wavePod

"Beyond the pale" - Deadline: White House | Wave AI Podcast Notes

"Beyond the pale"

Thu Jan 22 2026

Nicolle Wallace on Donald Trump's continuing torment of NATO ally countries in his quest to acquire Greenland as territory of the United States - despite it already belonging to Denmark.

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Beyond the Pale" – Deadline: White House

Host: Nicolle Wallace, MS NOW
Date: January 22, 2026

Overview

This episode of "Deadline: White House" focuses on the fallout from former President Donald Trump's combative rhetoric against NATO at the Davos World Economic Forum and his administration’s reported efforts to investigate and punish lawmakers who reminded U.S. military personnel to refuse illegal orders. Nicolle Wallace leads a deep discussion into the implications for American democracy, the integrity of the U.S. military, and the broader international order, with perspectives from former high-ranking military officials, lawmakers, and frontline journalists documenting ICE activities in Minneapolis.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Trump’s Davos Speech and the Assault on NATO

[01:04 – 05:36]

Nicolle Wallace highlights Trump's claim:

“The United States is treated very unfairly by NATO... We give so much and we get so little in return.” (Donald Trump, [01:04])
Wallace challenges the accuracy, referencing Denmark’s sacrifices in Afghanistan and the bedrock Article 5 solidarity NATO has shown the U.S.
She notes alarm over Trump’s rhetoric, including the chilling suggestion that the U.S. might one day turn its weapons on its allies:

“To even consider the idea of asking the men and women of the American military to train their weapons on allies is beyond the pale.” (Nicolle Wallace, [02:46])

2. Defense of NATO: Voices from the Military

[05:36 – 09:49]

Secretary Sean O’Keefe (former Secretary of the Navy):

“This is the strongest alliance that has been ever assembled in modern history...The notion that we get nothing from this is a stretch because what we're enjoying right now...is an extraordinary relationship.” ([05:36])
Rear Admiral Bill Baumgartner emphasizes the strategic, economic, and moral leadership the U.S. gains from NATO:

“NATO has enabled us to claim the mantle of the leader of the free world...It is so advantageous for our trade, for the development of our financial instruments, our service economy...” ([06:57])
Both stress the necessity of humility and magnanimity in global leadership.

3. Retaliation Against Lawmakers and the Chilling Effect on Dissent

[09:49 – 17:28]

Discussion centers on the Pentagon’s investigation into six lawmakers, including Senator Mark Kelly, after they reminded active military to refuse illegal orders.
O’Keefe underscores the unique obligation of service members to obey lawful—not illegal—orders:

“Public servants...rely on responsible leaders...to issue lawful orders...and in turn, leaders at every level need to clarify any ambiguity...” ([10:35])
Admiral Baumgartner rebuts the idea that such a reminder could be treason:

“If somebody asked that question of me as a commander, I would have said, I'm glad you asked that question. I don't issue unlawful orders...” ([13:42])
Wallace plays the lawmakers’ video:

“Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders... No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.” ([16:22] – [17:01])
O’Keefe defends the lawmakers’ action:

“You really do have an obligation to step up and be counted to understand exactly how this is going to be carried out.” ([20:17])

4. International Fallout and America’s Eroding Leadership

[22:56 – 30:57]

Wallace transitions to the international consequences of Trump’s posture with Rep. Jim Himes (Ranking Member, House Intelligence):

“World leaders... sitting, this guy has his finger on a nuclear trigger...NATO is saying we can’t count on the U.S. anymore. For what right?” (Himes, [24:07])
Himes emphasizes the incalculable diplomatic and economic costs of trashing America’s alliances “for nothing that we could not have gotten” by respectful negotiation.
He criticizes the lack of Congressional oversight:

“This Congress has not existed for a year. Ninety percent of my Republicans, there are occasional exceptions, are absolutely sound asleep.” ([29:23])
Wallace calls out Republican double-speak, referencing what GOP leaders say privately about Trump versus their public capitulation ([30:06]).

5. ICE Brutality and Press Suppression in Minneapolis

[33:38 – 39:55]

Nicolle Wallace introduces photojournalist John Abernathy, who was assaulted by federal agents while documenting an ICE operation. He describes being:

“…tackled, pinned face down, tear gassed, and pepper sprayed directly in the eye as he fell to the ground—feeling the knees of at least one federal agent on his back.” ([33:38])
Abernathy explains why saving his camera and images was vital:

“At that split second, I thought, I gotta get rid of it...I don’t know if I would have ever seen [the images] again...this country, the world needs to see what’s happening here.” ([36:30], [37:09])
He claims targeted suppression by federal agents due to his documentation of their aggression:

"They really show aggression that day. And that aggression was uncalled for, in my opinion." ([38:38])

6. Firsthand Reporting from Minneapolis

[40:24 – 44:38]

Jacob Soboroff (MSNBC correspondent) recounts violent tactics of federal agents:

“A guy who just said he was a veteran of war in Afghanistan... said [Greg Bovino, ICE official] is driving around town like an Afghan warlord.” ([40:24])
Soboroff describes agents’ indiscriminate detainments and ICE Watchers’ efforts to witness and publicize federal actions.
Wallace and Soboroff note the ongoing unrest, community anger, and lack of information about those detained.

7. Memorable Quotes and Moments

“To even consider the idea of… the American military to train their weapons on allies is beyond the pale.”
Nicolle Wallace ([02:46])
“If you want the prime seat at the table, you might have to occasionally pay a little bit more than everybody else, but you get so much more for your dollar, and you can't be cheap about it... We don’t want to be the bully of the free world. We want to be the leader of the free world.”
Adm. Baumgartner ([07:25])
“This chilling effect risks silencing public dissent from those who served in uniform, a critical ingredient in American self governance.”
(Wallace quoting amicus brief, [03:38])
“NATO is saying we can’t count on the United States anymore. For what right?...We could have gotten anything we wanted in terms of basing rights... without this clown show.”
Rep. Jim Himes ([24:07])
“It is not nearly good enough to sell your integrity, your honor, and your principle. And yet that is what has happened here with almost half of my colleagues. The cheapness with which they gave up their sense of principle and honor just stuns me every single day.”
Rep. Jim Himes ([30:33])
“As ICE agents and border police moved in, it wasn't just a body they restrained. It was a perspective, a witness, a set of tools meant to show what power looks like up close.”
John Abernathy ([34:59], quoted by Wallace)

Timestamps for Notable Segments

Trump's NATO comments and Wallace’s response: [01:04 – 05:36]
Military defense of NATO: [05:36 – 09:49]
Discussion of chilling effect on dissent: [09:49 – 20:17]
Rep. Jim Himes on international fallout: [22:56 – 30:33]
Photojournalist John Abernathy’s ICE assault account: [33:38 – 39:55]
Jacob Soboroff reporting from Minneapolis: [40:24 – 44:38]

Closing Thoughts

The episode weaves together the erosion of longstanding democratic norms, America’s declining international standing under Trump, and the chilling impact on public dissent—even among decorated military personnel. Through the eyes of both national leaders and those on the snowy streets of Minneapolis, Nicolle Wallace makes clear that the stakes for U.S. democracy, military integrity, and global leadership have never been higher.

For listeners seeking a powerful, pressing account of how democratic institutions, the military, and civil society are responding to unprecedented pressures, this episode is an essential listen.

Loading summary...

Transcript

A (0:00)

Flowers die in three days. Matching underwear from Meundies. That's a gift that lasts. Meundies creates matching prints for couples and friends. Same adorable designs and different cuts for each of you. All made from their signature ultramodal fabric that feels impossibly soft. With 90,000 five star reviews, MeUndies matching prints are the perfect gift. Valentine's Day is February 14th, so don't wait. Get exclusive deals up to 50% off@meundies.com SXM code sxm that's meundies.com sxm code sxm shipping, billing, admin, Payroll, marketing. You're managing all the things, so why waste time sending important documents the old fashioned way. Mail and ship when you want, how you want with stamps.com print postage on demand 247 and schedule pickups from your office or home. Save up to 90% with automated rate shopping. That's why over 1 million small businesses trust stamps.com go to stamps.com and use code podcast to try stamps.com risk free for 60 days.

B (1:04)

The United States is treated very unfairly by NATO. I want to tell you that. And when you think about it, nobody can dispute it. We give so much and we get so little in return.

C (1:20)

Hi there everybody. It's five o' clock now. In New York, a full and comprehensive fact check of everything Donald Trump said today in Davos, Switzerland, would almost certainly end with we now join the Last Word with Lawrence o' Donnell already in progress. But that particular comment from Donald Trump that the United States gets so little in return from NATO cannot be allowed to go unchallenged and uncorrected for all the reasons that statement is combative and humiliating and just plain wrong, one springs to mind immediately again and again. For the record, our NATO allies responded at the drop of a hat when the United states invoked Article 5 in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on 9 11. That includes Denmark, now the target of Donald Trump's smears and aggression from the Atlantic Quote Denmark is small, with a population of just 6 million, but it has tried to uphold its end of the bargain. It lost more soldiers per capita than the United States did in Afghanistan. In all, there were 43 deaths sacrificed that Danes accepted as the cost of their international obligations. Some of Donald Trump's rhetoric has suggested that the next time Article 5 is invoked, the United States might be the aggressor, the one saving grace. Today in Switzerland, Donald Trump suggested he would not use military force to acquire Greenland. Even if you believe him to even consider the idea of asking the men and women of the American military to train their weapons on allies is beyond the pale. It is no wonder. Those six lawmakers with backgrounds in the military and, and national security, including Congressman Jason Crow, who we just spoke with, released a video in November reminding the men and women of the military of their duty to refuse any illegal order. Although all six of those Democrats now say they've been contacted by Trump's Department of Justice or Pentagon as part of an investigation, one of them, Senator Mark Kelly, is also the target of the Defense Department. He is suing Pete Hegseth over the matter. And now a host of military voices are coming to Senator Kelly's defense. 41 of them, in fact, including retired four star generals, admirals and service secretaries from Democratic and Republican administrations. Those voices submitted a brief in federal court that reads in part, quote, in light of the gravity of the issues in this case and the potential implications for millions of active duty and retired members of the armed forces, the friends of the court believe it is their duty to share their perspective with the court. Notwithstanding a clear recognition that the views expressed herein and the mere fact of the submission of this brief may be viewed with disfavor by the Secretary, this decision is not made lightly. The attempt to punish Senator Kelly suggests that public expressions of disagreement with the secretary, even if made in good faith and supported factually, invite possible retaliation. Indeed, we are aware of many fellow veterans who would eagerly participate in public debate or on important and contested issues, but are declining to do so today, fearing official reprisal. This chilling effect risks silencing public dissent from those who served in uniform, a critical ingredient in American self governance dating back to those who fought for and won our independence. That is where we start today with Secretary Sean o'. Keefe. He's the former Secretary at the Navy. He served Under President George H.W. bush and the former NASA administrator he was. He served under President George W. Bush and Rear Admiral Bill Baumgartner. He's the former Commander of the 7th Coast Guard District and also served as Chief Counsel of the United States Coast Guard. He's now a member of the former Judge Advocates General, or JAGS Working Group. They are both part of this friend of the court filing in support of Senator Mark Kelly's lawsuit against the Pentagon over their threats to reduce his rank and pay. Thank you both so much for being here with me. It's an extraordinary day and I want to give you a chance, if you are moved, to respond to what the President said today about our NATO alliance and the relationship with Our allies. I'll start with you, Secretary o'. Keeffe.

B (10:35)

Well, I think from a legal perspective, let me defer to my friend Admiral Baumgartner, who can speak to that in a far greater depth than I. But I think the central issue of this, and coming from the perspective of a former civilian leader of a military service, what I relied on with regularity in dealing with cases like this or issues that even rose to this kind of question was the central issue of this case, which I think can be summarized best by the comments of Senator Mark Kelly and his colleagues as veterans and as public servants in civilian capacities as well, reinforcing the obligation of public servants to follow the direction of leadership to implement lawful orders. Now, public servants, particularly military personnel, particularly military personnel, because of the Uniform Code of Military justice, that again, Admiral Baumgartner can speak to with greater depth. And I really speaks to the the, the question that public servants, particularly the military, rely on responsible leaders at every level to issue lawful orders. And in turn, leaders at every level need to clarify any ambiguity or risk the prospect the subordinates will act on another obligation that they have that is uniquely that of a public servant who resist unlawful orders during an operation, military can't risk the prospect that subordinates will misunderstand the proper conduct required and expected to carry out lawful orders. And that is the distinction they were drawing. And in many cases, because of the Uniform Code of Military justice and the standing law that every public servant is mindful of, that you must follow and pursue the conduct, the implementation of lawful orders means that you will forever be judged on the basis of your commentary and your view of exactly what constitutes those cases. And so it is a very fine line. But it's a special obligation that public servants carry, particularly those in uniform, to follow through in this manner and to do so in a way that they understand precisely why what they're being asked to do is lawful in prosecuting the national interest of the United States.

B (17:28)

Clearly a question they ask of President Trump. I wouldn't even presume to interpret what his. His arrival of whatever conclusions he's. That. I think what they really reiterated is the same thing that every military officer, and for that matter, every public servant, when you take the oath of office of what it is you're about to assume or the responsibilities you're to be handed, that you, in turn, have an obligation to be absolutely straightforward about carrying out the objectives of the order issued. You have to have the confidence that the senior leadership is issuing lawful orders. And I think as Admiral Bungar said very clearly, this is a situation where if there is any ambiguity, ask. And that's what these members of Congress were inviting, having been there, having done that, having been in those positions where if there was ever any question in their mind, they worked within a culture in which you could pose that question. Now, this doesn't invite a debating society over whether to take the Hill or not. That that's certainly not the condition at all. This is more of a case in which if there is any doubt in the mind of an individual, they have an obligation, and it's a peculiar, very serious one, that public servants have to carry that in no other walk of life can I think of anything that fits the same condition. And they need to be very clear about that. As a result, the enchantment, the performance of what it is you're asked to do, what you're directed to do by order, you're taking that you're assuming the confidence that there is, in fact, a lawful underpinning of exactly what I'm being told to go do. And they're saying, reminding that every one of them all took the oath that was explained at the time. It says you also have a responsibility. If that doesn't vet and make the or answer the question in your mind of whether that's the proper thing to do or not, you ought to raise it and be responsible for understanding precisely what authority you're acting on. You know, this is a straightforward proposition in that sense. And I think what they did was a public service to remind everybody, if you're, if you're concerned about that, you really do have an obligation to step up and be counted to understand exactly how this is going to be carried out.