Trump Asks If NATO Would Rescue US; Trump At WH Briefing, Speaks On Year 1 | NTD Newsroom (Jan. 20)

President Trump set to jet off to Switzerland as tensions with European leaders are high over his moves to take Greenland. Before departing Washington, he's stopping in at the White House briefing room to tout the first year of his second term. We now go live to NTD's Washington correspondent Mari Otsu, who's in Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. Mari, good afternoon. When can we expect from the President's Davos trip? Don, good afternoon. That's right. Today marks one year since President Trump returned to the White House for his second term, and he's certainly showing no signs of slowing down. He's about to depart for Davos tonight, where he's expected to preview some of his upcoming economic policies for the year at the World Economic Forum. President Trump earlier this month teased that he plans to announce new housing and affordability proposals there, and the President's not backing down on his bid to take Greenland for national security reasons, citing escalating threats from China and Russia in the Arctic. Take a look. We have to have it. They have to have this done. Let's put it this way. It's going to be a very interesting Davos. In recent years, the Chinese communist regime has been developing its commercial and military capabilities in the Arctic. If you take a look outside of Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers, there are Chinese destroyers and bigger. Over the weekend, President Trump said he would impose 10 percent tariffs on Denmark and seven other European countries, including France and the U.K., until a deal is struck to acquire the island. He's also sharply criticizing the U.K. over its plan to hand over ownership of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Guess who is behind Mauritius? The Chinese. So we needed to own that island, but the Brits are giving it up. Meanwhile, the White House touting the first year of President Trump's second term. Here's the book. These are all things we have. I'm going to read a few of the samples, but look at this. Each line is something that we did. Nobody did that before. And it's big stuff, too. Look, we have the hottest country in the world. From securing the border and cracking down on crime, to expanding the U.S.'s production of rare earths to curb reliance on China. Nationwide, over the last 11 months, achieved the largest reduction in violent crime on record, including the largest one-year drop in murders ever recorded. Internationally, President Trump highlights his pursuit of peace through strength, using tariffs and trade to broker peace deals. If they take those tariffs away, China will eat our lunch. I hope the Supreme Court does the right thing for our country. Multiple armed conflicts were brought to an end, including between India and Pakistan, Cambodia and Thailand, and the Congo and Rwanda. And one of his highest profile achievements, a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, leading to the return of nearly all Israeli hostages. The momentous breakthrough that we're here to celebrate tonight is more than the end of the war in Gaza. It's with God's help. It'll be the new beginning for an entire beautiful Middle East. In June, President Trump ordered Operation Midnight Hammer, precision strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. And just a few days after the new year, the U.S. military captured former Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. We built Venezuela oil industry with American talent, drive and skill. And the socialist regime stole it from us during those previous administrations, and they stole it through force. We want peace, liberty and justice for the great people of Venezuela. And on the second and last day of his Davos visit, President Trump is expected to participate in a board of peace meeting. This is part of phase two of that U.S.-backed ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas to end the war in Gaza. President Trump is chair of the board with his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Special Envoy Steve Whitkoff also on the board. And dozens of countries have also been invited, including Russia's President Vladimir Putin. And President Trump says today that the board might replace the United Nations. Don, back to you. All right, Mari, thank you. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Besen said today that U.S. relations with Europe have never been closer. Comments come in the face of tensions over President Trump's ambition to control Greenland. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Besen was asked if the U.S. is still an ally of Europe and about the possibility of a trade war. Again, I think that question is amidst the false alternative. You're once again going to the farthest point, a maximalist position, that we are in the middle of the President Trump's policies. And of course, Europe is an ally. The U.S.'s NATO membership is unquestioned. We are partners in trying to stop this tragic war between Russia and Ukraine. But that does not mean that we cannot have disagreements on the future of Greenland. Calm down the hysteria. Take a deep breath. This is where we were last year. I'm sure you asked me the same question if we were here on April 2nd. And you know what? It all worked out. The economies are fine. We have a very good trade agreement. And I think our relations have never been closer. President Trump announced tariffs on Saturday and on imports from European allies that oppose the United States taking over Greenland. European countries say new tariffs violate a trade deal reached with Trump last year. EU leaders are set to discuss possible retaliation at an emergency summit in Brussels on Thursday. One option is a package of tariffs on about $110 billion of U.S. imports. Besson also dismissed the possibility that the EU would for the first time tap its anti-coercion instrument, a powerful trade measure which could limit U.S. access to public tenders, investments, or banking activity. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said today that the bloc's executive arm is working on a package to support Arctic security. She warned that tariffs proposed by President Trump over Greenland are a mistake. Von der Leyen said Arctic security can only be achieved together in a speech in Davos. She said the United States agreed to a trade deal last July, and in politics, as in business, a deal is a deal. Meanwhile, NATO's commander in Europe said today that the Greenland issue was now a political issue. He said NATO is focused on what it always focuses on, defending and deterring aggression against any part of alliance territory. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick warned Europe not to retaliate against President Trump over his pursuit of Greenland. Here he is at the World Economic Forum today explaining how Trump levies tariffs. I think with respect to the tariff policy, the president uses tariff policy to make sure people are talking and paying attention and not just acting. You have seen him use tariff policy again and again to have outcomes that are reasonable and appropriate. So the fact that he doesn't want things to be done without discussion, without consideration, is a way for him to say, hey, you need to talk to us. If you're our great ally, you need to talk to us. Lutnick was attending a panel discussion with the finance ministers of the UK and Canada and the CEO of Bank of America. The Commerce Secretary said the US still sees the UK, Europe and Canada as great allies, despite having disagreements on certain issues such as Greenland. With regard to Greenland, he added that security in the Western Hemisphere is vital for the US. The Commerce Secretary also criticized Europe for its energy policy. He said the bloc shouldn't offshore its entire industrial base, especially medicine and semiconductors. Lutnick added that nations should not depend on any other nation for industries that are fundamental to their sovereignty. Why are you going to do solar and wind? Why would Europe agree to be net zero in 2030 when they don't make a battery? They don't make a battery. So if they go 2030, they are deciding to be subservient to China, who makes the batteries. Why would you do that? Why would the United States of America, which has oil and natural gas, try to convert to all electricity? Speaker of the House Mike Johnson warned British lawmakers about the sophisticated forms of subversion that the Chinese Communist Party is deploying against the West and its value system. Our Washington correspondent Luis Eduardo Martinez has more on the story. Those hostile to the West and to our shared values are engaging in increasingly sophisticated forms of subversion and espionage. We see China, Russia and Iran grow more aggressive and emboldened as they intensify their efforts to exert economic, political and military influence around the world. Mike Johnson became the first Speaker of the House to deliver a speech at the British Parliament. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson warned that the enemies of the United States and the United Kingdom are emboldened and actively working to subvert democratic systems. And remind our adversaries and the terrorists and tyrants everywhere that our nations that are dedicated to freedom and justice and order and human dignity are stronger and more resolved now than ever before. Johnson's speech comes the same day that the British Parliament greenlit the construction of a controversial mega Chinese embassy in the heart of London's financial district. The Chinese Communist Party purchased the Royal Mint Court building in 2018 for over $300 million. The site is a block away from the famous Tower of London and Tower Bridge and a few feet away from crucial fiber optic cables carrying sensitive British financial data. The 215,000 square foot mega embassy will become the CCP's largest diplomatic outpost in Europe. Clearly, President Trump is taking seriously the modern and dynamic threats that China and Russia posed to our global security, especially in focus the last few days as it relates to the Arctic. Speaker Johnson also encouraged British lawmakers to work with the United States to defend common interests and maintain a historic relation that has produced great stability in transatlantic relations. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, let us look to agreement, continue our dialogue and find a resolution just as we always have in the past. Upon his return to the United States, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is expected to put a three-bill minibus funding package to a vote on the House floor to avert a government shutdown at the end of the month. Reporting from Washington, D.C., Luis Eduardo Martinez, NTD News. The European Union improving its cybersecurity amid the growing threat from China. The bloc plans to phase out gear supplied by companies based in certain countries as a move seen as targeting Chinese companies. NTD's international correspondent Arian Pasdar has the story. The European Union working to protect its critical infrastructure such as high-speed telecommunication networks. Under new draft legislation, telecom equipment from so-called high-risk suppliers would be phased out within three years. This comes amid rising concerns that European nations are vulnerable to the dominance of Chinese tech manufacturing. The proposals don't mention any countries or companies by name, but the term high-risk has been previously used to refer to countries like China, home to tech giant Huawei. The U.S. already banned new Chinese equipment in 2022 and has urged European allies to follow suit. The tech chief of the EU comments on the new draft, saying with the new cybersecurity package, we will have the means in place to better protect our critical supply chains, but also to combat cyberattacks decisively. The proposed restrictions also cover equipment in other sectors like security scanners used at border checkpoints, water supply systems, and health and medical devices. Arian Pasdar, NTD News. This is NTD Newsroom, live from our global headquarters in New York City. Good afternoon and welcome to NTD Newsroom. I'm Don Ma. You were just watching President Trump attending a White House press briefing, citing his achievements over the past his first year in his second term, and it was a long list starting off. Top of the list, he started with affordability, saying that he ended stagflation, which he inherited from the previous administration, high economic growth, high GDP, and as well citing record highs in the stock market as well, lowering gas prices, a lot of things, cutting federal deficit by 27% as well. Okay, but let's move on here. Britain's government today approved China building its largest embassy in Europe, in London. The UK hopes to improve ties with Beijing, and this comes despite British and US politicians' warnings that it could be used as a spy base. Despite everything China has done on our soil, China has been rewarded with exactly what they want, a super embassy that will be a not just in the UK, but likely across Europe as well. The government has capitulated to Chinese demands. The Prime Minister himself said to President Xi at the G20 in November 2024, and I quote, you raised the Chinese embassy building in London when we spoke on the telephone. We have since taken action by calling in that application. In other words, the Prime Minister did precisely what President Xi told him to do, and then he faithfully reported back afterwards. This decision has serious implications. Last week, the Telegraph published plans showing 208 secret rooms and a hidden chamber just one metre from critical data cables. Our economy depends on those cables. So what assurance can the minister give that those cables will be secure from Chinese interference? Two-century-old Royal Mint Court near the Tower of London. China's plans have stalled for three years over opposition from local residents, lawmakers, and Hong Kong pro-democracy campaigners in Britain. Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping asked UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer last year to intervene. The decision was announced before an expected visit to China by Starmer this month. And this is the first by the British leader since 2018. Some British and Chinese officials said the trip was dependent on the embassy being approved. The government said intelligence agencies devised a range of protective agency or security measures. Britain's government has greenlit plans for China to build an embassy to close London's, or rather close to London's financial district. Joining us to discuss this is human rights activist and writer Benedict Rogers. He's the author of The China Nexus and co-founder and chair of Hong Kong Watch, and as well, senior director at Fortify Rights. So Benedict, good afternoon to you. Thank you so much for joining us. So, I mean, why is Britain allowing China to build its largest European embassy next to critical financial data infrastructure? Because many have raised serious national security concerns. Well, in my view, it is a massive mistake. So many voices across party, not only from the opposition parties, but from the governing party, the Labour Party itself, have expressed their concerns about it. Only last night in Parliament, there was an urgent question where several Labour members of Parliament opposed this. I think the primary reason why the government has done this is, first of all, they're concerned about the trade relationship with China. They want to prioritize that. Our economy faces, admittedly, quite a lot of challenges at the moment, and the prime minister seems to be putting trade above security concerns. He wants to visit China quite possibly in the next few weeks, and he knew that the visit was conditional upon approving this embassy. And I think there was one other factor, which is that the regime in Beijing was essentially holding the British embassy in Beijing to ransom. They were several times cutting off the water and the electricity. The British embassy in Beijing was in need of repair and extension. But instead of finding a mutually acceptable way forward, the British government has kowtowed to Beijing and basically given in to their bullying over this. So what is the message then that the UK is sending by allowing this, by greenlighting this embassy? I think it's an extremely dangerous message. It's essentially saying to Beijing that they can bully and threaten and intimidate their way to getting what they want. And we all know in life the best way to treat bullies is to stand up to them, but that's not what the British government has done. It's given them what they wanted, and that's a very dangerous message. I think it poses real concerns for our national security, for our values, not only in terms of espionage, but also in terms of the embassy's use for transnational repression against diaspora communities here in the UK. And there's one other factor that I feel very passionately about, which is that there is a British national, Jimmy Lai, who is facing the prospect of dying in prison in Hong Kong. He's 78 years old. He's been there already five years. He's awaiting sentence, but it will be a very long sentence and he's in very poor health. And for the British prime minister to give in to Beijing over this embassy before demanding Jimmy Lai's release, before making it conditional on Jimmy Lai's release, I think is outrageous. Yeah, I see your point there. And I just want to build on it. For years, the Chinese Communist Party has carried out its campaign of transnational repression, as well as monitoring dissidents abroad. And one example I'm going to give here is the adherents of the spiritual group Falun Gong, Tibetans as well, and you mentioned Jimmy Lai, other pro-democracy activists for Hong Kong as well. How could the creation of this embassy impact Chinese dissidents living in London and the UK overall? Well, I think it will only increase the transnational repression that's already been underway. We've seen, for example, you've mentioned some of the groups affected, but we've seen Hong Kongers who've had bounties placed on their heads, then receiving threatening letters in their neighborhoods to their neighbors, urging their neighbors to hand them over to the Chinese embassy. I myself have had threatening letters at my home, as my mother has as well. And I think all of that is going to be emboldened by the fact that the British government has given this embassy. It will be the largest in Europe. It will make it much easier for the Chinese to coordinate both their espionage and their transnational repression, because they'll all be in one huge building. And there's one other factor, which is that when these plans were originally proposed, the Metropolitan Police in London opposed them because they said that the space outside the embassy would be very difficult to police in large-scale protests. And we've proven their point correct because we've had many protests in the last year, and it causes big disruption to the traffic. So the question is, will protests be able to continue once the embassy is established there? And will diaspora communities feel safe enough to protest outside this building? We had the incident a few years ago of the consulate in Manchester, where Chinese diplomats physically assaulted Hong Kong protesters, dragged them through the gates of that consulate. It's not hard to imagine the same thing happening in this new site. You know what I find strange, Benedict? MI5, Britain's spy service, has not objected to the plans, despite warning about broader threats from China. Why is that? Well, it's a question that only they can really answer. What I do know is that quite a number of former intelligence officers, including the former head of MI6, has spoken out against it. As to why the current intelligence services have not, is a matter for them. But I should emphasize that I do have great respect and trust in our intelligence agencies. It's not them that are to blame for this. It's the politicians that have made this decision. And you said earlier, you've been impacted as well from China's transnational repression. Can you just speak a bit more about that? What would be the impact on everyday Britons if this embassy is built? Because China has a record of cyber espionage into other Western countries. Well, the most immediate threat, I think, is the fact that this embassy is right on top of these highly sensitive cables going between our two financial centers, the City of London and Canary Wharf. The plans are for hundreds of secret rooms in the basement of this new building as they develop it, with equipment that, according to the news reports, will be used or could be used to tap into those cables. So absolutely a clear example of cyber espionage. More broadly, I think the impact on ordinary people in Britain will be an increase in infiltration, in influence, in intimidation by the Chinese Communist Party. So just one final question, Benedict. What do you think happens now, now that this embassy has been given the green light? Is there going to be guardrails put into place? Are activists going to be more closely monitoring this site? Can you just talk to us about what you think could happen from this point on? Well, the first and most important thing to say is that this actually isn't totally the end of the story, because there are British citizens who currently live in the building that will be the Chinese embassy now that the government has approved it. They have been fundraising to launch a judicial review, to launch a legal challenge to the government's approval of this. Already in the last few hours since the government's announcement of its approval, they've raised, I think, over £100,000, which is well towards the target that they need. So I'm sure that judicial review will happen, that legal challenge will happen, and that will at least cause some further delay in the actual establishment of the embassy. I think there will be further political pressure, particularly around Keir Starmer's likely visit to China. And the government, if it wins the judicial review, if it does eventually go ahead with this as it intends to, certainly the political pressure will be such that really serious action must be taken to mitigate against the dangers. I don't know whether that can include relocating those cables and other measures to try to prevent the espionage risks. And MI5 have already today indicated that they are looking very seriously at this. The security minister has said the same. So I'm sure some steps will be taken, but whether they will be enough, we'll have to wait and see. Okay, Benedict, thank you for speaking with us today. I know it's rather late on your side, so I really appreciate it. It's a pleasure. Thank you. Okay, moving on. A new study shows 2025 was the worst year on record for online child sexual abuse material. Joining us to discuss this is Dani Pinter, chief legal officer at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. So Dani, good afternoon. And the study by the Internet Watch Foundation says there's been a 26,000% rise in realistic AI videos of child sexual abuse. Very staggering number. And these often include recognizable child victims. What are your initial thoughts on this whole situation? Well, it's obviously horrific and bad for society, but more concerning is that I think this was preventable and foreseeable. We've been warning that unless there's common sense safeguards on AI, that this is exactly what would happen. So it's distressing to see that that is coming true, but we're hopeful that we can do something about it. Do you think it's because these advances in AI, which have been very fast, they lower the barrier for someone to create harmful material, especially against children? Exactly. So this is something predators and child pornographers have tried to do since tech was far behind. They were taking magazines and clipping children into pornographic materials. So this is not surprising, but now with this open source AI and how rapidly it's become available, anybody can make hyper-realistic, complex CSAM videos without much technical expertise. And so that's frightening and will lead to only a more exponential increase if we don't do something about it now. So these images are artificially generated and not actual photos. What kind of harm can this still create for children and families? And how do we prevent that and contain that harm? Well, you mentioned earlier that some of them are identifiable children. So for the children whose first original and innocent photo was made pornographic, they're directly harmed by that. And we've heard from survivors of that kind of abuse that they feel very violated, traumatized, in addition to increasing actual danger for them as these predators tend to become stalkers and try to find these children and harm them. So it creates that harm, but also we're desensitizing society to child sexual abuse, which we know increases the occurrence of that kind of abuse. Individuals who previously never engaged with that kind of content will start to engage in it. There's been studies that show that. So this increases the number of predators, increases the demand for this material, which will increase the So how do we stop this? How do we mitigate it, reduce the harm? Yeah. So there's definitely things we can do. And so we've been calling on AI companies to put in place common sense regulation. So for example, right now, these AI companies could make it impossible for their tool to manipulate images or videos of children, for example, particularly if these are prepubescent children. Of course, it gets harder the older the child is, but there are things that these AI companies could do right now. So we expect them to do that. But if they don't act fast enough, we need to pass common sense, federal, and we argue even state regulations that would require the AI companies to take these measures to protect children and prevent this egregious material. Okay. So to your point of passing new regulation, as of right now, what does the law currently say about creating these materials using AI? Well, in the United States, these images are still illegal to create. So I would argue that certainly individuals using these tools have violated the law and potentially these companies, depending on what they knew or how they facilitated this. So that's why we call on the DOJ to investigate. But there's still loopholes and uncertainty on what these companies themselves, what their responsibilities are. And so to that end, we would like to see regulations on the AI companies themselves, so we can prevent this from happening before it happens. Okay. I'm wondering if there's a role that parents can play in this situation. What are your comments on that? Well, I think parents should not allow or at least be very vigilant in allowing their kids to interact with these AI tools. So just to reiterate, parents should either not allow their children to use these tools, because every image that these tools have access to, we can see now can be turned into this harmful material. And this is also why now we all need to be extremely careful about what pictures and images we put online, because these AI tools are now gobbling up those images and they're getting fed into the system and can now be used to harm people, including children. Okay, Dani, just one final question. If someone sees harmful material online, what should they do? Should they report it? What are the next steps? Absolutely. So they should report it to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children or the Internet Watch Foundation if they're outside the United States. But the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, that's where they should report it. They will funnel those reports to law enforcement and importantly work on taking down and hashing the image. But even for images that are not of children, I encourage you to report at least to the platform, if not authorities, because right now in the United States, this type of non-consensual images are illegal under the Take It Down Act. And these platforms have an obligation to remove the images. All right, Dani, thank you so much for sharing your insight on this important topic. Absolutely. Thank you. President Trump just wrapped up a 90-minute press conference at the White House where he touted his accomplishments over the past year. We now go live to NTD's Washington correspondent, Jack Bradley, at the White House. Jack, what were the main points the president was touting and what did he say about what's to come this year? Well, a lot was mentioned, Don. First, he started off with touting ice arrests in Minnesota, holding up photos for a long time. He had about 100 stacks of photos with suspects that ice has arrested who had committed violent crimes. And apparently, he went into more than he said that 10,000, his administration says that 10,000 arrests have been made so far in this regard. And he could have held that larger stack up in front of us. It was a very packed briefing room, by the way, probably a record. We were very much crammed in there like sardines. Now, he also touted his historic investments, commitments from other countries and U.S. companies into the U.S., numbering trillions of dollars. And he says that's in large part due to the tariffs. But those tariffs remain on the brink of whether or not they'll hold up as a Supreme Court case is reviewing whether or not that they can stand. And even the money collected from those tariffs from other countries would have to be given back to those countries if the Supreme Court strikes down those tariffs. Take a look at what he said about this earlier today. I don't know what the Supreme Court's going to do. I think it to me, it reads so plainly, couldn't be plainer. You're allowed to do a license. Tariff is probably less severe than what a license could be. But think of it. You're allowed to do a license and then they have a clause at the end, something to the effect, or what is necessary, something to that effect. And what is necessary with tariffs. I don't know where there's a case even there, but we've taken in hundreds of billions of dollars. And if we lose that case, it's possible we're going to have to do the best we can in paying it back. I don't know how that's going to be done very easily without hurting a lot of people. But we're waiting for that case anxiously and we have tremendous national security because of tariffs and tremendous income we have. And by the way, no inflation. Now, the president has talked about several job cuts to the federal workforce, but also new job creation to the private sector. And he said that 100 percent of those new jobs went to native born Americans. Now, as far as what's worth mentioning on the foreign policy front is NATO, getting NATO from that two percent investment commitment from their GDP up to that five percent. Still working on that, but getting many of them to commit to that. But he says even so, he knows that America will have their backs if they ever need it. But now he says that he's not sure NATO will have America's back. Take a look. Terminated visas of Hamas sympathizers and deported pro-jihad foreign nationals. Got NATO members to agree to raise defense spending to five percent of GDP from two percent. And they pay the five percent and they didn't pay the two percent. And by the way, I did more for NATO than any other person alive or dead. Nobody's done for NATO. And I think for the most part, they'll tell you that. I think you could ask the secretary general about that. But he said it. I've done more for NATO than anybody. And I see all this stuff. But NATO has to treat us fairly, too. The big fear I have with NATO is we spend tremendous amounts of money with NATO. And I know we'll come to their rescue. But I just really do question whether or not they'll come to ours. You know, I'm just asking. Just saying. Right. You remember during the debate? Just say. Now, the president has also used tariffs on national security grounds and also for foreign grounds to end several wars and armed conflicts. The White House says eight armed conflicts were ended over the past year under the Trump administration. And those include India, Pakistan, Azerbaijan and Armenia. We have Israel, Hamas, Israel and Iran. We also have Cambodia and Thailand. Tariffs played a large part. Tariff threats played a large part in that one as well. Now, in ending those wars, the president said that he received no support from the United Nations, not that he asked for it anyways, but then also no recognition from Norway's Nobel Peace Prize Commission. Take a look. Should have gotten the Nobel Prize for each war. But I don't say that. I saved millions and millions of people. And don't let anyone tell you that Norway doesn't control the shots, OK? It's in Norway. Norway controls the shots. So we have nothing to do with it. It's a joke. They've lost such prestige. Got all. That's why I have such respect for Maria doing what she did. She said, I don't deserve the Nobel Prize. He does. When she got it, they named. They said, wow, that's amazing. I thought President Trump would get it. President Trump deserves it. He ended up eight wars. How nice, right? Good woman. Now, as President Trump heads to Davos, Switzerland, one aspect that he'll be likely bringing up to his European leaders is what he sees as the main problems with Europe, which are two things, as far as how they're dealing with energy and the green energy mandates they've been having, and as well as immigration and too much immigration and how President Trump is working to establish sort of a role model for those countries and bring that to light. Also, we can look forward to his comments on acquiring Greenland and perhaps how he feels about NATO at this point. Back to you, Don. All right, Jack. Thank you. Almost three million deportations have happened during President Trump's first year back in office, according to the Department of Homeland Security. And the Department of Justice vows that it will pursue federal charges after anti-ICE activists disrupted a church service in Minnesota. NTD correspondent Jason Blair reports. The Department of Homeland Security says that nearly three million illegal immigrants have left the United States during the Trump administration's first year. According to the latest released statistics by the DHS, 675,000 illegal immigrants have been forcefully deported, and 2.9 million have self-deported. The total number of deportations since Trump took office is about 2.9 million. This also includes about 7,000 gang members that the DHS says have been arrested and taken off the streets. Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin says, When we say we are targeting the worst of the worst, this is exactly what we mean. These vicious criminals murdered, assaulted, robbed, and terrorized innocent Americans for sport. But under President Trump's and Secretary Noem's leadership, ICE is turbocharged to arrest even more gang members and make America safe again. President Trump says they are saving many innocent lives. There are thousands of vicious animals in Minnesota alone, which is why the crime stats are nationwide the best ever recorded. And the Department of Justice says that charges are coming after an anti-ICE group stormed and disrupted a Sunday church service at a church in Minnesota. The people who did this made a big, big mistake. Dillon says that the Department of Justice has put wheels into motion to make arrests. I see various crimes that have occurred, exactly what they are. I'm not going to flag. State prosecutors could have arrested some of these people, yes. Among the group was former CNN journalist Don Lemon, as well as activist and civil rights attorney Nekima Armstrong, who has taken credit as one of the organizers. We show up somewhere, they don't expect us to come there, and then we disrupt business as usual. Kent Dillon also issued a warning to other protest groups, telling them to not try the same thing at other churches this Sunday. Jason Blair, NTD News. Erica Kirk is asking a Utah court to speed up the trial of the suspected charge, suspected killer, charged with assassinating her husband, Charlie Kirk. The conservative activist was assassinated at Utah Valley University in September. In a court filing last week, Kirk's attorney wrote that she was invoking her rights as a victim to a speedy trial. Under Utah law, Tyler Robinson is accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk at the Utah campus on September 10th. The 22-year-old faces capital murder charges that could carry the death penalty. The filing comes after Robinson's attorneys petitioned a judge last week to disqualify prosecutors. The defense argued that the daughter of a Deputy County attorney in the case attended the rally where Charlie Kirk was shot, presenting a conflict of interest. The lead prosecutor argued that the defense's request was aimed at delaying the case against Robinson. The Supreme Court's majority today appeared likely to side with gun owners who are challenging Hawaii's ban on carrying a gun on private property that's open to the public without specific permission. NTD's Arlene Richards reports on the arguments before the court and some of the justices' questions. Three Hawaii gun owners with concealed carry permits say the state is still restricting gun possession and carry even after a recent Supreme Court case. They say a new state law places restrictions on when and where they can carry their guns, violating the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Hawaii law prohibits them from bringing a gun onto private property that is open to the public unless the property owner gives them specific permission to do so. Much of the arguments Tuesday centered around whether Hawaii's law applied national traditions or only those unique to Hawaii. Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether the state had accurately applied previous Supreme Court cases. Court's cases have started with the text, which declares an individual right, and then in Heller and in Bruin, the court has elaborated on it. Of course, as there are with all rights, as Heller said, some exceptions, but those exceptions to be recognized must be historically rooted, deep tradition, broad tradition, widely recognized, commonly recognized, not isolated examples, particularly not ones from the Black Codes, but even apart from that, not isolated examples. Justice Neil Gorsuch wanted to know why the state relied on the Black Codes, which were restrictive laws passed by Southern states after the Civil War, to restrict the freedoms of Black Americans. I struggle to see what relevance laws that are outliers, and in Bruin, we're not supposed to consider outliers, that they're put aside under our test. We're looking for the mainstream and a significant tradition. And you rely very heavily on an 1865 Black Code law in Louisiana. At the end of the day, it was unclear which way the court would rule, but considering that several of the arguments and questions centered around the court's reasoning in a similar gun law case, the majority appears to be leaning toward not allowing the Hawaii law. Marlene Richards, NTD News. President Trump hasn't been in office for exactly one year in his second term. Joining us now to discuss is Mike Leon, Director of Strategy at the Free and Equal Elections Foundation and host of the Can We Please Talk podcast. And we have Tony Kinnett, national correspondent at The Daily Signal and host of the Tony Kinnett Cast radio show and podcast. So good afternoon. Good to see you guys, as always. Mike, I'll start with you today. The president speaking this afternoon, this is his top three achievements in this first year. I want you to take a look at this clip here. So I think the building of a really powerful military has been a great achievement, and that would include the Venezuela thing. That would include the attack on Iran and the wiping out of the nuclear threat. I think that's been really amazing what we've done militarily. I think what we've done in business has been incredible. We have 18 trillion dollars coming in. Plants are being built all over. Thousands of plants are being built all over the country. 18 trillion is a record. No country has ever come anywhere even close to that. I think that's a record. And I think that most favored nations for drugs is something that nobody thought they'd be able to get. OK, so, Mike, having heard that, in your view, how did the president do this year? Well, Don, that's a loaded question. But first off, good to see you guys on this on this Tuesday afternoon. Look, I'm not sure why he interrupted the press conference today. I know it's the one year anniversary of him getting inaugurated into office. I'm not sure why he came out and did this kind of victory lap. I would reserve those things for four years after. Right. As opposed to middle of the first year. But let's let's pick apart some of the things that he mentioned there. Right. I do agree with the overarching premise of peace through strength. I do agree. Look, Nicolas Maduro is is a dictator. What the Venezuelan people have gone through has been horrific over the last 25 plus years between Maduro and Chavez. I do agree that Iran is a major threat not only to the West, but obviously their proxies all across. But there are certain things that the president has done from a military perspective that a lot of people this is not Mike Leon saying this. This is people in the military community and not the folks that you would normally think of that would say that some of these things are a little antithetical to what the United States is doing. We shouldn't be in regime changes. And you know who said that, Tulsi Gabbard. She's the director of national intelligence once upon a time. And she all of a sudden has been quiet about something like this. Again, whether or not Maduro is a bad guy, we already know Maduro is a bad guy and something needed to happen in Venezuela. So some of those things that have happened on a foreign policy stage with respect to what the president has done, you know, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza are still not solved and resolved. I know he wants to put those in the eight war solved category, but they're not, unfortunately. And thousands of people are still losing their lives with respect to both wars. And we literally have no end in sight with respect to a transition plan in Gaza or what we're going to do with Russia's aggression if they go beyond Ukraine, because they just saw us invade into Venezuela and what we're doing with Greenland. In terms of the economy and things like that, there was a recent Ipsos poll that has the president at 36 percent in terms of his handling of the economy right now. Obviously, inflation has gone down a small trickle since the Biden administration and into 2025. But there are still things from an economic factor, still some industries and sectors that are still hurting. And I do agree with the president's overarching premise of using tariffs as a strategy. But the way he's gone about it and also the tax that's been imposed on Americans because of this, I feel like some of those things are things I wouldn't be running around champion, especially in a twenty twenty six midterm election. All right, Tony, let's hear your thoughts now. Oh, good afternoon to you both and a very fine Hoosiers to you both. Sorry, Indiana, something I had to get in there. And that all said, I do think the president of the United States was going to do this. We actually had somebody ready to go, knowing he was likely going to get out and run some kind of a victory lap here. Again, agreeing with Mike on the military perspective, the peace through strength. I look at John Fetterman and Senator McCormick in Pennsylvania who have essentially answered from the left and the right in a unified message on a lot of these things. And I think that that's very appropriate. It shows a likely group of people in the industrial center of the country that are looking towards things like stability and foreign policy that does come through peace, through strength. I think that's effective. Now, taking that same group over into the economy, the president of the United States has done some really excellent things via the economy this year. You look at the deregulation where he deregulated the Department of Energy, deregulated a lot of things that were put in place that really ruined aspects of American industry and growth all the way from their energy requirements for wind and solar, as opposed to things like nuclear and the development of cleaner natural gas. Of course, looking at how the United States handles that energy trade policy on a global stage is also very important. There are some things that the president carefully left out of his year roundup and review. And you can take that one of two ways. Number one, you can say, hey, there are things that are in progress that haven't shown the fruit yet. We were promised a lot of golden, wonderful things out of the tariffs. We didn't get them. We were promised a lot of really terrible, awful things out of the tariffs. We didn't get them. And so I think that a lot of this has to boil down to, in 2026, a reverse catch-22, if I may, where if the Supreme Court strikes down the tariff plan of the Trump administration, the economy is going to boom right before the midterms. And if they don't, then you're going to see a stabilization. At least that's what's been alluded to by automotive, technology manufacturers, all the way over into energy production, which will likely pick up momentum in 2026. So I mean, it was expected. I'd say diplomatically, Trump is Trump. Him pulling out of a bunch of U.N. stuff is candy to me. So I was never going to be grumpy about that. Okay. So Mike, Tony brought up the midterms coming up later this year. How much support do you think President Trump has to gain before we get to those elections? Well, I think within Tony's answer is the actual overarching answer, right? Like he mentioned the Supreme Court case that will really have an impact on this. The economy is always number one. It's what any Democratic strategist, Republican strategist, and independent strategist will tell you. It's always the economy, stupid, in the words of James Carville. So we don't know where we're going to be at this point, come end of October, beginning of November, whenever early voting starts in different states, right, Don? So I think there's a maraud of factors here. I don't think the trickle effect of 25 in those elections, because as I've talked about on this network and with other folks, ad nauseum has been that you can't really, you can magnify the voter turnout, like Prop 50, for example, in California. You know, obviously in New Jersey, the margin of victory between, you know, Jack Cittarelli, you know, somebody who's known in New Jersey politics versus Mikey Sherrill, who's like a freshman or sophomore, you know, a congressperson in a smaller district out there in Jersey where I used to live once upon a time. So you can kind of look to some of those examples, but, you know, voters are creatures of the habit, so, creatures of the moment, excuse me. So 2026, they're going to be looking at the present moment, right? Now, here's one thing I will say that wasn't talked about, and we've seen some pushback from billionaires on this. Trump has talked about this credit card and the APR interest rate and getting this down to a real fiscal number that would put money back into the pockets of folks and actually attack the root issues of why 44, I think it is, million people are in credit card debt of over $6,000 or more, and he wants to tackle that. And I saw people like Bill Ackerman on Twitter saying, don't do this, which means that if anytime a billionaire says don't do it, you should do it, because there's a reason why he wants to do it, because he wants to make his pockets a little bit bigger. And I think the president actually doing that, again, something small, Don, but it could have a trickle effect down ballot for some of these other races where people could go into some of these purple districts, Mike Lawler, somebody like that, in a district like that, and say, look what the president's doing to tackle these big corporations and the media narrative and stuff like that. So there could be something like that, but we need to see where we're going to be in 2026, Don, with respect to some of these sectors of the economy that still haven't shown growth, to Tony's point. So Tony, is the level of support or opposition from the American public a year later where you expect it to be? And do you think there is more room for Trump to improve that support before the elections come? So to answer your question, is it where I thought it was going to be? I did expect there to be a decline in the approval rating from where he was. I think I ended up saying that kind of last year in about March or April that I expected a pretty decent decline as some of these policies went into effect. And the question that I had was kind of the question that is here today. And again, Mike's right on the money there, that voters are creatures of the moment. And so approval ratings are very tied to what people are feeling right then and there. And you've seen the Trump administration start to kind of pull away from this language of, oh, actually, everything at the grocery store is super duper. And the real argument needs to be, hey, we are proceeding towards making this better. It's not there yet. It's not where we want it to be. But this is the stuff that we're doing to make it more affordable. That's a winning message. Now, do they stay on that? Well, who knows? None of us do. The president of the United States gets up and after making a joke about almost catching his hand in the binder clip, then tears right into the conversation of the economy. Now, that said, I will push back a little bit on what Mike said about the 10 percent credit card cap. The president doesn't necessarily have any authority to do this, which is why so far I haven't really seen a large amount of pushback to kind of fill in those details. But I would also push back and say there are a lot of people other than just billionaires who have suggested that artificially manipulating rates and telling private organizations how they should do business that no one's forced to take part in in the first place. That's not what's causing high amounts of credit card debt, borrowing things that you can't afford. And again, things that again, we can talk about what people have to put on the credit cards is a huge part of it, like groceries we saw high in 2023 and 2024. But as to Trump's kind of populist, you know, sometimes it's it's Bill Clinton. Sometimes it's George Bush. Sometimes it's more libertarian in its economy. It's kind of a spin of the wheel. That's still up for grabs in twenty six. And that I was not expecting. I'll say it. I wasn't expecting him to go as Bill Clinton as he has an office. All right, that that's a what do you think? Is that a good impression, Mike? I did not have sexual. Anyway, I'm not going to do my book. So I wanted to move along from the midterms. I had a question for you about his deployment of federal immigration enforcement into cities. What is your view on a lot of conversations being had about, for example, ICE in Minnesota? Yeah, Don, I'm so glad you asked this because I want to give everybody a realistic picture here, because I live in Miami. A lot of Cubans, Venezuelans, Haitians lost TPS status here. There's a recent article that came out in The Washington Post about some of the Cubans that have been deported here that actually did vote for Trump, some that have been in detention centers. There's been some over magnification as as anything in media. But there's also been some real heartbreaking stories of people that are doing it the right way, as we have always heard people say, do it the right way. Go to your appointment. Folks, I've said this a bunch of times. I'm going to say it again. In twenty twenty four, the signs at the RNC said mass deportations. Now the the enforcement actions of the Trump administration was to make everybody who is here illegally a crime. It is no longer a civil offense. It is a criminal offense. Whether you agree with that or you don't agree with that, I would lecture you to go vote for the person that wants it to be the civil, not the criminal. The Trump administration came in. They made that change. You can go to Can We Please Talks, library of podcasts and shows where former federal prosecutors, immigration attorneys have all echoed the same thing on my program. Now, here's the problem. Trish McLaughlin, who I happen to know personally, former Vivek campaigns manager and somebody who I text frequently for comment. She said in the thing that played right before Tony and I came on, seven thousand of the folks that have been deported of the six hundred and twenty two thousand from the figures that they just gave in December of twenty five, seven thousand of them are actually like the criminals, the hardened criminals. Don, that's point oh one one percent of the one point nine million self deportations in totality with that over two and a half million. That means less than point oh two percent are people that are actually hardened criminals. That's a huge issue. That means that it's everyday people that are contributing to this economy. They're contributing to this society. These are folks that were doing it the right way, whether or not they lost in mails, you know, the next court appearance. They were meeting with immigration attorneys, et cetera, et cetera. These are all statistics. It's not Mike Lyons statistics. I see Tony a little shrugging. These are not Mike Lyons statistics. This is from DHS's own official numbers. I'm just pulling numbers and doing a simple calculation and at times and carrying the one. So I'm moving the one I should say decimal point wise. So if that many people are being sent away and that many people are self deporting, that is going to have a negative impact on economy. And I've pointed to this about Florida construction industry because I have family that works in that. They've seen people that have not shown up for construction jobs. And again, Tony and I agree on this. Pay them the right wage, you know, make them legal. So that way you're actually doing everything by the books. Agree with all that. But we're seeing a lot of people with the immigration. I think this is going to be a carryover into 26, Don, because this is affecting just for me here in Miami, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach County, we're seeing the effects that it's having to citizens that are happening around them. And it may turn a maybe reddish district that was a plus 10 plus 12 for Trump. And for like, let's say Representative Salazar or Jimenez in District 2720, it may turn to the Democratic favor in 26 because of immigration and the impact it's having. OK, Tony, we just have a bit of time left. We'll just get one more comment from you. Yeah. So according to federal policy, and this was espoused specifically by the Obama administration's Department of Homeland Security, if you go into an area and you find an individual who is an illegal immigrant, this illegal immigrant who has committed various violent crimes, and there are eight other people around them that may be harboring them, that may be near them. You also have to take them in. This is how police work and law enforcement works in a variety of cases, not just illegal immigration. That said, the Obama administration used to announce that they were sending home people who had just come here and they were perhaps just just stealing identities. You know, maybe they were just getting here. They got some bad advice from the cartel. Maybe they were smuggled, something like that. They are still here illegally. And the United States has laws, whether it is a civil offense or a criminal offense. If you are running away from your court dates and you can say, oh, it got lost in the mail. Yeah, that's it. Well, OK, that happens 10,000 times. And then you don't notify anyone of your change address because you're not here legally and you don't do things the correct way. You are then violating the law. It is illegal, a criminal offense to run away from immigration customs enforcement to evade federal law enforcement. And so, again, we can talk about how certain things are done. But what I've seen in the red states, when they say, hey, here are the guys we have in jail who have committed violent crimes. Here you go. That's the proper way to do this. But the Minnesota way of saying, come in and get him yourself, you are going to get people mixed up in that that shouldn't be. And again, the rhetoric that was communicated by the left is now backfiring on the immigration things. The Trump administration was starting to soften on. And so when you have people saying, no, they should go and attack the church. My God. Enjoy what you're going to get out of that. OK, let's leave it there for today. Thank you both. It's always great to speak with you. Take care, guys.