Trump’s Greenland Threats Spark NATO Rift, GOP Split (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: You've called President Trump an idiot for his push to take control of Greenland, and you've said that Congress can't take any chances of allowing that to happen. You've met with the foreign ministers of both Denmark and Greenland this past week. How are they reacting to President Trump's threats?

[00:00:16] Speaker 2: Look, they're shocked, and they're trying to find reason within what's happening here. And I try to explain to them there is no reasoning, right? The president just wants to have a legacy piece where he gets to claim that he brought in this big chunk of land that he sees on the map, even though it's a distorted map, and he's willing to ruin our whole foreign policy, all of our alliances, our economy, just so he could get what he wants. This man is doing everything for himself and nothing for us. Even the idea of buying it, we're going to spend billions and billions of dollars, potentially half a trillion dollars, which is never going to happen. But right now we can't even afford health insurance for U.S. citizens, and we're talking about buying land. And let me just say one more time, Denmark, the king of Denmark and Greenland has said, we will give you everything you want, short of giving you possession of our land. You want more bases? You get more bases. You want to put more people? You get it. The idea that we're going to waste money for everything we want is the dumbest decision we can make. The only way we can make a decision this dumb is someone that would actually let a casino go under. And guess who's president right now?

[00:01:17] Speaker 3: This threat that he put out yesterday, just to remind viewers, it may not have been Checking Truth Social yesterday, but a very serious threat, 10 percent tariffs on these European countries starting February 1st, and then an additional 25 percent in June 1st. Elena, you cover the White House. Where's this heading? That's the question so many people have. He is not backing down despite we're seeing so much pushback in Congress, around the world, in America's closest allies. Where is he going with this?

[00:01:55] Speaker 4: Look, I'll say a lot of this is coming, obviously, this was ratcheted up rhetoric in the days after the Venezuela operation. The president is feeling very, very emboldened after the success of that, of the capture of Nicolas Maduro and what they were able to do there. And that's part of what's happening behind the scenes. I'd remind you, this is something Trump has wanted for several years. He tried and failed during his first term to try and see what he could do about getting a portion of Greenland, annexing Greenland, not to this extent, but wanted to do this and was essentially told he couldn't by the people around him then. Now, he is very much emboldened to trying to see what he can do here. And I will say, despite a lot of uneasiness, I'd argue, behind the scenes, even at the White House from some of his top advisors about this idea of potentially using the military to go in and then try to gain control of what is a Danish territory and undermining NATO to do so, the president believes that this is a legacy building thing for him. And that's what I think a lot of this comes down to, particularly when you look at the foreign policy thing here. He believes that the Arctic region needs this type of security, not just for national security reasons because of aggression from China and Russia, but also for missile defense systems. I'm getting in the weeds here, but I'll just say this is something he very much believes is necessary. And so the politics around it is actually almost secondary to what he believes will be a legacy building thing for him.

[00:03:19] Speaker 5: And natural resources, right? I mean, he's been saying this is all about national security, but I remember when Mike Wallace was coming in as national security advisor, and he also mentioned critical minerals, right, that are under some of the ice there in Greenland as well. I think the emboldened point is absolutely right. When I think of, when I saw the True Social post yesterday, I immediately went back to when we were in the Oval Office with him, and we asked him, what can stop you on the world stage right now? What do you feel is a restraint on your power? And he said, myself. He said, my own morality. And we asked, what about international law? And he brushed that aside, essentially. I don't need international law, right? Said he would abide by it, but it depends on how you define it. That's pretty relevant when you now look at these threats on Greenland, particularly after military operation in Venezuela. Absolutely emboldened right now. Absolutely.

[00:04:10] Speaker 3: And he's going to Davos this week. You're going to Davos this week as well. So we'll see how he addresses it, if he does address it there and he meets with Europeans as well. But you mentioned the pushback that is happening and how Trump doesn't seem to care about that. The American public, this is what they said according to the CNN poll that came out just a couple of days ago. It said about, should the United States take control of Greenland? Not very popular there, as you can see. Only among independents. Look at that. 82% of independent voters oppose. Just 52% of Republicans are in favor of it, which is not a good number for Trump, who's usually in the 80s and 90s when it comes to GOP support. But significant opposition across the board there. And then on Capitol Hill, there was actually a delegation in Denmark while Trump was making this tariff threat. Tom Tillis, a Republican senator, said the fact that only a small handful of advisors are actively pushing for a course of action to seize territory of an ally is, quote, beyond stupid. And then Lisa Murkowski, another Republican, called this unnecessary punitive and a profound mistake. But these are the people who support NATO. They support Greenland. They want to show support for Denmark. So perhaps not surprising they're saying this, but Trump doesn't seem to care about this.

[00:05:30] Speaker 6: I mean, these Republican senators and lots of people have wanted to pretend that this is not a real thing for a very long time, dating back to 2019 when Trump first began floating this. I think this tariff threat is the latest sign that they need to take this seriously. And those senators that believe in the importance of NATO probably need to reckon with the idea that even the things Trump is doing shy of a military invasion of Greenland could really damage that alliance over the long term. Maybe they need to do something about this because he does appear to be serious about it. So I think in the coming days, it's going to be really telling to see how some of these members talk. Do they talk like Tom Tillis talks? Do they talk like Lisa Murkowski? Do they start to talk about something we saw recently with Venezuela, which is a war powers resolution that would somehow restrict what Trump can do? Do they start talking about reining in his tariff authorities? I think it's difficult to believe they would ever do that because that would be a huge rebuke of Trump. But those are the levers that are very much available to them if they feel strongly.

[00:06:30] Speaker 3: And Aaron, you actually have a good piece here about just how the GOP's non-interventionist phase is over. Because you're seeing, you know, we're seeing not just in Greenland, but all these other... What happened to the president who was not going to be involved in rebuilding or intervening? Military restraint. Military restraint. And over the weekend, he also threatened Iran's supreme leader, calling him a criminal and saying that, you know, he called him a sick man who should run his country properly and stop killing people. He told that to Politico over the weekend. This is not an isolationist president.

[00:07:08] Speaker 5: No, no. And, you know, I think that's a faction of his base interpreted America First to be isolationist. To me, the through line with Trump's approach on the global stage has always been transactional, right? This is the latest iteration of America First. He even had a comment of this years ago that America First is really what he makes it, right? And this period is showing that. I think you're still seeing the transactional element on the global stage. But you're right. And by the way, going back to our last block, this is also a source of frustration among some members of his base, the most outspoken ones. But I think that's a trickle down to voters, too. The focus on foreign policy and not enough on domestic issues.

[00:07:52] Speaker 1: Joining us now is the former vice president of the United States, Republican Mike Pence of Indiana. I see him wearing his Hoosier tie. I assume that that's a nod to Monday night's game. Mr. Vice President, we are seeing a lot of... You better believe it. We're seeing a lot of Republican pushback to the president's focus on Greenland and his threats yesterday to U.S. allies in terms of the tariffs. Republican Congressman Don Bacon told me yesterday in the wake of the president's new tariff threats, quote, I and most Americans disagree with the president's heavy handedness. He is threatening NATO members, which is shameful, unquote. Are you concerned that these actions are jeopardizing the NATO alliance?

[00:08:32] Speaker 7: Well, I look, I think it's a question right now, Jake, not of what the president's trying to accomplish, but how. And I have concerns about using what I think is a questionable constitutional authority, imposing unilateral tariffs on NATO allies to achieve this objective, as much as I had concerns about the threat of a military invasion, which apparently is no longer being talked about. But the what here, I think, is absolutely in the interest of the United States of America. I mean, literally, I think it was Abraham Lincoln's secretary of state who negotiated the purchase of Alaska who first suggested that the United States also purchase Greenland. I traveled to the region in 2019, visited Iceland to literally make the case of our national security interest as China and Russia continue to intrude farther and farther into the Arctic. So what the president is trying to do here, I think, is absolutely in the interest of the United States of America. I would just rather see the president use his persuasive powers and U.S. investment in Greenland to lay a foundation for ultimately achieving that goal.