Antony Blinken’s Exit Interview
David Remnick: The announcement earlier this week of a ceasefire deal in Gaza is maybe the most hopeful news from this terrible conflict since the October 7th attack. Now, it has to be said that even with the possibility of a ceasefire, there are many reasons for caution here, not least that far-right elements in Israel may well try to undermine the deal. After the initial and horrific attack on October 7th, the war in Gaza has left tens of thousands dead and Gaza itself a near ruin. The Israeli hostages remain in captivity. We'll see if they're released soon. Hezbollah has been decimated. Iran is weakened and isolated. Maybe after so much suffering, this is a moment when change is possible. That at least is the position of Antony Blinken, the outgoing Secretary of State. He's been President Biden's chief partner in attempting to manage the many global crises of the past four years, including the invasion of Ukraine and China's continuing threats toward Taiwan. We spoke about all of that last week as Secretary Blinken was on the verge of turning over the State Department to Marco Rubio and the Trump administration just before the announcement of the ceasefire deal.
[MUSIC]
David Remnick: Secretary Blinken, thanks for coming to the New Yorker Radio Hour, and this turns out to be your absolute exit interview.
Antony Blinken: [laughs] That's right.
David Remnick: I think we can acknowledge that in the position that you have, that sometimes you have to stick to talking points or formal language. With all due respect, I'm hoping that we can peel aside at least some of that caution and confront some serious and even contentious questions more directly than before.
Antony Blinken: I'll do my best to take on my deep-rooted instincts of caution and sticking to talking points.
David Remnick: [laughs] Exactly. Let's start with the Middle East, which is always a good place to begin. Before October 7th, your colleague, the National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, wrote a 7,000-word essay for Foreign Affairs Magazine. He wrote, "Although the Middle East remains beset with perennial challenges, the region is far quieter than it has been for decades." He even congratulated the administration for having, what he called, deescalated the crises in Gaza. Now this went to print on October 2nd. How did the Biden administration, seemingly before October 7th get things wrong?
Antony Blinken: Look, I think when you look at where we were before October 7th, and I think what Jake was talking about or writing about, rightly so, were the efforts we were making, and I think making real progress on to bring countries together, not to try to change the nature of the regimes or the systems, but to try to change the relationships among them to integrate the region. The fact is up until October 7th, we were making good progress on that, building on the Abraham Accords that the first Trump administration initiated, bringing disparate countries together, everyone from, in one case, the UAE, Israel, India, and the United States on common projects.
Working with the Abraham Accord countries to actually do things together, concrete things that would deliver results for people in each of those countries. What we were really focused on in that moment was the ultimate culmination of the Abraham Accords, and that was normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel. In fact, David, on October 10th, 2023, I was scheduled to go to Saudi Arabia and Israel to try to work on resolving some of the remaining issues on that.
David Remnick: I understand that, but the critique of the Abraham Accords was that it was missing a very vital piece, and that was what to do with the Palestinian question.
Antony Blinken: That's exactly right. Actually, that's exactly what I was going to the region to focus on in the context of normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel. We knew that for us and also for the Saudis getting to normalization required also having a credible pathway toward a Palestinian state. We saw it as essential, not just a normalization but-
David Remnick: Are you saying that the Israelis were prepared to make a very serious accommodation?
Antony Blinken: This was and remains an incredibly important question because even as we speak today, even with everything that's happened since October 7th, I believe that there is a possibility, an opportunity to actually move forward on integration, to move forward on normalization, but it requires two things. It requires an end to Gaza, and it requires a credible pathway to a Palestinian state. I've sat with the leader of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman on many occasions before and after October 7th. Before October 7th, having that credible pathway for a Palestinian state was important. Since October 7th, the price has gone up and it's more than important-
David Remnick: How do you mean the price has gone up?
Antony Blinken: Meaning that I think for the Saudis-- Let me put it this way. On one of these occasions when I was meeting with Mohammed bin Salman, he reminded me that about 70% of the Saudi population is younger than he is. That's saying something because he's very young. Before October 7th, they were not focused on Palestine, on the cause of Palestinian self-determination. Since October 7th, they've been fixated on it. In order for him to be able to proceed with normalization, it's very clear that he has to have at least a credible pathway to a Palestinian state.
That I think is more deeply felt, more strongly felt now than it was before October 7th. Here's the thing that I think is why this question remains so important. First, I've also had many opportunities to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu. When the conversation comes to normalization with Saudi Arabia, that's the point at which he sits up, leans forward, leans in. He knows that for Israel too, that would be an absolute game changer because think of it this way, the one thing that Israelis have wanted from day one of their founding, the one thing that they've sought the most was to be treated like any other country to have normal relationships [crosstalk]
David Remnick: I understand that, but he sits up and takes notice when the Saudi question comes up with normalization. How does his body language change when the Palestinian question comes? Because it seems his interest in normalization there is quite something else.
Antony Blinken: It may well be but the point is that to get there, to get to normalization, that road leads through a pathway for Palestine in the context of two states. He, other Israelis, Israeli society will have to choose. They'll have to decide if that's the path that they're ready and willing and able to travel in order to get to normalization. We can't answer that question for them.
David Remnick: Now, it's hard to count the number of former American presidents and diplomats who've left their posts infuriated by their experience when dealing with Benjamin Netanyahu. This has been going on for a very long time. In Bob Woodward's most recent book, a book that I think if I learned how to read, has the imprints of the administration's highest level security and foreign policy voices, his sources, President Biden is quoted as saying, "That son of a bitch Bibi Netanyahu, he's a bad guy. He's a bad fucking guy." This was in the spring of 2024. What is your honest assessment of working with Benjamin Netanyahu? Is he trustworthy as an interlocutor?
Antony Blinken: One of the mistakes that I think people make is to ascribe to Prime Minister Netanyahu all of the policies and actions that Israel's taking that they don't like or beyond don't like, profoundly contest. I say that because I think what we've seen in Israel since October 7th is a reflection not of an individual prime minister, not of individual members of his cabinet, but genuinely a reflection of 70%, 75%, 80% of Israeli society. The societal trauma is reflected in his policies and support for those policies. Even those who-
David Remnick: I get that, but what I'm asking you is does he deal with you truthfully?
Antony Blinken: In our conversations, in the moment of those conversations, yes [laughs] but look, one of the things that I-
David Remnick: You're laughing. Why are you laughing? In the moment, then what happens when your airplane door slams shut and you leave?
Antony Blinken: Yeah. No, I'm laughing because particularly right now in Israel given the incredibly complicated politics and coalition politics that exist, I think he proceeds in many ways on the basis of, "What gets me to tomorrow and keeps my coalition together?" If he might say one thing to me, and then depending on the audience he's before next, maybe that takes a little bit of a different turn.
David Remnick: A lot of people are dying in the meantime.
Antony Blinken: Yes. The point is this, we have been laboring to try to get to a better place in Gaza, and particularly to get a ceasefire that brings the hostages home, that stops the firing in both directions, that surges humanitarian assistance, that also creates space to get something permanent. As we're sitting here together, we're, I hope, finally belatedly on the brink of getting that. Everything that we've done, everything that I've done, everything that my colleagues have done these past months has been in service of getting to that point because we believed it was the quickest and most effective way to actually end the conflict and get to a better place.
In the course of doing that, sure, there are many moments of frustration and more. I can think of a lot of them, but you have to keep your eye on the prize.
David Remnick: Now, you've said more than once that what's happening in Gaza is not a genocide. You were asked this by The New York Times, and you simply said, "No." You didn't really elaborate. I wonder what your definition of genocide is when the State Department has classified what's gone on in Sudan and with the Uyghurs as genocides. I more than realize how powerful a charge that is, maybe not least when it comes to Israel, considering its history and the history of Jewish people in the 40s and yet.
Antony Blinken: Simply put, the intent to erase a population. That's not what I see or what's going on in Gaza. As horrible, as horrific as conditions are for innocent children, women, and men who are caught up in a crossfire of Hamas' initiation, that they obviously didn't start, and they're powerless to stop, as horrific as that is, and as much as one can, and as we have disputed some of the actions that Israel has taken, it does not by a long stretch, amount to the intent to erase a population. That's not what's happening.
David Remnick: Do you think such charges are anti-Semitic?
Antony Blinken: I don't want to ascribe motives to the charges that people are making. Also look, I more than understand the passions that people feel on all sides of this issue.
David Remnick: Secretary Blinken, you gave a farewell speech at the State Department today addressing the Middle East in particular and you said something curious. You said that too few people, if any, have focused much on the Hamas regime in Gaza, and its horrific actions on October 7th. With respect, I don't see that. Not in this publication, not in the best newspapers that I could name plenty of publications, even as they document the destruction and death in Gaza, have gone a long way toward describing the nature of Sinwar and Hamas. Do you disagree with that?
Antony Blinken: As I hear it around the world, not just in the region, well beyond, and also in our own country, there is a chorus of condemnation of Israel. Again, I understand why people get to that point, but I still hear deafening silence when it comes to Hamas. I really believe that if there had been a sustained public vocal demand that Hamas put down its arms, that it give up the hostages, that maybe many months ago, Hamas would've felt pressured to actually do that, and a lot of the suffering would've been alleviated. I really hear deafening silence about Hamas. Look-
David Remnick: I don't mean to be defensive, but even as somebody who's written a 10,000-word profile of Sinwar, deafening silence on Hamas?
Antony Blinken: I wish The New Yorker was reflective of all of our media, all of our social media.
David Remnick: Social Media is something else. Social media, everybody plays their team.
Antony Blinken: Yes, but social media, as we both know well, is so much of what drives conversations and drives perceptions.
David Remnick: At the same time, the politics are such that the course for annexation of the West Bank for potentially resettling, putting settlements back into Gaza, if not expelling more people from Gaza, has grown louder and more prevalent in Israeli politics and not just on the far, far right.
Antony Blinken: It's grown louder. I don't think it represents the majority, but it's certainly grown louder. To your point, not just voices, but actions including on the West Bank, more settlements, more illegal outposts,-
David Remnick: More violence.
Antony Blinken: -more taking of land, more violence against Palestinians by extremist settlers than we've seen at any time in the recent past. I think what's also evident is this start with Gaza. Right now, Israel has accomplished what it's sought to accomplish in trying to ensure that October 7th couldn't happen again. It has destroyed the military capacity of Hamas, and of course, it's dealt with the leaders who were responsible for October 7th.
If it stays in Gaza, it's going to get bogged down there. There is going to be an enduring insurgency. By our assessment, Hamas has been able to recruit almost as many new militants as have been killed. We see that every day in the North where Israel's cleared an area, and then Hamas returns, Israel goes back. That is a recipe for perpetual war. It's a recipe for dealing with insurgency [crosstalk].
David Remnick: I agree. In your speech today, you gave a lot of time and credibility, and hope for the Palestinian authority's role in this situation going ahead, which is oh, where it's so, but it's extremely weak ex and even more unpopular as you well know. On the Israeli side, Bibi Netanyahu continues to dominate the Israeli political scene. Anybody that's risen up as a potential challenger to him, either within his party or outside of his party, has the half-life of a loaf of bread. The prospects for what you are hoping seem to be extremely far off.
Antony Blinken: Look, in this moment, David, no one's ready for that conversation. I acknowledge it, but it proceeds in steps. First step is getting an end to the conflict in Gaza. Again, as we speak, we're on the brink at least, of getting an initial ceasefire. Then, it's turning that ceasefire into something permanent. In order to do that, we have to have understandings. We have to have arrangements for what's going to fill into Gaza for security, for governance, and administration, for reconstruction that is not Israel and not Hamas. We've done a lot of work on that over the last six months with Arab partners and with others, so that we can hand over a plan to the incoming administration, which it can use or not use, look at or not look at to, to do that.
If we can get to that point where we have a permanent ceasefire, Gaza is then settled down at extraordinarily excruciating costs. That's one piece. Then I come back to what we were talking about before, which is again, why I believe that the road to finally resolving the Palestinian question is still there. That is the prospects for Israel of finally integrating the region, finally having normal relations with everyone. We saw powerfully what that can mean for Israel's security when, not once, but twice, Iran attacked Israel, the first time, unprecedented, hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones. What happened? Because of countries that we, the United States put together, including countries in the region, Israel was defended, the attacks failed.
David Remnick: I'm speaking with Secretary of State Antony Blinken. We'll continue our conversation in a moment. This is The New Yorker Radio Hour, with more to come.
[MUSIC]
David Remnick: This is The New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. At The New Yorker, we're reporting this week on the horrific fires in Los Angeles and the conditions that produced them. In fact, a couple of our writers lost their homes. We've looked at the dangers faced by a private fire crew, the crisis of housing in the region, and a lot more. You can find all of that reporting at newyorker.com. Our thoughts are with our listeners in or near Los Angeles, and anyone who's been affected by this terrible disaster.
[MUSIC]
David Remnick: I will return now to my conversation with Secretary of State Antony Blinken. He's finished his work with the Biden White House, and he's turning the reins over to a new administration. Donald Trump's State Department will almost certainly be led by Marco Rubio of Florida, who seems, at this point, a shoo-in for confirmation.
[MUSIC]
David Remnick: How do you feel about the decision-makers that are coming in? You've got Tulsi Gabbard in Intelligence. Pete Hegseth in Defense seems likely to be, to make his way to the top. At home domestically, Kash Patel. How will this team who's serving under President Trump, who President Biden has in no uncertain terms, and everybody in your administration, has described as everything from dangerous to unstable to authoritarian? What does that spell in your mind for the future when it comes to a national security issue as enormous and as complex and as dangerous as the Middle East?
Antony Blinken: David, as someone who actually worked on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff for six years, I hate to get ahead of the Senate confirmation process. Let's see what actually happens over the course of the next week. Look, let me just say this. I've had a number of conversations with Marco Rubio, Senator Rubio, who I've known for years, in part because of his service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At the risk of damning him with praise that he might not want, we've had really good conversations about every-
David Remnick: And Tulsi Gabbard?
Antony Blinken: I don't know her. I have not talked to her. I do know Senator Rubio, and I think he's extremely well prepared for the job by his service on the Foreign Relations Committee, on the Intelligence Committee. He's deeply thoughtful about most of the things we have to confront.
David Remnick: I want to switch to Russia if you don't mind. I know you have limited time. Do you think Zelensky is inclined to, or can sell to his people the notion of a Ukrainian future in which they lose 20-odd percent of their territory for the foreseeable future? Can Putin reconcile himself to that future in which Ukraine, the heart of it, the remaining 80% or whatever it is, is in fact, free, sovereign, and aligned with the West?
Antony Blinken: It depends, I suppose, for reach how they see the alternative. In the case of Zelensky, he has to be responsive to the Ukrainian people. If the Ukrainian people feel, believe, desire that there be a resolution or at least a ceasefire, then I suspect that he'll reflect that in the policies he pursues, but he has to be responsive to them. Look, here's what I think the fundamental issue is going to be especially for the incoming administration as they're looking at this.
If there's going to be a ceasefire, we've tried to do everything possible to make sure that Ukraine, if that's the decision it made, to pursue a ceasefire, they could do it from a position of strength. I think it's also in the interest of the Trump administration to make sure that if a deal is cut, it's a good deal, a strong deal. President Trump prides himself in making the best deals. It needs to be from a position of strength, but there's something else that's critical. One thing that has to be built into any resolution-- When I say resolution, I really mean a ceasefire, because there's not going to be an ultimate resolution in the near term.
The status of the territory currently under Russian control probably won't be resolved for a long time, but if there's going to be a ceasefire, it has to be one that holds, and that means that there has to be a credible deterrent, because Putin will use any ceasefire to rest, refit, and then eventually re-attack.
David Remnick: Do you think the Russians and the Chinese are thrilled to see a second Trump administration?
Antony Blinken: Oh, I think there are different different ways that each of them probably looks at it. They probably see some things that they like and some things that they'd have to be concerned about too because-
David Remnick: How would you spell it out?
Antony Blinken: Look, a certain degree of unpredictability can be useful. It may be that in the case of adversaries, competitors, that's something that does concern them. The real question is how that actually plays out in practice? What are the policies that the administration pursues? What's the effect of those policies? That's where the rubber meets the road. At some point, you actually have to make decisions. You have to choose. You have to pursue a certain policy. We've got to see how that plays out.
David Remnick: If China were to move to seize and occupy and take over Taiwan, how would the Biden administration have behaved, and how do you think the Trump administration will behave? It seems very different on this issue.
Antony Blinken: We've done everything possible to make sure that it didn't come to that point and that that was not a decision that anyone had to make. I think we've been very successful in doing that for a number of reasons. First, of course, look, I think from China's perspective-
David Remnick: I'm saying if they had invaded, would you have sent American troops to Taiwan?
Antony Blinken: Look, we said [laughs] and I'll continue to say that we would do everything possible to ensure that Taiwan had the means to defend itself.
David Remnick: That's a pretty tall order.
Antony Blinken: Part of that though, is making sure that-- This gets back to Ukraine, among other things. One of the reasons that our response to Ukraine was so important was because this aggression committed against Ukrainians and against the country, was also an aggression against some pretty basic principles at the heart of the international system that everyone looks at. Had we allowed this to go forward with impunity, the message to would-be aggressors anywhere that, "It's open season. You can get away with it."
One of the most powerful moments in the aggression against Ukraine was when the Japanese prime minister, half a world away, Kishida, the then-prime minister who stood up almost immediately put in his lot with Ukraine and said, "What's happening in Ukraine today could be happening in East Asia tomorrow." That's why this response has been so important, not just for Ukraine, as important as that may be, but because of what it says more broadly.
I think China's paid very close attention to that. At the same time, we brought country after country together with the proposition that what happens in and around Taiwan matters to them, including countries way far away from Taiwan, because you've got 50% of commercial container traffic going through that strait every day. 70% of the semiconductors made on Taiwan. If there were a crisis of China's making over Taiwan, the entire world would be affected. We'd have an economic crisis. That's why we got country after country to weigh in with China, with Beijing to say, "Keep the peace. Preserve stability."
David Remnick: That only be true, but soon-to-be President Trump has made it plain that his view of China's relationship to Taiwan is of minimal concern to him.
Antony Blinken: I obviously can't speak for him. I also really can't predict what he would do, how the administration will approach this. I think he also, rightly in my judgment during his first term, put more focus on some of the challenges coming from China. That was a good thing. Now, where I disagreed was the way he went about trying to meet those challenges. That is also at the same time, taking it to our allies and partners, who we actually need with us if we're going to be effective in dealing with China.
When we're dealing, for example, with economic practices that China's engaged in that we don't like, undercutting our companies, our workers with overcapacity, destroying communities by flooding in subsidized products, doing all sorts of things in their trade and commercial relationships that are unfair that we don't do to them when we're taking those on alone-- We're 20% of the world GDP.
If we're aligned with allies and partners in Europe and Asia, we're 40%, 50%, 60% of GDP and China can't ignore that. That's exactly what we've done. David, we've had more convergence now in how to deal with all of the challenges posed by China, with Europe, with Asia, than we've ever had before. That's a source of strength. Now, maybe we haven't done a good enough job explaining it. Just as with NATO, people don't want war. They don't want conflict. Of course. President Biden got us out of America's longest war after 20 years.
David Remnick: We're roughly the same age. We lived in the post-Soviet era when there was the illusion-- I think it was an illusion of American singularity. Now, every year or so, there's another article about how Pax Americana is over. Is it true?
Antony Blinken: What's true is this I think we're living in a period that is in so many ways more combustible, more contested, more complicated since the end of the Cold War. As we've seen it, we are moving into a new era, a new phase.
David Remnick: What's the greatest danger of this new era?
Antony Blinken: Look, there are near-term dangers that we see playing out in Ukraine. There are near-term dangers that you can see anywhere from Pakistan to North Korea. Fundamentally, the larger danger I see is this, we did construct an order after two World wars with the express design of preventing another global conflagration. That order was always imperfect. It's been tested. It's been challenged, but it basically did its job in making sure we didn't have another global conflagration. With it came a lot of rules, norms, understandings of one kind or another.
We now have some revisionist powers that are contesting that entire system. The core revisionist powers, Russia, North Korea, Iran are testing it in certain ways. China's testing it, I think, in a different way. It's the one country that has the capacity militarily, economically, politically, diplomatically to actually find a way to change the rules, but in a way that reflects its interests and its values, not ours. That's the biggest challenge I see and that's the contest to-
David Remnick: China specifically?
Antony Blinken: China specifically, but over many years. There's not a clear finish line. I think the challenge for us, for any American administration, is amplified by this-- I've been doing this now for 32 years. I came in at the very beginning of the Clinton administration. I'm going out at the end of the Biden administration. It goes a little bit, David, to the business you're in effectively. Back then, 32 years ago when I went to my office at the White House, or first at the State Department at the White House, I did what everyone else does, or did back then is you got up in the morning, opened the front door of your apartment or your house, picked up a hard copy of The New York Times, or The Washington Post, or maybe The Wall Street Journal.
Then if you had a TV in your office, you turned it on at 6:30 and you got the National Network News. Now, of course, we all have this intravenous feed of information and we're getting new inputs every millisecond. The pressure to simply react is more intense than it's ever been. No one has the distance, the buffer to really try to reflect and to think before you act at least. It's much harder to do that. The speed with which things is happening is much harder. The multiplicity, the complexity, the interconnectedness of challenges is greater than it's ever been. I keep joking about this, but my friend Tom Friedman wrote a column a few months ago that I love because it said, "Parents, don't let your sons and daughters grow up to be Secretary of State."
David Remnick: [laughs] Mr. Secretary, I assume you're going to give yourself a week off at least after the inauguration.
Antony Blinken: Oh, you bet.
David Remnick: Maybe you'll write a book. You've been working with Joe Biden for a very long time. I don't know anybody in government that's closer to Joe Biden. You've spelled out here and in other venues, his virtues and what you see as your successes and your analysis of the administration. We are though ending this era when even very friendly commentators feel that this administration is ending with a central tragedy in that Joe Biden is doing what he never wanted to do, which is to hand the presidency back to his historical foe, who he considers a deep danger to matters, domestic and foreign.
It's quite likely that had he decided not to run a second time, we might not be in this position, and that he made a perhaps understandable human decision, but born of some denial of the human condition and mortality. Do you wish that he had made a very different decision and not run a second time? Do you think that his aging was to some degree overlooked or even covered up?
Antony Blinken: David, here's what here's what I saw. You're right, I've worked with the president for more than 20 years, and it's really been the greatest privilege of my professional career starting in the Senate then as vice president, and then as president. Do we all change as we get older? Yes, absolutely. When you get to a certain age, are you likely to slow down a little bit? Of course. This is God's truth because I was in the Oval Office and the Situation Room and everywhere else in between with him for four years. Whether you agree or not, whether you like or not, I can tell you that every decision that was made, every policy that was pursued, reflected his judgment and his decision. It's not like someone else was doing it.
David Remnick: I know you said this both sincerely and elsewhere, but do you really think he had the capacity to not only finish out this term but to be president of the United States at the highest level for another four years?
Antony Blinken: I think that's exactly the question. I believe that in answering that question for himself, he came to the conclusion that while he was doing the job now, it was hard to say whether he could do it in the same way for another four years. I think that's ultimately what motivated his decision to pull out, to pull back. That's ex exactly what drove him.
David Remnick: You'll forgive me, and I say this with genuine respect. What I'm hearing mainly is loyalty and it's a very hard thing to grapple with specifically at this time. Am I right?
Antony Blinken: No, I think-- Yes, I certainly hope loyalty because he's more than earned it as the person that he is and the president he's been, but no, beyond that. Look, I think if I felt that he wasn't up to the job, that's something that I would've-
David Remnick: You would've had that conversation with him, and you didn't?
Antony Blinken: I would've had that conversation but I saw everything that I experienced myself, was when it came to grappling with all these issues, when it came to debating them, when it came to looking at them from every angle, when it came to making decisions, when it came to having judgments, his were strong, his were sound.
David Remnick: When you saw that debate with Trump, it was an aberration and a shock?
Antony Blinken: It was. Now, a lot goes into that. Look, one of the things that I think may have been missed in that period is-- This is not something he said to me. This is just by way of observation as someone who knows him and knows his family well. I think that the impact in that period of time of the prosecution of his son weighed very, very heavily on him.
David Remnick: To the degree where he performed the way he did in that debate?
Antony Blinken: I just think it was a very heavy weight and maybe one that we saw reflected a little bit more visibly in those in those days and in those weeks.
David Remnick: Secretary Blinken, thank you so much. I appreciate your time.
Antony Blinken: David, great to talk to you. Thanks
David Remnick: Antony Blinken served as Secretary of State throughout Joe Biden's term in office. Confirmation hearings began last week for his likely successor.
[MUSIC]
Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.
New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.