This Sunday, fire, and ice, a federal immigration officer shoots and kills a 37-year-old mother in Minneapolis, triggering outrage, protests, and new questions about the Trump administration's immigration enforcement policies. It was an act of domestic terrorism? I can believe that her death is a tragedy, while also recognizing that it's a tragedy of her own making. Twice?
Get the f*** out of Minneapolis. I'll talk to White House borders our Tom Holman, and Minneapolis mayor Jacob Fry, plus crude power. President Trump plans to take full control of Venezuela's oil sales for years to come. We're taking billions and billions of dollars worth of oil.
This is an insane plan. They are talking about stealing the Venezuelan oil at gun points. I'll talk to Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. And midterm warning, President Trump predicts he will be impeached if Republicans do not win the midterms.
You've got to win the midterms, because if we don't win the midterms, it's just going to be, I mean, they'll find a reason to impeach me. Joining me for insight and analysis are M.E.C. News White House correspondent Monica Alba, Jonathan Martin of Politico, Jamelle Bowie, opinion columnist for The New York Times, and Stephen Hayes, editor of The Dispatch. Welcome to Sunday.
It's Meet the Press. From M.B.C. News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history. This is Meet the Press, the Christian Welcome.
Good Sunday morning. Protests are growing across the country over President Donald Trump's hard-line deportation policies. In Minneapolis, this week, 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, an American citizen and mother of three, was shot and killed in her vehicle by an ICE officer, caught on video from multiple angles, including from the officer who pulled the trigger. We do want to warn you, this video is disturbing.
We don't change our plates every morning, you're so you know, it'll be the same plate when you come talk to us later. That's fine. You have citizen. You want to come at us?
You want to come at us? I said go get yourself some lunch, big boy. Okay. The Trump administration is asserting the officer acted in self-defense, while Minnesota officials strongly rebuke those claims, accusing ICE of excessive force.
They are already trying to spin this as an action of self-defense. Having seen the video of myself, I want to tell everybody directly. That is ****. I'm not saying that funding, some of this stuff, justifies capital punishment, nobody would suggest that.
The reason this woman is dead is because she tried to ram somebody with her car and that guy acted in self-defense. That is why she lost her life and that is the tragedy. And joining me now is White House Boarders R. Tom Homan, who was the acting ICE director in President Trump's first term, Mr.
Homan, welcome to me, the press. Thanks for having me. Thank you so much for being here. So the world has now seen that video, the perspective from the officer.
I wonder, Mr. Homan, what do you see in that video? Look at strategy. And I've said from March, if the hateful rhetoric doesn't decline, there's going to be bloodshed.
I've seen this movie before. And unfortunately, I was writing, there's been a lot of bloodshed. But look, you know, you got to put yourself in the mind of the officer, right? You're in a city where there's protests, interference, and pigment, like these two ladies were doing before this incident occurred.
You're in a city where law enforcement response is for etiquette best. You got threats up over 1,300 percent, actual assault on ICE officers. You got a woman behind a wheel of a 4,000 pound vehicle, Reverend Arrangian going toward you. You got to leave this officer in his mind, thought his life was in danger, which allows him to use lethal force.
Now I'll say this, let the investigation play out, right? There's a lot of video we probably haven't seen that the FBI has, we don't. Where's the forensics in the ballistics? That hasn't been obvious.
How about the officer's statements? His own statements. So we need to let this play out. But while we're doing that, we got to stop the hateful rhetoric.
Saying this officer's a murderer is dangerous. It's just ridiculous. It's just going to, it's going to infuriate people more, which means it's going to be more incidents like this because the hateful rhetoric is not going to be continuing. Now it's tripled down and doubled down.
Mr. Homie, let me ask you because you have yet again here today said you want the investigation to play out. This is something you said in the immediate aftermath of this shooting. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called this a quote, act of domestic terrorism.
President Trump said Renee Good quote, violently willfully and viciously ran over the ICE officer. How can the public trust the investigation when there has already been this judgment passed down by the president and some of his top officials? Look, we've all seen a video and again, no one knows what's in that officer's mind. You don't, I don't, no one knows.
But we're like the investigation play out. But bottom line is why, why are we even there? Why are we in Minneapolis? Because it's a sanctuary city, a sanctuary state, Bill Maruis from Fox News, which is about a list of like 18 people, dangerous worst of the worst of ISIS taking the custody.
Many of them, child sodomy, child rape, ISIS ought to look for dangerous people. It's not okay to impede and interfere with an officer, would it be okay if, if a citizen impeded and interfered with a U.S. marshal or a resident fugitive? No.
Is it okay if they stood in before the FBI would have arrested terrorists? No. These are targeting enforcement operations, they're arresting bad people. And it's illegal.
Let's remember, what she did was a crime. It's illegal to interfere and impede with ICE law enforcement officers. That's why we're there. But Minneapolis officials are arguing, is it the way that ICE officials are carrying out their duties?
Maybe adding to the tension secretary, no label this, an act of domestic terrorism. What's the evidence for that allegations? Bottom line is, again, why are we in Minneapolis? If they're saying, if they didn't have the sanctuary policies, they had.
But do you have evidence that she's a domestic terrorist? Let me finish this. This is important. Less officers in the community if we were in the jail.
Bottom line, we are forced into the community because a governor of that state in the mayor supports sanctuary cities where child rapists are released back in the community to create a huge public safety threat. So if you want less officers in the street, then let us in the jail. And I'm going to talk to Mayor Fry about the sanctuary city policies there. But I want to stay on this question, which is about the way in which the woman who was shot and killed is being labeled as a domestic terrorism terrorist, just to be clear, is anyone who protests ICE, a domestic terrorist in the ICE of the administration.
I can't say that. It's the case by case basis. But if you look up definition of terrorism, is there violence? Is there a threat of violence based on ideology that wants to change the way the government does what we do?
Look at the definition of terrorism. But was the territory known correct to label her a domestic terrorist, Mr. Hummin? We don't know what I don't know, secretary knows what I know.
I can tell you is what they did is illegal. And if you look at this definition of terrorism, it certainly could fall within that definition if you look at that definition. But you don't have evidence that she's a domestic terrorist. I don't know what secretary has that I don't.
I'm not going to judge what the secretary says, but if you look at the definition of terrorism, it certainly can fall within that. But I think we all got to agree, there was no reason for this way to do what she did. There is no reason to be there. If you want to protest, protest, but don't actively impede and interfere and certainly don't drive a 4,000 pound vehicle toward an officer.
Let me ask you about the broader investigation because that's part of what the investigation is trying to impact what exactly happened in the moments leading up to the incident and afterwards. State and local officials are currently being excluded from the federal investigation. The Hennepin County Attorney said this on Friday I want to get a reaction on the other side. I cannot overstate the importance of a local investigation or at least access to the federal investigation by the BCA.
Without it, we will not have the ability to be transparent with our community about the results of the expectation or as I said, any decision that might come of the review. Mr. Hummin, I've been talking to law enforcement experts who say they have never heard of state and local officials being cut out of a federal investigation. How can the public trust the results of this investigation if it doesn't include state and local officials, the people who were there on the ground?
First of all, this is the federal crime. But it happened in Minneapolis. It's a federal crime in the jurisdiction. It clearly follows when the FBI has been doing this since 1984, when a federal officer is involved in shooting, it's the investigation goes, yeah, I've been that way forever.
And where were all these people? No, it shocks me. They have these opinions now. When they start to decide and let child rapists be released from jail back in the community.
But it's one thing to have the FBI. They're complicit. Why we're in the position where we're today. They're complicit from their science and open borders for four years.
Millions of people are reaching this country, many in public safety threats, and that's just created through a society. They're a sign that when a half a million children were left in this country, they'll attract a 3,300,000. What you're describing though, it's one thing for the FBI to take the lead in an investigation. Certainly, that is something that we are used to seeing, but for state and local officials to be cut out altogether, are you comfortable with that?
Doesn't that undercut the transparency, the sense of faith in the investigation in the eyes of the public? That's the first of all, that's a question for the FBI. I don't, I never work for the DOJ, but listen, I trust that the FBI would do a thorough investigation, so professionals. So let them do the investigation.
Let's see the investigation. That's a question for the FBI. I'm sure we'll tell you that the FBI will be part of the investigation. I said earlier, look at the ballistics.
Look at the forensics. Where did that fatal shot come from? All that will be part of the investigation. Okay.
The vice president defended Officer Ross on Thursday. I want to play a little bit of what he said for you. Take a look at what he said. What that headline leaves out is the fact that that very ice officer nearly had his life ended, dragged by a car six months ago, 33 stitches in his leg.
So you think maybe he's a little bit sensitive about somebody ramming him with an automobile? Do you think that experience from six months ago, which the vice president detailed, may have impacted Officer Ross's judgment? It may have. It may have.
I mean, he was under attack once with the vehicle. So certainly, like I said earlier, totality of circumstances, just to that prior incident, but the environment right now with the threats against ice officers, ice officers have been shot at. They've been, they've had Molotov cocktails thrown on them. They've been docked.
They've been, again, assaults up over 1,300 percent, threats alone of 8,000 percent. And you're in a situation where this lady was impeding and interfering already. He's in a dangerous situation. And again, I want people to understand this, put yourself in his shoes, put yourself in his shoes where he's in that environment, assaults against ice officers all time high.
If you have a vehicle that is pointed for him and accelerates toward him, he has a second to make that decision. And I truly believe, and again, this will come out of investigations that in his mind, he fear his life and he took appropriate action. And that, according to federal law, that's legitimate response. And even according to Minnesota law, Minnesota State law even talks about a vehicle coming toward you and you're right to defend yourself.
This officer, I think in his mind, did the right thing to save his own life and life of others. You are talking about the perspective of ice officers. I want to zoom out a little bit and talk about the perspective of some of the people all across this country. There have been nine ice involved shootings since September by one count.
Ice has detained 170 U.S. citizens. People across this country, as you have seen Mr. Homan, are out protesting ice's actions.
How do you justify an enforcement strategy that is making so many people feel less safe? Because it follows me to reports, because members of Congress want to compare ice to terrorists. No, but these are protesters saying this. But these are protesters saying this.
I'm asking you to respond to the protesters who say they feel left safe. Let's say if we say they're concerned for their neighbor. Because you're looking at media reports and saying ice are terrorists or racists, they're the Nazis. They're listening to people saying that, you know, using the term disappearing people.
Ice is doing the same thing they've done for 40 years. Ice is in the force of law. If you don't like what ice is doing, go test Congress. Ice is enforcing laws and anti-bike Congress for any member of Congress to say that ice is a Nazi or racist or a secret police, really?
Because they're enforcing laws. You don't act. If they're a racist for enforcing law, what that make you? You roll the law.
And let's remember the true data. The true data, 70%, approximately. It goes to anywhere from 60 to 70, of people they're arresting are criminals. Bottom line.
But some of the media says, no, that's not true. Because they think the UI isn't a crime. The UI kills 13,000 people. I think it's a huge public safety issue.
It's because of the rhetoric, the hateful rhetoric. So that small population out there that's already half nuts. They hear this rhetoric, the ice is racist, and the Nazis, and they're disappearing people. That empowers them to do stupid things.
Let me ask you, because we're almost out of time. I do want to give you the opportunity to respond to some lingering questions about you. As you know, in an undercover operation in 2024, the FBI recorded you accepting a bag, which was determined to contain $50,000 from agents posing as business executives who said you indicated you could help win government contracts. In the second Trump administration, I want to stress, there was an investigation.
It was closed last year. The Justice Department said it found, quote, no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing. I do want to give you an opportunity to respond though, Mr. Herman.
Remember is that $50,000? Did you keep it or did you return it? I didn't take $50,000 from anybody. That's the question for the FBI.
I'm not going to give this story anymore, Air. Bottom line, I did nothing over you. I did nothing in the FBI and DOJ review this. No credible evidence.
I didn't do anything. But was there $50,000 in the bag and did you return it? I'm not going to give this story anymore, Air. This is an attack on my integrity and my profession.
I'm not addressing it. That's a question for the FBI. Can you address, given that it's been recorded, did you keep the money? Did you return the money?
I did not keep any $50,000 as ridiculous. The FBI's been criminal, you know, in an ear-tasting the story keeps going on and on and on, even though I've been found that nothing inappropriate, so I'm not going to ask anyone this question. But did you return the money? I didn't have any money to return.
Okay. I didn't take the $50,000. Bottom line. Let me ask you.
You're saying you did nothing unlawful. Would you be comfortable with the FBI releasing a report? That's a decision for the FBI. But it might be a decision for the FBI, but would you be comfortable with the police?
Again, I'm not getting the FBI in this investigation. Can you just say on a personal level, would you be comfortable releasing the recordings? I'm not going to get the FBI. That's our decision.
Okay. All right. Mr. Lee, I really appreciate it.
When we come back, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut joins me next. Welcome back and joining me now is Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Senator Murphy. Welcome back to me. Thanks for having me.
Thank you so much for being here in person. You just heard my conversation with borders are Tom home and he leaned into the idea that he believes this was an act of self-defense, though he did say it's important for the investigation to play out having seen the officer's cell phone video. How do you see this? Do you think he was acting in self-defense?
Well, first of all, let's make it clear there's not going to be an investigation. The vice president has essentially already declared that this officer has absolute immunity. And in fact, every immigration officer has absolute immunity. This is the most high profile and most heinous act of violence that has been undertaken.
But there have already been over a dozen shootings all across our country by ICE officers. The bottom line is that the way in which DHS is conducting itself today is making our communities less safe. It's not adding to public safety. I heard him say that they are undertaking targeted enforcement actions against criminals.
Just not true. The vast majority of people they are rounding up are peaceful immigrants. You've seen the videos of them walking through parking lots, asking people whether they are American citizens or not. They are putting citizens of Minneapolis, citizens of the communities they are in, in harm's way.
Period, stop. That's why the mayor of Minneapolis says if you want to make Minneapolis safe, get out of Minneapolis, and the same thing applies to communities all across the country. Let me ask you because you're proposing sweeping reforms to DHS, from requiring warrants for arrests, to banning masks during enforcement, to limiting ICE's use of firearms and civil operations. Do any Republicans support your plan?
Is it realistic that this could actually pass, Senator? Well, Republicans need Democratic votes in order to pass a budget for the Department of Homeland Security. And what we're talking about, I wouldn't necessarily categorize as sweeping, right? We're simply talking about essentially going back to the way that ICE was operating when they cared about legality, right?
Identification of officers. That's something that has been standard practice in every law enforcement agency all across the country. CBP, who are supposed to be at the border, protecting us at the border, operating in the interior with no training on how to deal with complex urban environments, that's brand new. So we just need to get back to a Department of Homeland Security that is prioritizing the law and prioritizing keeping people safe.
And yes, I think that it's reasonable for Democrats, speaking on behalf of the majority of the American public who don't approve of what ICE is doing to say if you want to fund the Department of Homeland Security, I want to fund a Department of Homeland Security that is operating on a safe and legal manner. Well, you take me to my next question because you posted online earlier this week, quote, Democrats cannot vote for a DHS budget that doesn't restrain the growing lawlessness of this agency. You obviously know government funding runs out in less than three weeks. Are you actually willing to shut down the government over these DHS proposals?
I mean, the question is for Republicans. Are they willing to shut down the government simply to endorse the most lawless Department of Homeland Security in the history of the country? Both parties come to a discussion on the budget with priorities. And let me just give you an example of what we're talking about.
The amount of training that is given to an ICE officer has been cut in half by this administration. And the number of days of training they get are 47. You know why they get 47 days of training as an homage to the vanity of the president of the United States? 47 days of training for the 47th president.
So we have officers on the streets today who are receiving half as much training. And so no wonder the number of violent incidents are going through the roof. We just want a Department of Homeland Security that is prioritizing people's safety. But you're not ruling out a potential government shutdown over this battle for DHS reforms.
That's a decision for Republicans that you don't rule it out. They control the House, the Senate, and the presidency. If they don't want to work with Democrats and shut down the government, that's up to them. And by the way, the last time the government shut down, everybody in the country knew that it was Republicans that caused it.
Well, some Democrats have been calling for years to abolish ICE, and those calls have been raised and amplified quite frankly again this week. Would you support in the wake of this shooting abolish a ICE? Well, of course you need a domestic enforcement mechanism for the immigration laws of this country. But the way in which ICE is operating today is inhumane and illegal.
They've rounded up a 16-year-old kid in Meridin, Connecticut, weeks before he was about to graduate in the country legally, put him into tension for six months, and he got let out right before Christmas because the administration wouldn't even show up in court to defend what they had done. I mean, that is happening thousands of times over in this country, peaceful legal immigrants being put in detention. That's not a system that anybody in this country wants to fund. You have weighed a number of criticisms against this administration.
Speaker at Meridin, Nancy Pelosi, was asked back in December, so last year whether Democrats should put impeachment talk back on the table for the president, if they in fact take back the House in 2026, she suggested the president had not yet crossed the line that would trigger impeachment. Do you agree with her? Well, as you know, I would be a juror in an impeachment trial, so I don't generally give advice to the House on whether or not they should impeach, but listen, I have common sense. And so I know that this president has committed 10 times more impeachable offenses in his second term as he did in his first term.
He is stealing from the American people the amount of corruption that he is involved in, taking a luxury private jet from Carter, trading national security secrets to a foreign nation in exchange for a $2 billion investment in his cryptocurrency. That is wildly corrupt. The House will make their own determination, but I don't think it's any secret that the president's level of corruption and illegality is nuclear grade in his second term compared to his first term. Okay, so he sounds like you disagree with Nancy Pelosi there.
Let me ask you about Venezuela. You have called Nicolas Maduro an illegitimate leader, and in 2019 you wrote quote, getting rid of Maduro is good for the United States. Is Venezuela now better off without Nicolas Maduro? Do you give the Trump administration some credit for that?
So Maduro is an illegitimate leader. Putin is an illegitimate leader. That doesn't mean that it's good policy to invade those countries. What we have seen over and over is that American military hubris, thinking that we can impose the political reality on a foreign country by force, ends up making us less safe.
So yes, I thought that it was important for America to pursue a diplomatic strategy with our Latin American allies to try to force elections in Venezuela. So as to allow the Venezuelan people to move Maduro out of power, I have never supported an invasion of Venezuela because I think- Is this the country better off? Well, apparently this new person in charge, del C Rodriguez, is imposing a brutal crackdown on the Venezuelan people. That's worse in some ways than what Maduro did.
So for the Venezuelan people, nothing has changed. All it seemingly has changed is that American oil executives are going to get access to greater amounts of profit out of Venezuela. So this has never been about, Venezuela is not about American national security interests. It's about what's best for Trump's Mar-a-Lago oil industry bodies.
So let me ask you about another focus, Greenland. I had the opportunity to speak with President Trump earlier this week. He said he is, quote, very serious about annexing Greenland. In a later interview, he didn't take military options off of the table.
And of course, it's an autonomous territory of Denmark, which is a NATO ally. Do you think annexing Greenland would effectively be the end of NATO? It would be the end of NATO, right? I mean, NATO would have an obligation to defend Greenland.
And so, query whether we would be at war with Europe, with England, with France. But let's also talk about what's at stake here. The president is spending every single day thinking about invading Greenland, managing the Venezuelan economy, building a ballroom. He is not thinking about the American people at all.
This month, premiums, health insurance premiums on 22 million Americans are going up, doubling in some cases. Kids aren't able to eat three meals because the Trump administration has slashed food assistance. And so every single day, the president is thinking about Greenland, his ballroom, Venezuela. He is spending no time thinking about the actual crises that are being visited on American families.
This is a president who is distracted by things that don't matter to the American people at a moment where the American people are in crisis. That is the underlying reality of a White House that has become out of control. Senator Chris Murphy, thank you for being here. Thank you for being here in person.
We really appreciate it. When we come back, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Fry joins me next. Welcome back. And joining me now is Democratic Mayor Jacob Fry of Minneapolis.
Mayor Fry, welcome to Meet the Press. Thanks so much for having me. Thank you so much for being here in the wake of such a monumental week for your city. I want to start with the Trump administration arguing ICE officer Jonathan Ross was acting in self-defense.
You have now seen the officer's cell phone video. What is your response? Do you believe the officer was acting in self-defense? In the immediacy following the shooting, you heard people from the Trump administration saying that the victim was a domestic terrorist.
You heard that the ICE agent was acting entirely in self-defense. And here's the thing. You don't need to take my word for it. You don't need to take their word for it.
Watch the video. The ICE agent was not run over as Trump stated. You had a person that was definitively trying to just get out of there. They were trying to leave the scene.
That is not a person that's trying to run an ICE agent over. You have a person that is trying to protect our city to look out for our neighbors. And by the way, there are 435,000 people throughout Minneapolis that are looking out for their neighbors right now because they understand the magnitude of this moment and they understand that the endurance of our republic depends on us looking out for each other. And we're standing strong here in Minneapolis.
I hear you accusing Trump administration officials of a rush to judgment. Is it imperative for leaders like yourself to wait for this investigation to play out before making any type of determination about what exactly happened to your mayor? I think that's a fair point to make. And so let's have the investigation in the hands of someone that isn't biased.
Let's not have exclusively run through the FBI at the federal government or the Department of Justice. Let's have it with the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension at the state level. This is an entity that has expertise. They have a long history of investigating cases just like this.
They have had investigations come by the way to both conclusions with a charge and without a charge. We need to be doing this right now. We need to be doing this transparently. And what I was pushing back on from the very beginning was a narrative that had jumped to that conclusion right from the get-go.
And when you've got a federal administration that is so quick to jump on a narrative as opposed to the truth, I think we all need to be speaking out. Will you accept the results of the FBI investigation, Mayor? If it was an FBI investigation that was done jointly with an investigation from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, we could have had some trust that there were entities and individuals at the table that were properly reviewing the evidence. Look, I don't know what the results of the investigation will be.
I don't know what the evidence behind the investigation will be other than, of course, the videos that we've all seen with our own two eyes. What I will say is there is deep mistrust because so many of the things that we are hearing are not true. Again, obviously, people can come to different conclusions and have different perspectives. But when there is debate about baseline facts, like, for instance, did the ICE agent get run over?
Guys, the answer is no. It didn't happen. Let me ask you, you told ICE quote, to get the F out of Minneapolis. We are now seeing major protests all across the country, as you well know, I know that you've seen them as well.
Do you bear any responsibility as a local leader, Mayor Fry, to bring down the temperature right now? Of course, I bear responsibility to bring down the temperature. That's part of my role as mayor. And by the way, protests here in Minneapolis are peaceful.
We had, I don't know, 10,000 or so people that were protesting and marching yesterday. And virtually all of it was very peaceful expression of First Amendment rights. And, you know, to those that are offended, I'm sorry, I offended their delicate ears, but as far as who inflamed the situation, you know, I dropped an F bomb and they killed somebody. I think the killing somebody is the inflammatory element here, not the F bomb, which I'm sure we've all heard before.
Well, let me ask you because a bigger picture before this week, Mayor ICE had already been ramping up its presence in Minneapolis. You said your police officers would not cooperate with them, that ICE enforcement was unconstitutional. You warned before this deadly shooting, quote, somebody's going to get seriously injured. Would you go so far as saying that you would support abolishing ICE?
Well, first off, I did not say that ICE enforcement was unconstitutional. What I said is the way that they are doing it is unconstitutional. You can't come into a city and discriminate solely on a basis of are you Latino or are you Somali and then randomly pick people up off the street after that. I mean, we have had pregnant women dragged through the street.
We've had teenagers that are American citizens just picked up. You can't just detain somebody because they look like they are Somali or they look like they are Latino. To be very clear for the whole country, that is what is happening right now. So look, do I think that we should just abolish the entire entity that does immigration enforcement?
No, but the way it is being utilized doesn't make sense. I'm not asking for the DOJ to be abolished. I'm not asking for the Office of Management and Budget to be abolished. I am saying that the way that these institutions are being utilized right now by the Trump administration is wrong and to be clear is unconstitutional.
Well, let me press you a bit because Tom home and the borders are says Minneapolis is sanctuary city policy just for our viewers that effectively shields undocumented immigrants from deportation makes it harder for ICE to enforce immigration law. How do you respond to that argument that your city stands in limiting cooperation with ICE has made it harder for federal law enforcement to safely enforce immigration laws in your city? Look, what our policy says is that I don't want our police officers spend in time working with ICE on immigration enforcement. Because why?
That's not our primary job. You know what I want our police officers doing? I want them stopping murders from happening. I want them preventing carjackings.
And by the way, they're doing a hell of a job right now. We've only had two shootings in Minneapolis this whole year. By the way, 50% of them were from ICE. So I want our officers focusing on safety.
You know what I don't want them doing? I don't want them spending a single second hunting down a father who just dropped his kids off at daycare is about to go work a 12 hour shift who happened to be from Ecuador. That guy, that guy, he makes Minneapolis a better place and I am proud to have him in our city. So, you know, I want our officers focusing on safety, not randomly plucking people off the street and hunting them down.
Let me ask you about the leadership in your state. Dozens of people in Minnesota have been charged and convicted with stealing millions of dollars of taxpayer money for government programs. Do you think Governor Wals did enough to stop the fraud in your state and do you support his decision not to run for re-election? Well, look, Governor Wals is the reason that we've got paid family, leave in Minnesota.
He's the reason we've got free school lunches. Him and I, we've been through thick and thin. But did he do enough to combat fraud? Mayor, did he do enough to combat fraud?
Look, obviously everybody could have done more to prevent fraud and I think that's a fair point to make. Do more to prevent fraud and you look what he's doing right now. He's setting up a whole bunch of infrastructure to do that. And by the way, look, the fraud is real.
We've all got to acknowledge that the fraud is very real. And by the way, when somebody commits fraud and there are many that have done that, you investigate it, you charge, you prosecute, and yeah, you put the person in jail. As an individual, you put the person in jail as an individual. You do not hold an entire community, any community accountable for the actions of individuals.
All right, Mayor Jacob Frey. Thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it. Thank you so much for having me.
And when we come back, anti-government protests spreading across Iran, could the regime fall? NBC's chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel joins me next. Welcome back. President Trump is again vowing to take action in Iran.
If the government escalates, it's already brutal crackdown of anti-government protests that have spread across the country over the last 15 days, posing one of the biggest challenges to the Islamic Republic's leadership and its history. At least 76 protesters have been killed and over 2,600 have been arrested in the protests. According to an Iranian rights group, Iran has warned it will retaliate against any U.S. intervention as an internet blackout continues to block the world from seeing the full extent of the unrest.
Joining me now is NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel. Richard, thank you so much for being here in person. It's great to be here in person at a very important time. It is.
There's so much happening right now in Iran. I know you've been tracking all of it. You and I have discussed protests countrywide in the past, but this feels different. What makes this moment different Richard?
Well, there are hundreds of thousands of people on the streets. They are setting fires. They are occupying certain neighborhoods and able to hold them for certain amounts of time, at least temporarily. That's different.
And the protesters, they're not asking for change. That's how it started. They wanted economic reforms. The currency was in free fall.
Now they want it to go. And the context is completely different. Iran is weaker than it's ever been because it lost Hezbollah, it lost Bashar al-Assad. So I would say definitely this is the weakest that they've been, the biggest challenge that they've faced since the 1979 revolution.
They beat back to previous demonstrations, street demonstrations, but they were not as weak as they are right now. Well, and it comes, Richard. As President Trump is leveling these very stern warnings, saying, if you intensify your brutal crackdown, if these protesters start to die, we could potentially take action. How is that playing in Iran?
So the protesters are hearing that. I'm talking to activists here. It's very difficult to communicate with people directly in Iran. A few have star links.
The system has been turned on. So some communications are coming out. They are encouraged by what President Trump is saying. Absolutely.
They saw what President Trump did in Venezuela. But that also makes them nervous, because they don't want a repeat of Venezuela, where the US just moved in, took the top top leaders, but left the security services in place. They think if the same thing happens in Iran, and the security apparatus is still there, that they'll be hunted down and they'll all end up swinging from cranes. Well, an incredibly tense situation.
Richard, thank you so much for being here to help us unpack it. We really appreciate it. It's great to see you. Great to see you.
When we come back, President Trump says his own morality is the only limit on his global powers. The panel is next. Welcome back. The panel is here.
NBC News White House correspondent Monica Alba. Jonathan Martin, senior political columnist and politics bureau chief for Politico. Steven Hayes, CEO and editor of The Dispatch. And New York Times columnist Jamal Bowie, thanks to all of you for being here.
Monica, let me start with you, the debate that we are seeing unfold all across this country. Unfolded here, you heard Mayor Fry's perspective. You heard Tom Holman's perspective on what occurred in Minneapolis. Take us inside your conversation to the White House.
What are administration officials saying? Well, of course, and it was the White House that came out in the earliest hours after this tragic shooting with their own assessment, essentially, defending the eyes officer saying that he acted in self-defense before all of the facts had merged. But now they are just simply hardening their position. They're blaming the woman who was shot.
And senior White House officials are telling me that if this conversation turns to being about potentially defunding immigration enforcement, potentially having the government shut down, I was told that is a fight that they would relish, that they would welcome. We know that this president has tried a long-order approach before critical elections with mixed results. And it comes at a time where more and more Americans are expressing concerns about the tactics that were used specifically here by ICE. So it sets up just a huge, huge potential to add.
Well, it's fascinating reporting, Monica Jamart. I mean, that fact that the administration feels emboldened by this argument. They say, OK, bring it on. And yet, at the same time, I thought it was notable, Tom Holman struggled when I asked him about Christine Ohm's allegation of domestic terrorism.
He basically said, I'm not sure all the information that she has. What does that tell you about those initial assessments that Monica's talking about? Well, he didn't want to embrace that description for obvious reasons, because I think he smelled the politics of that being pretty rough. Look, if you take a step back for a minute, since Trump came up almost a year ago, his numbers have come down on a variety of major issues, health care of the economy.
He's held up pretty strong though on immigration, which was really one of the most interesting issues in the 24 campaign. What they're doing now puts that at risk, because you're, A, motivating the left, and you're alienating the broad center of this country when you pursue tactics like they are with these ICE rates. People don't want this. And by the way, if you don't believe me, look at what Holman said during the interview.
He drops the reference to this Fox News report about all of the bad guys were being rounded up. It just so happens that over the weekend, Fox News put out these mug shots and a terrible sort of litany of crimes committed by folks ICE had rounded up. They're doing that because they know politically they're losing their advantage on the issue, and they're trying to shift the focus back to the bad guys. Stephen, is that inaccurate assessment strategy?
Yeah, I mean, Republicans are a very solid ground when they're talking about the disastrous immigration policy of the Biden administration. It was a disaster. Virtually nobody defends it on the Democratic side right now. When they're talking about sanctuary cities, Republicans are on very solid ground talking about sanctuary cities and you may or may or may or may or may have difficulty answering questions about sanctuary cities, where they lose support because exactly where J-Mart, these tactics, this kind of deportation, you saw this in the AP poll, that was that last month, you saw a slide from a Republican support of the president's policies, of eight points, you saw a bigger slide from independent supporting the president's policies because they don't like this kind of stuff.
Yeah, Jamel, talk about the politics of this for Democrats as Stephen and J-Mart are saying it's quite complicated. There are also some comparisons being made to George Floyd in the protest that we saw in the wake of that. How do you see this unfolding? I think the politics of this can be actually quite advantageous for Democrats in part because as J-Mart points out, the administration is alienating the broad middle of the American public here.
The last year during the controversy over the removal of Kilmar Gregor Sia, you saw a similar dynamic play out where the administration was like, this is strong positioning for us, but the broad public is like, we don't like the idea of people just being snatched and sent to a foreign prison. Likewise here, we don't like the idea of mass men snatching people in the streets and shooting Americans. And I think Democrats have a lot of space to push against that. Well, so much of what we were talking about is how the president has chosen to wield his authority in an interview with the New York Times this week.
He was asked about that on the world stage. How does he see the limits of his authority? Let's take a look at that and get everyone's reaction on the other side. What's on your power on the world stage?
Is there anything that could stop you if you wanted to? Yeah, there's one thing. My own morality, my own mind, it's the only thing that can stop. And that's very good.
I don't need international law. I'm not looking to hurt people. Monica, powerful proclamation there. It all boils down to this.
This is a totally cancellation of how he does view the limits or lack thereof on his power. And you can see it in the last couple of days from what he is essentially instructing oil companies to do with regards to Venezuela. They have expressed some skepticism. Or when you talk about Greenland, and the idea that this president is serious about this, and you have world leaders acknowledging that right now, even though officials are saying Greenland is not for sale, he says, we can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way.
That is everything you need to know about a sinking. There were nascent signs on Capitol Hill this week of some pushback against President Trump's power because of language like that. But one week after he takes out Maduro extraordinary daring operation, Donald Trump keeps getting in his own way politically. He gives comments like that to the video times.
He openly floats the idea of using armed force to seize Greenland from a NATO ally. He's his own worst enemy politically. And he's inviting for the first time. He's going to be shocked here.
But the signs of pushback from his own party on Capitol Hill. Yeah, nascent but tepid, right? I mean, you had some very gentle pushback from a public and then a couple of votes. Some rhetorical pushback from Republicans.
But I think as a descriptive matter, this is what Donald Trump has always believed. Both I think here at home and abroad, he's just saying it out loud and you notice that you haven't had Republicans rushing the microphones to say, no, Mr. President, there are constraints on your power beyond your morality. Yeah, I did say the quiet part out loud.
What do you think the implications are? Will Democrats focus on this at all? Or do you think they'll shift focus back to domestic issues? I mean, I'm sure they'll shift focus back to domestic issues because that's what they're strong.
If I just have to say, this is such a profoundly, it's antithetical to how presidents throughout this country's history have thought about themselves and thought about their office. One president that Donald Trump has said that he kind of looks up to or sees as a model is Andrew Jackson, noted populist Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson's first inaugural, Andrew Jackson, says, or calls himself an instrument of the federal constitution, that he would keep steadily imbued to limitations and the extent of the executive power, trusting thereby to discharge the functions of my office without transcending its authority. Even Andrew Jackson understood that at the end of the day, he was bound to something.
Politically speaking, could this in any way harm him as we face them in terms? Absolutely, because Americans want the focus to be on them, not one man's vanity and far reaching ambition to be on Mount Rushmore when the Nobel Peace Prize and ain't everything in Washington after himself. Yeah, and Monica, he's going to focus back to domestic issues this week. He is going to be traveling to Michigan on Tuesday and he's going to give a broad economic speech and so they are going to try to unveil some potential new economic proposals.
You've seen him talk more about housing, you've seen him talk about credit card limits. They are trying to make that argument while certainly the president's mind is very, very focused on issues overseas. All right guys, thank you so much, great conversation, really appreciated. That is all for today.
Thank you for watching. We'll be back next week because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press. I'm Craig Malthus. Cheers.
Cheers. I've always been a glass half bowl kind of guy. And now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way too. Some really fascinating folks who shared their good finding moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are funny, and my candid.
So I hope you'll join me each week. And who knows? You might just come away with your own glass half bowl. Search glass half bowl with Craig Malthus from today.
On YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.