Trump Retreats from Greenland Threats

Summary

---

The Beat with Ari Melber

Episode: "Trump Retreats from Greenland Threats"
Date: January 22, 2026
Host: Ari Melber

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the fallout from President Donald Trump's recent threats to invade Greenland, the resulting international and domestic backlash, and his ultimate retraction of those threats. Host Ari Melber examines the conduct and mental acuity of Trump on the world stage, reactions from global and U.S. leaders, and the dangerous implications for U.S. democracy and foreign policy. The episode also explores Trump’s attempts to exert control over the Federal Reserve, mounting enemies list prosecutions, and chilling new reports of government overreach against dissenters and immigrants.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump’s Threats to Invade Greenland and Global/Market Reactions

[00:42–10:56]

• Trump’s Unprecedented Threats:

  • Trump publicly threatened military action to forcibly take Greenland, drawing parallels with Russian foreign policy.
  • European leaders threatened economic retaliation in response ("economic bazooka").
  • The financial markets reacted with extreme volatility—the largest drop in months—before rebounding.

• Political and International Pressure Forces Retreat:

  • U.S. lawmakers and European allies condemned Trump’s stance.
  • Intense public and international pressure led to Trump climbing down from his threats at the Davos summit.

• Concerns Over Trump's Judgment:

  • Discussion about Trump's pattern of bluster, making sweeping threats, and then later retreating—often only after significant damage is done.
  • Host Ari Melber highlights growing concerns about Trump's "temperament, his acumen and his mental acuity," bringing attention to comments from former White House lawyer Ty Cobb.

Notable Quote:

• Ty Cobb on Trump’s mental decline:

  “He’s always been driven by narcissism, but I think the dementia and the cognitive decline are palpable, as do many experts, including many physicians.” – Ty Cobb [03:47]

---

2. Evidence of Cognitive Issues and International Embarrassment

[03:57–10:56]

• Repeated Confusion of Greenland and Iceland:
  • During public appearances, Trump repeatedly confused Greenland and Iceland, raising questions about his mental fitness.
  • The White House attempted to defend his remarks, claiming “Iceland” was a nickname for Greenland, which Melber called “silly and laughable.”

Notable Moment:

• Melber on the White House defense:

  “But is Trump aides say actually his new freezing cold term for Greenland. It’s cold and he calls it Iceland. … The White House defense is silly and laughable, but this is no joke for the rest of the world.” – Ari Melber [07:38]

• Implications for Allies and Adversaries:

  • Putin’s Kremlin reportedly benefits when the U.S. expends energy on internal and allied disputes.
  • Melber connects Trump’s actions to a pattern of moves that hurt U.S. and European interests to the benefit of Russia.

---

3. Expert Analysis – Ambassador Michael McFaul on International Impact

[10:56–16:03]

• Policy Consequences:
  • Ambassador McFaul celebrates that an invasion did not happen, but emphasizes that Trump only retreated due to checks from other institutions (Congress, markets, European leaders, and media).
  • He notes that Trump’s mixing up of Iceland and Greenland causes real concern among U.S. allies.

Notable Quotes:

• On the power of pushback:

  “You can’t check Trump power. This is a case, this is an instance where it was checked.” – Amb. Michael McFaul [12:26]

• On international reactions:

  “My phone has lit up with my European colleagues… ‘What is going on in your country, Mike? Who is the leader of your country?’” – Amb. Michael McFaul [13:02]

• Long-term Damage:

  • Even with the policy reversed, the damage to U.S. credibility and alliances will linger.
  • McFaul predicts ongoing volatility as Trump continues his erratic conduct, especially without effective internal administration checks.

---

4. Trump's Bid for Control of the Federal Reserve

[18:01–24:33]

• Supreme Court Skeptical of Trump’s Push:
  • Trump’s attempt to oust Fed Governor Lisa Cook and assert more direct presidential control was met with skepticism from both conservative and liberal justices.
  • The Justices worry that upholding Trump’s claim could destroy the Fed's independence, which is crucial for economic stability.

Notable Quotes:

• Justice Kavanaugh:

  “If this were set as a precedent, it seems to me… all the current president's appointees would likely be removed for cause… and then we're really at will removal. So what are we doing here?” [32:00]

• Professor Melissa Murray:

  “When you make the President a king, he acts like one.” [24:35] “[The court] seemed to think that the Fed was a bridge too far today, and they’re right. But I would argue the bridge too far happened weeks ago…” [23:01]

• Why Trump Wants Control:

  • Trump wants to lower interest rates artificially to juice the economy before midterms, potentially benefitting stock prices at the risk of long-term inflation and economic harm.

---

5. Guardrails, Enemies List Prosecutions, and Erosion of Democracy

[33:01–39:10]

• Weaponizing the DOJ:

  • Melber outlines how Trump has installed loyalists to run the DOJ like a political siege machine, pursuing weak and often dismissed cases against perceived enemies (Comey, Letitia James, Lamonica McIver, and others).
  • The process itself is punitive: making individuals bear legal costs and public humiliation even when the cases fail.

• Chilling Effect:

  • Targeted legal action deters dissent, especially as access to legal defense is squeezed—few law firms are willing to represent those opposing Trump’s administration due to fear of reprisal.

Notable Quotes:

• Professor Melissa Murray:

  “The point was to humiliate those people, to bring them low, to force them to expend their resources to get lawyers. The process was the punishment itself.” [36:46] “They are doing everything to sort of narrow what is available to fight them. And that's a very crucial way of silencing dissent.” [38:45]

---

6. New Reporting: ICE Violence Against U.S. Citizen Child and Family in Houston

[42:14–45:21]

• Antonia Hilton’s Report:
  • Coverage of an American minor and his undocumented father who were violently detained by ICE agents using unmarked cars.
  • Arnaldo, the minor, describes being choked while trying to proclaim his U.S. citizenship.
  • Further abuses include racist language by agents and the mysterious disappearance of Arnaldo’s seized phone, later found in a pawn kiosk.

Notable Quotes:

• Arnaldo (minor):

  “He told me, ‘You’re done, you’re done.’ I was like, I’m underage. I’m a US citizen. Underage. We’re from the United States. And he choked me more so I guess I couldn’t speak.” [43:14] “Like they were calling us criminals that we didn’t deserve to live in the US being, er, border hopper, illegal, like son of an alien. All that stuff. A dumbass, all that stuff.” [43:33]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

| Time | Speaker | Quote/Moment | |------------|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 03:47 | Ty Cobb | “He’s always been driven by narcissism, but I think the dementia and the cognitive decline are palpable.”| | 07:38 | Ari Melber | “The White House defense is silly and laughable, but this is no joke for the rest of the world.” | | 12:26 | Amb. Michael McFaul | “You can’t check Trump power. This is a case, this is an instance where it was checked.” | | 23:01 | Prof. Melissa Murray | “…the Fed was a bridge too far today, and they’re right. But I would argue the bridge too far happened weeks ago…”| | 24:35 | Prof. Melissa Murray | “When you make the President a king, he acts like one.” | | 32:00 | Justice Kavanaugh (quoted) | “…what goes around comes around… and then we're really at will removal. So what are we doing here?” | | 36:46 | Prof. Melissa Murray | “The point was to humiliate those people… The process was the punishment itself.” | | 43:14 | Arnaldo (minor, ICE victim) | “I was like, I’m underage. I’m a US citizen… And he choked me more so I guess I couldn’t speak.” |

---

Key Segment Timestamps

• [00:42] – Ari Melber opens with Trump’s Greenland threats and international chaos.
• [03:47] – Ty Cobb on Trump’s cognitive decline.
• [10:56] – Ambassador Michael McFaul on global reactions and the importance of checks on presidential power.
• [18:01] – Supreme Court arguments on Trump’s bid to control the Fed.
• [21:14] – Prof. Melissa Murray on the dangers of executive overreach.
• [27:49] – Prof. Justin Wolfers on history and risks of politicizing the Fed.
• [33:01] – Melber’s analysis of DOJ weaponization and guardrail breakdowns.
• [42:14] – Antonia Hilton’s ICE violence report; first-person account from the victim.

---

Conclusion

The episode captures a pivotal, volatile moment in American politics: a sitting president making and retracting threats of war against allies, risking U.S. standing on the world stage, and facing scrutiny over his judgment and capacity to govern. Despite repeated attempts to expand presidential power—over economic levers like the Fed and the justice system—the episode shows that institutional pushback, public pressure, and investigative journalism can restrain at least some of the most extreme impulses. However, deep damage to alliances, the rule of law, and civil society continues, as seen in the chilling impact on dissent and shocking accounts of abuse by federal agents.

---

For further detail and extended reporting, visit msnow’s YouTube channel or search for “Cities Under Siege.”

Transcript

[A]

Sling is the live TV service that.

[B]

Puts you in charge.

[A]

Choose your plan. Orange for sports and entertainment favorites.

[C]

Blue for news and reality.

[A]

Or select for the essentials.

[B]

Only pay for the stuff you actually watch and pause your subscription anytime. Because paying for TV or not watching, that's just rude.

[A]

No long term contracts, no nonsense. Pick your plan. Add what you want. Sling lets you do that. Visit sling.com to learn more.

[D]

Try angel stuff for your tushy. It's made by Angels. Soft and strong. Budget friendly. The choice is simple. Pick up a pack today. Angel soft. Soft and strong. Simple.

[A]

Welcome to the Beat. I'm Ari Melber. Tonight we're reporting on the international chaos that defines Trump's January. The president repeatedly threatening a once unthinkable step a attacking our European allies or invading Greenland, all so that the US Might take that country by force. Something you may recall from recent Putin foreign policy. Now, after major pushback, which includes U.S. lawmakers condemning Trump's war talk, European leaders fighting fire with fire, they've talked about an economic bazooka to go back and hurt the US For Trump's sort of economic war of choice. And then the mounting tremors in the financial markets this week, the biggest stock drop in months, which then rebounded. Today, with all this going down, Trump is backing off. He says he's taking military action off the table as he arrived and then spoke and at times ranted at foreign leaders and bankers at the Davos summit in Switzerland. All of this leading to backtracking that international outlets call a climb down from his threats. So it's a lot. And this reflects a common Trump dynamic. The bluster, the sweeping claims, the threats to use basically unilateral, unreviewable powers that any president has with few of use like this. And that obviously requires people and countries to react only after much effort, which might have been spent on other things and market jitters. And the rest I just mentioned, only after all that to try to just get Trump to stop doing the thing that so many people think is damaging. In this case, getting him to retract trim or outright surrender. This threat of a war with Europe that most Americans are like, are you serious now on tariffs, they call this whole, this whole dance Taco Trump always chickens out. The Greenland fight comes with fresh concerns about not only Trump's policies, right, which is a fancy word for starting a war, and does anyone in this country want him to start that war or threaten to start that war? And how long would Americans really sit by and support an invasion or war with allied European countries. That's the policy. But I can tell you tonight we are seeing fresh concerns about Trump's temperament, his acumen and his mental acuity. And I am reporting this for you, so I will report on, on what is driving these concerns, how Trump is acting, as well as who we're hearing this from. Sometimes it's blind quotes, people who don't want to be quoted because they don't want the retaliation this administration so often dishes out internationally. There are concerns about three more years of this and how to manage it. And there are people who've seen Trump up close and in private his first term. White House lawyer Ty Cobb making a bunch of headlines today for news that he shared last night. So that sort of broke on the beat. Mr. Cobb sharing with us his view of what he sees as his former boss, Donald Trump's cognitive decline. I think there's been a significant decline.

[B]

He's always been driven by narcissism, but I think the dementia and the cognitive.

[A]

Decline are palpable, as do many experts, including many physicians.

[B]

I don't think there's anybody outside of the United States who believes that Trump.

[A]

Is sane outside the United States is the audience Trump engaged with today, Mr. Cobb saying that last night, as we all knew, the president was headed for a high stakes summit amidst all of this Greenland talk. And Trump had an odd outing today, even for him. He clearly confused Greenland and Iceland repeatedly. That drew notice and concern from independent observers about his acuity, as well as more broadly, the ongoing, apparently impulsive, volatile and disinhibited behavior. Now, let's be clear. This doesn't happen in a vacuum, no matter what people think of Donald Trump, his policies, or these recent threats for war. We have a particular political system in America, and for many reasons, it favors incumbents and seniority. Officials in both parties in this country have been seen living up all the way to their demise and dying in office. That's true from the courts to the Congress. Trump is the third president in our modern era to face questions of age and fitness based on the actual age of the person, how they seemed in public, not a medical diagnosis and any visible conduct. He is not immune or separate or distinct from how other presidents in both parties have faced that. And this is a democracy where public scrutiny comes with the job. Foreign leaders, US Counterparts, they're all assessing Trump as he goes over time. Like the questions faced by the presidents you see on your screen, this is an off limits by precedent. And then separately, when it comes to how credible these concerns are and whether this is an inbounds thing that you ask about a sitting president. Well, Trump and his team, of course, pressed exactly these types of questions on Joe Biden in 2024. Indeed, ultimately, for a host of reasons related to conduct, age and political viability, he was the latest candidate to ever abandon presidential race as an incumbent. Trump's polling, though, is also slumping lower than most second term presidents. There's a growing protest movement at home. He's got a midterm panic, and I actually have a report on that later tonight about how he's trying to game that and why it may not work. But all of that brings me to what I'm showing you now. Trump's volatile conduct lashing out on the world stage, showing that apparent confusion. This is a core part of these wider problems that he's facing in a rocky term, to say the least, that is heading towards midterms and his lame duck era. We have pretty much a concept of a deal, a deal of ownership, a deal. Well, it's a little bit complex, but we'll explain it down the line. People thought I would use force. I don't have to use force. I don't want to use force. I won't use force. Without us right now, you'd all be speaking German and a little Japanese, perhaps. They're not there for us on Iceland, that I can tell you. Emmanuel Macron, I watched him yesterday with those beautiful sunglasses. Canada lives because of the United States. I mean, our stock market took the first dip yesterday because of Iceland. Very smart man, said he's our daddy. So Iceland's already cost us a lot of money. Correction, the markets did not dip because of Iceland. Another correction, US Allies did not abandon the US on any policy related to Iceland. And another correction, Iceland has not cost the US Money. Now, the White House could say Trump misspoke in context. He was talking about this ongoing Greenland policy, and that's clearly what he meant. They could say he's impacted, like many people even younger than him, by a grueling travel schedule, jet lag and the like. But instead, I can report for you tonight. The White House is showing they clearly fear any crack or acknowledgement of a rational discussion of what everyone just heard. Instead, they're claiming Trump was making up a new nickname for Greenland on the spot and that confusingly, his new nickname happens to overlap with the Nordic country of Iceland. But is Trump aides say actually his new freezing cold term for Greenland. It's cold and he calls it Iceland. What's next? Is the White House going To claim Trump was really just maybe referring to Iceman, the forthcoming Drake album. These are two men who are facing criticism. They've lost a step and don't have the standing they once did. But that would be silly. Just as it is silly to claim that he was talking about an Iceland and not clearly confusing the name of a country that he yesterday was threatening to invade and today, three times over, can't name the country. The White House defense is silly and laughable, but this is no joke for the rest of the world. Not when Putin's Kremlin is cheering on an American president using time, energy and potentially military power to undercut American interests and attack our European allies and do so in a way that helps Russia hurts the US And Europe and is basically inexplicable, which is why people are reaching for other types of analysis. Like, is there some other reason to undercut America? Is there corruption? Is there a slipping of the overall mental acuity? As his own former aides have questioned, the Russia problem is being identified right there by the conservative Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch's paper, a reminder that if you actually look at different sources where people who care about things, be it American safety and national security or the public markets or the bond market or international reality as we know it, it's not such a clean picture of, oh, everyone defends Trump on everything because when certain things are this indefensible, you actually find people don't defend them. And Trump backs down tonight, even as he can't quite name which country he is backing down from invading. I want to bring in Ambassador McFaul. He was the Obama ambassador to Russia in that administration. He said Stanford, he's the author of Autocrats vs. Democrats. Ambassador, it could be laughable if the stakes weren't high your view of the policy problem here. And does it matter if a sitting president, in this case Donald Trump, seems to be that confused about which country he might invade and how to explain himself?

[C]

Well, Ari, first I want to start with the good news that you already alluded to. You and I are not talking about the probabilistic how many hours or days it's going to take for us to invade Greenland. That's good news. We're not talking about wasting billions and billions of US Taxpayer dollars to purchase Greenland. That's good news. And third, to a point, you just alluded to as well. This happened not because of what Trump told us a week ago, that the only check on his power is his own moral conscious. He said that recently in an interview this Happened because there were constraints on his power. The Europeans pushed back the bond markets pushed back Congress. At least some of them said things. And the media, including your network, thank you for devoting so much time to this issue. Because the American people then got involved and we saw the polling numbers. Overwhelmingly people thought this was a bad idea.

[A]

And I'll let you finish. But a lot of what we reported was how many different experts across the spectrum in the world allied with US national security over the last many decades thought it was a bad idea. I mean, we didn't do some bulletin saying stop. But we reported on the reality that this wasn't a 6040 issue. It seemed like a 95.5 issue unless you were maybe in the US but working. You know, I'm sure people at the Russian embassy and others sympathetic to that domain and they have a right to speak. But other than them, we didn't find a lot of people thinking this was good for US Security.

[C]

Correct. And you had me on a lot. I said it's the worst idea in American history in terms of foreign policy and that matters. And I just say that cuz people are too fatalistic sometimes they think nothing matters. You can't check Trump power. This is a case, this is an instance where it was checked. Now, to your point about, you know, mixing of Iceland and Greenland, I would just say two things. I'm not a doctor, so I'm not gonna comment on things I'm not expert on. But does it have a reaction in the world? Most certainly it does. My phone has lit up with my European colleagues.

[A]

What is going on, Ambassador?

[C]

Well, we've called this idea a crazy idea. Well, maybe it's because the author of it is not. I'm paraphrasing what my European friends are saying, but they're like, what is going on in your country, Mike? Who is the leader of your country? And politely they say, well, it's Trump and it's not all of America. But there's an undertone also that says, well, maybe you guys, this is what you do. You elect crazy people like this because your country has becoming crazy. Now I wanna tell you, I push back on that very hard. But it is an emotion out there that I think Americans need to understand. We are in a good place today compared to 24 hours ago. But the machinations about it threatening to invade a democracy, democracies don't go to war with each. You know, I teach that here at Stanford. And yet for the first time it was on the table, that does damage to our relationships. That I think will take a long time to repair.

[A]

Here's one. Republican Thom Tillis, referring to what you said and how they would actually have, he says Republican supermajorities to stop it if it went there. I'm not going to go to impeachment because I would go to the process of implementing, well, let's say it was a kinetic action or some sort of increase in military presence, that I'd immediately go for a war powers resolution. I think that we could easily get veto proof majorities. Republicans had veto proof majorities on Epstein. This is a matter of international consequence. Whether we would allow Trump to send American soldiers to invade Europe, end NATO, help Putin and risk, risk bigger things. So when you say pressure works, where does that head for Trump?

[C]

Well, I hope as an American, not as a Democrat or Republican, but as American who thinks it is in our long term national interest to have allies, because the real threats are China and Russia. And tragically, everybody in Davos is talking about Greenland, not Ukraine. That is not in our long term interest. I would hope that we won't have another play of this. But because of the erratic nature of the president in his second term, I mean, you rightly said we're only a little bit into the second year, I fear that we're gonna have more plays of this. And then he gets home and he's, you know, when he's around leaders, it's a very familiar pattern. Right. He then backs away. He does that. We've seen this, we saw it with Xi Jinping. But then he gets home and then he's around sycophants. He doesn't really have a National Security Council process in place. It doesn't work that way in the Trump era. And then he's up late at night and he decides to get on social media and, you know, just do things very emotionally and then you're back to these kinds of crises again. So I hope that this is the end of it, but I fear we're going to see more of these dramas over the next three years.

[A]

Understood. Ambassador McFaul, thank you. Tonight we have Trump threatening even more enemies list prosecutions. The economic pain Republicans are worried about, that could drive midterm losses or even a blue wave route. I have something very special on that. But next we got Professor Murray on Donald Trump fighting what has been a losing battle at the Supreme Court. I'll explain in 90 seconds.

[D]

Try angel stuff for your tushy. It's made by angels, soft and strong, budget friendly. The choice is simple, a role that feels like paradise and always at a heavenly prize. Pick up a pack today. Angel Soft and strong, simple.

[B]

CIDP can make your daily routine feel not so routine.

[A]

The good news?

[B]

With a self injection for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, you have the option to treat at home. Discover [e-mail] and talk to your doctor. That's cidpselfinjection.com brought to you by Argenics.

[D]

Here's a New Year's tip if you want to start the year off right, get to the Container Store. They can help you organize any space in your home and pretty much your life. From organizers for your fridge and pantry that make eating healthier a real possibility to shoe storage that keeps you from being late to work. They've got solutions. They can also design a custom closet, pantry, office, even a garage that makes everyday life easier and organized. This year, find real solutions for all your resolutions at the Container Store.

[A]

Today, the Supreme Court seems skeptical about Trump's bid to try to take control of the independent Fed. That's something no president has ever done. Remember, this has been a losing battle for Trump because he failed in a plot to immediately oust a governor there, Lisa Cook. She's staying on the job as the case is reviewed, so status quo is Trump losing. She even attended today along with the other target at the Fed, Jerome Powell. They're part of these enemies list probes that are increasing as you see on your screen now when you look at the questions by the judges, a majority did sound skeptical at times. Here are two Republican appointees and I'll explain what you're about to hear. Alito notes the Trump attack on Cook was so thin they don't even have a lot of evidence of it in this record. And this is for things she did allegedly before Trump put her in the Fed recently. She's under this Trump administration, so it might also just be too old. And then Kavanaugh, when you hear his question, he's sort of skeptically describing Trump's dream power here as far fetched that a president would have no review or process or remedy and thus could fire anyone on a board that's supposed to be independent from White House control.

[B]

You began by laying out what you claim to be the factual basis for the for cause removal, but no court.

[A]

Has ever explored those facts.

[C]

Are the mortgage applications even in the.

[A]

Record in this case, there's no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available, very low bar for cause that the president alone determines. I mean, that would weaken if not Shatter the independence of the Federal Reserve that we just discussed. Shatter independence bad. That's if you just shrink down the way judges ask questions. And those are Republican appointees. Justice Sotomayor also pointed out that the way Trump is positioning this would, if they won this case, it would just shred a century of precedent.

[D]

112 years.

[A]

And it's unprecedented that any Federal Reserve officer has ever been removed.

[B]

So the unprecedented nature of this case.

[A]

Is a part of what the President.

[B]

Did, not what Ms. Cook did.

[A]

That's a fact. This one might be different than other places where Trump has seized powers, partly because the economy and its independence can feel something like a Jenga board. And it's not clear the justices trust Donald Trump to pull 1, 2, 3, or all the Fed's board members out with whatever his agenda is. And that's before we keep track of whether he knows the difference between the Federal Reserve and, and Goldman Sachs, between Greenland and Iceland, and the various things you have to keep track of in a job like this. NYU law professor Melissa Murray is here, an Ms. Now legal analyst. Your view of this argument today.

[D]

So, Ari, I have to say I thought this was pretty weak sauce from the conservative justices on the court because they have given this president a pretty wide berth, allowing him to remove a lot of other members of independent agencies. It was a little bit like that point in Frankenstein, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, when Victor Frankenstein has created this monster, realize is that maybe the monster is going to kill him and everyone he loves. That's kind of what I saw from the conservative justices. They've set this in motion. They've given this president unfettered authority. He has removed a commissioner of the ftc. He's removed a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and on and on and on, and they've allowed him to do it. But suddenly the Fed is different because the Fed and the independence of a Fed is absolutely integral to the stability of economic markets, as we've seen over the course of the last couple of weeks. And so it seemed like this court trying to put the genie back in the bottle, but it's out.

[A]

Well, you're calling BS on how they let Trump hijack other powers because they may not think they're important, but this goes to the economic system. They are elites. They might not like the idea of that hitting their pocketbooks. I mean, it sounds like if I generally or the nation more generally, but the other things hit the nation more generally. I mean, what Elon Musk was doing in cutting people and what Trump was supporting Affects working people and poor people sometimes quicker than this. I wonder whether, and I, you know, I hate to do this, I wonder whether you're bringing a kind of Foucault legal realist analysis here and saying that our court system itself is, is corrupted by power structures.

[D]

So I don't know that I would go that far. I will say.

[A]

No, you wouldn't.

[D]

I will say that this court seemed to think that the Fed was a bridge too far today, and they're right. But I would argue the bridge too far happened weeks ago when they allowed this president.

[A]

So that, I think, is these other people, however we put it. That's a very fair observation and analysis you provide us with. Having said that, it sounds like you do think they found the line and Trump could lose off today's argument.

[D]

I think he's very definitely losing, in part because the arguments he were so excessive. So Solicitor General John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the administration, said one that Lisa Cook isn't even entitled to an opportunity to defend herself against these charges of mortgage fraud.

[A]

Bananas.

[D]

Yeah, bananas.

[A]

But then you can say anything.

[D]

I mean, that's anything.

[A]

That's McCarthyism meets the Fed.

[D]

He also argued that when the President decides that he has cause to remove someone from the Fed, that decision is essentially unreviewable by any court, which means the President basically gets to do whatever he wants, remove anyone, make up any cause, and there's no kind of recourse, course or check on that. And then finally, he argued that the courts could not reinstate someone like Lisa Cook through a preliminary injunction, which is what happened here. Or alternatively, at the end of a litigation requiring the President through a mandamus or some other means of compelling an actor to do something to reinstate her. And if that's the case, if the courts has rule, have ruled that there's no way to actually put their ruling into action, there's no point to it. So he made some very excessive arguments on behalf of this President. And I think this court rightly was not picking up what he was putting down.

[A]

Yeah, well, these were king like claims.

[D]

And Sauer's weird that when you make the President a king, he acts like one.

[A]

Acts like one. And Sauer, of course, got this job by, by making those maximalist arguments. But again, there's something about messing with the money that this court is more concerned about. We're asking you to stick around. So Melissa comes back. Trump is vowing more enemies list prosecutions. The extreme moves on the Fed, though, are actually about the midterm Panic. And we'll explain with a little bit of Carville wisdom next. President Trump lost his first round to oust someone from the Fed. We were reporting on that. And he's still on defense over it today before the Supreme Court. That has some asking why appeal this apparent long shot to control the Fed? Professor Murray, just telling us it's likely to lose. Well, the goal turns on power elections. Trump wants to juice the economy with these artificial interest rates, which could boost stock prices in the short term but create larger problems in the long run, which is why politicians aren't allowed to control the Fed. Indeed, the soaring inflation that upended our lives in 2024 is a big risk if you let a politician just juice the dial going into a given election. And remember, just about everyone knows this dynamic and the huge economic impact on elections. It's the economy, stupid. Mark is Wonderful, ain't it, Mr. Bush?

[B]

Maybe you'll be unemployed.

[A]

We project that Bill Clinton is going to be the next president of the United States. Obama blames Washington for the country's economic woes and is trying to link John McCain to President Bush's policies. I had the honor of calling Senator Barack Obama to congratulate him. The greatest economic year in the history of our country. You had three of them with me and then we got hit with the the plague.

[B]

Joe Biden is on track to be the next president.

[A]

Trump remembers losing that Covid crash. The trend goes back further. Here are just some key highlight numbers from our special report. The president's party loses badly when the market crashes. Republicans actually gained a whopping 67 seats in the midterms after a post war downturn. Democrats surged by over 60 seats in the recession of 58 and won 49 seats in 74amid inflation that was so bad they called it stagflation when high prices are worsened by job losses and negative growth. And that's just midterms, which is what Trump is bracing for in 10 months. Economic backlashes are even worse in presidential years. A lot more people vote and here you've got some examples. Reagan won and the GOP gained 46 seats off that economic malaise I mentioned. After a campaign where Reagan rattled off inflation data and his knowledge of the Federal Reserve, the numbers are clear. And that's why Donald Trump might want to break everything to take control of the economy. We're joined by Justin Wolfers, public policy and economics professor at U of M. Welcome back.

[B]

Good to see Ari.

[A]

Most people don't spend all day thinking about interest rates. And like any economic Analysis. There are many factors, but this is an iron law of politics. And yet no other president has been lawless enough, brazen enough, or been surrounded by so many. Yes. People who didn't stop an effort to hijack the Fed. Walk us through how that works going into election.

[B]

Well, actually, an historical note. Nixon tried this. And so what you do is you call your guy at the Fed and you say, are you a good party man? Do you want to do me a political favor rather than serve the best interests of the American people?

[A]

He tried to work it, but he didn't try to investigate members of the Fed, although he did his other investigations. But, yes, go ahead.

[B]

When you're talking about Nixon, you're hardly talking about highlights of American economic policy, now, are you? So I think we agree. You get your guy to turn the dial and turn the juice on. Now, the thing is, what that'll do is it'll cause a little bit of a sugar high. The unemployment rate will fall, the economy will start to boom. People feel good about things. That's often enough to get an incumbent reelected. Here's the thing. The day after, there's a hangover. It takes a while for that sort of boom to create inflation. That's the whole calculation. You overheat the economy and you hope you get the benefit today, and you hope the costs come the day after the election. And we've seen this happen in many other European countries. That's one of the reasons why we try and insulate the Fed. We try and keep it apart because we understand politicians aren't to be trusted with this tool.

[A]

Yeah. And how much does economics track the reality of that? Because, you know, in America, we don't have the politicians who are running for office also in control of counting the ballots, because that would be bananas. So states have secretaries of state. The federal elections are done in a decentralized process. And everyone was reminded of that when you say, oh, Trump has the nuclear codes. He's the most powerful person in the American government. Why couldn't he take control of the 2020 laws? He tried as an incumbent. It didn't work. And that's decentralization in the markets. For over 100 years, it's been the federal independence. How do the markets view these efforts? And does it get negative if they think that whole era could end?

[B]

Right. So what we've talked about so far is the usual story. The usual story is you don't want to let too much temptation sit in the way of a politician. They'll just jump for it like A toddler looking for a toy. But with this politician, we have a different problem, a deeper problem. Sometimes you get a politician who comes along who is blessed with enormous faith in themselves, who eschews expert opinion, who comes up with their own tin pot theories and decides that what they want to do is implement those despite the best advice of those around them. Let me give you an example. In Turkey, Erdogan believes deeply in the value of low interest rates. No one knows why. It doesn't make any sense. He thinks that low interest rates cure inflation. He kept trying that cure until he got inflation up to 80%. Why do I talk about Erdogan? Turns out I know another populist strongman who believes deeply in himself and seems to have a deep and abiding attachment and believe that low interest rates cure all ills. So I look at that Turkey playbook with real concern.

[A]

Concern for what it would do. Why you talk about Erdogan. I'm sure your family asks you that all the time. Only you can answer.

[B]

They do that just. Well, it's because I'm a Foucault realist.

[A]

Look at you, Kavanaugh. Trump appointee said it in plain English. I'm gonna play this quickly. Where if we let him do it, everyone's gonna do it and we're all gonna pay for it. Take a look. If this were set as a precedent, it seems to me just thinking big picture, what goes around comes around. All the current president's appointees would likely be removed for cause on January 20, 2029, if there's a Democratic president or January 20, 2033, and then we're really at will removal. So what are we doing here? That's the closest you'll get. Kavanaugh to sound like in Zoolander when Mugatu says, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills is what are we doing here? Politicians come and go. This is gonna hurt everyone in the short time you have left. Is that how Wall street views it? Or do some people like Trump's idea?

[B]

Look, it's not a question of Wall street liking it. Wall street hates it. Wall street would rather have stability and rather have people who are willing to serve the best interests of the economy. The question here is one of, on the one side, you might like Democratic accountability, that the president should always get to pick his or her guys. On the other side, do we really want every aspect of our lives to be governed by partisanship? I like the fact that mostly with a lot of economic policy, we try to put it above that. Partisan fray. And I think it's tended to yield better outcomes for us.

[A]

Yeah. Got it. Justin Wolflage. Thank you. Let me tell folks something a little different. Just last night we were talking about what we've learned in this first year of the Trump term. Next, I have a special role report on how to step up and face what we're dealing with. When we come back, Trump's enemies list is expanding. He's using the DOJ to probe, intimidate, subpoena, indict, and when he can try to imprison what you're seeing on your screen is a problem. And yet none of these cases have even hit trial, let alone a conviction. And yet Donald Trump sees all this as progress. He admits he is hunting. It's a war that should have never started, and it wouldn't have started if the 2020 US presidential election weren't rigged. It was a rigged election. Everybody now knows that. They found out. People will soon be prosecuted for what they did. Fact check, false. It was not a rigged election, just as it was not Iceland that Donald Trump was threatening to invade. There are many types of misstatements in his presentation. We just have lived through one year of this second term and you can actually count up, as we've done in a new special report, how the guardrails in America are doing. Take a look. Officials must resist orders that break the law. And the epicenter for that is doj, which did patrol Trump in his first term, even appointing special counsel Mueller because Trump's team could not investigate itself. Now the DOJ is failing that independence this term. Some officials have resisted orders to lie in court or abuse power against Trump's enemies, even resigning. But the line hasn't held. Trump's former personal lawyers, Bondi and Blanche, run the DOJ like Trump's political machine, probing rivals in cases so weak, several dropped long before trial. New plots against the Fed chair this month, new probes of Minnesota Democrats added to this chart breaking today. And even one or two questionable cases of illegal selective prosecution. That's bad. But right now it's 14 such cases. 14 is one way to count it. I'm back with Melissa Murray. We've got this report because we've actually looked across every major guardrail and the headline is the guardrails involving the American public. Citizen juries. Protests are working better than inside the doj, where Donald Trump, each time he admits this agenda. And again, here we've got the numbers. The 14 is the many revenge prosecutions. Military. We got yellow, which means it's mixed bag six deployments, lawsuits over 300. The court doors are open on the American people's side. Everything in green is working. When you look at how what once would have been an investigation, if not an impeachment over Watergate style probes is now common at doj, it's not surprising.

[D]

He installed two of his personal lawyers at the head of doj. He was very clear from the beginning one of the first things that they did in DOJ is establish an office for weaponization of the doj. So this is all part of the plan, but you have to really think about what is the whole picture and what is this meant to do. So take for example, the prosecutions of James Comey and Letitia James. They failed. They were dismissed.

[A]

The.

[D]

But they were always going to fail. They had an insurance lawyer as the lead prosecutor on this. But the point was to humiliate those people, to bring them low, to force them to expend their resources to get lawyers. The process was the punishment itself. Take for example, Lamonica McIver. She's a member of Congress. She's doing oversight now. She's indicted for what happened on that day in Newark. She can't get pro bono legal resources. She has to pay for her legal defense herself. It's meant to silence her.

[A]

Right. The people that are supposed to be doing the oversight are in Minnesota, where there's real questions about whether federal officials are part of illegal use of force. It's instead Roy Cohn's rule, attack, attack, attack. Halligan, who you mentioned, I just want to show a judge really. Oh, today slapping them down and saying the charade of Halligan. This was Trump's temp, who doesn't have the job anymore, quote, masquerading as the U.S. attorney in direct defiance of Biden. Court orders must come to an end. Do you view that as it takes a while, but things are working or outrageous that they get away with this for this long.

[D]

So it's great that a judge rebuked Lindsey Halligan for being improperly in the position that she has occupied for some time now. But to say that the system is working is to miss the way that this administration has put all of the pieces on the board. They are making people get lawyers at a time where they have made it almost impossible for law firms to step up to challenges administration for fear of being targeted with one of those executive orders. So they have made people need lawyers at a time when lawyers are not going to be willing to step up. And we'll put limited legal resources.

[A]

We'll put the chart back up because we counted that and what we found is while the universities have fought back more than people may realize. Sorry. We'll put the. We'll go to the wall in a moment and you'll. We have in the wall majority of universities, over 50% fighting minority of law firms. That's in yellow there. That's the 38%. To your point. Squeezing. Yeah. The right to counsel.

[D]

Squeezing the right to counsel for these people and for the causes like immigrants rights. People who are challenging this administration in court. They are doing everything to sort of narrow what is available to fight them. And that's a very crucial way of silencing dissent. And then of course, prosecuting people is by itself a means of silencing dissent. It deters other people from speaking out for fear that they too are going to catch some of the smoke from the administration.

[A]

Yeah, it's all very important. And as you say, it can't be enough to use traditional tools for this aberrant, not normal time and say, oh, well, this is how we do it. And usually it slows it down. No, they're, they're jamming the whole system. And the president admits it. He admits what is basically an impeachable offense. Professor Murray, people say what makes a goat? You've heard that question?

[D]

I haven't actually.

[A]

What makes the greatest of all time? What makes honor? Jordan? It's part of the discourse. People talk about it.

[D]

Stop talking sports to me.

[A]

Well, we were on our way. You're on our way. The lawyer that you are, you were a little bit, a little bit parsimonious. But I was going to say what makes a goat. And, and sometimes it is the type of legal analyst who can jump from top story to top story. As we've used you throughout the show today. Thank you.

[D]

I appreciate that. Thank you for the explanation and the compliment.

[A]

Well, not everyone knows what goat stands for, so I do know that you do. But does every. In fact, this is what I'll say. Again, thanks to Melissa. I'll say at home, you can hit us up at Ari Melberonsocial and let us know. Did you know about goat and do you agree with. It's an opinion, I suppose I shared my opinion that Melissa is goaded today. That's on a lighter note. On a serious note, I invite you to stay with us. Ms. Now has important reporting that we want you to see. We talk about going out there and telling these stories, isis, violent use of force, things they don't want you to see. That they want to distract from an Ms. Now exclusive. We're going to show you what is important here. Next.

[B]

CIDP can make your daily routine feel not so routine.

[A]

The good news?

[B]

With a self injection for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, you have the option to treat at home. Discover more at CIDP self injection and talk to your doctor. That's cidpselfinjection.com brought to you by Argenics.

[D]

Try angel stuff for your tushy. It's made by Angels Soft and Strong. Budget friendly. The choice is simple.

[A]

A role that feels like.

[D]

Like paradise and always at a heavenly prize. Angel Soft. Angel Soft. Soft and Strong.

[A]

So it's simple.

[D]

Pick up a pack today. Angel Soft, Soft and Strong.

[A]

Simple.

[D]

Shop with Rakuten and you'll get it. What's it? It's the real deal. Cash back and savings on almost everything you buy. Join Rakuten and start getting cash back at cvs, Instacart, YSL Beauty and other stores you love. You can even stack sales on top of cash back. Just start shopping with Rakuten to save money and get that cash back feeling. Join for [e-mail] or get the free Rakuten app. That's R A K u t e n rakuten.com.

[A]

Msnow's Antonia Hilton is reporting on a family's encounter with ICE that turned violent in Houston. They were fleeing a traffic stop where masked men in unmarked cars approached them, sowing confusion about what they were up against. But this led to hospitalization of an American citizen who was a minor and the detention of his undocumented father. We didn't know what was happening, but they were still chasing us. And that's when they started hitting our car, trying to flip us. Arnaldo, who's the son, recounts the interaction.

[D]

When was the first time that you tried to tell them I'm a citizen?

[A]

When I was on the ground and I was in a headlock and he told me, you're done, you're done. I was like, I'm underage. I'm a US citizen. Underage. We're from the United States. And he choked me more so I guess I couldn't speak.

[D]

What kinds of things did you hear them say to you and your father?

[A]

Bunch of racist stuff. Like they were calling us criminals that we didn't deserve to live in the us being, er, border hopper, illegal, like son of an alien. All that stuff. A dumbass, all that stuff. That's the government treatment of an American child. The footage is obtained by Ms. Now, some of it from Arnaldo's phone he's shown here, seized by an agent four days later, recovered. We don't know how the phone was treated, whether it was officially held in chain of custody or not. We do know that it ended up in a pawn kiosk, which raised raises questions about everything from the mistreatment of these human beings to whether federal agents mishandled or even allowed the stealing and profiteering off a phone. Now, Antonio's full report has much more detail. We've tried to just spotlight a couple points here. This is part of msnow's ongoing original reporting. These are longer pieces. I encourage you, if you're interested in this kind of journalism, to go now. You can go to YouTube.comms.now and it will be one of the top videos or search cities under Siege. Ms. NOW online. We'll be right back. Big news tomorrow, the DOJ prosecutor who indicted Trump, Jack Smith, gives his first ever public testimony to Congress. We're going to cover that on Ms. All day. We will have special legal coverage on the Beat. So I invite you to meet up here at 6pm Eastern if you don't already have your TV on and keep it on because Rachel will be on Ms. Tomorrow night. That's not every night. But tomorrow. Rachel leads special coverage with everyone you see here and more. That starts at 8pm Eastern. We'll see you tomorrow.

[D]

Try Angel Soft for your tushy. It's made by Angels Soft and strong. Budget friendly. The choice is simple. Pick up a pack today. Angel Soft. Soft and strong.

[A]

Simple.