← Next Up with Mark Halperin
Next Up with Mark Halperin
Trump’s Greenland End Game and His Showdown with Europe and NATO, Plus Iran’s Next Chapter Revealed, with Ben Ferguson, Yemisi Egbewole, and Morton Halperin
01:10:21
Mark kicks off today’s episode with his reported monologue on the white-hot fight over Greenland — and why Donald Trump’s push to bring the island under U.S. control is no longer just a provocative headline, but a brewing transatlantic clash with Denmark, Europe, NATO, and many of the 56,000 Greenlanders . He walks through the high-stakes national security argument, the political pressure building on all sides, and what this growing confrontation could mean for America’s standing in the Arctic and beyond. Then Morton Halperin joins the show to map out what a serious U.S. strategy toward Iran should be, including how America can support democratic change without blundering into another destabilizing conflict. Mark and Morton Halperin discuss what a post-theocracy Iran could look like, what U.S. policy should prioritize now, and what may come next as tensions escalate. Finally, Ben Ferguson and Yemisi Egbewole weigh in on how the Greenland fight could end — and what it ultimately me...
Loading summary
Transcript124 lines
- [00:03]
Yemesi Agbiwale
There's so much more to enjoy when you fly in Emirates Economy more legroom, delicious regionally inspired meals, complimentary free flowing drinks and with the latest movies, TV shows, music and live sport, some of the best entertainment in the skies and our family services. Make your journey simple and fun. Plan your next trip and start the vacation early in Emirates Economy. Fly Emirates fly better.
- [00:33]
Mark Halperin
Oh Nexters. Welcome to Next up with me, Mark Calperin. Thank you for watching. I'm editor in chief of the live interactive video platform two Way and the host here to bring you a preview of everything that's coming. Next up. Grateful to you for tuning in. Hope you're glad you want to spend the time together because there's lots of stuff going on here at home, but also no shortage of consequential foreign policy news overseas. Greenland, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So in my reported monologue today, I'm super excited about this. We've all been talking about Greenland for a while. I did some reporting with folks in the administration on Capitol Hill and some foreign policy analysts. But a lot of my reporting today is more like my research monologue. I decided I need to know more about Greenland than I did two days ago. So I'm going to have some great stuff to share with you that I learned about Greenland and so some analysis about where this whole thing is going. A very uniquely Trump story. We'll walk through it and why it matters and again, hopefully get to what's coming. Next up, why is the United States interested in Greenland? After that, three great guests to talk about Greenland and more. My dad, Morton H. Halperin, longtime foreign policy hand, will be here to walk through what Donald Trump's doing with Greenland and how the whole thing could be resolved. Ben Ferguson will be here, a great talker, conservative. And then Yemesi Agbiwale will be here as well. The two of them, we'll talk a little foreign but also some domestic and I'm looking forward to getting their thoughts on everything. Before that though, here is my reported monologue on Greenland. This is such an interesting story to me. It's a huge story. And we saw this week in Washington at the senior most levels, the foreign ministers of both Denmark and Greenland coming to the United States, meeting with the vice President of the United States, J.D. vance, with Marco Rubio, the president talking about this topic on social media, in White House photo opportunities. It's a huge question and the president's made it clear that he's in conflict not just with Denmark and Greenland, but with all of Europe basically over this question of who will control Greenland, and the President has said no compromise, no kind of halfway measure. He, he wants it all. He wants the United States to control it. And he said, with an emphasis on national security, that the United States needs to control Greenland to make sure that Russia and China do not. Europe is not pleased. They've sent their own military forces to Greenland. And some more coming symbolic show of force. I don't think anybody thinks they're there to actually deter a United States invasion. And no one I talked to expects a United States invasion. What they do expect, though, is for this story to percolate for quite some time as the United States for economic, geopolitical, sphere of influence, economic, military reasons, looks to play a different role in Greenland. Okay, so I'm going to walk you through a little bit of what the history of all this is and then talk about where it might go. Okay. Now this has been a topic not just on cable news, but, you know, a story has hit at least some cultural vein when it makes it to the late night comedy shows. That is still a great use for them because the folks in those writer rooms are reading all the headlines and they've got lots of stuff to joke about. Here's Jimmy Fallon on Greenland. S10, please.
- [03:54]
Morton H. Halperin
Yeah.
- [03:55]
Ben Ferguson
TRUMP is still talking about taking over Greenland and he said that if we.
- [03:58]
Mark Halperin
Invaded, their only defense would be two dog sleds.
- [04:03]
Ben Ferguson
Kristi Noem was like, I can take care of those. It's interesting because dog sled drivers and.
- [04:12]
Morton H. Halperin
Trump's brain doctor both say the same thing. Mush, mush.
- [04:16]
Mark Halperin
All right, so Greenland is this big island, right? And it's, it's, it's got its own government, it's got its own leadership, but it's very connected to Denmark and it has been now for three centuries, it's been different, had a different relationship over the years. It's been a colony back when colonies were allowed. Today, Greenland largely governs itself, but they're dependent on Denmark for a lot of economic aid, for national security protection and economic subsidies. There's always been talk last decades about eventually there being a path towards independence. But as we'll discuss here in a minute, Greenland really couldn't be an independent country. It's too reliant on the current relationship with Denmark to survive on its own. It's got 56,000 people, okay, 56,000 people. To put that in context, that's how many people live in Burlington, Vermont. That's how many people fit in Dodger Stadium. It is a tiny population. It's the size of people who you see at a Dodger game. The whole country, and they're spread out. Some of them live in a few more urban areas, but a lot of them live in very rural areas where if you want to take a bath, you melt a block of ice, literally to take your bath. How big is it? It's, it's, it's gigantic. If you look at it on a map, it seems pretty big, but the maps sort of lie. Greenland is huge. It's, it's five times the size of California. Okay, so imagine the number of people who live in Burlington, Vermont, living in the largest island in the world, five times the size of California. Just imagine replacing all the strip malls and replacing them with glaciers. That's how big it is. Okay? Slightly bigger than Mexico and yet extremely rural. 80% of it covered with ice. They have fewer than 100 miles of paved roads. Okay, so this is a weird place. I'm not saying there's nowhere like it on earth, but again, 56,000 people living in a country five times the size of California with a hundred miles of paved roads. Most people, if you want to get around, you do it by air. You do it by plane or some other aircraft. It's a beautiful place. And a bunch of news organizations, because it's such an irresistible story, have sent reporters and photographers there. I want to show you a couple pictures. I want to buy one of these houses. I'm not sure how much they cost. Here's a six. This is a picture of Greenland. And they have these very colorful houses, at least in parts of the country. This is like an irresistible shot for a photographer. So there you see these colorful houses. If you're, if you're not listening in the podcast you're watching on YouTube, you can see it. It's like a, it's like a, this is like a painting. It's beautiful. Snow covered houses nestled on a hill overlooking the water. Here's the same type of shot. This is the summer, though. A seven. This is, this is again beautiful. Just a picture, picture book kind of images. Okay, now what kind of place is this? When people think about every country in the world, what do they got? Most every country's got Starbucks, got McDonald's, got Walmart's. So I looked it up. Guess how many they have each of those three combined total, Starbucks, McDonald's and Walmarts on Greenland? Zero. They've got other stores, but they don't have those great American brands. They're not even a member of FIFA. They've tried to get into FIFA for soccer. They're not even in. So part of why this story is so interesting and so complicated is you've got, you've got the relationship between Greenland and Denmark, then you've got NATO hovering over the whole thing, and then you've got the people of Greenland. And every reporter who goes there finds the same thing. There's some public opinion polling that finds the same thing. There are some of amongst the 56 million, 56,000 who would like a closer relationship with the United States. But every reporter who goes finds roughly the same thing. A13 people there are not super excited to be part of the United States in any way. Here's the headline from the New York Times quote, we're not stupid. What Greenlanders would say to Trump. A visit to Greenland reveals a swirl of feelings as people nervously await talks with the Trump administration about the island's future. The New York Times characterizes how people in Greenland feel about Donald Trump's toying with them. It's a word the Times use. They say there's a kaleidoscope of feelings that swirl in Greenland itself. People are shocked, angry, confused, humiliated, insulted, and most of all, scared. None of that sounds happy, right? I read the list when I was reading the story and I thought, well, maybe they'll throw in hopeful or curious. No, shocked, angry, confused, humiliated, insulted, and most of all, scared. Here's a quote from a guy named Canuck Abelson who says, I hunt whales and seals in the United States. They think whales and seals are cute and shouldn't be hunted. That's what I'm afraid of. So that's a particular complaint. Here is from the BBC a number of sound bites from people we used to call man on the street. Now we call them people, people on the streets, the snowy streets from Greenland, talking about how they feel about the prospects of an affiliation with the United States or an invasion. S7 Please don't want to be a part of us and they should leave us alone.
- [09:39]
Morton H. Halperin
Cannot take Our country is our. We need to get and stand together.
- [09:46]
Mark Halperin
And fight for it.
- [09:46]
Yemesi Agbiwale
But to encourage to use your both ear wisely and speak less. We are not for sale.
- [09:59]
Mark Halperin
All right, you can cut out of this one because people in the podcast won't hear it. Here's more of the same. This is from the Telegraph. Same thing. They went and surveyed what people in the streets said and I don't have any reason to believe these are misleading. They seem by all the reporting to be pretty representative of what People in Greenland think, which is no enthusiasm for this project. S12, please. A tweet about Greenland was the next target. So that was scary. I try to be pragmatic.
- [10:29]
Morton H. Halperin
I think there's a big loss of.
- [10:30]
Mark Halperin
Control in a sense of what's happening with your country.
- [10:33]
Morton H. Halperin
And that, that's, that's scary.
- [10:37]
Mark Halperin
Do you think Trump is bluffing when.
- [10:39]
Morton H. Halperin
He'S saying that, you know, you won't rule out using force to take Greenland? Well, I'm saying that it's just a very unrealistic scenario and that there would be no need for it. So I don't see it as something that we should take as seriously as.
- [10:56]
Ben Ferguson
A lot of different actors right now.
- [10:58]
Morton H. Halperin
Are taking it in our home. My teenage daughter came to me and said, maybe we should now it's time to move outside of Greenland because she.
- [11:05]
Mark Halperin
Was scared of what happening here. I never heard her say that before. So it was a bit scary to.
- [11:11]
Morton H. Halperin
Have this responsibility as a mother, try.
- [11:13]
Mark Halperin
And be calm and say everything will.
- [11:15]
Morton H. Halperin
Be fine, even though we don't know.
- [11:17]
Mark Halperin
What'S going to happen. All right, so, so Europe's against this. The Danes are against people in Greenland, including the government. But the people itself all seem to be against this. The President has emphasized national security even though there's an American base there already, even though the current arrangement allows for the United States to expand the military presence. There's, there's, there's a desire for the United States to change the status quo and as the President said, to move Greenland's relationship with a bigger country away from Denmark towards the United States. Okay, now what's the status of the place there? I've told you, they don't have any Walmarts. I've told you that. There's 56,000 people there. Here's what the Wall Street Journal says about Greenland. Now. It's, and the state of things there. They're very reliant on the Danes for health care. They have universal health care. They wouldn't get that necessarily if they broke up with Denmark and affiliated with the United States and the current economy. I got to tell you, folks, I don't say it's screwed up. It's not thriving, okay? It's a slow growing economy, the Wall Street Journal says, heavily reliant on the billion dollars a year they get from, from Denmark. And they are big into the export of shellfish seafood. Okay, A lot of shrimp. Interesting. I never would have thought about this as a basis for an economy. A lot of it's based on, on selling shrimp. Looking for the number here, their exports of shrimp. Yeah, here it is. Seafood exports. 98% of the exports from Greenland are from seafood. And they've got a problem because of global warming. There's less shrimp than there used to be. The three main big things that they send out are halibut, cod and shrimp. And apparently the halibut and the cod are eating the shrimp now because there's more of them. So less shrimp which they need to export and, and again, very reliant. A billion dollars a year is a lot of money that they get from Denmark. And here's a quote from the Wall Street Journal. Greenlandic officials quietly concede that in the short term at least, anyone running this island is more likely to find themselves staring down a money pit rather than a gold mine. One more from the Journal. The island is one of the world's biggest welfare states. A vast expanse of ice clad villages whose residence reachable only by helicopter and prop jet are, are nonetheless accustomed to the perks of Denmark's social democracy. Free health care, robust schools. It could also take years and billions of dollars to transform an economy again where 98% of its exports are from seafood. Now there's mining potential there and the President and others have talked about that and global warming. While it's hurting their seafood, it makes it easier to mine, right? Because a lot of the 80% of the country's under ice, more likely to be able to get there and mine if the ice is melting. Right now, Denmark provides half of the revenue that the Greenlandic government gets. It's 20% of the island's GDP. Here's what they pay for. They pay for police, courts, banking and the health care and defense. That's a lot. And so if the United States, if the President gets his way and he takes the control of Denmark away, somebody's going to have to cover that stuff. And the question is the United States taxpayers want to pay for it? Don't know. Don't know the answer to that question, but it would be a lot. So what are people talking about? They're talking about no invasion even though the President keeps threatening it. Stephen Miller has talked about it. Here's what, here's what the New York Times says as a possibility for changing things, which is what we have in a relationship with the Marshall Islands, okay? Marshall Islands in the Pacific recently re opt a relationship with the United States. It's called a compact of free association. Okay? The government there is independent of the United States, so it's not a state, but it receives $115 million a year from the US taxpayers by granting, in return, they grant America authority over defense. So piece of this is about defense, no question. But a piece of this is also about the economy and what, what could we get there? There could be tourism there, there could be access to minerals, including those rare earth minerals that have become such an important part of America's view of the world. And the wake of trying to make sure China doesn't have leverage over the United States. And then there's just a question of sphere of influence, of keeping the China and Russia away diplomatically, economically, national security from this hemisphere. NBC says A4 please. That if we wanted to just buy Greenland, if we wanted to say, not take it militarily, but say, to say to the Danes we want it. Estimate is $700 billion. I don't know where they got that number in the scheme of things. That's, that's a lot of money. 700 billion plus. Trying to make sure the people there are happy. People have talked about. Reuters has reported the administration have discussed giving to win over the hearts and minds of people in Greenland, maybe giving them all some money. This story has come to a head because this week, on Wednesday, as I said, Marco Rubio, the vice president, met with the two foreign ministers of both Denmark and of Greenland to try to win them over and have a conversation. Did not go well. Here is how the United States. There's some coverage. This is S1. This is how media around the world has been covering this story. S1, please.
- [17:07]
Yemesi Agbiwale
Germany has announced it will send troops to Greenland for the first time along with other European countries as part of measures to boost defense on the Arctic island. As US President Donald Trump insists the Danish territory is essential for US national security.
- [17:23]
Morton H. Halperin
Interesting to hear the foreign minister use.
- [17:26]
Mark Halperin
That word, conquer that. It is clear that the president of the United States in the year 2026 wants to conquer.
- [17:34]
Yemesi Agbiwale
The minister says it's totally unacceptable not.
- [17:36]
Mark Halperin
To respect Greenland's territory. That's after he met with Vice President J.D. vance for talking. There really is a sense of disbelief on the streets here in Nuuk that the Greenlanders have found themselves in this situation. We've just been driving around and seeing that there are fresh Greenland flags flying all over the capital. There's even two new flags flying over the EU building here in Nook now. So great interest around the world in this. It's an compelling story. It's an only Donald Trump story. Right. Other presidents have talked about wanting more control over Greenland and, and this is not a new concept. But Donald Trump threatening military action. Donald Trump basically saying my way or the highway got a lot of attention. So this meeting on Wednesday at the White House, the foreign ministers, it was sad, I have to say. The two foreign ministers came out of the meeting and here's the, here's the headline first about the meeting from the New York Times. Sorry, where's that about the meeting? Well, all right. New York Post, this is the, this, there are two parts, this, that made me very sad in the aftermath of the meeting where the Danes and the Greenlandic foreign ministers came out and they said didn't go all that well but we're going to continue to talk. New York Post pointed out that the foreign ministers light up after high stakes meeting. Watch this video. They come out of the meeting, the White House and they both obviously have some sort of nicotine addiction and they race to be able to smoke. Here it is. S6 please. This made me sad. I, I, I don't mean to look down on people who have tobacco addiction, but I found it a little, a little sad to see them have to race out to get their cigarettes. Here it is. S6 all right, so you see him, they're leaving the White House. The guy's jogging. That's the Danish porn minister. He's running. You think, well where's he got to get to so urgently and opens the trunk, they're putting stuff in there. Where's he got to go? Well, they got to get the smoke. So you see him sharing another cigarette with his Danish, it's a Greenlandic counterpart. So you look at the looks on their eyes. If you're, if you're not listening to the podcast but you're watching. And then they spoke, they spoke at a press conference. They spoke at. The Danish foreign minister was on with Brett Baier. Here is, here he is. Here's some headlines. A 14 Washington Post says that there's a fundamental disagreement. So don't know exactly what was said in the meeting, what the president wants. Washington Post. Vance's Greenland meeting ends with quote, fundamental disagreement. Diplomats from Denmark and Greenland agree to set up a quote, high level working group but said there was little consensus. Here's Mr. Rasmussen, the foreign Minister of Denmark talking to Brett Baer. S5 I mean this is 2026. You trade with people but you don't trade people. And there's a third way forward. And that's what we agreed today that we will now set up this high level working group to explore whether there is a way forward where we can accommodate which I Totally agree. You know, the President's concern and still respect, of course, the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Greenlandic people's right to self determination.
- [20:50]
Morton H. Halperin
Mr. Foreign.
- [20:52]
Mark Halperin
So their press conference was sad. They clearly, you know, have learned the lessons. If you want to deal with Donald Trump, you have to butter him up, say nice things to him, give him what he wants, but they can't give him what he want. And you can understand why they'd be resistant. First of all, their people don't want to be part of the United States. Denmark doesn't want to give up the relationship. They don't know what's in it for them at this point. But also they got a lot of people on their side, okay? They got a lot of people on their side. NATO's against it, Denmark's against it. The people of Greenland appear to be against it. And this talk of a, of a military invasion has inspired a lot of people in the United States to be against it. Here's Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, a Republican who is not high on a military invasion, to say the least. S8 please.
- [21:44]
Morton H. Halperin
To invade Greenland and attack its sovereignty.
- [21:50]
Ben Ferguson
A fellow NATO country would be weapons grade stupid. President Trump is not weapons grade stupid.
- [22:02]
Morton H. Halperin
Nor is Marco Rubio.
- [22:05]
Mark Halperin
All right, so who else is against not just a military invasion, but just the whole concept of trying to strong arm Denmark into giving up Greenland and strong arming the people of Greenland. New York Post. For it. A2, please. This is a headline of an editorial that ran after the meeting. Trump's Greenland gambit is a sideshow that forces of freedom don't need. They're against it. Who's also significantly against it? The American people. Number of polls out this week suggesting there's no support for this. Here's Quinnipiac. They did a poll again, I could show you others. Same thing. In the wake of the discussions about the United States trying to either buy Greenland or you use military force to take control, here's what the voters in their polls say, 86 to 9 said they oppose the United States trying to take Greenland by military force. So here you have the President saying we might use military force. And 9% are for it. 9% of the whole country. And then the question of should the United states buy Greenland? Only 37% are for it. 55 against. Again, in our divided country, 55 is a landslide. And a lot of that's independents, Democrats very much against, Republicans more for it. But independents breaking against the President's point of view. So where does that leave us? This is a story that's, you know, there are a lot of other stories in the news. We'll talk about some of them in a minute. But where we are is the President has no allies on this right now. Right. Doesn't have Greenland, doesn't have Denmark, doesn't have Europe, China, Russia that, you know, they're. Nobody else is for this. The American people are against it. Most people in Congress are against it. Privately, Republicans would say they're against it. And it's a little confusing because what the President says he wants, which is a more robust defense capacity, he could get because under the current agreement, the United States can expand its military presence. What I believe is going on from having reported this out this week with a lot of people who understand how Donald Trump works, is he wants maximum leverage. We talk about Trump and leverage here all the time. He wants maximum leverage. He wants to be able to get what he can get in terms of economics, diplomacy, military, and at the lowest cost, the United States. And so I think what you're going to see is an effort to say just how much public opinion does he need to move, particularly in Greenland, to force the hand. And you saw in the sad sack reaction of the foreign ministers from the two countries, from Denmark and from Greenland, they know they don't have a lot of leverage. They know that if the President wants to force this, they're going to have to give something up. And I think you're going to see a relationship where Denmark is still connected to Greenland as they have been for centuries. The people of Greenland are made better off economically or at least have that hope. And the President gets what he wanted in the first term and other presidents have wanted, which is big access where he doesn't have to check with the Danes, doesn't have to pass anything through the legislature there. If the United States wants something there, in terms of rare earth minerals, in terms of military, terms of sphere of influence and the economy, the United States can get it. That's what he's going for. And he's got a lot of leverage. These threats are giving him leverage. And you can see it in the eyes of the Europeans. They know they need to work something out. And I believe that Marco Rubio and the vice president and others will work something out. And the President will someday go to Greenland. And not saying he's going to visit a Trump casino, but I predict he'll be there before too long. All right, that's my reported monologue on what's up with Greenland, 56,000 people. Let me know what you think. Send me your email thoughts at nextup@gmail nextupalperinmail.com Would love to know what you think about this whole Greenland thing and whether you think the United States should do more to get more out of this relationship. If you want to watch the full conversations we have here always, you can subscribe to my YouTube channel that's on YouTube @nextup halpern full episodes, bonus moments, everything you Want to see YouTube.com nextup halperin and you can always listen to the program too. Want maximum audience on all platforms, so subscribe to NextUp with Mark Halpern. Wherever you get your podcast, turn on the downloads there. New episodes will hit Tuesdays and Thursdays. You'll get them the moment they drop. And share all the ability of people to listen and watch with your friends so more people can be Nexters grateful to you. All right, you can stay ahead of every story by watching and listening Tuesdays and Thursdays. Quick break right now. When we come back, we're going to talk about the policy side of this. What is Donald Trump actually up to in Greenland and how can he get his way by perseverance or pressure? Morgan H. Halperin, longtime national Security advisor and analyst and my dad, he's next up. Everybody you know going online without Express vpn, it's like not having a case for your phone. Most of the time you'll probably be okay, but all it takes is one drop and you'll wish you'd spent those few extra dollars on protection. Public WI fi, at cafes, at hotels, at airports. It's all wide open. Hackers on those very same networks can grab your passwords, your bank logins, your cards. It doesn't much take much skill either to do that. Your data is worth up to a grand on the dark web. ExpressVPN encrypts everything in an unbreakable tunnel so no one touches it. I always fire it up on the road, whether I'm at an airport, a coffee shop, even when I'm using the guest network at a friend's place. Just one tap and I'm locked down. Peace of mind is everything when you're handling your sensitive stuff. It's super easy. One button app. It works on every device. Billion year encryption. And right now plans are starting at just $3.49 a month. That's 12 cents a day. It's rated number one by CNET and the Verge. Secure your online data today by visiting expressvpn.com/nextup again. That's XP, R E S S vpn.com/nextup to find out how you can get up to four extra months. Again, expressvpn.com/next up. All right, joining me now, next up, to explore more about Greenland and what's going on with the Trump administration and other foreign policy hotspots around the world. A legendary Washington figure been involved in national security policy at the highest levels of government, going back to the Nixon and Johnson administrations. Johnson and Nixon administrations. To get my chronology right, my dad, Morton H. Halperin. Dad, thanks for coming back on Next up.
- [28:32]
Morton H. Halperin
My pleasure.
- [28:34]
Mark Halperin
Okay, so as I made clear in the monologue, there's a lot of things that are screwed up because of Donald Trump's involvement here. But he's not the first president who's talked about having a stronger relationship with Greenland for national security and other purposes. If, if you were working for the president, if you were national security advisor and it was a normal president, it wasn't someone who ruled by truth Social, wasn't someone who threatened other NATO countries, and he said, for national security reasons and economic reasons, we need a closer relationship here. How would that, how would a normal government be trying to execute this?
- [29:10]
Morton H. Halperin
You'd first figure out exactly what you need, you know, what are the things that you don't have now, the right to do in Greenland? And you would compile a list and then you would circulate that to the relevant government agencies, to the Defense Department, State Department, and get agreement on what we need and get agreement from the State Department that there's a way to move forward and negotiate that. And then you would explain to Greenland and then publicly why you need these things and what exactly you need. And then the Danish government would almost certainly say yes, and then you would move forward and implement it. If they said no, then you would go to data as a whole and say, this is the things we need from Greenland. We need your help in persuading Denmark that it should be done. And it's inconceivable to me that we want something that Denmark would give us unless it's.
- [30:11]
Mark Halperin
Okay. So, so I like the way you laid it out. And I think, I think to some extent that's what's happening under the veneer of all the Trump, like fireworks. This one's complicated. You worked when you were in the government on something vaguely similar, which was a question of Okinawa, which united kind of in reverse, which is the United States had control of Okinawa after World War II island off the main islands of Japan, and the question was how to Negotiate back. The similarity there for me is you had the Tokyo government, which in this case is kind of the equivalent of the Danes. You had the government in Okinawa, which, which was not always aligned with the Tokyo government, just as the government of Greenland is not fully aligned with the government of Denmark. And then you have the people, right? What do the people want? So in this case it's complicated, right, because you've got Denmark, you've got the, the government of, of, of, of Greenland. You've got the people. Then you also have NATO and NATO is obviously very concerned about it. Well, so there are a lot of constituencies in, in this case, isn't the only difference from how you laid it out? Well, I shouldn't ask it with prejudice. Seems to me one could argue this, this point. I want you to address it here. You got Trump, I think sharing your view, which is I want to get stuff that. Well, not your view but, but this is any, any, any American president who said we want these things primarily national security, but also economic and, and, and sphere of influence. It's our hemisphere all the only difference from how Trump's doing it and how you would let you laid out sort of the template of a normal president is he's doing it with a lot of bluster and threats to leverage, to increase his leverage. But in the end they said yesterday they're going to have this working group in the end, Marco Rubio I think has signaled this to Capitol Hill. It's normal. It just has the overlay of bluster. What do you think of that argument?
- [32:06]
Morton H. Halperin
Well, I think it's tough. That's possibly true. It's unclear what Trump wants. Sometimes he seems to be suggesting that he wants to make Greenland part of the United States. You know, in non self governed territory of the United States, as I gather with the Danes rather than specific things like a base, the right to bring in forces without consulting with the Danish government, without, or the Greenland government, the right to shut the radios down. There's specific things that he may want. He's not indicating what that is and he's suggesting that what he may want is the right to do whatever he wants to do without consulting in advance with the Danish government or with the Greenland government. And there's just no reason for that. There's no reason to think they will say no. And if they say no about something, then you negotiate about that. He seems to be looking for a fight rather than looking for a way to get the specific things that he wants. All of which I think we should get, can get and it's in the Danish interest to NATO's interest in the United States interest.
- [33:19]
Mark Halperin
When you say, you said should get meaning what? Meaning that this is a legitimate American interest, at least on the national security side, but maybe even on the economic side, because the rare earth minerals are significant. Are you saying the United States is entitled to these things?
- [33:36]
Morton H. Halperin
Well, they were entitled to them because we're in NATO and we're the main guarantee of the security of all these countries. That's been the history of relationship. If you go back to the beginning of NATO, there's always been a trade off between the European countries wanting security protection from the United States. And I was saying, well, if you want that, we have to have certain things. For example, we insisted that Germany had to be reowned. The rest of the NATO countries said, germany is a terrible country. We're against the rearment of Germany. We don't want a German army. The Germans didn't want an army. And we said, we're not creating NATO without Germany, without a German army because we're not going to be large enough and capable of, to dealing with the Russians. Then the Germans agreed to come in. The rest of NATO agreed to accept Germany. Then we said, and we have to put nuclear weapons on German territory. And the Germans said, no, we don't want nuclear weapons. And the French said, we certainly don't want nuclear weapons on German territory. And we said, no NATO without US Forces in Germany, no US Forces in Germany without nuclear weapons. And we got our way and we insisted on it and everybody accepted it because it wasn't done with. It was very clear what we wanted. And it was presented to them as this is what we need in order to defend you and defend the alliance. And that's what we should be doing here. Let him be straightforward.
- [35:11]
Mark Halperin
This is where, this is where the way you just framed it to me is, is where the most reasonable aspect of what the President's doing can be found, where the senior partner in this, in this partnership and, and the Vice President's involvement raises the hackles in Europe because they see him as hostile to NATO and hostile to Europe. But what the President seems to be saying, and other presidents have, have raised this, other national security people have raised it. This is a unique piece of real estate. This is not just some random island. This is a massive island. Leaving the rare earth minerals aside, that that's geographical positioning as a matter of staging offense and defensive military operations for intelligence, for shipping. This is a vital, a vital piece in our hemisphere. And so if the President, and because the view, you and I don't totally agree about NATO, but they're a junior partner. They're not, they're not as robust in, in serving. Yeah, but what I'm saying is, isn't it reasonable for the President to say we can't let the, the Dutch and the Danes and the French say how, what the best way to use this, to defend all of this, saying they.
- [36:25]
Morton H. Halperin
Want, they're not giving us what we want.
- [36:28]
Mark Halperin
Well, but they, what they are in this sense. They're, one of their reactions is a bunch of European countries are sending forces to Denmark now and they're saying, threatening.
- [36:39]
Morton H. Halperin
To use military force without warning, without. And that's unacceptable. At the end of the day, our alternative is not to use military force. Our alternative is to leave NATO to say we won't defend, which is what we've done. What we did about Germany, what we did about nuclear weapons, what we did about strategy and when we use nuclear weapons, those are much more important things. And what the president is now talking and opposition has always been. We will tell you what we need to remain in the alliance and you will tell us whether you prepare to do that. And if you're not, we won't be able to stay in the alliance. That's perfectly reasonable.
- [37:21]
Mark Halperin
So last one on this and then we'll move to Iran. What's the national security argument on behalf of the United States and NATO, for the United States to have effective control, not the Danes having effective control, the United States having effective control militarily over Greenland.
- [37:42]
Morton H. Halperin
That we can use, implement that, take military action when we need to do so without going to the Danish government then discovering they're in a, they're in a coalition government. They can't agree. They have to have an election first. There are lots of reasons why and that was again the fight with Japan as to when we needed to consult the Japanese government because we thought the Japanese government might not be able to agree. So we wanted permission in advance that we could do certain things that we thought were necessary to support the security.
- [38:18]
Mark Halperin
One more and this gets away from national security, but it's another area you know a lot about, which is self determination. There's an irony in the fact that, you know, the current control over all these things, the national security and to some extent the economy of Greenland is a, is an imperial power, you know, across, across the ocean. What, what if you were in the government and the president, you were advising a president, this president, what role should the wishes of the 56,000 people who live in Greenland play in these negotiations from your point of view.
- [38:52]
Morton H. Halperin
Again, the Okinawan is a good example. We took the position then that the Okinawans had no role in this, that this was a decision of the Japanese government because we thought, I think correctly, the easier way to get control is through the government that's the controlling power. And so I think we should tell the Danes the Greenlanders don't get a veto.
- [39:18]
Mark Halperin
Yeah. So this is when you sound like an imperialist rather than a human rights advocate. Because. Because to me, that's the mistake that you made. You plural with the Okinawans is the Okinawans today. Not just the negotiation of the return of control of Okinawa to the Japanese, but now we've had decades of experience with military bases there. It's very comparable. The Okinawans hate the United States and they resent Tokyo for taking into account their point of view. Shouldn't. Shouldn't the United States not just to do the right thing, but the smart thing, do this? Not to say to the Danes, you guys decide, we'll decide this together and carve it up. Those 56,000 people should have a voice both for doing what's right, but also doing what's smart or no.
- [40:02]
Morton H. Halperin
Well, you should try to give them a voice and to try to accommodate them as much as possible. But just as the people of Omaha said, they don't want a sack base there, we say, we're sorry, the United States decides that, not the people of Omaha or the people of Nebraska. And that's the case with Okinawa. It's up to the Japanese government to work it out with those people. If you had a situation where, as some people say, you have some of where the Greenlanders want us, want the United States in, and the Danes are saying no, then I think there would be an issue that we, you know, we need to look at.
- [40:45]
Ben Ferguson
All right.
- [40:47]
Mark Halperin
It's a rare moment where I'm for the people and you're for the powerful. It's the opposite.
- [40:50]
Morton H. Halperin
No, I'm for the people too.
- [40:53]
Mark Halperin
Well, but you said we should just deal with the Danes. We shouldn't deal with the 56,000 people.
- [40:57]
Morton H. Halperin
Right. Because it's not our business to go into the, into, you know, we should not get involved in Spain, for example, where there's a part of Spain that wants independence and say we're not going to have bases in that part of Spain because the people there, we have to deal with the countries that we recognize as sovereign in the territory. Right.
- [41:17]
Mark Halperin
Well, it's complicated because Greenland's kind of sovereign.
- [41:20]
Morton H. Halperin
Right.
- [41:22]
Mark Halperin
They're sovereign.
- [41:23]
Morton H. Halperin
Ish. Yeah. But all of that is. We've worked out, if we just calmly said what we wanted, made it public, and then negotiated, we get what we want without a crisis. Seems to me like we're looking for a crisis rather than meeting one. Right.
- [41:40]
Mark Halperin
All right, let's talk about Iran. This is another complicated foreign policy and national security challenge. Multidimensional. Let's just talk about this concept of regime change. Okay. If you look at the history, not just the Middle east, but in other places, when a government is toppled, it's not typically replaced by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew and, And. And George Washington. So if you look at the. The forces in Iran, if the current government leaves, is there a good. Is there a good scenario where they're replaced by a government that's not repressive, controlled by the military theocracy, or. Or not?
- [42:17]
Morton H. Halperin
There are people who know Iran who say there is, that Iran was a democracy, the Shah took power and was eventually forced out. But then, because of the turmoil, this government took power. People were very hopeful. I had a number of Iranian friends who were very hopeful that if the Shah, there would be a democratic government and have continued to say that if you can find a way to get rid of this theocracy which seized the moment to seize power, that there is a substantial chance that of a democratic government in Iran and we. Some chance and some chance worth working for. Because it would be a fundamental change in the Middle east if you had a democratic government in Iran, unlike Iraq. We thought it was going to be easy to do it. Iran is not impossible. It's certainly not certain, but it's not impossible.
- [43:13]
Mark Halperin
So what is the morally right and smart things the United States government do to foster that possibility of a.
- [43:20]
Morton H. Halperin
Make sure that we stand with the Iranian people in their desire to have a democratic government, to have their human rights respected, and that we want to work with the Iranian government. We see the reason why we can't have peaceful relations with them. That will have to mean that they accept eventually the Israeli government. But we can deal with that down the road. And it means making clear that we support them because we believe they're working to establish a democratic up, which clearly some of them are, some of them clearly aren't.
- [44:00]
Mark Halperin
That's what you say should be being done. How would you rate the job the Trump administration is doing to live up to the ideas that you espouse to foster change?
- [44:10]
Morton H. Halperin
Well, I think the president's done some of the things in the right direction. What I find objectionable is him suggesting that we would use military force. I don't think there's a basis in Iran to use military force. If you had a coup, if you had a revolution and it was a democratic government and then say the Russians were helping the current people try to come back, then there would be a basis for Satan. We will at the request of the de facto regime.
- [44:41]
Mark Halperin
You don't think there's an argument for a limited use of force to send a signal to the Iranian people that the United States is on their side?
- [44:48]
Morton H. Halperin
I think it will send a signal to them that we want to take over Iran just as we want to take over Greenland. I don't think the Iranian people trust us to take put in a government that would be based on their interest and what they wanted rather than what we wanted from them. So I don't think we have the trust to do that.
- [45:09]
Mark Halperin
Okay, one last topic. The question of the Monroe Doctrine or now the Donroe Doctrine. Thomas Friedman famously said the earth is flat in the, in the world in which we live now where people can get on airplanes and get on social media and Internet and be in and virtually in China or in Asia. Is there meaning to the notion of the, the Western hemisphere being the United States sphere of influence? Does that still have any meaning, meaning from a military or diplomatic or economic point of view?
- [45:40]
Morton H. Halperin
No. I think it was invented at a time when every, every major power had a sphere of influence in some part of the world in which colonies were considered legitimate. And, and so the question was, would we be different from the British and the French and the Russians and be a powerful nation which didn't take column, didn't create colonies because we thought we were different. And there was a new world and there wasn't a new world. And so it was a very different situation. Now there's the UN there's in fact international law which says among other things, the colonies are illegal, that the people who live in a territory have the right to self determination in that territory. And we certainly have no reason to challenge that. We should accept that as legitimate and build on that. And we've done as well as we needed to in the Western Hemisphere. I don't see what we would gain by trying to claim greater authority over those countries. There's no country in the Western hemisphere that wants to be part of the American sphere of interest. They want to work with us, they want to be treated as sovereign nations. And we have, I think, not only a moral interest but a political interest in doing that because we're much more likely to get cooperation from them if we treat them as sovereign equals than if we try to tell them that we can tell them what to do.
- [47:10]
Mark Halperin
You've done a ton of work on Cuba. Is it possible that that government will fall?
- [47:15]
Morton H. Halperin
Oh, for sure. I mean, certainly not certain, but it is possible. But I think we should have been for the past, whatever it is, 50 years trying to work with the Cuban government to push them towards democracy and to make clearer. And there were times when we were about to do that in the Clinton administration before the Cubans shot down an American airplane flying over Cuba with American citizens running. We but we have not, in my view, been willing to try to improve relations with the Cubans in a way to try to help promote the transition to a democratic government, which I think the majority of the Cubans want. And I think we could have been more effective in helping them move in that direction. All right.
- [48:09]
Mark Halperin
Dr. Morton H. Alperin's worked at the highest levels of American foreign policy and national security for more than half a century. And very grateful, dad, always for you to share your, your experience with us. Thanks. All right, next up, we're going to come back home. We're going to talk with our panel about American domestic policy and what's going on in Minnesota, in Washington and around the country. Panels coming up right after this. They're next up. Are you being lied to? They tell you to max out your 401k, your IRA and then they make you beg for permission to use your own money. It's time to get to the truth and discover a better way to grow and protect your own money. Bank on yourself. It's the reproving retirement plan. Alternative banks and Wall street desperately hope you never hear about. It gives you guaranteed growth and retirement income that never goes backward. When markets tumble, your principal and growth are locked in with tax free retirement income and a zero tax rate under current law. Access your money anytime for emergencies or opportunities that come up. No penalties, no restrictions and it keeps growing like you never touched it. Built in inflation protection means your savings grow every year. Good times are bad. Plus, you'll always know the minimum guaranteed value of your retirement savings when you need them. You can get a free report that reveals how you can bank on yourself and enjoy tax free retirement income, guaranteed growth and control of your money. Just go to BankOnYourself.com. and get your free report again. That's BankOnYourself.com mark BankOnYourself.com mark.
- [49:52]
Ben Ferguson
All right.
- [49:53]
Mark Halperin
Joining me now, two fan favorites we can Call them that because we only book fan favorites here. Ben Ferguson, host of the Ben Ferguson Fan Podcast, co host of the Verdict with Ben Ferguson featuring Ted Cruz. Now it's called the Verdict with Ted Cruz and and Yemen. Senior strategist in the Biden Communications operation and longtime senior advisor for the group Dream for America. Happy New Year to you both. Welcome to you both. Thanks for being here.
- [50:19]
Ben Ferguson
Good to see you.
- [50:20]
Yemesi Agbiwale
Thanks for having us.
- [50:21]
Mark Halperin
All right, we're going to talk domestic because most of the show has been about foreign policy. But I want to start by asking you guys to just like, you're, like you're Nostradamus looking to the future. What's the final verdict going to be in, like, the Wikipedia entry of each of these stories that are in the news now? Ben, start with you. How is Greenland going to end? What's like the headline on Donald Trump's Wikipedia entry under the Greenland section? How's it going to end?
- [50:44]
Ben Ferguson
I think the people Greenland are going to be like, I'd love to have an American passport and have the protections of the US and it's going to be a major foreign policy win to keep China and Russia out of the area. It's vitally important, our national interests. And so I actually believe the president's being really smart about this. He's talked about it a lot. He's gotten the idea to become normalized in the heads of people that have to make a choice in Greenland at some point. And I do think it's really important to protect the Western Hemisphere. So I think that's probably going to be his legacy. And I bet you before he leaves the White House, Greenland will be a part of the United States, but, but not a state.
- [51:16]
Mark Halperin
Kind of like, like Marshall Islands or.
- [51:18]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, Yeah, I don't think it'll be a state. No, I don't.
- [51:19]
Mark Halperin
All right, so Ben thinks that part of America and separated from the Danes. Do you agree?
- [51:27]
Morton H. Halperin
No.
- [51:28]
Yemesi Agbiwale
I think the Wikipedia entry might be like, Trump's pet issue finally put down. So I think that, I mean, Congressman Randy Fine thinks that he can figure out some legislation to make Greenland a US State. I don't think that'll happen. I think there's good bipartisan consensus that they are uncomfortable with the idea. More recently, Senator Wicker, who's chair of the Senate Arms Committee, said that he's uncomfortable with the idea and is really pushing back against a lot of the rhetoric. And that's surprising, right, because I think a Rand Paul, a Thom Tillis, those, Lisa Murkowski, those might be our Usual suspects. But somebody like Wicker Hemming and hawing Mitch McConnell as well. I think traditionalists in Congress will be uncomfortable with the situation. And I think the president first came up with the idea in an either or something situation when he said we can either have Greenland or Canada or the Panama Canal. It just feels like Greenland is the easiest thing. I don't think this is a serious venture.
- [52:28]
Mark Halperin
All right, let's stay with you. What's going to be in the Wikipedia, Trump Wikipedia entry about Venezuela?
- [52:34]
Yemesi Agbiwale
Venezuela.
- [52:36]
Ben Ferguson
I can't wait to hear your take on this one.
- [52:39]
Mark Halperin
What's it going to say? It's going to say Donald Trump removed Maduro and then what happened?
- [52:46]
Yemesi Agbiwale
And then we adopted a country with millions of people looking for direction, and we refocused all of our resources, energy and priorities to our neighbors in the Southern Hemisphere instead of our neighbors right here at home.
- [53:01]
Mark Halperin
All right, Ben, how's this one end?
- [53:03]
Ben Ferguson
I think it's gonna be in the history books of Wikipedia as you described it as the president not only getting rid of an individual that was a threat to this country, but also goes back to protecting this nation from China and Russia. And I also think it sent a very clear message. And it's going to be the beginning of the end of the narco terrorists. And I think it's going to have a huge impact on Mexico as well. And I think that's one of the reasons why the president did it. It's national security. It's getting rid of the drug trade. It's also freeing people that need it. And I also think he's smart enough to realize I'm not going to invade. I'm not trying to export democracy. The people are going to have an opportunity to, to actually have their votes counted. They weren't counted last time. And so he, he rectified that major problem.
- [53:46]
Mark Halperin
Ben, you're making Caroline Levitt look dour and pessimistic about the Trump agenda. Very bullish. Bullish. Okay, let's come back home and talk about Minnesota. And again, just like these foreign policy stories, there's multiple layers here. But I want to talk about the question of the politics of this for the national audience. The Democrats believe, and for the first time, I think they might be right, that this is a time when Donald Trump's overplayed his hand. If you look at all the public opinion polls, people are very negative about the shooting of a week ago. They're very negative about ice. CNN polls showed majority saying ICE is making America less safe. Republicans are pretty supportive, but not overwhelmingly as compared to the way they normally are with the president. Independents are overwhelmingly disapproving. David Shore, who's a very well respected Democratic analyst, says this is on Twitter. He says he they tested 15 viral videos about the Minneapolis shooting, raw eyewitness footage and straightforward reporting. And all of that consistently drove meaningful increases in Trump's disapproval. Said the testing found that the killings, quote, has broken through with voters. 85% say they've heard at least a little bit about it, 76% saying they see some of the footage. And Democratic proposals to rein in ICE have broad support. And we've seen the public polls even abolishing ISIS getting close to parity. So Ben, should, should, from a political point of view, should the Republican Party be worried that the way this is being executed is taking away from the positive political impact the immigration has had for the party for a long time?
- [55:19]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, I don't. And look, I think if you pull any video of anyone dying, it's not going to poll well. Right. Like that's just common sense, one on one. Does that mean that you change what you're doing and going after the worst among us who actually are criminals, killing people, gang members and those that are in the cartel, those that have gone after children. Look at the people that the White House put out a list that have been, that have literally been caught in the last week and a half in Minneapolis, heinous crimes against children, rape against children. So if you pull that as well, do you want that living among you in your community? The answer is overwhelmingly no. So I think this president, this White House, have actually been really smart about this. You don't do things based on a poll. You do things based on right and wrong. And law enforcement is an issue that the majority of Americans voted for. Donald Trump for law and order. I think anytime you have a video of someone dying, regardless of what happened around it, it's not going to poll well. That doesn't mean you stop doing law enforcement. And that's what the president's committed to. So I'm not worried about this. Those I've talked to at the White House and those on Capitol Hill that I was with yesterday, the day before in D.C. they understand what stay the course means. And ultimately it's going to come down. The crime statistics at the end of the year, are you safer in these in Chicago, in Memphis, in New Orleans, in Baltimore, in Minneapolis? And I think the answer is going to be yes. And there's going to be huge data to support that. And that's what really matters.
- [56:40]
Mark Halperin
Okay. Before we switch to your colleague, I take what you're saying and I agree with you. That's the posture of the White House and their allies on Capitol Hill. But the favorable ratings of the president on handling immigration have unambiguously gone down. And Republicans will tell you their private polling shows that. Are you saying that doesn't matter or that when there's more discussion of the underlying issues that his favorability will go up on those?
- [57:05]
Ben Ferguson
I think his favorability will go up. And I think when you see the number of people that have not been killed and you see the crime stats that come out, let's not forget Washington, D.C. lied about their crime statistics to try to act like it was safer than it was was that's been exposed. You look at D.C. now, people feel like they are safer in D.C. than they've been in decades. So when you put that out there and you do it when it comes towards a midterm, there will be this is on the ballot in the midterm. There's no doubt about it. Is there time for the present to do what he promised he was going to do and then have the upside from it? Yes. If you're looking for instant gratification in law enforcement, which is not really law enforcement. Right. You just go wherever the wind goes and there's one shooting that's caught and so you immediately abandoned you're never going to make America safer again. This is a core of the president. He believes in it personally. Those around him believe in it. And that's who he hired. So I think there's more than enough time for the president to get the accolades he deserves on this.
- [57:58]
Mark Halperin
Yeah. See, one thing I love about your, your analysis is it's often, almost always informed by the fact that you talk to real people and not just people in politics. So what, what do you make of this notion that this story has broken through through to people and it's affecting their view of the two parties and that is, at a minimum can really energize Democrats to turn out in the fall.
- [58:18]
Yemesi Agbiwale
Well, what I'm hearing from folks on the Hill and off the Hill is impressive to see how the public has turned from regarding this issue when it comes to the president. This was his strongest issue. This is the one. I will say it unabashedly. He beat Democrats at he recognized the problem. He hammered the messaging over and over again them and he cruised all the way to the White House on part of this issue. And now it feels that he has pushed too much of the enforcement Part of this issue and forgotten that a lot of this policy is marketing. ICE has really pushed marketing. Kristi Noem They've utilized social media but on the other hand as a counterpoint so have the very people living in those communities. So as as many curated videos you can put out of ICE hopping out of vans and ramming down doors. So then can the people put out videos of you taking people off of roofs, stopping them and doing are you a US citizen check while they're pumping gas at a gas station. And they might have ignored it before but all of that combined with this shooting starts to build in a well. What is the purpose of ice? And we start to look at the enforcement, we start to look at the training. Look, there are videos that exist of 2016 of CNN reporters going on ride alongs with ICE during the Obama era. We know that ICE has always existed but they've existed in an almost non combative form to the daily lives of the communities that they are policing. What did the Trump administration do and why is there so much ire with this particular president? Because he changed the look of ICE again to the marketing. Now we're in unmarked vehicles. Now we're completely masked. So of course there's going to be a negative response to an organization that has existed far, that existed before Donald Trump first took the presidency. Look, Democrats now have a chance to grab onto that energy but they will run into a trap if they jump the shark and do abolish ice. And I don't want to compare apples to oranges all that because they say the defund the police is different. It is all the same when it comes to language even if you get to the weeds of it. And so now Democrats have a really great opportunity going into the midterms to talk about we, we are looking at ways of reforming, we are looking at ways of analyzing the way that they are trained. What are the hoops that, that allow people to, to become ICE law enforcement officers. That is a more direct path that Democrats can take that will be helpful to them.
- [60:40]
Mark Halperin
Ben, your fellow Texas talker Joe Rogan who some weeks edges at your show so he's got a, he's got a following. He got a lot of attention this week for saying that he, he's seen some stuff in Minnesota and elsewhere that he doesn't like, that he doesn't think is consistent with American values. In all the reporting and all the videos you've seen, have you seen ICE do anything that makes you say no, that's not the right way to run this stipulating your overall support for their mission and, and for their conduct. Have you seen anything that gives you pause about how they're executing?
- [61:10]
Ben Ferguson
I don't. And the reason why is, look, I come from a law enforcement family. And when you are going out there and asking these men and women to risk their own lives and you look at just the video that's out right now going viral of them attacking an ICE agent, smashing the vehicle, ripping his gun safe out of the car, breaking it open and stealing ammunition and firearms, that's what I see as the other side of this. And I also look at the crime stats and I look at who they're going after and the doxing of ICE agents. So I. There's nothing I've seen. And look, I'd be the first to say it. If I thought there was an abuse of power, I would be saying that. If I thought that they were doing something wrong or going outside the scope of the law, I'd be saying that. But I think the majority of Americans have said overwhelming in this last election. Law and order is on the ballot. Getting rid of illegal immigrants is on the ballot. Making sure that we find the worst among us is on the ballot. If you want to clean it up and the voters said they did well, you've got to clean it up. And it's going to have to have to happen this way, especially when you have mayors who, who are now going after ice. And this is the problem with the Democratic Party telling ICE to get the F out of your city and attacking ICE like they are the cartel, when that is the mayor of Minneapolis and you have Governor Waltz doing what he's doing, for example, like the Democrats are on the wrong side of this and you can say as much you want to in a PC way that, oh, well, we think it should be done a little different. X, Y and Z. No, look at the spokespeople for the Democratic Party right now. Ground zero, telling ICE to get the F out of your city. They politicize this. And I still think the American people are going to stand with Donald Trump on this one come especially the midterms. It's on the ballot. If I'm wrong, Democrats have a big win. I don't think I'm wrong and I think the president doesn't believe that either.
- [62:55]
Mark Halperin
To what would you attribute the clear lack of change in support for ICE or people saying in the CNN poll, which again, people can deride cnn, but there's nothing wrong with their polling. People say ICE is making America less safe. Why would they be saying that?
- [63:09]
Ben Ferguson
I think it's because of the propaganda that's been put out there by the media attacking ICE agents day after day after day. And so when you undermine law enforcement the way that they have and the coverage, the way that they've done it, saying that an innocent woman was killed by ICE when that, that woman targeted and tried to use a 2 ton vehicle to run over an ICE agent and it cost her life. Yeah, that can, that can change a pole, but it doesn't change the reality that ICE agents are under attack because the Democratic Party has said that they are public enemy number one and they are funding the people that are going out there and attacking these ICE agents. And at the end of the day, I think you either have one or two things. You have an ADD culture where you can convince them of anything in 30 seconds from a sound bite, or you have thoughtful American voters that look at their communities and they go, wow, it's, it really is different. Yes, I do feel safer than I am now. I, we've seen it in D.C. we've seen it in Houston, where I am right now with ICE enforcement overwhelming in a liberal city, which is Houston proper now, we are seeing the crime stats come down significantly. And when you have that, then you ask people a different question. Do you feel safer than you did six months ago? And the answer is yes, that's the payoff.
- [64:21]
Mark Halperin
Okay, Yemen. She's having a little bit of an audio issue. So, Ben, I'm going to stay with you until she's able to, to get back and join us. What's the division?
- [64:29]
Yemesi Agbiwale
It's back.
- [64:30]
Mark Halperin
Back. Okay.
- [64:31]
Yemesi Agbiwale
A little fire alarm issue.
- [64:33]
Mark Halperin
All right, then I'll, then I'll come back to you. Thank you. What's the division within your party right now that most troubles you within the Democratic Party? And then I'm going to ask the same question about the Republicans. What's the ideological principal division that you find most troubling and dangerous for the party? Jemis.
- [64:54]
Yemesi Agbiwale
The biggest thing that I think the party is facing is the direction of the party. And you see this the most in intra conversations at the dnc. The focus of the DNC Chair Ken Martin and other congressional leaders is we have to move past Trump. Trump is not on the ballot once we get past the midterms. Well, for a lot of folks especially, I would say the no Kings rally demographic, which I like to see, say are like the older folks that get more active and they're also the people in the Democratic Party that we can rely on. To vote the most are not past that moment. And the more that Trump does that they find egregious and against the Constitution and what we believe as the principles of democracy, the more they want to ground in that this is about Trump. But there's a large swath of the party, especially folks who are trending younger, that are looking at the price of housing, housing costs, that are looking at the. The kitchen table issues. Right. Because we don't have kitchen table issues. We rent apartments that are saying, well, we need to look past that to more of a populist look at the economy. So I would say those are the two dividing lines. We're going to see that the most in candidates that are represented during the midterms, and then also who we end up picking when it comes to the 2028 race.
- [66:02]
Mark Halperin
Yeah, that's brilliant. Because. Because it really is so emotional for the people in that first camp. The no kings branch of the party wing of the party. They really don't want to talk about anything else. And if you try to engage them on other stuff, they act like. Almost like it's an insult, like you're not talking about what's real. Is it. Is it possible to do both? Is it possible to say, hey, here are my three points on affordability, but this is all to. In service of stopping Donald Trump, or you think from. In a real world, people are just polarized along the two poles.
- [66:32]
Yemesi Agbiwale
In the most perfect, beautiful world, it would be possible to introduce some kind of nuance into the. Into it. I don't know if at this point it is. I mean, you have a Democratic Party that's almost been shell shocked, conditioned to be so reactive to Trump. And I understand that. I was there at the women's rally for that first year. But since then, we haven't moved past into anything substantive. And we've always pronounced what we are against, and we have never said what we are for. And I think the new candidates coming in are gonna reject a lot of what past candidates have done coming into Congress and running for president.
- [67:06]
Mark Halperin
Yeah, brilliantly said. Ben, what's the biggest division in your party, in the conservative side that. That worries you?
- [67:12]
Ben Ferguson
It's actually goes to both parties. And I'm not kidding. I say this Trump derangement syndrome. There is still the older guard, the Mitt Romney, as the, The. The. You mentioned earlier, the senator from Mississippi who's, like, standing up to Trump. It's like, what are you doing? This is still the Republican Party right now is the party of Trump, and they want so badly to move past it that they're looking for any moment they can get their hands on to say, hey, Donald Trump's liability. It's what they did in 2016, 17, 18 and 19. And so this last election, a lot of them are smart enough to, like, shut up and realize you don't want to go toe to toe with Donald Trump, but they can't wait for him to become weak so that then they can be like, all right, we're back in charge. And I think that's a real problem now on Capitol Hill with some of the establishment. Older guys have been there forever. They also hate that Donald Trump takes up all the oxygen in the room. And there are some Republicans that are ready to kind of get their name out there for big elections coming up, the next presidential. And so I worry that it went on issues that there could be a quick jump from Trump, just like we see in the past, because you want to distinguish yourself from Trump. And I think that's always going to be a threat to him. He's got to be in charge and have a high approval rating for, for the party to stay together because there's some that can't wait to screw them any way they can, even more than some Democrats.
- [68:34]
Mark Halperin
Yeah, it's sunny. You both gave great answers. I remember back, like it was like 2006 or 7. A New York Post reporter started a website about Hillary Clinton that said it's all about her. And his point was, like, all our political conversations eventually come back to Hillary Clinton and she dominates them. And I mean, the level to which she dominated compared to how much Trump dominated is like, not even close. So dominant for a decade in our politics and our culture. And both your answers, I think, were spot on and testament to that. I know my listeners and my viewers well. All nexters are asking themselves right now, how can I get more content from these two? So tell us where your stuff is and how people can listen, read, watch, etc. Yemen.
- [69:14]
Yemesi Agbiwale
See, you can find me on Instagram. Yem yams on TikTok. I love TikTok all the time. I. I've got one blowing up right now that's pretty critical of the pod. Save America, boys. Speaking of people who have not moved past a moment.
- [69:31]
Mark Halperin
They'Ve monetized their Trump drink.
- [69:32]
Yemesi Agbiwale
Yeah, yeah. And we can do a whole show about the EcoSystem in Washington, D.C. that has run off the back of one Barack Obama, and maybe they'll find another candidate to run off of moving forward.
- [69:44]
Mark Halperin
And you're on X also. I happen to know.
- [69:46]
Yemesi Agbiwale
Yes, I am on X. I don't post as much as you and Ben. I'm more of a lurker on X. Yeah.
- [69:52]
Mark Halperin
Yeah. All right, Ben. Where can people see, hear, listen, read, watch? Yeah.
- [69:56]
Ben Ferguson
If you're on X, it's Ben Ferguson show on X on Instagram. Ben Ferguson Podcast. You can grab the Ben Ferguson podcast as well. And I do one that's actually kind of gotten big. It's called the 47 Morning Update. If you want to know what's coming out of the White House every day, it's about 10 to 12 minutes long. It's a quick synopsis of the day ahead. So grab the 47 Morning Update. And obviously co host Verdict with Ted Cruz that podcast as well.
- [70:18]
Mark Halperin
You are kings of content, both of you. Thank you. Grateful to you both. Love having you on and look forward to having you back.
- [70:23]
Ben Ferguson
Thanks for having us.
- [70:24]
Yemesi Agbiwale
Thank you.
- [70:25]
Mark Halperin
All right, that's it for today's program. We'll be back on Tuesday. Brand new episode. As always, we want to grow our ranks here. So Please subscribe to NextUp on YouTube or wherever you get your podcast or really do both. And make sure you tell all your friends, family, even your enemies. Especially your enemies. Maybe how they can stay up with everything that's coming next up by watching, listening to this program. Thanks for being here. We'll see you on Tuesday.