In Bob Woodward’s first TV interview to promote the much-hyped Fear, his book on Donald Trump’s presidency, the veteran journalist warned that “people better wake up to what’s going on.” Woodward said that the way things are working in the administration gives way to lots of concern about what could happen. “You look at the operation of this White House and you have to say, ‘Let’s hope to God we don’t have a crisis’,” he added in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS Sunday Morning.

Woodward, who said he interviewed more than 100 people for the book, claims White House staffers are constantly concerned about what the president might do. “People who work for him are worried … that he will sign things or give orders that threaten the national security or the financial security of the country, or of the world,” Woodward said. As an example he noted how then-chief Economic Adviser Gary Cohn and White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter stole documents from the president’s desk that they thought would “endanger the country.” How did they manage to do that? It’s simple because Trump’s memory just isn’t very good. “If it’s not on his desk, if it’s not immediately available for action, it goes away,” he said.

"People better wake up to what's going on" in the Oval Office



For his 19th book, "Fear: Trump in the White House," veteran reporter Bob Woodward interviewed more than 100 officials and staffers, who describe chaos and discord in the administration https://t.co/QO2pShIZqB pic.twitter.com/7yif7Jj2hZ — CBS Sunday Morning 🌞 (@CBSSunday) September 9, 2018

Those types of moves by White House staffers are what differentiate this from all the presidencies Woodward has covered. “In the eight others,” he said, “I never heard of people on the staff in the White House engaging in that kind of extreme action.”

The White House—and Trump himself—has dismissed the book as inaccurate. But Woodward’s description of a White House in chaos seemed to have received strong backing in the form of the anonymous New York Times op-ed published last week. Woodward, however, said he wouldn’t have published the piece. “I wouldn’t have used it,” Woodward said. “Too vague, and does not meet the standards of trying to describe specific incidents. Specific incidents are the building blocks of journalism, as you well know.”