By David Remnick
July 21, 2017
Photograph by Bob Daemmrich / Alamy
One of the saving graces of the Trump era is the journalism it has inspired. Maggie Haberman is a tireless, keen-eyed example. As part of the New York Times’ White House team, she has repeatedly added to the sum total of what we know about this President and the chaotic West Wing.
To hang around Haberman is to be ashamed of one’s indolence and inattention. She is a multitasker par excellence. A hummingbird effortlessly doing what she needs to do, which is everything at once. Even as she carries on a conversation in life, she is texting, fielding calls from the office and home, writing, taking edits—and when you finally get home in the evening and go to the Times Web site, you see her byline on two or three stories.
This week, after we spoke, Haberman and two of her colleagues spent nearly an hour talking with the President. He took the interview as an occasion not so much to think out loud about policy as to trash everyone within reach, including his own Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. Trump has called Haberman “third-rate,” and yet he is somehow obsessed with her, and the Times’, attention. Haberman first got to know Trump when she was a reporter for the New York Post; she also worked for the Daily News and Politico before joining the Times, in 2015. She is also a CNN political analyst. David Gregory, her colleague at CNN, rightly said on the air, “It’s striking that the President, who spends so much time trying to discredit the news media to convince his supporters simply not to believe outlets like the New York Times, in the end cannot quit Maggie Haberman, and that’s just the bottom line. Because he wants legitimacy and he knows you have to go to Maggie and her colleagues, who are really the journalists of record on this Trump Presidency.”
A couple of days before the Trump interview, I spoke with Haberman for The New Yorker Radio Hour, which is broadcast nationally on public radio stations and available now on newyorker.com. What follows is a transcript of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.
D.R.: Right now, the President is still in the midst of what can broadly be called Russiagate. And, at the same time, we’ve had the health-care meltdown. What is the atmosphere like in the West Wing and in the Oval Office?
M.H.: You know, it’s not as bad as you might think, given all of the various elements of catastrophe that you’ve just described, or near catastrophe. Look, I think there’s enormous frustration, actually, about the health-care bill, in a way that there isn’t about Russiagate more broadly, because Russiagate has become almost a part of the daily fabric. They’re pretty used to it at this point. I remember about two or three months ago having a West Wing aide say to me, in candor, that they were realizing that this was never going to end. It’ll obviously end at some point, but it’s not going to be anytime soon. There’s a larger frustration with the fact that they have been trying to push this health-care bill up a hill for much of the Presidency so far, and it’s not going anywhere, despite a Republican Congress. And it really is a condemnation, frankly, of the President’s strategy. There are a lot of people who believe that he could’ve done more to woo Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, both of whom he had relationships with prior to the White House. They believe he could have tried to do infrastructure, or something that would have tied Democrats in knots much more than health care, where they were never going to be with him. And his tweets feel sort of disjointed because they’re not connected to the reality of the situation.
D.R.: From outside, it seems like we’re looking at a kind of Borgia-like court, in which everybody is leaking on everybody, nobody particularly likes anyone else, everybody’s suspicious of each other, and the President, as described in the New York Times and elsewhere, is obsessively watching himself on television, fuming about his coverage. The fuming then turns into tweets, usually on Sunday morning, and the atmosphere is generally poisonous. Is that inaccurate?
M.H.: Yeah, I think that’s a hundred-per-cent accurate. Look, we’re used to a team of rivals. We are not used to a team of the Bloods and the Crips. Which is essentially what this is in the White House. I mean, these are rival gangs.
D.R.: Who are the Bloods and who are the Crips—how does it work?
M.H.: [Laughs.] I think I need to add in some new gang names, too, because Bloods and the Crips makes it sound like there are only two teams. There’s something like six. It’s a lot. I think that you have so many people who started out not trusting each other, because you had people who either were pro-Trump during the campaign or who were part of the Republican National Committee during the campaign. That has morphed into something much different and more complicated.
D.R.: So, break it down—what are the teams?
M.H.: So, look, you’ve got sort of the policy teams of the N.S.C. and the N.E.C.—
D.R.: So, this is the National Security Council.
M.H.: And National Economic Council. So, on the N.S.C. side you’ve got H. R. McMaster; Dina Powell works with him. And on the N.E.C. you have Gary Cohn, the President’s top economic adviser, who came from Goldman Sachs. Dina Powell also works closely with him.
D.R.: Also of Goldman Sachs.
M.H.: Jared Kushner sort of touches on that. You’ve got these concentric circles. Then you have Steve Bannon, who doesn’t really have direct reports, and has, I think, been choosing to throw himself into fewer meetings than he used to. He’s fairly closely aligned at this point with Reince Priebus, which is ironic because they really disliked each other early on. Priebus is seen pretty broadly as a weak chief of staff.
And that is just an ongoing problem. So here’s a for-instance. You have these theme weeks that this White House does. There’s no through line. You know, there’s Made in America Week, there’s Energy Week, there’s whatever—there’s no sort of sense of unfurling a larger narrative here that you’re trying to tell about this Presidency from their communications team. It’s just sort of throwing stuff at the wall—anything that doesn’t have the word “Russia” in it. If you had a stronger chief of staff, he might be trying to coax people within the West Wing to focus their energy more specifically and in a more targeted way on health care. And you did not see that happen.
D.R.: How does Donald Trump spend his day when not in routine meetings that are on his schedule?
M.H.: This is really like the holy grail of reporting that has been sought and not completely answered for some time, including by me. He gets very irritated when we all report that he watches a lot of TV. He does watch a lot of TV—it doesn’t seem like that’s a massively controversial statement. But he doesn’t like when that is said because he thinks it’s shorthand for saying he doesn’t work that hard. He holds a lot of meetings. But his Oval Office is an incredibly open-door room, unlike most Oval Offices, where, really, it is, as you know, David, it’s the palace, and the chief of staff is the gatekeeper. I mean, Trump’s Oval Office is like Grand Central Station. People try briefing him and someone comes in and interrupts him. People just sort of walk in without being previously announced in any meaningful way. He spends his day interacting, is how I would describe it. He gets the daily brief in the mornings. He has had that condensed down to a more visual-cued form than it was previously.
D.R.: It sounds like you’re being a little bit polite. What previous Presidents did, in one way or another, was read a tremendous amount the night before and then get a brief from the director of National Intelligence. And he has no patience for that, from what I understand. He has no patience for reading briefing books, and he has to see a lot of pictures, a lot of video, a lot of charts.
M.H.: He likes a lot of charts. He likes looking at things.
D.R.: Does he read?
M.H.: He says he reads. Most people who have worked for him for a long time say he is not an avid reader, certainly of books. I think he does read news clippings. But that’s very different than the type of material that you read as President. He’s a consumer of information, but not in the written form in the same way we are used to with previous Presidents.
D.R.: What do you make out to be the ideology of Donald Trump? Or is it purely situational? We saw him running as a new kind of populist. At moments, he seems very right-wing; at other times he undermines that kind of conservative ideology.
M.H.: I think he has no clear ideology. I think he has a couple of base impulses he’s held onto since the nineteen-eighties, when he was taking out those newspaper ads about how Japan is “ripping us off.” A lot of the language that he used then is the same as what he uses now, but it’s more of a feeling than an ideology. It’s a sense that the United States is being taken advantage of. Can he name by whom, accurately? Not necessarily. He ran as a Republican, and he really appealed to this hard-right base that believes in less government. But, in reality, this is a man who grew up in Ed Koch’s New York City, and I think he has a very specific view of the role that government is supposed to play in people’s lives.
D.R.: What does that mean? We’re on from coast to coast, as they say. What does it mean to have inherited, to some degree, Ed Koch’s view of New York?
M.H.: Or at least his view of the role of government in people’s lives. I think that he believes that regulations are a restriction and a hindrance. Koch, while he did not openly talk about that the same way, certainly fumed at the limitations that government put on what he could do and stymied him. But I think that Trump generally believes that everybody should have health care, or that most people should have health care. I think he fundamentally believes that the role of government is to provide for people. What exactly that looks like, I think, is where you end up getting into a bit of a different place with him. But ultimately this is a guy who grew up in a city where the government was hugely accountable—for policing, for getting the garbage off the streets, for the buildings you build—and I think the role of government in people’s lives in New York City in the nineteen-eighties was pretty liberal.
D.R.: And yet the next step is either to try to eliminate Obamacare entirely or tax reform, which will lower taxes magnificently for the wealthy. That doesn’t seem like a big government or liberal ideology.
M.H.: If you listen to Donald Trump speak on almost any given issue, you will hear him take both sides of that issue—in the same sentence, sometimes. It’s very, very hard to pin him down in any specific way.
D.R.: You recently described him on an Air Force One trip to Paris, where he kind of held forth with the press. He was rather friendly, he was rather open, he was rather ebullient. And at the same time he tweets about and gives speeches where he loathes the press. He’s called the press—he’s called us—enemies of the people, a phrase that has roots in the French Revolution and Stalin’s Russia and all the rest. How does he really feel about the press?
M.H.: Look, I think that he loves the press. I think he lives, at least loosely, by the theory that, if not all press is good press, that most press is good press. I think you find the press has been his nurturer and validator for thirty to forty years. This is a person who courted the tabloids aggressively in New York City in the nineteen-eighties. He found a way to make himself a commodity for the gossip pages and play the tabloids off each other. He likes attention, and he likes media. He loves to manipulate the media. He’s a master at it. And he was also in a good mood, and I think he wanted us to see him in a good mood, for whatever reason. So he spent an hour back there with us, which is a very long time for the President to be at the back of the plane.
D.R.: Maggie, tell me about the first time you encountered Donald Trump. You started your career at the New York Post, then the Daily News, then Politico, and now the New York Times. But you have a long history with him as a reporter. Tell me about that first encounter.
M.H.: You know something, I don’t remember. There’s no creation story, unfortunately, because I don’t really remember the first time that I spoke with him. I talked to him—I went through clips—and I interviewed him a couple of times toward the end of my New York Post stint. At the tabloids, he was everywhere. In 2011 was when I really dealt with him a lot, when he was thinking of running for President. I spoke to him a bunch, I interviewed him a bunch, I broke a bunch of stories around it, and I took it seriously. I treated the idea that he might run seriously, and I could see that he was very frustrated that other people were not treating it seriously. And then he took all of that and announced that he wasn’t running—during sweeps week, when “The Apprentice” was looking for new ratings. So when one of his aides, Sam Nunberg, came to me in—God, I think it was May of 2015—he said, Trump is gonna announce that he’s running on June 15th, and we want you to break it. And I said, “No.” And he said, “Why?” I said, “Because I went through this in 2011.”
D.R.: When we were talking about Donald Trump, incessantly, in the eighties and nineties, when he was a figure of Spy magazine and the tabloids, you didn’t have to pay that much attention. You didn’t have to care that much. He was an amusement. But, if you look back on it now, there are a lot of people around him, from the very start, not just Roy Cohn, not just his own family but all kinds of sleazy characters, money launderers abroad and at home. He has been surrounded by some awful people, people with serious criminal records. If they ever came close to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or many other politicians you could name, they’d be finished. How does it shape him, and how does he survive it?
M.H.: I think that people don’t know the extent of it. One of the things that I was really shocked by, covering him in 2015, was the disparity between the five-borough view—or four-borough; take out Staten Island, where he did very well—but the view of him, certainly in Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan, was that he was not a real businessman. And he, at that point, had been bankrupted several times, and he had gone on to licensing businesses and becoming a reality-TV star.
D.R.: Not just licensing businesses but doing deals with people abroad who were uniquely corrupt in their various countries, like Azerbaijan, or Georgia, or what have you.
M.H.: Correct. I mean, but I think that, if you can point to where we did poorly—we, not the Times but the collective media—in the 2016 campaign, I think that pointing to the company he kept was where we messed up. We didn’t do enough of that.
D.R.: That the proliferation of sleazy people didn’t come to light enough.
M.H.: Well, it’s just one after the other. There’s that Felix Sater character, who was arrested and, I think, did time, for shoving a broken Martini glass in someone’s face—
D.R.: Well, who hasn’t had a bad night?
M.H.: Right! Just last night, even.
M.H.: No, in no way. But it’s not just people with questionable business practices—it’s people with a history of violence. Or some combo. And you tie that with the fact that, throughout the campaign, he evinced some authoritarian impulses. One of the things that was striking about him, and it increased right after he won the New Hampshire primary, was, in the G.O.P. campaign, he kept praising dictators. And then you’d report that he praised them and he’d say, “No, I didn’t.” I mean, one of the things that’s really challenging about covering him is he refuses to agree with the basic fact of what he just said, when you point it out.
D.R.: That we live in Alice in Wonderland.
M.H.: Right. There is no basic agreement on a set of facts, right? So I think that that becomes challenging. And that ties back to your question about the company he keeps. A lot of this, even when we report on it, people don’t believe it. So, I don’t know what you do with that.
D.R.: Why doesn’t it stick?
M.H.: Well, what I started to say about the view of him from “The Apprentice” in the rest of the country was that he was so branded from ten years on that show—or whatever it was, fourteen—that he was seen as Presidential, sitting in this leather-bound, high-backed chair at a boardroom table, seeming decisive, saying, “You’re fired.” One of the things that Roger Stone said to me when I did a profile of him a couple months ago—the quote didn’t make the piece, but it was a very, very important point—was that the line between news and entertainment has blurred dramatically, and so viewers don’t make the same distinction that we do. And so I think his supporters, whether they were the people who just didn’t like Obama and flipped this time—and I don’t know that you can count them as his supporters next time, but I think that they would still pick him over Brand X—they choose either to see him as they saw him on TV or they are very mistrustful of the media. I think it’s hard to overstate how much our collective credibility has taken a hit.
D.R.: You worked for Rupert Murdoch at a certain point.
M.H.: I did! At two certain points.
D.R.: And Rupert Murdoch is said to have a very close relationship with Donald Trump. And it’s reflected in the New York Post in a certain way, and even in the Wall Street Journal in a certain way. What is that relationship about?
M.H.: It’s actually funny you said that, because they didn’t really have a relationship before—not in the same way. They knew each other, and they were sort of friendly-ish, but the main relationship was really between Murdoch and his then-wife, Wendi Deng, and Ivanka Trump. Jared Kushner had a bigger relationship with Murdoch than Trump did. Kushner actually was the one who sort of sold Murdoch on Trump, and that something bigger was happening in the country. Jared showed him a video of one of the rallies on his iPhone, back at the end of 2015. Murdoch has always wanted to be an adviser to a President. And he certainly didn’t have that with Bill Clinton. And he didn’t even have it with Bush. The Bush people didn’t really have much use for him. So he saw the opportunity and jumped on it. And they now talk most days.
DR: They talk most days. What about?
M.H.: [Laughs.] The economy, certain news stories, what’s happening in the world. I think Murdoch tries to keep Trump focussed.
D.R.: Who else does Trump talk to in that way? Who else outside the White House is a kind of consigliere, from afar?
M.H.: Well, I can point you to a story that Glenn Thrush and I did on this about a month ago. There’s a bunch of people. He talks to Sean Hannity a lot—Sean Hannity had an inexplicable freak-out on Twitter when we reported it—but he is one of the people who Trump really does trust. He talks to Steve Schwarzman. And then periodically, for a time, but it was more really a Jared relationship, he was talking to Ron Lauder, because Lauder was one of the only people who was telling him what he wanted to hear on the idea that a peace deal was possible with the Palestinians and Israel.
D.R.: I’d love to know how the New York Times changed in the way it has decided to encounter and cover the Trump Presidency. In my memory, growing up with the New York Times, it was a very rare day—in fact, I don’t know that it existed at all—when the New York Times would say that President Johnson, or Kennedy, or Nixon, whoever—lied. Used the word “lied.” Now we have a situation in which the New York Times will go so far as to have an entire feature listing the collected lies of Donald Trump, and it’ll publish it in the newspaper and online and all the rest.
M.H.: [Laughs.] I mean, it’s not a recurring feature. It’s happened once or twice.
D.R.: It does happen pretty often. And not long ago the paper did do this big feature and just list them, by date, hundreds and hundreds of lies. What was the discussion like inside the New York Times, coming to the conclusion that we can no longer dance around this business, we have to change—that something has happened here, a line has been crossed, and we’re going to cover it in a different way, with a different vocabulary. Because the Wall Street Journal, and its editor, has decided not to do that.
M.H.: Well, I think the Journal, it’s worth remembering, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, No. 1. No. 2, in terms of the list that you’re talking about, the recent one, that was, I believe, the editorial page, or Upshot. Either way, it was opinion, so I was not part of that conversation. I don’t know what went into that. During the campaign, my colleague Alex Burns and I did a similar list . . . and what went into the decision was, and I think this is what you’re getting at, was, this is not typical. This is not normal. We have had Presidents who’ve stretched the truth before. We have had Presidents who’ve debated what the definition of “is” is . . .
D.R.: We’ve had Presidents who’ve lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, and all manner of things, about intelligence regarding Iraq. So what changed?
M.H.: This is too frequent and too much a part of the fabric of daily life with Trump. It’s just different.
D.R.: How do you analyze his mental state? I can’t avoid this question, because it’s more and more a matter of discussion in print, on television. If you turn on “Morning Joe”—a program that you could easily have interpreted some time ago as being quite pro-Trump, enthusiastic about him, in certain ways—now is discussing whether he has dementia. Their words, not mine. Let’s put a reality check on this. How do you analyze his grasp of life, of fact? What is his mental state?
M.H.: I think my psychiatry degree never came through, so I’m gonna be a bit circumspect here, or a bit circumscribed here. Look, I think that he has an amazing belief in his own ability to will what he thinks into reality. And I think that he thinks of reality as something that is subjective. So I think that what people characterize as “he’s out of touch” or “he’s not understating this” or “he seems off,” or whatever—I think he has an amazing capacity to try to draw the world as he wants it. And I think that’s a lot of it.
D.R.: The Washington Post recently published a story saying that the President’s allies are about to ramp up their fake-news war by targeting specific reporters. That is, they’ll look back through years of work for anything that could be fed to conservative media outlets and go about discrediting their work. Are you concerned that the nature of the personal attacks on you could get ratcheted up?
M.H.: I mean, how much worse could they get? It’s been pretty bad.
D.R.: Describe what they’re like.
M.H.: I mean, you know, there’s—every time there’s a mild error, and really these are minor things, there’s no proportion anymore—the amplification machine goes into effect. When my name showed up in WikiLeaks, that was weeks of nonsense. I think it’s already pretty intense. And I think that what you talked about and what that Washington Post piece talked about describes a level of organization that certainly doesn’t exist now, and if it does start to exist, then people should wonder who’s paying for it.
D.R.: Recently, some CNN reporters were getting death threat after death threat. Have you gotten this kind of harassment at home?
M.H.: Yes. I have gotten anti-Semitic mail pieces to my home that I have had to try to keep out of my children’s eyes. I’ve gotten a lot. But whatever—this is what happens in the Internet age.
D.R.: It’s mostly located on Twitter?
M.H.: Most of it’s located on Twitter or in my work e-mail in-box. I do periodically get stuff at home. But it is what it is. Short of moving, there’s not much I can do.
D.R.: Maggie, I’ve been lucky enough to have glimpses of watching you just kind of live your life, for a few minutes at a time. And your phone does not stop; your fingers do not leave the screen of your iPhone. You tweet with incredible regularity. You’re also reading a lot of things. And it’s not an uncommon day to see your name as part of two, three, sometimes more stories. Tell me about this pace of life. What it does to your brain. How you work. What’s your day like?
M.H.: [Laughs.] It’s not great! You know how, when you have a newborn, you feel as if you are living one long day?
D.R.: [Laughs.] Yeah.
M.H.: I feel as if I am living one long day. I’ve done campaigns for years now. This is unlike that. Usually, in a government, things settle down. After the first three months, at the most. This is very different. The day begins with getting my kids to school. Before that, I scan a couple of Web sites, some decent aggregation. I always look at Politico, I always look at the New York Post—it’s the President’s first read, and so I’m curious what they have. And get my kids to school—if I’m in D.C., that’s not what I’m doing, but—go to work. Basically, there’s a list of people who I’m in frequent contact with.
D.R.: Meaning you do a round of calls—you just call everybody that’s on your—
M.H.: Call or text or Gchat . . . “What do you hear, what’s going on?”
D.R.: Do those sources worry that they’re being monitored?
M.H.: Yes, everybody worries they’re being monitored now.
D.R.: They do. When did that happen? When did that start?
M.H.: A couple of months ago.
D.R.: Why? What set it off?
M.H.: An enormous focus on leaks within the White House.
D.R.: So do you communicate only on Signal, as opposed to regular Gchat?
M.H.: I don’t want to get into specifics of how I communicate with people, but I will say that people are concerned about being monitored.
D.R.: Why doesn’t anybody resign?
M.H.: It’s a great question that comes up a lot. I think for a few reasons. I think that people in some cases need to have it on their résumés that they withstood a certain amount of time. I think that some people really do believe that they are doing what’s right for the country and that, if they stay, it’s the best thing. And I think that other people are very personally loyal to the President. I think in some cases you have people who are afraid of quitting because they’re afraid of how they’re gonna get trashed on the way out the door by rival factions in the White House.
D.R.: Talk to me about Jared Kushner. He is in a unique position. This is a guy who saw his own father go to jail, and his rage about that, his sense of resentment, never really abates. Now he’s in a position where he is included in this scandal, he’s a son-in-law, it’s hard for him to operate, he’s incredibly entitled within the White House, and yet at the same time probably fears leaving it.
M.H.: I mean, I think that’s absolutely true that he fears leaving it. I think that he’s afraid that he will be targeted in a different way. I also think that if Jared Kushner were not related to the President—any other person with this fact set would have been fired, in any other White House. There is a reason why nepotism laws exist. To your point at the beginning of what you were saying, about Kushner’s sense of grievance over his father’s prosecution and being haunted by it and traumatized by it, it never really leaves him—that’s absolutely true. Kushner has what many people in Trump’s orbit have, which is a sense of huge misdirection. He doesn’t blame his father. And I can understand why that would be hard for a son to do, or any child to do. But he doesn’t—the people who are to blame are the people who went after his father. And you hear that kind of thing a lot from the Trump White House, grappling with other issues, like Russia.
D.R.: Who do they blame?
M.H.: The leakers, or the Democrats, or this one or that one. But there’s not much reflection on their own actions.
D.R.: Do they have a great sense of their own competence?
M.H.: Jared Kushner certainly does.
D.R.: So, when Jared Kushner wakes up in the morning, and he knows he’s been charged with Middle East peace, China policy, remaking American government, and a much longer list than that, does he really tell himself, does he believe, “I am capable of doing all this. My experience as a very midlevel New York real-estate guy makes me uniquely capable of doing this”?
M.H.: Yes, he does. He believes that he is very smart. And that he is in a strong position to adjudicate.
D.R.: Do a lot of people in the West Wing not talk? Is there any discipline there in that sense?
M.H.: There are plenty of people who are disciplined in the White House. And I wouldn’t say that those who do talk are being undisciplined. I think that those who do talk, in some instances, are looking for a reality check. It’s like therapy.
D.R.: They’re looking for therapy, not to shape the reality?
M.H.: No. Some of them are painfully aware that what is happening around them is quite unusual, and they are looking for somebody to validate that feeling.
D.R.: I want to ask you a newspaper question. The Washington Post, which is rich with cash from Jeff Bezos, is certainly a tougher competitor than it was X years ago.
M.H.: They have some marvellous reporting, and reporters.
D.R.: Is that good for the New York Times?
M.H.: Oh, of course. I think it’s good for the country. As a survivor of the New York City tabloid wars, I think that it’s incredibly important to have competition. Makes you better.
D.R.: It does make you better. You wake up thinking about the Washington Post in the morning, as well as the sixty-five other things.
M.H.: Of course. They’re really good. And they have a bunch of tremendously good and effective reporters: some on the national-security side, like Devlin Barrett, some at the White House, like Phil Rucker and Ashley Parker and Jenna Johnson, who really understand Trump. They’re a good paper.
D.R.: Maggie, how long can you keep this up, this kind of pace?
D.R.: And I ask this of a lot of my colleagues. You not only are doing this and doing it astonishingly well—
M.H.: That’s nice of you to say.
D.R.: But you’re also commuting between New York and Washington, you’ve got a family, and you’ve got a lot going on. People in government, people in the press, often burn out after a couple years of covering any White House, even a relatively sleepy one. What’s your view about the future, even the near future, for yourself?
M.H.: I don’t know the answer to that. I think that this is not—there has to be, probably, an end date, but I don’t know when it is. And I like what I do. So mostly my concern is figuring out the time constraints in terms of my family.
D.R.: Maggie, thank you so much.
M.H.: Thank you.
This interview was transcribed and edited by Jessica Henderson.
David Remnick has been editor of The New Yorker since 1998 and a staff writer since 1992. He is the author of “The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama.”Read more »