Meet the Press NOW — January 12

Foreign. Nobles in Washington, where the Trump administration is plunging American politics, the legal system and the economy into uncharted waters by opening a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell as President Trump tries to exert control over the independent central bank with Americans souring on his handling of the economy ahead of the midterms. The Fed chair announcing late yesterday that the Justice Department subpoenaed the agency on Friday as part of the investigation into testimony he gave to Congress last year about renovations to the Federal Reserve's headquarters, which have run hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. A defined Powell pushing back against any allegations of wrongdoing and accusing the Trump administration of an attempted shakedown.

I have deep respect for the rule of law and for accountability in our democracy. No one, certainly not the chair of the Federal Reserve, is above the law. But this unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration's threats and ongoing pressure. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings.

The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president. President Trump criticizing Paul and denying he had any knowledge of the investigation in an exclusive interview with NBC News, telling my colleague Garrett Hake, I don't know anything about the DOJ's investigation into the Federal Reserve, but he's certainly not very good at the Fed and he's not very good at building buildings. The president, however, has made it abundantly clear that he believes Powell should be investigated, even threatening civil litigation against him. Just two weeks ago.

We're thinking about bringing a suit against power for incompetence, because think of it, these are two these aren't outstanding buildings. These are small buildings. So we're thinking about bringing a gross incompetence, which will gross incompetence lawsuit. It's gross incompetence against Powell and it was his baby and the guy's just incompetent.

There's nothing you can do about it. He's just a very incompetent man, but we're going to probably bring a lawsuit against him now. At the moment, Wall street appeared to shrug off the news of the Powell investigation. The markets closed up on the day the S and P up more than 10%.

But on Capitol Hill, the news has generated notable pushback among Republicans in both chambers. In the House, the Republican chair of the Financial Services Committee defended Powell, calling the investigation on unnecessary distraction. In the Senate, Republican Thom Till North Carolina, who is not seeking re election, threatening to vote down any of the president's Fed nominees until the issue is resolved. And in a show of force, all three living former CHAD Fed chairs, as well as several former treasury secretaries and White House economic advisors from both sides of the aisle.

Calling out the Justice Department, writing in a statement called the Federal Reserve's independence and the public's perception of that independence are critical for economic performance. The reported criminal inquiry into Federal Reserve Chair J. Powell is an unprecedented attempt to use prosecutorial attacks to undermine that independence. And we are now going to talk about this more than BBC News.

White House hype Monica Alba, along with NBC News NBC News business and data correspondent Brian Chung, NBU senior justice reporter Ryan Reilly and NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Circuit. Let's start on the north lawn of the White House with Monica Alba. Malcolm, President Trump told NBC that he doesn't know what thing about the Justice Department's federal subpoena. What's been the reaction of the White House to this news?

Well, this is really an extraordinary escalation, Ryan, and certainly one that the White House from a legal perspective is deferring specific questions to the Department of Justice, not wanting to weigh in on the specifics related to these subpoenas into this probe in particular. But they are amplifying and repeating claims you have heard from President Trump repeatedly about the fact that they simply believe that the Fed chair is not good at his job. They have put this pretty plainly. You have seen this feud really grow between the president, the Fed chair, and even a few months ago when they toured the site of that renovation project at the headquarters there, you saw a sort of public fact checking from Jerome Powell of President Trump's own comments in real time.

So we've seen this back and forth, but the White House today is putting it this way. Here's what White House press secretary Caroline Levitt had to say about the latest developments. Look, the president has every right to criticize the Fed chair. He is the First Amendment right, just like all of you do.

And one thing for sure the president's being quite clear is Jerome Powell is that his job? As for whether or not Jerome Powell is a criminal, that's an answer Department of Justice is going to have to find out. And it looks like they intend to find that out. Now, the president has repeatedly said things like he wishes that he could fire Jerome Powell.

He would need cause in order to do that, Ryan, and that is critical and important here because it relates to another case that's ongoing. When you Talk about Lisa Cook, who is a current governor on the Federal Reserve Board. And remember that again, this is something the president can talk about. But then he has said for some time he was going to let Powell finish out his term, which technically is up in a matter of months.

The Fed has been at the heart of the president Trump's President Trump spoke sessions on 4 billion over the past month or so. What other actions has the president taken over that time? Yeah, and I'm told by senior White House officials that this Sunday we're going to hear the president talk more about in particular tomorrow he's headed to Michigan where he's going to talk about some of these examples and perhaps indicate where there could be more proposals coming. We have heard him talk about several things when it comes to housing, when it comes to potential limits for credit card interest rates.

Also you've heard the president talk about things like proposing a ban on investors for buying single family homes. He has certainly continued his pressure campaign on the Fed to lower borrowing rates. And he has also talked about price fixing when it comes to the food chain. And he has repeatedly touted certain deals with drug makers to to lower the cost of prescription drug prices, even though we haven't seen the specifics on some of the deals that have announced publicly.

And really where he had events here from the White House saying this is going to happen, but consumers and the American people haven't necessarily felt the effects of that yet. But the White House is trying to lean in and say that they will soon enough. You can certainly expect more on that affordability message, which the president sometimes dismisses, but which senior White House officials say he does need to be talking about more and more ahead of the midterms. All right, Michael, thank you for that.

Let's turn out of Brian. Sean. Brian, how unprecedented or unusual is it for Jerome Powell to be this outspoken and defined, posting a message on social media on a Sunday night? We don't hear from the Fed chairman on a Sunday night.

No, not at all. Usually that is a moment of crisis. If they're doing that now, do you want to point out we are not in an economic crisis right now, but this is certainly a political crisis for the Federal Reserve, which I've been following for almost 10 years now. I have never seen an escalation to this point where you have a president who has been quarreling with his own Fed chair appointee essentially nominated him during his first term in 2017.

We've seen plenty of, John. We've seen the president say that he would prefer the Federal Reserve lower interest rates more aggressively than how actually has followed through on. But we have not seen the President threaten a criminal complaint against him. And that is exactly where we find ourselves today.

Now again, what the Department of Justice finds is unknown. In fact, we haven't even seen the subpoena. So it's a bit unclear over exactly what the Department of Justice wants to look into here. But again, all of those inside the economics community, within those that follow the Federal Reserve very closely have seen this as a five alarm fire.

The threatening of trying to essentially jail the Federal Reserve Chair is a threat to the central bank independence we have not seen before. But as you point out, the markets haven't really done all that much. I do want to point out The S&P 500 rose 10 points the close today, not 10% to rose 10 points a day. At the end of the day that is essentially not very much a notable movement there.

But again I think markets are saying we're not sure if the DOJs are going to turn any stone that would lead to the Fed Chair going to jail. But it is nonetheless part of the erosion that we've seen over this administration of central bank independence and its independence has been so important. But the President does have influence over the makeup of the Fed Board. How does that work?

Yeah, absolutely. So again, the Federal Reserve operates independently, but the people serving on that Federal Reserve Board are all appointees from the President now force vetted and confirmed by the Senate. But the President does have the ability to announce a replacement, which kind of adds to the confusion over this story because the President could have just simply waited until May, when Jerome Powell's term as the Fed Chair ends, to simply name a new person and put his own preferred financier at the top of the central bank. So again, we don't get to May Jerome Powell Sanger will end at the Federal Reserve.

Question is who will replace him? That's something and a decision that fully rests in the power of the President. And to be clear here, the Federal Reserve does not receive or spend any taxpayer money. Correct.

Where does their money from? Where their budget come from? Yeah, and the reason why we're paying attention to this is because again, we have not seen the scenario from doj. But the argument from the President that we've seen over the past few months has been the Federal Reserves expenditures on this multi billion dollar project to renovate the building that you see on your screen at United Eccles Building on Constitution Ave.

Down in Washington D.C. it is a historical landmark. The Federal Reserve is undergoing a multi billion dollar project to renovate that, which the President has said is an amount of money that they simply didn't need to spend for that project. That's the reason why the President say that he's not very good.

Referring to Jay Powell at building buildings. Do you want to point out again, the money being used to build that is not coming from tax paradox money. The Federal Reserve is entirely self funded from proceeds that they earn from their own securities, as well as fees that they get from banks. So it's not tax paradox on the line there.

All right. Okay, Brian Chong, thank you for that. Let's turn around to Ryan Riley, who's in studio with me now. So, Ryan, the Justice Department says they're not gonna comment on an ongoing investigation, but what potential charges could Jerome Powell face?

We haven't seen subpoenas, so we don't really know. But I also don't know if this is necessarily news that the Trump that DOJ is really hesitant to have out there because they have used the existence of these investigations for political purposes. And obviously we've seen Donald Trump direct these prosecutions in many cases, in fact, that what we have seen as this reporter was supposed to be a private message that he said to Pam Bondi that laid out all the enemies that he wanted him, that he wanted that Bondi to go after. So that's something that has played a point here, Donald Trump, for weaponizing the existence of the investigation.

Regardless of whether or not how those investigations end for political purposes here, there's a possibility that you would say the firing, firing four calls down the line would be because of an existence of an investigation. So that's one method that he could potentially, theoretically try to use to get rid of Powell. And there's some disputes of whatnot, even have that power to fire. And that likely would have to come from the board itself.

Now we have Letitia James, we've got James Comey. We've had a number of different examples of this Department of Justice trying to go after Donald Trump's political enemies. Not many of them have gained any traction. Is there any reason to think that this would be indifferent?

I mean, it's a great question. I think one thing that the Justice Department of Management has been looking very closely at is where else they can bring cases. Because I would not expect that a federal grand jury sitting in D.C. would necessarily be on board with this type of move, as they've rejected a lot of cases before and are aware of the political environment.

What these cases, you know, A lot of people believe are about which is politics and not facts in the law. So I think that that could be a possibility. They try to move it somewhere else. But you know, that happened in EDV as well, happened in the Eastern District of Virginia where Grant, Grant juries have rejected these cases.

From now to Capitol Hill, we've already heard some pushback. Senate Republicans and even the chair of the House Financial Services Committee. But what is Republican leadership saying about the Justice Department investigation? Well, Speaker Johnson Ryan came into the building today saying that he didn't really have a chance to look over the allegations of specific indictment.

Of course, we haven't seen a lot of this too. I want you to take a listen to what he said earlier today and we'll talk about what we heard from Senate leadership. On the other side. There's concern about cost overruns and whatever the allegations are.

I don't know. I wasn't involved in that. You know, it's a. It's something that you have to look into.

And so we'll have to reserve judgment. I know the media loves to jump to conclusions. Everyone does every day around everything here. And I think you have to let the process play out.

If Chairman Powell innocent. Slightly different tone Ryan. I heard from Senator Leader John Boone when he walked into the Capitol spurring past us. He simply said the allegations better be real and they better be serious.

Afterwards, I followed up and I asked him is he worried about more Republicans following Senator Tills's lead, essentially holding out their votes to confirm members of the Federal Reserve, even the chair, potentially when Powell's position is up in that term in a couple of months. And he said he is. He spoke to Tillis over the weekend and he said that this needs to be resolved quickly to maintain independence of the Federal Reserve. So certainly more pushback than we used to see on different matters throughout this first year of the second Trump administration.

Right. Let's have a little deeper into that pushback. Tom Tillis right now the only Senate Republican who's physically threatened not to confirm any Fed nominee until the matter is resolved. But we have seen some other movement or signals from Republicans that they might be willing to follow Tillis's league.

What can you tell us about that? You mentioned Frank Schell. Of course, he's a member of the House. He doesn't have the power to confirm.

That is still significant given this position. Lisa Murkowski, the senator from Alaska, she's now the Banking Committee. So she doesn't have a role on that panel directly to confirm nominees who go before her, but certainly has a vote on the floor. And she said that it is time for Congress to investigate what the Department of Justice is doing here.

So this is certainly concerning for the administration. I was talking to some sources close to officials in the administration. They are concerned about this. Some of them see this to be as a mess, as a distraction.

You've heard some Republicans say that here as well, and it is shaping up to be one because there's so much going on here. The president needs the votes of people in the Senate for matters beyond the Federal Reserve. They need to fund the government as well, which, as you know, they're working on in the coming weeks. So this is turning out to be quite a mess for the president.

And Republicans up here as soon suggested to me, are concerned and potentially going to follow suit until it is leave. Okay. Julie Sirkin on Capitol Hill. Julie, thank you for that.

We're gonna turn now to former Federal Reserve General counsel Scott Alvarez to talk more about this issue. Mr. Alvarez, thank you for joining us. You worked at the Fed for more than 30 years.

How unprecedented is it for the Justice Department to conduct a criminal investigation into the chair of the Federal Reserve? So thanks. It's a pleasure to be here. I have no knowledge of this ever being done in the history of the Federal Reserve that someone would be any member of the board would be investigated for criminal behavior.

And the chair, Jerome Paul, he described the Justice Department's investigation as retribution. Is that how you read the situation? Well, I certainly think that it is an attempt to intimidate the chair. And, you know, this is a matter that's been around for quite a long time.

And the Federal Reserve has been very transparent about the renovation. They put quite a lot of information on their website, testified before con. So there's if you compare the testimony that Chair Powell made with the information that the Fed has made available to the public, you'll see that there is no lie, that there is no false statements made to Congress. So you have to think, well, why seven or eight months after the president has visited the renovation, would the Department of Justice just be beginning to look into the matter?

And I think it's because nothing has happened in the last seven months. I think it's about the next four months. Chair Powell's term is up in the middle of May, and he has not announced whether he would leave when his term as chair expires. He could stay on as a governor for another roughly year and a half till 2018, 2028.

And I think that's what this is about. It's about showing Powell that the administration will use all the tools it has available to make his life miserable if he decides to stay on the board. And a signal to the other members of the board and the FOMC that the administration wants to have the interest rate policy the way it wants it and it will leave no stone unturned in making sure that the other members vote the way the President wants them to vote. And if not, then the administration will go after them.

I think those are the signals that they're trying to send now because it doesn't seem that there is really any case against J Pal. Jay Powell is someone who's so measured with everything he says, they literally move markets. His words move markets. So he's not in any way, shape or form a flamethrower.

Were you surprised to see him be willing to do that direct to camera response on a Sunday night? Yesterday I was a little surprised, but then it made perfect sense. He has been personally accused and needed to make a personal response so that markets would understand where he stood on this and that he is innocent of a lying to Congress, which is the charge that they've made. And so I think it was important for him to make that statement.

You mentioned that he could make Jerome Powell's life miserable if he were to stay on as a member of the board, who was saying, as a governor, and perhaps maybe that's even sending a signal to the current members or future members of the board. Aside from an investigation like this, what are other ways that the President could make the life of an individual member of the Fed Board miserable? Well, I think the continued barbs that the President sends, you know, calling Jay incompetent, threatening to fire him, doing the same for other members of the board, I think those things make it very difficult because I believe the board members really want to do the right thing. They want for the economy, they focus on the data, they try to keep credibility with the markets.

And anything that's suggest that they might be responding to political pressure, either holding a line that they wouldn't ordinarily hold, or succumbing to the pressure and doing what the President asked. Either one of those creates uncertainty about their position and their credibility. And I think that's a real problem for all the members of the board. And President Trump's also threatening to sue Powell for incompetence.

This is even separate from this threat of a federal investigation. Would a lawsuit like that even hold up in court? So I assume that what he's really talking about is firing the chair for cause and the cause being incompetence. I don't see how there could be a personal lawsuit outside of that for anything against the chair.

So I don't really know what exactly the president was talking about. So you're suggesting that he's throwing this out there as a reason to point to, to fire him for cause as opposed to actually going with filing a lawsuit, Correct? Yeah. And so I understand it.

Does the president of the United States even have that ability to fire the chair of the Federal Board of Reserve for cause, or is that the responsibility of the other board members? Like where does that checks and balance play? Certainly. So that is an issue the Supreme Court is deciding now.

The Federal Reserve act says that the president can remove Governor for cause. You know, this has come up in a bunch of different statutes. The Supreme Court is looking at that across a variety of independent agencies. And so far the Supreme Court has suggested, well, it's actually held that for cause protection is probably not going to be available for any agency except perhaps the Federal Reserve.

Now the Supreme Court sent signals about where it's going to come out on the Federal Reserve, but it hasn't actually made that decision. That's part of what's going on in the Lisa Cook case. So I'm here hoping the Supreme Court is watching what's going on now because the president is, I think, trying intimidation and using all the tools that he thinks he has. And so the Supreme Court is going to have to be clear.

Does the Federal Reserve have protection for cause, protection from removal? What does it mean to be for cause? Is there any due process? That's that members that are going to be fired have.

Those are all things that are caught up in this current investigation and intimidation. And also we're going to. Okay, great. We're going to leave it there.

Mr. Thank you so much for your expertise. We really appreciate it. Thank you.

President Trump waves an attack on Iran, saying it looks like the regime has crossed this red line. With human rights activists now saying hundreds more protesters have been killed amid an intensifying crackdown by the Iranian government. Plus, state local officials are set to speak in Minnesota minutes from now responding to the Trump administration's ramping up of federal operations in the Twin Cities after last week's deadly ice shooting of Renee Nicole. Good.

We'll bring that press conference live when it happens. You're WATCHING me, the PRESS now. Welcome back. The death hole in Iran is skyrocketing as Iran cracks down on what become the largest anti government protests in the country's history.

Human rights groups saying nearly 600 people have been killed, including dozens of Iran's security forces. They also estimate that more than 10,000 people have been arrested in connection with these protests, which have now been going on for more than two weeks. Iran's foreign minister claim the situation was, quote, under total control and baselessly blame the United States and Israel for the violence. We do want to warn our viewers that some of these images that you're about to see are disturbing.

This was the scene outside a medical facility in Tehran province. Body bags lining the streets as families came to identify their deceased. You can hear them screaming out and sobbing as they warn their loved ones. Anti government activists tell NBC News that security forces are using live ammunition to stop the uprising.

President Trump previously threatened US Action. Iran kills any protesters. Telling reporters yesterday he's considering strong options when it comes to responding to Iran. Looking at it very seriously.

The military is looking at it, and we're looking at some very strong options. Iran called to negotiate. Yes, the leaders of Iran called. They want to negotiate.

I think they're tired of being beat up by the United States. Iran wants to to negotiate this. We may meet with them. I mean, the meeting is being set up, but we may have to act because of what's happening before the meeting.

President Trump also telling NBC News in an exclusive phone interview that the US Response could happen in the coming days. Joining me now is NBC News senior national security correspondent Courtney Kubi and Hai Diami, who is the executive director of the center for Human Rights in Iran. Let's start with you. What are some of the options the president could be considering to respond to Iran?

So they really fall in two buckets. Right there's the one that is getting the most attention. That's the idea of kinetic strikes, military strikes. They could go after things that would potentially hurt the regime.

So what could that be? Any kind of a military facility, especially Iranian revolutionary guarded, who after leadership, something like that. That's the one bucket. The next one, which, you know, seems to be gaining some momentum.

But again, we have no idea what president decided to do. Here is what the military might call the gray zone option. So it's not necessarily an overt strike, it's not necessarily overt action even, but it's things like providing things to the protesters that can support them with their protests. So anything from communication, I mean, money, frankly, if they wanted to, anything that would help them with their efforts to protest but would be should be falling short of a direct military action and Speaking of direct military action, Iran's parliamentary speaker warned that if the US did do something like that, military bases, US Ships could become targets.

How seriously would the administration be taking those threats? They have to take it seriously because Iran has the capability. We don't know if they actually have the will or the desire to carry out a strike, but they have ballistic missiles that can reach US Military installations and people all over the region and into Europe. So.

And remember, after the US Took the strikes in June, Iran retaliated by lobbing off missiles, firing missiles at Al, the biggest US Air base in the region. So it may not be a false threat, but all the US Also has to factor in the second, third and third order effects. That is, if the US Were to take some sort of strike, if Iran were to retaliate, if the US Were to strike again, presumably it would be even larger. Larger back in June, and even more than that, back in October 2024, the US and the Israelis decimated Iran's air defense systems throughout Iran.

So if they wanted to take more strikes, the US that is Iran, can't do a whole lot to defend against them. And if they were to carry out strikes against Americans, I could see the Trump administration taking even bigger strikes and more widespread. Okay, thank you, Horton. We appreciate that.

Let's bring high now your organization. I spoke to a doctor in Iran, treated a large number of protesters that were injured in the demonstrations over the weekend. And what did they tell you and what are you hearing about what's happening on the ground? Yes, this is a doctor who was active in hospitals and medical clinics in Tehran from Tuesday till Friday of last week, and then Friday and Saturday he was in the city of Isfahan.

So he really was in the thick of things. And the highlight of what he told us is basically that everything changed on Thursday night around 10pm when complete Internet and communication networks went down and the nature of injured people being brought to the hospital was changed. Their numbers skyrocketed. And he said, we went from a situation where we had pellet shotguns, rubber bullet guns, single shots from a small arms, up to Thursday night, it suddenly changed to a wartime situation.

We started getting people in large numbers with live ammunition shot at them, machine guns, automatic weapons. He said all indication was that basically the police was moved to the background. Revolutionary Guards came in with wartime weaponry and committed a massacre that is becoming confirmed more and more now. So he also mentioned that the hospitals have to turn in information about danger to Revolutionary Guards and intelligence services.

So a lot of people are afraid of going to hospitals. And he basically said the city center looks like a war zone. The number of protesters, I believe, in Tehran on Thursday night were historically huge, probably the largest since the 1978 revolution. Wow.

It sounds like a nightmare. President Trump said that he's considering strong options to respond to Iran's crackdown. I mean, what should that response look like? How do you pressure the Iranian regime without doing more harm to these demonstrators?

It's a good question. Whatever is done should be decisive enough to help the protesters, not harm them. In my opinion, right now, there is no need for kinetic military action because that has to be basically make the regime unable to go back in the streets and shoot at people. It has to be very large and decisive.

However, I, for example, would like to see a complete diplomatic isolation of the regime and more economic pressure in terms of the way it is paying the people on the street to carry out its orders. That money comes from a very cheap oil it's selling to China that can be brought to a halt. And then, most importantly, as your analysts also noted, means of communication, Internet. There are many ways to help overcome this Internet shutdown.

So I hope these actions will be taken immediately. And. And if there is now suddenly talk of momentum for negotiations, those negotiations cannot be limited to the nuclear issue anymore. Safety of the protester and their freedoms to assemble and have free speech must become a demand of the.

On the Iranian government if it wants to come out of the current situation and the threats that are being made. Okay. Hi, guys. Thank you so much for your perspective.

We appreciate it. Thank you for being on. Thank you for. Up next, we are live in Minneapolis as the Trump administration defies local officials and surges hundreds more federal agents to the Twin Cities after last week's fatal ice shooting.

Keep it here on YouTube now. Welcome back. We are going to take you live now to Minnesota where the leaders there, including the Mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Fry, and the Attorney General, Keith Ellison, are holding a press conference about the future of the Trump administration's law enforcement operations interstate following the killing of a nanocol. Goodbye, ICE officer.

Let's take you to Minneapolis and listen into this process. We allege that the obvious targeting of Minnesota for our diversity, for our democracy, and our differences of opinion with the federal government is a violation of the Constitution and of federal law. We allege that the surge. Reckless impact on our schools, on our local law enforcement, is a violation of the 10th Amendment and the sovereign laws and powers of the Constitution grants to states.

We allege that DHS's use of excessive and Lethal force. They're warrantless racist arrests. They're targeting of our courts, Our churches, houses of worship and schools are in violation of the Administrative Procedures act on arbitrary and capricious federal actions. And we ask that the courts will end the surge of thousands of DHS agents into Minnesota.

We ask the courts to end the DHS unlawful behavior in our state. The intimidation, the threats, the violence. We ask the courts to end the tactics on our places of worship, our schools, our courts, our marketplaces, our hospitals and even funeral homes. The deployment of thousands of armed mass DHS agents to Minnesota has done our state serious harm.

This is in essence a federal invasion of the Twin Cities and Minnesota and it must stop. DHS agents have sown chaos and terror across the metropolitan area and in cities across the state of Minnesota. Schools have gone onto lockdown. Entire districts have had to cancel school for tens of thousands of students to ensure safety and offer online education.

Because of the students and the parents fear of coming into the school, local businesses are struggling, revenues are down, and some retail stores, daycares and restaurants have actually closed because people are afraid to go out and to do their shopping. Whether they're immigrants or whether they are citizens of many generations, this surge has made us less safe. Thousands of poorly trained, aggressive and armed agents of the state of the federal government have rolled into our communities, overwhelmed. Our local police departments and law enforcement agencies should be focused on our public safety, but instead of many are dealing with the aftermath of DHS agents chaos and violence.

I want to thank our law enforcement officers for doing a tremendous job under very difficult circumstances. Not the people, but the federal government. Minneapolis police have had to respond to more than 220, excuse me, 20 ICE related incidents like witnesses seeking people being pulled into unmarked vehicles by men in masks or ICE abandoning vehicles on the street with people detained inside. This is an unlawful commandeering of police resources.

In just two days, responding to the chaos ISIS caused by has cost the city $2 billion in law enforcement overtime expenses. Two days. And I wish I could stop there, but I can't because these poorly trained, aggressive and armed agents of the federal state have terrorized Minnesota with widespread unlawful conduct. They're acting under.

They're making unconstitutional arrests and using excessive force. DHS agents have barged into restaurants asking to access secure areas. And when asked to present a warrant, which is required by law, they respond, we don't need one. DHS agents have arrested peaceful bystanders.

They have fired chemical irritants at people obeying lawful, lawful orders while exercising their first amendment rights. They have even done so at some of our most sensitive places, like Roosevelt High School here in Minneapolis. They have detained law abiding citizens, leaving them handcuffed for hours just because of the color of their skin or what they're wearing, or they speak English with an accent. And on January 7, 2026, a DHS agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, leaving her children without a mother and her six year old son without either parent.

This has to stop. So let's be clear. It never should have started. These agents have no good reason to be here.

Minnesota. Minnesota's non citizen immigrant population is just one and a half percent, which is a hat, which is half the national average. Our state's percentage is lower than Utah, Texas and Florida's. But none of those states have thousands of federal agents swarming their streets or harming their people.

The administration says that they're focused on finding criminals. Worst of the worst, they say. But many of the people the DHS is arresting in Minnesota have no criminal history. That fits a pattern.

In 2025, 93% of the people arrested by ICE had no violent criminal history. 65% had no criminal convictions at all. And randomly stopping people in the street because their skin color isn't the one that they expect or want isn't doing a thing to help public safety. I've heard the administration talk about fraud.

No, not the 43 fraud convictions the President has or the 43 million dollar fraudsters the President has pardoned, but instead saying that ICE is here to look for fraud somehow. You know, we work with federal government all the time and if the federal government wants to help us with forensic accountants, we're open to that conversation. But these ICE agents who are engaged in the behavior that they're engaged in are not helping public safety at all. Immigration enforcement agents aren't trained to investigate fraud.

And randomly stopping people on the street because you don't like their accent isn't going to stop fraud. So enforcing federal immigration law and fighting fraud are just pretexts for this search. The real reason? It's no secret Donald Trump and his administration have been targeting people, cities and states that don't agree with them politically.

He's singled out Minnesota countless times. He's called us corrupt and crooked. He's attacked our funding to the tune of billions of dollars, which we are challenging. And we fought back, of course.

He's attacked programs that Minnesotans rely on and try to shut them down and pay taxes for. And he's attacked Minnesotans with despicable, racist, xenophobic Language. The truth is, Donald Trump doesn't seem to like our state very much. But what's that about?

He doesn't like our best in the nation, safe and secure elections. And sometimes he doesn't like who we choose in them. Just last week, Trump claimed that he won Minnesota three times, when in fact he's never won Minnesota. He doesn't like how we take care of each other or how we make sure our kids have enough to eat.

He doesn't like the strength that immigrant communities bring to our state. And he doesn't seem to like that we protect our neighbors, no matter where they were born. In short, the Trump administration's decision to target Minnesota and Twin Cities is motivated by a desire to retaliate against Trump's perceived political opponents, who are the people of the state of Minnesota and Twin Cities, rather than any good faith concerns about immigration enforcement, public safety or law enforcement. In conclusion, I didn't have the pleasure and the benefit of knowing Renee Nicole Goode, but her friends and family knew her as someone who was kind, someone who loved her family deeply, and someone willing to stand up for her neighbors.

That sounds like the Minnesota that I know. The administration wants to paint false political narratives about us, but we know who we are and we know our rights. The Constitution gives Minnesota the sovereign authority to protect health and well being of every single person who lives on our borders. The Constitution gives us the right to vote for whom we want, pray however we want, and be whoever we want without fear of being racially profiled, assaulted or killed in our own communities.

We're going to defend those rights. Because as much as they like to believe it, DHS is not above the law and the people of Minnesota are certainly not beneath it. Let me now bring forward my mayor, the mayor who's where I go home at night and is doing a wonderful job protecting our city. Mayor Jacob Fry.

Thank you, Attorney General Ellison, for your leadership and your incredible team's work around this issue. Thank you to Mayor her of St. Paul for your partnership. These are not normal times.

And so the response that we are asking for from the judicial system and from the courts requires that we file suit at this particular moment. What we are seeing right now is not normal immigration enforcement. We are not asking ICE not to do ICE things. We are asking this federal government to stop the unconstitutional conduct that is invading our streets each and every day.

You've seen the videos. At times there are as many as 50 agents arresting one person. The scale is wildly disproportionate. It has nothing to do with keeping people safe in Minneapolis.

We've done work extensively with the federal government under multiple administrations to keep people in our city safe. We have worked with the dea, the atf, the FBI, the attorney, the Attorney General's office, as well as the U.S. attorney's office to successfully drive down crime in our city. We've seen the results of that work.

But let's be clear. The stated reason of this federal government for bringing in this full invasion of ICE and border control is not safety. If it were safety, there would be other mechanisms to achieve safety. By the way, crime is down in virtually every category in virtually every neighborhood of the city.

If this were about fraud, then you'd see an invasion perhaps of accountants. But that's not what you see. What you see is people being indiscriminately tiff our streets. Discrimination only takes place to the extent that a determination has made that somebody is Somali or is Latino or at least they look that way.

And then there is virtually no discrimination thereafter. Here's the thing. You can't indiscriminately take people off our streets, American citizens off our streets. You cannot drag pregnant women through the snow.

You're not allowed to take teenagers out of their car and detain them when they are, in fact, American citizens. That is against the law in every state. That is against our United States Constitution. And we're feeling the impact here in Minneapolis.

Schools have closed. People are afraid to go to work, shop, or seek medical care. 911 calls are up. Police resources are indeed stretched thin.

We have approximately 600 officers in the city of Minneapolis. Mayor her has approximately 600 officers in the city of St. Paul. The number of ICE agents of Border control are now in the thousands.

They are in the thousands. If the goal was immigration enforcement, if the goal were simply to look for people that are undocumented, Minneapolis and St. Paul would not be the place where you would go. There are countless more people that are undocumented in Florida and Texas and Utah.

Why are they in these much smaller cities in the middle of the Midwest? The answer is very clear. It is politics. Florida and Texas and Utah are Republican states.

The reason that Minnesota and Minneapolis are being targeted is because you've got a Democratic governor, a Democratic attorney general, and you got Democratic mayors. We are doing everything possible to keep our city safe through this unprecedented time. At the same time, we have police officers that are tired. We've seen damage substantially because we're now having to pay a ton of overtime, millions of dollars of emergency overtime for law enforcement, emergency operations have been activated across our city and state agencies, pulling focus on daily core services that we, by the way, are tasked with providing.

Local police officers are being diverted from the very work that we need to be doing. Small businesses are losing significant revenue, with some worried that they may not survive this at all. People are scared to take their kids into school or daycare to go into work. They're going to have difficulty paying rent.

There is no doubt in my mind the kind of action that the federal government is taking is not just mean spirited, it's unconstitutional. Every one of us need to be standing up. Let me give you another example. Just last week, a group of our state's public works employees were stopped by ICE agents.

Three of the four employees were not white. The ICE agents asked to see the IDs of the three non white employees and didn't even bother to ask the white employee for the identification. Minneapolis is being treated, targeted because we stand up for our neighbors and we welcome immigrants because we believe in the law and as I said, frankly, because we are in a blue city in a blue state. Donald Trump should know as long as federal agents are in our city acting unconstitutionally against our neighbors, we will continue to push back with everything we got.

Let me just take a moment to say how grateful I am to the residents of our city and of our state. We are not victims in the city of Minneapolis. We've got heroes that are standing up for each other. They're standing by the neighbors that they love.

And one thing that I can tell you for certain is that we aren't backing down. We don't retreat in Minneapolis, we don't back down in Minnesota. We stand up against bullies. And right now what we are asking for is an intervention from the court to push back on this unconstitutional conduct, pure and simple.

I'll now turn it off to Mayor Good afternoon, everyone. Today I'm proud to stand with Mayor Fry and Attorney General Ellison to fight for our residents. This federal occupation of our cities needs to end immediately. Federal law enforcement is racially profiling our residents, creating mass chaos and undermining the relationship between local government and our communities.

We will not stand idly by and watch this happen. With this collective action, we are taking a firm stance to tell federal law enforcement that this cannot happen in our country, it cannot happen in our state, and it cannot happen in St. Paul. Federal law enforcement is going far beyond what they can and should be doing to enforce immigration laws.

They are engaging our community safety, straining our resources and sewing distrust while we know we can't control federal agents, we will pull every lever we have to fight back in every way that we can. They come into St. Paul and needlessly invaded our neighborhoods and homes. They're targeting us based on what we look and sound like.

Our residents are scared. And as local officials, we have a responsibility to act. I want to thank Attorney General Alison and Mayor Fry for taking the United States for the people of Minnesota and our immigrant and refugee communities. Let me be clear.

You are a vital part of our city. You are loved and you are wanted, and you are important to the fabric of our state. As a refugee who came to this country, this is the state that welcomed my grandparents here in the late 70s, allowed our family to break the cycle of poverty in one generation, educated us, allowed us to build wealth, and within one generation, have a new. A new family, a new family, members that are educated and a part of this economy and this workforce that we need to continue to make sure that our state stays that.

And that can't happen if I continues to run amok of our city and our state. And so we cannot let the federal administration divide us. We need to come together now more than ever. Thank you.

Are you listening to a press conference with leaders in Minnesota, the attorney General, the mayors of both St. Paul and Minneapolis, who are discussing the lawsuit that they're filing against the federal government to try and limit the role of ICE agents in their state and in their individual cities. Joining me now is BC News correspondent Chef Brewster, who's outside that press conference at Nepal City hall, and also NBC News legal analysts Candy Savalo. Shaq, let's start with you.

As we hear from these local officials, what should we take from this announcement that they are making? What exactly do they hope to accomplish here? Yeah, I think this is the local government pushing back on what we've been seeing from the federal government, not just in the shooting of Renee Good, but also in this operation Metro Search, this increased immigration enforcement that folks here in the Twin City area have been dealing with for over a month. At this point, you heard the Twin City mayors as well as attorney general suggest that this is an unlawful, unconstitutional operation.

They're essentially saying that they are under occupation, they're being occupied by the federal government. And as we were watching that press conference, I went through and started to read through the lawsuit that was filed in federal court and just to pull out a couple of the points that they were making. One, they're saying that the surge is having an impact on local resources. It's having an impact on the police Department, the mayor said that they have been spending millions toward police over time.

Well, in the lawsuit, they quantify that and say that $52 million at least has been spent on police overtime, that there's has required thousands of hours, 3,000 hours of overtime in just two hours after Ms. Good was killed. And they're saying that the federal government is sowing a lot of the unrest that you are seeing. When we talk about the immigration enforcement, the dhs, the federal government, they're saying they're doing what they are supposed to be doing, that this is them enforcing immigration laws, and they're saying that they're not going to stop.

We saw that as recently as earlier today, where we had our colleague Maggie Vespa was there, and she saw a flood of Border Patrol, some sort of immigration action taking place. They're reaching out to DHS to see exactly what was going on. But you saw members of the community come around, surround these officers. Tear gas was used, pepper balls, flashbangs.

You're seeing these clashes over and over again. You're seeing these viral videos over and over again. And you have local leaders now saying, essentially, enough, enough. They're asking the court to step in on what they see as, again, unlawful and unconstitutional line.

All right, so let's get a legal perspective on this. I want to briefly what the general said. He said, we're asking, of course, to end the DHS unlawful behavior in our state, the intimidation, the threats of violence. We ask the courts to end the tactics in our places of worship, our schools, our courts, our marketplaces, our hospitals, and even our funeral homes.

Could a court do that? Could a court take this lawsuit and then tell ICE that they can no longer operate in a city like Minneapolis or state like Minnesota? A federal court could and they filed in federal court. So it is theoretically possible, although the lead count is a violation of the 10th Amendment, essentially saying that the federal government is violating the powers that are reserved to the states.

And they're correct that the police power, the power to legislate the area of health, safety, morals and welfare, are traditionally left to the states. What I expect the federal government will respond with is saying that, yes, simply because there's a consequence or there's a collateral effect of our federal law enforcement or our federal actions doesn't necessarily create a 10th Amendment violation. In other words, the argument that the cities are making is that essentially the federal government's interfering with their power, the state power to police their own people. Shaq, do we expect that the situation in Minneapolis and that general vicinity is just only going to get worse.

You have already described what the tension is like there. If a surge in officers comes, could that make the situation even worse? I think that is potentially the case. I think that's the fear that you're hearing among local leaders here.

You know, if I can add one other thing to the press conference in action that we're seeing this lawsuit, I think the reason why you're seeing this from local leaders, it kind of made me think back to what we saw in Chicago earlier in the fall where you had that was the one tool that local leaders had in stopping any action against or that the federal government was taking. In Chicago, you had situations where federal judges were the ones who were able to improve conditions in some of the detention facilities that put restrictions on border patrol from using things like flashbangs and also those crowd control munitions. So I think you have Minnesota leaders doing what they can legally to hopefully stop, in their words, the unlawful action from federal government. Okay, Shack.

And Danny, thank you for that. The breaking news that the Twin cities of Minnesota suing Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol over the use of federal forces. We appreciate you being here. We appreciate you watching.

We'll be back tomorrow with more. Read the press. But there's more news ahead on NBC News. Now, he was a young Marine.

She didn't care about convention. They made a life together. Then one night the Marine died. And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected and utterly bizarre turn.

I'm Josh Magewitz and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all new podcast from Dayline. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.