What Did Trump Say in His First Interview After the Midterms?

On the evening of November 8, CBS’s 60 Minutes aired Trump’s first face-to-face interview since the midterm elections. By then, Republicans had lost control of both the House and the Senate, shedding more than 40 House seats and at least seven Senate seats. Some of those losses came in districts Trump had won by double-digit margins just two years earlier. CBS exit polls showed that approximately 63% of midterm voters disapproved of Trump’s job performance, while 44% said expressing opposition to Trump was one reason for their vote. His defence of the economic figures and his explanation for the electoral defeat revealed a contradiction that warrants closer examination.

The Economic Narrative

Throughout the interview, Trump repeatedly emphasised the economy’s performance. He described the economic numbers as “phenomenal” and said Americans were becoming wealthier through their 401(k) retirement accounts, which had reached record highs. When the interviewer pointed out that not all Americans had substantial retirement savings, he responded: “But many do.”

Exit polls presented a different set of numbers. Approximately three-quarters of midterm voters described the economy as “not good” or “poor”. Among those voters, 70% supported Democratic candidates. Voters were particularly concerned about the prices of petrol, food, utilities and healthcare. Two-thirds believed Trump’s tariff policies had hurt the US economy.

Trump’s explanation was poor messaging. “Maybe it’s bad public relations, maybe I’ve done a bad job,” he said, predicting that Americans would see changes “over the next two, three, four months”.

For markets, the message was more specific than a communications failure. The president acknowledged a disconnect between economic perceptions and the data but declined to change policy direction, placing responsibility for closing that gap on time and communication. This suggests that if the data fail to translate into tangible improvements for voters over the coming months, as he predicted, the existing policy framework will not automatically adjust in response to the midterm results.

The Iran War and Oil Prices

On the Iran war, Trump delivered the clearest policy signal of the interview, while also drawing the most explicit boundaries around what he would not do. He acknowledged that voters “don’t like this war” or the surge in oil prices it had caused. He noted that petrol in Iowa had cost as little as $1.85 a gallon before the war and had since risen to between $3.50 and $4, with people blaming the war for the increase. When told that Vice President Vance had attributed the Republican defeat to the Iran war, Trump said he did not disagree with that assessment.

At the same time, he said that, given the chance to make the decision again, he would “without question” strike Iran. His reasoning was that Iran could not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons and that, viewed historically, the decision would prove to have been “very good”. Asked whether he planned to expand the war, he replied that he did not think there was any reason to do so.

These remarks have several implications for oil prices. Ruling out escalation removes a tail risk, consistent with the sharp decline in oil prices since November 4: markets have been pricing in a war that will not expand. However, his refusal to acknowledge a mistake means that the supply constraints and geopolitical premium associated with the war will not automatically disappear because of the midterm outcome. Trump framed the war as a long-term decision that history would vindicate, rather than a short-term mistake requiring correction.

AI Regulation: A Clear Priority on Winning the Race

Trump’s position on artificial intelligence was the least ambiguous part of the interview. “I’m not against guardrails, but I don’t want us to be in a very distant second place. We’re number one right now. We’re leading,” he said. He placed winning the AI race against China above regulatory concerns, explaining that his bullish stance on AI stemmed from the need to win that competition.

The interview also revealed a previously undisclosed detail: his administration had threatened an unnamed AI company executive with criminal prosecution. “We called him very strongly and said: Get ready to go to jail,” Trump said. He declined to identify either the company or the individual involved.

For the AI sector, these remarks cut both ways. Prioritising the race means that the White House remains supportive of expanding computing capacity and maintaining US leadership in AI, even as Democratic control of Congress creates greater uncertainty around data centre approvals following the midterms. That uncertainty was one of the main catalysts for the November 5 technology sell-off. The White House’s stance provides a counterweight to market concerns that Democrats will systematically restrict AI infrastructure development.

However, the continued use of criminal enforcement as a potential tool shows that White House support does not amount to unconditional freedom from intervention. Regulatory uncertainty has not disappeared; it has shifted from congressional legislation to executive discretion.

The Political Landscape

The interview also offered several signals about the policy battles likely to unfold over the next two years.

Immigration policy showed signs of modest flexibility. Trump acknowledged that mass deportations might have been “too tough”, referring to cases involving undocumented immigrants who had worked in the US for years, paid taxes and had no other criminal record. He described immigration as an area in which he could work with Democrats.

Changes to the administration are also expected. On the day of the interview, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles stepped down and was replaced by Stephen Miller, an architect of Trump’s immigration policy. Trump said he expected to make “a few changes” to his Cabinet but declined to name anyone.

He adopted a confrontational stance towards potential Democratic investigations. Asked whether he would be willing to stop publicly insulting political opponents to reach agreements with Democrats, he said that would not be difficult. However, he expressed strong resentment towards the investigations that could follow under a Democratic-controlled Congress. Referring to the investigations and impeachments during his previous term, he accused opponents of using judicial powers against him. Asked about forgiving political opponents, he replied: “I do hate some of my enemies, and I always will.”

Together, these signals point to a political landscape in which bipartisan deals remain possible in specific policy areas, such as immigration, while oversight and investigations are likely to bring confrontation between the White House and a Democratic-controlled Congress. For markets, this means that some of the policy uncertainty over the next two years will shift from what the White House wants to do to what Congress will do to the White House.

Conclusion

Trump’s interview brought no change in policy direction. He maintained that the economic data were strong and that messaging had failed; that the Iran war was the right decision and voters simply did not yet understand it; and that the AI race must be won without regulation holding it back. On every central issue, his answer was that the direction would remain unchanged and that the problems lay in communication or timing.

Markets had already priced in the political costs of the midterms through the technology sell-off on November 5. This interview offered no signal that those costs would ease. Instead, it confirmed that the White House would not voluntarily revise its economic narrative or its decisions on the war following the defeat. The pressure to deliver an adjustment was shifted onto economic data over the coming months and negotiations with Democrats in a limited number of areas.

For a market already pricing in political approval risks around AI infrastructure and the geopolitical premium in oil prices, the interview signalled an extension of the timeline rather than a change in direction. The next thing to watch is whether economic data over the coming two to four months can substantiate the claim that poor messaging was the problem. If they cannot, the gap between the existing policy framework and market pricing will be repriced in another way.