Trump Warns "Corrupt" Minnesota Politicians He May Invoke Insurrection Act Over Harassment of ICE

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Morning Meeting

Episode: Trump Warns "Corrupt" Minnesota Politicians He May Invoke Insurrection Act Over Harassment of ICE

Date: January 15, 2026
Host: Mark Halperin
Panelists: Hogan Gidley, Kevin Walling

---

Episode Overview

This episode of The Morning Meeting captures a bustling news day where Mark Halperin and his panel, including Hogan Gidley (former Trump White House Deputy Press Secretary) and Democratic strategist Kevin Walling, dissect the evolving, often-chaotic U.S. and international political landscape. The focal point: Donald Trump’s threat to invoke the Insurrection Act in Minnesota, amid controversy and violence related to ICE activities, but the conversation also ranges from Iran to Greenland, Venezuela, and domestic congressional politics. The panel mixes inside scoops, historic context, and unsparing, sometimes humorous personal takes—delivering exactly the “forward-looking, daybook-style” insight the show promises.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Opening Banter and News Roundup

• [02:00] Mark expresses frustration over ambiguity in overnight international developments, notably Iran. “I went to sleep thinking when I woke up, some of the ambiguity about what's going on on the ground in Iran would have been cleared up... We're exactly the same place... WTF.” – Mark Halperin (02:00)
• [02:37] Banter about a Verizon outage and tech dependence.

2. White House and President’s Schedule

• [07:02] The panel reviews the President’s schedule, flagging a lunch with the Venezuelan opposition leader and a Stanley Cup hockey team visit—strikingly noting how open press interactions often veer into national security.
• [08:44] Note: Even light-hearted or odd events, like a hockey team’s visit, can unexpectedly turn into forums for urgent, weighty policy questions.

3. Iran Uncertainty

• [10:44] The team details confusion over protest status, crackdowns, and whether a military strike is imminent:
  “I think we'll see a military strike or a wit cough rabbit out of a hat in the next 36 hours.” – Mark Halperin (15:24)
• [12:44] Hogan on Trump's unpredictability: “If he's telling you he's going to do something, he's most likely going to do it. ...he has a whole host of eventualities in front of him and decision points...”

4. Military Resources and Messaging

• [13:06] Debate on whether America’s shifted military focus (Latin America to Persian Gulf) limits Trump’s options, with Hogan dismissing the idea of actual constraints:
  “There are really no limitations on the American military...” – Hogan Gidley (13:15)
• [14:52] Kevin highlights Trump's sensitivity to images of civilian suffering; emotional factors drive U.S. responses.

5. Campus Protest and Public Outcry

• [16:00] Hogan raises why campus protests over Iran’s crackdown haven’t mirrored those against Israel;
  “Why are there no protests about the rampant slaughter of Iranian citizens? ...That's an interesting layer.” – Hogan Gidley (16:04)
• Mark playfully flips the question, pointing out lack of right-wing protests as well.

6. Minnesota ICE-Related Violence and Insurrection Act Threat

• [17:56] Mark recaps recent violence involving ICE and an immigrant in Minnesota.
• [18:16] Trump’s Truth Social post threatens to invoke the Insurrection Act, blaming “corrupt politicians” for not protecting ICE.

  "If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don't obey the law ...I will institute the Insurrection act, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great state.” – (Read by Mark Halperin, 18:30)

• [18:49] Kevin and Hogan review the history of the Act (last used by HW Bush in LA riots) and the likelihood that Trump’s threats are partly rhetorical—a move to pressure rather than act, unless polling truly turns against him with Republican base.

7. Political Strategy Around ICE and Immigration

• [22:01] Hogan unpacks Trump’s tactic:
  “One of the unappreciated superpowers of this president is to get Democrats to be on the wrong side of the issue where 100% of Americans are.”
• [24:22] Message focus: Shift from law-and-order to the “faces of suffering” among citizens harmed by undocumented immigrants for resonance in the State of the Union.

8. Foreign Policy: Greenland, Venezuela, Russia/Ukraine

• Greenland:
  • [25:35] Lengthy U.S.-Denmark/Greenland negotiations; panel predicts resolution will take “months, possibly longer.”
  • [53:48] Hogan: “Selling that [a purchase of Greenland] may be more difficult. But...strategically, militarily, equidistant from Greenland as is Russia...”
• Venezuela:
  • [26:23] Discussion about which Venezuelan female leader Trump prefers—both being courted in D.C.
• Ukraine:
  • [28:15, 29:44] Mark notes Trump’s shifting blame from Putin to Zelensky for stalled peace;
    • “Trump says Zelensky, not Putin, is holding up the deal.”
    • Kevin: “It’s a negotiation tactic...to put pressure on Zelensky...to make it a little bit more appealing to Putin.”
    • Hogan: “He also wants this war over, not just for the reasons that he’s already ended seven [wars], but because he feels as though it's another marker... differentiates him from failures of Joe Biden.” (30:11)

9. Congressional/Legislative News

• [32:10] Appropriations process: Hogan and Kevin praise the return to “regular order,” not “sexy,” but a sign of government functioning.
• [33:15] Kevin doubts chance of a government shutdown; any would be partial and short-lived.
• [34:08] Both see a push for a Republican reconciliation bill, but outcome isn’t certain.
• [36:04] “Fed Chair horse race:” Mark, Hogan, and Kevin wager on candidates, with Mark issuing “keep your eyes on door number five” as Trump’s unpredictability looms!

10. Jamie Dimon and CEO Challenges with Trump

• [37:52] Debate on whether JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon has “figured out” Trump:
  • Hogan: “What he's feeling today, he may not feel tomorrow... …that's not how it works.”
  • Kevin: “I don't think the president is that tough to understand, you know, in terms of his motivations and why he does what he does.”

11. Stephen Miller’s Rise: Anecdotes and Analysis

• [41:06–43:41] Personal history: Former professor tells the story of Miller’s ambition and early Trump loyalty—confirmed by Hogan’s close relationship.
  • “Stephen's one of the smartest people I know... …Also one of the funniest.” – Hogan (42:36)
• [44:13] Skepticism about Miller predicting the Trump presidency years before it was plausible.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Trump’s Threat:

  “If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don't obey the law ...I will institute the Insurrection act... and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great state.” – Donald Trump (read by Mark, 18:30)

• Halperin’s Summary of White House Tactics:

  “I think one of the unappreciated superpowers of this president is to get Democrats to be on the wrong side of the issue where 100% of Americans are.” – Hogan Gidley (22:04)

• On Foreign Policy Shifts:

  “Trump says Zelensky, not Putin, is holding up the deal. …I think it's a negotiation tactic by the president.” – Kevin (29:17)

• On Media and Investigations:
  [59:22] Professor Kenny (audience) asks if seizing a journalist’s laptop by the FBI is extreme;

  “The bar is way too low... There are many other ways to investigate leaks besides taking the records of journalists.” – Mark Halperin (60:36)

• On Jamie Dimon’s ‘Secret Sauce’:

  “A lot of people think they have the secret sauce to figuring out Donald Trump, and it has come back to bite them... it doesn't feel right, so, no. Or it does feel right, so, yes. And to heck with the consequences...” – Hogan (38:01)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

| Timestamp | Segment | |-------------|------------------------------------------------------------------| | 02:00–04:00 | Setting up the show & news roundup | | 07:02–09:00 | President’s daily schedule & press briefings | | 10:44–15:31 | Iran: Uncertainty & expectations of U.S. response | | 17:56–18:49 | Minnesota ICE incident & Insurrection Act threat | | 22:01–24:54 | Trump’s political messaging strategy on immigration/ICE | | 25:35–25:56 | Greenland: U.S.-Denmark negotiations forecast | | 28:15–31:10 | Ukraine: Trump’s shifting narrative re Putin/Zelensky | | 32:10–34:51 | Congress: Appropriations process, possible shut down, Fed Chair | | 37:52–40:03 | Jamie Dimon & business response to Trump | | 41:06–43:41 | Stephen Miller’s rise & backstory | | 59:22–62:53 | Audience Q: FBI raid on journalist & First Amendment |

---

Audience Q&A Highlights

• Primaries Process (49:05): Why American primaries work as they do—answers underline historical, financial, and tactical party considerations.
• Greenland Purchase (53:44): How could Congress and the public justify or sell a massive federal buyout in campaign season?
• FBI Raid of Reporter (59:22): Free press vs. national security—panel is united: threshold for such action should be extremely high.

---

Tone & Style

The conversation is brisk, at times irreverent, and always direct, matching Halperin’s signature inside-baseball style and sharp-tongued banter. The hosts blend political strategy with war stories and pop culture references, keeping a heavy but playful touch even as stakes are massive (“the world as you know it is over,” Halperin jokes at top).

---

Conclusion

This episode is a masterclass in the frenetic, overlapping cycles of American political news, with an emphasis on how rhetoric, message control, and deep knowledge of both the process and personalities shape not only the headlines but everything happening just beneath and behind them.

For listeners seeking the why behind the news—especially as it relates to Trump’s moves, congressional process, and the sometimes-theatrical administration of policy—this episode is rich in perspective, savvy context, and the kind of insider chit-chat that connects the dots between disparate news events.

“Always try to be forward-looking…” – Mark Halperin, walking his own talk from start to finish.

Transcript

[Mark Halpert]

This is it. The world as you know it is over. Completely done.

[Professor Kenny]

It's not about to be over.

[Mark Halpert]

It's over. Some of the scientists who helped build AI are now sounding the alarm.

[Hogan Gidley]

I was selling AI as a great.

[Mark Halpert]

Thing for decades and I was wrong. I was wrong. There's a longer term existential threat that.

[Professor Kenny]

Will arise when we create digital beings.

[Mark Halpert]

That that are more intelligent than ourselves.

[Professor Kenny]

We have no idea whether we can stay in control.

[Mark Halpert]

While others say that AI will usher in unfathomable abundance, I've always believed that.

[Hogan Gidley]

It'S going to be the most important invention that humanity will ever make.

[Mark Halpert]

This really will be a world of abundance. And among these fears and these fantasies, we seek the story of our future. Listen to the last invention on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[James Patterson]

I'm James Patterson. I write way too many books. Welcome to Hungry Dogs. The title comes from my maternal grandmother, Isabel Zelvis Morris. Nan used to always say, hungry dogs run faster, James. And I've been running fast ever since. Here's what will be coming your way soon, and this is a really terrific list. I think you'll hear from some incredible people like Stacey Abrams. Yay. BJ Novak.

[Kevin]

Yay.

[James Patterson]

Kathy Bates, Dolly Parton, Josh Gad. And Pope Leo. Okay, maybe not Pope Leo, but who knows? Maybe he'll show up. Hungry dogs run faster. Thank you, Grandma, for turning me into a hopeless, obsessive compulsive. Listen to Hungry Dogs with James Patterson. That'd be me on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you, thank you, thank you, foreign.

[Mark Halpert]

Good day, ladies and gentlemen. This is the morning meeting. We are going to take you around the world because there's a lot of news. This morning I went to sleep thinking when I woke up, some of the ambiguity about what's going on on the ground in Iran would have been cleared up with reporters working overnight. And given the time difference, we're exactly the same place, at least as far as I know where we were at 7 o' clock Eastern last night. 14 hours later, WTF. So we'll talk about that. Talk about Greenland, Venezuela, Minneapolis, Capitol Hill, Stephen Miller, Jamie Dimon, and either of you guys use Verizon? Thank God Hogan does. Hogan.

[Kevin]

Oh, gosh.

[Mark Halpert]

How was your day? What was the low point of your outage yesterday? You tried to order an Uber and a pizza. What happened?

[Hogan Gidley]

There were several low. Several low points, but one of them was I received an A text from here telling me that I need to go to a meeting, like, immediately. But yet I had no WI fi at the time to even I had no cell service and had to redo what I couldn't get to the meeting, nor could I get an Uber, as you pointed out.

[Mark Halpert]

So yeah, Hogan, get Hogan Gidley is like one of the founding fathers. He's not really reliant on technology typically, but Verizon can paralyze outage and I will be on that topic. Spoiler alert. I will be on my soapbox later in the program taking a position that's wildly unpopular with every smart person I know, but I'm still going to take it about what the government needs to do regarding outages. This program, as those of you joining today for the first time may not know, is based on the Network News Division's morning meetings. We thought these are incredible meetings that people get to go to where you sit around and get briefed by bureaus around the world, run through the daybook of what's coming up and an opportunity to be smarter, forward looking, thinking about the days ahead. We have the opportunity here with Kevin and Hogan, two guys who have been in these kinds of meetings. Government, media, they know what's going on and they'll be sharing it with you in just a moment. If you want to be in on the conversation, please raise your hand. If you've never raised your hand before, don't be shy. Hogan doesn't bite. Kevin does, but he just. It's more like gumming you. He doesn't use all of his teeth.

[Kevin]

It's all gum. It's all gums.

[Mark Halpert]

It's all gum. So if you want to be here and speak with them, please raise your hand. If you're watching on X or YouTube, remember, our mantra here, much like Stephen Miller's, is peace, love and understanding, extending the presumption of grace to all. Don't put smack in the chat. There's just no reason for it. I know you think in all honesty, someday I'm going to commission a giant psychological study. Why do people put smack in the chat? I don't know. Why make you feel good to criticize Bob? Dan? I don't know. Do something else. Criticize yourself, maybe. Look inside yourself and wonder what? Why is it that I want to say scatologically negative things about other people who are here on a forum dedicated some irony to peace, love and understanding and all voices under one roof. Why would you want to do that? Do not know. But many of you do. Maybe today. Take a break from it. So a quick word from a sponsor and a special word which you'll love. Those of you. Some of you like dogs, Quick word from a sponsor, and then we're going to jump right in to the daybook. And then our conversation. Cozy Earth. So I tell you all the time to buy Cozy Earth products, including the Bubble Cuddle blanket. But I warn you, because I am a protector of consumers. If you buy one cuddle bottle, Bubble Cuddle Blanket from Cozy earth with the 20% off, you're running a risk that either a child, a spouse, or a pet will commandeer your Bubble Cuddle blanket. Well, one of you wrote in yesterday, polly has decided that she is the owner of this Bubble Cuddle blanket from Cozy Earth. And here, you see Polly put that up. There's Polly couldn't be cuter. She practically. It's practically camouflage. You got to look closely to see where Polly starts and the Bubble Cuddle blanket ends. But in any event, buy two so you can keep one and the poly in your life can have the other. Go to cozyearth.com right now. 20% off everything. Not just the Bubble Cuddle blanket, but the sheets, the towels, the pants. Start your new year off right. Give your home the luxury it deserves and. And make home the best part of life again. Cozyearth.com, promo code 2 WMM. Buy one for yourself, but buy one for Polly as well.

[James Patterson]

I'm James Patterson. I write way too many books. Welcome to Hungry Dogs. The title comes from my maternal grandmother, Isabel Zelvis Morris. Nan used to always say, hungry dogs run faster, James. And I've been running fast ever since. Here's what will be coming your way soon. And this is a really terrific list. I think you'll hear from some incredible people like Stacey Abrams.

[Mark Halpert]

Yay.

[James Patterson]

BJ Novak.

[Kevin]

Yay.

[James Patterson]

Kathy Bates, Dolly Parton, Josh Gad. And Pope Leo. Okay, maybe not Pope Leo, but who knows? Maybe he'll show up. Hungry dogs run faster. Thank you, Grandma, for turning me into a hopeless, obsessive compulsive. Listen to Hungry Dogs with James Patterson. That'd be me on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Foreign.

[Mark Halpert]

Here we go. The president tonight. Today, White House pool. Go ahead and put up the White House pool Center square at New Media Hogan. Who's center square? Sounds like Paul Lynde. Is he the. See the. You know, Kevin, you have any idea who that is? Center square?

[Kevin]

That's just a great Hollywood Squares reference right there.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah, it's lost on Hogan because he was born in the 80s, but if you're A little older. You know what center square is?

[Kevin]

I was born in the 80s, too, but I'm like 40 going on 87.

[Mark Halpert]

Hogan, do you know who Paul Lind is?

[Hogan Gidley]

Yeah, because I used to watch Hollywood Squares and I was born in the 70s, so.

[Mark Halpert]

Okay. Anyway, the President's schedule today, it's an interesting one. Intel briefing at 11. Closed press, closed lunch with Corinna Machada, A she didn't win an Academy Award, but she won a Nobel Peace Prize. And President yesterday lavishly praised the other female leader from Venezuela. So it'll be an interesting thing. It's listed as closed press. Gentlemen, one word answer. Will that be open to a photo op? Yes or no? Kevin?

[Kevin]

Yes, Hogan.

[Hogan Gidley]

Yes.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah, we all agree. And it'll be right before Caroline levitt briefs at 1:00'. Clock. That'll be an interesting briefing. And then it's still incredulous on my part. I know I'm a little anachronistic in my sensibilities. I don't understand why there's any hockey team in Florida, but apparently a team called the Florida Panthers won the Stanley cup, and they'll be visiting with the President at 4:00pm Hogan, scheduling note real quickly.

[Hogan Gidley]

Oftentimes you'll know. Notice that the press secretary will cut a briefing short because the President is about to speak.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah.

[Hogan Gidley]

Let me warn everybody, the President does not cut his remarks short because Caroline Levitt has a scheduled briefing at 1.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah.

[Hogan Gidley]

This could go on for quite some time.

[Mark Halpert]

Yes, absolutely. Great point. And anyone who thinks, well, the President, the only open press event currently is the hockey event. He's not going to take questions about national security matters with the hockey team. Yesterday, the President took national security questions with children around him in the Oval Office. So those hockey players may want to get. May want to be ready to hear about Tehran and bombings, et cetera. Don't know what the Vice President's doing today, but I wouldn't be surprised if he dropped by that lunch. Or maybe the hockey thing up on the Hill, where there's both good news and bad news for President Trump. Lots going on, including meetings with. With Danish officials. They're moving the budget, they're doing all sorts of things. So the appropriations bill. So I'm just looking at my Hill list to see if there's any else we want to discuss. I don't think so. All right. On Iran, gentlemen, very confused. The President yesterday said he's got word from Iran that they're not going to kill anybody else. Didn't say who, didn't say what. But Said, you know, we'll be watching reports, some reports that there was a military operation perhaps in place and now there's not. The New York Times says a military strike is days away at the soonest. I just don't know why they would report that. That's just pure disinformation because that's just not true. I mean, there's just no way that's a thing. But the Washington Post reports, and they reported this at like 4 o' clock yesterday. I not seen anybody else report it and I've not seen them take it down. They say the protests have stopped, that the protesters are off the streets. So I find it all very confusing, gentlemen, I have to say, the status of the protests, the status of the crackdown, the status of the potential U.S. response. And the president, in an interview with Reuters Number 104 raised questions about the governing possibilities of the Shah's son. Although he waffled a little bit, he said if he's popular, great. But, but if you take his words literally, which is always just a fool's errand, he. According to Reuters this interview, Trump questions Reza Pavlovi's ability to garner support in Iran. Iran 105 closed their airspace for a while yesterday, although it's reportedly broken back up, open back up. And I'm at a loss to know what's happening, Hogan, what is happening in Iran and what's happening with the administration's policy towards Iran. As best you can figure, I don't.

[Hogan Gidley]

Exactly know what's going on in Iran. I do share your concern or confusion over the reporting that said, you know, some type of military action days away. In, in reality, if we're being honest, everything is just days away, so whatever.

[Mark Halpert]

Exactly.

[Hogan Gidley]

It's kind of sky riding, as my old journalism professor used to say. You can rest assured this because having been there and had these conversations in both the Situation Room and SC and other places in the White House, they have a litany of plans and ideas of what needs to happen eventuality should Iran begin to continue mass murder of, of its people. Trump was really kind of fixated on the hanging part of it too. And then Iran says they're going to, they had captured people, they said they were going to hang them. I think what is pretty obvious though, to the world, at least it should be at this point, both members here in political parties on the right and the left in this country is don't mess with him. Like, if he's telling you he's going to do something, he's most likely going to do it. Now, you may not like how he does it, and you may not know when it's coming, but he has a whole host of eventualities in front of him and decision points, decisions to make. And when you see kind of the unpacking of how we got to a decision on Venezuela or how we got to the surgical strike in Iran, those things were done a long time before the actual implementation or action that was taken. So just know this. He's getting an earful from all sides on what should happen and what could happen in Iran.

[Mark Halpert]

Well said. Really interesting stuff. Hogan, one more question for you. And then, Kevin, when. When there are all these reports that say because some of America's assets were moved to Latin America to deal with Venezuela, that the president's options are limited, both in terms of retaliation, initial strike, but also to defend against retaliation. How real is that?

[Hogan Gidley]

I mean, again, to say they're limited is kind of without describing or unpacking what that actually means. I mean, there are really no limitations on the American military, except for if. If we were to be so depleted on ships or planes or weapons or missiles, things like that, we. Which, of course, we're always trying to pass in Congress money for those items that we keep our military up and going, I wouldn't say it's limited at all. And in fact, when you begin to believe it is, that's exactly when Trump often will do something like kill Soleimani or take out the Iranian nuclear facility. And you're like, oh, it's a reminder of just how powerful, how surgical and how strategic this military actually is.

[Mark Halpert]

Kevin.

[Kevin]

Yeah, one. One thing that. That Hogan said, that that really prompted me to think is I think this president is motivated, unlike any of his predecessors, in the realm of innocence being killed. You know, he took action in Syria first term when Hogan was working with him when he saw, you know, chemical gas being deployed. He's spoken out quite a bit about, you know, children and women in Ukraine. So that is a motivating factor. I think when he sees the images and the video coming out of Iran, and of course it's shaky with the Internet outage, I think that was a motivating factor to obviously step up his rhetoric. Right. And put pressure on him to change course. And it seems potentially, to your point, Mark, you know, in the Post reporting, and that that reporting was, like, buried in that story.

[Mark Halpert]

Very end of the piece. I would have led with it.

[Kevin]

Yeah, exactly right.

[Mark Halpert]

If they think protests are over. But have you guys seen that reported by anybody else?

[Kevin]

No, of course. And the foreign minister, Iran's foreign minister, was with Brett Barry yesterday saying the same thing.

[Mark Halpert]

He said it. Yeah, Baghdad Bob said it.

[Kevin]

But Baghdad Bob, who was a master class yesterday.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah, it was. But just seems strange that one of the leading news organizations in the world buries in its story that the protests have ended. Baghdad Bob says it's a bread bear. And I don't, I don't. Not only do I not see anybody else matching that reporting, I don't see anybody knocking it down, nor do I see it, but nor do I see any new videos that suggest it's not. It's not true. So I'll say this, and we're going to move on because, because we're all operating a little blindly here. I'll say this. I think we'll see a military strike or a wit cough rabbit out of a hat in the next 36 hours. One of the two.

[Kevin]

I have a. I will say too. I will say too, one of the interesting things as well is the fact that the reporting that we did not have a carrier group in the area in the Gulf, you know, and obviously the Lincoln is steaming the South China Sea. But that, that was one of the interesting elements. I don't know. We've got 10, 11 carrier groups. That one of them isn't always in that region was surprising.

[Mark Halpert]

Those ships move as quickly as Hogan Gidley does when the check comes. Hogan.

[Hogan Gidley]

Anyway, we don't have your money, Mark.

[Kevin]

So, you know, it's going to take them a week to pay.

[Hogan Gidley]

You know, same same topic, but different. Different topic, but in the same family. I would find it interesting if someone would do some reporting, though, because when a lot of our colleges and universities were shut down over protests against Israel, et cetera, why are there no protests about the rampant slaughter of Iranian citizens? I think that's an interesting layer.

[Mark Halpert]

People on the right like yourself raised that. But why aren't conservatives out there protesting?

[Hogan Gidley]

Well, that's what I'm saying.

[Mark Halpert]

Well, mostly when red people say that, they mean the people who protested against Israel and Gaza. Why aren't they protesting against now? Which is a perfectly good point. But, but why, where are, where are, you know, I want to see, I want to see. Because we're usually working. I want to see. I want to see turning. I want to see Turning Point USA protests. All right, just to, just to bring everybody up to date on, on the main points in Minnesota. And you guys can roll these elements if you want. You don't need to play them in full. Last night, the governor gave an Address to the state, tried to make it seem like a big, big deal in terms of its staging. You'll see it here. There were some technical issues that people on the right made fun of, but he basically tried to make the case that there was no news in it. He just said, Minnesota needs to be an example for the world. Don't engage in violence, criticize the President. There you see the framing. That's a kind of a formal thing. Then there was a shooting of an illegal immigrant accused by ice. We do have a DHS statement of, of attacking ICE officials. Shot in the leg in the hospital. One of the ICE officers also in the hospital. People are skeptical, as always. We should be about government accounts, regardless of who the government is, about what actually happened. Then the Mayor had a press conference and once again, again, same rhetoric from the mayor about this can't stand and people shouldn't protest violently, but that ICE needs to go there. You see that? Then this morning, and this happened just a few minutes ago, really, the President went on Truth Social and he posted this and it's getting a ton of attention. I get. My phone's got all the news alerts on it. Again, no offense to the President, I just don't take these things like, you know, all that seriously. He may never bring it up again. But the President's now saying he might do something that's been talked about. Invoke the Insurrection Act. So here's the President on Truth Social just a few minutes ago. If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don't obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the patriots of ICE who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the Insurrection act, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great state. Thank you for your attention to this matter, djt. Kevin, who was last President to invoke the Insurrection act, under what circumstances?

[Kevin]

I know Kennedy and Eisenhower did during the day desegregation era.

[Mark Halpert]

All right, Hogan, who was the last one?

[Hogan Gidley]

I don't remember who the last one was, but was it Arkansas and faubus?

[Mark Halpert]

Nope. President H.W. bush and the riots in LA. 19. Rodney King. Okay, so again, always try to be forward looking. Kevin, where are we headed in this Face Off?

[Kevin]

Yeah, I think you know the President has threatened this before. Obviously in the wake of the George Floyd situation, the situation with la, he's talked about the Insurrection act before. And again, I think, you know, to Hogan's point, oftentimes the President says what he's going to do. Oftentimes he also uses this rhetoric to kind of pressure people to take an action. What I would love to see happen is Tim Wallace to call up the president and say, I will assist with local resources. If you're not, you know, just indiscriminately targeting folks, if you have a list of folks that you want to go after, I will provide local support to protect those ICE agents. But if you're just going to round people up at gas stations or check people because of how they look, that's going to be problematic. And as I said before, if you're protesting and you're throwing things, you're getting in people's faces. It's reported, you know, that this guy, this Margaret that was shot, you know, attacked the cop, then all power to the law enforcement to hold up the law and to maintain some semblance of peace. But I hope cooler heads will prevail with all this. I don't see it happening, unfortunately.

[Mark Halpert]

Hogan, I want to give you a hypothetical. The graveyards of journalism in the Democratic Party are filled with people saying, well, Trump's on now on the wrong side of this issue. Maybe it worked before, but this thing isn't going to work now. Just talking about the politics of this, this one might be different. We've now seen lots of public polls. There's a lot of private Democratic data. It's all quite clear. People are overwhelmingly against the ICE operation. They think it's making America less safe, not more safe. They're very much against the shooting and blame ICE for that. How? What kind of numbers would Tony Fabrizio have to show the president for the president to change course rather than continue to be confrontational? If it came back that 80% of Republicans said this is a bad idea, he would change course. But how bad would it have to be?

[Hogan Gidley]

Okay, well, first of all, I think you're hitting on something kind of important to the political dynamic here, because I think one of the unappreciated superpowers of this president is to get Democrats to be on the wrong side of the issue where 100% Americans are. So in this particular issue, because you're seeing some people angry at ice, I think it's incumbent basically every member of Congress, every member of any political organization, the administration included, to basically give the choice then to the American people and quit focusing necessarily on the law and order piece and more on the people piece. You'll recall when the administration put victims pictures behind the live locations at the White House So you had to see the victims. You had to be confronted with victims making the connection that here's who we are arresting and here's who we are getting out of this country. It's a political battle. It's like messaging during a shutdown.

[Mark Halpert]

100%.

[Hogan Gidley]

Did you have to flood the zone with that information? As opposed to necessarily the deportations, which, by the way, I think a lot of people want. I'm for them 100%, don't get me wrong, but I think putting more feeling and. Or faces to the actual problem. And this is crude and crass, but I'm gonna say it anyway. It almost be like in the. In the New Testament where Pontius Pilate puts up Jesus and Barabbas and the people choose the murderer and the killer, the thief, over Jesus. I'd almost like the administration to haul them into the square and go, all right, guys, this one's for child rape. This one raped two children. This one killed a family. This one. Now, which communities would you like me to put them back into and make that choice?

[Mark Halpert]

To your point, Fox News had a story that said, here are the Minnesotans who were killed by illegal immigrants over the years, and the governor and the mayor never said a word about it. Never went to. Never went to their wakes, etc.

[Kevin]

Kevin, can I. Can I ask a quick question? I mean, you trump round one, you help obviously shape the messaging for the State of the Union. How much of this will be part of that? You know, thinking about the gallery with victims, families, and things like that. You know, you've helped craft this before. How. How much will the speech focus on this? First of all, it's coming up in a few weeks.

[Hogan Gidley]

Yes, it is. And, Kevin, kudos to you, too, because you are taking the same rational response that anybody would have where they would say, hey, we need law and order in our communities. But I don't like it this way. They're just still. They're still moving with the abolish ICE move with Ilhan Omar and stuff. Yeah, it makes no sense. And I think the. The. The State of the Union is a good place to highlight that. With victims of crime, with agents who pulled and got known child rapists and murderers and burglars and whatever, out putting them front and center and showing the faces of what we're dealing with here, I think is vitally important. And the State of the Union, while still resonating mostly inside the Beltway and a little bit outside, it does start to put more of a coherent, cohesive selling point, I guess. Around which Republicans, and I would argue independents and some Democrats could rally, saying.

[Mark Halpert]

So you're, you're saying don't fundamentally change the mission. Just sell what's going on better. Even though, even though the media is going to be against.

[Hogan Gidley]

No, no, no, no, no, no. Hold on. Let me be careful, because I don't like is most offensive to a voter to tell them what they are seeing or what they are feeling isn't true. What I'm saying is instead of focusing on, as an administration, the law and order piece, what. Which I love, again, I'm for it, but writ large, I think you focus on the humanity of the American citizen who is being devastated with crime by these illegal aliens. Focus on our people and the faces of the suffering as opposed to the enforcement to get them out, if that makes sense.

[Mark Halpert]

Okay. Okay. We got a lot to get through, so we're gonna go fast on these next two. Just quick answers on two foreign policy things. Greenland and Venezuela and then maybe Russia. We'll do those three real quick here. I have Greenland on the mind because my monologue on NextUpCo going to do later today is going to focus on. On this Greenland thing, which is an incredible story. Yesterday's meeting, inconclusive. We haven't gotten a readout from the administration on how they thought it went. The officials from Greenland and from Denmark were very downcast, but they said, well, there's a working group now to discuss it. Here's my question, Kevin. Will this come to a head soon or. Or it's going to play out over months in terms of a resolution soon or over months or more?

[Kevin]

Over months. And we also have to remember the president is headed to Davos next week where he's going to be inundated on this particular issue with our NATO allies.

[Mark Halpert]

Great point, Hogan. Will this play out in a month or two or longer before this gets resolved?

[Hogan Gidley]

I would argue a little longer.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah. Okay.

[Kevin]

Longer than months. Longer than months.

[Mark Halpert]

Longer than months.

[Kevin]

Longer than months.

[Mark Halpert]

I'm a little. I'm, I'm thinking it's going to be faster than you guys do, but we'll see. Venezuela, the president again yesterday, sharing mutual praise after a long phone call with the current leader of Venezuela, but then also meeting today with. With the, with the opposition leader. They both happen to be women. Again, this is not a sexist thing on my part. The president just has a, as a, as a mindset about female leadership that is different than he thinks about men in many cases.

[Kevin]

Who's his favorite? Who's his favorite one in In Europe right now.

[Mark Halpert]

He likes the head of the eu, I think.

[Kevin]

Well, that in Italy, too.

[Mark Halpert]

Oh, in Italy, yeah. He likes Prime Minister.

[Andre]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpert]

Trump said to me. Here's the ap. Trump said to me it was Venezuelan opposition leader after cozying up to Maduro's success, or cozying up. Interesting word choice, Hogan. If the President had to pick one of these two ladies to be the longer term leader of Venezuela today, who do you think he would pick? Who would he pick if he just had to choose?

[Hogan Gidley]

If he had to choose, yeah. But again, you and I are assuming the fact that this administration and I would argue they have done this. I'm not assuming and I believe they have basically orchestrate a coup from within that country so that the person who is the number two from Maduro is now in charge. She has control or the loyal.

[Mark Halpert]

Would you rather have. Would you rather have. Would you rather have a Communist who says. No, no, no.

[Hogan Gidley]

I'm saying. Right now you're saying. I'm saying. Well, that's the reality. Again, Trump is very good at not seeing the world as he wishes it to be, but how it is.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah.

[Hogan Gidley]

So didn't just throw in a democratically elected person in Venezuela because he knew she didn't have the support of the military, whereas the one who does, who is there, maybe he can begin to soften her and have conversations and open things back up.

[Mark Halpert]

Kevin, is she going to give her Nobel Prize today?

[Kevin]

I think she's probably got it and likely bringing it with her.

[Mark Halpert]

If she, if she's smart, she would have used her 3D printer to make a fake one. Sorry, go ahead, go ahead.

[Kevin]

The interesting thing too, Hogan, is, you know, what I saw is the takeaways from the call yesterday is that both the administration and the Venezuelans described it as a long, productive call. You know, where it's almost like, you know, they're hashing it out how to govern this country going forward. The bit of the law, like a long call. The president doesn't do a lot of long calls. And the fact that they telegraph that was interesting to me.

[Mark Halpert]

I just find the back to back wooing courting of the president by these two ladies to be a really interesting story because they both have studied his susceptibility. All right, one more foreign policy thing. 108. All the drift in the last few weeks has been Trump saying all this is Putin's fault. I'm very mad at Putin. Putin's blocking the deal. We don't have peace because Putin doesn't want it. And then Trump does an interview with my friend Steve Holland at Reuters, and he says it's Zelensky's fault. Exclusive interview, Reuters. Here's the headline. Trump says Zelensky, not Putin, is holding up the deal. He says of Putin, I think he's ready to make a deal. I think Ukraine is less ready to make a deal. Asked why US Negotiations had not resolved Europe's largest land conflict, Trump responded, Zelensky, either of you have an idea why the president has flipped on this? And now he's back to blaming Zelensky after weeks of seeming to blame Putin. Don't tell me about the pee tape. I mean, yeah, what's the reason. Why is he doing this? Anybody know?

[Kevin]

My takeaway is, you know, obviously, Zelensky was just down in Mar a Lago a few weeks ago. You know, Putin does not want to deal whatsoever with this. We know that. I think this is a negotiation tactic by the president. It always is to telegraph this, you know, and to see if he can put a little bit more pressure on Zelensky, whether it be land concessions, whether it be some concessions on security guarantees, what have you, to make it a little bit more appealing to Putin. Yeah, but again, Putin's gonna say no to everything.

[Hogan Gidley]

And Kevin hit on something earlier that I think is important and actually describes perfectly who this president is, having worked with him, been in rooms with him. He does not like death, destruction, maiming. He does not like any of that that is associated.

[Mark Halpert]

But then why is he saying it's Putin's fault?

[Hogan Gidley]

I'm getting there.

[Mark Halpert]

Okay?

[Hogan Gidley]

I'm getting there.

[Mark Halpert]

Sorry.

[Hogan Gidley]

Go ahead, Mark. I'm getting there.

[Mark Halpert]

Thank you.

[Hogan Gidley]

I'm giving my co. I'm giving my co host here some credit. Let's all relax.

[Kevin]

Little bipartisan, Little bipartisan agreement.

[Hogan Gidley]

Love, peace, love and understanding here.

[Kevin]

Mm.

[Hogan Gidley]

And he's right about that. So I'm saying is he also wants this war over, not just for the reasons that he's already ended, seven, but because he feels as though it's another marker in the sand that differentiates him from failures of Joe Biden. So he says, Biden started. I fixed it. Biden left the border open. I fixed it. Biden mess up economy. I'm fixing. These are things he likes to do and message. So in these moments, I think he's looking for cracks to figure out who can I get to come to the table, and how do I get them to come to the table, to actually get something that mirrors peace to some degree in these areas so that this stuff stops and at this Point, it's not pressure on Putin. It looks like he's pressuring Zelensky at this point.

[Kevin]

No man, since no man in that Oval Office in jfk, has more feared of nuclear Armageddon than President Trump, too. I think. I think that's still always in the back of his mind.

[Mark Halpert]

All right. I still don't get it. I never. It's one of the things that remains unsolved, why the president is so episodically favorable towards Putin. The Hill yesterday did 17 things. I'd say 12 of them were Republicans in disarray, division between the White House and the Hill. Speaker Johnson having trouble controlling his flock, but five of them were positive for the president, including turning around the Venezuela vote. My question is, Hogan, let's say you were an advisor to Speaker Johnson. Hogan is actually an advisor to Speaker Johnson. What do they do? They need to do something big here. For instance, health care. Health care is dead. The Senate negotiators trying to get a bipartisan deal on extension of the subsidies basically say this isn't going to happen. There's like an ember. But it's not happening. The president says he's putting out a health care plan next week. Do they need to do something big or they just muddle through?

[Hogan Gidley]

You know, I don't know that they need to do something big. I think they need to do something that works and what form that takes, whether it be tinkering around the edges or whether it be a complete, wholesale, fundamental change. I think there are arguments on both sides. Look, the return. I will say this just real quickly, though, as you're talking about the speaker, the return to regular order, having now passed eight of the 12 appropriations bills in Congress in bipartisan fashion, is how that body is set up to work. And an undervalued and undersold story about Congress and his tenure is as Speaker. This isn't governing by CRS anymore. These are actual bills. You look at that addressing things like health care and issues that matter to the American people will be wrapped up in there and more easily digestible in those forms, too.

[Kevin]

Right?

[Mark Halpert]

All right, Kevin, three process questions. One is the House has passed, as Hogan just said, some regular appropriations bills. It's possible we could have a partial government shutdown where some of the government is funded and some isn't. Will there be a government shutdown, Kevin? Yes or no?

[Kevin]

I don't believe so. I don't think there's a willingness to do that. If it is, it would only. It would be partial and it would be around DHS funding, House just sent State Department all this kind of stuff. And to Hogan's point, I think that the Republican. The best thing that Republicans are doing right now is the return to regular order and the appropriating process. It's not sexy. It's an inside the Beltway story, but it speaks to just the general functioning of government.

[Mark Halpert]

Second, most people I talk to are very dubious about the notion that there'll be a Republican reconciliation bill. And yet the Speaker's now talking about it like they're almost certainly doing it. Will they. Will they try in a serious and sustained way, whether it passes or not, to do reconciliation? First Kevin, then Hogan.

[Kevin]

Yes, but interestingly enough, it's coming from the more conservative members right now. We'll see the moderates get on board. That would. Would be what tank it.

[Mark Halpert]

Hogan, are you doing reconciliation in the House?

[James Patterson]

You're a, you're a.

[Hogan Gidley]

You're a young man, Mark. But I'm old enough to remember when they said the same thing about the first reconciliation that happened. So I think there is going to be a serious push for it. Whether they run it to watch it fail or whether they run it to succeed remains to be seen. But I would keep your eye on this, as are most things, when your party controls both chambers and the White House, it is the president who is the head of this party. And what he pushes for will most likely be the case. If he throws up his hands and says, we had one good reconciliation, I'm not too worried about it. I don't know that there's the push to get it done. If he comes out and says, no, no, do this for the American people, you better start to see some, some movement in the House or they're gonna be some serious.

[Kevin]

And I, I also don't discount Speaker Johnson's ability to count votes when it, when it really matters. On this stuff. Not water legislation.

[Mark Halpert]

100.

[Kevin]

But he's been able to deliver.

[Mark Halpert]

Anyone who wants to keep underestimating him is. Can do it at their peril.

[Kevin]

He is Pelosi. He is Pelosi esque. And his capabilities.

[Mark Halpert]

I like calling him Pelosi. That's kind of funny. Finally, you both agree that the, these subsidies, the health care subsidies are dead, right? There's going to be no deal. You both agree with that?

[Kevin]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpert]

Okay. The president also in his interview with Reuters, it was filled with news. I feel bad for my friend Steve Holland. This interview should be everywhere. I'm only one paying any attention to it. He. If he took him literally, which again is a fool's errand because I'll give you an example of, of this. The President has twice previously said he's no, he knows who he's going to pick for Fed chair. He said he's asserted that twice. And then in the interview with Reuters he said well, I like both, both Kevin's. Kevin Worth, Kevin Hassett. And Reuters interpreted his statement to mean it's going to be one of the Kevin's. Now let's steal a page from my friend Brett Baer. 100%. What, how do you allocate 100%? Kevin Warsh, percentage chance, he's the pick. Kevin Hassett and then everybody else. What's your allocation, Hogan?

[Hogan Gidley]

Well, you're missing a third Kevin Walling on this panel. So we need, we need three up for this role.

[Kevin]

I will not accept nor I will entertain.

[Mark Halpert]

Last year was the year of the Doug. This year is the year of the Kevin Hogan. Assigned percentages has got equal 100. Hassett warship. No, you got to do other two. Are you just saying other is zero.

[Hogan Gidley]

I think those two come to the top here.

[Mark Halpert]

Okay, so you think it's 50. 50 warsh has it no inside information. Understood. Understood. Kevin.

[Kevin]

I, I, I think it's, Kevin hasn't for the most part. Right. In terms of his abilities on TV and stuff like that.

[Mark Halpert]

So you think it's 100?

[Kevin]

Yeah, 100%. Yeah. Okay, but, but, but the President and Hogan knows this better than anyone, loves this like apprentice style, you know, calling everyone into the boardroom, that kind of stuff because it's, it's good politics and it's interesting to people.

[Mark Halpert]

Okay, here's the answer, ladies and gentlemen. Ready? It's 40. 20. 40. 40. Kevin Hassett, 20. Warsh 40. Other door number five. Keep your eyes on door number five or it's going to be haccid. Okay, Jamie Dimon. Big article in the Wall Street Journal today about how even Jamie Dimon, the genius of all geniuses, the wizard of Oz, the Prince of Wall street, the banker's banker. I don't know, I'm making up nicknames for Jamie Dimon. Jamie Dimon. Here's the headline. Jamie Dimon seemed to be to have Trump figured out until this week. And they put it in the larger context because diamond has spoken out this week about the Fed and independence of the Fed. They put in the larger context to say even Jamie Dimon, a brilliant genius, can't figure out like other CEOs how to navigate Trump with all his policies and Elizabeth Warren style governance, et cetera. Here's my question. Here's my question. Is the premise, right, that Jamie Dimon hasn't figured it out or he still figured it out? Hogan?

[Hogan Gidley]

I mean, I don't know. Look, I think a lot of people.

[Mark Halpert]

Do what you can pass. You'd have strong views about Jamie Dimon.

[Hogan Gidley]

I mean, look, I think a lot of people think they have the secret sauce to figuring out Donald Trump, and it has come back to bite them on countless occasions. Because what he's feeling today, he may not feel tomorrow.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah.

[Hogan Gidley]

And a lot of times when I'm dealing with members in the House or other people just in general around the country, trying to get stuff across the administration, I'm like, yeah, but you're assuming all he wants is for you to kiss his butt, and that's not what he wants. He's not opposed to it, per se. Yeah, but you've got to give him something that he needs to get accomplished. And if he doesn't feel like it's right for the American people, he. He's the best. He doesn't need polling. He just goes, it doesn't feel right. So. No. Or it does feel right. So. Yes. And to heck with the consequences. That happens a lot. So I don't know where Diamond's mentality is on this, but I just think a lot of people think they know because they've been with him and they have dinner with him and all you gotta do is kiss his butt and then I'll fit. That's not how it works, Kevin.

[Mark Halpert]

I want you to know I just exercise enormous restraint in not extending Hogan's kiss his butt metaphor. I pat myself on the back. Just some breaking news to read. And then, Kevin, I want to hear what you think about Jamie Dimon. NBC News is reporting 20 people have been charged with rigging college basketball and and Chinese Basketball association games as a result of a sweeping FBI investigation. According to an indictment just unsealed in Philadelphia. I bet extensively on Chinese Basketball association games, and I'll be looking for to join some class action soon. Kevin, is Jamie Dimon unique in having figured this out, or he's now in line with all the other CEOs who just scratch their heads and pay their lobbyists more money?

[Kevin]

No. To Hogan's point, I don't think the president is that tough to understand, you know, in terms of his motivations and why he does what he does. And we've seen it first term, the interregnum. And now back. I thought the funniest thing from that Reuters conversation was, you know, he's asked about Greenland and polls and he says, well, I don't care. And then he said, you know, what do you think about Jamie Dimon? He's like, he takes a sip of his Diet Coke and says, I don't care. Yeah, what Jamie diamond still, you know, yesterday was the, the, the Ted, a Ted of I don't care about what these people say or think.

[Mark Halpert]

The tell with the President on Jamie is he trashes him all the time. He cares what Jamie Dimon thinks. I'm quite certain he cares. It's one of the few people who he does care about. All right, lastly, and then we're going to your questions, folks. So please raise your hand. And again, if you've never raised your hand, you want in on the conversation, please join Stephen Miller. Associated Press has a big story about Stephen Miller today. Put that up if you would. In his own words, Stephen Miller's arguments for White House actions in US Cities and abroad. Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has argued for years that the Venezuelan government has intentionally orchestrated mass migration into the United States. The AP version, this is the ABC version of the AP story, has just a giant picture of Stephen Miller. So they're making the case that if you go back and look, Stephen Miller has been saying the same thing for quite some time. Well, this popped up on social media yesterday. It turns out that there's another thing Stephen Miller has been saying apparently for years. This apparently is true. Roll tape. Stephen Miller, my former student.

[Hogan Gidley]

What's that?

[Mark Halpert]

My former student. I'm sorry, say again? My former student, the Stephen Miller in the Trump administration.

[Hogan Gidley]

Did you want to say a little.

[Mark Halpert]

Bit more about that before we listen to this clip? He said that I asked him in 2003 what he wanted to be when.

[Chad]

He grew up and he said, I want to be number two in the White House.

[Mark Halpert]

And I said, oh, when do you want to achieve that? He says, in the next 15 years. I said, wow, okay, well, who would be the president in 2003?

[Chad]

And he said, donald Trump maybe. The guy is very smart.

[Hogan Gidley]

Where was this?

[Mark Halpert]

And Duke is in Poli Sci122. You had him at Duke. Yeah, it's true story.

[Kevin]

You could have told.

[Hogan Gidley]

I mean, I do a lot of homework here, Hein.

[Mark Halpert]

You could have told me this before the program. Wow, okay.

[Hogan Gidley]

There's no question he's a very smart.

[Mark Halpert]

Guy and he has a long term vision.

[Hogan Gidley]

Was he a good student, by the way?

[Chad]

He was. Very good.

[Hogan Gidley]

Very good student.

[Andre]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah.

[Hogan Gidley]

All right.

[Mark Halpert]

This is one of the most Powerful people in our government. Stephen Miller, he's involved in pretty much everything. And that's Hein Gomens, a Duke professor who is giving this account. Hogan, is it possible to you that young college age Stephen Miller was dreaming of a Donald Trump presidency and being deputy White House Chief of staff staff, or you think the professors may be gilding a lily a little bit on an old fishtail?

[Hogan Gidley]

I'm going to give you a little context here just so we're all clear. I was the only staffer part of Stephen Miller's wedding. So I'm very close with Stephen.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah.

[Hogan Gidley]

And his family. Stephen's one of the smartest people I know. And fun fact, he's also one of the funniest. I know that's going to freak out the chat, but privately, he's one of the funniest people I know.

[Mark Halpert]

He's a laugh riot. Hilarious man.

[Hogan Gidley]

Yeah. Publicly, I know you don't get that. Privately, he really is funny. But that's a kind of a Trump thing, too. Listen, he got his fame if you go back and look too, in the Duke lacrosse case where he came out in support of the lacrosse players and of course was proven to be correct there. Stephen not only is brilliant from a policy standpoint, a debate standpoint, conversation, but he also, I think, is very good at kind of seeing where things are going and where things are headed. Remember, he was early on this close the border situation, early on that, and polling kind of backed him up to a point where he was so right that he's elevated himself through, through hard work, I would argue, and successes in the White House to a very, very top senior position. So this does not surprise me in the lease, and I would guess if this is not 100% accurate, it's pretty darn close.

[Mark Halpert]

Okay, so this gentleman, this professor is now at University of Rochester. He was at Duke. Kevin, here's a little bit of a chink in the, in the armor of that story. Back then, 15 years ago, Donald Trump was a Democrat. He was even talked about it maybe being John Kerry's running mate. And there was no indication he was ever going to be a Republican presidential candidate. So you think Stephen Miller not only anticipated, wanted to work for Donald Trump, but that Trump would become a MAGA conservative Republican candidate?

[Kevin]

Yeah, I think that that might be the little bit of the taller tale. I think he flirted with the Reform Party back in like 2002. But, but having Hogan on, too, I'd love to, to think through, you know, now he's almost twice as Powerful. Kind of. With Katie in this podcast, she just had RFK Jr. You know, and she's telegraphing things, too. And I'm sure you know that they obviously have pillow talk and things like that, so you almost have the. The inside track, and then you have the outside kind of media track with Katie as this kind of one, two punches of a new kind of power couple in the administration.

[Hogan Gidley]

Yeah. And I. I don't know if you said this. I didn't hear if you did, but they are married, right?

[Kevin]

Yeah, exactly. Sorry, I thought it was implied with the pillow talk. I don't know.

[Hogan Gidley]

Not in D.C. but, yes, I get your point.

[Kevin]

That's true.

[Hogan Gidley]

They have several children. And y. I mean, look, it is an inside, outside game to bring a. Is it a basketball metaphor there? I think she's able to bring up a lot of topics and do her thing. But I will say this. While they are in sync in a lot of ways, I don't think it's hard for me to believe they would calculate manipulation in that way. To go watch us do this every time.

[Chad]

I think.

[Hogan Gidley]

Remember she worked for Pence for a long time. She worked for Elon for a while, too. Maybe still does. So she's got her own thing going on, if that makes sense.

[Kevin]

Totally.

[Hogan Gidley]

I know she wants to have separate silos, but at the same time, you can't ignore the fact that they are married. And quite frankly, using both of their talents, are one of the most powerful couples on the planet.

[Mark Halpert]

Whenever I go to Buttersworth, people are always saying the same thing. DC's number two most powerful couple are Steve, Stephen Miller and Katie Miller. And the number one is Hogan and whoever he's dating, but. Oom.

[Kevin]

Boom.

[Mark Halpert]

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, quick word for our sponsors and then to your questions. That's true, Hogan. That's what they say at Butterf Wars. Download right now. The free Upside app. Use my promo code. Mark at 25% off your first purchase of a tank of gas. This app is like wizardry. It's like magic. It probably should be legal, but it's not. You download it, it tells you what who's participating, restaurants, gas stations, and grocery stores, and it gives you free cash back. It's effortless to use. The app is free. Using it is free. You're not getting points or credits. You're getting actual cash back, and you continue to get whatever cash back you already get on your credit card. It's magic. It's fantastic. Use it right now. Go to Upside app on your phone, whatever format you use. Over 100,000 participating locations cash back opportunities wherever you go. They've already given away $1 billion, $1 million a week to people who use it. So go again right now to upside. I was skeptical. I downloaded the app, and you just get free money. There's no reason not to do it. Like that promo code Mark gets you extra cash on your first tank of gas. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Enjoy. Use it as you wish. Chad, welcome in. Oops. Oops. Hold on, everybody. Here we go. Chad, welcome in. Tell folks who don't know where you are and what's on your mind. For Kevin and for Hogan. Thank you.

[Chad]

Thanks again for calling on me. I'm in Dallas.

[Mark Halpert]

Does that dog have a bubble cuddle blanket?

[Kevin]

I was just gonna say we got to get that puppet blanket.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah, this dog.

[Chad]

This dog really enjoys the electric blanket.

[Mark Halpert]

Okay, I'm sure. I'm sure that's safe.

[Kevin]

Dog.

[Chad]

It's a hot dog. Yes, it's. It's a classic joke.

[Mark Halpert]

Nicely done, Hogan. What's on your mind, Chad?

[Chad]

There's. There's a million things on my mind that I could ask about or talk about or comment on.

[Mark Halpert]

Programs. Programs. Only an hour, Chad.

[Chad]

I know, I know. So I'm going to change the subject a little bit and ask a political question about, you know, 2028, but just in general. I. It was Bush, Bush, Gore, that when, you know, I was a young, young kid, and I just got so involved or curious about politics and the way it works and everything. And ever since then, I've just been, you know, election day, things like that are just like, I've got three screens up. I'm watching everything. I'm just trying to. Trying to see it all. But I've always had the same question, and especially recently, the way we've picked our candidates. Why do we do primaries the way we do them? Is there a reason? Is there a law? Or is it just the way the parties do it and when? I mean that, or what I'm trying to say is, like, why do we go through this process of, like, okay, which state goes first? And all this kind of stuff? Why don't we just have primary day where 50 states vote? Like, why do we let certain states sort of whittle down the candidates for us? Why do we let. Why do people vote at all for primaries? Why didn't the party just vote on who the candidate is? I mean, I'm not saying that's right or wrong. I'm just curious of why we do it the way we do and how we end up with the candidates we end up with because of that process.

[Mark Halpert]

Great question, Chad.

[Kevin]

KEVIN and then HOGAN It's a great question, Chad. And, and the process has evolved over time to your point, right. So primaries were relatively new concept in the 50s and 60s. It used to be the party officials that would choose, especially at these nominating conventions. So this is a relatively new concept in terms of two elections, a primary and a general election. Of course, Democrats right now are trying to figure out, to your very point, what states are going first. And there's multiple states that are bidding. I think tomorrow is the deadline for these early states to try and compete. But there is no real rhyme or reason why this this has actually happened over time, and it and it's evolved over time, certainly to your to your.

[Mark Halpert]

Question, Hogan, is it should we have a national primary? Why do some states get to go first?

[Hogan Gidley]

Well, look, I think a lot of it has to do, and I'm speaking from some level of bias here, because I work for candidates. No one has ever heard of Mike Huckabee, who ended up coming in, I guess, second, and Rick Santorum, who also came in second, but no one knew. One of the reasons it's set up the way it's set up for primaries on the presidential front, for example, is because when you're talking about New Hampshire and Iowa, you can do those states, and South Carolina for that matter, you can do them relatively cheaply. The media markets don't cost as much. You can travel around them with a car pretty quickly as well. So you don't need the bajillions of dollars that people lament being in politics all the time to get your name out there. You can do it the good old fashioned way by doing little stump speeches here. And they're not spending a lot of money to try and generate some buzz and, you know, love for your candidate and its camp and their campaign. But yeah, Kevin's right, it's changed a lot over time. And you'll notice, you'll see the jockeying close to time who comes first. And they do that in large part because the party apparatus, the Republican Party and Democrat Party, I don't view this as a good thing, by the way, but a lot of times they move it to get the candidate they want. And you think back to when they moved South Carolina a little bit for Joe Biden, for example, to get an endorsement by Jim Clyburn, a black congressman from South Carolina, because predominantly in South Carolina, the primary electorate are African Americans. So if you can get support from them, you're going to win. So they wanted to move that up in the process so he could knock out someone really quickly because he had support from the black community. All these little weird outside, outside the beltway things, as Kevin and I lament consistently, they do make an impact in the race and why it matters. But to your point, a whole host of reasons, but. But a lot of it has to do with money.

[Chad]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpert]

Chad, thank you.

[Kevin]

Really great question.

[Mark Halpert]

Great question and really, really enjoyed listening to both answers. Let's talk Ukraine. I bet. Andre, welcome in. Thank you for being here. Curious to know what you think about the President's turn back towards Andy Zelensky today.

[Kevin]

Hogan, I thought we had great backgrounds but. But you might win the day with this.

[Andre]

You're not the only one talking about Steve's interview. I did about like three over the last eight hours in Ukraine and Europe and everybody's talking about the Steve Holland interview because the, the rhetoric changes. It's not the first time that, that Trump has gone and saying blame Zelensky and it'll go back and forth. My question to you guys is Greenland because in the spate of the last interviews I did, there's some rhetoric in Europe saying, but wait, I thought there was no money for funding Ukraine wars and other stuff. Where is the money coming from to buy Greenland? So my question is not that. My question is how does the buying of Greenland or other stuff tie into democratic narratives of affordability? We saw how effective Trump was in the campaign or JD Vance specifically talking about how we're wasting money on Ukraine. Wasting money on Ukraine. 80% of that money stayed here in the United States for purchasing weapons. This would be an all out cash purchase if it happened and then you would have additional investment into Greenland. So my, your question earlier mark to the group about, you know, how soon this happens. I don't see this happening if the Senate flips, you know, for him to take over Greenland because then who would he have to get the funding and then get the approval of the Senate. But if this were to happen this year, if Trump presses it, how does this become an issue for members of Congress and the Senate to justify speaking spending? Let's say it's half of $700 billion, let's say it's $350 billion. How does that became, become a problem in campaign time?

[Mark Halpert]

Great question. There are a lot of variables there and you've raised some of the good ones. Hogan, thoughts.

[Hogan Gidley]

I mean a lot of variables. Listen, this is part of the argument. How can you sell it. Right. It's the line from A Few Good Men where Tom Cruise says something like, it's not just what I know, it's what I can prove. And I would argue comms people have it worse. It's not just what we know and what we can prove, it's also what can we sell? And selling that may be more difficult. I will say the fact that we're strategically, militarily equidistant from Greenland, as is Russia. From Russia.

[Kevin]

Right.

[Hogan Gidley]

It's kind of in the middle. And news stories came out. John Solomon had a report yesterday that pointed that both Russia and China were circling around Greenland. I don't mean that literally. I mean trying to figure out how to. To take over Greenland a year or so ago. I think it depends on whether or not you could sell the need for more involvement in Greenland. But on the. Especially from the military standpoint, safety and security standpoint, paramount there. But monetarily, what are we getting back for it? And I think that's what matters. Because, look, you said something about Ukraine. People are against Ukraine, whatever, spending money. I don't think they're against spending money in Ukraine, most of them, for any reason. Reason other than just show me the receipts, we'll spend it. But where is it going? Is it going to oligarchs or is it actually going to the weapons we profess to get? Where is it happening? And so I think this is another example of it's not just getting involved in some foreign entanglement and letting it go. It's what are we going to use dollar for dollar, where is it going? And also the rare earth and the minerals they have there, what are we getting back out of this deal, too? Because too often it's just, here's the blank check. Greenland, here's the blank check. Ukraine, here's the blank check. You know, Venezuela, no, no. What are we getting in return? That's going to be the issue, I think, for most Americans, Kevin, whether or not they can sell it.

[Kevin]

Yeah, I'll just be really quick, Andre. It's a great, great question. And in the question you bring up, you know, unlike Venezuela, and kind of the action by the president, Commander in Chief, Congress would have a role, right, in terms of appropriating funds. So to Hogan's point, there's obviously a public engagement campaign with the American people, but more importantly, there's an engagement campaign with the power of the purse and putting that out there. I'm going to do a deep dive after this and do some research as to the last time, maybe it was Seward's Folly, where the last time a country actually used capital funds to buy territory where it wasn't taken militarily. And secondly, you know, to Hogan's Point as well, there has got to be that justification, whether it be minerals, resources or the geopolitical nature of it. And I wish we were doing more in Venezuela in terms of the messaging from the administration to talk about countering China and Russia's investments in the south and why it's so important to do that.

[Mark Halpert]

Coming up later, I told some of you earlier on. Next up, later today, my deep dive on, on on Greenland and and have done a ton of research on it's.

[Kevin]

Gonna be that's gonna be a fun show based on the trivia we just did right before the show.

[Mark Halpert]

A lot of good facts. For instance, Greenland's population is the size of both Burlington, Vermont and Dodger Stadium. That's what we're talking about here. Andre, thank you so much. Grateful to you. All right, quick ad and then we're gonna get another. Another question in. One of the things everybody puts off besides writing thank you notes is getting life insurance. And if you're the breadwinner in your family, you need to do it. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance easy and fast. Protect your family's future in minutes, not in months. Do not put this off, folks. Give it a try. Get a free quote right now using the promo code mark. By going to ethos.com mark, you'll answer a few questions. There's no medical exam required. You just answer a few health questions as part of the form. In as little as 10 minutes, you can get a quote on life insurance up to $3 million in coverage. It's easy to do, not complicated. And again, you can take the step that's necessary to make sure that if something happens to you or your breadwinner in your family, that there's the ability to pay your mortgage, pay your rent, pay tuition, all the things that are essential that you take for granted now but might be in risk in a moment. So right now, Again, go to ethos.com promo code or/mark ethos.com, get a free quote. Opportunity to do something you know you need to make time to do. Professor Kenny, I tried to call on you last night and you disappeared right as I poised over your image. So opportunity to let you back in. Professor Kenny joins us now with a question for Hogan and for Kevin. Good morning.

[Professor Kenny]

Yeah, hi.

[Mark Halpert]

Hi, everyone.

[Professor Kenny]

208 community. So I wanted to ask about the FBI raid on the Washington Post journalist.

[Mark Halpert]

Yes, sir, Big story.

[Professor Kenny]

My question is this about that, because I read through the article. So apparently there was some system administrator that had a high clearance in the government that apparently they believe stole some classified information or had, you know, had held on to classified information. And then they, they had already had a. Already dealt with this guy, but then they had proof that he had sent an email to this reporter. And I'm just curious, as journalists, how do you feel about the FBI raiding this journalist's house and going through their laptop, you know, taking the laptops and stuff? Is that something you as journalists feel is way too extreme, that that could be handled in another way or. But because it dealt with a leak in national security, it was inappropriate act.

[Mark Halpert]

Well, I'm the only journalist here, so I'll weigh in first, but I'd love to hear from Hogan and Kevin on this. I'm for a much higher bar than both the Trump administration and the Obama administration had on treating journalists not as a special protected class when it comes to this stuff. I'm not a big believer in journalists acting like they're better than everybody else or having special rights in our society that aren't fundamental to the significant and un. Unique role that the media plays in a free society. I think if you, if you indiscriminately use subpoenas to check the records of journalists, you make it less likely that journalists can protect the public interest by talking to confidential sources. And are there individual instances where I think the societal judgment would be, yes, this was a, this was a. The right time to go look at a reporter's phone and watch and everything else? Yeah, there are some circumstances like that that I would, that I would be at least accepting if not, if not in favor. But the bar is way too low. And what we know about this case suggests no, this shouldn't have been done. There are many other ways to investigate leaks besides taking the records of journalists. And if maybe it's so. It's too obvious for me to state, but if you indiscriminately search the records of reporters, you are going to chill the ability of reporters not to get scoops and get famous and book deals, but to do serve the public interest by holding powerful interests accountable to the public interest. Because sometimes the only way to do that is for government officials or people in business or labor unions or wherever to leak information to reporters. And so I'm not, I'm not against this as a blanket, but in this case, and in general, the bar should be much higher than both the Obama administration and the Trump administration put it.

[Professor Kenny]

But Mark, here's my problem. Like if let's, you know, somebody's taking classified information, they're not supposed to do that. Right. And then they, they obviously want to be some kind of whistleblower because they have to justify their existence on the planet through doing something like that. Right. So, so now I go to Mark Halpert, let's say I'm that guy. Right. And I go to Mark, look what I got. Hold on to this information. Yeah, it's like, you know, it's almost like trying to protect something illegal.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah, well, it is, but sometimes people have broken the law in the service of the national interest that they're true whistleblowers and their way to get the information as the public. Every case is different. In this case, I'm less concerned about whether the, what the person's motives were, whether the information being released was in the public interest. In this case, it was way too indiscriminate to, just as a, as a, not as a absolute last resort to prove a crime, but as something that was easy to do. They went and searched a reporter quickly because we're up against the clock. Kevin.

[Kevin]

And then just say, great question, Professor Kenny, and agree completely with Mark, with Mark said every case is, is different and the bar has to be incredibly high. This is the, you know, dealing with the First Amendment, certainly.

[Hogan Gidley]

Thanks, Professor. And yes, the First Amendment's vital to the security, safety, longevity of this country. I am always concerned about putting out classified information. Having been inside that building and knowing the things I know and seeing the things I've seen, hearing the things I've heard. It is very angering to me when someone, you know, puts our men and women in uniform at risk by, by releasing information. So I get it. There's a push and pull there. But like, you have to protect the First Amendment. No question about that.

[Mark Halpert]

Yeah. All right. You guys know I love quizzes. Which is the greater number, the number of Diet Cokes I've had already today or the number of two ways that are left to be on today? The answer, the number of two ways that are left to be on. Three more Two Ways episodes coming up. Four o'. Clock. My friends at the group chat. Emma, Joe Morris, Nina Turner, Robbie Suave, joined once again by Stephen Alakari. Four Eastern time. They'll have a conversation about the events of the day and opportunity for you to join and be part of the panel. So join them. 4:00pm Eastern Time here on two way, 6 o'. Clock. I'll be back on two way tonight. We'll have lots of news to cover. Jessica Anderson served in the Trump administration, omb, and she's now with the Sentinel Action Fund. And Doug Friend Nash, who worked for John Hickenlooper as his chief of staff. They'll join me to talk about news of the day and then the MOYNIHAN Report at 7 tomorrow morning on this program, our guest hosts will be the great Larry o'. Connor. And the great Hyma Moore will be here at 9 o' clock Eastern time. And I suspect as I do most every day, we'll have plenty to discuss. Grateful to Professor Kenny, everybody else who raised their hand to participate. Grateful, of course, to Hogan and to Kevin for joining us. Not grateful to those of you who put smack in the chat. Despite my best efforts. You did it. Anyway, have a great day, everybody, and I'll see you at 6:00pm Eastern Time. Thanks again, Kevin and Hogan.

[Hogan Gidley]

Thanks, guys.

[Kevin]

Thanks, everybody.