Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Gabe Gutierrez in Washington. And we begin with President Trump's escalating threat to take over Greenland, either by economic leverage or military force. And the intensifying backlash from Europe and NATO allies.
Over the weekend, President Trump threatening to impose 10% tariffs starting on February 1st on eight European countries opposed to the U.S. takeover, including Denmark, France, Germany, and the U.K., saying those tariff rates will climb to 25% in June if there is not a deal for the, quote, complete and total purchase of Greenland. Yesterday on Meet the Press, Treasury Secretary Scott Basin defending the latest tariff threats. President Trump is looking, is being strategic.
He's looking beyond this year. He's looking beyond next year to what could happen for a battle in the Arctic. We are not going to outsource our national security. We are not going to outsource our hemispheric security to other countries.
What is the national emergency that justifies these new slate of tariffs? The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency. Today, President Trump showing no signs of backing down. In an exclusive phone interview with NBC News, when asked if he will follow through on those tariffs absent a deal on Greenland, President Trump saying, quote, I will, 100%.
And when asked if he would use force to seize Greenland, President Trump saying, no comment. The pushback from Greenland and Europe has been intense. On Saturday, at least a thousand Greenlanders marching in opposition to a U.S. takeover, waving their national flags and reiterating the territory is not for sale.
Some demonstrators wearing their own version of a MAGA hat. Make America go away. This was their message to the U.S. president.
This is a fight for freedom. It's for NATO. It's for what everything the Western hemisphere has been fighting for since World War II. I hope that this focus of taking control of Greenland, total control of Greenland, will no longer.
That will disappear again. We just want to live in pride and peace and with each other in this great country. It's surreal and it's unreal to be part of that circus he's doing right now. Meanwhile, European leaders are weighing their response.
Germany and France equating the latest tariff threats to blackmail. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer also condemning the escalation. We must stand up for our values. We must be clear about the principles that we are applying here and we'll continue to do so.
Threatening tariffs on allies is the wrong thing to do, completely wrong. But a trade war is not in our interest. All of this comes as Norway's prime minister went public with a recent message he received from President Trump where Trump blamed Norway for not giving him the Nobel Peace Prize, saying, quote, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace. President Trump went on to repeat his claim that Denmark cannot protect Greenland from Russia and China.
We should note, Norway's government does not play a role in awarding the Nobel Peace Prize. Joining me now is NBC News senior White House correspondent Garrett Hake, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell, and chief Washington correspondent Andrew Mitchell. And NBC News business and data correspondent Brian Chung. Thank you all so much for joining me.
Garrett, I want to start with you at the White House. What should we make of this recent escalation between President Trump and European allies? Is there any off ramp the president would accept, or is it all for nothing? Yeah, I mean, Gabe, the irony of all this is there are plenty of off ramps available to the president here that would accomplish his stated goals of trying to improve U.S.
security in the Arctic. The Danes and the Greenlandic people have all said they would welcome more U.S. involvement. We have some bases there already.
There's the option to open more. Everything the president says he wants is on the table. When I'm confused in a situation like this, I try to think through the kind of art of the deal framework here. And to me, that suggests that what we may be seeing from the president here is to try to kind of create this maximalist position to get a better bargain if there ultimately is an opportunity to buy Greenland.
Our own reporting at NBC News has been that the price tag could be as high as $700 billion. That's money we don't have. Perhaps the president sees this pressure campaign and the ambiguity around military force as a way to make Greenland ultimately cheaper, but it does seem to be very much having the opposite effect in democratic nations, which people are now hardening their opposition to U.S. involvement there at all.
Yeah, you know, Garrett, and our colleague Kristen Welker asked the Treasury Secretary whether this may be part of some negotiation. Kind of dodged that question. But Garrett, I want to ask you about, does the president have the political capital to prolong this fight over Greenland? We've been looking at that polling, right, that says that a vast majority of Americans would be opposed to any military takeover of Greenland.
Does he really want to burn political capital on this? Yeah, I mean, the numbers are bad for the president in public opinion surveys, deeply underwater, disapproval ratings in the 70, high 80%, depending on the options that are put before the American people. If the president wants to press this issue, he's going to have to sell it a lot more, Gabe. I mean, I covered the entirety of his presidential campaign.
This was not a some speech issue. This was not something like the deportation campaigns, for example, that the president broadly previewed for the American people. This is something that he talked about a little bit in the first term. He's become very focused on in the second term.
He's facing significant, but not overwhelming pushback from elected Republicans. I think to really shut this down, you would need to see more outspokenness from elected Republicans and perhaps a stronger market reaction. The markets have been notably cool on all of this so far. Now, Garrett, you mentioned the slight pushback from some elected Republicans.
During the president's first term, we often talk about the adults in the room, right? So is there anyone within the president's inner circle right now who is urging restraint? It doesn't appear to be so, Gabe. And I think it's important that people remember this is a very different team with a very different way of thinking about how they serve President Trump.
In the first term, there were so many hands around him who felt like it was their job to try to channel him in some way or prevent his worst instincts or instincts they disagreed with from becoming policy. That's not the case here from Susie Wiles to Stephen Miller to the vice president. This is a team around President Trump who believes it is their job to take his ideas and put them into practice to the best ability that they can. And so the idea that he'll be talked out of this by someone who works in the building behind me, I think is extraordinarily unlikely.
Garrett Hake live for us at the White House. Garrett, thank you. I want to turn now to Andrew Mitchell here with me on set. Andrea, how significant a rift is President Trump causing with Europe right now?
How is Europe looking to potentially respond? There's talk of the so-called trade bazooka. It is extraordinarily angry to our NATO allies. It could, as the Danish prime minister said, it could absolutely destroy NATO because this is the first time in history, and we're talking about 76 years of post-war NATO history, which has succeeded to get France and Germany to stop fighting with each other, to keep peace in Europe until, of course, the invasion of Ukraine by Putin.
And this would be the first time that NATO would be challenged from inside, from a NATO member and the most important member, the United States, of course. So the president has been so successful in getting NATO to do what it needed to do, which is to come up to a 5% goal of spending. They've not been spending enough. And he's received that very often.
That's the success. This is Article 1 for him. And he actually should be praising NATO for exceeding to him. He's dominating NATO and Europe.
And instead, he's challenging them in a way that is so profound and is so angry. You've seen a couple of, you know, the Germans sent two days of reconnaissance mission, 13 people in that mission. But there was a symbolic reconnaissance mission. But they are determined that they will retaliate.
They had put tariffs, retaliatory tariffs on hold at the end of last year. But now they are resurrecting that. And they're hoping that in Davos, where the president will be going in the next couple of days, that in Davos that there is some off-ramp. But the off-ramp is so clear.
We have one base and 200 troops. We had 17 bases, 10,000 troops at the high point. We have a 1951 treaty with Denmark over Greenland. And Denmark said we could have more.
We could have more troops there. We could have more troops. We could build up again. NATO is willing to spend this money.
So it is a crisis. He's created a crisis without a predicate. And they say they haven't seen a Chinese warship in 10 years. Certainly the Russians are there.
The Arctic is important. And now he's talking about Canada again. And just as Mark Carney, the leader of Canada, has gone to China to pivot away from the U.S. So you mentioned, you know, it is a concern at least that, you know, potentially with Russia and China.
But we heard Secretary Besson tell Kristen Welker a little earlier in the program that the national emergency is to avoid a national emergency. That is circular reasoning. Besson is supposedly the grown-up in the room on the Jay Powell issue and other big issues and on tariffs to a certain extent. Besson here is just saluting.
Well, you mentioned exactly how the IEBA law is applied to tariffs going forward. Brian Chung a lot to watch out for in the coming weeks and months. Brian, thanks. And joining me now from Denmark is Rufus Gifford, former U.S.
ambassador to Denmark. Ambassador, thank you so much for joining us here on Meet the Press Now. Pleasure to be with you anytime. And Ambassador, so what are you hearing from officials in Denmark about these threats by the president to take over Greenland?
Okay, honestly, I think what you hear from the officials, meaning the government officials, is widely reported, I think, from the press. Obviously, there's extreme anxiety, concern, anger, frustration, and all those, all that's palpable. But what I think is underreported to the U.S., and this is something that I've been struck by, I just landed this morning, so I've only just been here less than a day, and you can feel it on the streets. And a lot of Danes know who I am just because I've spoken, I've been a fairly public figure here, and even just over the course of the day, I've been stopped on the streets by the average Danes, by two policemen who stopped me today and said, Thank you for what I've been doing and speaking out, but also, what's going on?
What's happening to the United States? Don't you understand that there's so much on the line here? It is profound. And as someone who has spent a lot of time, obviously, all throughout Europe, but in particular here, I've never had a trip this complicated.
I was here just a couple of months ago. Well, the president is now threatening these new tariffs, as we've been reporting. How much pressure does that put on these European countries, and how much damage could it do to their economies? Well, I think it's this.
The weird part is, I think we are at a time in this crisis, and I do call it a crisis, that we're beyond thinking through just the short-term economic impact of any particular tariff that the White House might threaten, put on tomorrow, take off the next day. I think that's less of a concern for the individual European countries and even the EU as a whole. What I think is considerably more of a concern for these European leaders, for NATO as an institution, as an alliance, is where we go from here. And that might mean making some tough choices.
And that might mean, say, retaliatory tariffs. That might mean the bazooka that Macron talked about a couple of days ago. So my point is that, yes, I think that they might suffer, but they are willing, in my mind, most of the Europeans I know, are willing to take that risk, considering what's on the line. Well, Ambassador, you mentioned the NATO alliance.
And President Trump just this morning told NBC News no comment on whether the U.S. would seize Greenland by force. Now, if he were to do that, and of course the idea sounded so far-fetched not that long ago, if he were to do that, what would the implications be? Could the U.S.
be at war with NATO? Well, that's the thing. And this alliance, which let's not forget what this alliance is, this alliance is hands down the most successful alliance the modern world has ever seen. It's been an extraordinary deterrent.
We've never seen before, and only times the Article 5 of NATO has been invoked, which has been an enemy of NATO attacking a NATO ally, was after 9-11 when the United States invoked Article 5 and the entire alliance came to our defense. This is, I think it is hard to see how this alliance survives any sort of hostile takeover of Greenland, whether that is militarily or some other coercive action. It is hard to see that. Largely because, you know, NATO is an alliance that is built on this kind of idea of mutual trust and respect and this idea that our national security is in line with the national security of the entire alliance.
And this threat from the Trump administration undermines kind of exactly what NATO is as an institution, as an alliance, as an organization. So it's hard to see how it survives. And Ambassador, just this morning we learned that, you know, President Trump has tied this fight to the Nobel Peace Prize. And suggesting that he's no longer obligated to think purely of peace.
Now, is that something world leaders should take seriously or literally? Well, it's an extraordinary statement, Gabe. And I think that this is where we are, in my mind. Look, Greenland says they're not for sale.
Denmark says Greenland's not for sale. The EU says Greenland's not for sale. NATO says that Greenland is not for sale. 70% of Americans don't want to acquire Greenland either by force or by purchase.
At what point is this in American national security interests versus the interests of one man? Because we can't articulate anymore a national security argument that holds water. So it is very hard, in my mind, to see where we go from here, considering just the sheer absurdity of things like the letter you just referenced. Well, you mentioned this at the beginning of our conversation.
People were stopping on the street even today. Well, we did see members of Congress travel to Denmark to try and reassure members of parliament there. But do their words carry any weight, especially at a time when we see the president increasingly flex his power on the world stage? You know, I think the answer is that it matters.
It matters a tremendous amount. And my friends here, and I have spoke, in full disclosure, I was speaking with a delegation both before the trip and I've spoken with them after the trip. The trip was extraordinarily well received, I think, even more so because it was bipartisan and you had Senator Murkowski on the trip. Do I wish it had happened a year ago when the president was making these threats against Greenland?
Yes. It came way too late, as far as I'm concerned. But I'm glad it happened and it was extremely well received from the Danes. That being said, we need to put some teeth behind some of the words that are being said by these senators.
Meaning bills do need to be passed in the House and Senate to avoid what I think would be this just extraordinary conflict that I believe that will make all Americans weaker and it only served to empower our adversaries in Russia and China because of the weakening of NATO. Well, former Ambassador Rufus Gifford, we thank you so much for your time. My pleasure. Coming up, Minnesota on edge.
The Pentagon prepares combat troops for potential deployment to the Twin Cities to quash anti-ICE protests as the Justice Department opens a criminal investigation into state and local officials. Plus, President Trump says it's time for new leadership in Tehran as human rights groups now report nearly 4,000 people have died amid the anti-government protests in Iran. We have the response and the latest fallout. You're watching Meet the Press Now.
Stay with us. Welcome back. We're following breaking news out of Minnesota as defense officials tell NBC News the Pentagon has ordered 1,500 combat troops to prepare to deploy to Minneapolis in response to anti-ICE protests. The news coming as sources tell NBC News the FBI is asking agents to voluntarily travel to the Twin Cities for temporary assignments.
Anti-ICE demonstrations, meanwhile, show no signs of letting up. And the Justice Department is now vowing to investigate protesters who disrupted a service yesterday at a church where they believed a top ICE official served as a pastor. Officials familiar with the matter also tell NBC News that the DOJ is investigating whether Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey conspired to impede federal immigration agents. Governor Walz calling the administration's actions a dangerous authoritarian tactic.
And the mayor denying any wrongdoing on Meet the Press yesterday. And obviously it would be deeply concerning if the federal government is targeting someone for a product that is quite literally my job. It is my responsibility to speak on behalf of Minneapolis residents. It's my responsibility to do everything possible to keep our city safe.
And so while I haven't received the subpoena or anything else at this point, this should be deeply concerning not just for Minneapolis, but for anybody out there. I mean, this is stuff that happens in other countries. It shouldn't happen in America. NBC News correspondent Maggie Vespa is in Minneapolis where, by the way, it is dangerously cold outside right now.
So she's thankfully indoors for us. And with me on set is retired Colonel Steve Warren, whose more than three decade career with the U.S. Army included roles leading the army's global communications efforts. And he is now an NBC News military analyst.
Maggie, I want to start with you. You just talked to an activist who protested at the church service yesterday, meaning she is now presumably under investigation. Right. So what she said.
Yeah, as far as she knows, she's under investigation, Gabe, just based on the broader statements that we've seen. But she said she hasn't been contacted by the DOJ or anybody within the Trump administration to confirm that. So she's leaning on the reports right now. She says she doesn't regret anything.
If we bring up that video, her name is Nikkima Armstrong. She's in the crowd who was at City's church yesterday. It's a local Christian church here in St. Paul's in the Minneapolis area.
And she says the group went there to confront a man named David Easterwood. He's a pastor at that church. And protesters alleged he also runs the local ICE field office here. Now, to point out, we reached out to Easterwood.
No response. DHS also declining to confirm that position that the protesters say he has within ICE, saying in their words, they would never dox an ICE officer or employee. So we have this protest. And now we have the threat of this criminal investigation by the DOJ.
Armstrong sticking to the mission at hand, saying that she's furious with ICE's tactics on the ground. She's furious at the Trump administration out and out rioting, sort of the targeted destruction of property that we saw back then. So what I think you would end up having to see is perhaps the U.S. military being used to create space between the federal agents who are conducting their duties and the protesters who are not happy with that.
And you heard Maggie reference the Insurrection Act. The President hasn't said whether he would invoke it. If it were to be invoked, would those troops need to adhere to U.S. law, domestic law, military law?
How would that work? That's right. There are military law. You know, U.S.
law, military law, the law of land warfare, all of these things can be confusing. Ultimately, U.S. soldiers conducting U.S. military missions are subject to what we call the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
It looks very much like regular U.S. law, but it's enforced by military commanders. The army has its own. The military has its own prison system.
It has all of this. So if any soldiers were to violate law, they would be punished or they would face justice through the uniform code of military justice. And are these troops trained to patrol U.S. cities?
Well, that's an important question. You know, these forces, U.S. warfighters, are probably the best trained and most disciplined forces you'll see anywhere. But there's a very good reason we call them warfighters, right?
We use when we train these troops, we use words like lethality, violence of action, close with and destroy the enemy. This is what these forces are trained to do. They're also, I think it's important for folks to know, they're a very young force, right? Your average infantry platoon, which is who would most likely be on the ground, is probably 18, 24 years old.
That's the average age, led by a 23, 24-year-old lieutenant. So they're well-trained, but focused on force. So there are a lot of hypotheticals here, admittedly. But in the Minnesota government of Tim Walz, he has said that he would potentially deploy the Minnesota National Guard to help maintain peace.
Is there some situation here where you'd have the National Guard troops and the active duty troops, could they be squaring off against one another? I'm going to go out on a limb and I'll put a reputation at stake. Absolutely not. That will not happen.
It's the worst possible nightmare scenario. It will not happen. I want, well, actually, I'm being told we're out of time here. But Colonel Steve Warren, thank you so much for your expertise.
We really appreciate you being here as we try and sort out all the different possibilities here in Minneapolis. We appreciate it. Thank you. And up next, the price of peace.
Tensions ramp up between Washington and Tehran in the aftermath of Iran's deadly protests and a new reporting on President Trump's plans to charge nations a billion dollars for a permanent spot on the so-called board of peace in the Middle East. Stay with us. You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back.
President Trump is calling for new leadership in Iran, telling Politico that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is, quote, a sick man who should run his country properly and stop killing people. It comes as Ayatollah claimed, quote, the Iranian nation has defeated America in a public address and accused the U.S. of being behind the demonstrations, though they offer no concrete evidence of that. Those protests appear to have slowed, and state media reports Iran's president has called for internet restrictions to be lifted.
This all comes as the Iranian regime for the first time is acknowledging a death toll in the thousands from the demonstrations. And after President Trump appeared to walk back threats of U.S. military action against Iran last week, claiming the killing of protesters had suddenly stopped, the Human Rights Activist News Agency, a U.S.-based activist group, says the death toll is still rising with more than 3,900 people dead, the vast majority protesters. The group says it independently verifies each death.
And joining me now is NBC News chief international correspondent Keir Simmons. Keir, thank you so much for being here. What is the reality on the ground in Iran? Have protests really died down there for good?
Well, pretty much. I mean, the protests have been crushed. There are reports of some protests still in some parts of Iran, but not to the extent that we saw 10 days ago. I mean, it was 10 days ago on around about the 8th that the internet was shut down.
Effectively, the whole country went dark. And then, according to these reports and the pictures we're seeing, that we've been seeing, the regime sent in large numbers of security forces who opened fire on protesters. They talk about direct fire from snipers, machine guns, deliberate killing. These numbers of dead, and because of the internet blackout, Gabe, it's been difficult to get a full picture.
These numbers of dead, even now, are still rising and may be the biggest numbers of killed since the revolution in 1979. And Keir, as we noted, President Trump said it is time for new leadership in Iran. Is there any sense the U.S. is really willing to pursue regime change?
Well, that's the question. The Iranian regime itself, the president, for example, just today, is warning the United States not to target Ayatollah Khamenei, the leader of Iran, the 86-year-old who gave a sermon just on Friday after President Trump had decided to put attacks on pause, military action on pause, gave a sermon calling President Trump a war criminal. So just through the weekend, we've seen the rhetoric ratchet up between both sides. And the USS Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier, carrier strike group, is on its way to the region now.
It was in the Malacca Straits the last time I looked on its way from the South China Sea. So that will give President Trump the capability, crucially, to target Iran and also defend Israel and America's partners and allies in this region if Iran chooses to retaliate. Now, what those attacks look like, whether they involve targeting the supreme leader himself, that is a question. But again, the Iranian regime itself is warning America not to do that.
And that is clearly, therefore, something that is worrying them in Tehran. And Keir, before you go, I do want to ask you about the other conflict, about another conflict in the Middle East, in Gaza. We're getting some insight with regards to the Board of Peace that was part of the president's 20-point plan. And the more than 20 countries that have been invited to join.
What's been the international reaction to that? Well, some surprise in some parts of the world, because some of those invited to join the Board of Peace include President Putin, for example. A number of Arab states and Middle Eastern states also invited to have a representative, including Turkey, for example. And that has infuriated Prime Minister Netanyahu's, the Prime Minister of Israel's government.
And it has said openly that it is not happy. So a controversial start for the Board of Peace, but it hasn't even begun its work. But certainly you can say a wide range of representation for that Board of Peace decided by the Trump administration. Keir Simmons, our chief international correspondent.
Thank you for following all of those stories for us, Keir. And after the break, we'll take a look at how America is marking Martin Luther King Jr. Day as the life and legacy of one of the most influential civil rights icons in U.S. history lives on amid this fraught moment in American history.
Stay with us. You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. Across the country, Americans are celebrating Martin Luther King Day with parades, church services and festivals.
Here in Washington, a wreath-laying ceremony was held at the Martin Luther King Memorial on the National Mall. Since 1983, Americans have marked the third Monday in January as MLK Day, honoring Dr. King's life and legacy as a leader in the civil rights movement, where he used nonviolent protest to call for an end to racial segregation and was instrumental in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In the midst of a crackdown on immigration by the Trump administration, a number of today's observances have referenced the recent killing of Renee Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis.
Here's Bernice King, the daughter of MLK, at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta where Dr. King once preached. His story forces us to confront a painful truth. Goodness itself is in danger.
And that's why nonviolence is not optional. Nonviolence protects good. It restores good. It multiplies good.
Nonviolence is how we guard the good, grow the good, and refuse to let the world normalize the killing of good in our streets, in our systems, in our speech, and in our spirits. And still to come, President Trump is about to officially mark one year into his second term and voters are making it clear where they stand on his results so far. The panel's next. You're watching Meet the Press Now.
Welcome back. As the polls tell it, a year into his second term, President Trump is having a rough time with voters. His net approval across a slew of recent polls is underwater by double digits. And the plurality of Americans say he's focused on the wrong priorities, according to a new AP poll.
But Donald Trump's actions appear to reflect the president unbound from political norms or approval ratings on the world stage and here at home. Joining me now is our panel, Daniella Diaz, politics reporter for Notice, Taren Rosencrantz, Democratic strategist and CEO of New Blue Interactive, and Stephen Hayes, CEO and editor of The Dispatch and an NBC News contributor. Thank you all so much for joining me here on the panel. Daniella, I want to start with you.
President And then when he seems to turn pale and say that he favored it, they were formed then too. You know, Taryn, come November, is this really going to matter for Democrats? I mean, Democrats, you heard them over the weekend saying, oh, this is a land grab, and, you know, slamming the President on this particular issue, but do voters really care when it comes to foreign policy, you know, for these midterms, or will it be the domestic economy? I think they're really going to care about the economy.
I mean, that question that plagues everyone every day of their life is if I'm better off. And I just don't think that, I think you actually make a really great point that he's got a really very loyal base that follows him wherever he goes, but that means he's not on the ballot, so are they going to follow him to the ballot box? Probably not. And that means that the people that are going to the ballot box are pretty angry because they feel like they can't afford things.
They feel like their health care is being taken away. So maybe it won't matter what he's doing overseas, but I think it's going to have an impact on the midterms. You know, Danielle, let's take a big picture look at this tomorrow. Yes, tomorrow.
I guess it'll be one year since this administration, so much has happened and it's felt like, you know, several years. But looking, taking a big picture look at this, the things that the president promised during the campaign trail, one of the things he promised, although he hedged a little bit, was this issue of retribution on the campaign trail. Is that a promise that he has kept? Absolutely.
We've seen him use the Department of Justice for his own, to further his own benefit, investigating his own political rivals. And he's been frustrated sometimes when they don't go far enough or the justice system does not actually vote in his favor. It's going to be an issue, I think, as we get closer to 2026, the fact that he's weaponized the Department of Justice. We've seen lawmakers call out on both sides.
You know, we saw Republican senators call out for what he did, or he says he has nothing to do with, but the subpoena is against Fed Chair Jerome Powell. His own party was speaking out against it. It's become an issue that these things continue and he's getting criticism for it. Well, the White House would come back and say, oh, it's not retribution, it's accountability.
Right. But you know, Stephen, look, it's easy to play that game, you know, what if the other side did this? But at the same time, can you imagine if you subbed the name Trump for Biden and, you know, Minnesota for, say, Texas, if Democrats were in power? What would happen?
Yeah, you'd find everybody on every side of these issues sort of flip on the other side. I mean, Republicans would say, and I think it's not entirely true, and in some cases it's really not true, but in some cases it is true that what Trump is doing is retribution for the ways in which he was attacked by the justice system. I mean, I thought on the Georgia case, I thought on January 6th questions, he deserved, I thought on the classified documents, he deserved to be scrutinized. He deserved to be charged.
But the New York case was always a real long shot. I think that was the weaponization of government of the judicial system. And Republicans would say, well, look, what Trump is doing now is just payback for that. I don't find that argument persuasive.
And even if I did, it wouldn't be the right thing to do. But it doesn't come out of nowhere. Right. Well, Taryn, there is a portion of the Democratic Party that says Democrats need to show they're willing to fight more.
But what does that look like when the president and his administration, they seem to relish it? They welcome that because then it allows them to push back even harder. So what are Democrats to do? I think what Democrats should be focused on, which I think a lot of them are at this point, is that, you know, we've got to fight for what we can do for the American people.
And we need to be able to work around him in some ways, you know. And I think it's like fighting back against him seems to be fruitless in a lot of ways. So they're trying to figure out what they can do and make that impactful as they can. So I think you're seeing a little bit more of that, of how they're going about doing things and what they're saying.
Because it can't just be like, you know, speaking ill of him or trying to, you know, get him riled up because it's just walking right into him. Yeah, but do Democrats have the message discipline to be able to do that? Well, I think it's always been a big tent party, and I think you're going to see different responses. But I think it's because across the country, you need different responses right now.
Like what people need in their home districts, particularly if you're talking about Congress, is going to be different depending upon what state you are. You know, I don't think we need to have a discipline message. The mayor of New York City is very different than some Democrat that is being represented in other parts of the country. And we need to be and know that how we're speaking and what we're doing and fighting for the American people is going to be different.
Okay, and I think we are running low on time here. Thank you all so much for joining me. Danielle, Taryn, Stephen, really appreciate your time on this holiday Monday. And thank you all at home for watching.
I'm Gabe Gutierrez and we're back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now. There is more news right ahead on NBC News Now. See you. I'm Craig Melvin.
Cheers. Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy. And now I'm talking to the people who look at the world that way too.
Some really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, challenges. Their stories are funny and quite candid. So I hope you'll join me each week. And who knows, you might just come away with your own glass half full.
Search Glass Half Full with Craig Melvin from today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.