Senator Alyssa Slotkin (3:54)

This is the president's playbook. Truth doesn't matter, facts don't matter. And anyone who disagrees with him becomes an enemy, and he then weaponizes the federal government against them. It's legal intimidation and physical intimidation meant to get you to shut up. He's used it with our universities, our corporations, our legal community, and with politicians who falsely believe that doing his bidding and staying quiet will keep them safe. No, I'm not going to do that. Because this president does not represent the views of a majority of Americans. Even if you voted for him, I do not believe that his vision of America is shared by a majority of Americans because this country is worth fighting for. Our freedom of speech is worth fighting for. Our values, our core values are worth fighting for. And right now, speaking out against the abuse of power is the most patriotic thing we can do.

Nicole Wallace (4:55)

That is where we start the hour with Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. Thank you for being back with us.

Senator Chris Murphy (5:02)

Yeah, great to be with you.

Nicole Wallace (5:05)

It hasn't been a week since we had our last conversation about Donald Trump's abuses and excesses. And as public approval for the things he's doing seems to plunge, we covered a 30 point swing in public support for ICE. There's 70% of Americans oppose what he's doing in Venezuela. Larger numbers oppose what he's doing in Iran. And even Larger numbers oppose what he's threatening to do in Greenland. His tactics seem to become more clearly and brazenly autocratic. Your thoughts just about this moment?

Senator Chris Murphy (5:34)

Well, first, I'm just proud of my colleagues. Senator Slotkin laid it out for you. His tactics are not going to work. She's not going to be quiet about his abuse of power, about how his policies are just bad for most Americans. Senator Kelly's not backing down. Jason Crow, with whom I introduced the legislation we'll talk about today, is not backing down. So, you know, I'm just. I'm just proud of the fact that citizens all across the country aren't giving up. My colleagues aren't giving up. But listen, I do think there's a correlation between the two things that you're opening this hour talking about his declining approval, the unpopularity of his policies, and his increasing authoritarian behavior. So he is an unpopular leader. Nobody wants his policies. Folks don't want to go to war with Venezuela. People don't want to see millions of their neighbors lose their health care insurance. Instead of correcting his policies, instead of saying, okay, I'm going to do what people want, he's decided to try to silence the truth. That's what autocrats do when they're engaged in unpopular behavior, stealing from the people, for instance. Their solution is not to start behaving ethically. Their solution is to just crack down on democratic dissent. Now, it doesn't seem to be working thus far. You know, we had a record number of people showing up to the last, no Kings Day. Obviously, my colleagues are not pulling punches. But it is a dangerous moment, because if at some point he is successful writ large, you know, then he might be ultimately successful in being able to impose these unpopular policies, in part because he's able to subvert the truth being told to the American people.

Nicole Wallace (7:17)

When you look at sort of the infrastructure of the resistance in Trump 1.0, when he announced the Muslim ban, which was also as unpopular as isis in a second term, Big Law rushed to the airports to defend people wrapped up in what was a chaotic rollout of an unpopular policy. Big Law was one of the first to capitulate to Donald Trump. Are you surprised that they haven't sort of changed course when you see that the brand of Trump and Trumpism is so brazenly Putinesque and autocratic and there's such a need for some of that infrastructure to push back against what is lawless?

Senator Chris Murphy (7:59)

Yeah, I mean, there have been a handful of law firms that have stood up to him. You know, he's come after these firms tried to, you know, essentially force them to give up on representing poor people or anybody that opposes him. Many have acquiesced, but there have been a few firms that haven't. But I think you are broadly right. The story here is are not the heroes in the private sector. The story is the acquiescence. Corporations, universities and law firms have broadly decided to stay quiet. And I think that speaks to a kind of cultural rot in our society today because increasingly all that matters to these companies and to these law firms is profit. All they care about is making money. This has been a country that's always cared about making money and entrepreneurship. But we used to have a healthier balance between our concern for material achievement and our concern for character and virtue and protecting democracy. We have so fetishized profit and money in our country today that these companies think they are actually doing the right thing by protecting their profits and their salaries and even as they are undermining our democracy. And I think we have to have that broader conversation as well as having the tactical conversation about what we need to do on a day to day basis to protect our country from this totalitarian assault.

Nicole Wallace (9:21)

Well, let's start that now. I mean, on the broader conversation, it seems that the public, I mean, you talked about the no Kings March. 43% of Americans consider themselves part of the no Kings movement. I think just about 30, a little over 30% identify themselves as part of the MAGA movement. So no Kings is, is a larger pool of Americans than MAGA right now. That is Trump's high watermark in the Quinnipiac number that I show, 54% disapprove is the lowest disapproval in all the current polls. The things he's talking about doing next are more unpopular than the things he's already done, which are wildly unpopular. Tariffs, ice, militarization, mass deportations, including American citizens. What are we walking into when he no longer cares about public approval?

Senator Chris Murphy (10:13)

Well, right. What we're walking into likely is a ratcheting up of his assault on our democracy. So he's got this one bucket that we're talking about right now in which he uses the judicial system or the court martial system or the regulatory system at the FCC to try to crack down on dissent. But we're also getting closer to this upcoming election. You heard him say a couple of days ago that one of his biggest regrets from 2020 was not seizing the voting machines. That tells you what's going on in his mind right now. He's seeing that coming after Kimmel And Slotkin and Kelly, maybe that's not enough. Maybe now he actually has to truly sort of do an old fashioned rigging of the upcoming election. It just means that we have got to increase our vigilance about the tactics he is going to use because he's not going to recover in his popularity. He's losing every election. You know, that's happening all across the country. And so that probably means that his actions are going to get more desperate and we are going to have to be operating a little bit of a higher level.

Nicole Wallace (11:14)

You've introduced legislation to go at something that is also unpopular. So unpopular that Susie Wiles reveals in her 11 on the record interviews with Chris Whipple that Trump had promised her retribution would only go on the first and that that was something she didn't want him to sort of cloak himself in for the whole first year as he had. Political retribution is in overdrive. I mean, a criminal investigation opened into Fed Chair Jerome Powell Sunday night. The ramping up of contacts, which seemed to start a little slow, into your colleagues, the six lawmakers who made the video telling people not to follow illegal orders. How would your legislation help slow or stop that?

Senator Chris Murphy (11:55)

I think it's important to make clear what he's trying to do because it's the playbook. You heard Alyssa talk about this. It's a totalitarian playbook. And what you're trying to do is not send a message just to the people that you're taking the criminal actions against. You're trying to send a signal to everybody out there that if you enter the political fray, if you oppose me in any way, you might be met with a criminal sanction, you might be met with violence. That's the other thing he's doing, is just legitimizing violence through his rewriting of January 6th, his defense of these ICE shootings. He's just trying to make people think twice before they enter into political action. That's the danger here. Our piece of legislation is targeted, but important what we do is we create a very clear mechanism in the court system to raise a defense that you've been targeted for political purposes. And we have sanctions against the government. If a court finds that an action has been brought against somebody just because they've said something mean about the president, the government would have to pay court fees. They might actually get sued for damages. We're trying to make it a little bit harder, maybe a lot harder for these kind of cases that are being threatened against people like Jay Powell to be brought. Now, honestly, right now, there aren't Republicans that are joining us. But people don't like this out in America today. People see what's happening to our democracy. They don't like when our judicial branch is turned into just a weaponized arm of the White House. So I think Republicans are going to have to at some point stand up to all of this or they are going to get wiped out in the next election, as long as we make sure that it's a free and fair election.

Nicole Wallace (13:30)

What we mentioned. You mentioned that twice. What are your concerns right now, both broadly and tactically about the midterms?

Senator Chris Murphy (13:40)

Well, again, I think that the president is first just trying to make people stay home, trying to make ordinary citizens fear going out on the streets. But that doesn't seem to be working given the number of people that are turning out in these special elections, the number of people that are turning out for protests. So now possibly he takes a look at the elections itself. Maybe he does try to take voting machines in a state where his candidate lost a close election. Maybe he goes in ahead of time and tries to use the military in order to take control of polling places. We are going to have to, you know, have an army of lawyers, unfortunately, ready to be able to make sure that the Constitution is protected headed into this next election. We'll be ready. The Supreme Court is probably going to have a role to play here. By and large, they have sided with his totalitarian takeover. But there will probably be a seminal case before the court between now and November where they'll be asked, can Trump think federalize these elections or can he not? That will be maybe one of the most dispositive moments as we try to make sure that he doesn't transparently rig the elections.

Nicole Wallace (14:48)

You've been speaking directly with the American people since election night in videos that go viral almost instantly in what you are sort of hearing from your constituents and people all around the country and the world that are seeing these. What is your feeling? Are you, are you, do you see reasons for optimism? Do you see the walls closing in? I mean, just give me your honest assessment of how you see the country right now and the antibodies in the system to everything he's doing.

Senator Chris Murphy (15:22)

Yeah, I mean, I've been doing a lot of these videos because I do believe that this is the most serious threat to democracy since the Civil War. I think that we are at a 50, 50 moment right now. I think the chances are high that we could lose our democracy between now and next November. And so I want there to be a level of urgency out in America. I'm sometimes frustrated about the lack of urgency that some of my colleagues show internally about this moment, but I am actually optimistic because I have seen the American people refuse to be bullied into silence. I'm optimistic when I see Alissa Slotkin say, hell, no, I'm not going to shut up just because you're threatening to throw me in jail. So there are these moments that are increasing, not decreasing in frequency when regular people and leaders do the right thing. I'm sickened that our corporations and our universities and our law firms have decided to sit this one out. But I actually think that the people may just be more powerful than all those institutions. And that's what gives me hope.

Nicole Wallace (16:30)

I mean, I have the same assessment. The people are exceeding my expectations that after an American citizen was shot and killed by ice, there were more people on the streets, not less. Just seems like an extraordinary and underappreciated moment of courage. And the capitulation, the ongoing capitulation to a president who is increasingly unpopular by corporations, including media corporations, is, to use your word, sickening and sad. I wonder if you could just give sort of a report card for how this moment's being covered. Quickly. I know you have thoughts.

Senator Chris Murphy (17:09)

Yeah, listen, I think that the media can do a better job of telling the truth. I think Trump is a liar, and I know that's really hard for the media to digest. The fact that half, more than half of what he says is fabrication. And I do get frustrated sometimes when the press reports what he says without editorial, without any varnish on it to make people know that he's lying. You know, he claimed the other night, for instance, that, yeah, he didn't know anything about this criminal threat against Jay Powell. And, you know, it doesn't have anything to do with trying to affect his decision making at the Fed. Yes, everybody knows that's not true. Everybody know that. He knows that this is part of a, of a strategy being led out of the West Wing. And so I do think that the press can make it clearer. When everybody knows that the President is lying, you don't have to give him as much of the benefit of the doubt as still happens.

Nicole Wallace (18:10)

Yeah, we don't even sell cigarettes anymore without warning. So we could certainly tell folks where the lies are hidden. Senator Chris Murphy, thank you for your extended time this afternoon. We appreciate you.

Senator Chris Murphy (18:22)

Thank you.

Nicole Wallace (18:23)

When we come back, we'll pull our friends Tim Hafey and Mary McCord into this conversation on Donald Trump's campaign of retribution and what it means and what can be done to shut it down. Also ahead for us, Donald Trump may be walking us into a showdown with our European allies, this time over Greenland. Donald Trump says the United States, quote, needs Greenland. Today, officials from Greenland and Denmark met with J.D. vance and Marco Rubio at the White House, while Denmark announced it's increasing its military presence in and around the world's largest island to protect itself from us. That explained Trump's obsession with Greenland and our NATO allies and why he's willing to risk the world order over this. Later in the hour. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. I want to bring into this conversation former lead investigator for the January 6th select committee, Tim Hafey. Also joining us, former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Department of justice. Mary McCourt is here. I mean, both of you are veterans of the Department of Justice that is just being annihilated and rebuilt in the image of a flagrant authoritarian. I wonder your thoughts when you see today's news that the office in which you worked, Mary, is pursuing investigations into Senator Slotkin and the other lawmakers.

Mary McCord (19:49)

Yeah, I mean, every day just brings, it seems like another politically motivated act of retribution, investigations being launched into these members of Congress for constitutionally protected speech, which would be constitutionally protected if it was just an ordinary citizen or resident. These are elected Congress members who have an obligation to speak out on behalf of their constituents. And they are concerned about the national security of the country because of, you know, misuse of, of, of military authorities. And so and you know, this on the heels of opening an investigation into Jerome Powell, the federal board chair, Federal Reserve board chair, which seems also to be motivated because he couldn't get the board to reduce interest rates at the fast enough or, or enough for Donald Trump. And this follows other retribution. And now we see mass resignations from the U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota, as well as the civil rights division at justice because of the way that the government is handling the investigation or lack of investigation into the person who shot Renee Good, the ICE agent, and is instead directing an investigation into whether she and her wife were activists, part of some activist group. And that relates directly to the national security memorandum we've discussed before, Nicole, which essentially is the president telling the government to use every tool in its toolbox to go after people he perceives and calls domestic terrorists based on their ideology and not because they engage in actually acts of terrorism. So this is just the snowball effect of building, building every day is and the fact that the Department of Justice is part of this. I mean if you're launching a criminal investigation that requires the Department of Justice, it does not seem like it is living up to the standards that it should be expected to live up to. It certainly is not living up to binding internal guidance about when an investigation can be launched and what sort of minimum predicate is required. And it seems to be misused. We now have a new assistant Attorney General position being creative that won't even report to the Attorney General. The report directly in the White House to the President. That is absolutely unheard of in modern times.

Nicole Wallace (22:15)

Tim Hafey the way that we learned that the FBI was there was a national security investigation into Alissa Slotkin for her role in making the video was initially from Alissa Slotkin. Some time passed before she was contacted by the Department of Justice or the Bureau. She confirms in a video that she's been contacted by them. And then there's reporting that confirms that the other lawmakers have too. What does that say about what has shifted at the department and the Bureau?

Tim Hafey (22:44)

CIDP can make your daily routine feel not so routine. The good news with a self injection for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy you have the option to treat at home. Discover more@cidpselfinjection.com and talk to your doctor. That's cidpselfinjection.com brought to you by Argenics.

Boxy Cat Advertiser (23:10)

Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co founder of Angie. One thing I've learned is that you buy a house but you make it a home. And for decades Angie's helped millions of homeowners hire skilled pros for the projects that matter. Get all your jobs done well@angie.com Tyler.

Apple Card Advertiser (23:25)

Redick here from 2311 Racing game night's fun until someone spends five minutes lining up one shot.

Frank Kendall (23:31)

Chalk.

Apple Card Advertiser (23:32)

Breathe, Rechock.

Nicole Wallace (23:34)

Still aiming.

Apple Card Advertiser (23:35)

While they figure it out.

Nicole Wallace (23:36)

I fire up Chumba Casino. I can spin anywhere, anytime. And there's always a new social casino game every week.

Apple Card Advertiser (23:42)

Spins happen way faster than that shot.

Nicole Wallace (23:45)

Waitings for amateurs play now@chumbacasino.com let's Chuma.

Senator Chris Murphy (23:49)

No purchase necessary VGW Group voidware prohibited by law CT&C's 21 sponsored by Jumbo.

Tim Hafey (23:54)

Casino this reinforces what Mary said Nicole that it seems as if decisions to launch investigations conduct criminal probes are not being made on the basis of the facts, the law and objective a political assessment but rather by the President's retributive instinct that his chief of staff as you said before, confirmed. You know what I find so Rich about this is this is exactly what President Trump himself complained about being done to him in his first term. His main defense when he was indicted by the special counsel was a First Amendment defense, that he was simply exercising his free speech rights to talk about allegations of election fraud. And he has that right as a citizen that was adjudicated by a judge and rejected. Judge said, yes, you have a free speech right, but that speech cannot be fraudulent and designed to engage others in unlawful activity. What he's doing now is exactly what he is accusing having been done against him, essentially criminalizing free speech. All Alyssa Slotkin and Mark Kelly did was exercise their right to free speech, as Mary said, arguably their obligation as legislators to tell the truth about the obligation to disavow illegal orders. So the irony here is all the rhetoric about how oppressed he was and how his free speech rights were violated, he is the shoe is on the other foot and exactly doing that to the targets of all these retributive investigations.

Nicole Wallace (25:33)

Mary, I think people out there wonder what's happening to less powerful people from this Department of Justice, if this is how lawmakers and people with access to news and lawyers who might help them because it's so obviously retribution. What do you worry about happening maybe in the shadows of the Department of Justice right now?

Mary McCord (25:59)

Well, I think one of the most significant things is going to be the chilling effect that this has, not only on those who have stayed at the department, but those who have left but don't have, you know, a big name that are going to be well known, that are going to have lawyers that come rush to their aid if they are targeted. And, you know, we see this also outside of, of the department with, you know, the targeting of activists and the targeting of elected officials in other states and the, you know, withholding of benefits based on politics. And so the goal here, I think, I think Senator Slotkin said it as good as anyone could. All of these things combined, you know, including the pressure on universities and journalists, et cetera, are to get people to shut up. And there's no doubt that some people will make a calculus that it is better to just keep my head down and shut up and hope that I go under the radar and don't get targeted than to speak out. And for those who have already spoken out in the past or maybe already resigned and they're worried about being, you know, targeted, that, you know, some of them will, will, you know, stop talking because of that concern. And so this is really, you know, this is driving at things that are fundamental to our democracy. Because when people are too afraid to engage in public speech protected by the Constitution, freedom of association with others. Right. That share your ideology. I mean, this idea of targeting Ms. Good and Ms. Good's wife to see if they're part of some activist organizations that is targeting your freedom of association people for all of the reasons that Chris Murphy, that Senator Murphy talked about. People may be fearful of voting. And I think that what we're seeing is a set up to make them fearful of voting, whether you're a citizen or a non citizen, because you don't want to encounter, you know, the military at the polls, ICE at the polls, the FBI at the polls, anything that might seem that you are being targeted. And if we don't feel comfortable as Americans participating in democratic processes, our civil, our civil responsibility and our civil privilege to participate in those processes, we're going to lose, you know, what fundamentally the culture the country is built on. And we will not be a democratic republic with our elected representatives to speak for us if we don't participate.

Nicole Wallace (28:27)

Tim, let me ask you about sort of the substance of what they said. These six lawmakers, they simply urged the men and women of the military not to follow any illegal orders. Since that video was released, we have learned of two things that Democratic and Republican lawmakers have described as, quote, war crimes. One was a, a second strike or a, quote, double tap strike against shipwrecked survivors of a missile strike against an alleged drug trafficking boat. And the other is the crime of disguising a military aircraft as a civilian aircraft. What do you make of how guilty they're acting? Just as a former investigator and prosecutor.

Tim Hafey (29:10)

Yeah. Nicole's speech only becomes criminal if it directly threatens an identifiable person or group or it incites imminent lawless action. Lawless. So what Senator Kelly, Senator Slotkin, Congressman Crow encouraged was the obligation, the legal obligation to disobey an unlawful order. They're not encouraging lawless action. They were simply stating the fact that that uniformed military men and women have the obligation to not follow an unlawful order. So in no possible scenario is that criminal. And to go back to what Mary's saying, that's what's so outrageous that reasonable people in the Department of Justice believe that there is some possible prosecutive theory that could give rise to charges. That's really the standard by which, at least it used to be, that it required to open an investigation, to call someone in for an interview. And those norms have gone out the window. And that is frightening. That demonstrates that what we have now is a Department of justice that is essentially doing the bidding of their boss, which is not consistent with the historic tradition of the department. Republican or Democrat, there's no case here. Bottom line, no conceivable way could what those men and women, those legislators said in that video be construed as sedition, as criminal. Quite the opposite. They're just stating what the law is and reminding people of their legal obligation.

Nicole Wallace (30:40)

Tim Hafey, Mary McCord, thank you for joining me on all these stories today. When we come back, like a dog with a bone, Donald Trump won't drop his demand that the United States take over Greenland, putting us at odds with our NATO allies, all of them. We'll bring you that story next. Today, the foreign ministers of Greenland and Denmark went all the way to Washington, D.C. to the White House for a meeting with Vice President J.D. vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to make clear in person that Greenland is not for sale under any circumstances. I can't believe I'm reading that sentence. This afternoon, the Danish foreign minister called the meeting frank but constructive, adding that the US And Denmark will, quote, agree to disagree. That comes as Donald Trump further backs himself into a corner, seemingly taking any legitimate chance for negotiations off the table. Hours before the meeting, Donald Trump posted that, quote, anything less than Greenland in the hands of the United States would be unacceptable. Donald Trump's repeated threats to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not, and his refusal to rule out the use of military force also raises tensions and serious new questions for NATO. Today, Denmark, a NATO ally, announced an expansion of its military presence in and around Greenland, citing, quote, geopolitical tensions that have spread to the Arctic. Meanwhile, there's increasing alarm from the people of Greenland, where Politico reports Donald Trump is undermining his own efforts to win any of them over. Even the residents who are open to independence from Denmark have been turned off by Donald Trump's bullying tactics. I want to bring in former Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall. He's a senior fellow at the center for American Progress. Also joining as former deputy national security advisor to President Obama, Ms. Now contributor Ben Rhodes. Look beyond the insanity of all of this, being at war with our allies while failing to protect our allies in Ukraine from a common enemy in Vladimir Putin is the, I think, undeniable acceleration of their conduct here. And I wonder how you both see where we are right now. First you, Frank, Nicole.

Frank Kendall (33:06)

It's abuse of power. It's what Trump does across the board. You heard about it from some of your guests earlier on the show. In different areas. This move with regard to Greenland is just, I'm going to call it bonkers in a technical term. One of our longest standing and most close allies, Denmark has been with the US over and over again. When we've asked for their help, they had more losses per capita than we did, I think in Afghanistan. Yeah, they basically have been with us. I know I have worked with the Danes over many, many years. I've been to our base in Greenland. We're allowed to do just about whatever we want to do in Greenland. We have a base up at Petufik for the space force. That's important to us. There is no reason. 75 years of the NATO treaty, 75 years through the Cold War with the Soviet threat where Greenland was and Denmark were there with us, and all of a sudden it's a necessity somehow that we have to have actual control over Greenland. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Nicole Wallace (34:01)

I mean, Ben, these are the things that I think are important, I guess parts of this. We already have Greenland. We already have access to Greenland as part of NATO. We are the only people in NATO that have actually asked people to defend us after we were attacked on September 11th. And one of my jobs in the White House was to update the list of the coalition of the willing, the countries that after the September 11 attack stood with America and Afghanistan. And I think Denmark was one of the first countries to contribute troops to the effort in Afghanistan. I wonder what the real talk is about, what this is about.

Tim Hafey (34:43)

CIDP can make your daily routine feel not so routine. The good news? With a self injection for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, you have the option to treat at home. Discover more@cidpselfinjection.com and talk to your doctor. That's cidpselfinjection.com brought to you by Argenics.

Boxy Cat Advertiser (35:09)

Hi, I'm Angie Hicks, co founder of angie and one thing I've learned is that you buy a house, but you make it a home. Because with every fix, update and renovation, it becomes a little more your own. So you need all your jobs done well. For nearly 30 years, Angie has helped millions of homeowners hire skilled pros for the projects that matter, from plumbing to electrical roof repair to deck upgrades. So leave it to the pros who will get your jobs done well. Hire high quality pros@angie.com if you're hooked.

Apple Card Advertiser (35:40)

On the strange, the dark, the mysterious stories I tell here on the podcast. Well, you have to check out Crime Junkie, hosted by the iconic Ashley Flowers and Brit Prewat. This show dives deep into everything from headline grabbing cases like the Murdaugh murders to chilling stories that most people have not even heard of. These are the cases that need more eyes, more ears, and maybe your help to uncover the truth. From mysterious disappearances and suspicious deaths to unbelievable survival stories, every episode is crafted with care and packed with twists that you won't see coming. Crime Junkie has over 500 episodes ready for you to binge right now with a brand new one every Monday. So go check out Crime Junkie right now, wherever you get your podcasts.

Ben Rhodes (36:26)

Well, I think Trump has been very consistent about this. This is why I take this very seriously, right? I mean, not only did he kind of mention in passing his first term, but shortly after he was elected, he turned his attention to Greenland. Now, all of his rationales don't add up. For national security purposes, we have all the access we need to Greenland. We can, I'm sure, negotiate more basing rights if we felt like we needed that. If the United States wants to be a part of a consortium that is trying to develop access to some of these critical minerals that are in Greenland, I'm sure that the Danes would be open to that. What Trump has made clear again and again is that this is about territorial expansion. Like, he wants control of Greenland for, for control's sake. You know, he wants a territorial legacy, which is not uncommon for kind of an aging autocratic leader. You know, here's a big piece of land. It seems kind of available. There are only 50,000 people there. I want to take this land. Now. This is catastrophic geopolitically for the United States, though, because this would essentially fracture NATO, one NATO member state taking the territory of another. This would certainly embolden China and Russia to do, to follow suit, both because NATO would be weakened and Russia could kind of push the envelope in Eastern Europe, but also because if we're in an era of imperial territorial expansion, then the other imperial powers are going to follow suit, whether it's China and Taiwan or Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union. And just to put a fine point on the Denmark point, in addition to Afghanistan, in Ukraine, at our request, at the request of the US Government, they per capita provided just about as much as anybody to support the Ukrainians. They were at the forefront in terms of providing capabilities that the Ukrainians badly needed. They've been reliable. And so it's not just the affront to Denmark, it's an affront to all of NATO and to any country that has been a reliable partner to the United States. Because it says none of that. History matters. The legal, collective defense obligations don't matter. What you've done in the past doesn't matter. Might makes right. We're bigger than you. We want this large island, and so we're going to take it.

Nicole Wallace (38:30)

I mean, there's also the political sort of laws of gravity that no one in this country wants to be at war in Venezuela, in Greenland, in Iran. And it seems that Donald Trump is, to your point, Ben, publicly putting all those things on the table. We'll have that conversation on the other side of a very short break. Stay with US. Secretary Kendall. I want to read you something from the chair of the Danish parliament's Defense Committee. He says that if the US Attempts a military takeover of Greenland, quote, then we are at war. Quote, you would have to shoot people to get Greenland. Donald Trump has used the military to remove Maduro in Venezuela. Everyone is watching, monitoring to see if he will follow through on his threats to do something in Iran, something he has said publicly. And now you've got the Danish parliament's defense Committee saying that if US Attempts to do what Trump is talking about doing, he said today, quote, we must have Greenland, then, quote, we are at war. Your thoughts?

Frank Kendall (39:44)

I think Ben provided some good context for this. Strategically, an act of force against Greenland would be catastrophic. Strategically, for the United States, it would be resisted, I would expect, by force. The US has overwhelming force, so it's clear how to come out. But the damage that would be done strategically to the United States and to the world are extreme. I talked about earlier how little upside there was here. The NATO alliance has been the most successful alliance in history. After over 60 million deaths in World War II, communion nations came together and said, we're not going to let this happen again. We're going to have countries unite together to resist aggression, to stand up for the rule of law and democracy, and to oppose expansionist powers. At the time, Soviet Union was one we were most concerned about. Now we've got Russia today invading Ukraine, and we're trying to stand up to that. So to throw that alliance away for the trivial gain that you might get by having possession of Greenland, I cannot think of a more catastrophic strategic move that a US President could make than that.

Nicole Wallace (40:50)

That catastrophic strategic move seems to be very seriously under consideration by Donald Trump and his administration. Ben, I'm not going to play this. But Trump said, quote, we are going to do something on Greenland. Whether they like it. If we don't do it the easy way, we're going to do it the Hard way. It seems to be the rhetoric that put in motion the increasing, quote, military presence in and around Greenland involving aircraft, ships and soldiers. All of this is happening. This, of the three wars that Donald Trump is talking seriously about, entering the United States into is the least popular, followed by Iran and Venezuela. What is your sense of what happens next?

Ben Rhodes (41:37)

Well, I mean, first of all, nobody wants any of these wars. I mean, maybe not nobody, but the people that voted for Trump, you know, one of the reasons they voted for him was 10 forever wars, right? So the boats, the Maduro operation, even as successful as that operation was, you didn't see, you saw something like three in ten Americans supporting it. They want a president focused on affordability, and they're tired of forever wars, and they know that they tend to end worse than they begin. And so we'll see what happens in Venezuela. Greenland is even more extreme. Look, in Venezuela, they kind of went through the motions of claiming a direct threat to the United States. You know, narco trafficking. They saved the oil for after the fact as the Casas belly. But you had Maduro as a bad guy, right? There's a dictator, we don't like him, he's a bad guy. We need to take him out. Who's the bad guy in Greenland? It's 50,000 indigenous Greenlanders who don't want us there. Denmark, one of our closest allies in the world. There's not, there's kind of a theater to how the US Goes to war, for better or worse, and it usually involves a bad person like a Saddam Hussein or Nicholas Maduro, for that matter. Just imagine trying to rally the American people to go to war with a European ally. You know, I don't think people want this. The polls suggest people don't want this. And so, Nicole, I, I, I think people keep wanting this to be a joke or wanting Trump to kind of move on from it. He's not like, he keeps coming back to this. He keeps using very strident rhetoric about how we need it. I think this is going to be something where the Republicans in Congress, whether they like it or not, and I'm sure they don't, are gonna have to decide whether they want to go down with this ship with something that is wrong, that is potentially strategically catastrophic and politically damaging to them. And so to me, the only way this stops is if Trump is stopped, including by Congress.

Nicole Wallace (43:33)

Yeah, well, we'll all keep watching that together. I suppose. There's a first for everything. It could happen. Secretary Frank Kendall, Ben Rhodes, thank you so much for joining me today. When we come back. But historian Heather Cox Richardson says Donald Trump's aggressive actions against Venezuela and Greenland are exactly what Vladimir Putin wants. Will play part of what she told me on this week's episode of the Best People podcast after a very short break. Stay with us. My guest this week on the episode of the Best People podcast is the brilliant historian Heather Cox Richardson. She's someone that so many of you turn to for an explanation and articulation of what we're witnessing with our own eyes. She gives voice to what it feels like, what we're watching at this pivotal moment in America's place on the world stage and the stakes of what Donald Trump is talking about doing. Listen to what she told me.

Heather Cox Richardson (44:32)

What Trump is doing by going into Venezuela, for example, by threatening all these other countries, is he is disregarding that entire system, which has been the goal for a long time, as I say, of Vladimir Putin, because he doesn't want it. He wants to be able to go into Ukraine and to go into the Baltics and perhaps into Finland and into Scandinavia. And us abandoning NATO, threatening a NATO ally in Greenland, slash Denmark, undermines that entire defensive system. And once you've done that, once you've torn that apart, the only option is for countries to go back onto an offensive system, making treaties with each other so that if their other neighbor invades, they'll be able to fight it off. Little wars become big wars and that is the world in which we lived that gave US World Wars I and 2. Except, as I say, now we have nuclear weapons, which is one of the key reasons that the allies put together NATO in the first place.

Nicole Wallace (45:32)

Just scan the QR code on your screen to watch the entire conversation with Heather Cox Richardson or listen to the best people wherever you get your podcasts. One more break. We'll be right back. We are together living through some heavy stuff. We want to thank you for letting us into your homes. We are grateful.

Frank Kendall (45:50)

I like things my way, my coffee, my schedule and my treatment. So I talked to my doctor about self injecting with the Vivgard Hytrulo pre filled syringe which contains fgartegamide alpha and hyaluronidase qvfc. It's injected under your skin subcutaneously. It means I can inject in my space on my time. It's my treatment my way. Visit vivgartmyway.com that's V Y V G-A-R-Tmyway.com and talk to your doctor about Vivgart Hytrulo brought to you by Argenics.