Welcome to Meet the Press. Now, I'm Kristen Welker in Washington. We begin a Davos, Switzerland, where after delivering a grievance fueled address to European leaders gathered at the World Economic Forum today and assailing many of America's closest allies, late this afternoon, President Trump abruptly changed course, dropping his threat to place tariffs on European countries and announcing a framework agreement has been reached with respect to Greenland's future. The President speaking to reporters just moments ago saying the deal, quote, gets us everything we need, but offering very few details.
Well, we have a concept of a deal. I think it's going to be a very good deal for the United States, also for them. And we're going to work together on something having to do with the Arctic as a whole, but also Greenland. It's not specific enough to know at this point how long this lasts.
Forever. Forever. It'll be forever for Greenland at this point. Forever.
Now, just moments ago, NATO putting out a statement saying discussions about the framework would focus on, quote, ensuring Arctic security. The statement making no mention of the U.S. annexing or taking control of the territory. The President's sudden announcement of an apparent off ramp over Greenland comes after the European Union announced today it would halt trade negotiations with the US over those now canceled tariffs.
And after NATO's secretary general met with the President. Marcus ended the trading day just moments ago. Rebounding on the news after plunging yesterday nearly 900 points over concerns of a trade war. The President began his day in Davos with a stern remark, several stern remarks on the world stage, doubling down on what he called the US's claim to Greenland, but also walking back his threat to use force to take it.
This enormous unsecured island is actually part of North America on the northern frontier of the Western Hemisphere. That's our territory. It's the United States alone that can protect this giant mass of land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and improve it and make it so that it's good for Europe and safe for Europe and good for us. And that's the reason I'm seeking immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition of Greenland by the United States.
We probably won't get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won't do that. They have a choice. You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no, and we will remember.
President Trump also invoking Denmark's fall to Germany during World War II as part of his justification for why the US should control Greenland and going on to mock many of America's traditional allies. And after the war, which we won, we won it big. Without us right now, you'd all be speaking German and a little Japanese, perhaps. Canada gets a lot of freebies from us.
By the way. They should be grateful also. But they're not. I watched your prime minister yesterday.
He wasn't so grateful. But they should be grateful to us. Canada. Canada lives because of the United States.
Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements. The problem with NATO is that we'll be there for them 100%. But I'm not sure that they'd be there for us if we gave them the call. Now, to be clear, as we previously noted, Article 5 of the NATO Charter has only been invoked once after 9 11, when NATO countries came to the collective defense of the United States.
Today, before President Trump's announcement of a framework of a deal, the NATO secretary reiterated the alliance's commitment to the defense pact. You are not absolutely sure that European would come to the rescue of us if you will be attacked? Let me tell you, they will. And it is in Afghanistan.
So you can be assured. Absolutely. If ever US Will be under attack, your allies will be with you. Absolutely.
There's absolute guarantee. Joining me now is NBC News Chief justice and national affairs correspondent Kelly o'. Donnell. Also with us is former US Ambassador to NATO, Nicholas Burns and Sir Trevor Phillips, presenter of Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips on our sister network Sky News in the UK thank you all so much for joining us.
Kelly, I'm going to start with you. Extraordinary day of developments at nat. The president started his day with that speech lambasting United States allies and then with this whiplash saying, yes, we've reached the framework of a trade deal. What do you make of it?
Where's it all going from here? It is a sunny day, in part because the tone does matter. The president used very harsh, at times insulting, even degrading language of nations that have been at the side of the United States for decades. And he asserted powers that the United States would only use in extreme cases.
To even discuss it with allies is shocking. And then a very quick change of tactics, and there was a lot of pressure brought to bear. Certainly the EU had talked about backing out of a trade agreement that the president had touted as a victory just months ago, an important trade pact. They were willing to put that aside.
Mark Ruta, the Secretary General, making clear that NATO has in fact supported the United States. How the president asserts that against the evidence of history is stunning on itself. And to now, basically, it seems the framework is to stop talking about Greenland. And by that I mean they can't say if it's ownership.
They can't say, he said forever. Clearly that's not the nature of one of these agreements. So they have reached a point where they, I think it made clear to him that the Danish people will own Greenland. Greenland will self determine its own future and they want that partnership.
And so the US has had an invitation to expand in Greenland for 50, 60 years. So it is a stunning turn of events. The president went in with an intent to show strength and to show the force of his presidency, and he ended up perhaps getting something he wanted. But the real assessment in this moment is that he's not going to buy Greenland, he's not going to invade Greenland.
He'll have access to Greenland, which is where we were weeks ago, walking back from that core demand that he had. Kelly, one of the aspects of his speech that people took note of, the fact that he seemed to repeatedly confuse Iceland with Greenland. I'm gonna play a clip, catch a reaction on the other side. I'm helping NATO and until the last few days when I told them about Iceland, they love me.
They're not there for us on Iceland. And I can tell you our sock market took the first dip yesterday because of Iceland. So Iceland's already cost us a lot of money. What are people saying?
What's the reaction that you're hearing? Well, what's writing about that is we always look when a president makes an error, of course, everyone slips with the tongue. Everyone misspeaks. We give a lot of attitude to that.
He had earlier in the speech referred to piece of ice in describing Greenland, which of course that is part of its arctic nature. But to then repeatedly refer to Iceland and not catch himself that it was Greenland he was referring to is notable. People will decide what they think that means. The president flew overnight.
His trip was delayed. He's nearly 80 years old. There's a lot going on. You can have a lot of reasons for that.
When the president makes factual errors or misstatements that might be very human, it is notable. And it was certainly notable today. Absolutely. Kelly o', Donnell, thank you so much for starting us off today.
We really appreciate it. Burns, I'd like to go to you again. As Kelly is mapping out, there's so much that is notable about what transpired today. The fact that effectively President Trump is back to where the United States was several weeks ago.
What do you make of the idea that there's now a framework for a deal in place. Well, Kristen, I first have to say when the president cashed out again today on one of the NATO allies who defend the United States. I was the American ambassador to NATO on nano war. And I remember this is ironic that it was the Canadian and Danish ambassadors who were among the first to come up with me to say they wanted to protect us.
And in Polk Article 5. And as you know, Denmark had the highest prevalent per capita basis, highest losses casualties in Afghanistan over 20 years. So that bears repeating to an American audience that NATO does stand by the United States. I think this has been what an up and down roller coaster day.
Obviously it's positive that President Trump has taken the threat of military force against a NATO ally, which was a crazy idea from the beginning, off the table. Good that the terrorists have been moved hopefully by both sides so that there can be rational conversation. I cannot envision any outcome short of what Kelly just said, that the Danes will not sell Greenland to the United States and the European Union countries solidly behind Denmark. So what this might be is the administration backing down and agreeing that there has to be a NATO solution.
And that was the right answer all along because there is a 1951 agreement in place where the United States and the Danes have been clear about this recently, can go into Greenland, establish as many bases as we want and build up our military capacity. But if we're smart about it, it's my last point. We want to take advantage of the extraordinary experience. Let's hope that that's where the president is headed.
Well, and to zoom out a little bit and you give us such good context. Ambassador Burns, is there some damage that has already been done that cannot be unwound? You heard some of the president's remarks today, incredibly sharp, including directed at the prime minister of Canada. I think there's been a lot of damage done and the Europeans and Canadians are not going to forget the repeated threats of the use of military force by the president himself and by his press secretary and others over the last three weeks.
How can they forget that when that's the first time since 1949 that any NATO ally has threatened to attack another? That's first. Second, as Kelly and you have both said, just the extraordinary attacks on the European leaders personally, whether it's President Macron, whether it's Prime Minister Carney of Canada, the belittling of Europe's achievements, belittling of the nature of their multiracial societies, which by the way, look a lot like our multiracial, multiethnic, multi religious society that we prize many of us here in the United States. So I think a lot of damage has been done.
I think the administration did not calculate how tough and united the European response has been and will continue to be. And I wonder if you can help us with a little bit of a reality check here. Part of the president's initial justification for wanting to take Greenland was he said there were threats by China and Russia. I spoke to Treasury Secretary Sat Besant about that today.
What's the national emergency here that would require imposing these terrorists of the national emergency is preventing a national emergency. So it doesn't seem like they were citing an imminent threat. But does China neighbor, the former ambassador to China as well, does China pose a threat in that region? I believe both Russia and China pose, you know, a medium to long term threat with the melting of the polar ice cap, which means that there'll be a free passage, a navigable passage between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
And certainly the Russians and Chinese will take advantage of that. But there's no imminent threat. And again, because there is this longer term threat, the best way for the United States is to work with Finland and Sweden and those other end, Denmark and the other countries should be strong enough in Greenland to protect Danish territory and that the Russians and Chinese will not be successful with those other long term designs. All right, Ambassador Burns, thank you so much for joining us.
As always, we really appreciate your insights. I want to go now to Sir Trevor Phillips. Thank you as always for joining us. You are always here on these really big days.
Today is yet another one. And again, just remarkable developments with President Trump starting today with that fiery speech and then the whiplash over his threats of imposing more tariffs on the United States European allies. What do you make of what happened today? Well, Kristen, as always, it's lovely to be with you.
And what I should first say is that there is a wave of relief watching over England that there will not be Delta Force troops landing in Greenland. I think that's the person most importantly, and I'll tell you why I'm particularly bothered about that moment in the president's speech where he referred to his Scottish antecedent. And I could just write the next part of the speech where he said, you know what, United States, Canada, England, we all used to be part of the same country. Why don't we all get together again?
But you have a king and you'll live in Washington. So that's off the table. We were also slightly confused about the Iceland thing because we also have a big grocery chain here which is called Iceland. So there was a moment where we were slightly worried he was going to come and take over the grocery ship.
The basic point is that there is the temperature has been cooled a little bit. It would be great to see if this framework really is a reality. We hope that there will be some sensible conversation about the United States need for security, and it's a legitimate one, but in the context of NATO. And I think that the one thing that I would say that is important about the reaction here is that, you know, if the president wants Europe to love him, and there's a lot of tone in his speech in which you could come down to say, why don't you guys love me?
Why don't you disrespect me? It would be good, if you want that to happen, not to turn up and tell us you're great, you're great in the United States and you Europeans really don't know what you're doing. I don't think that's a smart way to get people to love you. Well, you take me to my next question because we heard incredibly strong reaction from a range of European leaders.
I want to play a little bit of what the British prime minister said earlier today and get your reaction on the other side. Will not yield. Britain will not yield on our principles and values about the future of Greenland under threats of tariffs. And that is my clear position, Prime Minister Starmer there, that you also announced it was halting work on a trade deal with the US how much impact do you think that had on getting the president to this point?
Well, I hope it had some impact. We know that he likes Britain. We know that he pays attention to what British leaders think. But clearly he may not understand just how badly some of what he said has gone down here.
Bear in mind this is a country which has not been invaded for going on for a thousand years. We are used to ruling ourselves and being treated as equals and treating others as equals. So I think that it may be, and we have some very skilled diplomats here, that the message finally got through to the president that it is entirely possible to protect the United States. And no country wants that to be the case more than the United Kingdom.
It may finally got something through to him. But maybe the way to do this is, if you like, not by the manners that you know, as you know, Christian love. My father is in the United States and we're used to some rough stuff in Queens, New York. But those aren't the manners that need to be adopted on the international stage right now.
Treat us with respect, treat us as equals, and we will support you because you are our closest allies, closest cultural fit. And you know, we love the United States, but only if we are treated properly. And Sir Trevor Phillips, we are talking about the reaction from leaders just very quickly. I mean, President Trump called European leaders, called Europe unrecognizable, said it was heading in the wrong direction.
How do the people of Europe hear those comments and how tuned in are they? I think that when we hear the kinds of things that the president says, we don't recognize the country that he is describing. And I would make an open offer, I'm really happy here to say, Mr. President, come visit.
I will show you around London. It is not the criminal infested hellhole that somebody has told you, come and visit the place where I am in that this is one of the nicest libraries in London to which I have access. You'd love it here. It would be great.
So come and visit. I'll show you around. And I think you'll have a very different impact of Europe than the one you currently have. All right, search over Phillips.
We'll see if he can take you up on that invitation. Thank you so much. As always, we really appreciate your insights on this very significant day. Pleasure, Kristen.
And joining me now from the ground in Nuke Greenland is NBC's Ellison. Barbara Ellison, thanks so much for being here. So give us what the reaction is. I know this is all just developing right now.
Have you been able to get reaction from people who live there in Greenland? We started to a little bit. I'll be honest with you, A lot of people have just not wanted to talk about this. This has been taking up so much of their lives, so much of the conversation, particularly here in Milk with so many international journalists in town.
We did speak to one man who when I read him that post and I said this point, we don't have more details in this, but what do you make of it? He said it's about security. That's something he's okay with listening. I think maybe they are making deal about the security of the Arctic.
But I'm glad to see the NATO and the European Union talking more seriously about the security in Grenad. Yeah. As we've been here the last couple of days talking with people, what we hear again and again is that people are not interested in becoming part of the United States. But they have said we've had treaties with the US since World War II where there's already a base in the north.
If there wanted to be more. Those are things that they believe the people here as well as the government here will be interested in having discussions when it comes to this broader topic of the idea of bringing the coming part of the United States. Almost every single person we have spoken to have said that they are not interested in that. In fact, there's been a lot of animosity and frustration towards the idea of it and this insistence people feel like they've heard from President Donald Trump speaking with a former member of Parliament earlier today, shortly after we heard President Trump speaking in Davos when she heard me make that comment referring to Greenland as an icebox, said it's not just this giant piece of ice.
We are human beings. And she said, there are a lot of people here right now. We've spoken to many of them who in the past couple of days have genuinely felt afraid because they have felt uncertain about what could possibly come next. One person we spoke to this evening, he lives in London, but his grandmother, she is a Greenlander.
She lives here in Nook. He said he'd been visiting her the last couple of days. And I read him that post from President Trump on True Social. He said, I'm not sure I believe it.
And one of the things he pointed to was he said, we saw what happened in Venezuela. He's the second person we heard mention that. So there's still a lot of uncertainty here, still a lot of fear, and people aren't sure what to believe and what will come next. Kristen, while you're reporting on the ground, there has just been fantastic.
Allison, thank you for bringing us an interview responding to this breaking news. We really appreciate it. Coming up, more breaking news. House lawmakers of the Oversight Committee overwhelmingly vote to move forward with holding former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress, Congress for refusing to testify in their Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
Plus, a funding fight is brewing on Capitol Hill as Democrats demand an overhaul of ICE as part of negotiations to fund the government. With a shutdown deadline now just nine days away. Stay with us. You're WATCHING THE PRESS now.
Welcome back. We are following breaking news on Capitol Hill, where the House Oversight Committee just advanced contempt of Congress charges against former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for their refusal to appear for depositions as part of the committee's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The contempt measures passing overwhelmingly with bipartisan support, 34 to 8 on the former president, with nine Democrats voting in favor, 28 to 15 on the former secretary of state, with three Democrats voting in favor, both will now head to the House floor for a full vote. If they pass, the Clintons would be referred to the Justice Department for potential criminal prosecution.
The news coming hours after the committee's chairman announced Jeffrey Epstein, co conspirator Elaine Maxwell will be disposed next month. We have nailed down a date, February 9, where Ghislaine Maxwell will be deposed by this committee and her lawyers have made it clear that she's going to plead the Fifth. I hope she changes her mind because I want to hear from her. The Oversight Committee's actions today come more than a month after the Justice Department was required by law to release all of its Epstein related documents.
The Justice Department said it uncovered more files than expected and was reviewing them for release. More than a million of those documents remain sealed. NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Melanie Zinona joins me now live from Capitol Hill. Mel, great to see you.
So what are the next steps with the Clinton? This is a pretty significant moment. Yeah. This is just the first step in the process.
But next season, 10 resolutions will head to the House floor. We're expecting that to happen in two weeks. We are expecting those resolutions to pass. And then ultimately Kristen is actually up to the Department of Justice whether or not to prosecute this case.
But if they do decide that they want to charge the Clintons, that could carry fines or even jail time. And while there have been some people who have gone to prison because they defy Congress and are found in contempt, including someone like Steve Banana who defied unseen from the January 6 committee doing this to a former president, we're really in uncharted territory here. But that appears to be where we're headed with all this. Developments are just fascinating today, and it's putting Democrats in a really tough spot because on the one hand they're forced to defend the Clintons.
On the other hand, one of their big priorities was talking about things like affordability and the Jeffrey Epstein files. But is there a concern that this would be a distraction from all of that? Yeah, I think this is really quite Democrats and a bit of a dilemma because on the one hand, they've been really beating the drum when it comes to transparency when it comes to the Epstein files. Some of them have said the Clintons ought to be up here speaking to the committee.
But on the other hand, they also don't view Chairman Comer as a fair player in all this. And they also fear that this could be a distraction from the fact that the DOJ has only released 1% of the Epstein files despite the fact they were supposed to release all the files on December 19th. But just listen to what House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries had to say. The Clintons are engaging in good faith negotiations.
In fact, it's my understanding they law firm, they have law for us. No one's taking James Comer's subpoena seriously. He's a joke. He's an embarrassment.
He's a malignant clown. Like, there's no reason for us to take James Comer seriously. And House Republicans are really interested in finding the truth here. They had to be forced to even sign on to our efforts to release these files.
The Department of Justice is under obligation right now to release 5 million documents and they released around 13,000. In the end, both the votes for Hillary and Bill Clinton's held them in contempt of Congress were bipartisan, but they were not unanimous, which shows how much divide their silly is in the Democratic Party. Ohio address this issue for sure. Nelson, thank you so much.
Appreciate the update from Capitol Hill. Coming up after the break of Supreme Court here's arguments about the president's attempts to influence the Federal Reserve with Fed Chair Jerome Powell in attendance. Keep it right here. I'll meet the president.
While the back the Supreme Court appears ready to step in and prevent President Trump from ousting Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. During a hearing today, the justices, both liberal and conservative, seemed skeptical that the president has the authority to fire Fed governors without giving them an opportunity to challenge their terminations. The Trump administration has accused Hook of more fraud. She's denied the allegations.
And bank documents obtained by NBC News appear to contradict the White House's claims. The effort to house Cook is part of an intensifying pressure campaign by President Trump to assert control over the independent Federal Reserve as he demands that it slash interest rates. Cook was in attendance at today's arguments before the high court. It was Fed Chair Jerome Powell, who's also the focus of a Justice Department investigation over renovations of the central bank.
Powell has denied any wrongdoing and calls the investigation politically motivated. NBC News legal affairs reporter Gary Grubbach joins me now. Gary, thanks so much for being here. Really appreciate it.
So delve into what exactly happened today at the high court. Why did the justices seem so skeptical? Two of the harshest critics were actually justices that President Trump appointed himself. Justice pointed there saying, why can't there be some amount of due process here for Lisa?
Why can't you just have a meeting with the president in the Roosevelt Room to have that conversation? Give Lisa Cook the opportunity to say this is what really happened with these alleged mortgage funds allegations. Justice Brett Kavanaugh saying something similar. Look at the pink picture here.
If we allow this to happen now, we allow to fire Alyssa Cook. Now what about 2028? What about 2032? As a Democratic president in the hot seat, will he just do the same thing?
It'll be retribution, that sort of thing. Here's what Deborah Kavanaugh had to say during the hearing. Position that there's no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available, very low bar for cause that the president alone determines and that would weaken, if not shatter the independence of the Federal Reserve. So it does appear that the principle will end up probably losing the Supreme Court case.
We'll find out by the end of June. Okay. Well, we will stand by it for that. And it's notable because Fed Chair Jerome Powell was in attendance.
How rare was that, particularly given the fact that he's gotten a subpoena for, as you noted, being over budget in the federal renovation. Well, this is all really significant. It all goes to the importance of the independence of the federal res. But if the Federal Reserve chairman does matters, what he says matters and he knows that he has the ability to move markets, his actions have the ability to move markets here in the US and around the globe.
He knows that when he does something, it really matters. He's him showing up today very significant to really push forward the independence of the Fed. So it's not a political, so it's not something the president can just at his whim to do. He wants and it stays an important independent monetary policy regulatory system.
And Gary, just a picture, explain what's at stake with this trial, with this decision. So this is not only going to impact whether or not a Fed chair can be fired, but it's going to impact other independent boards as well. We've seen over the past year and a day the Supreme Court has said, yeah, you can fire members of the merits of protection Board, you can fire members of the National Labor Relations Unit, you can fire the Federal Trade Commission if they say yes to this, the Fed chair, the Fed chair, Governor, it would be very significant. Not just for a day, for decades from now.
Big implications. All right, Kerry Cromba, thanks for being all over it for us. We really appreciate it. Silicon the White House reveals new details on the President's midterm strategy and campaign plans in the run up to the November elections.
The panel is next. Stay with us on the press. Now let's kickstart your wellness drink with the Dracula workouts meal plans. It's your fast track to a healthier youth.
And now during the XIN Member Celebration, members to get an exclusive 50% off the annual subscription. Head to xfinity.com membership to learn more Xfinity Imagine that subscription automatically reviews each year at 6,599 plus tax feeds until canceled. All the ends May 12, 2026. Price the subject to change?
Visit today.comxfinity for full on returns and details as the day wraps up. Get the scoot on what's been happening with here's the scoop with a podcast from NBC News with leader host Gazan Dasuya. We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories from NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take, a sharp, thoughtful and it's informative.
Bring you closer headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. Front Page the Zeitgeist here's the scoop from NBC News Listen daily on Amazon Music hey guys, Willie Geist here reminding you to check out the Sunday Sit down podcast. On this week's episode, I sit down with one of the biggest fans in the world, Mumford and Sons, as we get the boys together to talk about their new number one album, Prize Fighter and the evolution of that irresistible foot stomping sound. You can get our conversation for free wherever you download your podcasts.
Welcome back. While President Trump spent today largely focused on foreign policy and foreign grievances, his chief of staff Susie Wiles told reporters the administration plans to keep the focus largely on domestic issues in the coming months and that she expects the president will be hitting the road weekly ahead of the midterm, starting with economic speech in Iowa next week. Joining now is our panel Dan America, co anchor of the Early Brief News Letter at the Washington Post RCID former senior aide to speaker emeritus Nancy Pelosi and Lonnie Chen, fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and an NBC News contributor. Thanks to all of you for being here.
Dan, I have to start with you and these remarkable developments out of Davos, the whiplash that we saw today. The president starting the day with this really tough talk and then saying we got a trade deal. What do you make of this? Was it because the markets cratered yesterday?
Was it because of pressure from European allies? Both we know that the president often responds to the market. He watches it closely. He often writes about when it's doing incredibly well and ignores it when it's not doing well.
So that is possibly one of the things. But it really today really showed how unencumbered the president is in the second term how, you know, he thinks he has ultimate power and he plans to use that ultimate power. The speech at Davos was a really remarkable moment. I think the President has given a lot of these saber rattling speeches before.
You think about other Davos speeches, the United nations, the, the reaction to what stuck out, I think since the arrest of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, there was a reaction from the international community that you have to take what the President is saying honestly and take him at face value because it does seem like in past administrations maybe he would say something and not follow through. That is the case with the tariffs, as you mentioned. There is some sense among the international community that he will follow through with some of these threats, as he did in Venezuela. And that's why I think the reaction to Davos in particular was some shock by what he was saying because it was so forceful and directing what he hopes to achieve.
It's a really important point. It underscores one of the many differences between Trump's first term and Trump 2.0. The fact that now he's moving at such a fast pace. Lonnie, the fact that we saw him actually remove Nicolas Maduro and that has changed how these foreign leaders actually view him.
What do you make of their reaction in Davos and beyond? Because quite frankly, they made it very clear over the weekend they would ban together and fire back at these tariffs. Yeah, well, I think reaction is interesting because the reaction in the room with them is probably gonna be different than the reaction when they're just out there in public. When they're out there in public, they take a very tough stand.
And then when they get in the room with the President, it appears as they wanna strike a deal. And so I think part of the challenge is that we can comment on the President doing. The reality is it has gotten people to the table now, whether in fact we got a deal, who knows? We don't know what the deal really is in this situation a very long time.
And so I tend to think that what we're seeing right now is people have been dealing with President Trump now for some number of years in this term. I think it's a great point. He is not constrained in the same way he was. He doesn't have people around him who are constraining him.
He's got people around him are business saying whatever you want to do is what we should do. And it's kind of unusual setup. As a result, I think Warley doesn't know where to go. And so a lot of Them end up communicating directly with the president.
Where do you see this going and what are your Democratic colleagues saying about the day's events? I mean, I think it was stunning because in some ways it was a manufactured CR self inflicted. Now we have this quote unquote solution which is likely going to be the status quo, you know, because Greenland was already cooperative and then plus with some bells and whistles potentially. And so at the end of the day, I think what's stunning, and this is kind of the chapter I heard today, is that he traveled across the ocean to go and really criticize European leaders in their own backyard and was very aggressive about it.
And I think you see, you know, these countries now making contingency planning in terms of they can't cannon United States. And so that gets China opening and it creates the whole, it really shifts the whole landscape geopolitically. And the question about can some of the damage not be undone? Dan, given that the remarks were so forceful.
And it does come as chief of Staff Susie Wiles is signaling that the president is going to be out on the campaign. He's going to Iowa, apparently next week. She wants him to be laser focused on the economy, on affordability. Is that a realistic shift that he's increasingly focused on these foreign entanglements?
Good luck, Suzy Wilde. That will happen and actually stick to that script. They've said for, I think weeks, months now that he'll be focused on the economy, he'll be focused on portability. But I think since the November election in 2025, when Republicans really took a beating of the polls, they said that was going to be his focus in the midterms.
I don't think he's really done that since those elections. He's been very focused on Greenland, Venezuela, on the world economy and just world in general. And so it remains to be seen whether he'll actually stick to that script. I think if you talk to a lot of Trump voters in 2024, they would be shocked that in 2026 the president would be spending so much time on foreign affairs, given how much he ran on domestic policy issues.
And it does remain to be seen that will help to pay the price for that at the ballot box in 2026. But I do think Democrats will somewhat welcome the fact that he's gonna be out there talking a lot. Yeah, I mean, look, I think he has in many ways he sort of has even acknowledged the afford. And I think he's really made in his own mind not sure how real that is, how it is right or how it does it.
But what strikes me is even when he's on foreign soil, he's still giving a speech targeted at a domestic audience. You think about the way he talks about Europe, the way he talks about America, the way he talks about relationships between the two. It really is meant to appeal to the same base as if you were delivering the speech in Des Moines or in Raleigh or somewhere in the US it's really remarkable how I think he keeps his focus on the same audience regardless. I think that's right.
But at the same time he also painted a very rosy picture of the economic outlook in the United States and the state of play. And I think we've seen a rational polling that that doesn't match up with the rally. It is interesting. One of his economic proposals is to cap credit card interest rates.
He had phone conversation Dan, with Elizabeth Warren notice reporting last week that one senior House Republican offered harsh words about the president's attempts to address concerns about rising cost saying quote stop proposing this populist expletive this said to the point that we are having. I mean does this in fact potentially run the risk of alienating his basin, maybe winning over some other voters in the midterm? I have a hard time believing much of anything that President Trump does would alienate a portion of his. I'd imagine that House Republican member who courageously put his name to that, her name to that voted for the president in 2024 probably supports the president he ran as a populist.
It should not be shocking that he is running his White House as the populists are playing Republicans who have said publicly that they do not support this credit card plan because in some words it would hurt the ability to get credit for low income Americans. Which is more conversations certainly worth having. But Donald Trump random populace should not be a surprise that he is governing as such. Lonnie, how do you think this is going to claim?
I thought it was notable in an interview today with cnbc. Yeah, this might be something that the mayor of New York would propose because I think there's some truth to that and I mean it is true he campaign of the populace. I think there are many populous themes in terms of policies that he's proposed and the question really is to what degree do non maga voters see those as appealing proposals or does the very fact that they've been proposed by Donald Trump make them less appealing? I think that's going to be one of the interesting questions because ordinarily something like credit card rate caps, you might actually Get a substantial percentage of Americans who say, yeah, we should do that.
Now, there are all sorts of reasons why I don't think we should. But putting that aside from the politics are interesting just because they're coming from Trump and not coming from Elizabeth and not something you necessarily hear from Republicans. They don't go hand in hand with Republican presidents. It could be surprising.
Yeah, absolutely. Actually, I want to zoom out and talk about Democrats heading into the midterms. We're getting a new data point. This is a CBS poll.
It shows that 42% of Democrats don't have much confidence in congressional Democrats. What do you make of these numbers and how much of a headwind is it for Democrats who look, are feeling pretty bullish about potentially taking that the House. But how significant is that headwind? Well, it's challenging because Democrats don't have much to really leverage in Washington right now.
I mean, the president has done an exceptional job of gaining complete and full control of the House Senate and really kind of running his, running his administration in a very efficient way for his priorities. But at the same time. So I think that's that frustration that Democrats. But if you look at the intensity and you look at some of these pieces and we were talking about the megabase, I don't think as Democrats, we're worried about the mega base.
We're worried about independents for the midterms. We're worried about Latinos, we're worried about kind of some of these, the Trump coalition that can be weakened. And I think that'll be pivotal going in. What are you watching for at this very moment?
I mean, Democrats, again, looking at a battleground that's a little bit smaller than it typically is. But one of the key groups that could be pivotal, Latino voters, obviously independent voters, younger voters. Yeah, There's a fascinating decoupling between Democrats where they can be really angry at their leaders but still really excited to vote for Democrats. And I don't know how to explain that, but it's fascinating that you can have this anger at your party but still really be excited to get out and vote.
I think you've seen that there are plenty of young voters out there, for example, who voted for the president in 2024 because they thought he was the change candidate. Over the course of this last year, they've decided he's not to change candidate. And so they still harbor reservations about Democrats. But it does seem like they are far more interested in voting for that party, despite those concerns.
Lonnie, when you talk to Republicans and obviously the outlook for Democrats seems to be improving, particularly given some of these elections that we have seen. And just focusing on the House, how much concern is there? How much concern is there that resources have to be diverted from states that seem safe to states that are now potentially in play? Well, I do think the map has expanded.
And I think for Republicans, the issue is at what point do they need to go out there, particularly congressional candidates, and say, I've got a plan, this is something I want to do and almost separate a little bit. Now, that's going to be extraordinarily difficult to do because Democrats are going to see this as a reference on Donald Trump. They're going to paint Republicans in that corner. But there are discussions about whether that's what needs to happen.
All right, guys, great conversation. Thank you so much. Dan Arshi, really appreciate it. And Lonnie, up next, we'll dive deeper into how the president's war one day and Davos is being received here at home by members of Congress.
A Democrat and House War Affairs Committee joins me in studio next. Stay with us. You're watching THE press now. I have tremendous respect for both the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark.
Tremendous respect. But every NATO ally has an obligation to be able to defend their own territory. And the fact is no nation or group of nations is in any position to be able to to secure Greenland other than the United States. Welcome back.
That was President Trump earlier today speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos. As we said hours later, the president saying the US has now formed the framework for a deal on Greenland. Joining me now for more on the congressional reaction to president's speech is Democratic Congressman Jared Mosowitz of Florida. He serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Congressman, thanks for being here. Thanks for having me. Really appreciate it. So we just get your reaction to the day's developments and what the president says is now a framework of a deal on Greenland.
Well, obviously, look, it's a good U turn. Everyone's happy that, you know, the president backed down earlier this morning about troops and then, you know, now obviously has backed down. The bond market is undefeated, as it turns out. So I think that's good news.
Now, obviously, I think, look, there's aspects that we want to prevent China and Russia, you know, from getting more control of the Arctic. So there are some real implications for what's going on here with the president, in my opinion, all the wrong way. He's getting everything wanted under this deal. I mean, wanted but for Greenland, you know, I mean, draw a circle no matter where you start, you'll wind up at the same place.
So I, you know, look, Canada's not the 51st state and Greenland is not part of America. To that point. Do you think there is some damage that has been done that cannot be undone? You heard some of the speeches from European leaders, from the Canadian Prime Minister, really forceful words saying effectively they're not going to be bullied.
Yeah, no, I think there was some damage done. The question is how long. I mean, you know, that'll last. Who knows?
You know, we'll move on to the next international issue, but clearly this round did not go to the United States. Given that you're on the Foreign Affairs Committee, what did you make of the speech overall and the fact that you now have cannabis saying that it is looking to do a trade deal with China. Yeah, huge problem. I saw Macron's comments also talking about China now, whether they're, whether they're now trying to play tough with us and everyone's now jockeying for position.
You know, we'll see, you know, gamesmanship on the world stage. Obviously, that's the opposite effect of what we want is to try to push people into Chinese arms because we don't look like a rational actor. And so, you know, that's something I'm concerned about. We'll have to see how that turns out.
Let me ask you about some comments that President Trump made today about a domestic situation. He said that people will soon be prosecuted for their role in what he called the, quote, rigged 2020 election. What was your reaction to that? What do you make of that?
I'm glad he's moved on. Right. That's always good. I mean, even though he was president again.
Right. I'm glad he's moved on. Something. I don't know.
I mean, today we heard that we were going to balance the $38 trillion debt off of the back of Minnesota. Right. And so he says a lot of things. I don't know what it means sometimes.
Nobody knows what it means. But, you know, obviously, obviously there's no one that needs to be prosecuted. This went in front of, I don't know, several dozen judges. They said nothing was wrong, nothing was stolen, and the President really needs to move on to this.
Does it concern you, though, that there could be more, at least, investigations coming? Of course. I mean, I mean, take him seriously. Oh, yeah, Listen, I take the President very seriously.
I mean, I know sometimes he tacos. Right. But I mean, on other stuff he doesn't. And so when that taco is going to happen, you never know.
I mean, look at Lisa Cook in front of the Supreme Court, right? You got Jerome Powell getting stuff from doj, Right? You got, you know, a number of people that are getting electrons from the doj. They say they're going after the folks in Minnesota now.
And so, no, no, no, we gotta take. We gotta take the president's word and then see what happens. All right, let's shift to what's happening on Capitol Hill. Obviously, government funding runs out in a few weeks.
Now, it seems like there's a deal coming together that would fund dhs. It does include some of the changes the Democrats were calling for, but certainly not all of them. Are you at this point in time preparing to vote yes on this piece of legislation? Yes, I'm gonna vote for the first, you know, part of the minibus, but I'm no vote on dhs, But I'm gonna vote on DHS for lots of reasons.
I'm the only former emerg in Congress. And we don't talk about a lot because we didn't have. We haven't had a big disaster. But Kristi Nome has absolutely decimated fema.
And so the idea of giving her more money. She's gotten $22 billion in the last year. None of that money is moving. There are red states that are owned billions of dollars.
Florida's owe $2.6 billion. None of that money is moving. So I don't know why they would need to do money. They got 170 billion in the big beautiful bill.
Congress has no idea how much money is left. I thought Republicans care about spending in doge. Remember that whole thing? And now they're asking for more money when we don't know how much they have.
And so look, if they need a supplemental because they run out of money, they can come to Congress for supplemental, but I'm not even giving them more money. Could DHS shut down for a period of time, though? There's no evidence of that. They've not made that case.
There's no evidence of that. What do you say, though, to your colleagues who say, look, we're just coming off of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. Let's not hold up more funding to parts of the government.
Let's vote. Yes. What do you say? I won't shut down the government, so I'm not interested in shutting down the government, but that there's.
That if they don't get a special fund, that would happen. They've not made that argument. And there's no evidence that it'll be making $170 billion plus the money they got in the fiscal year for 2025. And so she's got plenty of money, the secretary.
Right. And she's destroying government as it is. Right. Shrinking departments, firing people.
There's no evidence that she needs any more money. Let me ask you more broadly about the midterms. I just cited this poll with the panel. One of the headwinds looming over Democrats heading to the midterms.
A recent CBS poll finding that 42% of voters say they don't have much confidence in congressional Democrats to effectively oppose Trump on issues they disagree with. What do you make of those numbers and how do you combat them? Well, Congress's approval rating general is about 13%. So you're not surprised?
I'm not surprised. I mean, we've earned it. We've worked really hard, by the way. No, we've earned it.
Congress has done this to themselves. How do you turn it around, though? How is a Democrat, what's your message? Are the Democrats for how to turn it around?
Well, listen, we gotta get cocky. Care for the gavel for the base sets upset that we haven't done enough. Give hucking Jeffries the gavel and they will get what they're looking for. But as Congress is an institution, Democrats and Republicans continue to take power away from ourselves and give it to the executive branch.
We do that when we have full power. Republicans are doing it now. Democrats did it under Joe Biden. And so when we weakened the branch, when it's time to then for the minority party to use power, there's no power to use.
So what's the strategy? Is it, do you think, focusing on affordability on the campaign trail? Is it the Epstein files? Is it a counterweight to Trump?
What should the message? It should be all about affordability in healthcare. We should talk all about affordability in healthcare. Notice how when affordability was in the news and health care was in the news, that's when Donald Trump started talking about Greenland.
He's a master at making sure that we take misdirection and we take the data every time. We gotta stay focused on affordability, health care. Okay. Congressman Mosquitz, thank you so much for being here.
Really appreciate you being in the studio. We're back tomorrow with Warm me the Press now. And there's more ahead on NBC News now. Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of the Drink.
This month, Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now. But getting there, it wasn't simple. Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon.
She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The Drink is always about the journey to the top, and this was an honest conversation about what that takes. Hope you'll listen and follow the Drink wherever you get your podcast.