When Donald Trump was elected president in 2016 and reelected in 2024, many Americans who opposed him asked what had gone wrong. Anthony Scaramucci, who briefly served as Trump’s communications director during his first term, addresses that question in his new book, All the Wrong Moves.

The book argues that bipartisan policy failures — including trade agreements with China, wars financed without corresponding taxes and bailouts for Wall Street banks responsible for the Great Recession — helped create economic conditions that weakened and alienated the working class. Scaramucci presents Trump as the political consequence of those broader socioeconomic failures.

The book is written as a nonpartisan examination of recent American history rather than an appeal to either Democrats or Republicans. Scaramucci said he intended it to be a fast, readable work that examines how well-intentioned decisions produced damaging results. The following interview with Scaramucci was conducted by AlterNet and lightly edited for clarity, length and context. The original source is available at https://www.alternet.org/alternet-exclusives/trumps-endgame/.

Trump’s White House ambitions

Matthew Rozsa: What is Trump’s endgame? In your view, how does his effort to reshape the United States end?

Anthony Scaramucci: I think his endgame is to see whether he can make another $10 billion to $20 billion for himself and then pardon himself and his family members. I do not think he has a policy endgame. I do not think he cares much about anyone who voted for him or about anyone else in America.

He would like to leave monuments to himself in Washington. I do not think he will succeed in knocking down the Kennedy Center, but he will succeed in building the ballroom. The outcome of the Trump Arc, the triumph, remains indeterminate. Trump wants to name things after himself, make money and receive attention.

He also wants journalists back around the White House, including people from Politico and CNN. They cut off his air supply, but even though he supposedly dislikes journalists, he wants them there because they bring him attention and viewers. That is essentially it. He does not have a policy endgame and does not care about those issues.

Rozsa: You have described a “Potomac bubble” that insulates Washington officials from the consequences of their actions. Can Trump’s staff, Republicans in Congress or conservative Supreme Court justices break out of that bubble and oppose him?

Scaramucci: No, they cannot. This is a failed political class of leaders. It is made up of baby boomers, unfortunately including me — I was born at the tail end of that generation. They care about self-aggrandizement and putting personal power first.

If they cared, Kevin McCarthy would have pursued impeachment, persuaded Mitch McConnell to convict Trump and prevented him from running for office in 2024. Trump’s rise also coincided with the Democratic Party’s failure to nominate strong candidates. The party put forward a mediocre candidate and lost to a sitting president, Donald Trump. Joe Biden and the Democrats then put forward two disastrous presidential candidates and lost to him.

Trump is not a broadly popular figure. Apart from the November 2024 election, when he won the popular vote, he has generally remained below 50 percent. His approval ratings are now among the lowest in modern presidential history, or near the level of Richard Nixon when Nixon resigned.

The people around Trump will not stand up to him because they are afraid. They do not want to be removed by someone backed by Trump’s supporters. He has power within the right-leaning primary electorate, and those politicians worry about it.

What motivates Trump voters?

Rozsa: That analysis is one reason I would recommend your book. I read it in less than a day, and I think people on both sides should consider your argument that the Democratic Party has failed its own voters.

Scaramucci: I appreciate that because I wanted to write a book that could be read in a day. It contains some humor and offers a nonpartisan observation. Someone wrote on Amazon that it was an apolitical book, and I was grateful for that description.

I am not trying to take the discussion into tribalism or partisan rancor. I am saying that mistakes were made on both sides. Well-meaning and well-intentioned people can make mistakes. If we understand what those mistakes were, we can begin trying to correct them.

Rozsa: You write that many liberal Democrats assume Trump came to power only because his voters are racist, sexist and homophobic, while arguing that those qualities were not the primary reason for his rise. I would argue that a sizable minority of Trump supporters back him because he validates their hostility toward transgender people, gay people, women, Black people and immigrants. What do you think?

Scaramucci: You might be right. To answer confidently, I would need granular data, focus groups, polling and cross-analysis. I would say you are more right now than you were in 2018, when we conducted our earlier interview. Racial divisions, xenophobia and isolationism have worsened.

I finished the manuscript last summer and made some revisions before publication. If I could update the book instantly for a second edition, I would probably remove what I wrote on that point, because I think your assessment is more accurate now than my view was perhaps a year ago. The situation has become worse.

Rozsa: Why have your views changed?

Scaramucci: I have been traveling, listening and trying to meet as many Trump supporters as possible. Some of what I hear is racially tinged. Some falls into the culture-war category: hostility toward transgender people, opposition to pronoun usage and opposition to what is called “wokeness.” There is an intolerant strand.

I think the first vote was, “Let’s try something new. He is an outsider, and the current system is not working for us.” The second vote was, “It was not really that bad when he was president, and we do not know who Kamala Harris is.” That was a lesser-of-two-evils vote.

But what Trump has done over the past two years has opened a Pandora’s box of intolerance, much more than before.

Trump, Israel and Gaza

Rozsa: In Chapter 8, you discuss neoconservatives and their belief that the United States was in a historically unique position to exercise immense control over global events. You argue that this revived U.S. nation-building abroad and contributed to the second Iraq war, which you describe as a disaster and as establishing a precedent for “wars without taxes.” To what extent do you believe Israel’s influence on American politics and its human rights violations in Gaza have contributed to this tendency in U.S. foreign policy?

Scaramucci: It is a complex question. Netanyahu clearly influenced Donald Trump to unilaterally strike Iran. We can ask whether that was Netanyahu’s fault or Trump’s fault, but it was Trump’s fault that the United States struck Iran.

I do not think the war is working, and I do not think it served either Israeli or American interests. The promised outcome — decapitating the regime, causing it to fall and leading Iran to secularize — has not occurred.

Regarding Israel, and without sounding overly cynical, Israel has done better when neighboring states have failed. A failed state in Syria or Lebanon appears to work for Israel. In Israel’s view, a failed Iran may be preferable to a radicalized Iran.

That is where U.S. and Israeli interests diverged. I do not think the United States wants a failed state in Iran. It would prefer a country that is more integrated into the family of nations.

Israel has influenced the United States, and the AIPAC lobby has been powerful. AIPAC has the right to lobby Congress because its members are U.S. citizens. If people oppose that lobbying or its influence over political leaders, they can vote for candidates who oppose it.

The broader point is that the United States and Israel have a long-term strategic alliance. Under President Harry Truman, the United States played an important role in helping establish the state of Israel.

Netanyahu would not like me to say this, and it may be controversial, but I believe Israel’s prime minister has more than one responsibility. The obvious responsibility is protecting Israel’s safety and sovereignty. But whether he likes it or not, he is also an international brand representative for Jewish people around the world.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has damaged that brand. I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood and consider myself a philo-Semite. I have supported Jewish causes and charities throughout my life. But I am a realist. Has what is happening in Gaza damaged the brand? Yes. People can pretend otherwise, but I would rather discuss how to repair it.

Antisemitism, broadly and historically, has repeatedly preceded mass violence when examined over 5,000 years. People who scapegoat Jews may believe that the consequences will affect only Jews. But when one minority group is targeted, the pattern can spread to another minority group and eventually to others. We need to stop it.

I am not a supporter of antisemitism, and I do not support Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu’s strategy in Gaza. We can debate the definitions of what has happened, but I believe it has caused a humanitarian crisis and damaged Israel’s public standing.

Rozsa: I would personally use the term “genocide.” I know that many Jews find that upsetting, but I agree that Netanyahu is, whether he likes it or not, a representative of Jews internationally. In my view, he is a terrible representative because he is perpetrating genocide, is corrupt and has intentionally prolonged the war because he knows he will face corruption charges once it ends.

I also believe that, just as the United States needs to elect Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections to check Trump, Israel needs to replace Netanyahu with Gadi Eisenkot, whom I believe you know. He leads the Yashar! party.

Scaramucci: Yes. I met him in 2018.

Rozsa: Do you think he would be a good prime minister, or at least a better one than Netanyahu?

Scaramucci: Better. I think he is more aware of the issues we are discussing.

I am more careful with the definition of genocide because of its ability to trigger people. If I say I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal, I may immediately alienate half the audience. Republicans have spent billions of dollars discrediting the word “liberal,” while Democrats have spent billions of dollars discrediting the word “conservative.” If I say I am socially inclusive and fiscally responsible, I can reach people more effectively.

For that reason, I do not use the word genocide. The moment it is used, both sides become polarized. I would rather describe what is happening as a humanitarian crisis, which I believe is factually accurate. The crisis has become unacceptable and has damaged Israel’s public standing.

My podcast partner, Katty Kay, whom viewers may see on Morning Joe, used the word genocide. The Israeli government listens to the program and contacted the BBC, where she works. Because the BBC is linked to the British government, the Israeli government demanded that she apologize on air and issue a retraction, arguing that she could not make such statements as a quasi-governmental employee of the United Kingdom.

She made the statement and issued the retraction, but that does not change the underlying problem. That is why I focus on the words “humanitarian crisis.”

Bill Clinton and the housing crisis

Rozsa: Your book discusses President Bill Clinton’s administration and the ways you believe it weakened the working class and helped facilitate the housing crisis. Robert Shapiro, one of Clinton’s top economic advisers, told me that Clinton was the only president in 50 years who governed according to mainstream economics. Shapiro said Clinton delivered a balanced budget, produced four large surpluses and created nearly 23 million jobs, more than any president before or since. He also wrote that Clinton persuaded congressional Democrats to approve larger tax increases on wealthy people, raise the corporate tax rate, increase Medicare taxes on wealthy people and increase the federal gasoline tax.

I would argue that Americans in both parties can admire much of Clinton’s economic record. What is your view?

Scaramucci: I hope I made that case in the book through my discussion of PAYGO legislation. Congress established fiscal guardrails, and Clinton followed them. In March or May 1993 — I cannot remember the exact month — he enacted what was then one of the largest tax increases in U.S. history to pay for government programs.

I like President Clinton and hope that comes through in the book. I applaud those accomplishments. My argument concerns the unintended consequences of policies adopted during his second term, when he promoted broader home ownership.

Andrew Cuomo was Clinton’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development. The administration wanted more families to own homes and pushed for broader credit applications through money-center banks. That policy was a precursor to the housing crisis, although it was amplified by George W. Bush. It was not solely Clinton’s responsibility; it was a bipartisan commitment.

The United States can sustain a homeownership rate of about 60 percent to 65 percent. When the rate moves into the 70 percent range, as it was beginning to do, instability can develop at the bottom of the income scale. Unstable income causes people to miss mortgage payments. Missing rent can result in eviction, while missed mortgage payments lead to more foreclosures.

Clinton still receives an A+ from me. I wish George W. Bush had followed Clinton’s economic policies. I write in the book that my second major mistake was supporting a war that led Bush to abandon the PAYGO legislation of Clinton and his father, George H.W. Bush. That produced monumental deficit spending.

For the first time in U.S. history, the country fought wars of that magnitude without substantial tax increases to pay for them. Clinton did a great job. But the first spark of the subprime crisis began during his administration. It was a case of unintended consequences: well-intentioned efforts to expand homeownership and make the American dream available to more people went badly wrong.

Scaramucci’s account of Trump before the White House

Rozsa: The section of your book that interested me most describes your work on Mitt Romney’s finance committee in 2012. You write that Trump arrived with his lawyer, Michael Cohen, who later became known for paying hush money to Stormy Daniels on Trump’s behalf. After it became clear that Romney would lose and would have to deliver a concession speech, Trump abruptly left for New York while saying words to the effect of, “These guys don’t know what they’re doing. I should be running for president. I could straighten this whole thing out.”

You suggest that this may have been a key moment when Trump decided to run for president, alongside the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where he was mocked. What was that evening like?

Scaramucci: I was trying to remind people that Trump did not decide to run for president simply because he was mocked at the Correspondents’ Dinner. He endorsed Mitt Romney, who did not become president.

I remember election night in 2012. We were all together, and Trump came to the Romney event and then left. I was standing next to him when he made those remarks.

Romney accepted money from Trump, and we held two events at Trump’s apartment in New York City. They were not really campaign stops; they were fundraisers. As a member of Romney’s finance committee, I helped raise money there.

Rozsa: What observations do you think Trump had about the Romney campaign? If Romney had followed Trump’s advice, what would that advice have been?

Scaramucci: Trump would have favored a much more anti-immigration and ideologically strident campaign. After the election, Republicans produced a white paper calling for a more favorable approach toward immigrants. Trump took the party in the opposite direction.

He helped Romney, although I did not recognize the significance at the time. Looking back, 2012 contained early elements of MAGA and right-wing populism. After Romney lost in South Carolina, he asked Trump to make robocalls in Michigan. We did that, and the calls worked, particularly among older Michigan voters.

This was still the early period of Instagram. Facebook and Twitter existed but were not as developed as they are now. More people have smartphones today than ever before. The older voters reached by those calls were among the people who later appeared as MAGA supporters in 2016.

Rozsa: Mitt Romney told me in 2021, in an interview about his father, George Romney: “I saw in my father a person without guile. He acted from principle, not politics. He was a man driven by what he thought was right and did not worry about the consequences. His commitment to civil rights put him ahead of his time. Throughout my personal and political life, I have tried to live by the example he set.”

That once described many Republicans. What changed?

Scaramucci: Jacob Weisberg is writing a book called Profiles in Cowardice about eight Republicans he believes failed the country. It is similar to what John F. Kennedy did in Profiles in Courage, which examined eight people who stood by their principles.

To put it simply, Republicans have become cowards and self-aggrandizing. We began this interview by discussing how they care about themselves and their personal power. If they were not cowards, they would have sought Trump’s removal. They would have convicted him during his second impeachment after the ridiculous insurrection and his role in fomenting it.

But they are cowards. There are no George Romneys or Mitt Romneys left in that party.

Trump and the future of American democracy

Rozsa: Many people, including me, believe Trump will try to steal the 2026 midterm elections and that, if he succeeds, American democracy will effectively end. Do you share that concern?

Scaramucci: You could be right. I have to treat the probability as higher than zero. Is there a 10 percent, 20 percent or 30 percent chance? If it happens, I will not say I am surprised.

The more likely situation reminds me of Viktor Orbán. Orbán had 16 years to corrupt the electoral process in Hungary, which is a smaller country. Trump is trying to corrupt the electoral process here, but I think he will fail, primarily because the U.S. system is highly decentralized.

General Caine has said he will not place the military at polling sites. People could still be intimidated at the polls, but the SAVE America Act will not succeed. The act is designed to prevent women from voting; it is not really about immigrants. Anti-immigrant voters frequently invoke illegal aliens, but those people rarely vote. The legislation would also affect people who changed their names after marriage, many of whom do not vote Republican.

I think the country will survive Trump because the courts have treated him firmly and required him to comply with court decisions. If I am wrong, the result will be tragic for us, our families and the country. I am not assigning the possibility zero. It could happen, and that is the danger of the current moment.

Rozsa: If you are wrong, both of us, as outspoken Trump critics, will face serious problems next year.

Scaramucci: Of course. He is Mr. Retribution. But I believe we have to continue. We have a patriotic duty to denounce what he is doing.

Rozsa: We have the curse of living in interesting times.

Scaramucci: Amen.