Foreign. We begin with breaking news out of Minnesota where outrage over yesterday's deadly ICE involved shooting has now led to anger and frustration over how the investigation into the incident is being handled. There are still major questions about what exactly happened and whether federal authorities acted appropriately. Today state investigators said they are being shut out of the investigation after being told by the FBI that federal authorities would be solely responsible for conducting a review of the incident and that Minnesota officials would no longer have access to case materials, seen evidence or investigative interviews.
Minnesota Governor TO Walls responding, demanding that state authorities be a part of the investigation. Minnesota must be part of this investigation. These are non partisan career professionals that spent years building the trust of the community. They are trusted by people.
People who are not by inclination trusting of law enforcement or government have come to see the professionals of the BCA as true arbitrators that can get them justice. I think it's clear to everyone as they saw this that it feels now that Minnesota has been taken out of the investigation, it feels very, very difficult that we will get a fair outcome. And I say that only because people in positions of power have already passed judgment. At the White House Today, Vice President J.D.
vance rejecting the governor's demands while lashing out at reporters and also pushing the administration's position that there is no question as to what happened. This was an attack on federal law enforcement. This was an attack on law and order. This was an attack on the American people.
This is absolutely a tragedy, but it's a tragedy of the making of the far left. They have radicalized a very small segment of the population, taught them that ICE agents are engaging in wide scale violation of people's rights. The idea that Tim Walsh and a bunch of radicals in Minneapolis are gonna go after and make this guy's life miserable because he was doing the job that he was asked to do is preposterous. The reason this woman is dead is because she tried to ram somebody with her car and that guy acted in self defense.
You've got to be a little brainwashed to get to that point to where you're willing not just to protest. That's fine, not peacefully protest, but throw your vehicle in front of legitimate law enforcement officers and drive your car to them. Now, despite the Vice President's claims, there are multiple videos of the shooting that have led to multiple narratives about the incident with local officials calling the shooting unjustified and federal officials saying the ICE agent was acting in self defense when he fired three times into that moving SUV, killing the driver, 37 year old Renee Nicole Good. A mother and a U.S.
citizen. Homeland Security Secretary Christine Noem today doubling down on her claims that this was an act of domestic terrorism. Let's remember the events that surrounded what happened yesterday on that tragic situation was that these individuals had followed our officers all day, had harassed them, had blocked them in. They were impeding our law enforcement operations, which is against the law.
And when they demanded and commanded her to get out of her vehicle several times she did not. Now, the shooting has marked protests across Minneapolis, including some intense clashes with police earlier today. Public schools have been closed for the rest of the week. There are demonstrations scheduled in multiple cities this evening after yesterday's demonstrators gathered to speak out against the Trump administration's ongoing immigration crackdown.
Join me now to start us off, NBC News correspondent Stephen Romo in Minneapolis, NBC News senior Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley, NBC News senior national security and intelligence correspondent Tom Winter and NBC News White House correspondent Monica Alba. Thanks to all of you for being here. Steven, let me start with you. You have been there on the ground in Minneapolis.
We've seen these protests grow. What is the mood there right now? Yeah, Kristina, we saw some images there in your intro of the clashes that happened between protesters outside the federal building here in the neighborhood where that shooting actually happened. There have been protesters that have been gathered here all day long and things that have been peaceful.
Occasionally they will start chanting, but that has been pretty much all we've heard from them. And speaking with Minnesotans here, though, they are outraged and surprised by the Trump administration officials that seem already concluded that the driver, Renee Good, intentionally tried to hit that ICE agent and that the shooting was justified. People I talked to saying hearing Secretary Noem just after the shooting. We heard her just a moment ago in that clip you played called the domestic terrorism.
But she first did this yesterday just hours after the shooting. Something that Minnesotans here are concerned about. Well, Steven, let me ask you, are you getting any reaction yet? We heard from Governor Walls there, but any reaction on the ground to the fact that the FBI is leading this investigation and local authorities aren't involved right now?
Yeah, certainly many people echoing those concerns by Governor Tim Walls, some this morning. Actually before Walls of statements, I was speaking with a couple who said they just frankly do not trust the Trump doj, the FBI run by Cash Patel, to investigate the shooting. And now that the Minnesota investigators are shut out of it, they have even less faith that this will become a just out. All right, Stephen Romo on the ground in a very fast moving Minneapolis.
Thank you so much for joining Us. I do want to turn to Julie Ainsley, who's here with me on set. So Julia was notable. The vice President came to the briefing room.
I mean, that's a rarity. And it speaks to the fact that the administration is trying to get out ahead of this situation. And the vice President gave some new details about the background of the officer. I want to play that for you, get your reaction on the other side.
What that headline leaves out is the fact that that very ICE officer nearly had his life ended, dragged by a car six months ago, 33 stitches in his legs. You think maybe he's a little bit sensitive about somebody ramming him with an automobile? So that's what the vice President said today. What were you learning about the officer's background?
Well, that incident that he refers to happened in June in Bloomington, Minnesota. And there was a suspect that ICE was attempting to apprehend to knock out of his vehicle. And this officer bashed in the back window of the vehicle with hand. And then the driver took off and his arm was stuck between a seat and the frame of the car.
This is according to court documents because that man was later charged with assault on a federal officer. Not domestic terrorism, mind you, as we have now heard is now the vehicle Raymond meets that definition as of just yesterday. But this is what this officer went through in June. And so as we've heard Vice President Vance and Homeland Security Secretary Christino talk about what this officer has been through in the past.
That's the incident they're referring to. He was dragged over 50 yards. The person was swerving to try to shake him off. But when I talk to people within DHS who have been in ICE for a long time, they say that a lot of officers have been through some pretty grueling episodes and that they're taught that they need to identify if they think they're not up for the job, but that otherwise they are expected to walk into every situation with independence and not to treat one situation differently or basically trigger happy.
Well, it appears based on the video that the ICE officer was wearing some sort of a camera. What can you tell us? Does that video exist? Do we anticipate we'll see that?
We've seen a number of different angles. You should note right. What it looks like to me, Kristen. Maybe you see a different angle, that he's holding a cell phone.
It looks like he's recording on his phone, just a personal device. Maybe he was interested in what was happening about this new document. But as far as the body worn camera policy goes, I did a pilot program under the Biden administration. Even with all the money in the beautiful bill, they made them the most well funded law enforcement agency in the country.
They still don't have they didn't put any money to a body camera. So it's still not a policy. It's very unlikely that this officer would have a body camera because only about 20% of their workforce has them. But we would imagine that investigators would want to get hold of any footage, whether that be on this man's phone, surveillance from Navy doorboard cameras that were in front of the vehicle.
So far, everything seems behind. Well, and one other twist to this, Julie. We learned today that DHS announcing it's going to send more than 100 Border Patrol agents. Talk about the decision there and how could that impact the situation on the ground, which is already incredibly tense?
Yes, it is definitely tense. And adding Border Patrol could definitely make it more so. They're being led by Greg Bovino. He's the same one who threw tear gas canisters into crowds of protesters in Chicago.
His tactics in Los Angeles as well as Chicago ended up in federal lawsuits. And it was actually a reason why some immigrants were arrested in Chicago had later be released. But as far as the decision to move Border patrol into Minneapolis, that actually came just hours before this incident. We were reporting that just yesterday morning, which now seems like a lifetime ago.
But I do believe the idea of sending 100, that is what we're hearing today. So that number could ramp up. Typically they send about 250 Border Patrol into each city and they already have over 2,000 ICE officers in the Minneapolis area in addition to those who regularly there. All right.
Julia Ainslie knows a very busy time. Thanks for bringing us all your great reporting. Really appreciate it. Time.
Winter, let me turn to you. It seems like much of the focus today has been on the fact that federal investigators are taking the lead on this investigation. And frankly, the local officials do not have a role right now. How unusual is it for state officials to be frozen out of an investigation like this?
It's a bit of a complicated question to answer, Kristen, because typically the state does not have any automatic right to investigate. This would be part of the primary investigation into a use of force involving a federal officer. That's you've got the federal component, you've got the state component to it. But to get to, I think kind of the meat of your question, I've seen several instances where there's been a federal involved shooting where the results of that investigation are then given to a local prosecutor as well as the U.S.
attorney's office, in a way of kind of saying, look, put all our cards on the table. We've investigated this, us being the FBI in this instance, we've investigated this issue. Here's what we found. And from there, sometimes it can be quite helpful for the FBI because they can by their own procedure, by their own law, laws cannot necessarily release certain information, but sometimes all the prosecutors can.
The case of Abraham Todashev, who was shot by the FBI in an adjacent investigation, the Boston Marathon bombing, that case, there was a lot of information that came out particularly light of some misinformation that was coming out in that case that was really helpful for both reporters and the public. Tom, I want to ask you about something else that we heard from the vice president as I was discussing with Julia. He did make an appearance in the briefing room today, and he defended the ICE agent, saying this. Take a look.
The president here is very simple. You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action. That's a federal issue. That guy's protected by absolute immunity.
He was doing his job. Do federal law enforcement officers have absolute immunity? Help us understand a little bit about that tomorrow. No, is the quick answer to the question.
The federal law enforcement officers are held at the same bar as any other law enforcement officer in this country. And really there's the idea of civil rights law violations under the color of the law, basically meaning if that federal law enforcement officer was to deprive somebody of their rights, in this case their right to a life, their right to live, then they could be charged up into if convicted, definitely. So it is not a situation where just because somebody's a federal law enforcement officer that they can go around and do whatever they want to do purely because they have that badge or that shield. It's just not something that is absolutely rooted in, that is rooted in law at all.
Absolute immunity does exist. It is something that is real. It is something for prosecutors and for the judiciary. But it is so everybody's clear on this issue.
A federal law enforcement officer cannot just go around and do whatever they want with somebody else's civil rights. It has to be in the performance of their duty. And in this case, if this particular ICE officers found or violated the law, then they're going to be charged. If this is a particular instance where they ran afoul of, say, the use of force policy, the Department of Homeland Security, they could face job action as well as they could face charges.
So, no, this individual is not merely protected just by that. All right, Tom Winter, thank you as always. We really appreciate your insights. Mike Alba, let me turn to you at the White House Vice President J.D.
vance. As we've been discussing in the briefing room today, doubling down on what we heard from the president, which effectively was putting the blame on the driver, even though there's an ongoing investigation. Talk a little bit about what we heard in that regard. And it's the vice president, Kristen, who has really been posting all day on social media about this and then came to the White House podium to share this, the fact that he believes there is, in his words, a sort of conclusion here about who this woman is, but cannot say why he's able to reach that conclusion.
He stated that he believes she's part of of this vast conspiracy of professional protesters and agitators. But when he was pressed by reporters, including our own colleague Kelly o', Donnell, for why he has made that assessment, he really said, well, when you look at these videos, what you see is what you get. That was his direct quote, essentially saying that people can watch this and then make their own assumption or assessment. Again, this is early days, early hours still on the investigation.
But the White House seems pretty intent on making this about a moment where they are standing with this ICE officer, the vice president repeatedly saying that he believes he was acting in his own self defense and really talking about that past incident some months ago where according to authorities he was dragged by another vehicle during another law enforcement operation and saying that he was likely a bit nervous because of that, really bringing that up in this exact moment, while also saying in this briefing the vice president saying that he believes it's reasonable to have a conversation about what actually was driving the woman in the at this time and decision making. So it seemed to times the vice president had a couple of different answers that didn't completely swear, but his overall tone on this was clear, which was to be defensive again of the law enforcement official and to announce, Kristen, that there was going to be now an assistant attorney general who is going to be assigned with the task, the vice president says, of looking into fraud in the state of Minnesota and then nationwide beyond that, which is another bigger political point that they were trying to make with this issue in Minnesota that White House and Trump administration has been talking about for weeks with this interagency task force. Again, they're making these claims, these allegations of fraud that they say there will be more information coming on soon. And with the final minute that we have here, Monica, we of course know that this is a president who campaigned on being a law and order president.
You cannot divorce the situation from the fact that the midterm season has begun. How does the White House view the politics of this? Monica? Typically this White House feels like they can be on offense when it comes to the issue of law and order.
They feel very comfortable talking about that. As you said, this was something that candidate Donald Trump and then candidate and former Senator J.D. vance talked about repeatedly coming into this election. And they have talked about it repeatedly this year as well with their goals and with their state admission.
And I think, Kristen, with the politics of all this, again, you have an instance where the president, the vice president, very quickly I jumped to a conclusion here. While there are still facts that need to be gathered that we're still getting from on the ground that just simply it's a little early to say, but that they feel they can come out and talk about these things because they do believe that they will be met and embraced by those in their base who want to hear them talk like this about long order. All right. Monica Alba, as always, thank you so much for joining us with all of your great reporting from the White House.
We really appreciate it. And coming up, we'll have much more on the breaking news in Minnesota as local officials speak out after being shut out of the investigation into that deadly ice shooting. A Minneapolis council member joins me straight ahead. Plus, President Trump says the US could run Venezuela for years as he lashes out at members of his own party for supporting limits on his use of military force.
That's next. Stay with us. You're watching THE press now. Welcome back.
Turning now to new developments in the Trump administration's plans for Venezuela now that Nicholas Maduro is in US Custody, with the president now signaling the US could be involved in that country for years to come. After telling me earlier this week in an exclusive phone interview that he is the top person in charge of Venezuela. The president gave a wide ranging interview to the New York Times where he was asked how long the US Would be running Venezuela. Would it be three months, six months, a year?
Longer? The president replying? I would say much longer. It comes as lawmakers, including some the president's own party, took to reign.
It looked to rain in the president's authorities today. Five Senate Republicans, all 47 Democrats, to advance a resolution to block the president from using military force within or against Venezuela unless he gets approval from Congress. President Trump lashing out against those Republicans by name on social media, saying they should, quote, never be elected again. Journey now is NBC News senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez, who's in Colombia for us.
So, Gabe, what do you make of the latest comments by President Trump that the US could be in charge of Venezuela for years? What's the reaction the region been? Well, well, certainly, Chris, then this is administration ramping up its efforts to control Venezuela's oil. Not a huge surprise.
The president hinted at this several days ago when he said that this could take some time, reiterating now that this will not be a short term plan, as you said, when he was asked whether it be three months, a year, he's saying much longer. So this could stretch on. White House officials have been repeating that this is something that will advance national security interest of the United States and certainly the infrastructure, the infrastructure in the country. Not a huge surprise.
It's really met with some concern around the region, although here in Colombia there does seem to be a sort of thaw in relations after some harsh words were exchanged between President Trump and Colombian President Petro earlier this week. Chris? Well, Gabe, let me follow up with you about that because the two leaders did speak. What do we know of what came out of that call?
It's incredibly fascinating call, Chris, and pretty remarkable, really, a sharp turnout from President Trump. And just moments ago I just spoke with the defense minister here in Bogota and he said that it was a critical call. He did say that there seem to be a thought in relations. And when I asked him what changed between when President Trump on Sunday Border Force One called Petro equipped sick man and then just two days later Petro called Trump, he said he had a senile brain.
I asked him what changed and the defense minister said what changed in his view was that President Trump got some correct information, that he had been fed misinformation by his advisors before. And so he was grateful that the president seemed to have a different perspective on this. He was very glad to hear and to read in that post by President Trump that Trump said that he was honored by the phone call, that he had invited Petro to the White House and that the president appreciated his tone. So the defense minister told me the plans are in the works for Columbia officials, including himself, to travel to Washington in the near future to speak with President Trump.
A dramatic shift from what we heard earlier in the week. Certainly is a dramatic turn of events. Dave Gutierrez, thank you all for your phenomenal reporting from Bogota, Columbia. We really appreciate it.
Joining me now, Congressman Gregory of New York. He's also the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Congressman, thank you so much for joining me. I really appreciate it.
Good to be with you. So I want to start with the briefing that you attended yesterday about the United States actions in Venezuela. President Trump telling the New York Times the United States could be in charge of Venezuela for years. Is that consistent with what briefers told you?
No, it's not. But you know, you go by with the president because I've been used to now going in with briefers and what they say turns out not to be accurate. What the president says is what they do and then they try to clean up for the president. But ultimately, as we had told the told previously, we're not going to Venezuela.
We're in Venezuela. Well, I want to get your take on the next steps that have been discussed. Apparently, Secretary Rubio announcing a three step plan. It includes stabilization, recovery to ensure access to Venezuela's markets and reconciliation to build a civil society there.
What do you make of that plan where you get enough details about it? I didn't hear, I didn't hear a plan at all, to be quite frank with you. Also, let me just tell you, have you heard democracy come out of the president's mouth one time? You know, think about where we were and what the president has talked about.
First it was all about drugs, not really hearing much about drugs. Then it was about regime change that I took away Maduro, which is not a bad, you know, Maduro is not a good guy at all. You know, he stole an election in that regards and been a terrible human rights abuser. But then subsequent to that, he's only talked about oil and what he's going to do with oil and how he's going to control the oil.
Before he invaded Venezuela, he talked to oil men. Immediately thereafter, he talked to oil men. And the reason why he's saying that we're going to be there for years is because, as he said, he believes that's American life. He doesn't care about democracy, what follows or the people of Venezuela.
That's why still, he took away TPS for many Venezuelans. And it looks like he may be pushing, you know, a whole bunch of individuals throughout America, especially in Florida, they're asking what's going to happen with our state? Over close to 600,000 of them. He doesn't care about the people.
He doesn't care about anything, apparently based upon his own statements other than oil. Congressman, let me follow up with you on that point. You clearly disagree with the public statements that we've heard from President Trump. But have you ruled out the possibility that Maduro's ouster could lead to democracy in Venezuela.
Do you think that's a possibility? Yeah. Look, the people. I've had a long term relationship with the people of his will.
Fact of the matter is, you want to know the truth of the matter? I'm probably the only member of Congress that have had conversations directly with Maduro from way back 20 years ago and subsequently to the lies he's had to me of Venezuela. Believe in democracy. And that's what they've been asking for.
They go out and they vote. I have witnessed elections in Venezuela where people, opposition and Civistas were lined up for hours waiting for the opportunity to vote. Just recently in 2024, with Maduro as a dictator there, the Venezuelan people came out to vote in numbers and the opposition won the election. That's the election that was stolen by Maduro.
So Maduro was able to do something that Donald Trump wasn't able to do. He stole the election in Venezuela. Trump was trying to steal the one here in the United States. Fortunately, our institution prevented that from happening.
But the Venezuelan people believe in democracy. That's what they want. They want their own country and they want their forces heard. And if you give them the opportunity to vote, they have an election.
And Mr. Gonzalez was elected president in 2004. That's what they want. They don't want the United States to control the oil, their resources or tell them what to do.
They know that they want the opportunity to have free and fair elections. And I hear what you're saying, that they want that. Do you think it is a possibility now, given that Maduro is going to go? I think it's a possibility because the possibility of having an election was there when Maduro was there.
The problem was Maduro did not acknowledge the results of the election. You know, it was very similar to Donald Trump not acknowledging the results of the election here in America. There was an election that was free, that was fair, and that Maduro lost. Just like here.
There was an election here that was free, that was fair, that Trump lost. Trump contended that the number that he had the opportunity to do, which Maduro had, and he would have done it here, the people. So yes, there have been free and fair elections. It's just that those election results were not recognized by Maduro.
He disregarded them. Let me ask you, because the government, Venezuela, the interim government, announcing today that it would in fact release a large number of political prisoners. Do you think that would have happened without this pressure campaign by President Trump and the Trump administration? I think it would have happened without Maduro.
I think that if in fact, the election had been where the people of Venezuela came out to vote in 2024. It would have happened then, I think election before that with Maduro again, you know, playing around with the lexicon. It would have happened then. We've had a good, we would have had a good relationship in that regard and working as we've had in the past, even with drugs, as far as sharing information, etc.
So there's no question in my mind that it is that Maduro was a problem there. But we do have rules, we have regulations that need to take place, we have human rights. To say that you're going to take the oil for Venezuela and put it to an offshore account and you, the President of the United States going to decide who he's going to sell it to and who gets it. That's colonialism.
That's not what the people of Venezuela wants. That is not the way to go about this. This is not the right incorrect thing and the people of Venezuela doesn't want it. And by the way, I don't believe the people of the United States of America wants that idea.
Let me ask you about the big story here domestically. The shooting of a 37 year old mom by an ICE officer. The administration saying it was self defense. Some of your Democratic colleagues are now suggesting using the appropriations process to try to rein in the Department of Homeland Security.
Would you support that? Yeah, look what's happening on the streets. But I see these individuals walking around in a mask and if I look at what took place, you know, my eyes were not lying to me. There's more that I think that we need to see and know.
But when my eyes saw on that video, it did not look, it looked like that the individual officer who shot that lady did not have to do it. It looked like an egregious act of which there need to be a complete and thorough investigation. And not the kind of situation where I'm hearing the Homeland Security Secretary saying oh it was the victim's fault should be a complete and independent investigation, I would hope. You know, I know they want to try to prevent the Attorney General from Minnesota or others that would be on the ground to do that.
Again, why would they not want that is because they have made a judgment themselves. But it should be a complete and thorough investigation as to what took place. But looking at those, at that tape did not look at me look like to me as well as others that I've talked to, including law enforcement officers. And I know for myself this is not a case that I would have just said it's okay for this officer to do as a former prosecutor.
All right. Congressman Meeks, really appreciate your time this afternoon. Thank you so much. Thank you for having me.
Coming up next, we'll go back to the breaking news out of Minneapolis with the city officials who's decrying the federal government's handling of yesterday's shooting and calling on ice to leave Minneapolis as the administration says, more federal agents to the area. Keep it right here under the press now. Hey guys, Williegeist here reminding you to check out the Sunday sit Down podcast. On this week's episode, I sit down with one of the biggest bands 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. Stay informed with the NBC News app. Breaking news just coming in moments ago. Watch, read and listen throughout your day.
And now unlock even more with a subscription. It's the best of NBC News with fewer ad instructions including ad free articles, podcasts and full NBC News shows. Plus deeper access and exclusive content. Let's just take a step back.
It's more context and clarity from the report supporters you trust. Download the NBC News app now and subscribe for more. Let's kick start your wellness journey with the app. Workouts, meal plans.
It's your fast track to a healthier youth. And now during the expanding number celebration, members can get an exclusive 50 off an annual subscription. Head to xfinity.com membership to learn more Xfinity. Imagine that subscription automatically reviews each year at 65.99plus tax fees until cancel on May 20, 2026.
Price is subject to change today.com for full on details. Welcome back. Join me now is Minneapolis City council member Oren Chowdhury. Thank you so much for joining.
I really appreciate it. Yeah, thank you so much for having me. So I just want to start off. We obviously heard Governor Wall say he doesn't trust the FBI to conduct the investigation into the shooting.
Of course local authorities have been cut out of the case. Do you trust trust federal authorities to handle this investigation? I, I don't trust federal authorities to handle this investigation. The reason why I don't trust them is because after the killing of Renee Goode, a woman in our community, a mother, someone who was doing legal observation, President Trump and Christine Noem immediately went to saying that she was a domestic terrorist and that this was an act of self defense for the Ice Agents without any investigation being.
Being taking place. And then additionally, we had an opportunity here to have the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension be a part of this investigation. And it is startling that they are now taken off of it by the. By the FBI, by the federal government.
Well, I wonder if you can set the scene there, because obviously we've seen the protests grow not only in Minneapolis, but in other cities across the country. What's the mood on the ground there and do you anticipate the protests are going to continue to grow? I think our community right now, just being out there yesterday, being out there this morning, we're. We're in a place of a lot of grief and frustration.
And for us, this is day 38 of a brutal and cruel ICE occupation. Renee could have been any one of us. That's the sentiment that I'm hearing from my neighbors. It's a really, really cold place with a lot of people with warm hearts.
And in Minneapolis, we show up for one another. And Renee was the one that was showing up and doing legal observation. And over the last few weeks, we have had to help our community get basic groceries, pay for their ren, make sure that their kids get home from school safely because they're afraid to leave their house. I personally have seen a pregnant woman cornered by ICE and then dragged out of a car through the snow.
It's just a level of brutality that I think the public and the nation needs to understand. And that level of brutality was showcased yesterday. And we were. We were always afraid that this was going to happen.
And so our community is going to continue to call for justice, as they should. There needs to be a call for transparency and accountability because we are not getting it from the federal government. And they're doubling down on this narrative to cover up the truth, that they're doubling down on this narrative to say, do not trust what you see with your own eyes. And I'm really proud of the Minneapolis community because they have been peaceful.
They have been chanting and having vigils, and it's these agents on the ground that escalate. I watched an agent shoot someone at a point blank range with a chemical irritant. Yesterday, I watched videos of ICE agents descend upon a public high school in my war that I represent and unlawfully detain a public educator and shoot chemical irritants in the direction of teenage kids in our community. Let me ask you about what you think the response should be.
Governor Wall said Minnesota should respond with Minnesota nice instead of, quote, giving them the unrest they want. Obviously, you're praising the protesters for being peaceful. Is that a message that you echo? I think our community should definitely not take the bait that I think the federal government is putting out there.
They're trying to create a narrative to justify more agents on the ground, the takeover of National Guard. I think in Minneapolis, we are a community that has been through so much grief and so much trauma and we know that we have to hold on to each other in this moment. We know that, like our First Amendment, our voice, us showing up and calling out injustice is what moves the Neil forward. And of course, our community is thinking about 2020.
And we do not want to see our community, our local businesses, anyone feel any level of destruction. We're trying to achieve peace. And the actors who are disrupting and so in chaos are these federal agents day in and day out. All right.
Minneapolis Council Member Oren Chowdhury, thank you so much. We really appreciate it. Thank you so much. We want to take a turn now, go to Capitol Hill, the issue of surging health care premiums for millions of Americans any moment.
The House is set to vote on a three year extension of those expired Affordable Care act subsidies after four Republicans joined Democrats to force a vote to the floor late last year. That bill is expected to be rejected by the Senate, which rejected a similar measure last month. At least one bipartisan group of senators is searching for a way to break the congressional gridlock over health costs. But multiple sticking points remain, including Republicans desire to keep high amendment protections which bars federal funding from being used for abortion.
Join me now from Capitol Hill Circuitry. Thanks so much for being here. So the House, we know, is about to vote on this measure that would extend subsidies for three years. How many Republicans are you anticipating might join Democrats in this vote?
And would it be a protest vote? Well, Kristen, yes, it would definitely be a protest vote because as you mentioned, this would go nowhere in the Senate. We know that because last month they tried to do this rear extension in the Senate. Only four Republicans voted for it, including Josh Howley, who I talked to today, who said this will send a strong signal to the Senate that they have to do something.
In terms of the numbers that we're looking at, nine Republicans voted for the procedural step yesterday. Ten voted for the procedural step to this final passage of this bill earlier today. So we do expect a significant showing from Republicans. We mentioned those four Republicans that signed on to sort of force leadership's hand in putting this district position on the floor.
There were more that wanted to sign on to it, of course, in their districts, especially for Republicans who represent districts that Democrats won. Kamala Harris, one last cycle. This is really important for them, especially as we are now into January and their voters know that those premiums are but striking Actually we know that as the new year started there were bipartisan group of senators who were holding talks. Are those talks going anywhere?
Are they any closer to actually striking a deal here? Julie? Chris and there was an hour long meeting that happened this morning. I was told by a person in the room that they didn't make significant progress.
They're even hoping to have text as soon as next week, as soon as Monday or Tuesday of next week. There are some reforms to the aca. Remember that was sort of the red line drawn out. Their public leadership, at least in the Senate, they have income caps that they're talking about is a two year extension of those again subsidies.
So not quite the three years as well as other limitations that they're putting on how these funds can be used as well as the ability to use health savings accounts. Remember that is something that President Trump brought up last year at the end of last year in order to get a deal moving. And also President I just talked to Senator Lindsey Graham today who said as part of his Oval Office meeting with the president yesterday, they spent an hour talking about the Affordable Care Act. Senator Graham, I told you this is something the president couldn't on and that he is engaged in bipartisan talks and he wants Republicans to engage on this issue as well.
Oh, that's good intel from that meeting. Julie, let me ask you about the president saying he wants his party to be flexible on the Hyde Amendment. What's the reaction in there? Yeah, this was on Tuesday during his meeting with House Republicans.
Look, that definitely caught lawmakers off guard in part because this is one of the most important provisions to conservatives here on Capitol Hill. The High Amendment has been something that has been in effect since 1976. It restricts federal funding, as you know, to be used for most abortions. And so Republicans are sidestepping the question we've tried to ask.
And but Speaker MC Johnson did say I'm not going to allow that to happen. So that of course is interesting. All right, Julie Serkin, battling a very loud backdrop on Capitol Hill expertly. Thank you so much.
I really appreciate it. Joining now is our panel, Aegis Calhoun, staff writer at the Atlantic, Amisha Cross, Democratic strategist and former campaign advisor to President Obama and Pete C, former White House spokesman and the George W. Bush administration. Thanks to all of you for being here.
Just let me start with you, you know, it's interesting. If there is a deal, Democrats have been fighting to have these premiums extended. Does it take away one of the big arguments that Democrats were quite frankly hoping to make on the campaign trail or will they campaign on it anyway? How do you see it?
I think it's capping the news and I don't know that it's gonna be resolving how soon. It's quite circle to square. The president is probably going to veto anything that even that might come out of the Senate as well. So, you know, that's a tough thing to surmount.
But what Democrats are hoping to talk about is that premium costs are gonna double for families who are on the Obamacare plan and the number of people who are probably insured might be an extra three and a half million. So I think they're gonna keep talking about it. You see, even when Kim Jeremy's asked about foreign policy, it's really the thing that they want to talk about. And Misha Kras, how do you see this?
If there is a deal which because it gals in the details, do you think that would weaken Democrats argument in the midterms or do you think they still go in the midterms of a strong deck? Well, I think they would. However, I don't think there is going to be a strong deal. Nay, what we do know is that premiums are already going up.
Many things have already seen that several are unemployed or unemployed. So they know what this is. And realistically, the majority of people who benefit from the ACA are from red districts. These are people who voted for Trump in many cases, not once, not twice, but three times.
They know who is in leadership and they're also very frustrated that they're not going to be able to get the care that they need right now. We know the fluid surgery across the country. A lot of people recognize that healthcare could not be more important. And I think that for Democrats, yeah, they don't care at home because it also flows very well into that 4 billion metric that everybody's talking about.
Pete, how do you see this reaction to what Amish is saying? And is there some consternation in Republican circles about Democrats campaigning on this particular one you saw at the end of the year? Polls show that majority of Americans did blame Republicans for the shutdown. There's certainly consternation among those House Republicans in battleground districts who want to try and insulate themselves from any potential political fallout.
But in the Senate, the story is about the failure of Obamacare. The only reason these subsidies exist is because it did not live up to its promise of being affordable. And I think there ultimately will be one year, two year extension of the subsidies. The senators know they have to at least do that.
But they also want to make substantive changes to a law that has not been as promised the way Barack Obama promised it would be. Nancy Pelosi on down the line. That is the crux of the argument that, look, there are major issues with what is currently in place and Republicans arguing we need to address this. Well, my question is how many years it takes out to address it.
We've had four administrations since and Republicans have yet come up with plan. We had Congress after Congress after Congress. Y' all have been in power for quite some time. And at the end of the day, we have yet to see the concepts of what a plan can actually look like that would benefit the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have no other option without ACA Pet.
The president says his plan is that payments should go directly to America to ask him about this. That's my plan. Right. And I think there's a lot of Republicans who are supportive of that, including some of the provisions that were mentioned on that report from Capitol Hill because something needs to change.
And Democrats keep standing alongside Obamacare when they themselves know that it has been a failure. Again, the subsidies exist only because it has failed, but we haven't seen anything better. I can see that Obamacare could be better, but what I will also offer is that Republicans has not come up with what that better is. It is not individual checks to Americans.
Because at the end of the day, if your eye goes to the hospital tomorrow, a $2,500, $5,000 check from a Trump check is not going to help you. We know that these costs are way too high. All right, let me pause that. And I do want to get in this part of the conversation which President Trump gave this wide ranging interview to the New York Times and he something just that was really notable about how he sees the limits on his power.
This comes, of course, the US Is going to Venezuela and taking out Maduro. It also comes as today five Republicans voted to advance a resolution to block President Trump from more military action in Venezuela without congressional approval. This is what the president told the New York Times when he was asked about the limits of his power. He said, yeah, there is one thing, my own morality, my own mind.
It's the only thing that can stop me. What do you make of that? And not necessarily a surprise, but notable to hear him say that. I think that he is saying Something that American presidents haven't said explicitly even if that's how they operated.
I think I was thinking about how many times has American president been stopped from doing a foreign policy a goal of his by international law as an extension. And maybe you guys can take some examples. I can't think of them. You know in the Iraq war case you try the UN Security Council go along with you.
But you know the example of the Panama invasion that opposed Noriega. H.W. bush did not have authorization to do that. He did that anyway.
The fact of the matter is a long history of Americans presidents dealing with foreign policies that they do what they like. Congress is supposed to restrain the boot War Powers act really hasn't functioned that well. International law is supposed to constrain the great powers from boom. That hasn't really worked out well.
So most president flavors about saying this but I think the way he's expressing this is actually how American presidents operate. I'm in that we've certainly seen Democratic presidents take action against other countries without seeking congressionalism. I think there's some truth to it especially because America's national interest or international interest is one of the prime factors in the majority of cases whether it's oil or something else. But the issue I take with the language that he choosing here is his own world compass.
Everybody around the same blood believes nice people. However, we were not all raised the same thing. We know how to say back backgrounds. We don't have the same faith based systems.
Your moral compass could lead you down a path that's extremely detrimental to the millions of young women and men who serving armed forces every day. And if somebody who has a relatives who are serving it is a problem who we're talking about leading by world compass if somebody does not have one. What do you make of these comments? And I keep going back to the President's Naga base and comments by Congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of the outspoken members of the Naga base who's working with him but who has said she wants him to be less focused on these foreign entanglements and more focused on issues like affordability.
The President here saying he's not backing down. Marjorie Taylor Greene is clueless and does not appreciate the burden of American leadership. A burden that we willingly sought and embraced post World War II. That's the first thing.
The second thing when it comes directly to President Trump is typically presidents view themselves as occupants of the presidency, of the office office. President Donald Trump sees himself as the office. You cannot divorce him from the presidency. He also leans into the Fact that it's called the executive branch.
He believes that he is a preeminent branch of the government and has learned that it takes courts a long time to catch up to him and if he moves, they're not gonna be able to stop him. It's a really important point. What we are seeing, I think, in the second Trump administration is the president testing limits of his power, seeing it play out in the courts of the Supreme Court currently way whether uphold his tariff policy. Great conversation, guys.
Thank you so much. And Pete, really appreciate it. And still to come, the very latest in the president's pursuit of Greenland as US Allies and some Republicans in Congress respond with alarm to the administration's intentions to seize the Danish territory with military force if needed. The president says you're watching.
Welcome back. Denmark's ambassador to the US And Greenland's head representative. We're on Capitol Hill today meeting with lawmakers as the Trump administration continues to consider ways it can acquire Greenland. My colleague Ryan Noble is asking them if Greenland is for sale.
Here's what they said. I think the leadership of my government, of our government made very clear how we see this current situation. And I think that the core of what we have discussed is that we have ample opportunities to strengthen our relationship within the existing structures, and we intend to. Greenland is not for sale.
I think our prime minister has made it very, very clear our country belongs to the Greenland people. But the Trump administration continues to insist taking control of the Danish territory is a national security priority. Here's what Vice President Bam said today. I guess my advice to European leaders and anybody else would be to take the president of the United States seriously.
So what we're asking our European friends to do is to take the security of that land mass more seriously. Because if they're not, the United States is going to have to do something about it. What that is, I'll leave that to the president as we continue to engage diplomacy with our European friends and everybody on this particular topic. Joining me now is NBC News chief Washington correspondent and chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Andrea, thank you so much for being here. It's so great to have you here. So talk about this is just extraordinary. The president's been talking about this for quite some time, but more seriously in recent days, what's the state of play here?
Well, the Danish ambassador and the Greenland representative just now have been to the White House as well. We don't know exactly who they met with. Not the president, clearly. We don't think the national security advisor, Marco Rubio, but it'd be really interesting if they met with Stephen Miller, the deputy chief of the staff, who set off a lot of this with an interview this weekend or Monday, rather, saying, you know, that Greenland should be part of America.
And importantly, his wife, Katie Miller, who's also a major power player, was a White House team member and working for Elon Musk, really set things off by posting a tweet which showed the map of Greenland covered by the American flag, and that was on Sunday. And that set off a fierce amount of opposition in Europe from the leaders of the uk, Italy, Spain, Poland, France, Germany, all coming together with a joint statement saying, this is not going to happen, it's against the UN Charter. And now today, President Macron meeting with all his ambassadors who were gathered in Paris, saying that the US and China now think that they can rule the world imperially. I mean, a blast against the US and China.
So Europeans are looking at this as breaking up NATO. Well, to that point, Andrew, I mean, what do you make of the administration's argument? And what's the reaction been to the administration's argument that it is in the US national security interest to counter Russia, to counter China? How are European allies responding?
They're saying fine. You know the danger there. It's a NATO encampment. You have a base.
There were thousands of troops from the US for years on that base. Build it up, take more bases. We've offered you more bases. You now have only 200 troops there.
You've drawn down exactly where JD Vance himself went in the Northeast. I think it's the northeast part of the country, but in a remote part of Greenland, of the territory, Danish territory. So send your own troops to your own base. This is a NATO territory owned by a NATO ally.
And if you attack militarily a NATO ally, then you are breaking NATO and it's not for sale. And importantly, Senor Bicker, the Republican Chairman of Armed Services, said today after meeting with them that this is not something that you should do. We've listened to Minute left, Andrea, but what's the latest on the talks? We know Jared Kushner, Steven, in Paris trying to get that deal between Ukraine and Russia potentially back on track.
What are you hearing there? Very briefly, it is talked that they may now be going to Moscow, that there was talk about. There's definitely a memorandum of understanding. The British Starver and Macron have signed that they will put troops on the ground in Ukraine to monitor a ceasefire, and they are hoping for American guarantees that were obtained by Zelensky from the President himself in Mar?
A Lago. But so far, Putin is saying no. So it's not gonna happen. Oh, it's just so complic.
Details make it incredibly challenging for. Thank you so much for coming so much around. We appreciate it. We are back tomorrow with more me, the press.
Now. There's more ahead on NBC News. Now as a day wraps up, get the scoop on what's been happening with here's the Scoop, the podcast for NBC News. With me, your host, Gasudian.
We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories of NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that sharp, thoughtful and informative, bring you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. The front page, the Zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News.
Listen daily on Amazon Music.