Zolan Kanno-Youngs

Even when the administration is trying to reassure Ukraine that the United States will be here, they actually point to the fact that, look, if we have an investment in your critical earth minerals, that is impossible. in a form, you know, the best kind of security assurance that you could get because we don't want Russia to take over all of this territory.

If we have an agreement with you to continue to financially benefit, you know, from these critical earth minerals, isn't it more likely that we will continue to support your defense of your land, which I think says a lot about Trump. It says a lot about him.

That's right. It's also worth noting just some of the criticism that's come from some other European leaders who have said that this does echo colonialism as well, right? And a colonialist approach where you are looking to extract the resources of a country that you have leverage over or even power over.

I think that's right. And it's a little bit of what have you done for me lately approach to foreign policy. And you're seeing other nations react in a way to try and give him something that he can cite that they've done for him lately. And it's not just today. The Japanese prime minister came to the White House and was showering Trump with compliments, complimenting his appearance on TV.

Netanyahu also showered him with compliments. When he threatened tariffs against Mexico, Mexico agreed to new border security measures. You saw Canada also threatened with tariffs and talked about different things they were going to do at their northern border.

So you're seeing Trump make clear what his approach to foreign policy is, and you're seeing other world leaders respond by giving him something, whether it be something tangible on the ground or Or simply even the appearance of placating at the White House. Right.

That's right.

Thanks, Michael. Thanks, everyone.

You should be thanking the president for trying to bring it into this conflict.

And there's only so many ways that you can actually reach those cuts. And for a program like Medicaid, right, and just as a reminder, this is the government program providing health insurance for low-income Americans. Bless you for explaining that. That's now a program that could be on the chopping block here in this saga.

Right. And while you're cutting spending, the question that we have to keep asking are going to be following is also what programs get cut with that. And if you're looking at $800 billion over 10 years, there's very few ways to do that without cutting something like Medicaid, providing health insurance for lower income Americans. Many of which are supporters of the president.

Many of which are supporters of the president as well. And if they were to do that, You know, Democrats who up until this point have been really cautious in choosing what to swing at when it comes to the Trump administration.

I've talked to folks who think they have an opening there in attaching cutting of a government program that many of the president's own supporters rely on to this administration. Right.

Oh.

So we've talked about how President Trump's approach to foreign policy can best be described as transactional. And we got some examples of that early on when after coming into office, you know, when it came to aid for Ukraine, it started out as sort of amusing over having an exchange of the natural resources in Ukraine for aid to Ukraine.

And that has really become a focus of the negotiations that we've now seen in recent days and in recent weeks. So a pivotal point in this is when Trump's Treasury Secretary Scott Besson took a trip to Kyiv, Ukraine, and presented an initial version of this deal. And the initial version, Ukraine balked at it. What was the initial version? First, the U.S.

basically wants back pay for the aid they already sent to Ukraine. Trump is basically saying, you have these critical earth minerals in Ukraine, and the U.S. is going to get a significant amount, half of the revenue from that up to $500 billion. That's a lot. The maybe even more significant thing is what's not important. that proposal.

And that's the assurance Zelensky wants of a long-term security guarantee. The concern for Ukraine is that any pause in fighting that U.S. and Russia agreed to, well, what if Russia uses that to build up its forces and then Ukraine is left without the assurance, the knowledge that the United States will come to their defense, that the United States will actually support Ukraine?

Why? Well, for one, I mean, a late version of a U.S. proposal did vaguely say that the U.S. would support Ukraine security. But then Trump came around the next day in a cabinet meeting and said, essentially, that was going to be the responsibility of European nations that are closer to Ukraine. Zelensky's in a really tight spot here. I mean, he knows Ukraine has been relying on a lot of U.S. aid.

And, you know, he's now put in a position where, like many other world leaders, he now needs to come to Washington and try to placate Trump, try to use old-fashioned diplomacy to try and secure any kind of assurance for Ukraine.

And the president's going to be asked about this topic. You know, he already has been asked about it in the White House while he was signing an executive order. He was pressed and asked, now that you've done these pardons, do you think there's essentially a place for the Proud Boys, for these groups, quote, in the political conversation?

And the president responded by saying, well, we'll have to see and then criticize their sentencing as well. So we'll have to watch, too, now that this has happened, will the president of the United States also continue to amplify these groups as well?

So basically throughout the federal government, all the different cabinet agencies, you had these different programs that were focused on increasing diversity. In the previous administration's mind, it was programs that would basically be addressing decades of systemic inequalities and racism.

Yeah, that's right. I mean, we've been talking about this topic of retribution, right? And we have heard comments from the president's allies, including some in Congress, who have talked about wanting to pursue investigations of those that were on the committee set up to investigate the attack on the Capitol. That is looking back.

It's just looking back in a way that aligns with the president's political priorities.

And it's worth also saying this DEI has ramped up recently, but it's not necessarily new, came out of legislation in the 60s, what have you. Trump comes into office and one of his executive orders essentially calls this immoral and saying that under the guise of diversity, that actually this is promoting inequality, right?

Some of the Democrats who received a pardon didn't think it was a good idea as well. Members of the committee? You had Adam Schiff saying that he thought it was unwise to receive a pardon. Got a pardon anyway. Yeah, he did. He did. Now, some did want one. Benny Thompson, who was also on the J6 committee, was in conversations with the White House about this.

And he did say that he was open to receiving one. But just by the comments of some of those who received it and sort of the mixed responses, you can see just how sort of polarizing this was.

Just in recent days, his administration has taken a number of actions, right? So that includes a directive to put those that are working and leading DEI initiatives on paid leave. It also includes sending out memos to each agency, basically asking different federal employees to report any indication or any work that may be in progress that is in line with DEI initiatives.

I've talked to federal employees who have said that this makes them feel as if they have to almost turn in their own peers. Hmm. who might be working on this broad term as well. And that sent a chilling effect in the private sector as well, where now you have companies that are basically trying to decide, do we still maintain these programs that were meant to promote diversity?

Do we shy away from it? Do we rename it? Is it just that the acronym is toxic in itself? You've seen multiple actions at this point. to follow through on what during the campaign was fiery rhetoric, but now seems to be an attempt to be at least one piece of reshaping this administration in a way that's aligned with the president.

It's worth remembering, too, that the previous administration signed executive orders to put racial equity essentially at the center of almost all their policymaking, including the hiring practices, you know, of the administration and just how sort of the structure of each agency, too.

DEI, you know, even if it doesn't say it on your title, the fear here is palpable because people, even if you were working on, say, infrastructure investing or, you know, climate programs, there was still a focus on racial equity there the past four years. So you do have agency employees here almost wondering, you know, will they be next in a way?

You were just talking, Maggie, about also just how much loyalty is important to this president when it comes to the people that he brings in, when it comes to the actions that he's doing.

It is just interesting to square the argument of our previous topic of, you know, going after these DEI programs to have a government that's more based off merit when at the same time this president also we know is doing loyalty tests for people coming in. Hmm. That's not exactly merit. That's not merit as a top priority. That's loyalty as a top priority.

Correct. I mean, I think there's also a question of just what does the federal government look like when you have a – clear disregard of the checks and balances that are set up within the federal bureaucracy at this point. He has shown that he's willing to go and effectively shrink an agency.

He's also indicated that he wants Elon Musk's team to next go into the Department of Education, to also go into the Pentagon. You have a president and an administration here that has been pretty honest about wanting to completely reshape the federal bureaucracy in a way where it's set up in his image, where you have loyalists throughout.

And when you're disregarding the checks and balances that have been set up in order to do that, I mean, that indicates that there's not going to be much hesitancy on the part of this administration to pursue these goals and upending the federal bureaucracy.

There's so few guardrails at this point for this administration. When you're essentially ignoring Congress's role, when you're installing loyalists at the Department of Justice, when you're ousting inspectors general as well, I think there is a real question of, at that point, what is the system of accountability that's in place for the executive branch?

That's a good question. I know in your story, you indicated that we might have some more country music, you know, at the Kennedy Center. Knowing Trump, probably what he envisions to be patriotic or more America first. I think there's something broader here. Which is what?

I think this has to do with Trump's clear intent to put sort of his MAGA stamp on all areas of society, not just the executive branch. I think you have to look at this also in tandem with DEI executive orders that have tried to dictate how private companies shape their hiring practices, directing different federal agencies and federal employees to remove companies

their preferred pronouns from signatures, you know, removing gender-neutral bathrooms, trying to also dictate how schools will handle LGBTQ issues as well. You know, I think this is part of trying to please a base that sees diversity and diversity in art as being a partisan issue, as being, you know, quote-unquote woke in a way.

Sure, so I think it's smart that you started this with the fact that Trump had this significant call with Vladimir Putin. That conversation basically prompted concern amongst Europeans as well as Americans that Ukraine was not going to have a seat at the negotiating table. The country that was invaded in this case was not going to have a say in any potential peace talks that could end the war.

I think that's right. And, you know, an effort to shape perception, too. When you're flooding the zone with false statements in the case of Ukraine, it also allows you to then shape the perception for your base for actions to come as well.

Thank you. Thanks so much.

There are talks then in Saudi Arabia between U.S. officials and a Russian delegation. And Zelensky does not attend because he was not invited to those talks, even though it was his country that was invaded. So after he doesn't attend, you have President Trump come out and criticize Zelensky. Right.

I think you also have to look at it in tandem with the outright skepticism that has come from Trump and his team about U.S. aid to Ukraine as well. And as you continue to put out these false statements that cast blame on Ukraine, turn it from victim to villain, does that now lay the groundwork to pull back U.S. aid on a long term basis to Ukraine as well?

There's been multiple indicators that we could be getting to that point. You saw in recent days the president say that for previous aid to Ukraine that's already gone through that he wanted an exchange, critical earth minerals from Ukraine.

So you're already seeing now a shift from a Biden administration whose position was we're going to send aid and arms to Ukraine to give them the best leverage in potential negotiations to a Trump administration that's saying, essentially, what are we getting back for this U.S. aid? So the skepticism has been building here.

And now you have these false statements that are casting blame on Ukraine in an attempt to potentially shape public perception over the war as well. potentially laying the groundwork for a major change in not just USA to Ukraine, but also kind of U.S. foreign policy and how the United States deals with allies overseas.

Michael, you also mentioned the public polling, too, and some of the skepticism from the country. That is something that gets brought up when you press Trump administration officials and some foreign policy experts, too, about this, that there was some frustration building, including in Ukraine, of what's the strategy for a diplomatic off-ramp here? What's the endgame?

Is this just going to continue? The status quo essentially wasn't working for the American people anymore. So at least this is an effort to force talks. The only issue is are you now forcing talks and pretty much giving up the leverage that you might have had? How much are you actually going to force Ukraine to cede?

I will put that Trump stamp on really all matters of society and in the country.

It's such a better siren song than what we have here.

I'm coming to learn, too, that it's very difficult to put Trump into one of like the traditional labels that we use.

For any policy. Isolationist, imperialist. You know, covering this more and more, the word I just keep coming back to is transactional. He has this view where, you know, each nation, allies are just taking advantage of the United States. And what are we getting in return?

Even in the case of Ukraine, we've been hearing more and more about, yes, he did say he would commit to aid, but also he wants critical earth minerals as well now. What can the U.S. gain from this? And when you have somebody where that's the through line – just a transactional approach, with that comes unpredictability as well.

You're no longer governed by a set of rules of acting a certain way with allies and another way with adversaries. And it seems like it just has resulted in global leaders across the world, from Europe to the Middle East now, walking on eggshells.

Well, and it was more than just selling him. And this, I think, will get to your question. It was more than just selling him. He put the pressure on him when he was in the White House.

With the cameras rolling.

King Abdullah is sitting next to President Trump. President Trump is asked, you have this plan to forcibly remove Palestinians to these neighboring countries. The king of one of those nations does not want to do that.

And then Trump started to answer by saying, well, we just had a nice conversation, and then immediately turns and puts the king of Jordan on the spot. What did the king say back? Well, in that moment, he used what a lot of other leaders have used thus far with Trump, flattery, placating.

He basically was saying to the president, trying to make the case that they are helping Palestinians in Gaza.

But he didn't forcibly push back at that point when he was in front of President Trump. And it was only until hours later that the King of Jordan posted on social media basically saying, our stance remains the same. We do not want Palestinians forcibly displaced. But that was when he was outside the White House, away from the cameras, now away from Trump at that point.

And yes, that message from the King of Jordan may go to his domestic audience. I think President Trump also got the scene he wanted for his audience as well.

Happy Valentine's Day, Michael. Great to be with you, all three of you.

I mean I cover the White House now, but I used to cover a cabinet agency during Trump round one. And I remember covering that cabinet agency. Officials used to talk about all the time how if they were going to do an announcement, going to have a policy change, Trump needed the spotlight. Like they were very conscious about that. So to see this scene of –

The richest man in the world standing in front of cameras articulating this real attempt to reshape the federal bureaucracy into something that's in Trump's image. It was something that I didn't think I would see covering Trump round one.

The question also asked, why can't they just say this is about cutting government? I mean, we know from reporting this is not just about cutting the fat off of government, that this is not just about limiting federal spending, that this is also about getting people in office that will implement your agenda without asking questions, without putting up a bureaucratic hurdle.

So it's not just about cutting spending. For him right now, it seems like The definition of corruption is also changing. Corruption, as you were just saying, can be a policy difference. That's right.

I thought this was really a takeaway that there actually wasn't an assessment in this memo on the evidence of this case. But the takeaway was rather an assessment, a political assessment, really, of how Eric Adams would be able to implement Trump's immigration crackdown. That was explicitly said here.

And we see this case as a hurdle in order to doing that. That was the primary reason. And it's worth noting that Eric Adams as well early on in the Biden administration was one of the earliest Democrats to attack the previous administration over immigration, made a lot of noise, which this current president also noticed.

This goes beyond just the Eric Adams case, too. I think what this all is showing is he doesn't want to limit his influence and power just to the executive branch, just to Washington. It is extraordinary to see a president say, my power will not be limited by the checks and balance of the federal government. I will involve myself in cities and the private sector and the global stage.

David, I traveled with him to Latin America and Angola, and he answered two shouted questions during both of those trips. Answer two shouted questions, you know.

I thought that was his most clear acknowledgement of what many Democrats had been fearing. You know, one thing I would often hear is it's not necessarily that he's 82 years old. It's what happens when he's 86, what happens at the end of a second term, and does he have the ability to fully carry out that service? And here you saw him acknowledging that concern as well.

I also think he was speaking to we've been reporting a lot on just Biden's sort of mood and his mindset in these final months. And there's been frustration. He does believe that that he had the ability to beat Trump if he had stayed at the top of the ticket. He's also very reflective right now.

And I think the USA Today interview, you know, showed that he's in this period where he's reflecting on his long career, but also thinking about what could have been if he hadn't dropped out. But to be clear, I mean, most polling does, you know, throw doubt on the fact that he had the ability to beat Trump.

That was the most striking thing for me. Maggie is just seeing not just Obama, but also Biden and really all of these leaders sitting together, you know, in a way you have a collision of institutionalists and traditionalists fighting facing somebody that for years they have called a threat to democracy and who many of their also supporters believe is a threat to democracy.

But now you're in this period where your commitment to the institution rises above its seams.

On paper, it was almost advertised as something that I think many would characterize as somewhat presidential about economic investment. The president-elect came out with a business leader from the UAE that actually has close ties to the Trump family. And started out by talking about a $20 billion investment to data centers, a sort of normal press conference as one goes into office.

But it really only took minutes for this thing to move off topic and to devolve into something that was a news conference that I think we all saw when Trump was first in office. Well, inevitably, it turned to Greenland.

It's straight out of his playbook. Economic coercion is straight out of his playbook.

And it's not just Denmark and Panama, which he focused on in the press conference, leaders there that are rattled by this. He also talked about Canada and potentially using economic coercion there. Also, the tricky thing with these press conferences is we focus on in one example, Trump said, I want to rename the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of America. Right. The focus is there.

But also, he did have comments about Mexico and the Mexican government not doing enough to stop migrants, to stop drug trafficking. We know that he has also threatened tariffs against Mexico before. So while there might be sort of a flashy statement at the top of this, I do think there's a real through line behind it.

And it does, you know, rattle leaders, including some of our biggest trade partners.

So I'll start with policy and sort of the actions that he's been taking. You know, he recently signed an executive order in the vein of environmental justice and climate. It would basically ban drilling in about 625 million acres of US coastal waters. Biden has also used his final days to issue clemency action as well for those on death row. Right.

When I talk to administration officials privately, they're honest that they're limited in what they can do with the president-elect coming in. You know, Trump has said that he's going to gut Biden's Inflation Reduction Act and his environmental investments. He has said he's going to peel back some of that money. And there are laws in place that basically say that appropriated funds have to go out.

Right. There is not much you can do for, say, Biden's executive actions on immigration. Trump's going to be able to peel much of that back. So, yes, Biden is taking action to try to protect some of these policies. But privately, administration officials are a little bit more candid about how little they can do here to protect this agenda, particularly that which wasn't signed into legislation.

We've discovered what some of these proposals are. DHS has gone to the IRS and asked them to turn over addresses of hundreds of thousands of people it wants to deport. At this point, it does not seem the IRS has agreed to that request. And then also the administration is considering reinstating the practice of detaining immigrant families.

That's a tactic that came under fire because of concerns around detaining particularly immigrant children and the conditions of some of those facilities. All of these are measures not just to ramp up deportations, but in some case, create an environment that's so uncomfortable that immigrants decide to self-deport.

And it's also a sign of sort of a sense of urgency, the sense of, you know, some might even say desperation on this administration to get these numbers up.

This lag in the pace of deportations has already caused concern, even frustration, among some of President Trump's top immigration advisors.

Our reporting has found that Tom Homan, the czar of this deportation effort, and Stephen Beller, the architect of Trump's immigration agenda, are meeting each morning, sometimes in their office in the White House, sometimes in the Situation Room, and are studying these numbers, deportations, detentions, trying to strategize on ways to ramp up these deportation numbers.