KRISTEN WELKER:
This Sunday: Green New Deal. President Trump threatens NATO allies with steep tariffs as he escalates his push for U.S. control of Greenland.
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
We need Greenland for national security.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I’ll talk exclusively to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Plus: Flash point. As protests and tensions grow in Minneapolis, the Justice Department launches a criminal investigation into Minnesota’s Democratic leaders.
SEC. KRISTI NOEM:
In every situation, we are doing targeted enforcement.
GOV. TIM WALZ:
It’s a campaign of organized brutality against the people of Minnesota by our own federal government.
MAYOR JACOB FREY:
We cannot counter Donald Trump’s chaos with our own brand of chaos.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I’ll talk to Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. And: War powers. Senate Republicans block an effort requiring President Trump to get congressional approval for more military action in Venezuela.
SEN. RAND PAUL:
The reason the Founding Fathers gave this power to Congress is to make it not so easy to go to war.
SEN. TIM KAINE:
Before you send our sons and daughters to war, come to Congress.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I’ll talk to the bipartisan pair behind the legislation: Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. Joining me for insight and analysis are: NBC News National Security Managing Editor Carol Lee, Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Wall Street Journal Columnist Peggy Noonan. Welcome to Sunday, it’s Meet the Press.
ANNOUNCER:
From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history, this is Meet the Press with Kristen Welker.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Good Sunday morning. There are new flashpoints on the world stage and here at home — protesters taking to the streets in both Copenhagen and Minneapolis. NBC News confirming the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, accusing the two Democrats of conspiring to impede federal immigration officials as the battle over ICE agents deployed in American cities intensifies. Meanwhile, President Trump shocking America’s closest allies by signaling he’s poised to punish them in his pursuit of taking over Greenland, leading European countries to call for an emergency meeting. The president writing Saturday, “Starting on February 1st, 2026, all of the above-mentioned countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland) will be charged a 10% tariff on any and all goods sent to the United States of America. On June 1st, 2026, the Tariff will be increased to 25%. This Tariff will be due and payable until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland,” making official what he threatened earlier in the week.
[BEGIN TAPE]
PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I may put a tariff on countries if they don’t go along with Greenland because we need Greenland for national security. NATO has been dealing with us on Greenland. We need Greenland for national security very badly. If we don’t have it, we have a big hole in national security.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
Joining me now is Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Secretary Bessent, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Good morning, Kristen. Good to be with you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It’s great to have you here, thank you for being here in person. Let’s start right there. President Trump threatening to impose steep tariffs against some of America’s closest European and NATO allies. The leaders of Denmark and Greenland say bluntly, “Greenland is not for sale.” What makes President Trump think it is?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Kristen, if we look for years, for over a century, American presidents have wanted to acquire Greenland. And what we can see is that Greenland is essential to the U.S. national security — we’re building the golden dome, the missile system. And look, President Trump is being strategic. He is looking beyond this year. He’s looking beyond next year to what could happen for a battle in the Arctic. We are not going to outsource our national security. We are not going to outsource our hemispheric security to other countries. In Trump 1.0, President Trump told the Europeans, “Do not build Nord Stream 2. Do not rely on Russian oil.” And guess what, Kristen? Guess what is funding Russia’s efforts against Ukraine? European purchases of Russian oil. So America has to be in control here.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I want to delve into everything that you said. But I just want to ask you big picture: Is this a negotiating tactic, Mr. Secretary? Or is President Trump serious about annexing Greenland?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
President Trump strongly believes that we cannot outsource our security. Because, Kristen, let me tell you what will happen, and it might not be next year, might not be in five years. But down the road, this fight for the Arctic is real. We would keep our NATO guarantees. And if there were an attack on Greenland from Russia, from some other area, we would get dragged in. So better now, peace through strength, make it part of the United States, and there will not be a conflict because the United States right now, we are the hottest country in the world. We are the strongest country in the world. Europeans project weakness. U.S. projects strength.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But just very quickly, is this a negotiating tactic, Mr. Secretary? Is the goal to get a deal to have enhanced security in Greenland, for example?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
The president believes that enhanced security is not possible without Greenland being part of the U.S.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay. Let me press you on what you have said are national security concerns, particularly as it relates to Russia and China. Senior Democrats say there are no pressing threats on Greenland’s security from Russia or China. The Danish foreign minister says there hasn’t been a Chinese warship in Greenland for a decade. What evidence do you have that this is a pressing threat?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Well, first of all, Kristen, we have asymmetric information. And again, President Trump is being strategic here. What evidence was there that the Russians were going into Crimea? Well, actually there was a lot of evidence that the Russians were going to go into Ukraine. And Joe Biden said, “Well, just take a little bit of it.” But what we know is that the U.S., that Greenland can only be defended it if is part of the U.S. And it will not need to be defended if it is part of the U.S. The president is trying to avoid a conflict.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You bring up Crimea. The president, as far as I have heard, has not taken military force off the table. If the United States were to take Greenland by force, how would that be different than Russia’s annexation of Crimea?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Look, I believe that Europeans will understand that this is best for Greenland, best for Europe, and best for the United States.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But military action is still on the table?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I haven’t spoken with the president on that. And again, I believe that the Europeans will understand that the best outcome is for the U.S. to maintain or to receive control of Greenland.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, so far what we’ve heard and seen from the Europeans is alarm and outrage. In fact they’re, as you know, holding an emergency meeting today. And part of the issue, the president has already reached a trade deal with the EU. How can countries have confidence in trade deals moving forward if President Trump is prepared to blow them up?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Well, first of all, the trade deal hasn’t been finalized. And an emergency action can be very different from another trade deal. So we’re in a very good equilibrium right now with China. But if China did something to upset that balance, I think the president would be willing to act. You know, same thing with India. We were working on a trade deal with India. But the president, unlike the Europeans, started charging the Europeans 25% for buying Russian oil. So the president leverages his emergency powers to do this.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I hear you saying that the deal hasn’t been finalized. And yet it was moving towards finalization. Doesn’t it undercut the United States’ word by threatening these steep new tariffs?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I think it does not. What it does is it enhances United States security. And again, we have seen that Europeans are unable to push back against Russia. The U.S. — this war that never would have started in Ukraine, Kristen, we are going to settle it. But it wouldn’t have started. And what President Trump is trying to do is prevent a taking or the Russian, Chinese action in Greenland in the future. So why not be strategic? Why? Always live in the moment.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Okay, let’s talk about being strategic. The United States has a base in Greenland. I’ve been talking to lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Denmark has given the United States a green light to beef up its security as much as is needed in Greenland. Why not take that route? Why is it necessary to take over and annex all of Greenland, something that 85% of people living in Greenland oppose?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Well, again let’s look back. Denmark has a terrible history with Greenlanders. There were forced sterilizations up until the ‘80s or the ‘90s. So all of a sudden, now that the U.S. has expressed an interest, there is, you know, this new interest. And again, the United States needs to be in control to prevent a war. And we do not want to get dragged into someone else’s war.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, but this is about the United States relationship with its allies, NATO allies, again reacting with alarm. They are warning that this move to annex Greenland could in fact destroy NATO. So let me just put this to you bluntly. Is Greenland or NATO more essential to the United States national security?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Both. Kristen, that’s obviously a false choice. You know, that’s an absolute --
KRISTEN WELKER:
Not from the perspective of European leaders.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
The European leaders will come around. And they will understand that they need to be under the U.S. security umbrella. What would happen in Ukraine if the U.S. pulled its support out? The whole thing would collapse. The U.S., Kristen, to be clear, since 1980 the U.S. military spending versus NATO military spending, we have spent $22 trillion more than the Europeans have, that we are peace through strength, and the Europeans now are only trying to play catch-up. And that is only through President Trump. President Trump believes in NATO. But he does not believe in the American people being dragged in.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, in terms of the cost that has been paid, Denmark has stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States including after 9/11. In fact, it lost more soldiers per capita in Afghanistan than any other NATO nation apart from the United States itself, Mr. Secretary. Does President Trump want the United States to remain a part of NATO?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Of course, we are going to remain a part of NATO. But what President Trump does not want is for a war to start and the U.S. gets dragged in. Again, we are not going to outsource our Western Hemisphere security to others.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you, broadly speaking, about the tariff portion of this. The president, as you well know, has justified his authority to impose previous tariffs without going to Congress by declaring national emergencies. It’s an issue before the Supreme Court right now. We’re all awaiting the high court’s decision. What is the national emergency that justifies these new slate of tariffs?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency. It is a strategic decision by the president. This is a geopolitical decision. And he is able to use the economic might of the U.S. to avoid a hot war. So why wouldn’t we do that? You know, same thing that what if we had a national emergency coming with these gigantic trade balances that we had with the rest of the world — I’ve been in financial markets for 30, 45 years — much better to be strategic, avoid the emergency.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You’re saying it’s a national emergency. But you’re also saying it’s a threat. It’s years away. How can both be true, Mr. Secretary?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Because you are avoiding creating the emergency, Kristen. What if during the great financial crisis, someone had raised their hand in 2005, 2006 and said, “Stop the sub-prime mortgages?” But no one did. President Trump is raising his hand. And that is preventing the emergency.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you think the Supreme Court will agree with that rationale, Mr. Secretary?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I believe that it is very unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule a president’s signature economic policy. They did not overrule Obamacare. I believe that the Supreme Court does not want to create chaos. As you said earlier, we have set these trade deals. And it is very good for the United States if we are balancing our trade deficit. If you look, Europe is being overrun with Chinese goods. There is now an emergency in Europe. There is going to be an economic emergency. The Europeans will follow us. So President Trump is pre-empting this if we go back to emergencies, he put a fentanyl tariff, Mexico, Canada, China. Guess what’s happened to fentanyl deaths? If that’s an emergency, I don’t know what is. October 8th, when the Chinese threatened to put rare Earth export controls on the entire world, President Trump threatened 100% tariff. And the Chinese came to the table. And we negotiated on behalf of the whole world.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Let me move to the Federal Reserve. I want to ask you about the revelations this week that the Department of Justice is investigating Jerome Powell and the Fed for allegedly going over budget in the Fed building renovations. Chairman Powell responded. He fired back at this. I want to play a little bit and get your reaction on the other side.
[BEGIN TAPE]
JEROME POWELL:
This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is President Trump committed to the independence of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Secretary?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Of course, he’s committed to the independence of the Federal Reserve. But independence does not mean no oversight.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But doesn’t this undercut the independence of the Federal Reserve if the Justice Department is investigating renovations? There are renovations at the White House.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
The renovations at the White House are not $700 million, more than $1 billion or $1.5 billion over budget, Kristen. And the White House, that is being paid for with private funds. If I want to buy a new chair for my office at Treasury, that is an appropriation. Just to understand, the Federal Reserve has magic money. They print their own money. So when you have no oversight, why not have a little sunlight? Kristen, I have called since last summer for the Fed to do its own internal investigation. And that has not been heeded, not been heeded. And again, I don’t know about you. If I were to receive inquiries from the Justice Department, I would answer them. They went unanswered.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, let me ask you because Axios reported that you were not happy about DOJ’s investigation, that you told President Trump as much. Axios writes, “a perturbed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told President Trump late Sunday that the federal investigation into the Federal Reserve Chair made a mess and could be bad for financial markets.” That’s according to two sources familiar with the call. Is that accurate?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
You know what, Kristen? I’m not going to discuss my conversations with the president. But if I said that, I was wrong. Financial markets, stock market went up, bond yields went down. So the markets are the ultimate arbiter of over whether the Fed’s independence is being impugned. And bond yields went down. I can tell you we had two of the best bond auctions that we have had in months for U.S. treasuries. So the market is looking beyond this. And again, maybe the market wants some transparency from the Fed.
KRISTEN WELKER:
One final question for you, Mr. Secretary. Some Republican senators, as you know, are threatening to block the president’s nominees over the Justice Department’s investigation. Do you think the investigation needs to be dropped in order for the Senate to confirm the president’s next pick to run the Fed?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I think that that will be up to the senators. I think --
KRISTEN WELKER:
But are you worried that they’ll block the president’s pick for the Fed?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I am not. I think we have four great candidates. I think that they will be quite happy with either of the four. I think we will move forward. I believe that we will probably be hearing from the banking committee soon on what they would like to see. And again, the supervision and bringing in some sunlight does not mean coercion.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Thank you so much, Secretary Bessent, for being here to respond to all of the breaking
developments overnight. We really appreciate it.
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Good to see you.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Good to see you. And when we come back, finding common ground, our bipartisan conversation with the Democratic Senator Tim Kaine and Republican Senator Rand Paul next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. And joining me now for a “Finding Common Ground” conversation, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia and Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Senators, welcome back to Meet the Press. Thank you so much for being here for this bipartisan conversation.
SEN. TIM KAINE:
Absolutely.
SEN. RAND PAUL:
Thanks for having us.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Thank you for being here. Let’s start with Venezuela and your joint effort to limit President Trump’s ability to carry out further military action in that country. Senator Paul, let me start with you. You’re one of five Republicans who voted to advance this bill last week. We’re seeing all of them right now. But two of your colleagues, Senators Josh Hawley and Todd Young then flipped their positions and voted to defeat the resolution. This comes after President Trump threatened you and your Republican colleagues saying, quote, “You should never be elected to office again.” Senator Paul, why do you think the measure failed?
SEN. RAND PAUL:
You know, I think it’s an important debate. And our founding fathers discussed this extensively in the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist Papers, from Hamilton to Jefferson, the whole spectrum. They all decided that the power to go to war was too important to place in the hands of one person. So they said the initiation or the declaration of war would be with Congress. It’s important not only because of Venezuela and what can or may still occur down there, but it’s the predicate then for Greenland, for Cuba, for Columbia. All of these other threats. For Iran. There’s at least five other countries right now that the president is threatening that really is not, under the Constitution, his decision alone to make it. It’s really Congress’. And when we’ve really been attacked, we’ve been pretty united. After Pearl Harbor, Congress was nearly unanimous. After 9/11, Congress was nearly unanimous. And that’s the way it’s supposed to work.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, you know, Senator Kaine, let me get your take on what happened. Because Senators Young and Hawley say that Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave them assurances that there were no ground troops in Venezuela and that they would come to Congress for authorization before any major military operation. Do you have confidence that that would in fact happen?
SEN. TIM KAINE:
I don’t really, Kristen. I mean, the fact that they’ve made those public commitments, we can hold them to them. But here’s what I think Senator Paul and I learned from this, that even though at the end of the day our War Powers Resolution failed because of the two Republican switches. It was a very valuable thing to do. Remember that within hours of our first vote, where we had five Republicans, President Trump announced that he had called off a second invasion of Venezuela. Within hours. And then he did make commitments to Senators Hawley and Young that, okay, there will be no ground troops unless we come to Congress and ask for a formal authorization. And second, this whole war had been carried out in secret. The administration had refused even to do a single public hearing about it. They have now agreed that Senator Rubio, Secretary Rubio, will come before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to talk about it. Why is this wise to do? Why is the Maduro regime still in charge? How long are we going to be there? When can Venezuelans have their own elections? So we were able to change the actions of the administration to some degree by acting in a bipartisan way to file this resolution. And that tells me we ought to file more resolutions and we’ll get more positive change.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, Senator, can you take me to my next question, which is on Greenland. Some of your Democratic and frankly Republicans colleagues have warned that NATO risks being torn apart because of the president’s attempts to annex Greenland. My question for you is, is there now more urgency in the Senate to bring a separate War Powers Resolution as it relates to Greenland?
SEN. TIM KAINE:
You know, I would say that there’s probably three actions, Kristen, that are possible. One, yes, is a War Powers Resolution. And Senator Paul and I have talked about that. We are on a recess until a week from tomorrow. And we’re kind of in discussion about filing that and the timing. And we would be guaranteed a vote. That’s one option. The second option is with the announcement yesterday of new tariffs against European nations to sort of punish them if they don’t embrace the seize Greenland agenda. We can actually challenge the president’s imposition of these tariffs. And Senator Paul and I have worked together on similar tariff challenges in the past. And I think you will expect to see a number of senators joined in an anti-tariff resolution filed right when we get back. And then the third thing is there is now a law in the United States that a president can’t withdraw from, suspend U.S. participation in or denounce NATO without congressional action. And that is also implicated in what the president is doing. So we have a couple of different options. And I know we will be talking about them over the week. But I do think there’s a strong bipartisan consensus that the president’s threats and loose talk, as my colleague Senator Paul has said, “Hey, let’s rein in the rhetoric here.” These discussions, they’re not helpful because they’re pushing allies away from us rather than forging the stronger relationships with allies that we need.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Senator Paul, do you think there would be enough Republicans to pass the legislation that Senator Kaine talks about on tariffs and potentially a second War Powers Resolution?
SEN. RAND PAUL:
On the war powers, or on militarily invading Greenland, I’ve heard of no Republican support for that, even though most hawkish members of our caucus have said they won’t support that. So I think it’s going to be very difficult. I think he keeps rattling the cage, saying that. But as far as trying to buy it peacefully, you don’t get purchasers to come around by berating them and telling them you’ll take it anyway. So I don’t think that’s very successful. With regard to emergencies, this is the same debate that the Supreme Court has before it right now. And I don’t think that you can do an emergency, say, “Well, the Constitution’s no longer valid.” The Constitution says taxes originate in the House, go to the Senate, and then go to the president for a signature. And it doesn’t say the president can just write up new taxes and threaten them any time he wishes. So I think this is unconstitutional. Now, he’s pointed toward a statute that Congress passed called IEEPA. I don’t think that applies to trade either. And I think the court is going to strike this down and it will be a significant rebuke to unchecked presidential power. The sooner the better though because the power continues to be used. And if it’s going to be checked, the Supreme Court should go ahead and release its opinion as soon as we can.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Senator Paul, let me follow up with you. You say you think it’s unconstitutional. Republican Congressman Don Bacon is saying he might even move to impeach President Trump if he takes military action against Greenland. You’ve described yourself as one of the president’s biggest defenders during his past impeachment trials during his first administration. Would annexing Greenland be an impeachable offense, Senator Paul?
SEN. RAND PAUL:
You know, the difficulty of saying you’re going to impeach somebody because of a constitutional dispute, we have these all the time. I mean, we’re not even positive how the court will decide this. So the court decides one way or another, do we say that the minority have somehow committed an impeachable offense on the court? No, it ends up being an interpretation. So I think it’s my job as part of Congress to discuss and check and balance the presidential powers. But I don’t think every time there’s a dispute between the presidential powers and the congressional powers that that is something that we impeach people for. And yes, I was a defender of him in the first two impeachments. I thought they were partisan. And I think for the most part, they’re not good for the country. You know, for the most part, elections, impeachments should be extraordinary and not commonplace. And so I’m hoping that we’ll have these debates, that they’ll be thorough, and I’m hoping that we don’t get to a military invasion. I kind of actually don’t think we’re going to because quietly there is not a Republican that’s come up to me and said, “Oh yes, I’ll back him to the hilt.” The only problem about a war powers vote now is that since it hasn’t happened, there are a lot of Republicans who say, “Oh, that’s prospective. I’m not going to tie his hands prospectively.” The problem is if you wait until after an invasion, whereas the administration argues, we don’t know it’s a war until we count the casualties. That’s sort of a crazy definition of war because our job is to initiate or declare war. We can’t wait and say three years later, “Well, a lot of people died, so now it’s a real war. Now we get to declare war.” That would be insane. But that’s the current president, as well as previous presidents, frankly. Democrat and Republican have said they get to define when war is. And most of the things they do, they say, “Oh, these aren’t wars. These are drug busts,” or “These are something else,” or “These are kinetic action and not war.” But really, who defines war should be Congress. We should step up. And I’m proud of the fact that we have had a bipartisan coalition. I think Senator Kaine’s done a great job in bringing everyone together. And it’s an important debate. Look, I mean, our sons and daughters go. I know people who will be fighting these battles. And it’s important that they know the country’s behind them. But that we’ve debated it and that we’ve decided to go to war. And to say it’s not a war in Venezuela, we still have hundreds of ships with a 100% blockade of the coast. That is an act of war, it’s an ongoing war, to continue to take their oil, ongoing war, to distribute it. I still hope it works out for the best, but we are still involved in an active war with Venezuela.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, Senator Paul, you lead me to the big picture question I want to end on. This is a conversation about bipartisanship. Both of you have at various points crossed the aisle, voted with the other party. Senator Kaine, you recently drew criticism from Democrats when you joined Republicans to keep the government funded back in November. Do you think more members of your party need to be willing to cross the aisle, to work in a bipartisan fashion in order to break through the partisan gridlock that quite frankly is frustrating to so many people across the country?
SEN. TIM KAINE:
Let me just say absolutely. I came up in a political culture in Virginia where I was a governor with two Republican Houses. And if I wasn’t able to find common ground, I would get nothing done. And so that is something that I work hard to do and I will just give credit to Senator Paul. He’s the same way. We’ve been good partners on tariffs, good partners on war powers and on other issues. And so we do need to do more. And if I could give some advice to Americans, just voters, if you want to see more work across the aisle, every time you meet an elected official, no matter what party they are, ask them this question, “Hey, tell me about something you’re doing with somebody on the other side of the aisle.” I think a lot of our colleagues don’t hear that encouragement from their voters. And if they heard it over and over again, you’d probably get more of it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Senator Paul, we’re just about out of time but what do you think it will take to find more common ground?
SEN. RAND PAUL:
I think true checks and balances, when one party controls all of government, has to come from the majority party as well. So it has to be Republicans brave enough to step forward. And what I do isn’t anti-Trump. My opinions are the same as they’ve been under President Biden, President Obama. I have not changed my opinions. Emergency powers are for emergencies. They should be short-lived. And we can’t throw out all of the Constitution’s rules on where taxes originates because someone declares an emergency. There are no true emergencies. There’s no emergency with Greenland. That’s ridiculous. And the idea by the Secretary that oh, this is to “prevent an emergency.” Now we’re declaring emergencies to prevent emergencies? That would lead to endless emergencies and that’s kind of where we are now. The tariff war, we’ve declared emergencies with 130 countries. Does anyone really believe that’s a valid use of emergencies?
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right.
SEN. RAND PAUL:
So I’ve argued under both Democrat and Republican presidents, we should rein in and check and balance and constrain the emergency power.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Thank you both so much for this bipartisan conversation. We are deeply grateful. We appreciate it. Senators Tim Kaine and Rand Paul. When we come back, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey joins me next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. And joining me now is Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. Mayor Frey, welcome back to Meet the Press.
MAYOR JACOB FREY:
Thank you so much.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Thank you for being here two weeks in a row to discuss the urgent situation in Minneapolis. On Friday, of course the Justice Department announced an investigation into you and Governor Walz. At issue, these accusations that you impeded immigration enforcement in Minneapolis. What is your reaction to the investigation and have you, in fact, received a subpoena at this point?
MAYOR JACOB FREY:
We haven’t received anything, a subpoena or otherwise. And obviously it would be deeply concerning if the federal government is targeting someone for a product that is quite literally my job. It is my responsibility to speak on behalf of Minneapolis residents. It’s my responsibility to do everything possible to keep our city safe. And so while I haven’t received a subpoena or anything else at this point, this should be deeply concerning, not just for Minneapolis but for anybody out there. And whether it’s Senator Slotkin or Governor Walz or Senator Kelly — to have a federal government targeting people simply because of the speech they are using and that it runs against some of the things that the federal government is saying, I mean, this is stuff that happens in other countries. Shouldn’t happen in America.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, let me ask you, because on Tuesday the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche posted this. I’m going to read it to you, get your reaction on the other side, quote: “ICE operates in thousands of counties without incident, men and women doing their jobs, protecting us from criminal aliens. Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a failed governor and a terrible mayor encouraging violence against law enforcement. It’s disgusting. Walz and Frey, I’m focused on stopping you from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.” He is accusing you of “terrorism,” Mr. Mayor. How do you respond?
MAYOR JACOB FREY:
Yeah, never once have we pressed for violence against any law enforcement officer. My primary job in Minneapolis is to keep people safe. That safety is being put in jeopardy. Not by our Minneapolis residents, not by our local law enforcement that is working tirelessly, but by an invasion that is taking place in our city. I mean, we have around 600 police officers and there’s somewhere in the range of three to even 4,000 ICE agents and border control. If the goal is safety, if the goal is maintaining the peace, I’ll tell you, there’s a very good antidote to some of the danger we’ve been seeing, and it’s just to have ICE leave. And so we have been working very hard with a number of different jurisdictions to keep the people of our city safe. People in our city have been working very hard to keep themselves safe. I mean, it’s been completely inspiring to see tens of thousands of people in our city standing up for their neighbors. It’s not just about resistance. It’s about love. It’s about love for the people of our city sliding down icy sled hills to attend a protest or making sure that somebody’s got an escort to the grocery store and they’re not just randomly picked up in the meantime. I mean, this is the kind of concerning stuff that’s taking place in Minneapolis, and I think people around the country should be very concerned about it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I want to play you something that Governor Walz said this week and get your reaction on the other side. Look.
[BEGIN TAPE]
GOV. TIM WALZ:
We can, we must protest loudly, urgently, but also peacefully. I want to share another way you can help: Witness. Help us establish a record of exactly what’s happening in our communities. You have an absolute right to peacefully film ICE agents as they conduct these activities. So carry your phone with you at all times.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
Do you believe that message by Governor Walz risks escalating tensions in your city?
MAYOR JACOB FREY:
Governor Walz was saying something that is a basic constitutional principle, which is peacefully protest, one. Two, don’t take the bait. We do not counter Donald Trump’s chaos with our own brand of chaos. We keep the peace. And three, yeah, bearing witness and recording what is happening in the street. It’s a public place. You’re allowed to do that, not just in Minneapolis but because of the United States Constitution. What is happening here right now is that Minneapolis residents are getting hit with a whole bunch of intimidation. The bottom line is that we’re not going to be intimidated here. That won’t happen. And where it’s me or the countless other residents throughout the city that are peacefully protesting and doing their part to help out their neighbors during a very difficult time, we’re standing up.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me ask you, because NBC News is reporting that the Pentagon is taking steps to ready troops for possible deployment to Minneapolis. It comes as President Trump has threatened, as you know, to invoke the Insurrection Act. How will you respond if those troops are, in fact, deployed?
MAYOR JACOB FREY:
That would be a shocking step. To those that are paying attention, you’ve got to understand how wild this is right now. In Minneapolis, crime is dramatically down. We don’t need more federal agents to keep people safe. We are safe. Violent crime is down. Shootings are down. Carjackings are down in virtually every category, in virtually every neighborhood in the city. You know what’s causing more chaos? Having these thousands of ICE agents and border control and apparently military, even, potentially on our streets. But again, the purpose here is to intimidate. In Minneapolis we’re not going to be intimidated. We’re not backing down. We’re going to grin down this bear and do so again with peace.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Mayor Jacob Frey, thank you so much for being here today. We really appreciate it. And when we come back, an American icon speaking out on the value of nonviolent protest. Our Meet the Press Minute is next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back. On Monday, the nation will observe Martin Luther King Junior Day, honoring the legacy of a leader who was assassinated while leading the fight for civil rights and equality. In 1960, as civil rights protests spread across the country, Dr. King joined Meet the Press, urging his supporters to commit to nonviolent resistance.
[BEGIN TAPE]
DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.:
This doesn’t come overnight. The nonviolent way does not bring about miracles. In the few hours, in the few days, in the few years, for that matter. I think at first — the first reaction of the oppressor, when oppressed people rise up against the system of injustice, is an attitude of bitterness. But I do believe that if the nonviolent resistors continue to follow the way of nonviolence, they eventually get over to the hearts and souls of the former oppressors. And I think it eventually brings about that redemption that we dream of. I’m sure something is stirring in the minds and the souls of people and I’m sure that many people are thinking anew on this basic problem of human relations.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
When we come back, President Trump takes Venezuela’s oil and now wants to take over Greenland. What could stop him? The panel is next.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Welcome back, the panel is here. NBC News National Security Managing Editor Carol Lee, Jeh Johnson, former Homeland Security Secretary under President Obama and Wall Street Journal columnist, Peggy Noonan. Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being here. Carol, let me start with you on Greenland. These new threats by the president to impose these steep tariffs, I thought it was notable Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, “Yes, the U.S. will remain a part of NATO.” You have new reporting about President Trump eyeing more of the arctic than he might be talking about publicly. What do you know?
CAROL LEE:
Yeah, that’s right. I also thought it was interesting that Secretary Bessent basically said there’s no deal to be had to satisfy the president, that it’s acquisition of Greenland or nothing and that the Europeans will come around to that and without saying why he thinks that. But yes, our reporting is that the president, while he’s really focused on Greenland right now, privately he’s really intensified his focus on Canada. And he’s complaining that Canada’s northern border is vulnerable and therefore that puts the U.S. as vulnerable. And he’s not talking about buying Canada or taking Canada by force. But there are quiet discussions happening right now to try to get ahead of some big public blowup of this and come to an agreement that would basically ease the president’s concerns. And Kristen, this is just part of a broader strategy by the president to reassert and expand American power in the Western Hemisphere.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, Secretary Johnson, pick up on that point. The president deeply focused on this region, the Arctic region, the Western Hemisphere. Obviously the president’s move yesterday set off alarm bells. What do you make of this moment –
JEH JOHNSON:
Right.
KRISTEN WELKER:
– because Secretary Bessent downplayed concerns about what this would mean for NATO. Are those concerns overstated, do you think, by lawmakers here at home and European allies?
JEH JOHNSON:
So first, if I could just briefly go back to the war powers discussion –
KRISTEN WELKER:
Yes.
JEH JOHNSON:
The legal assumption is that any vote of Congress to stop the president militarily has to also then be submitted to the president for signature or veto. That’s based on a 1983 Supreme Court decision called INS v. Chadha, which was in the immigration context, where the Congress typically gives the executive a lot of authority. Here in the war powers context, the Constitution says it’s up to Congress to declare war. So I think Senator Kaine and others ought to ask whether that working assumption is really legally solid. Greenland, this whole discussion, in my judgment, turns the world order upside down. For decades, U.S. foreign policy has been “we will support any friend, oppose any foe, for the survival and defense of liberty,” John F. Kennedy, 1961. Donald Trump, President Trump, has no more legal or moral authority to go into Greenland, militarily, than Vladimir Putin did to go into Ukraine. I once heard somebody say that President Trump’s negotiation style is “threaten air strikes and then settle for 65 cents on the dollar.” I suspect that’s what’s going on here. And it seems to be working because he’s got the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland to the bargaining table. But I sincerely hope that this notion of going into Greenland militarily is really just talk.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Peggy, what do you make of this moment?
PEGGY NOONAN:
I think a number of things. One, if there is a profound strategic need of America for greater control of or involvement with Greenland, it is peculiar to me that the administration has not made the case in a very full and detailed matter. There are references to China and Russia, but what is that? What are we talking about? That’s one. Number two, there’s talk of annexing Greenland in the administration. What does annexing mean? All right. Can we clear this up? Look, you cannot insult your allies like this without paying a price. You can’t be brutish with no cost. I think it will blacken our eye in the world if we move militarily on Greenland. I think it would impress Russia and China, because we’re acting just like them. But in the old days, we were better than them. So I think we obscure our own position and look not like the good guys of the world if we move militarily.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, Carol, what Peggy lays out, I spent some time on Capitol Hill this week, there are concerns on both sides of the aisle about exactly what you’re saying. What this is going to mean for the rest of the world as it relates to the United States. And there are deep concerns about what’s happening here at home in Minneapolis as well, the threat of the Insurrection Act, which doesn’t seem to be taken off the table at this point.
CAROL LEE:
No, it doesn’t. And our reporting this morning is that there’s initial preliminary steps for the Pentagon is taking in order to, in case the president decides to go that route. But look, politically speaking, you know, there’s a lot of Americans support the president’s policy, stop the flow of migrants across the border, deport criminals. He was elected in large part on that. A lot of Americans also now are looking at how this is playing out and they don’t like what they see. And so, you know, there are Republicans who are worried about that in the midterms, how these protests play out will also have an effect. And what you see from the administration in terms of launching investigations, sending reinforcements into Minnesota is that they are willing to double down on this approach.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Jeh, as the former secretary of Homeland Security, what do you make of the way ICE is being deployed? As Carol notes, a lot of Americans say, “Yes, we supported this immigration policy, but this wasn’t what we envisioned necessarily.”
JEH JOHNSON:
Securing the border and deporting those undocumented with criminal records should be the policy of the U.S. government, Republicans or Democrats. I look at the images of what’s going on in Minneapolis, and images don’t always depict everything, and I see hundreds if not thousands of DHS personnel going into Minneapolis, sort of itching for a fight. There’s been no great surge of undocumented individuals in Minneapolis all of a sudden. And I used to tell ICE leadership, Tom Homan included, “When you’re out there in the streets, use your common sense.” One notorious incident can derail your mission and an entire community. And what’s so important are the tactics of deescalation of law enforcement. Deescalating from an escalating situation, which does not seem to be employed right now in Minneapolis.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Peggy, all of this fits into what we’re seeing in this second Trump administration as we prepare to mark his first year in office.
PEGGY NOONAN:
Yes.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You have been reflecting on the differences between the first and second administration.
PEGGY NOONAN:
I have. Some things are the same. What Donald Trump believed in in 2016 is more or less what he believes in now. That’s kind of consistent. His themes are his themes. I think he is more confident. I think he has grown hardened. And I think those around him have grown hardened. I also think the first term he really tested boundaries. I think in the second term, he’s not in the mood to see boundaries. So — and he continues to love chaos, he does very well in it, that suggests to me there will be more chaos.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Thank you so much for a great panel, really appreciate it. A lot to cover. That is all for today. Thank you for watching. We will be back next week, because if it’s Sunday, it’s Meet the Press.
Follow here for more Meet the Press transcripts
