Trump DEFEATED in ultimate HUMILIATION

I'm joined now by Congresswoman Sarah. Jacobs. Thanks so much for joining me. >> Thanks for having me. >> So, you were part of a Kodell. congressional delegation that went to. Denmark to discuss all of the news. happening right now as Donald Trump. saber rattles about annexing uh. Greenland. And I want to talk about that. in a moment. But first and foremost, I. want to get your reaction to some new. news. And this is a sense that Donald. Trump has in a way capitulated. he made. some some big pronouncement about. concepts of a future framework that may. happen at some untold point in the.

future. So it it reads very much like. there's not going to be some imminent uh. annexation of Greenland. Um and as a. result no tariffs and so that this seems. to be quelled for the moment. Um can I. have your reaction to that news? >> Look, if this is really an off-ramp that. he's taking then I'm very happy for that. because the idea of annexing Greenland. makes no sense. But from all of the. public reporting we've seen about this. framework, um it doesn't seem like we're. getting anything that we wouldn't have.

already gotten from the existing. treaties that we have in place with. Denmark. Um and so all of this saber. rattling, all of this lack of trust with. our allies. You know, when I was there, I heard from Greenlandic families who. told me that their kids couldn't sleep. Um we've seen world leaders start to. call out how they no longer trust the. United States as an ally. We saw the. biggest protest in Danish history. against the United States while I was. there. All of that appears to be so that. we could get something that we already.

were would be able to get under the. existing frameworks. And this is classic. Trump, right? He sets the fire and then. he claims to put it out and wants to get. credit for it. >> Yeah. So, what was the reaction like. from the folks in in Denmark? And to. what extent do you think that this has. permanently injured our alliances, you. know, with folks who we rely on to to, you know, do trade deals and and protect. us? And, you know, look, when when uh, you know, in the aftermath of of 9/11,

the the Danes, for example, were one of. the countries that lost the highest per. proportion of their of their citizens in. responding to what happened on 911. So, these are not people that that uh that. haven't offered something, some goodwill. or some security to the United States in. return for what we give them. >> Yeah. I'll be honest, in talking with. our Danish and Greenlandic counterparts, they were kind of baffled. Um they kept. saying that they asked the United States. like, "What more do you want in Arctic. security? What more do you want.

economically? Like, we are ready to give. it to you. Just tell us what you want.". And the administration never gave them. anything. And you know the as I. mentioned the biggest protest in Danish. history was while we were there and. there was polling that showed that prior. to all of this 80% of Danes thought that. the United States was an important ally. Now only single digits level of Danish. people think that we are an important. ally. And I know anecdotally that that's. true across all of Europe. And I think.

that the damage to our relationships, the damage to our transatlantic. relationship right to NATO, to these. countries believing that if they get. attacked, we will come to their rescue. Um, I think that has been completely. eroded. >> To what extent do you think that given. the fact that there was no response from. the Trump team on what else they can do. to bolster Arctic security? To what. extent do you think that this was then. just a vanity project for Trump so that. he can look at a map and say look uh we.

expanded American territory that's. because of me you know dear leader it. was 100% a vanity project there is. literally nothing that we could will be. getting now that we couldn't have gotten. under existing treaties and in fact like. it would have cost a lot of money to get. nothing right the Danes subsidize. Greenland by about a billion dollars a. year that's a billion dollars we would. have had to take on. They have Arctic. capabilities that we don't have. Not to. mention that one of the people I was.

traveling with was Lisa Marowski, the. senator from Alaska, and she will tell. you that we don't even invest enough in. the existing US Arctic and the Arctic. security that we need in Alaska, let. alone adding on Greenland now, um, when. we're not already making the Arctic. security investments we need. moving. forward, even if there's a democratic. administration that uh that succeeds. this administration. and we are able to restore a lot of the. alliances that have been that have been. frayed or broken. I mean, doesn't the.

rest of the world see that as like, okay, so we're just going to bounce back. and forth between, you know, this. lunatic right-wing fringe that wants to, you know, usher in a second era of. imperialism and then, you know, a. democratic administration that that. understands the importance of NATO and. and depending on what person wins uh a. presidential election is going to. determine whether, you know, China can. invade Taiwan and and Russia can invade. Ukraine and the United States can invade.

other nations. NATO allies or not? I. mean, how how does that how does that. help us with any long-term alliances. looking beyond just every four years of. a presidential election? >> No, that's exactly right. I don't think. anyone in the world will agree to make a. deal with the United States that's. longer than four years because they just. don't believe that any deal will. actually be implemented longer than four. years. And that's true now. And it was. true in Trump's first administration. when he pulled us out of the Iran deal. that that had been painstakingly. negotiated. not just with Iran, but in.

partnership with our European partners. and allies who were part of that deal. And so I am very worried about what this. means in terms of how our allies will. trust us, how much hedging they will do. Um, and I also think it's important for. us to recognize for a long time I think. there was this bipartisan consensus that. the US was the indispensable nation. that, you know, we were so important. We. called all the shots. Everyone else. followed us. And that's just not the. world we're living in. It's not the.

world we're going to be living in. Frankly, like this era of US hijgemony. uh is no longer here. And I think it's. incumbent on us also as Democrats to. recognize that we're going to be. operating in a different world. And to. not just, you know, as Mark Carney said. in his speech yesterday, nostalgia is. not a strategy. Um, and we need to have. a real concrete kind of introspective uh. conversation with ourselves about what. our foreign policy really needs to look. look like going forward in this new. world. >> You had mentioned the point of.

bipartisanship and the Kodell, the. congressional delegation was bipartisan. You did have some Republican members. Um, how important is that aspect of it? Or are these Republicans just some tiny. minority, you know, to give kind of a. veneer of bipartisanship when the. reality is that the rest of the. Republican party is perfectly content to. sacrifice their firstborns if that's. what Donald Trump uh demands of them? You know, it's a good question and I've. been having a lot of conversations with. my Republican colleagues um here in the.

House and you know, there's a lot of. them who thought this Greenland thing. was a terrible idea. I think you know, Tom Tillis, Senator Tillis, a Republican. from North Carolina, has been the most. outspoken, calling it stupid. But, you. know, I've had a lot of those private. conversations um with my colleagues. The. problem is for my colleagues here in the. House, it takes quite a lot to get those. private conversations they'll have with. us into actual real concrete action. And. a lot of what we heard was, well, after. he invades, we'll do something. And, you.

know, my point to them was after he. invades is too late. We need to be. working now um to prevent that from. happening. And even the idea that we. will or will not be invading an ally. based on the whims of a single person um. is deeply problematic. Right? The. constitution, article one of the. constitution gives the power to declare. war and peace to congress because the. founders knew that this was too. important of a role for one person to be. responsible for. And the idea that like.

tariffs, yes or no, will he, won't he? Invasion, yes or no, will he, won't he? um is the world we're all living in is. actually the fault of Congress for not. standing up and reclaiming our power to. be the ones to make these decisions, >> right? But that would that that would uh. that would suggest that Mike Johnson. would actually assert his own autonomy. and as a as an extension um of Donald. Trump. That's never going to happen. Um. you know, you had also spoken about Mark. Carney. Obviously, his speech at at. Davos was um was the big showstopper on.

day one. You know, Mark Carney and. Canada had announced that they're. dropping those tariffs on Chinese EVs, and there there's so much there's so. much jingoism and saber rattling from. the US, especially Republicans, against. China. But is there no acknowledgement. of the dichotomy of this position where. you have these Republicans who claim. that they're going to do everything they. can to stop an ascendant China, but by. alienating ourselves on the global.

stage, all we're doing is creating. openings that China's perfectly content. to fill. We saw Canada fill that void. with China just a few days ago. And. we've seen other countries uh uh get. closer to China um to strike trade deals. because they know that they're a more. reliable and and less erratic trade. partner, less volatile trade partner. than the United States is going to be. And so is there no is there no like. reconciling those two things that are in. blatant conflict with each other among.

at least your Republican colleagues? >> You're exactly right. And for a long. time, China has said that we are an. unreliable ally, an unreliable partner. That has been their main line of attack. against us. And we are feeding right. into that idea. And I can't blame our. allies for hedging and for thinking. that, you know, they need to cover their. bases because they can't count on us. I. don't think my Republican colleagues. like have really thought that second. order effect.

And I think part of what's hard is that. within the Republican party right now, there is this sort of factionalism of. like the isolationists versus the hawks. and the neocons. And I think some of it. is that like this is getting caught in. that sort of internal fight. Yeah. >> Um but yeah, like if what you care about. is making sure that China doesn't rise, which I actually would argue that this. whole frame of strategic competition. actually leads us to do things that make.

us less safe. But if that is your. position, which is the stated position. of Republicans, then I think yeah, you. should be seeing everything that Donald. Trump is doing through that lens and. saying like this is actually not making. us more competitive at all. I mean, even. Trump himself invokes China and Russia. as the whole rationale for doing this. this whole, you know, purported. Greenland annexation. We can't be. neighbors with China and Russia. And yet. all he's doing by virtue of alienating. ourselves and and hurting NATO,

dismantling. I mean, this would be. effectively a death nail for NATO if one. NATO country invaded and annexed. another. That's it for NATO. That's a. wrap. Um, but NATO is the only thing. actually preventing uh some incursion on. Greenland by by uh China or Russia. And. so he's the like the only thing that's. preventing what Trump claims to want to. prevent is is the very institution that. he's trying to destroy at this very. moment. Well, and I think that goes to. the point that Donald Trump doesn't care. about, believe in, or understand NATO.

Because he, I think, truly believes that. the only way the US would protect. Greenland is if we owned Greenland. Not. recognizing that the whole point of NATO. is that if Greenland were to be attacked. or invaded by Russia or China, the. entire NATO alliance would come to its. defense. That's the entire point of. NATO. And so I actually think the idea. that he's questioning whether or not. NATO is enough to protect Greenland is. itself throwing cold water onto NATO and.

then like proving his own point that we. need to own it. Right? It's this very. circular logic. But you know even with. all of the harm that Trump has been. doing to these institutions, I think we. also need to be clear that, you know, this is not just a partisan problem, right? I would argue that living up to. our values is how we are able to build. these coalitions and coalitions are what. make us powerful. Um, and you know, we. saw with the Biden administration, with. Gaza, with what's happening in Sudan, that a lot of partners around the world.

feel like we don't hold our friends to. the same standards that we hold them to. And it makes them less likely to want to. be in coalition with us and to pick our. side when there are big international. fights. And and last question here on. that point of coalitions, is is there. some understanding at least among the. the folks in in Denmark that you' gotten. the opportunity to speak to? Is there. some understanding that like Trump does. not represent the vast majority of. Americans? That there is a huge faction.

of of us in this country who are as. opposed to him as I'm sure they are over. there. And in fact, the polling would. would reflect on this issue in. particular. There was polling um that. that from from Reuters that showed like. 4% support for a military invasion onto. Greenland. Like you can't get 96% of. Americans to agree on what day it is. Like you could you could hold a banana. in your hand and ask them to identify it. and you would not get 96% consensus on.

that. But for 96% of Americans to come. out and disagree with with this idea of. invading or using military force to go. into Greenland, that makes it pretty. clear where we stand. And so and so is. there some understanding by the Danes. that we are not a reflection of, you. know, this one guy in the Oval Office. whose entire foreign policy is just that. some errant synapse fires in his brain. and then words fall out of his face. You know, I was expecting to go to. Denmark and to have them be like really.

angry and yelling at us and instead. every, you know, Danish person I spoke. to on the street just like felt bad for. us. >> Yeah, that sounds about right. >> Happening like they weren't mad at us, they were just like concerned. And so I. do think there is an understanding that. this is not representative of the. American people, right? The Americans do. not want to invade Greenland. They do. not want to spend reportedly $700. billion to buy Greenland. Right? we. would rather have affordable housing, universal child care, all of these other.

things for that money. Um, and I think. they do understand that and you know. they want to make sure that we are then. doing what we need to do to make sure. that that doesn't happen. >> All right. Well, we will leave it there. Thank you for uh thanks for your. leadership on this issue for going out. there and representing the United States. so that the only representation isn't, you know, whatever uh word vomit Donald. Trump does on stage at Davos. Um, and uh. and thank you for your time today. >> Of course. Thank you. [music].