Trump Q&A: Nuclear innovation, Venezuela & LeBron James

So, first of all, maybe you have some questions for the people behind me. Please, go ahead. Hi, Mr. President. I want to ask about the Saudi nuclear deal. This man over your shoulder announces a big deal after 18 months of negotiating with the Saudis. Seems like it's all done. It's signed. And then you come out, throw some new conditions on top of it. The whole thing blows up. So did he get out ahead of you? Or what happened there? No, nobody got out ahead. I mean, I just say that in order to do it, they have to be a member of the Abraham Accords, which have been very successful. But it's time now that they do it. They and others didn't want to do it because of the problem that they had with Iran. You don't have that problem anymore. You don't have a great power there anymore. You have a problem. But the problem is disappearing day by day. They were the bully of the Middle East. They were not going to be that much of a bully anymore. Probably, I think, instinctively want to be. But you don't have the same problem that you would have had four or five months ago before they had no Navy, no military, no anti-aircraft, no leaders. I mean, their leaders are gone. A lot of things have changed with respect to that country. So, no, we want them to. It's a two-way street. And we think it's very important for the future of the Middle East. The Abraham Accords have been incredibly successful for the countries, as you know, for the countries in them. And I think it's very important. So, you know, at some point, they'll join. They'll join and they'll do their civil to echo a civil nuclear. But that's what it is. No enrichment of civil nuclear. Quick question about Iran. You're talking about blowing up civilian power plants and bridges. Much of the civilized world would consider that a war crime. Do you? I won't respond to that question. Who you with? The New York Times. I figured so. The L.A. New York Times. I just came back from Venezuela. And people there are very happy with you. With Secretary Marco Rubio, with Secretary Wright. I've got all numbers in Venezuela. I know some news plans for there. And they are amazing. I want to give you. Thank you. I want to ask you one question because some people there, they are asking me that. When will there be elections? Do you have a date in mind? Senator Bernie Moreno said that July 24, 2027 could be a good day in honor of Simon Bolivar. And my second question is the football player who scored Spain's goal in the final at World Cup, Ferran Torres, celebrate the victory wearing a Make Spain Great Again cap. The communists are attacking him because they say that it's a friend of you. And also they are attacking Argentinian players because of Millet. What do you think about that? Well, he's a great player. And he was wearing essentially a Make America Great Again cap. So it was a nice tribute. And I think he meant that very nicely. And we appreciate it. We have. We made America great. We have the greatest country in the world now. I will say this. We were a year and a half ago, two years ago, this country was in deep trouble. We had borders that were a disaster. We had everything you could possibly have, including men playing in women's sports. Even the Supreme Court has taken care of most of that problem. But we had a country that was in big trouble. It was being laughed at all over the world. We have the hottest country. This is the hottest country anywhere in the world. So I saw him wearing the essentially Make America Great Again hat. And I know that he meant it as a very great compliment. And we appreciate it. As far as the elections in Venezuela, they're not really ready for them yet. But boy, a lot of progress has been made. Delcey has been doing a fantastic job, as you know. The amount of oil coming out of Venezuela right now, even before the big companies, you know, Exxon, all the big companies are looking at it. They're going there. It's a very fertile territory. But the amount of money being made by Venezuela now is more than they've ever made before. And we're taking a lot also for our efforts. And the money is being sent and the oil is being sent to Houston and Louisiana to be refined. And we paid for the war many times over. It's been an amazing fact. And as you say, you know, I'm very popular in Venezuela because we're bringing tremendous economics back to the country. They were absolutely dying. They were in such trouble. And now Venezuela is becoming extremely successful. They're taking in billions of dollars, selling millions and millions of barrels of oil. And we're getting some and they're getting some. And everybody's making a lot. And it was dead before we got there. So it's been it's been an incredible relationship. They're not ready yet for the elections, but at some point they will be. And we're going to be standing right on top of them and say hello. I've known them for a long time. I've known that country. You know, I own the Miss Universe pageant. And Miss Venezuela always did very well in that pageant. So I know something about the country. But I've been I've known it for a long time. They're great people. Say hello. OK, Mr. President, about Iran. What is the exit strategy? Well, I think there's a lot of them. There's a military exit where we just keep going just the way we are. And we can even make it a heavier dose. And it's knocking out everything they have. Or there's a smarter strategy. That's you make a deal and they want to make a deal. I just don't think they're ready yet, but they do want to make a deal. Sometimes they don't want to say they want to make a deal. They want to be the tough guys, but they do want to make a deal. There's two ways. I mean, it's you can just keep doing exactly what we're doing and take them apart piece by piece. We could do it in a more rapid fashion, which we might do, or we can negotiate with them, which we're also doing right now. As we speak, we're talking to them. And you said today that Russia and China are not helping. Earlier this week, the war secretary said that they are enabling. So what is the difference? Well, I don't know that they're enabling. I mean, I will tell you that President Xi said he will not partake. And President Putin said the same thing. I think I trust them. Do they? They've had a long term relationship. There could be some things to do. But thus far, at least it has not been major. I don't think they'd want to have me disappointed. And just a different story, not a rant. There's this nasty parasite that is giving people in nine states explosive diarrhea. When is it going to be safe to eat lettuce again? I don't know. I haven't thought about it. It's the first time I've been asked that question. Are you eating lettuce recently? I should always have more lettuce. No, it's a very interesting question from you. I didn't think you'd ask that kind of a question. Nobody wants to ask that question. Well, it's exciting. There's this there's this food coming in, I guess, from Mexico. It's tainted. It's making a lot of people sick. That is the CDC's terminology that I think what we're going to do is we're going to put a major tariff on taxes on Mexico because of the lettuce. And we're going to put a big tariff on Canada because of the smoke. All right. We'll get a comment. Which would you have that the lettuce or the smoke? I think I'll take the smoke. Yeah, the smoke wrecked my daughter's swim meet. Well, it's closed up a lot of country. I've told Canada they have to do something about it. You know, we've never had this problem. All of a sudden we have this problem with Canada. So we'll have to talk to them about that. Thank you, sir. A follow up on Iran. Have you made a decision about the major strikes that you're referring to? OK, should we expect to see major strikes? Look, we're talking to them right now. I think they're getting more and more serious as the days go by, for maybe the obvious reason. But we are talking to them right now. Look, there are two ways. I consider that the smarter way, but the other is probably the easier way doing what we're doing. And we can take that to a much higher level if you want to. You know, we're prepared to do that. As you know, we're locked and loaded. We're locked and loaded and ready to go. But we're talking to them. So I think while we're talking, we'll see what comes of it. I believe, Jeff, they're very serious. They should be. And when you say that you're talking, is it Mr. Kushner or Mr. Whitkoff? Or who's involved in those talks? Sort of everybody. J.D. and Marco and a lot of people talking. A lot of people to talk to. It's a big deal. But really, when you get right down to it, it's not very complex. They cannot have a nuclear weapon. You know, very, very simple, actually. But it's a big deal. They cannot have a nuclear weapon. If they have even a thought of a nuclear weapon, we would just continue to go at much higher levels. But we are talking right now and we'll see what comes of it. I'm not, you know, despite what everyone says about the election, I'm not in a hurry. I'm not in a hurry. We have to do it right. Elections take care of themselves. You know, when I went into Venezuela, everybody was against it. Oh, what are you doing going into Venezuela? And then two days later, they said, well, that's fantastic. A lot of people are saying that with Iran already because it would take them 25 years to rebuild already from what they have. And again, as you know, no Navy, no Air Force, no anti-aircraft, no radar, no nothing. And we, as you know, we just put up reinstituted the the I guess you could I call it the iron wall on the water. Nothing gets through, nothing blockade, nothing gets through. And they sort of have to make a deal. But we are talking to them. I think they're being serious. I think I think they are being by far the most serious that we've seen. But that doesn't mean we get there. We'll see what happens. But I always prefer that alternative. I have an energy question. So Burgum might be able to help with this. So you have criticized windmills for quite a long time. They're very ugly. They're not there. They tend to use more energy than they actually produce. A lot of people in a lot of people in middle America, they are just so tired of seeing them continue to go up on farmland and stuff like that. Is there any way to is our federal government still funding in any way putting these up? We have I can speak for Doug and then I'm going to let Doug speak because he knows. I don't know that subject. Well, we have not approved anything have to do with windmills. They are horrible. They are unsightly. They ruin housing values of people. If you're looking at a windmill or hearing a windmill because they're noisy, they kill all the birds, they kill all the eagles. You know, you shoot an eagle, you go to jail for two years. If you kill an eagle with a windmill, you don't go to jail. They have hundreds of them laying on the ground. You know, it's terrible. And they're very expensive. And they're all made in China. But China has very few windmills. You know, they have they're made in China. But China doesn't use them for the most part. China actually uses coal, oil and gas. They use nuclear, by the way. They're getting very big in nuclear. I want to tell you this little group. But they don't they don't use wind. Wind is inconsistent. It's unattractive. It's very expensive. It's probably the most expensive form of energy. So I've been talking about it. We essentially, unless it's for unless there's a trick reason, we will have hopefully no wind farms approved. We're doing more than anybody ever in history having to do with energy. But I've restricted wind farms, windmills. Take a look at Palm Springs, California, where they have a wind farm. As you enter beautiful Palm Springs, California, it looks like a junkyard. You have old ones, rotted ones. They're falling down all over the place. They don't want to bury it because they say the fiber that the blades are made out of should not go in the ground because it's going to poison the ground. Now, I don't know if that's true or not, but if it's not going to go in the ground, what do you do with it? Put it up in the air? Yeah. So good. I see you're not a fan of windmills. No, I'm not a fan of windmills, Mr. President. I'm very passionate about this. You want to speak about that? I would say, yes, President Trump has wisely understood that wind was unreliable, intermittent, dependent on the weather, only existed particularly offshore because of massive subsidies. So not only was it expensive to generate electricity on the grid, it was also expensive for taxpayers because of subsidies. And so again, President Trump shifting the policy towards energy dominance, which is reliable, affordable, 7x24 energy that's not dependent on the weather. That includes nuclear, includes hydro, includes geothermal, includes oil and gas, includes beautiful coal. And again, China, 60% of their electricity is coming from coal. Coal was the number one electric producer in the world 125 years ago. And it was for the last 125 years in a row. And it will be again this year. Quite a streak if you're an athletic team that they've won 126 years in a row. But we were restricted from using it. Every coal mine was going to be closed down within the next year. We didn't come along. We didn't win the election. And it's, I call it clean, beautiful coal. Because it is. What they do today with coal is amazing. But it is the most powerful. And with that, go ahead, Doug. Well, I'd say with under President Trump's leadership and then working together as a team across government with the great Lee Zeldin Energy Dominance Council, we've kept open 35 gigawatts of coal this last year. And if that 35 gigawatts was not up this past winter during the cold streak and Storm Fern, we would have seen brownouts, blackouts, and literally people dying in America during that cold weather. So again, President Trump's, the elections matter. When he came in, he turned the direction back towards reliable, affordable energy. Nuclear is a key part of that with these amazing entrepreneurs. And I just want to add to this up here. People need to understand the four guys are standing up here did not get a government grant. This is private sector. President Trump unleashed capital going back in billions of dollars of capital going back into the nuclear industry. President Trump understands innovation is the source of American greatness. You get rid of the regulation. You support entrepreneurs. The capital flows. America wins. You know, the starting for this nuclear, you know, dominance. What does that look like for the American people out there? Like, what are those first steps that we can see in these these coming months and years? Well, I should say, I'll go on. You can see it right now, because when you take a look across the whole world, President Trump's policies, whether it's, you know, Venezuela, whether it's Alaska, whether it's reinstating export for 18 months ago, we had a ban on LNG exports from our country. Now we're the world's largest exporter of LNG. President Trump's policy was let's sell energy to our friends and allies, keep it affordable at home so our friends and allies can stop buying from our adversaries. Russia was selling virtually all of the natural gas into Western Europe. Two thirds of that gas has been displaced by America. America has turned those into our customers, supporting our allies. And with Venezuela, as President Trump said, that flowing to our refineries on the South Coast, that's lowering gas prices for America, unleashing Alaska, which the previous administration sanctioned more than Iran. That's going to, again, help provide low cost energy for America. So today we have the lowest price, most secure energy of any country in the world. That's going to change the course of this country for the decades to come. Mr. President, the Justice Department last night withdrew those subpoenas to the New York Times journalists who reported on Air Force One. Do you support these type of subpoenas to journalists, or are you going to encourage the administration? We're not after journalists, we're after leakers. We're after people that are cowards, people that are unpatriotic, people that are treasonous in many cases. And the way you find them is through the journalists, when the journalists probably know they shouldn't write, they shouldn't be giving information out like that particular information or others. We had a lot of — look at the Supreme Court, where they leaked the opinion of Roe v. Wade early. That person should be found. And the way you find them is to tell the journalists. If it's something having to do with national security, you tell the journalist, who is it? And we have a long way to go with that case. So you think it's appropriate to subpoena family members of journalists to file information? What's that again? There were subpoenas to family members of the journalists, too. I don't know what's appropriate, what's not. We do it legally. Barack Hussein Obama did it all the time. He went after journalists and nobody said anything about it. He went after journalists. They said, who is the leaker? Who is the leaker? And if you don't give us the leaker, you go into jail. You know that. But when, you know, Obama does it, it's okay. When I do it, it's not. In many cases, that's the only way you're going to find out who a leaker is, and it has to do with national security. It's amazing. He did it many times. And nobody said anything about it. But when a Republican does it, when, in particular, Trump does it, everybody makes a big deal. Now, the way you find out is you say to the journalist, if it's national security. I would say I really put it down to national security, not all in all cases. But when you have somebody doing a national security leak or a leak of great importance, and you have somebody inside the walls of, let's say, the White House leaking, I think that's a national security concern. I think it's absolutely fine. And again, I'm not knocking Obama for doing it. I'm knocking the press for not even wanting to cover it. But Obama did that often. Other presidents have done it also. They go to the journalist or the reporter. They say, national security, who gave you this information? I'm okay with that. Did you authorize for Secretary Wright to sign the Saudi nuclear deal? If not, why did he sign it? Well, we didn't talk about it, but it was always understood. And Chris knew, and Saudi Arabia knew. And if they didn't join the Abraham Accords, the deal's not — I'm not going to do the deal. So then why did he sign it? Senator — Because they understood that in order — you know, subject to Congress and everything else. In order for that deal to go through, they had to sign into the Abraham Accords. And they've had great success. The Abraham Accords have been very successful. But in order to do that, we wanted them — we want them in. We think it's very good. We think the Abraham Accords bring peace in the Middle East. And now there's no longer an Iran factor. There's no longer Iran to worry about because they've been reduced, in terms of their capability and power, by manyfold. Thank you. Senator John Thune has suggested that if the White House thinks that there are votes to pass the Save America Act, you should be picking up the phone. I'm with the Washington Examiner, sir. Could you be doing more to help that legislation pass? Well, I do — I do more. I got three congressmen, maybe four, to settle — you know, to send it to the Senate. We got the vote, as you know, in Congress. I got a call from Mike Johnson, who's fantastic. He's a fantastic speaker, one of the best I've ever seen. And I think he's going to go down as one of the best he called. He said, we have problems with three or four people. Could you call them? I called them. Every one of them, after I called them, voted, and we got it passed up to the Senate. And I'd certainly be willing. I mean, he's got four or five people that are very difficult. A couple of them I put out of office, so I understand how it feels. I mean, they're doing the wrong thing. Look, who cannot approve voter ID? Who cannot approve proof of citizenship? Who cannot approve funding military when you're winning a war? And what are you supposed to do, stop fighting? We're winning a war by a lot. We're talking to them right now. They're willing to do things that they would have never done. Other presidents should have done this a long time ago. They say 47, but now it's actually 50 years. We've been saying 47 for three years. So it's 50 years. For 50 years, they should have done it. But who wouldn't approve voter ID? And that's photo ID. Who wouldn't approve proof of citizenship? And the Democrats don't want it because they cheat. But no Republican should put us in a position where they don't approve something like that. Yeah, please. And then earlier today, you reposted Laura Loomer's interview with President Zelensky. What do you make of growing MAGA support for the war in Iran? Or war in Ukraine, sorry. Well, I think they support what I support. You know, we just had a complete win in Arizona. The young gentleman was Harry Hinton, I believe his name is. The pollster said Trump's 100% favorable and gets everybody who endorses wins, which is pretty much true. Everyone I endorse just about wins. So there seems to be a natural bond between me and MAGA. But I'm the one that created MAGA. And I know what MAGA wants better than anybody else. You know, MAGA knows what MAGA wants. And MAGA is very happy. They want to see this done. And they're not going to be happy if it's not done. Make America great again. It's all about making, you know, we started that a long time ago. But the concept of not approving voter ID or not approving proof of citizenship. And I won't even get into the ballot thing because, you know, we'll hold that maybe for another time. I think the two are 97, 98% issues. I think the ballots are 75% issues. But even at 75, they should do the ballots. The ballots are in many ways more important than even the first two. But they're a little more controversial because some people don't want to go and vote. But most great Americans want to go and vote. The corrupt ballot stuff that you saw that with the recent election in Los Angeles, the mayor's election, where the young guy, I don't know him. I came to the office recently after he lost. And they find all these ballots all of a sudden. They came down from heaven. Hundreds of thousands of ballots. Isn't it wonderful? He had no chance of losing, you know, Spencer Pratt. He had no chance. He was going to be in second place or first place. But I don't know. I saw it happen. I said, oh, he's not going to win. He had to beat somebody. He was way up on a person that nobody ever heard of. A young woman who nobody ever heard of. She cried that night that she lost. But all of a sudden, time went by time and the elections long over. And I heard a report that Spencer Pratt's not doing that well. I said, watch, he's going to lose. And he lost. It's crooked. We have crooked elections in some places. Today, it was announced. LeBron James has decided that he wants his next team to be the 76ers. Where do you stand on LeBron versus Michael Jordan as the best ever? Well, Michael Jordan is a guy that's a friend of mine playing golf with him. He's a really good guy. And I think LeBron is maybe he's a racist, but maybe he doesn't like Trump. I don't know. I only like people that like me. So I would say Michael Jordan all the way. Another sports question. When Tiger Woods was about to get arrested, he called you. Now we know that when Bryson DeChambeau was having a dispute with a rules official this week, he wanted to call you. You got involved with a red card for the U.S. men's soccer team. Is there a precedent for somebody with your job becoming a fixer for the world's best? Well, it's not a fix you being a judge like, you know, I thought the Bryson call was a tough call. You know, I saw him walking around. I see a lot of people. They're walking around looking for their ball and weeds. OK, but I've been watching that. So, you know, I thought it was a tough call against him. I thought the red card was a very tough call and it worked out brilliantly. Look, supposing that they didn't let him play. We lost. Everyone would have been angry. The way it was that they lost with their best player. Now everyone's happy, including Belgium. Of course, they lost the next game. So they're not that happy either. But it worked out great. Johnny did a good job of making that call. All I did, I asked for a review. I thought that call was not a good call. Mr. President, your administration announced new tariffs today and you did a post earlier also about a probe against the EU. Are you confident that the new tariffs and any tariffs that may come from this probe will withstand legal scrutiny? Well, these tariffs have been up for a long time. They've been approved for years. Thousands of cases. They've been approved. Of course, with me, you know, I go up. I don't get treated fairly, but I've lived with it. And here we are in the Oval Office. I guess I somehow figured it out. But no, we put the tariffs on. They're very standard tariffs. The other way was easier. I thought the decision by the Supreme Court was not a good one. But we have many forms of tariffs. And all we did is go to B, you know, follow the line B. Now, B is something that's been used many, many times for years and very standard. And we've used that and we're taking in billions of dollars. I think the election, November 5th. But largely because of tariffs, we have $19.2 trillion being invested in our country. And without tariffs, we wouldn't, you know, we'd be in big trouble. Think of it. So the sleepy Joe Biden administration has less than a trillion being invested, much less for four years. We have $19.2 trillion for one year. There's never been anything like it in history. That's because of tariffs. So the Supreme Court said, please do it a different way. You have other ways to do it. And we did that. Child labor was one of the things that USTR cited as a reason. Well, it seems to me that that's what they decided. They go all over the world and they look and they examine and they see. And child labor is one of the things that, that one of the reasons. And they had a big problem with that. Yeah. You told Axios that you were considering a quote, massive attack on Iran. What is the tipping point for you to make the decision? Well, I can tell you that right now we're talking to them. So, you know, maybe there won't be a tipping point and maybe there will. We're ready to go. Look, we're locked and loaded. We're ready to go. But we're talking to them. So maybe there will be, maybe there won't be a tipping point. But at what point with Iran do you think they're going to cry uncle and come to the actually come to the table? Well, you know, maybe they will cry uncle or maybe they'll just give up or maybe they'll just go into a cave and hide. You know, they have caves very deep in the ground and they can hide. They get shaken up pretty good, but they can hide. But we've taken out their first level of leadership. We've then taken out their second level of leadership. We've taken out some of the third level. And we're negotiating with the rest. And we'll see how it all works. Right now we are talking to them seriously. But, you know, I've talked to them before and they don't seem to be able to get there. Maybe now they will. But, you know, look, if I thought they were anywhere near getting a nuclear weapon, if I didn't come, if I wasn't elected, Israel would, in my opinion, not be around anymore. They would have been hit by a nuclear weapon. And that includes right at the beginning with Barack Hussein Obama's nuclear deal that was so bad with Iran. That was a road to a nuclear weapon. And maybe even more so the B-2 bombers. If that plane right there, that plane, that beautiful plane, the wing, it carries the largest bombs in the world. If that bomb didn't go over their 17 hour flight and it hit every one of those bombs, hit their target. And the target was an air shaft at two o'clock in the morning. It's hard to believe, right? Going at very tremendous speeds. Every one of them hit and blew it to hell. If that didn't happen, they would have had a nuclear weapon and there would be no Israel. If I wasn't here, if I wasn't president, there would be no Israel and there probably would be no Middle East. And you saw that when they shockingly started shooting at everybody all over the Middle East. If they had a nuclear weapon, they would have used that. There might not be a Middle East as we know it today, but there definitely, in my opinion, there would not have been an Israel. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.