Haberman and Swan are among the journalists who have spent more time reporting on Donald Trump than almost anyone else in the American media. Swan previously worked at Axios before joining The New York Times.
The book draws on hundreds of interviews with senior officials, political advisers, cabinet members, foreign leaders, donors, and members of Trump’s inner circle.
The result is not merely an insider account of a remarkable political comeback. It is an ambitious attempt to explain how Trump’s return to power transformed the American presidency itself. Moving from Mar-a-Lago to the White House, from internal power struggles to major international crises, Haberman and Swan present a portrait of an administration determined to remove the constraints that limited its first term and to redefine the relationship between the president and the institutions of government.
More than a chronicle of events, Regime Change is a study of how political power is accumulated, exercised, and contested in contemporary America.
The first challenge facing any writer attempting to explain Donald Trump is that he has already been explained too many times. Over the past decade, journalists, historians, psychologists, former aides, political scientists, and political opponents have produced an endless stream of books seeking to decode the most consequential and controversial figure in contemporary American politics.
Some portrayed him as an authoritarian threat. Others saw him as a populist revolt against exhausted institutions. Still others described him as a media phenomenon, a nationalist insurgent, or merely the most visible symptom of bigger changes in American society. The cumulative effect has often been less clarity than fatigue. Trump has become one of the most documented political figures in modern history and one of the least satisfactorily understood.
Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan approach the problem from a different angle. Rather than asking who Trump is, Regime Change asks what Trump learned. The distinction proves crucial. Their book is not fundamentally about Trump’s rise, nor is it primarily about his survival after electoral defeat, legal battles, and political exile. It is about his evolution. The Donald Trump who emerges from these pages is not the improvisational candidate who entered politics in 2015, nor the often chaotic president of the first administration.
He is a political veteran who has spent years studying the institutions that frustrated him, identifying the people he believes obstructed him, and preparing for a return designed to ensure that those obstacles never reappear.
The book opens not in Washington but at Mar-a-Lago, a choice that immediately reveals the authors’ larger purpose. Haberman and Swan understand that geography can tell a political story. In the traditional Washington order, power flowed through institutions, Congress, the White House, federal agencies, political parties, think tanks, and media organizations that interpreted their actions.
In the world of Regime Change, power increasingly flows through an individual. Politicians, donors, technology executives, diplomats, foreign emissaries, media personalities, and aspiring officials travel to Palm Beach for the same reason courtiers once travelled to royal capitals. Access itself has become a form of influence. Mar-a-Lago is no longer merely a private residence or social club; it functions as a parallel political capital.
Few journalists are better positioned to tell this story than Haberman and Swan. Haberman has spent years chronicling Trump’s political life, often developing sources that gave her extraordinary access to his inner circle. Swan established himself as one of the most effective White House reporters of his generation, combining aggressive reporting with an unusual ability to reconstruct decision-making processes.
Together, they have assembled a narrative built on extensive interviews and remarkable access. Yet the book’s greatest strength is not its access; it is its discipline. The authors resist the temptation to transform every revelation into a scandal or every disagreement into a constitutional crisis. They trust scenes, conversations, and details to carry the argument.
That confidence allows Regime Change to avoid one of the major weaknesses that afflicts much contemporary political writing. Too many books about Trump begin with a conclusion and then arrange evidence around it. Haberman and Swan proceed differently. Their reporting accumulates gradually until larger patterns become visible. The result is a book that feels less like a prosecution brief and more like a work of political history written in real time.
One of the book’s most impressive qualities is its refusal to rely on caricature. The easiest version of Trump is either a hero or a villain. Haberman and Swan choose neither. They present a president who can be strategic and impulsive, disciplined and emotional, calculating and instinctive, often within the same conversation. This complexity is one reason the book succeeds. The authors understand that contradictions are not obstacles to understanding Trump. They are central to understanding him.
The chapters devoted to personnel are among the strongest in the book because they reveal how deeply Trump’s first presidency shaped his second. Trump returns to office obsessed with a question that haunted his first administration: why did so many people around him ultimately resist him? Haberman and Swan show how this question influenced personnel decisions throughout government.
The administration’s search for officials becomes less a search for expertise than an alignment search. Loyalty emerges not merely as a desirable quality but as a governing principle. No figure embodies this transformation more clearly than Stephen Miller, who appears throughout the book as one of the principal architects of the effort to consolidate presidential authority.
Miller functions in the narrative as more than a policy adviser. He becomes the institutional memory of Trumpism. He remembers every legal challenge, every bureaucratic delay, every internal disagreement, and every failed initiative of the first administration. The second administration’s project, as Haberman and Swan describe it, is partly an effort to ensure that those experiences are never repeated. The objective is not simply to enact different policies but to redesign the machinery through which policy is implemented.
This distinction is one of the most important insights in the book. Political observers often focus on outcomes while ignoring mechanisms. Haberman and Swan repeatedly demonstrate that Trump’s second presidency is as much about control as ideology. Immigration, trade, foreign policy, and national security matter, yet beneath these issues lies a broader objective: strengthening the presidency’s ability to impose its will on the institutions around it.
The significance of this transformation becomes especially apparent when the book turns to foreign policy, particularly the Gaza war. Gaza is not the central subject of Regime Change, nor should readers approach the book expecting a comprehensive history of the conflict. Yet the war serves as one of the most revealing tests of the governing model the authors describe throughout the narrative. It becomes a lens through which the nature of presidential power can be examined.
One of the book’s greatest strengths is its treatment of Trump’s relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel. Public discussion often presents the relationship as one of complete alignment. Haberman and Swan reveal something more complicated and therefore more convincing. Trump admired Netanyahu’s political instincts, resilience, and ability to survive repeated challenges. Yet admiration did not eliminate friction. Throughout the book, the authors document moments of irritation, disagreement, and diverging priorities. Trump valued loyalty but disliked dependence. He appreciated allies but resisted being constrained by them.
The Netanyahu chapters rank among the strongest in the book because they challenge assumptions held by both supporters and critics of Trump. The relationship is neither a simple alliance nor a simple rivalry. It is an ongoing negotiation between two leaders who share many characteristics but do not always share the same objectives. Both distrust traditional elites. Both rely heavily on personal political brands. Both thrive in environments of perpetual political conflict. Yet those similarities sometimes create tension rather than harmony.
The Gaza war exposes these tensions. Haberman and Swan show that Trump viewed the conflict through multiple and often competing lenses. It was a humanitarian crisis. It was a regional security challenge. It was a domestic political issue. It was a test of American credibility. Most importantly, it threatened to consume diplomatic energy that the administration hoped to devote elsewhere. Advisers repeatedly warn that Gaza risks overwhelming broader regional objectives involving Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and the administration’s wider strategic ambitions.
Some of the book’s most revealing reporting concerns Trump’s frustration with the way Middle Eastern crises tend to dominate Washington’s attention. Again and again, the authors describe efforts to broaden the strategic conversation only to see events drag policymakers back into the immediate realities of war. Gaza becomes a reminder that even an administration determined to reshape American priorities cannot entirely escape the region’s gravitational pull.
The authors are particularly effective in illustrating how Trump’s approach to foreign policy differs from that of many of his predecessors. Traditional administrations often treated alliances as enduring strategic frameworks. Trump views them more transactionally. Haberman and Swan avoid caricature. They do not portray him as indifferent to alliances or hostile to partnerships. Instead, they show a president constantly asking what each relationship produces and whether the balance of obligations remains justified. This perspective frequently creates friction not only with adversaries but also with allies.
The chapters involving Gulf leaders are among the most illuminating in the book. Haberman and Swan demonstrate how leaders in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar adapted quickly to Trump’s political style. They understood that influence increasingly depended on direct access rather than institutional channels. Personal diplomacy often proved more effective than formal diplomacy. Economic partnerships carried greater weight than abstract strategic arguments. Visible achievements mattered more than carefully crafted communiqués.
These observations help explain why Gulf capitals often appeared more comfortable navigating Trump’s Washington than many European governments. The authors recount multiple episodes in which Gulf leaders successfully leveraged personal relationships to shape discussions surrounding regional crises. During the Gaza war, this proved particularly important. While Western governments frequently relied on public diplomacy and formal negotiations, Gulf states invested heavily in private communication, understanding that many of Trump’s most consequential decisions emerged from conversations rather than processes.
One of the underappreciated strengths of Regime Change is its treatment of the Gulf states as strategic actors in their own right rather than supporting characters in an American drama. Haberman and Swan recognize that the region’s major powers are not merely responding to Washington. They are actively shaping outcomes. This perspective gives the book a sophistication often missing from American accounts of the Middle East.
The book’s treatment of internal debates surrounding Gaza is equally compelling. Haberman and Swan reveal an administration far less unified than public appearances suggested. Behind official statements lay competing visions of American interests. Some officials prioritized support for Israel’s military objectives. Others focused on humanitarian concerns. Some viewed Gaza primarily through the lens of Iran and regional deterrence. Others worried about the long-term consequences for America’s relationships across the Arab world.
These disagreements are among the book’s strongest sections because they reveal how policy is actually made. Rather than presenting American strategy as coherent and linear, Haberman and Swan expose the messy reality of competing agendas, conflicting assessments, and political calculations. The administration’s apparent contradictions often reflected genuine disagreements rather than communication failures.
Particularly striking are the authors’ accounts of discussions surrounding humanitarian issues. Debates over aid deliveries, civilian casualties, evacuation plans, and ceasefire proposals reveal officials struggling to reconcile strategic commitments with mounting international pressure. Haberman and Swan resist the temptation to impose retrospective clarity. Instead, they reconstruct events as participants experienced them: uncertain, contested, and rapidly evolving.
This commitment to complexity is one of the book’s greatest strengths. Too much contemporary political writing reduces conflicts to morality plays populated by heroes and villains. Haberman and Swan operate differently. They are less interested in assigning blame than in explaining behaviour. Their reporting demonstrates how difficult it became for the administration to balance competing objectives. Supporting Israel, containing regional escalation, preserving relations with Arab partners, managing domestic political divisions, and responding to humanitarian concerns often pulled policy in different directions simultaneously.
Yet Regime Change is not without limitations. Its greatest strength, its extraordinary access to elite decision-makers, occasionally becomes a weakness. The book spends so much time among presidents, advisers, donors, diplomats, and political operatives that ordinary citizens sometimes disappear from view. Gaza is largely seen through the eyes of policymakers rather than through the experiences of those living the war itself. Readers gain exceptional insight into the mechanics of power but somewhat less insight into its human consequences.
For Middle Eastern readers, however, perhaps the most important insight concerns the changing nature of American power itself. Throughout much of the post-Cold War era, analysts distinguished between presidents and institutions. Administrations changed, but the underlying structures endured. Regime Change suggests that this distinction has weakened considerably. The presidency now exerts greater influence over foreign policy than at any point in recent decades. Personal relationships matter more. Individual instincts matter more. Political calculations matter more.
The Gaza war exposed both the advantages and limitations of this transformation. Decisions could be made quickly. Bureaucratic obstacles could be bypassed. Policies could be adjusted rapidly. Yet the concentration of authority also created vulnerabilities. Complex crises rarely conform to presidential preferences. The stronger the presidency became, the more responsibility it assumed for outcomes it could not fully control.
By the end of Regime Change, Gaza emerges not simply as a regional conflict but as a lens through which the broader transformation of American governance becomes visible. Haberman and Swan never argue this directly, yet the implication is unmistakable. The conflict revealed a presidency that had succeeded in consolidating power while simultaneously confronting the limits of what power can achieve.
The book's great achievement is that it captures this paradox without reducing it to ideology. Trump remains at the centre of the story, but he is not its only subject. The deeper subject is the American presidency itself and the extent to which it has evolved into the dominant institution of political life. Gaza becomes one chapter in that larger story, yet it may be the chapter that most clearly demonstrates the consequences of the transformation.
For readers seeking to understand not only Trump but also the future of American engagement in the Middle East, that is what makes Regime Change essential reading. It is not merely a chronicle of a president; it is a portrait of a political system increasingly organized around presidential power and a reminder that the consequences of that transformation extend far beyond Washington.
Short link: