I like to think that what we're doing today is the same thing we were doing when I joined the Post in the spring of 1978. The values of the work, the ethic of the work is the same.

'Dan Balz is something of a legend in Washington media. He's been reporting on politics for the Washington Post since 1978. This week, he retired from reporting full-time. I wanted to talk to him as he closes this nearly five-decade-long chapter with the Post. He shared some of his insights on this current and complicated political moment and some of his best advice for covering politics. I'm CNN Washington Bureau Chief and Political Director, David Chalian, and this is the CNN Political Briefing. Stay with us. Dan, thank you so much for doing this. Really appreciate it.

David, I couldn't be happier. It's always a pleasure to be with you. So thank you for having me.

We're a little more than six months into President Trump's second term, and I just want to step back with you and get a sense of where you think we are politically in this moment, because he clearly has a very firm hold on the Republican party that he has recrafted in his image. And yet, we see in poll after poll of his entire term basically, independents are fleeing him. And this is not dissimilar from what we saw perhaps in his first term a little bit. Maybe the only thing that's dissimilar is a stronger hold on Republicans. But where does that leave our state of play right now in politics?

You know, it's always a mystery with him for the reasons you're talking about. I mean, if you look at some indicators, you would say, this second term is not going all that well. I mean on two signature issues, one immigration and the second, the economy, his numbers are not good at all. They're under water. His approval rating is not great, but it's not terrible. It's not as bad as his first term. He's clearly had a number of successes, but he's also, as is the way of Donald Trump, he has created a series of controversies and questions which have stirred up opposition. I think the thing that I take away from looking at it more in the long term, which is to say, you know, back through 2016, 2017, and part of that first term is there is always dissatisfaction with Donald Trump, even among some of his supporters, but it does not mean that they are abandoning him. And I think that's the kind of abiding reality of kind of the Trump era. And we are going to have to see whether the issues where he's not doing well really begin to stick to him and provide the Democrats with a real opening in 2026, as opposed to something of an opening.

On immigration and the economy, and maybe you would argue differently, I'd argue those are the two issues that got him back into the White House, perhaps. And now you're suggesting, and I see this, too, that he's losing support on these two critical issues. In other White Houses, I feel like that would be like a five alarm fire. Like these two issues that brought us to the dance are now a problem for us. What are we doing about it? But I don't sense that from this White House.

I agree with that. I don't think that they are as alarmed as those numbers might suggest or as past administrations might see it. I think there are two reasons. One is, he is doing other things that he can point to as being successful. And the second is, you know, we're only six months into the second term. We're not, you know, 18 months into the second term. Let's see what these things look like a year from now as they are heading into the midterm and the degree to which, at that point, you see real nervousness within the Republican Party. So I think those are the reasons why this White House, you know, is not sounding alarm bells.

'I agree with you. As you said, going back to sort of 2016, 17, 18, you know, I feel like we in the press, every time Donald Trump would have tweeted something or taken an action, we had this, like, knee-jerk response of like, go find now that there's a crack in the Republican coalition and that people are — and we learned over and over and over again that wasn't happening. I mean, the candidate himself told us back in 2016 that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and his supporters would still be with him. I think the facts have really borne that out over the 10 years of the Trump era. And I would argue, in this moment, in this story about the Epstein stuff that we're discussing, there's a lot of people who are writing about or reporting saying this fractured base now, that his base is — and I don't, I'm having a hard time separating out very vocal, prominent voices in the MAGA-sphere who are disgruntled with the president versus the broad base of support he has in the country with voters. Those two things might not be responding to the Epstein thing identically, right?

Yeah, you know, the Epstein thing is so interesting, and there is a part of MAGA world, which is the sort of the conspiracy wing of MAGA world, that has gotten quite ramped up about this and particularly with the handling that the Justice Department has done over this. It elevated this story and created a story that for the foreseeable future, I don't know how long that is, is certainly not going to go away. I don t see that this is the biggest problem for Trump among the MAGA base. There may be some MAGA influencers who are stirring it up. You know, we did some polling this week, and the MAGA base, you know, they're not on the leading edge of the concern about this or disapproval. So, that's one element. But the other thing that this poll that we did showed is that 86% of the public says that the whole set of documents should be released. That goes across the board. It's Democrats, it's Independents, it's Republicans, it's MAGA Republicans. That says, to me, that the pressure on the Justice Department and the Trump administration to provide information is not going to go away anytime soon. The most interesting thing in our poll was on the question of, did Epstein die by suicide, which is the official report. There are only 15% of the country that thinks that that is correct. There's 42% said they're not sure, and 44% who said he was murdered. So, in a sense, this conspiracy is baked into kind of the public consciousness at this point, and, again, it creates a problem for Trump of a kind that he hasn't had to deal with before.

Have you observed a shift in strategy from him and his team about how to try to put this out?

I have observed no strategy. It seems as though it shifts constantly. Donald Trump, as we know, has the ability to say anything on any given day, and on this particular controversy, that seems to be the strategy he's following. I don't know whether it is a deliberate strategy or an accidental one. Whatever it is, it's not been particularly effective.

Another element in this moment of politics that fascinates me is that, even as Donald Trump may struggle on some of his previously best issues, even as Independents seem to fleeing him. It does not seem to be at the natural benefit of the opposition in the Democratic Party, which is experiencing historic lows with the American people, and so I wonder how you hold both of those things as you look at the landscape, as you noted, a year from now heading into those midterms. I mean the Democrats clearly have a major brand problem on their hand, largely, by the way, because Democrats themselves aren't feeling good about their party.

'You know, normally, David, we think of this kind of as a teeter-totter, you know, one party gets into trouble, the other begins to rise, and that certainly has not happened. In terms of the midterm elections, you now, historically, the mid-term election is a referendum on the president. It almost doesn't matter what the, you know, the out party is doing or saying. As long as there is, you know, energy among the opposition, which there seems to be within the Democratic base, and the focus is on the administration and their policies, it becomes a typical midterm, which would say to all of us, given the narrowness of the Republican majority in the House, that Democrats have every opportunity to pick up control of the House. But having said that, we know from what we've seen, you know, of the back and forth in terms of control of the House and the narrowness of the margins, that whoever ends up in the majority after 2026 is going to have a pretty slim majority. But if the Democrats pick it up, that's a big sea change just in the way that the Trump administration has to work. I think that the broader question about the Democratic Party is one that has much more to do with 2028 than 2026. This is a very fractured coalition at this point, and I think the Democrats recognize that, and they don't have an answer for it at this point. And secondly, they do not have a series of recognizable national leaders, which is unusual. For the most part, for the Democrats, these are people who are past their prime, whether it's Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi, or people who have been in power. And the newer generation has not stepped forward. I mean, if we think about the Democrats ahead of the 2008 election, and certainly they were in a different position in terms of their brand, Barack Obama was a national rockstar at that point, you know, at this point in 2005. And the Democrats just don't have that at this point. And so this combination of nobody that the public can look to as the voice or future of the Democratic Party and no consensus yet on what the message ought to be leaves them in a very precarious position. But I say, I think that's more important for 2028 than 2026.

And when you say a fractured coalition, is that generational, ideological, along racial lines, or is it all of it?

It's all of it. I mean, there's an important generational shift, I think, going on generally in politics. I mean my generation, the baby boom generation, is moving on, and rightly so. The question is what aspect of that, you know, that younger generation sticks with the Democratic Party or defects to Donald Trump.

You teed me up perfectly. As you said, the baby boomer generation was moving on. So we're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, Dan, we're gonna take a look back at your career, the 47 years you've spent at the Washington Post as you wind down your daily assignment there. And we'll come back with Dan Balz in just a moment. 47 years. I don't know anyone who has worked at an outlet for 47 years, I don't think that happens much anymore, but you have made your professional home at the Washington Post, and, you know, quite frankly, as somebody who has been working around you and near you and covering American politics for the last couple of decades, I mean, you are the senior statesman of our profession and our field. I've learned a ton from you over the years. And while I am thrilled for you, and this is a natural progression in life, I understand, it is hard for me not to be a little sad that you're leaving this post. And I just want to know what your thoughts are as you look back on your decades there. Just how does that feel to sort of close this chapter?

'Well, it's been a long time coming. I've thought about this for quite a number of years. I thought that the 2016 election was probably going to be the last election I did on a kind of full-time basis. That was the year I turned 70. And then, you know, 2016 happened, and it did not seem like an appropriate time to step away from a very important story. And I felt, you know, I felt good. So I stayed at it. I thought, well, I'll get through 2020. 2020 was the pandemic election. That's an unsatisfying time to say, I'm done. And so I thought, well, I will definitely go through 2024. But 2025 was always the year that I knew that I would step back. I don't like to use the word retirement, but to retire, certainly from full-time work at the Washington Post. It has been an enormously satisfying 47 years here. There's no better home. There has been no better home for me, and I know for a lot of other people, than the Washington Post. You know, we've had ups and downs, and we've have tough times, and we've had wonderful times. But nonetheless, as a place to do journalism and particularly to cover politics, I can't think of a better place than I could have had here at the Washington Post. So I'm happy about the decision. It's a little bittersweet. I love the newsroom. I love energy of the newsroom. I love my colleagues. It will be hard not to be a part of that on a daily basis, but it makes sense. I owe it to my wife, who's, you know, been retired for a number of years, and we've talked about it over the years. So I say it's a little bittersweet, but I'm fully comfortable that this is the time to make this transition.

Excellent. Well, take me through this journey a little bit. I was on a flight back from Europe over the weekend, and I decided to rewatch All the President's Men. I look at that depiction with Redford and Hoffman as playing Woodward and Bernstein, but I look at that newsroom in '73, '74. You arrive a few years later, I assume, pretty much into that kind of environment. And it's quite different from the environment you are leaving behind now, and so I'm curious where you see sort of the trajectory in your time there of journalism. At its core are you still doing the same thing that you were all doing back then? Or has it dramatically changed, not just the technology, but the actual work?

Well, I like to think that what we're doing today is the same thing we were doing when I joined the Post in the spring of 1978, and that is reporting hard, digging as much as we can, trying to understand candidates, to understand the state of the country, and to give our readers the fullest and fairest rendering of that. At its best, journalism is storytelling, and we tell stories, but we have to find the information to tell those stories. And so I think in many ways, I think of what I'm doing as similar to that. On the other hand, you know, I can't sit here and say, well, yeah, you know, what I did in 1985 or 1992 or even 2000 is the same as what we're doing today. We all know it's a cliche, but it's so true. The internet really did change everything about our business. We are on a much faster timetable now where information moves swiftly. It doesn't stick. We have to grab as quickly as we can and tell as rapidly as we can the stories that we had more time and, you know, I won't say leisure, but more time to be able to report out and think about. And so that has put, I think, an extra strain on every newsroom that we're in, whether it's, you know, a mostly print organization or a TV with a big print component like CNN is. That's been a big change. I mean, the technology, as you say, is much, much different. There's really no way to compare it. But the work, you know, fundamentally the work is, the values of the work, the ethic of the is the same.

'You know, you say the internet changed our profession and our industry, no doubt, but it also changed American politics. You know you are so good at looking back at historic examples and how history and politics can guide us, but always remaining open. And this is something you taught me time and again, being out of the campaign trial with you, always being open to what is new in this election, in this cycle, in this thing, and not being so tied to the past. And I'm just wondering, this last 10 years of the Trump-dominated era of American politics feel remarkably different to me in not just how voters consume political information but in how the stories get told around it by us. And I don't know if it is just, like you said, grabbing things rapidly, or if there's any kind of return to a more thoughtful time in journalism, or are we forever are going to be on a cascade to just smaller, bite-sized pieces of storytelling.

Well, my fear is that what you just laid out is the future. But I think the one caveat is what you also said, and that is the Trump era is a unique era. And he is a unique character in terms of somebody who's at the pinnacle of political power. And it's hard to separate one from the other at this point, as you say, trying to project forward with a sense of history in the past as to where we might be in five years or ten years on this. But I think that the nature of public consumption of information is fundamentally different than it was even 10 or 15 years ago. It is in snippets, it is in headlines, it is through social media, it is not tied to institutions like CNN or the Washington Post. People gravitate to wherever they kind of pick up the information, and I think, as a result of that, we have to fight against shallowness. We have to fight against lack of perspective. I think that's the era that we are in right now. It can be an unsatisfying era for reporters because we do like to have the ability to step back and think, but the competitive nature of what we're in and the people we're trying to serve, our readers and viewers, want to get their information, demands that we adapt and change.

So given all that, what advice do you leave behind for journalists starting out or early in their career in your newsroom who want to cover politics as well as you did over your career? What advice do offer them?

'Well, I, you know, I think the best advice is the advice I always got when I was coming at it, which is become as deeply sourced as you can. Be open to everything. Don't go into this with a closed mind. Everybody has biases and prejudices, but the ability to listen and to listen with an open set of ears and an open mind is essential to being, I think, a good reporter. The other is that understanding the country and understanding the underlying forces that are changing the country will help you understand any particular election, whatever year you're doing it. This is an ever-changing country, and a good political reporter combines a combination of granular understanding of candidates, political campaigns, presidencies, congresses, with the broader perspective of how the American people are thinking at any particular moment and how those two intersect, and who are the people seeking power or in power who are best able to understand and respect respond to that.

'Dan, I want all of our listeners to know, because they read you, they know you're a top-notch political reporter, you're also one of the finest people, kindest, generous. This is a profession full of very competitive and sharp elbows kind of folks, and you are just a giant among men in this field, and so much of that is just in your generosity of spirit and your kindness, and it has been my pleasure to share just a piece of a little bit of your time covering American politics, watching you do so. And I can't thank you enough for spending some of your final moments on the clock at the Post chatting to me about it.

David, thank you for those words. You're very generous, but let me just say people like you and many other people with whom I've interacted have been equally generous. I think that the competitive nature of our business is real, you know, both internally and externally at every organization, but I think that we all recognize there is a certain humanity that we need to have. People have been so good to me, so I'm enormously grateful for what others have done for me and, you know, to the extent that I've been able to share some of that with everybody, so much the better, but you know I will do some writing in the future, so we will continue to see one another down the road.

Well, I look forward to reading. Dan Balz, thanks so much. CNN Political Briefing is a production of CNN Podcasts. This episode was produced by Emily Williams. Dan Dzula is our technical director, and Steve Lickteig is the executive producer of CNN Podcasts. Our senior producers are Faiz Jamil and Felicia Patinkin. Support from Alex Manasseri, Robert Mathers, Jon Dianora, Leni Steinhardt, Jamus Andrest, Nichole Pesaru, and Lisa Namerow. We'll be back with a new episode next Friday. Thanks so much for listening.