Tillis Warns Trump’s NATO Rhetoric Could Fracture Allies (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: We spoke with Republican Senator Tom Tillis from Davos earlier today. This was after President Trump's speech but before this claim of a framework of a Greenland deal. And joining me now from Davos is Republican Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina. Senator, thanks so much for joining us. I want to get to your reaction to the speech in a second. But first, since you were in the room to hear President Trump's speech, what was the reaction in the room to what the president had to say?

[00:00:31] Speaker 2: Well, there was a lot of silence. Of course, I was sitting with the U.S. delegation and the people that traveled with the president. But I saw a lot of quiet hands down during the speech.

[00:00:46] Speaker 1: What was your reaction to the speech?

[00:00:50] Speaker 2: Well, you know, I think it was an opportunity missed. Davos, this is the first time I've ever been to Davos. But I'm concerned with many of our allies, our partners, militarily, economically, starting to think that they have to diversify away and de-risk from the United States of America. That's very concerning to me. Look, I get the president's goal to get the NATO members up to their commitments. And I'm glad he's done it. He's done an extraordinary job, better than any president since the NATO alliance was forged. But I'm beginning to sense that they're looking at worst-case scenarios for the current U.S. posture. And that could lead to a disadvantage to the United States. And, more importantly, the democratic world is at its best when we're working together, we're trading fairly. I think that the president's right to hold some of the countries accountable. But when you cast them all in the same light, I think it's a mistake. I also think that we have to continue to thank the NATO partners that honored their Article 5 commitment, went to Afghanistan with us, and lost lives in defense of our great country. That is a profound responsibility, the Article 5 commitment. And the fact that the only time it's ever been initiated is in defense of the United States, I think the American people need to understand.

[00:02:07] Speaker 1: WILLIAM BRANGHAM, The Washington Post": Yes, I mean, that's something that's interesting. You're right. President Trump successfully pushed a lot of these countries to uphold their commitment to spend a certain amount of their GDP on defense spending. But he also, in recent days, he reposted something that said that NATO was the enemy within. And then you heard the president say a day ago that he doesn't think NATO members would honor the Article 5 commitment, an attack on one is an attack on all, when, as you note, the only time that's been invoked was other countries coming to our defense after 9-11. And, in fact, I believe Denmark, the country at issue here that owns Greenland, I think they had the highest or among the highest per capita loss of life in the war in Afghanistan on our behalf. SEN.

[00:02:56] Speaker 2: JOHN THUNE, R-WI, D.C.: In fact, they had almost exactly the same per capita loss as the United States. That's why I became emotional when I went to the memorial in Copenhagen. I was wondering what the families, the loved ones of those soldiers were thinking when we're showing this sort of disrespect to a nation that literally on a per capita basis gave as many lives in some of the most contested areas of Afghanistan as you can find. This is just not the way to keep the free world together. The only person or persons who are happy with the notion of causing this problem, this tumult, this uncertainty in NATO is Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. They have got to be cheering from the bleachers.

[00:03:38] Speaker 1: President Trump said today that he won't use force to take over Greenland. That appears to be his clearest statement yet, ruling out the use of the U.S. military. Do you think that assuaged any of our European allies? SEN.

[00:03:52] Speaker 2: JOHN THUNE, R-WI, D.C.: Well, first, I think it was a false concession. I mean, with all due respect to the president, I don't believe that the Congress would sit still if he were to take this by force. I think there would probably be sufficient votes to pass a war powers resolution that would be veto-proof. So let's just be honest with our friends and our allies. And let's be respectful to them. Jake, we could have whatever we want in terms of presence in Greenland today without having to spend a dollar. And to my fiscal conservative colleagues out there, how about this, not spending billions of dollars to take territory that we have already been given unfettered access to, and even have an agreement dating back to 1951 that Denmark and Greenland have said that they would expand and make more accommodating? Greenland is a country or is a territory that needs massive investment in infrastructure and massive investment just to support the bases. And, by the way, a couple of years ago, they offered to sell one of their military bases in the most attractive part of Greenland, where the ports do not freeze in the winter, for a dollar. So to my fiscal conservative colleagues, let's project power in the Arctic, let's get a multinational NATO force there, and let's do it on a far more economically sustainable basis than this administration is contemplating. I just don't get it.

[00:05:15] Speaker 1: I want to play something else that President Trump said today on Greenland about what the U.S. did after World War II. Take a listen.

[00:05:23] Speaker 3: After the war, we gave Greenland back to Denmark. How stupid were we to do that? But we did it. But we gave it back. But how ungrateful are they now? How do you interpret that remark?

[00:05:43] Speaker 2: I go back to those souls listed on that memorial wall and wonder what the mothers, the fathers, the brothers, sisters, and spouses are thinking today. They were grateful. That's why they went to Afghanistan. That's why they served along American servicemen and almost certainly saved the lives of American servicemen and gave their own lives. This is not who we are. This is not how you maintain the most important and profound and successful military alliance in the history of this planet. It's disrespectful, it's unproductive, and it's unsustainable.

[00:06:20] Speaker 1: Several European leaders have expressed bewilderment, at the very least, at the president's threats to impose these huge tariffs on any NATO allies who oppose his attempt to take Greenland. I want you to take a listen to what the Belgian prime minister said about how Europe can now go forward.

[00:06:39] Speaker 4: Europe is at a crossroads where it has to decide. Until now, we tried to appease the new president in the White House. We were very lenient, also with the tariffs. But now so many red lines are being crossed that you have the choice between your self-respect. Being a happy vessel is one thing. Being a miserable slave is something else.

[00:07:03] Speaker 1: How worried are you that the U.S. is at risk of permanently damaging relationships with some of our country's oldest and closest allies?

[00:07:13] Speaker 2: Well, I think that we can repair the relationships, and I hope that the president will get the advice that will allow people with stars on their shoulders to know how important the alliance is and know how important it is to our own sophistication, our capabilities. We learn far less. We are far less exquisite in our ability to execute when we're not testing ourselves among our allies. However, it is a little bit rich that we're talking about the home of NATO and the battle, the famous Battle of the Bulge, not meeting their 2 percent requirement. These countries that fall short, have fallen short for years, are a part of the reason why we are here today. And so while I've tried to say that I disagree with the president's posture right now, they own some responsibility for us being here, because they combined for a $2 trillion shortfall in the first 20 years of this century. We would have an industrial base, a capability, and maybe not even an incursion into Ukraine if we had a NATO that had spent that $2 trillion. And that's just the minimum amount. Imagine if they were achieving the goals that they're prepared to do now. So to my Belgian colleagues, pay up. Get the legitimate argument off the table that has infuriated this president, and rightfully so.

[00:08:34] Speaker 1: The president also touted today what he calls the booming U.S. economy. He's saying that incomes are rising, inflation has been defeated. What was your response to that?

[00:08:45] Speaker 2: Well, you know, I think we have a little bit of a disconnect. I don't think it's productive to say that we don't have an affordability crisis. It's coming from many people who have never wanted for anything in their lives. I'll take people back to that trailer park I grew up in, and I'll ask them whether or not they're feeling good today. My guess is we've got a lot of work to do, and the only way you address a problem is recognize that it exists.

[00:09:07] Speaker 1: From a trailer park to the U.S. Senate to Davos, Republican Senator Tom Tillis, thank you so much for your time.