Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Kelly O'Donnell in Washington. As President Trump prepares to head to Europe amid a spike in tensions with U.S. allies over his vow to annex Greenland, which I go through the stock market today as the administration tries to address mounting anxiety from voters about the state of the economy.
Today, President Trump holding a wide-ranging and at times meandering press conference from the White House briefing room, officially marking one year since his return to office. His remarks and questions lasting for nearly two hours, touting his record, his immigration crackdown, and defending his tariff strategy, which he's now using as leverage to annex Greenland from Denmark, a NATO ally. President Trump using today's press conference as well to sow doubts about the U.S. commitment to the NATO alliance.
I've done more for NATO than anybody, and I see all this stuff, but NATO has to treat us fairly, too. The big fear I have with NATO is we spend tremendous amounts of money with NATO, and I know we'll come to their rescue, but I just really do question whether or not they'll come to ours. How far are you willing to go to a fire green? You'll find out.
To be clear, Article 5 of the NATO Charter has only been invoked once. That's where the common defense of members, and that happened after 9-11 when our international partners, including many Danes, came to the defense of the United States. Meanwhile, markets closing the day just moments ago and plunging in response to the president's announced 10 percent tariffs on eight European countries opposed to his takeover of Greenland. At his press conference, President Trump touting what he views as the great successes of his economic agenda, while also recognizing his message is not breaking through the some skeptical voters.
We've had the best stock market in history, the best 401Ks in history, and we inherited a mess. The numbers that we inherited are way up, and now we've brought them almost all of them way down. We brought them way down. I mean, I'm not getting maybe I have the bad public relations people, but we're not getting it across.
We inherited high numbers, and we brought them way down. But the job we did is a miracle. One of the reasons I'm doing this today is to explain. We inherited a mess, and we've made it a beautiful, beautiful picture.
And that is his report card, at least in part. And joining me now is NBC News Senior Business correspondent Christine Romans and NBC News White House correspondent Monica Elba. Christine, let's start with you the president's latest tariff threat. We have seen markets shrug some of those things off in previous iterations of tariff episodes, but not today.
And we know the president pays close attention to the markets. What can you tell us? You know, big concern that the worst of the tariff regime is not behind us. And in fact, there could be another leg of this thing, 10% on those European countries.
And then that escalates if the president doesn't get as what he wants, as he has said, in terms of Greenland. And then you've got these European allies of the United States who they have reciprocal tariffs, they have other tariffs that they would put on retaliation. So that's what a trade war looks like. So there's been a lot of hope at the end of last year, frankly, that this kind of talk was all behind us.
The worst of tariffs are behind us, but it's here fresh again. We also watched as the president painted what you could argue is a rosy picture of the economy. He was touting what he thinks are his achievements. Let's look at a clip of that.
Just a moment ago that perhaps the reason why a positive story about the economy is not getting through it was because of bad communications people, but our average Americans wrong to still feel high prices and how much longer does the White House obey? I think a lot of people are listening to the fake news a little bit, and I'm not blaming anybody. I think I blame ourselves. I think we've done a much better job than we're able to promote.
We're not promoting. We're doing a great job and we're sort of letting the promotion take care of itself. One of the reasons I'm doing this is conference. I think it's important.
We have taken a mess and made it really good. It's going to get even better. That is a pretty significant acknowledgement from the president that how people feel is not in line with what he thinks he's achieving. And so we'll kind of mark that and save that sound by four times ahead.
But what do you think is the real picture based on your assessment of the economic factors and the prices and all of the feedback you're getting? And the irony is at the end of the Biden administration, it was the same kind of situation. They were looking at numbers that were improving. They were looking at a situation that was a stock market that was surging and inflation that was off of its peak and saying, why do people feel this?
And that's exactly what this president is saying here too. Look, the president talks about gas prices falling. They have, although he exaggerates how much. The president talks about record highs in the stock market, except for today, that has been true.
In fact, the first year of the president's second term, stock market return almost exactly matched Joe Biden's first year. So there is strength in the economy, but the president keeps saying to people, look, you lost money out of Joe Biden, you're making money under me. It is just not landing quite yet. That is such a space for us to watch since we're in midterm election year.
Let me turn out of Monica. And we, of course, were sort of watching buddies as this was unfolding, talking about some of the questions we had hoped to ask if we were in that room. What were your big takeaways from the president's lengthy exchange? He spent more time making his opening than he did taking questions.
And I think that is something that definitely struck me, Kelly, because you know so well in these moments, it's sort of the president's own stream of consciousness that sometimes gives some of the most revealing insight into how he makes decisions, why he makes certain decisions, what factors into that, and really what is guiding him day to day. And he is making this argument consistently that he basically feels like he's not getting the credit that he deserves and that that is something that should be improved, perhaps a response to some of the polling that he has seen on topics like the economy. It was just a couple of weeks or months ago when we pressed him on that question of why Americans weren't feeling what he says they were supposed to be feeling. And that's when he would respond and say, you know, affordability as a hoax is something created by the Democrats.
He was kind of dismissive overall back then. And today he did have a different tone where he did seem to approach that and say, look, again, he feels that there are going to be a difference of opinion coming when people feel some of the benefits he says of his policies and programs this year, but acknowledging that again. And then on the other topic that I thought was very insightful and interesting was that he seemed to imply that the death of Renee Goode of the woman in Minnesota who was shot and killed by an ICE officer there could have been potentially something amounting to a mistake. He spoke more generally about ICE saying that sometimes mistakes can happen and saying that he really, really felt for the woman and for her family.
So that was also an interesting window into how he has approached a topic immigration and immigration enforcement where the White House had really hardened its response, had doubled and tripled down on what they felt was the self-defense right of this officer in the days and weeks after the shooting. And so to have the president today come to the podium and give a little bit of a different perspective stood out to me as well. Kelly. Almost the Joe Rogan effect, I wonder because that prominent podcaster expressed a lot of concern about that shooting and it was very notable that he softened his tone toward Renee Goode and her family.
The president, of course, tonight heading off to Davos Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. He will be surrounded by traditional allies, but it doesn't feel like it's going to be a warm reception. What are your expectations? No, and the president and the White House do always say that there's no substitute for face-to-face leader interaction, that that is where the president enjoys the most kind of diplomatic freedom.
And they argue that if he can get into a meeting with somebody in a room with somebody that maybe he can change their mind or walk out of it or they, the others will walk out with different perceptions. And the president is really trying to go into these at Davos in Switzerland and try to impress upon these European leaders why he feels it is essential for the United States to acquire Greenland for national security purposes and other stated reasons that the president went into. But it is notable that in the same breath, he is also dismissing some of the US's closest allies, dismissing Emmanuel Macron and France, though, saying he is a good friend of his and that they can work together in other areas, that he basically rebuffed his invitation to go to Paris after wrapping up his time at the World Economic Forum to see if it can continue these discussions. He said he wasn't interested in that, and that he wouldn't be pursuing that.
He was also asked about the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, and comments that he had made in the last couple of days. But it is different sometimes when the president becomes face to face with these leaders, which I think you're going to see over the next couple of days. But his mission, he said, essentially, this week is to try to convince these leaders of his position on Greenland, and he did say he feels he's going to come out of this with more agreement, with perhaps more of an embrace. But I'm told by White House officials, Kelly, that this is the president who feels very emboldened on the world stage, given some of his recent, what he views as foreign policy successes when it comes to Venezuela and setting up the Board of Peace initially for Gaza.
Oh, it would be a fly on the wall in some of these upcoming meetings. That will certainly be fascinating to watch. Monica, thank you so much. And as we've been discussing, the president is heading to Davos Switzerland, and he will likely face all of those economic leaders and partners on the world stage, those that he's been clashing with over Greenland's future.
And so the president is certainly going to face some pushback on that. Many of those leaders have already lined up to condemn the president's position on Greenland. Here's some of what they've been saying. We consider the people of the United States, not just our allies, but our friends.
And plunging us into a downward spiral would only aid the very adversaries. We are both so committed to keeping out of the strategic landscape. So our response will be unflinchly, united, and proportional. Competition from the United States of America through trade agreements that undermine our export interests, demand maximum conditions, and openly aim to weaken and subordinate Europe combined with an endless accumulation of new tariffs that are fundamentally unacceptable, even more so when they are used as a leverage against data in sovereignty.
Great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons. Terrorists leverage financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited. We stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland's future. Now, this all comes after President Trump shared on social media a text exchange he had with French President Emmanuel Macron.
If you were wondering that was not a style choice, he had an eye issue. So he was wearing sunglasses when he was making those remarks in a bright room. And during that exchange, a text he said to the president addressing it, I do not understand what you are doing on Greenland. Now joining me now is NBC News correspondent Ellison Barber.
She is in Greenland. There was a lot of competition in house for this job. And we're also joined by chief international correspondent, Keir Simmons. And Ellison, since you are there and looking pretty warm given the temperatures, let me start with you.
The escalation of this quest for the president is certainly something that has an impact with the people that you're meeting in Greenland. What are you hearing from those on the ground? Look, I mean, what people have consistently told us is they feel like this is in their words crazy. They keep saying again and again, Greenland is not for sale.
We do not want to be Americans. And in a lot of ways, when they talk about President Donald Trump, you get the sense that there's real animosity and rage from the people here towards him. I want you to listen from what we've heard from Greenlanders in the capital city so far today. We're in Greenland and we don't want to be Americans.
So if Donald Trump comes here, he should figure she had nothing to do here. So the things that comes out of his mouth, it's just insane. It's completely insane. If you could see directly to Donald Trump, what would you say to him about this issue?
Well, I don't want to say anything. He don't listen anyway. So why bother? When you talk to people here and you mention President Donald Trump, you sometimes hear curse words.
As you heard there, you see frustration, you see their eyes roll, you see anger. Some people even comparing him to other authoritarian leaders saying they don't understand why he can't understand that in their view, no means no. And they say right now, as a nation, they choose and the vast majority we have seen in public polling, we're hearing it reflected on the ground here. The vast majority, 85% of Greenlanders say they do not want to be a part of the United States.
Kelly, Alison Blunt talk, but this is very personal for the people you're meeting. Have you had in the time you've been on the ground any chance to see some of the troops from Europe that are arriving in Greenland? And is there a sense of what they're initially? Yeah, I mean, there were about 10 Danish soldiers on our flight here from Copenhagen.
When we talked to people who live here, by the way, they mentioned that the presence that they've started to see, not massively noticeable, but they are aware of it. One person told us that she had felt quite afraid of late, but seeing European countries sending forces here, she said, that is east for some. But the vast majority of people we have spoken to today say right now, they feel afraid, frankly, to be in this country. One woman saying, we don't know what will come next.
She said that she is worried that what happened in Venezuela with the bombings there, that the United States might do it here as well. The Prime Minister of Greenland today saying that while he believes military, US military intervention in Greenland is unlikely, he also told these people today that he cannot rule it out. Kelly. Thank you, Alison.
Let me turn out a cure. And he brings us an interesting conversation here. You spoke to the Dutch Foreign Minister, and his country is, of course, among those that the president says he would like to impose tariffs. What did he tell you?
Well, he's both looking to compromise and at the same time being uncompromising. Look, at what European diplomats tell me privately. They say that they view this as akin to a COVID level crisis, that it's an existential crisis for Europe, and that they are determined to stand up to President Trump. Now, President Trump makes the point, his ministers make the point that Europe is not always divided, but that's not the way the Europeans see it.
They believe that they have been united in the face of serious threats in the past, and that this is one of those serious threats. As you say, I spoke to the Dutch Foreign Minister in Davos, and this is how he described it to me. I think we all had a shock over the weekend in Europe when Six Nations, among which my own were threatened with terrorists for participating in an exercise in Greenland that was actually meant to show the US that we were taking their security concerns in the Arctic series. And we need to find a resolution for this.
You described President Trump's threat of tariffs over Greenland as blackmail. Is that still the way that you view it? Yeah, I think that terrorists should be used what tariffs are meant for, which is for trade measures. This, of course, has nothing to do with trade.
This is a security matter. And I think he also misunderstood what we were trying to do there, and we tried to communicate that at different levels to the US government. But apparently, the misunderstanding still reached the highest level. We now have until the first of February to get these tariffs off the table.
So that will be the main aim of my visit here, and also for the European leaders and ministers to try and get these tariffs off the table. So we can have a more constructive approach about Arctic security. Fascinating, Kelly, that he trains this as something of a victim of confusion within the Trump administration. Our message didn't get to President Trump.
He makes a pretty powerful point. He says that the Netherlands sent two members of its military to Greenland. 10% tariffs. He says that's 5% for each member of the Dutch military that they sent.
He tried to describe how from his perspective, how incomprehensible this is. You're part of what I'd love to get your sense of too, is you spend a lot of time dealing with Russia and you've interacted with Putin a number of times. Is this kind of divide between the United States and NATO partners exactly what Vladimir Putin wants to see? Yes, it is honestly the answer, I think.
I mean, you can talk about how President Putin talks about international rules and sovereignty matters and all those kinds of things, but ultimately, President Putin's aim has been over decades to weaken NATO, and this threatens to weaken NATO. And so President Putin will certainly be looking at all of this and thinking, I may be on the brink of a political victory here. And getting perhaps some entrance back into the world community with that Board of Peace that the President's been talking about as well. Here, thank you so much.
We appreciate your time and your expertise. And coming up, the view from Denmark has it mobilizes its military. A Danish member of Parliament who chairs Denmark's Defense Committee responds to President Trump's demands to take control of Greenland. Plus a deeper dive into the President's historic and tumultuous first year in office that has tested the limits of presidential power and the guardrails of American government.
What it all means and what is next for the President's sweeping agenda. You're watching. Meet the President. It's here.
The Ford is a big deal. Not yet. The Ford is a big deal. Oh guys, just wait.
The Ford is a big deal event is on. Really? Now. Hurry up to at least a 2026 Maverick XLT hybrid all-wheel drive for $197.5 weekly at 5.29% APR for 60 months with $29.95 down.
That's like $99 a week. The Ford is a big deal event. Visit your Ontario Ford store or Ford.ca. Welcome back.
Joining me now is Rasmus Yarlov, Danish member of the Parliament and chairman of the Defense Committee. We are so privileged to have you here at what I know is a 10 cent critical time. So let me jump right in. President Trump has posted on social media that Greenland is imperative for national and world security.
There can be no going back. I don't hear an off-ramp in that. What is your sponsor? Thanks a lot.
It's really important to talk to you. Our response is that this is a very, very difficult situation for us because we're being asked to do something that we can't do. We can't just hand over Greenland to the United States. There's people living there and they're very clear.
They don't want to become Americans. They don't want to be going by the US or become part of the United States. And we can't just, you know, sell off people like we're in the 1800s. We don't do that anymore.
And we have to protect Greenland. It's a self-governing region of Denmark, but they're citizens of our country. They have representation in our parliament. So it's pretty much like an American state.
So it'd be like if the United States was asked to hand over Alaska or Hawaii to China, and we just can't do that. And therefore, it's not really going to matter, sort of what pressure is put on us. We want to be in good terms for the United States, of course. We've been allies for a very long time.
We've been a friend of the United States for the entire history. We've never been on different sides doing wars, and we've never done anything hostile to the United States. And we want to preserve that relationship, but we can't give into demand of handling of the power of our country. And we're so glad to have you here to give that perspective and comparing it to the annexation of the US state to another country might help a lot of our viewers get a feeling for this.
Because this is so clear to you, what is Denmark prepared to do to defend Greenland? And do you think that could include military force? Well, we certainly don't want to use military force in a situation like this. We're defending Greenland normally against Russia.
It was the big player in the Arctic. We've kept them completely out. We've kept China completely out. They don't have any activities out there.
They control nothing. They don't own anything. They don't have any mining. They don't even have a consulates.
I normally say that it's difficult to even find a Chinese restaurant agreement. That's how much they've been kept out. And the United States need to be sure that we'll continue to do that. And if we were afraid that China and Russia were about to take over Greenland, we would call for help, but that's not the situation.
And yeah, I certainly hope it doesn't come to a military conversation with the United States. That's completely, yeah, it will be a disaster for us, of course, and we're well aware of the size difference between us. So we know that the Americans can destroy our military. But of course, in that situation, they would have the duty to fight and protect Greenland as much as they could.
So we are actually talking about a war if that happened. And of course, I would be a complete disaster. It is also very serious. President Trump told our colleagues here at NBC News, no comment on whether the US would seize Greenland by force.
He doesn't want to take that off the table. What do you think the implications would be? And could the US end up at war with NATO? Or are you thinking in the short run, the meeting in Davos that talking with leaders could carve out some pathway to avert that?
That's what we're hoping. We want to talk to the Americans about what it is that they think they would achieve in Greenland that they don't already have today. Because the thing is that the United States already has complete and full military access to Greenland. They used to have something like 30 bases up there.
They used to have 15,000 soldiers in Greenland. They have reduced that down to one base that looks after missiles flying over the North Pole from Russia in case of a nuclear attack. But they're welcome to have as many bases as they want. They cannot scale it.
Actually, many of the bases are still there. We kept the runways in the building. So you can move right back in if that's what you want. The door is wide open for that.
And also, if there you have concrete mining projects in mind or anything else, we will love to talk about that. But we can't hand over the sovereignty. And really, it wouldn't give the US anything it doesn't already have. Even if we handed over for free and without huge implications for the Western Alliance, that an attack on a NATO country would have even disregarding that.
It's a terrible business case because the US has full access for free with no expire date and then Mark is paying expenses in Greenland. So I don't know why would you want to take over that? It really doesn't make any sense. It is so concerning to lawmakers here in the United States, a bipartisan group traveled to Copenhagen to speak with members of Parliament.
And did they assure you or reassure you that they are prepared to try to use the tools of Congress to restrain the president on his ambitions to take over Greenland? Well, they didn't give any promises like that. We're just hoping that the American public, maybe a Congress, the America as a country, will just rethink this because we don't recognize you right now. We've been your friend for two hundred and two years.
We've never done anything hostile to the United States ever. There's no threat from Greenland. Greenland has done nothing. And US isn't a country that goes out to subjugate people and take away their freedom and try to sort of gobble them in a imperialistic style.
And we don't recognize you right now when you're trying to do that. And it seems so strange to us. We would have never thought this would have happened. I think we've been really loyal to you.
We've been a very good friend for a long time, and we would never turn on you. I think you would turn on yourself before we would have. So all of a sudden experiencing that we've been threatened with military invasion seems rather strange. And of course, after 9-11, Denmark came to the aid of the United States and had a higher rate of casualties per capita than a number of other countries.
And so we appreciate as citizens of the United States, we appreciate that partnership over time. Denmark is among the countries the president said he would want to add tariffs over this issue. And can you give us a quick insight into how you think that would affect your economy? And do you think the EU broadly has a plan to respond to that tariff threat?
Yeah, I don't think it would affect our economy that much to be honest. It's certainly not going to change our position. Those tariffs could be 200% or 1,000% and we wouldn't change our position. This is not for us a matter of money.
We're not going to sell green at any price. And it also means it doesn't matter if tariffs or any other economic pressures put on us. We just can't do it. I mean, it's impossible for us to even be against everything we're staying for just to sell people like there's some kind of product we can just sell off.
That's just not going to happen. Greenland should be run by the green numbers. Their society should be run by them. And they're with Denmark because they want to be.
They've had the option of leaving Denmark for 17 years, but they certainly don't want to replace Denmark with someone else that's just going to own them and take away their freedom and any dream of independence that they might have. So we want to get back to a partnership with things being very productive to be allies of the Americans. We greatly appreciate that. We greatly appreciate everything the US has done for Europe.
We fully understand that some Americans are tired of spending as much money on defense and that Europe should spend more on defense. And we're actually doing that. Last year, 2025, Denmark spent more than 3% on our defense, which is the same as the US. So we are doing what the Americans should expect us to do.
And in Ukraine, we're fighting Russia. We spend a lot of money down there. Denmark is a leading contributor to that fighting against Russia. And if the US wants to stand strong against Russia and China, we should be allies.
We shouldn't be fighting each other and going for each other's territory. We so appreciate that you would make time for us. Thank you very much, Mr. Yarlov.
We appreciate that. And we hope we can continue these conversations as this set of events unfolds. Thank you so much. And after the break.
Thank you, sir. After the break, federal immigration officials are providing an update on ICE operations that's underway in Minnesota as the Trump administration threatens to deploy combat troops to quell ongoing protests. We will have the latest on those developments. So please stay with us.
You're watching Meet the Press Now. Shaping our world on the front page to the Zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News. Listen daily on Amazon Music.
And again, he alleged without evidence that protesters were paid agitators as the State Department issued subpoenas to state and local officials in Minnesota as part of its investigation into whether those officials conspired to impede immigration enforcement in the state. Meanwhile, local law enforcement held a press conference today warning that the actions of some agents are eroding the public's trust. The trust is fragile right now and is essential. It is an essential element to public safety.
Today, the trust is being damaged, broken by the question about and sometimes unethical actions of some, some federal agents, particularly in these last recent weeks. I've seen the best of what the federal government has. This is not what we do is legal, ethical, and moral. Everything we do every day is legal, ethical, moral, well-grounded, and law.
I think that they're asking the wrong questions and their priorities are misplaced. And joining me now is NBC's Shaquille Brewster, who has spent a lot of time among protesters and on the streets of Minneapolis. And Shaq, those DOJ subpoenas to Minnesota State and local officials have apparently gone out. And are those officials responding?
Have they actually received things yet? Yeah, gone out to at least six of the offices of those local officials in the Twin Cities area. And we are hearing pretty strong comments in response to them. I want to pull up the statement that we got from Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Fry, who writes in his statement that Minnesotans are more concerned with safety and peace than baseless legal tactics aimed at intimidating public servants, standing shoulder to shoulder with their community.
Excuse me, I was reading this statement from Governor Wallace just there. You can pull up the statement of Fry where he says, we shouldn't have to live in a country where people fear that federal law enforcement will be used to play politics or crack down on local voices they agree with. So bottom line, you're hearing from the local Democratic leaders that strong push back against even the action of these subpoenas. We also heard from the Attorney General for the state of Minnesota who confirmed that his office has received a subpoena as well.
Though in the statement, he clarifies that it's not for him personally, but for records and documents that the federal government are looking for. Either way, Kelly, this is a big escalation in this investigation into whether or not these leaders are conspiring to impede this major operation. We heard today and we showed a bit of a clip of it of some federal and local law enforcement. And they obviously have a lot of concerns about how this is playing out and how their work is going forward.
What are you hearing there? What stands out from their message? Yeah, let's start with what we heard from the federal government, because this was a pretty striking press conference. And that is the first time we heard from the Border Patrol, from ICE leaders, since the start of this Operation Metro Surge, at least inside of Minneapolis.
And leaders there are saying that they are conducting targeted operations. They say that they've arrested 3000 people who are here illegally. They say the vast majority of those are criminals. And in their words, they're taking criminals off the streets in a legal, ethical and moral way.
But Kelly, you mentioned I was just in Minneapolis. I talked to a lot of people on the ground. And the sense that you hear from folks there is that that that is not completely true. And what's striking today is you're even hearing that from a local law enforcement.
We're talking about county sheriffs, a police chiefs in that area, disputing the idea that what you're seeing in this federal immigration operation is legal, or that it is what should be going on. We do have some sound, but I just want to say this is something that the local law enforcement really pushing back on what we heard from federal law enforcement. We're a little pressed for time, but we will stay on this story, as I know you will. And thank you so much, Jack, for bringing us the latest from today.
And up next, the loyalty test inside President Trump's retribution campaign against Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. And what it means for the midterms, the panel is next on Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. Everybody loves the panel and here we go.
President Trump has not shied away from flexing the power of the executive in his second term. Just take a look at some of the numbers from his first year back in office. He's overseen 229 executive actions and 124 individual pardons and commutations. He also pardoned roughly 1500 convicted January 6th writers and deployed the National Guard to six cities.
And his tariffs have raised over 266 billion dollars to the federal treasury, even as the legal questions about whether he had the right to oppose them. That remains a question. So joining me now is our panel, Tamar Teeth White House correspondent for NPR, Kendra Barkoff, former press secretary to then vice president Biden, and now managing director at SKDK and Rick Tyler, Republican strategist and co-founder of Foundry Strategies. Welcome all.
Tam, let me go to you first. We're watching the president today. It was a bit of a surprise that they kind of put him out on his first anniversary of the second term. What was your takeaway of how he came to the lectern and what he wanted to accomplish?
I think that he came to the lectern wanting to tell the story of his first year. But what ultimately happened was not a crisp recitation of accomplishments. Instead, it was about 80 minutes relatively low energy of him just talking at one point, like battling a binder clip, holding up pictures of people he said had been arrested in Minnesota, reading through a document sort of weaving around. It was not concise at all.
And then he ultimately took questions where there were a lot of questions about Greenland and NATO and any number of other topics. And he just didn't make news strictly speaking, which is always a bar we're looking for. He also talked about in kind of an unusual way that the messaging of his administration might have some problems. And maybe that's why he was out there today as he described it to try to lead that message.
Did he do the trick? Kelly, you have covered presidents for a while. Many a president has believed that their problem is that the people doing their messaging aren't getting the message out. And if only people heard the message, then it would solve everything.
And so that's what he was out there trying to do is tell his story. But you know, as has often happened with his rally speeches and other things, the core message gets lost in a lot of other words. And Rick, you are plugged into what Republicans are thinking. Do those you're speaking to think there's a message problem, a focus problem, a midterm's problem?
Where do you assess year one with the president's accomplishments and challenges? Yeah, a few Republicans say things out loud or released in the president's year shot, but presidents Republicans are very concerned because the number one issue right now that I can see that he's popping up over despite all distractions of Gaza, then Ukraine, then Venezuela, then what's the latest? Greenland. Right.
People are worried about the economy and affordability is still the number one issue. It was the number one issue in the Biden administration, which Trump capitalized on. And even optically, he's done nothing to assuage or say better days are ahead. Now, look, the big beautiful bill was a huge, it was a huge accomplishment.
And I was done by the speaker and the leader in the House and the president signed it and it kept from massive middle class tax increase from being implemented because the expiring bill, he didn't talk about about that. I mean, that's something in the past, but the rest of the record has been really mixed in services of distraction. And when you see on the screen, $283 billion, I think it was collected in tariffs. Those are Americans paying those tariffs.
If we could tax foreign countries, we should do it at a confiscatory rate. We cannot and therefore they are paying those taxes. And when affordability is an issue and that $283 million, and by the way, Republicans who are supposed to represent the conservative point of view are not for massive wealth increases or transfers from people shopping at Walmart to the federal treasury to make the government bigger. So it's just often that's all around a lot of opportunities.
He could have taken credit for the one thing of the rest of the administration. By the way, that's sorry, is durability. You see, when you want lasting change, you get things codified into law. That's why we can't get rid of Obamacare, right?
And he has worked more in terms of executives. And I blame the Congress for this because it is the president who is signing executive orders who either are passed or vetoed by the courts and not the Congress. The Congress is not even in the picture. And all of those can be repealed.
They will not have a lasting effect, like spreading the name off the Kennedy Center. All those things will just evaporate. And Kendra, you have worked both with Joe Biden and in the Capitol Hill space is Congress, in any way, more able to assert its guardrails. And what will it take?
Is Greenland a tipping point, perhaps? It is clear they don't want to. It is clear that they have decided that they are going to give all of their power to Donald Trump. You know, there's three equal branches of government, although Congress is clearly supposed to be the ones who have an oversight role.
They've done zero oversight on any of what he has done. And I just want to go back to the point that Rick made earlier, especially on the affordability piece, because Donald Trump was out there himself today at the press conference saying it's the media who is misleading the American public that the affordability is not an issue. People are still going to their grocery store and still paying very high prices. It may be the one thing that people have the most direct personal experience about.
And Joe Biden had some trouble in talking about data versus lived experience. You can't tell people that when you're going to the grocery store, that meat prices are not down or down when they're up. You just you these consumers see it for themselves. It's not an economic theory that we're trying to explain over here.
Exactly. This is the price of the meat. That is correct. Another notable thing that happened in the last one or two days is the president turning on Bill Cassidy.
Now that was foreseeable. Senator from Louisiana who voted for conviction in the impeachment and also took a lot of slings and arrows to get Robert F Kennedy Jr. across the line. Are you surprised by the way this is played out that he endorsed a candidate before she even got into the race?
Not entirely, because he has done things like this before and President Trump has been very focused in the second time in office on retribution and on getting rid of anyone who has ever crossed him in any way. And Bill Cassidy is one of the last remaining people who voted for impeachment who's still in office. Yeah, so many are gone, even though his voting record is 95% lying with the rest of your enemies. Never forget their names.
Right. Look, but this just hurts the Republican Party because now the NRC, the NRC, the senatorial committee was responsible for getting incumbents reelected. Are they going to protect Cassidy? And I guess they will.
And that's going to set up a loyalty test between the NRC and Trump. And so you're going to have all these resources that could be going to set to seats. We actually win and not seats. We're going to win anyway.
That is going to go to reason. And so perhaps a personal sense of retribution could hurt the normal amount of money for no reason. That's interesting. And we understand that John Thune majority leader, Republican, had tried to persuade the president.
Are you surprised that that was not persuasive, that he should support Cassidy and not a House member? I don't think anybody's surprised. Okay. Well, maybe Bill Cassidy, who probably knew it was coming, but also now has to live with that reality.
When we think about what's happening in terms of the fate of this Davos trip, never has Davos been so high profile, do you have a sense that there is a message from allies that can give the president an off ramp he has given no space for an off ramp? Well, it is clear that we are currently the laughingstock of the world. You have four leader going out there after four leader going out there saying we are banning together to do what is right for Greenland. And Donald Trump has basically said I don't care.
And so I do think it's going to be very interesting to see what happens on the ground there. You know, it's clearly he doesn't listen to a whole lot of people if anybody but himself. That is sort of what narcissists do. And so we will see what happens.
I don't know if there's anybody who can. Well, on that optimistic note at year one, we will wrap it up with our panel. Thank you for being here. Appreciate your expertise.
And we'll be watching one unfolds in the next few days and Davos very closely. Tamra, Kendra, Greg, thank you all. And history in the making. We will dive deeper into that coming up next after one full year of a second term of this administration with presidential historian to give us some insights.
So keep it here. Meet the president now. These are all things we have on there. Read a few of the samples.
Look at this. These are all each line is something that we did. Nobody did that before. And it's big stuff too.
Look at the hottest country in the world. Nothing like a visual aid and then tossing that over. Welcome back. That was President Trump earlier this afternoon with an interesting way of touting his accomplishments on this the first anniversary of his second term in office.
One that has been marked by a massive and historic expansion of his power as president. We mentioned some of this, but it bears repeating. You've lived it. You know, in the last 12 months, President Trump has implemented sweeping tariffs without congressional authorization.
We're waiting on the Supreme Court to rule if some of those are specifically legal or not. He sent the National Guard to major American cities against the demands or wishes of local leaders. And he has freed thousands of government workers, fired rather, fired them and dismantled federal agencies, publicly directed by the Department of Justice to go after political adversaries. And that has included New York's attorney general, Director James Comey, Senator Adam Schiff, and made massive changes to the country's immigration system, including moving to end a longstanding practice of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment that's sealed before the High Court.
President Trump has repeatedly bypassed Congress, signing 229 executive orders in 365 days. Now, for comparison, President Biden signed 77 executive orders during his first year. President Trump only signed 55 executive orders during the first year of his first term. And the only modern president to have signed more EOs in the first term of a presidency was FDR, who signed 381 executive orders to mobilize the country for World War II of every different time and place.
Now joining me now is Presidential Historian and Professor of History at Rice University in Texas, Douglas Brinkley. So good to see you, Douglas. Thank you for being here. Thank you.
And what do you make of the speed and the scope at which President Trump seems to be expanding executive power in what is supposed to be three co-equal branches. He has really puffed up and expanded the range and reach of the presidency. What is your take on that? Donald Trump went to breakneck speed following the guide book of the Heritage Foundation's 2025 manual and just is tripling and quadrupling down on this is the era of extreme presidential power.
I think it's the main takeaway from 2025. It's just not the number of EOs you saw there. It's just the ones he's decided to do, like reopening the moon to January 6th and pardoning insurrectionists. That was on day one.
And many of these just aren't ever going to stick. If a Democrat became president and the next cycle, a lot of these will just be disappear like the bad idea of Trump's name on the Kennedy Center. And we can chuckle about something like that. But this is a mad dog approach to presidential power.
Donald Trump believes the line Nixon told David Frost on BBC that the president doesn't, it must be legal. He thinks he's above the law as president. He has a sympathetic Supreme Court in which he was first term Trump bumped on three of them on there. And he doesn't have much interest in Congress.
I think the success of the big beautiful bill is the concrete success of 2025. But otherwise, it's just Trump firing in all directions and really nearly fashion. And we still don't know what sticks or what doesn't stick, but it sure leads to a very chaotic terrain in America. And when we look at some of the prominent differences between the first term and how we approach the office this time around, one thing we noticed is that he was surrounded by people in the first term, a number of them who were telling him things he could not do, advising him about the law, advising him about the norms of Washington.
This time, it seems that those who are close to him and influencing his thinking are not putting any breaks on. How significant do you think that staffing change is and the way the president is governing? What a great question. I do think that's the big difference.
Plus, first time Trump, you know, he hadn't had the 34 felony charges, meaning he wasn't as angry at what he saw as the deep state. It became more rhetorical. We're going to drain the swamp on and on. Trump now has learned some magnuggets of history, and he's actually behaving like a 19th century expansionist president.
I mean, the gunboat diplomacy and the going into Venezuela, like he has done. The idea that I've re-informed with a new Trumpman row doctrine, his way McKinley S belief in tariff, tariff, tariffs against the thinking of all economists, and most significantly of all, his breaking of the cardinal rule of U.S. foreign policy from Harry Truman, even down to first term Trump, was NATO supremacy. Keep that alliance going militarily, economically, politically, culturally.
NATO is the core of America's existence in the world, and he now is going to Davos, having all of the NATO allies loathing the United States, mistrusting us. And ostensibly, what he didn't talk about today, pocket issues, grocery prices, inflation. All of the reasons he was elected, he now says he's going to talk about the home's home affordability issue in Davos, while the Greenland flaps going on. And it is just mind-boggling that he's able to just generate kind of a crazy whiplash headlines every day for going oddly in another direction, then backing off and doubling down.
It's just a foreign policy of confusion and an equated 19th century thinking. Well, I wish we could talk about more, because I would really enjoy digging into a number of other topics sadly. Time is vanishing today. Douglas, thank you for being here.
We so appreciate it, and we will look for some of your insights down the road as well. And of course, we will be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now. And right now, there is more news ahead on NBC News Now.