses to be incredibly charming.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

We have both experienced that on occasion.

The White House Correspondents' Dinner does it have a future?

Should it have a future?

Ashley, you have profound thoughts on the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Why don't you share them?

Ashley Parker: Well, I will just share my little claim to fame, which is that The New York Times famously does not go to the dinner, and that is because when I was a young research assistant for Maureen Dowd, I was assigned -- I was not invited to the dinner, but I was assigned to cover it.

It was during the Iraq War.

The Times had invited his guests because you used to bring a ton of guests, Karl Rove and Sheryl Crow on famously opposite sides of this war.

They got in a big fight at the dinner.

And then I got the tip and I reported it and it just felt too -- there was a sense from up high that it felt too queasy that The Times had made news by inviting these guests and then covered the news they had made.

And I think they, like a lot of news organizations, felt gross about this dinner anyhow, wanted a reason to leave and did what a lot of organizations have wanted to do but have not been able to.

Peter Baker: Well, I think that predates Trump.

But Trump then becomes the, you know, proof of the pudding, right?

Why should we be having dinners with presidents who we are covering, and particularly if you have a president who is calling us enemies of the people, who is using the power of government to go after us, literally threatening The New York Times this week with sedition for daring to write stories he doesn't like.

You know, his administration is suing you, you know, his FBI director.

This is not an administration that has the same commitment to the First Amendment that the rest of the people in that room had.

And is this an uncomfortable and, you know, it's icky because of what you described, but it's also uncomfortable in another way.

We have a job to do and it's covering him, not celebrating with him.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Idrees, you're naturally contrarian.

What's the best argument for keeping the White House Correspondents' Dinner going?

Idrees Kahloon, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: I guess tradition, you know, history is made there.

Donald Trump was mocked by Barack Obama, and that might have been the thing that caused him to say, you know what, I'm going to become president and I'm going to become arguably a more influential person than Barack Obama, to your article's point, you know, vying with Napoleon and other things.

So, you know, history is made there.

I will say it was my first White House Correspondents' Dinner and -- Jeffrey Goldberg: This was your first one?

Ashley Parker: I cannot believe that.

Idrees Kahloon: It only lasted ten minutes.

Peter Baker: They're not even like that.

Jeffrey Goldberg: They're longer.

They're usually much longer.

Peter Baker: Much longer.

Jeffrey Goldberg: No, but I'm serious because I will share my view, not that you care, but I will share it anyway, I'm in the chair.

Seeing a bunch of journalists in tuxedos hobnobbing with powerful people, I don't think does much for our image in the country.

I mean, just from a pure optic -- well, it's more than optics.

It's like we are literally -- I mean, I didn't go this year, but we are hobnobbing with people we're supposed to be holding adversarially.

Susan Glasser: If I could just say, I think that's really an important point, Jeff, that's gotten lost because it was such a dramatic moment here.

But like in the end, you know, journalists are part of a broader civil society in this country that has been under siege.

And what I think a lot of people, when they look at Washington, you know, and they say we're revolted by the spectacle, they include the press in that because there's a sense that people are not walking the talk, you know, living the principles that they -- either you believe that Donald Trump poses an existential threat to freedom of speech and other pillars of our constitutional order or you don't.

And what the message from these journalists that we've seen amplified a lot, frankly, in the days since this dinner and the debacle that happened there, the message that's received to people is we actually care more about having access to people in the White House, even if they are calling us enemies of the people, suing us for billions of dollars and undermining our ability to tell the American people the truth and do the job that we're here for.

Jeffrey Goldberg: I literally think it's the tuxedos and the gowns that people see that, that turn -- Peter Baker: And the celebrities and the red carpet and the spectacle of the parties.

Ashley Parker: You're taking the people writ large who have the absolute lowest approval rating in the country.

Journalists, members of Congress, and often the president, you are putting them in a ballroom, you are dressing them up, you are feeding them.

We didn't get to this course, but you're feeding them filet and lobster, and you are throwing celebrities into the mix.

It's very understandable, even though there's legitimate freedom of the press and First Amendment reasons for this dinner, why the entire country rightfully hates it.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Would you like to know my compromise solution?

I bet you do.

My compromise solution is that continue the dinner, but everyone has to dress like John Fetterman.

Make it seem more excessive.

And no more lobster.

No more lobster, like, you know, chicken fingers or something like that.

No, it's actually a serious thing.

I mean, there's a technical issue here, which is that in our new security reality, how do you pull these things off, right.

We'll revisit this subject.

But it is not just a subject of domestic or parochial concern because it does go to the way we are perceived in the country and the way we perceived.

No, it's not very good.