Transcription
Trump begins to lose his own allies amid the latest ICE shooting. And I've got three interviews. Tommy Vtor, New Jersey Governor Mikey Cheryl, and Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're watching No Lie.
[music]
On Saturday, we all woke up to another tragic and completely preventable shooting at the hands of ICE. This time, a 37-year-old ICU nurse who worked at the VA named Alexander Prey. He was holding his cell phone, recording ICE agents on the street, as is his legal right, when one of the agents charged at him. Eventually, six agents in total jumped on top of him. One of them removed the gun where it was holstered on his hip. He had a concealed carry permit and his gun was legal. And only after his gun was removed was he shot multiple times and killed.
The evidence is as clear as day. There are no grainy videos or images that Trump administration officials can point to to muddy the waters, which of course isn't stopping them from calling Prey a domestic terrorist, but it's falling on decidedly deaf ears. In fact, I include a number of people on the right in that statement. According to one of Donald Trump's US attorneys, Billy, he said, "If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there's a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you."
Well, the NRA responded to that, writing, "This sentiment from the first assistant US attorney for the Central District of California is dangerous and wrong. Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations, and demonizing law-abiding citizens." The group Gun Owners of America responded, "We condemn the uncured comments of US Attorney Billy. Federal agents are not highly likely to be legally justified in shooting concealed carry licensees who approach while lawfully carrying a firearm. The Second Amendment protects Americans' right to bear arms while protesting, a right the federal government must not infringe upon."
Tim P wrote, "Empty hand, then gun in hand. Appears the man may have been disarmed before being shot. This is a chain of events in a greater conflict. Neither side cares at this point what justifies it or doesn't. I don't see Trump winning this one." A staffer for Republican Senator Rand Paul wrote, "Excuse me, but what the border is in Minneapolis and when did it become illegal to carry a gun in America?" Former counsel to George W. Bush wrote, "I helped to establish DHS in 2002 and 2003 and later had the Homeland Security portfolio as a White House counsel and served as general counsel of the department. I am enraged and embarrassed by DHS's lawlessness, fascism, and cruelty. Impeach and remove Trump now." The Republican House Homeland Security Committee tweeted, "Chairman Garberino has formally requested testimony from ICE, CBP, and USCIS leaders at a full committee hearing. Congress has an important responsibility to ensure the safety of law enforcement and the people they serve and protect."
Here's one Fox News guest.
>> I've watched that videotape at least about, let's say, a hundred times because I knew I was going to be coming on with you and I wanted to speak as accurately as I can. Uh, and I do believe that there needs to be a complete investigation. I was taken aback by the White House who initially put out what I defined as misrepresentation of what took place there. When you look at the video, uh, it was said that Mr. Prey was brandishing a weapon. Well, he was not brandishing a weapon. Yes, he did have a weapon. It was said that by the White House that Mr. Prey attacked those agents. No, he did not attack those agents. And one of the White House individuals called Mr. Prey a domestic terrorist. I find this man is dead. He has a family. And to go out and call him a domestic terrorist without giving any more information is just unacceptable. And then John, when I looked at the video, what you saw was an agent pushing a woman aside, Mr. Prey getting sprayed, them jumping on top of Mr. Prey. And this is something that our audience should see with their own eyes. You can see where one of the agents actually physically takes Mr. Prey's gun. And that is before he's shot and then all of a sudden he's shot. There's a pause and there are more bullets that are shot in his direction. So that investigation, what I'm asking is that there be a complete and thorough and transparent investigation joined not only by the federal agencies, but also by the state and local investigators also working together.
In fact, here are some comments on the conservative subreddit.
"I thought Renee Good's case was borderline but likely legally justified. They still should have had a formal investigation just because of the lethal outcome. This case. Don't know how anyone can side with ICE here. On top of that, the person killed turned out to be an ICU nurse, not some unemployed professional protester. I wanted an enforcement of law and order. This doesn't look like it. Bad, bad look. Stop coping. This was another bad look by ICE. We are allowed to bear arms. These ICE agents are clearly untrained and see ghosts. Many such cases. Just saw Steven Miller's response. Why do they think that people will believe whatever they say? I've been MAGA from day one and my post history shows that if Trump does not reign in his administration from letting their low IQ behavior hurt this administration's goals, then we aren't just going to lose this midterm, we're going to lose every election for decades."
So, I think you get the picture. The story being peddled by this administration is so blatantly false that it's actually become contemptuous for their own supporters. They are feeding them straight horseshit and expecting them to believe it and swallow it whole. Calling an ICU nurse who was holding a phone a domestic terrorist who was brandishing a gun and charging at law enforcement officers is not going to fly when there's video evidence from every angle of this interaction that it was the ICE agent who charged him and a cell phone in the guy's hand, not a gun. And if the lying isn't bad enough, now you've got the administration losing its own base by vilifying the fact that he was carrying a legal firearm, something they at least used to pretend to care about. And yet, that's the thing here. There is no underlying principle to anything that they're doing because the only thing they actually care about is power, like unbridled, uncompromising power. That's why they've undermined their own positions on family values, on states' rights, on fiscal conservatism because it was all just window dressing to make themselves look virtuous when in reality all they cared about was power. And we're seeing that at play right now. So if this administration wants to play their own supporters for fools, that's their prerogative. But all they're doing is proving how stupid they think they are. And that's not without consequence, clearly. Will that stop this White House from doubling down? Obviously not. So, if they want to continue shedding supporters on a daily basis, they are free to do exactly that.
Next up are my interviews with Tommy Vtor, Mikey Cheryl, and Sarah Jacobs.
No Lie is brought to you by Quince. A new year, colder days. This is the moment that your winter wardrobe really has to deliver. If you're craving a winter reset, start with pieces truly made to last season after season. Quince brings together premium materials, thoughtful design, and enduring quality so you stay warm, look sharp, and feel your best all season long. Quince has everything that you need. Men's Mongolian Cashmere sweaters, wool coats, leather and suede outerwear that actually hold up to daily wear and still look good. Their outerwear is especially impressive. Think down jackets, wool coats, and Italian leather outerwear that keep you warm when it's actually cold. Each piece is made from premium materials by trusted factories that meet rigorous standards for craftsmanship and ethical production. By cutting out the middlemen and traditional markups, Quince delivers the same quality as luxury brands at a fraction of the price. The result is classic styles that you'll love that hold up year after year. I actually grabbed a wool coat from Quince this year, way more reasonably priced than comparable coats, and the quality is identical. Looks good, keeps me warm, and I didn't have to drop a fortune on it. Refresh your winter wardrobe with Quince. Go to quince.com/btc for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too. That's quince.com/btc. Free shipping and 365-day returns, quince.com/btc.
I'm joined now by the co-host of Pod Save America and Obama's National Security Council spokesman, Tommy Vtor. Tommy, thanks for joining me.
>> Thank you for having me.
Tommy Gavin Newsom has managed to find a way to overshadow Donald Trump today by saying something particularly provocative on stage at Davos.
>> I was going to speak last night. It was a well-established event at the USA House after Trump's speech. They made sure that I didn't, uh, they made sure it was canceled. Any institution of independent thinking is under assault and attack by the Trump administration. You're seeing what's playing out in the streets of American cities. It played out in California, the second largest city in the United States of America. Masked men, guy Greg Bavino dressed up. It's as if he literally went on eBay and purchased SS garb. Greg Bavino, secret police, private army, masked men, people disappearing, quite literally, no due process, people dragged in the streets, kids separated from families, knocking on doors, racially profiling American citizens. So, is it surprising the Trump administration didn't like my commentary and wanted to make sure that I was not allowed to speak? Uh, no.
>> So, I want to talk about one thing in particular, and that is this idea that Greg Bavino, who's in charge of CBP, he showed up in this, in this garb. And I'm going to put, uh, side by side right here on the screen of what Bavino looks like and what like SS officers in the 1930s and like the, in like, you know, who, who were, uh, who were serving under Hitler looked like. And so for an administration that's so focused on optics, as this administration is, an administration so focused on marketing, as this administration is, as they have this like propaganda camera team following ICE on a daily basis, why offer up these optics if, if it's inevitable that people are going to draw those comparisons?
>> Yeah. I mean, they're trying to claim that like he's had this jacket forever and it was issued to—
>> Since 1930. [laughter]
>> 1941.
>> Since 1941.
>> It, it looks really weird. And like, look, there's all these images out there of Bavino in the field with other ICE officers or CBP officers. He's the only one dressed in a giant coat from the 1930s. Like everyone else is wearing like North Face and a mask. You know, everyone looks completely normal, like thugs, but they look normal. And so like it's a choice. He made a sartorial choice. He thinks he looks cool in this thing. But like, if I, if I walked out to an event with you, Brian, and I was wearing a gray jacket with like two pockets, fully buckled, you know, buttoned in the top, and you were like, "Why are you dressed like Chairman Mao?" And I was like, "What are you talking about?"
>> Yeah.
>> What do you mean? It's a choice. You're wearing a ridiculous gigantic gray coat jacket that dictators in World War II wore.
>> Yeah. And, and of course, that's underscored by the fact that, you know, there are the obvious similarities between what ICE is doing and what the Gestapo did about demanding papers from people on the streets, uh, serving as judge, jury, and executioner where you just kill people on the streets. Uh, and so, you know, those notwithstanding, the fact that they also are are dressing like them isn't lost on anybody. But I want to talk about, uh, Newsom for a moment because, you know, he's, he's really one of the only people who's out there, at least, at least, um, who's kind of in the running unofficially, uh, for president in 2028, who's making this case. We're not really hearing much from a lot of the other folks who are, who we would assume are contenders. I'm curious what your thoughts are on that whole process.
>> Yeah, I mean, look, you know, one way to look like, uh, Donald Trump's opponent is to go out there and make yourself Donald Trump's opponent, you know? And he's just done such an effective job of that. I mean, some of it is the tweeting and the trolling, and that's been fun, and we've talked about that before, but he's also taken it overseas. Like he went to the COP summit, the climate action summit in Brazil earlier, or last year. Um, and then he went to Davos and was I guess going to give a speech, um, at this thing called the Fortune USA House, which has some ties to the US government. At least it was viewed as the like official US government venue for speakers and things, and then they canceled on him last minute. So Gavin went out and made this aggressive case that the government is trying to censor him, and in so doing got exponentially more attention than he would have otherwise. So it's like he's just been really smart and savvy.
>> Yeah. And I mean, we, we've seen this process play out. Uh, you and I had spoken offline about this idea that when Barry Weiss tried to kill the S.E.C. story on 60 Minutes, all it did is draw way more eyeballs to the S.E.C. story on 60 Minutes.
>> And they accidentally aired it in Canada.
>> And they, [laughter] they aired it in Canada and ultimately there was so much pressure that they had to air it in the United States anyway. So a story that would have just kind of, you know, come and gone, uh, like a fart in a hurricane, instead garnered all this, uh, all this attention. But, but look, I, I think also, um, what's important to note as far as the Newsom stuff is concerned, and this doesn't just have to do with Newsom. I think it's, it's the same goes for any candidate, is like, I think of this moment right here that we're in as the audition for 2028. And so if you're not willing to put yourself out there at a time where, uh, the country desperately needs it. I mean, watching ICE agents serve as, you know, serve as these, this, this secret police force, killing people on the streets, watching an, an unburdened, unbridled president, uh, uh, declare war on NATO allies and try to annex our, our, you know, our friends. Um, if ever there was a moment for somebody to speak out, it's right now. Um, but on top of that, like, like there is a Democratic party that's desperate for leadership.
>> That is rudderless, that doesn't have a leader right now. And so if you want to make the case, you know, three years from now, that you deserve to be the leader of, of the party, but also the country, this is the moment to show that you're willing to do it when it, when like, when it actually matters, when people need some of that leadership, not just when it's convenient for you because, you know, you've got, uh, some filing deadline or because of campaign finances and, and, you know, what, what dates hit where before you have to start—
>> Officially say something.
>> Officially say something and start committing.
>> Exactly.
>> Yeah. Know, but Gavin Newsom has made himself like the proverbial fart in a Trump spacesuit, you know? That just lingers. [laughter]
>> Look, there were, there were two like big events that really broke through from Davos besides Trump like kind of threatening to annex Greenland.
>> I'm just waiting for another fart pun.
>> Nope, that's all I got for today. Uh, uh, and then kind of climbing down from his own remarks. It was Gavin Newsom kind of punching back as we saw there. And then it was Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada, who was like, "Everyone wake up. The international order as we knew it is over. We got to fight back." And, you know, the people who recognize that like everybody unanimously understands that that is the right approach. And so there is no excuse for the rest of the people, whether it's other European countries who are still, who are still engaging in this practice of appeasement, or frankly, other, uh, Democrats in the United States who think that the way to get something from Donald Trump, you know, is to, is to capitulate to him, or non-Democrats, you know, whatever, anybody in the United States who thinks that the way to get something from Trump is to capitulate to him. He's shown with how he's comported himself, uh, surrounding ABC News, that that's not the way. You don't buy yourself any goodwill. CBS did the exact same thing. They paid him $16 million bucks. Now he continues to on them on a daily basis.
>> And the other day, the new CBS Evening News anchor, what's his name? Tony Dokoupil. Yeah.
>> Uh, he did an interview and then you read this Caroline Levit, the White House press secretary, was like, "If you don't run the whole thing, we'll sue you."
>> Yeah. You don't, you don't buy yourself any goodwill by capitulating to these people. All you show Donald Trump is that you are weak and you can be bought by him.
>> And bullied.
>> And bullied. And, and, and he does it over and over and over again. And the only thing more pathetic than these institutions continually, um, debasing themselves for him is thinking that somehow this time will be different. And it's never different. He will continue to on you, continue to bully you, continue to extort you every single chance he gets.
>> Yeah. Like Trump is Biff from Back to the Future. All right. Like when you're walking to school and like the bully beats you up and takes your lunch money, is that a one-time thing? No. If you like cry and let him have it, he'll beat you up again and again and again. Like you got to throw a punch. You got to push back on this guy. That's kind of what happened on this Greenland thing. It seemed like Europe was ready to to roll out their biggest response mechanism, this thing called the anti-corruption, uh, initiative. Um, that would have levied massive tariffs probably on the United States, or at least cut off US businesses from the European markets. And it, it spooked the stock market, and that spooked Trump, and he caved.
>> Yeah.
>> Seems pretty simple, right? And, and it, and it puts on full display that this guy is not immune to, to pressure. He's not immune to economic pressure. He's not immune to popular pressure. You know, the reason that he tries so hard to prevent individual people from voting is because voting has a huge impact. The reason that he tries so hard to prevent these comedians from being able to go on TV and tell their jokes is because those people have a huge impact. Like that's why he's, that's why he's making such a concerted effort to, to suppress votes or to silence people or to, to weaponize his F.C.C. or to use the D.O.J. to, to make sure to prosecute his political opponents. Be it Jerome Powell today, Jack Smith, uh, James Comey, Leticia James, it's because he knows the power that these individual people have by, by virtue of speaking out. And so he has to do anything he can to just chill that speech or censor them or whatever it may be. And, and, and it's, it's an important point because, um, he will go to the ends of the earth to punish these individuals. And if no one stands with them, they are just alone. Like we have this collective action problem where like everyone's cowering in fear. No one wants the eye of Sauron of Trump like to be on them for that moment. But if everyone just kind of like quietly looks away and ignores what's happening, we're all going to get hit eventually. Like this is coming for all of us. You're not going to avoid this wave that Trump has, has brought. I mean, he's, this crackdown is insane. It's unconstitutional. Um, it's starting with migrants, but who knows where it'll end.
>> And, and that, that weakness, um, I think is, is, is especially pronounced right now. When Trump had banned the A.P. from coming into the press briefing room, no other outlet stood with the A.P. Like, they could have, they could have, you know, boycotted these press briefings. They didn't, which is ironic because a few years back when you were in the White House, um, and Fox News of all places had had issues with, um, with, uh, getting access to an interview,
>> With getting access to an interview.
>> All of these other news outlets stood by them, and it was the Obama administration that actually relented on that, and Fox got what it wants. But like, you do that by virtue of, of having your friends and allies stand alongside you. And the fact that we're not seeing that today because it's just going to be easier, let's not, you know, push against the grain, whatever it may be, is ultimately, you know, going to hurt you in the end.
>> Yeah. The, the media piece is really important because Trump is like slowly chipped away at the independence of the media. He's controlled, uh, who can cover pulled press events, the smaller events that happen in the Oval or smaller venues. We've also seen over at the Department of Defense, they basically tried to force them to sign rules that would have essentially criminalized the job of being a reporter. So all those reporters had to walk out, and like, you know, the, the reporters over at the Department of Defense are doing an amazing job from outside the building. But, you know, they will have an erosion of access. They won't see people in the hallways. There will be less serendipity. And then over at the White House, Donald Trump does a press conference and every third question is from like, my pillow, you know, podcast or something, and it's like, "Why are you so great, sir?"
>> North Korean state media.
>> North Korean state media. Like, "How much, how cool is Bavino's coat, sir?" Yeah.
>> You know, and it's just like, I mean, it's just the steady erosion of any opportunity to hold this guy to account.
>> Yeah. Well, now we have, uh, what is it? Nick Shirley who's, uh, learning, learning word, learning three-syllable words in real time as he's, uh, as he's become the top reporter on the right. Benevolent. And,
>> It is wild. The, I obviously like greatly support independent media. And by the way, if you want to support independent progressive media, please subscribe to Brian's channel. Please subscribe to Pod Save America because we're out here trying to report the news, try to bring you guys facts, try to do it from a progressive point of view, and it really matters when you follow us because if you don't, people are going to find Nick Shirley's and the Daily Wire and TPUSA, right? So, please, um, give us a follow. It's free. But, you know, like the way, like an independent journalist like him can come along, report something that seems salacious but is kind of complicated, and then Elon Musk can juice that story so it's the most viewed thing ever on Twitter, not on the merits, not because it was, you know, exposed something particularly new. Like the fraud, uh, issues in Minnesota are real. They've been reported on. Like there's all kinds—
>> And they've been prosecuted. Yeah. They, so, um, anyway, it's just, you, we are living in a very rigged media environment, uh, in favor of Donald Trump. And it just got worse today, actually. I mean, I think there's about to be a for sale of TikTok's US components to a bunch of, you know, Trump fans and donors.
>> Yeah. And, and we've seen like the consolidation of the media. I think that's one of the most dangerous and most underreported stories because even, even as Trump continues to engage in all of like this extrajudicial and il, overtly illegal, unconstitutional behavior and action, um, if nobody knows about it, it's like, if a tree falls in the woods, like, you know? So, so we've, you know, lost C.B.S., C.N.N. is on the chopping block because that's possibly up for sale to, to the same entity that, um, you know, the same consortium that, that David Ellison is involved in. TikTok, obviously, is is a huge problem. And ironically enough, that's one of the most progressive skewing outlets, social media outlets that, that we have because it's so young. Um, so, yeah, I mean, the, the, the way that we're seeing like this, this, this whole media space skew to the right, ironically enough, under this, this pretense that, that all media is too liberal, and so they're unfairly being, uh, being criticized, is just going to become more and more dangerous as they control more information and as they control more algorithms. And we've seen that the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world are willing to cowtow to Trump. Jeff Bezos is willing to cowtow to Trump. We've seen that the folks at TikTok are willing to cowtow to Trump. Um, and, and, you know, as he puts more pressure, and to your exact point, as fewer and fewer other outlets, other companies stand by the people who are targeted, it's only going to, you know, be a matter of time until every single outlet falls. So again, that underscores the need for independent outlets right now to step up and fill that void so that we're not just seeing the Barry Weissification of all media.
>> Yeah. And like, in some ways, like, look, the, the Barry Weissification thing is very frustrating. Uh, you hate to see like an incredible establishment media property like 60 Minutes atrophy the way it is. Yeah. But in other ways, it's like, that's kind of like the last battle. Well, it's more what you're talking about, these new independent media sources and the way these algorithms are being juiced to support one side or the other because like the greatest problem in politics for candidates is for every like freak like us who reads about politics every day, there's way more voters who like maybe consume a couple hours of political news. A healthy—
>> Must be really good for you. [laughter] Must be really good. Can't imagine not having to like ruin my day within the first four seconds of being awake by by opening up Twitter.
>> You're like, "He pardoned who? Crypto what?" Um, yeah. And so like reaching those people, like, if any of those kind of low-information, low-information casual voters heard that Donald Trump, uh, pardoned the former president of Honduras who had been convicted of trafficking 400 tons of cocaine to the United States, I think they'd be pretty upset about it. Donald Trump does something outrageous every—
>> Distraction for one quick beat because I know that with the Epstein stuff happening, um, that was kind of overshadowed by a lot of the [clears throat] enforcement action that we're seeing, um, in Minnesota. It was overshadowed by a lot of the, um, saber-rattling happening in, in Greenland. And I, I had heard some people say like, this is a distraction from what's happening with Epstein. And I think, look, I think there is a way to consider that a distraction from talking about Epstein because we are distracted by it. But I don't, but I think unto itself—
>> It's it's more than a distraction. Like Trump is just showing how overtly autocratic and dangerous and depraved and evil he is. Like when you have these actions where he is blowing up the world order so that he can invade and annex a sovereign country and one of our own NATO allies. That's not just a distraction. Like, like that's basically like saying, you know, don't pay attention. He's trying to distract you from this murder by murdering somebody else. Like they're, they're both bad and they can stand on their own two feet. And so I don't want to diminish the, the danger of what he's doing in Greenland and what he's doing with ICE by by just reducing it to a distraction because I think on its own two feet, it's also just as bad and just as worthy of condemnation. Now, that doesn't mean that we can't also talk about Epstein and keep that in the zeitgeist and and discuss the fact that he's engaged in a cover-up, but it's not just a distraction.
>> Yeah. Look, if, if all this Greenland stuff was just designed to be a distraction from the Epstein files, then he was distracting from a story to another one that pulled even worse. 90, 90% of voters were like, "We should not invade Greenland." And so, what I, I think it's not a distraction as much as it's just a strategy. Like Trump does something outrageous every single day because he knows it creates news because he knows he can kind of like bend thinking around an issue. You know, the Overton window, like that concept's almost gone. You know, he just sort of like shoves the Overton window. He doesn't push it. So, um, yeah, is it a distraction from Epstein? Sure, it served as one. Certainly there was a period of time when the Epstein files really were exploding where they were looking to talk about anything else. I mean, that was when they rolled out the, um, we're going to prosecute Barack Obama for treason button, right? Remember that?
>> I remember there was a week where like anything they had, literally they were—
>> Spaghetti at the wall all day long.
>> But yeah, I mean—
>> I think they also called for Oprah to be prosecuted that week. They [laughter] called.
>> Of course they did. Of course they did. But I do think he really did want to annex Greenland and had to climb down because it was a disaster.
>> Correct. And, and I think, you know, there, there is a lot of things happening. But I think the easiest way at least for me to think about this is that these are all smart, small parts of a larger whole. Watching Donald Trump engage in this dangerous ICE activity. Watching Donald Trump, um, you know, alienate our allies, alienate the U.S. on the world stage and try to invade sovereign countries. Watching Donald Trump, you know, try to wiggle his way out of releasing the Epstein files despite the fact that it was signed into law by him, it just goes to show that like the things that he wants to spend his time on, he spends his time on. Like he can find time to go into Greenland. He can find time to to wage an oil war in South America. He can find time to to—
>> To decorate the friggin new ballroom.
>> To decorate a ballroom, to encrust the Oval Office in gold, to buy himself a couple Gulfstream jets that Christine Gnome can use.
>> Or get one from QAR.
>> Or get one from QAR. So, he, if he wants to do something, he finds a way to do it. He's not going to let the law stop him. He's not going to let, um, uh, uh, prosecutors or judges stop him. He's not going to let Democrats stop him. He's not going to let the Constitution stop him. Which goes to show that when he doesn't do something, and by that I mean lower costs, lower inflation, make IVF free, protect earned benefits, release the Epstein files, and the Russia-Ukraine war on day one, when he doesn't do something, it's because he just doesn't have the will to do it.
>> Yeah. He just doesn't care. I mean, look, and this is ultimately his greatest political problem and threat, which is that they've done nothing on the economy. I mean, there's a new New York Times poll out today. His disapproval is at 56%. 49% of voters say the country was worse off than it was a year ago. Nearly 70% rated the economy unfavorably. And then even on the ICE stuff, like that has been their primary focus has been immigration enforcement. 61% of voters, including 71% of independents, said ICE had gone too far. So Trump is very effectively distracting us into, or the media at least, into talking about Greenland, something that's unpopular. But people also feel like he's not doing the job they want him to do. And that's bad. That's bad for him.
>> Yeah. He's, he's going from like one unpopular thing by distracting us with another unpopular thing. All of which kind of entrenches this idea that he's not working for Americans, also, which is an unpopular idea. So, um, with that said, we will continue to stay on top of this stuff. For everybody who's watching right now, if you are not yet subscribed to Pod Save America's YouTube channel, I'm going to put that link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. Small step everybody can take to help build up the progressive media ecosystem so that when new people come online, they're not automatically sorted into right-wing sources and fall into those rabbit holes. So again, completely free, great way to support us and a great way to support independent media more broadly. Tommy, thanks so much as always for taking the time.
>> And get all my news from Clavicular.
I'm joined now by the new governor of New Jersey, Mikey Cheryl. Thanks so much for joining me.
>> Thanks so much for having me.
So, I want to talk about, uh, about what you've been doing in New Jersey. But first, uh, some national news is that we have seen Trump kind of take his revenge against any blue cities and blue states by going state by state and sending in ICE. We've seen it happen in my state, in Los Angeles. We've saw, we've seen it happen in Chicago, in Portland, in Washington D.C., in Minneapolis. And as the governor of, you know, a true blue state in New Jersey, is there some concern that, uh, that Donald Trump is going to, you know, eventually turn his attention into New Jersey where there's obviously a flourishing immigrant community and kind of do what he's done everywhere else and seek vengeance upon the people of your state, uh, on behalf of the Republican party?
>> Well, he already is doing that. Not with ICE in this instance, but he's actually targeting, uh, quite a few blue states, 11 or 12 blue states, including New Jersey, with spurious investigations to root out fraud. So his typical use of targeted investigations against his political opponents, contrary to really all the values of our democracy. So he's already started on that. And then the question becomes, uh, again and again, how do you continue to fight back against this completely out-of-control president who is, as you mentioned, putting a proto-military force in ICE on the streets of our nation against the will of the people of this nation and then targeting them politically in every single way, acting as if sort of a real, lawless dictator. And how do you push back against that? And that's exactly what we're working to do here in New Jersey is find a better path forward. Uh, work hard for those values of liberty and prosperity that have been in our state seal and our state motto for almost 250 years. That is what I'm fighting for, and that's what the people of New Jersey resoundingly said they wanted last November.
Can you talk a little bit about cooperation with ICE? I know that for example, uh, Governor Spanberger in Virginia immediately ended, uh, a contract that would force, uh, the cooperation with ICE, uh, in, in, you know, different municipalities across the state. Can you talk a little bit about where New Jersey stands in that whole process?
>> Again, it should be striking to people to see, uh, someone like Governor Spanberger or myself, people who have worked in the military and in law enforcement, in her case, in the C.I.A. We, I think, deeply revere public service and those people who serve the public. This ICE agency is different. This president is, uh, really putting together his private militia. I've been flagging this for months now as we started to see them on the streets with masks and no insignia, acting outside the purview of their duties. We've seen it as they've picked up people who are here legally, and yet they refuse to allow them to prove that. We've seen it as he's put ICE agents in areas not to keep the peace, but to actually incite, um, the people of that state in a, in a maneuver to attack them politically. And so to see someone like Abigail Spanberger, who's former law enforcement herself, come in and say, "This is, we are not working with them. They are that bad." To see someone like her, who has a lot of federal workers in her state, say, "We cannot work with this federal agency." Certainly here in New Jersey, we have the Immigrant Trust Directive, which I will continue to carry out to ensure that our public safety officers, our police officers are acting in the interest of the public.
So I want to switch over to a little bit about what you've done in just the few days that you've been governor of the state. Can you talk about the first state of emergency that you've declared?
>> Yes. So I said, you know, I made a commitment during my campaign as I was, I was focused on lowering costs immediately, that the minute I got in office, I was going to declare a state of emergency on utility cost, freezing rate hikes, and then working over the long term to drive down costs by expanding power generation. And I stopped in the middle of my inaugural address to do just that, to sign these two executive orders, which will do that because I wanted people to know I was every bit as fed up with business as usual and the status quo. I was going to get to work. I was going to hit the ground sprinting and make sure I was addressing those key needs right away. So, we did just that.
So, can you talk a little bit about about the extent to which renewable energy is going to be, uh, a part of, you know, this whole energy infrastructure, uh, that you're looking to, to deal with in New Jersey, especially in light of the fact that Republicans have really just completely turned their back on renewable energy being any facet of, of, you know, this formula moving forward?
>> Well, certainly it's noteworthy that we were moving forward in all kinds of power generation here in New Jersey and across the country. And part of the reason our rates are so high is because a lot of the oil and gas companies spent about $250 million on Trump's campaign, and he rewarded them by, uh, shutting down a lot of other power generation because again, he's always focused on lining his own pockets at the expense of, of the American people and our costs going up. So I am focused on all-of-the-above generation, meaning that we are going to expand solar and battery generation immediately. That's the cheapest, easiest way to do it. We have about 40% of our mix which is gas generation, but some of them are older. We're modernizing that to drive down carbon emissions and increase efficiency. And then over the long term, nuclear power generation to build out our power needs. We would love to move into other ways to drive down costs like wind power, but the president, uh, has stopped all of the federal wind farms and the land, uh, and the leases so we could move into that. So again, costing New Jersey ratepayers a lot of money as he is picking, uh, his friends over the people he should be serving.
Were there any projects that New Jersey was involved in that were stopped mid-build, uh, when he decided to do that?
>> Yes, we were, um, working, we were still moving ahead on one wind project that, um, because he wouldn't, uh, give us the federal leases, we had to, we had to stop. So we have now moved to fixing some of our transmission across the state so we can get more power into the grid, move to solar and battery storage, uh, and moving long-term to nuclear, as I mentioned, modernizing the that gas generation to drive down carbon emissions. And then, uh, we are also taking on PJM, that's our grid operator, which is really, again, favored some of the dirtier fuels instead of getting new clean power generation into the grid, driving up costs for everyone. And so I've already been working with Governor Shapiro and Governor Moore on how we are going to better hold them accountable.
And is that something that you can, that you have oversight over at the state level? Like, are you able to tell the grid operator, the, the cap that you want dirty energy to be, um, in terms of the formula, you know, in terms of the, the total combination of, of, uh, different energy sources?
>> So we are able to tell the grid operator our expectations, but again, PJM, the real threat is pulling out of that grid. Um, and so should PJM decide they are not going to run the grid in a way that's going to drive down costs for everyone and drive down carbon emissions, then in concert with other states, we may make some choices about how we're going to manage our grid. And that might not include PJM running it.
Okay, got it. Now, what, what are broader goals for your administration that, you know, you can look back, uh, years from now and say, you know, if this was accomplished, then this administration was a success, or vice versa?
>> If I can ensure that we are better holding BPU accountable, that's a, or, or we are better holding our utility companies accountable, but BPU, the Bureau of Public Utilities, has been charged by my executive order with looking at the business model of our public utilities. We know they've made billions of dollars while the ratepayers have paid more and more and more. Um, if we can get a better business model in place, if we have our grid operator that is more quickly putting power into our grid, especially the clean renewable power that we want, if we have already gotten to work on a nuclear plant that is going to add power to our grid, um, along with, of course, as a baseline, growing out our solar battery storage and other, uh, new ways of generating power. If we are doing that, that is going to be successful. If I can look at third-grade reading scores in my state and know that we have phonics education implemented, that we have actually done something, um, I think new and meeting children's needs in our school system for the first time in decades here. Uh, and that we are, you know, competing for that top spot, which New Jersey has traditionally held as the best education system. That will be a big win. If our kids have access to better mental health resources and we take on online safety in my kids' online safety agenda, and we have the Center of Excellence, I'm going to build out at one of our colleges or universities so that we have better data on those algorithms, um, and better data on the mental health because we know every time big tech studies it, studies it, it is so bad they stop the studies. So as a state, we are going to invest in that. Um, that will be a success. And if the people of New Jersey who want to start a small business, want to get a Real ID, want to engage in any way with our government, feel really well served, if they feel like the interaction they've had with state government, um, that, at, in that interaction, that they know every single person in my administration is truly there to serve the public, which I believe is a, a really noble calling. If they feel that kind of service, if they know that in New Jersey their government cares deeply about them, that'll be a huge win to me as well. So, I want to switch gears a little bit here. Uh, I spoke with Governor Moore from Maryland just a couple of days ago. He announced the introduction of an 8-0 map, and that was passed by the, the G.R.A., the Governor's, uh, uh, Redistricting Advisory Commission. Similarly, in Virginia, we're speaking about Governor Spanberger. In Virginia, they're looking to put forward a 10-1 map. That's obviously in the aftermath of California passing its own map. And all of this is in response to what Republicans have done in Texas, in Missouri, in North Carolina, in Ohio, and now in Florida. So, in the event that, um, that New Jersey, you know, the legislature reconvenes and has the opportunity to redraw maps in New Jersey, is that something that you've seen any interest in from legislators?
So, there's certain ways we, we have bipartisan redistricting or nonpartisan redistricting by constitution. So there's certain ways in which we have to go to the people to ask that question. I'm very interested in it because I think we are going to see a lot of malfeasance by Trump. Certainly I was there on January 6th on the floor of the House as he tried to stay in office. So why anyone thinks as he's already said he's going to try to stay in office, he won't, that's, um, I think wishful thinking.
>> Yeah. So, I'm expecting a great deal of malfeasance and I want to make sure that New Jersey is as strong and resilient as possible in accordance with the will of the people. So, can you talk a little bit about the mechanics of what that would look like? Virginia, for example, needs two consecutive legislative cycles where where, uh, the legislature votes to approve the constitutional amendment, then it—
goes out into the people. Um, California obviously did Prop 50 and got this thing on the ballot in 5 minutes, basically. What would the process be like in New Jersey? Uh, similar to what you mentioned with Virginia, there needs to be two legislative cycles. The earliest we could get it on the ballot, um, with our process, uh, would be in the November 2026 election, so we could get a ballot measure on there.
What I think it would do though is alert people to our concerns and to the fact that we think there is going to be a big fight coming. And I think that would make voters really think twice about how important their vote is and how important it is for them to get to the polls and how important it is for them to support their democracy. In the event that we see the *Cala* decision, section two of the Voting Rights Act go the Republicans' way, which is to say that section two of the Voting Rights Act is gutted. There are no more protections for these, uh, black opportunity districts or minority opportunity districts across the country. We could see anywhere from 10, 20, 30 seats get redrawn out of these Republican-led maps so that they can, you know, obviously favor Republicans instead of Democrats.
Would you preserve the ability for New Jersey to counter some of the map redrawing that we may see in the event that the Supreme Court strikes down the Voting Rights Act?
So, we will work to do that. As I said, the first time we could get that on the ballot, um, constitutionally, would be this November. I also will tell you, as I know you know and your listeners know, we are already seeing in Texas, for example, redistricting with complete disregard for the Voting Rights Act and, um, majority-minority districts. But what we are also seeing is when Republicans take these measures, the American people come out in force to try to register against them. So, what I'm very hopeful of is no matter what Trump tries to do, that we are going to see a not just a blue wave, but a blue tidal wave. And I say that with some level of hope here, not just wishful thinking. I think there's a good chance that's where we're headed, given what I saw in my election.
So, there were only two statewide elections in the entire nation in '25. And what we saw were huge swings in New Jersey, huge swings, 22-point swings, for example, uh, for Latin and Latino, heavily Latino populations. We saw swings. We saw urban black voters coming out to vote in a force that we haven't seen in probably over a decade. We saw, I want a generally Republican county, for we won it for the first time since Watergate. We saw the traditional white working-class men come home a little bit. Not all the way. Not what I'd like to see. My grandpa is a union guy. It's a little offensive to me that I work my butt off for union guys and sometimes they vote the other way. So, you know, trying to get those guys back. But we are seeing the, I would say, the traditional Democratic coalition of working people, which I think is our strongest coalition, coming together and then some, some of the new coalition, suburban women, for example. We are seeing that coalition really strong. I saw that in '25 and I think that has only the ability to grow, that has only increased since then. So in '26, I am anticipating that there is not much Trump can do other than not count votes, which is possible with him, uh, to hold on to the House.
All right. Well, we will leave it there. That seems like a good place to leave off. Uh, Governor Cheryl, thanks so much for taking the time.
Thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.
I'm joined now by Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs. Thanks so much for joining me.
Thanks for having me. So, you were part of a 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 pronouncements about concepts of a future framework that may happen at some untold point in the future. So, 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 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 protect us? And, you know, look, when, when, uh, you know, in the aftermath of 9/11, the Danes, for example, were one of the countries that lost the highest proportion of their citizens in responding to what happened on 9/11. So, these are not people that, 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, 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, dear leader"?
It was 100% a vanity project. There is literally nothing that we could 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 Murkowski, 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 understands the importance of NATO and, and depending on what person wins a presidential election is going to determine whether, you know, China can invade Taiwan and Russia can invade Ukraine and the United States can invade other nations, NATO allies or not"? I mean, 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 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 hegemony 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 conversation with ourselves about what our foreign policy really needs to look like going forward in this new world.
You had mentioned the point of bipartisanship and 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 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 would suggest that Mike Johnson would actually assert his own autonomy and 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 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'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 is perfectly content to fill? We saw Canada fill that void with China just a few days ago. And we've seen other countries, uh, get closer to China, um, to strike trade deals because they know that they're a more reliable 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 hurting NATO, dismantling, I mean, this would be effectively a death knell 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 China or Russia. And so he's the, like, the only thing that's preventing what Trump claims to want to prevent. 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 last question here on that point of coalitions. Is there some understanding at least among the folks in Denmark that you've 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 us in this country who are as opposed to him as I'm sure they are over there. And in fact, the polling would reflect on this issue in particular. There was polling, um, that 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 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 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.
It's 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.
To listen to the audio version of this episode, click the link right here on the screen. And please make sure to subscribe. And of course, to see more video content, that subscribe button's on the screen as well.
[music]