President-elect Donald Trump, TIME’s 2024 Person of the Year, sat down for a wide-ranging interview at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., on Nov. 25.
Over the course of the interview, Trump discussed his election victory, the economy, and the situations in Ukraine and the Middle East. He also spoke about his plans for a second term, including deporting millions of migrants and pardoning Jan. 6 defendants, as well as the future of the MAGA movement.
Below is a transcript, lightly edited for clarity, of the interview, which was conducted by TIME National Political Correspondent Eric Cortellessa, Executive Features Editor Alex Altman, Washington Bureau Chief Massimo Calabresi, and Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs. Click here to read our fact-check.
TIME: You had an extraordinary year. You lived it and you know it. You cleared the field in the Republican campaign. You spent part of your campaign in a courtroom. You were almost shot to death on the trail. Your opponent dropped out, and then you won the swing states, which many people did not expect. What’s one thing that we should know about your experience this year that we don’t know?
TRUMP: Well, I think we ran a flawless campaign. It was, it was really quite something. I called it 72 Days of Fury. There were no days off. There were no timeouts. If you made a mistake, it would be magnified at levels that nobody’s ever seen before. So you couldn’t make a mistake. And I think we just really ran well. It was a drive to go through it. It started 72 days out. For some reason, it just seemed to be it. And I worked very hard. I’ve been, I’ve been given credit by, actually, the reporters that followed me, because it was, you know, just, it just was all the time, every day, and we said the right things. We said things that were on the minds of the country. I think the Democrats didn’t get it. They just kept going back to the same old nonsense. And it was nonsense, especially in where we are right now. And we hit—we hit something that was very special. We hit the nerve of the country. They don’t want to see jails emptied out into our country. They don’t want to see people from mental institutions being dismissed from their institutions.
Mr. President, what did the Democrats not get? You just said “they didn’t get it.” What did you mean by that?
I don’t think they got the feel of the country. The country was angry because of immigration, because of the people, you know, millions and millions of people. I was saying it could be 21 million people. They were saying a much lesser number, but it wasn’t a much lesser number. But even if it was, it was irrelevant, because it was—they were allowing anybody to come into our country. They are right now. They opened it up again. You see what’s going on? They’re coming. They’re pouring up through Mexico and other places. And they weren’t using common sense. I said, We’ve become the party of common sense. As an example, they really don’t want to see men playing in women’s sports. You can have a—and this is one: They don’t want to see, as another example, open borders. They want to see people come in. Everyone’s okay with it, and I am certainly. I want to have a lot of people coming, because we’re going to, we’re going to bring back a lot of jobs. We’ll bring record numbers of jobs, and we’ll do it through good taxing policy, and, you know, using some basic business intelligence. But we’re going to bring back record jobs. Record companies are going to come into our country. They’re not going to be able to be able to steal our companies anymore. And I talked about that, but I differed, maybe, perhaps, from you people, I thought the economy was a big factor, especially the real economy, which is the economy of going out and buying groceries or buying a car or buying a house, which was, you know, between interest rates and between costs—as an example, the cost of a house is—a big chunk of the cost of the house is just the approval process and the regulations.
The economy was certainly a big factor in your victory—
But what was a bigger factor, I believe, was the border. I think the border and, you know, I won it in 2016 on the border, and I fixed the border, and it was really fixed, and they came in and they just dislodged everything that I did, and it became far worse than it was in 2016—
I want to come back to immigration a little bit later. Let’s start out on what’s happening right now. You were elected on a promise to change Washington. By all accounts, the fight over that has already begun. One of your nominees was effectively blocked by the Senate. There are other senators who have expressed doubts about some of your other nominees. What are you going to do if the Senate continues to balk at your choices for these key cabinet positions?
Well, I don’t think they will. And he wasn’t blocked. I had the votes if I needed them, but I had to work very hard. And you know, I’m not—there were numerous hard no’s, all of whom agreed with me to do it.
So you decided to give up on Gaetz?
No, I didn’t give up on him. I talked to him, and I said, you know, Matt, I don’t think this is worth the fight. I had the—he was there when I convinced five people to go that were hard no’s, but we want to speak to the President. And the beauty is that we won by so much. The mandate was massive. Somebody had 129 years in terms of the overall mandate. That’s a lot of years, but people respected that. As an example, many places were thinking that they could go down and they could riot, make trouble, protest, on the election night. You know what happened? When the numbers started coming in, everyone just left. They left. I mean, you see signs of it, Washington, DC, where people were gathered.
Did I hear you say that you met in person with Gaetz and the five hard-no Senators?
Not with the senators there. No, I called the senators, and my relationship with the Senate is very good. Many of them I endorsed. Many of them I got elected. If I didn’t get involved in those races, those Senators would have lost. We wouldn’t have the majority.
Mr. President, will you use recess appointments to fill vacancies if you can’t get them through?
I really don’t care how they get them approved, as long as they get them approved.
So you might do it?
It’s up to the Senate. But I think I have a very good relationship with Senator Thune and the others, all of them. I think almost, almost everybody, many of them I was very instrumental in getting, if not this season, last season, the season before that, I would say more than half.
Will you commit to honoring the Senate’s authority to reject or confirm your nominees?
Well, sure, I want them to do that. I think—I don’t think there are too many. I don’t think that— look, everybody has, that’s why they have menus in restaurants. You have different choices. Some people love certain candidates. I’ll tell you, I put up some that I thought would be a little more controversial, and they turned out not to be necessarily the ones that are controversial.
One of them who is controversial, who I just want to ask you a quick question about, is RFK Jr, who is a noted vaccine skeptic. If he moves to end childhood vaccination programs, would you sign off on that?
We’re going to have a big discussion. The autism rate is at a level that nobody ever believed possible. If you look at things that are happening, there’s something causing it.
Do you think it’s linked to vaccines?
No, I’m going to be listening to Bobby, who I’ve really gotten along with great and I have a lot of respect for having to do with food, having to do with vaccinations. He does not disagree with vaccinations, all vaccinations. He disagrees probably with some. But we’ll have it. We’re going to do what’s good for the country.
So that could include getting rid of some vaccinations?
It could if I think it’s dangerous, if I think they are not beneficial, but I don’t think it’s going to be very controversial in the end.
Do you agree with him about the connection between vaccines and autism?
I want to see the numbers. It’s going to be the numbers. We will be able to do—I think you’re going to feel very good about it at the end. We’re going to be able to do very serious testing, and we’ll see the numbers. A lot of people think a lot of different things. And at the end of the studies that we’re doing, and we’re going all out, we’re going to know what’s good and what’s not good. We will know for sure what’s good and what’s not good.
Mr. President, some foreign officials have expressed concern about sharing intelligence with Tulsi Gabbard, given her positions in support of Russia and Syria. Would her confirmation be worth the price of some of our allies not sharing intelligence with us?
I’m surprised to hear it, because I think she’s, like, a really great American. Hey, look, they said I was friendly with Russia until they saw the tapes, and then they said, you know, he’s not actually. He was the one that ended the Russian pipeline, Nord Stream 2. He was the one that put all the sanctions on Russia. And I get along with Russia. I get along with a lot of people that people would think I wouldn’t get along with, but we get our way because I’m for this country, I’m not for other countries. By the way, do you want hors d’Oevres or anything?
No, that’s generous, thank you.
You sure?
Yes, but thank you. If you learn that foreign officials are withholding intelligence because she is the head of your intelligence, would that change your calculus?
I don’t know. I’m surprised to hear it. I heard that the first time the other day. I mean, I think she’s a great American. I think she’s a person with tremendous common sense. I’ve watched her for years, and she has nothing to do with Russia. This is another, you know, a mini Russia, Russia, Russia scam. I think probably, if that’s what’s happening. No, I don’t see it. Certainly, if something can be shown to me.
During the campaign, you disavowed Project 2025, but so far at least five people you’ve appointed to top positions in your cabinet have ties to it. Doesn’t that undermine what you told Americans on the campaign trail?
No look, I don’t—I don’t disagree with everything in Project 2025, but I disagree with some things. I specifically didn’t want to read it because it wasn’t under my auspices, and I wanted to be able to say that, you know, the only way I can say I have nothing to do with it is if you don’t read it. I don’t want—I didn’t want to read it. I read enough about it. They have some things that are very conservative and very good. They have other things that I don’t like. I won’t go into individual items, but I had nothing to do with Project 2025. Now, if we had a few people that were involved, they had hundreds of them. This is a big document, from what I understand.
More than 800 pages.
It’s a lot of pages. That’s a lot of pages. I thought it was inappropriate that they came out with it just before the election, to be honest with you.
Really?
I let them know, yeah, I didn’t think it was appropriate, because it’s not me. Why would they do that? They complicated my election by doing it because people tried to tie me and I didn’t agree with everything in there, and some things I vehemently disagreed with, and I thought it was inappropriate that they would come out with a document like that prior to my election.
Did you express those frustrations with them?
Oh I did. It wasn’t a frustration, it was a fact. It’s totally inappropriate. They come up with an 800-page document, and the enemy, which is, you know, the other party, is allowed to go through and pick out two items, 12 items out of, you know, 800. No, I thought it was an open—I thought it was a very foolish thing for them to do.
I understand, sir.
These are people that would like to see me win. And yet, they came out with this document, and they had some pretty ridiculous things in there. They also had some very good things in there.
I understand, sir. Let’s shift to a topic that I know you care quite a bit about: immigration. You recently said on Truth Social that you plan to use the military to deport migrants. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. What will you do if the military does not or refuses to carry out your orders?
Well, it doesn’t, it doesn’t stop the military if it’s an invasion of our country, and I consider it an invasion of our country. We have criminals coming into our countries that we’ve never seen, we’ve never seen before. We have people coming in at levels and at record numbers that we’ve never seen before. And I’ll only do what the law allows, but I will go up to the maximum level of what the law allows. And I think in many cases, the sheriffs and law enforcement is going to need help. We’ll also get National Guard. We’ll get National Guard, and we’ll go as far as I’m allowed to go, according to the laws of our country.
If you can’t negotiate agreements with the receiving governments, and none seem receptive, will you of necessity have to hold these detained migrants in camps?
I’ll get them into every country, I’ll get them into every country, or we won’t do business with those countries.
So you won’t need to build more detention facilities, sir?
No, because, look, we may have to do it anyway. Because, look, they brought in millions of people, and many of those people have been, you know, taken out of jails and prisons. You look at prison populations, what’s happening all over the world, except here. No, they—I can’t even conceive of why they would allow criminals, known criminals, people from jails that have tremendous records. Look, if you look at the 13,000-plus, 13,099 which was issued by border patrol, they said those people were murderers, and they allowed them into our country. Why would somebody do that? Why would somebody do that? And that’s why the Democrats lost, because of many things like that. That’s a bad one, by the way. You know that’s a bad one, but there are many things that—
So you’re saying there won’t be new camps, more camps to hold detained migrants?
Well, there might be. Whatever it takes to get them out. I don’t care. Honestly, whatever it takes to get them out. Again, I’ll do it absolutely within the confines of the law, but if it needs new camps, but I hope we’re not going to need too many because I want to get them out, and I don’t want them sitting in camp for the next 20 years. I want them out, and the countries have got to take them back, and if they don’t take them back, we won’t do business with those countries, and we will tariff those countries very substantially. When they send products in, they will have substantial tariffs, and it’s going to make it very hard for them to do business with us.
A question on the minds of a lot of Americans: Will you restore your policy of separating families?
I don’t think—I won’t have to, because, first of all, it wasn’t my policy. It was Obama’s policy. I didn’t build jail cells for children. He did. If you look at the 2014—
I don’t want to litigate the past. I’m just asking if you will do this—
Well you said, your policy. This was a policy of the country. I don’t believe we’ll have to, because we will send the whole family back to the country.
Deport them together?
I would much rather deport them together, yes, than separate. By the way, when you talk about separation, we have 325,000 children here during Democrats—and this was done by Democrats—who are right now slaves, sex slaves or dead, and they were allowed. So I mean, those are the and what I will be doing will be trying to find where they are and get them back to their parents.
Many of the people who voted for you, as you mentioned a moment ago, cited high prices, particularly of food and groceries. If you deport millions of migrant agricultural workers, won’t the price of food rise sharply?
No, because we’re going to let people in, but we have to let them in legally. We don’t want people to come in from jails. We don’t want the jails of Venezuela and many other countries, and not just South American countries. We don’t want the jails to be opened up into our country. We’re not accepting their prisoners. We’re not accepting their murders. We’re not accepting their people from mental institutions. We’re not doing it.
Your transition co-chair Howard Lutnick said your appointees would be vetted for loyalty. Are you going to ask your appointees to take a loyalty pledge?
I don’t think I’ll have to. I think I will know who–I mean, look, all you can do is feel comfortable with people. There’s always disloyal people, and every President’s had them. I’ve had them, and every President has had them. But no, I think, I think I will be able to, for the most part, determine who’s loyal. I want them to be loyal as to policy, as to the country. It’s gotta be loyal.
If they don’t follow your orders, will you fire them?
If I think it’s appropriate, I’d fire them.
Does that go for civil servants as well, Mr. President, who work in the executive branch but aren’t appointees?
Well, it depends. We have some interesting things happening in rules and regulations, but we’re going to see. But sure, if I’m allowed to do that, I would do that. If they’re not following my policies, absolutely.
You’ve put Elon Musk in charge of DOGE, giving him the power to—
Along with—
Along with Vivek Ramaswamy, yes, absolutely. But on Musk specifically, giving him the power to oversee the agencies that regulate his companies. Isn’t that a conflict of interest?
I don’t think so. Look, we have a country that is bloated with rules, regulations and with, frankly, people that are unnecessary to do. We are going to need a lot of people in a lot of other jobs. We’re looking to get people into private sector jobs where they can do better and be more productive. We’re going to see what happens. We have some interesting months coming up, at the beginning. We’re going to see what happens. But this country is bloated.
I think everybody agrees that there’s waste in the federal government—
Waste, fraud, and abuse.
But Elon Musk is talking about cuts that would directly affect NASA, which would then directly affect SpaceX, his company. Isn’t that the textbook definition of a conflict of interest?
I think that Elon puts the country long before his company. I mean, he’s in a lot of companies, but he really is, and I’ve seen it. He considers this to be his most important project, and he wanted to do it. And, you know, I think, I think he’s one of the very few people that would have the credibility to do it, but he puts the country before, and I’ve seen it, before he puts his company.
Well, ultimately, Congress controls spending. Would you veto a budget or appropriations that does not comply with the Musk-Ramaswamy Commission, DOGE?
I might. But there are many things you can do without Congress. When it comes to cutting, harder to get, but to cut, you can do a lot of things without Congress.
What do you plan to do?
I mean, I’ll give you an example. We want to move the schools back to the states. We want to, you know, we’re at the bottom of every list in terms of education, and we’re at the top of the list in terms of the cost per pupil, and we want to move them back to the states, and we’ll spend half the money on a much better product. We’ll get—I believe we can compete with Norway and Denmark and Finland and other countries. And I will tell you, China is right at the top of the list too. Most lists.
What does moving back to the states mean? Does that mean closing the Education Department?
A virtual closure of Department of Education in Washington.
Virtual closure?
Well, you’re going to need some people just to make sure they’re teaching English in the schools. Okay, you know English and mathematics, let’s say. But we want to move education back to the states. If you look at the states, if you look at some of the individual countries, Norway is a very strong educational country, but many. I think Iowa, and I think Indiana, and a lot of these states that are well-run states. We have a lot of them that are very well run. When they run their own educational program, I think it’s going to, I think they’ll be able to compete with anybody. Then you’re going to have the badly run states, like a guy like Gavin Newscum [sic] in California, where he does a poor job, and he’ll, but even in California, you’ll give it to Riverside. You’ll give it, you know, you’ll give it to areas of California where I think they’ll run a great school program.
