Morning Joe - Trump and leaders sign ‘Board of Peace’ charter

Episode Date: January 22, 2026

Trump and leaders sign ‘Board of Peace’ charter To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Well, we have a concept of a deal. I think it's going to be a very good deal for the United States, also for them. And we're going to work together on something having to do with the Arctic as a whole, but also Greenland. And it has to do with the security, great security, strong security, and other things. The market 600 points, getting back a lot of some of the nervous since we had in the last couple of days. The tariffs are off. Nothing happens on February 1st? No, we took that off because it looks like we have.

Pretty much a concept of a deal. A deal of ownership, a deal. Well, it's a little bit complex, but we'll explain it down the line. But the Secretary General of NATO and I and some other people were talking, and it's a kind of a deal that I wanted to be able to move. All right, that's President Trump, giving few details about his framework of a future deal on Greenland. We're going to dig into whether the president's announcement is really just a continuation of what's already been place for years. Also, new revelations on ICE tactics, a memo that was obtained by a news

organization. We're going to go through that memo and the escalating tactics from federal immigration officers forcibly entering people's homes. Is that policy entering their homes without a warrant? We'll bring you that latest development on ICE tactics. It comes as Maine is the latest state to see ICE agents arresting immigrants calling it grossly, catch of the day. Plus, we'll recap yesterday Supreme Court oral arguments on President Trump's attempts to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and will preview public testimony today from former special counsel Jack Smith on the two investigations he led into President Trump. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, January 22nd. With us, we have Managing Editor at the Bullwork, Sam Stein. Senior White House reporter at MS. Now, Vaughn Hilliard, U.S. National Editor and columnist at the Financial Times, Ed Luce, and co-host of the Rest Is Politics podcast, the BBC's Katty Kay, live from Davos. Willie, we have a lot of news to cover on the domestic side. But of course, we want to

to wrap up what's been going on across the Pondover in Davos at the World Economic Forum. We are in the midst of another busy day at Davos. Just moments ago, President Trump hosted a charter signing ceremony for what he calls the Board of Peace that was in Davos, Switzerland. The board originally conceived as a small group of world leaders overseeing the Gaza ceasefire plan, but President since has suggested it could be a mediator for global conflicts well beyond Gaza. And during his speech just in the last hour, he said, it might work alongside the United Nations. Permanent seats are being offered for a fee of $1 billion.

We should note that major NATO allies have said they will not join the board. You do not see some of those familiar faces on the stage. Meanwhile, President Trump is dropping his threat now of tariffs on European countries after agreeing to a framework of a future deal, as he put it on Greenland. The president made that announcement yesterday in a social media post, adding that Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Special Envoy, Steve Whitkoff, will lead negotiations over a potential deal. President did not give specific details about the deal during that interview with CNBC. He did insist that it would be a long-term agreement, though.

It's not specific enough to know at this point how long this lasts, how, whether it's... Forever. Forever. It'll be forever. For Greenland at this point. forever. That's staggering. That's better than a 99-year.

This is, what, two hours after? It's better than the Obama deal with the famous Iran nuclear deal with a nine-year, with a nine-year deal. Now, this is forever. Again, light on details. Last night, the NATO Secretary General was asked if Greenland would remain a Danish territory. What I don't hear is Greenland still, is it still on? under the Kingdom of Denmark in this framework deal? That issue did not come up anymore in my conversations tonight, Mr. President.

He very much focused on what do we need to do to make sure that that huge Arctic region where change is taking place at the moment where the Chinese and Russians are more and more active, how we can protect that. That was really the focus of our discussions. Some Democratic lawmakers and experts were quick to point out. There appears to be nothing materially different about, Trump's so-called deal from what exists now. Congressman Brendan Boyle tweeted, congrats to Donald Trump on achieving the status quo. He's an amazing dealmaker. Here, too,

is Fox News chief political analyst Brit Hume, wondering how the deal differs from the current agreement in Greenland. Well, what we're finding out is hearing is correct. And the United States would gain control, maybe even sovereignty over zones within Greenland to set up bases. for other military purposes, that would certainly be a solution to the issue, but it's not entirely clear to me how it would matter practically and how different, much difference it would make between that and what we have now. We have extensive basing rights in Greenland under a treaty reached in 1951 through NATO that allowed us to have a lot of bases in New, in Greenland, and we did have a lot of bases in Greenland. They were all but one, were taken

down. So the practical difference is a little unclear to me, but it might be enough to get out of this controversy. Caddy Kay is in Davos, as we mentioned. So Caddy, we'll talk about the Board of Peace in a moment. Things moving quickly there, but let's go back to Greenland here and what we were just hearing. So President Trump yesterday makes this speech at Davos, where he insults everyone in the room, insults our allies, says you'd all be speaking German if it weren't for us, insults Canada, says you better watch effectively watch your mouth, Prime Minister Carney. I heard your speech yesterday. He says Greenland is our territory, speaking of the United States.

And then about two hours later announces the framework of a future deal, or put another way, as he did, the concept of a deal. So what happened in those two hours and what is this deal? Look, I think a couple of things happened. One is that the markets responded badly. Donald Trump didn't like that. I understand that there was pressure from the big tech executives. They're all here.

They were all in the front row of Donald Trump's speech yesterday. and that they've been speaking to the White House and for the president saying they didn't like what this was potentially going to do to the world economy and to markets. And then, of course, you had the European standing up in a way that they haven't done. I've just got off interviewing the Norwegian Prime Minister

Willie just a few seconds ago. And I asked him whether Europe had finally found its spine. And he kind of said, yes. They'd adopted one tone last year and they adopted this tone this year. But they also, over this Greenland crisis, went to the White House and said, listen, this is what we will do.

If you carry on with this, it will hurt us, but we have got leverage and we are prepared to use that kind of leverage. And I think that's how you got to this whole thing being wound back. But everyone's portraying this as Donald Trump came to Davos and he caved. And it looks like he did cave on Greenland. But the way he spoke to European leaders and the amount of crisis that this caused over the course of the last week, I think he's going to cause damage long term. He asked for 100%. He settles at 50%,

but in asking for 100%, he's already caused a lot of damage. The Norwegian Prime Minister just told me it's going to be hard for Europe to carry on trusting America in the way that it has. So if America is asking Europe for things, they may be thinking about it a little bit more skeptically. They have to get their own house in order.

They've got to do something about their own security. That's the other thing that this crisis has done. It's reinforced that sense of urgency for European populations who have to take the brunt of this because they've got to spend more on defense. But Donald Trump actually has almost made it easier for these European leaders to go to their populations

and say, look, our relationship with America is over. It's not the one we thought it was. We have an erratic president who keeps us all spinning. We are going to have to do something about our own defense, and that means less spending on education and health care and things. And in a way, I think Trump has, with this erratic behavior, this kind of whiplash, bad cop one day, good cop today, good cop today. He's actually made it perhaps easier for European countries to do what they need to do.

Unfortunately, that means distancing themselves from the United States. And you're right, Katty. One could reasonably ask, what did the president get from burning down these relationships with our allies? It looks like what we have now with Greenland, which is we have a base and an agreement from Denmark that we already had. If you want to build another base or expand the base you have for security, you are welcome to do that. So we'll get more details, we hope, on this framework of a very important. a deal as they're putting it. I want to ask you more, Katty, about your conversation with the head of Norway, particularly about the letter received from President Trump, basically saying, you didn't give me the Nobel Peace Prize, so you forced my hand here on Greenland. This is why I'm

behaving the way I am. Just putting it out in the open. Obviously, the head of Norway has no say in the prize, despite what President Trump has said. So what was your conversation like about that issue. Yeah. I almost felt kind of embarrassed, honestly, that I had to ask him to clarify that the Norwegian Prime Minister cannot pick up the phone to the Nobel Committee and say, listen, do me a solid and nominate President Donald Trump for the Nobel Prize this year, because that's what I want you to do. He did clarify he could not do this, even though he said Donald Trump is wrong, when he stands up there on the stage in Davos and says, we all know that actually the Norwegians say they don't control the prize, but they really do. But he did say that that letter happened.

He had actually texted Donald Trump that morning, a rare text that has not been made public by the president, perhaps. He texted Donald Trump on behalf of him and Finland to try to get things calm down on Greenland. And he said, then he gets this blistering letter back again. He said, look, we've got, European nations have got used to this kind of erratic, unpredictable, unconventional behavior from Donald Trump. So I don't think he was totally surprised by it, but he did say it does show just how much this Nobel Prize matters to Donald Trump and how personal geopolitics is for the president of the United States at the moment.

It's about something he wants, and if he doesn't get it, then he acts the way he has been acting. I think, Willie, there's a sense of exasperation, honestly here at Davos this week, in the way that Donald Trump keeps everybody's head spinning about things that are unnecessary when actually the focus from Europe's point of view really needs to be on the Russian threat. This is what the Prime Minister also told me and the war in Ukraine

and keeping up the threat on Russia because of that. And yet we're having to spend our time dealing with these things that actually amount to, as you've just suggested, quite a lot of hot air. Yeah, I want to wrap this up with that loose because we have major ICE revelations to get to an Epstein follow-up, and also Jack Smith gets his public testimony today.

But at the same time, this was a big event on the world stage. As Caddy points out, Europe has finally got the message. And they also, I think to an extent, there was some standing up to Trump that happened that led to the outcome that I don't think was the outcome he wanted, but at least he can put his name on it, like he has with many hotels around the world. You have a new opinion piece that really encapsulate this ad for the Financial Times entitled America's Barbarians Inside the Gates.

And you write in part, quote, historical sensibility tells us it is the barbarians who stormed the gates. In today's America, it is the other way around. Inside the citadel, the hordes are incinerating America's traditions of law, civility, and restraint. The civic-minded cry in the wilderness. so much else, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Kennedy Center, the Versailles-style White House Ballroom, other people's Nobel Prizes. Trump is rebranding the U.S. as his own. As America prepares to commemorate its 250th anniversary, the Republic is flirting with its own funeral. Don't disagree looking at what's happened there just in the past 24 hours ad.

bigger picture, who is he pleasing as he was insulting Europe across the board, who actually benefited or would like to have seen what went down over the past 24 hours? And did Trump get, after insulting Europe, listing a series of lies and factually incorrect statements, belting out, all I need is Greenland. All I need is a piece of ice. NATO owes it to me. me, kind of childlike statements, kind of phrased in just few words, almost as if, you know, he needed to pound the podium on top of it, give it to me. Did Europe and NATO give the president actually what he was asking for, or is it any different than what's already been in place for years and years and years? And what's the big picture in terms of consequences here?

That's a great question, Mika. I mean, no, you. No, you know, Europe didn't actually change its position to the extent that we know what Mark Rutter, the Secretary General of NATO, actually agreed with Trump. And by the way, Mark Rutter, it didn't have Danes and Greenlanders in the room. So any deal that would involve, if this deal does involve, giving slices of sovereignty, Guantanamo-style sovereignty to New American bases in Greenland, would need the ratification of the Danish Parliament and the Greenland people. after being beaten up, insulted, et cetera,

I doubt they're in the mood to say, oh, well, you deserve, you know, some sovereignty over our country. Because Trump got, with the rest of Mark Rutter's alleged deal, what America has always had, which is the right to have bases and the right to have, you know, mineral exploration rights, etc. I think what Europe has learned in the last few days is something that people like Mark Kahn,

have known for the last year, which is that with Trump, there is no win-win deals. There's the deal that he believes is the art of the deals where he wins and you lose, and you are seen to lose. And we saw all sorts of manifestations of this in Davos. Christine Lagarde, who you probably had on the show and therefore know, she's a very gracious, very professional diplomat, former head of the IMF, now head of the European Central Bank. she stood up and walked out of a speech that Howard Lutnik was giving because he said that Europe was dead.

I think what's finally dawned upon those Europeans who are a little bit late to it dawning in their minds, but what's finally dawned to the stragglers to everybody except Mark Rutter is that Trump in his bones has contempt for Europe. He used words like, you're stupid, you're a waste of time. I mean, he was openly insulting to their faces, as he is sort of almost daily on social media. And therefore, as Mark Carney said, this is a rupture. This isn't a sort of another of these sort of mini dramas that gets resolved and then we move on to the next thing. This is a deep and profound, teachable moment for the whole of Europe. And I don't think things can ever really go back to what they were.

before. So that's the big picture. And the net result on Greenland is where he was in the first place. As you showed Britt Hume saying on Fox. This is not the art of any kind of deal that you or I would consider to be a deal.

Let me just push back a little bit. I think releasing private text messages is a great way to build friendships with world leaders. No, it's been fairly disastrous in terms of European in U.S. relations. And I think Vaughn, I mean, what we covered this morning, a ceremonial board of peace, I don't really know what the charter powers are for that entity, but that underscores

just how bad the rupture is in a theoretical universe in which Donald Trump was more conciliatory and getting along with these people and they're actually productive conversations. You can imagine maybe some of these countries saying, sure, I mean, obviously we're not going to pay a billion dollars to enter this board of peace. But yeah, we can participate in some sort of multilateral entity to help reconstruct Gaza and promote, you know, conflict resolution around the globe. There is no one from Europe on that stage, or was no one from Europe on that stage. It is a list of semi-autocratic countries and Trump allies.

How disappointed is the White House that there is no one on the stage? Or are they totally comfortable with the idea that you do not have to have European countries, the likes of which Scott Besson called, what did he call Denmark? Irrelevant? Yeah, maybe you don't need irrelevant countries in there. Donald Trump, the American president, literally with all of those folks standing behind him, including the dictator of Belarus, including the authoritarian leader of Hungary, Victor Orban, including monarchs from the Middle East, said everyone in this room is a star, the most important people in the world, the most powerful.

And you know the one leader so far that has committed $1 billion to the Board of Peace overnight, saying if his assets are unfrozen, Vladimir Putin invited to the board of peace here. And in so many ways, this goes back to a conversation I had one week ago with a former Pentagon official who now works in the defense industry and was having conversations with European military partners. And he told me that if Greenland goes, so goes the Allies in Europe. One week later, Greenland hasn't gone, but it was the mere threat that pushed Europe to step

away. And Mark Carney said that if you are not at the table, then you are on the menu. And who proved his point just 24 hours after that? Donald Trump himself, saying that the world is afloat because of the United States. And specifically when it came to Canada, that Canada lives because of the United States. Dismissive and derogatory and offensive to what is the key trading partner and longtime ally of the United States. And, Katty, no concern about offending our key allies, long time allies. Apparently from the administration, from Howard Lutnik to Scott Bessent, all the way up to the president.

the United States over these last couple of days in Davos. On the Board of Peace, as the Wall Street Journal wrote yesterday at its editorial page, Mr. President, we have a Board of Peace. It's called NATO. This is something else. We were asking people to pay a billion dollars, including, as Vaughn just said, Vladimir Putin being invited nearly four years now into his war in Ukraine. So as you leave Davos, as these leaders leave Davos, what is the state of play right now?

How would you sum all of this up? if you can. Yeah. So I think what European leaders are trying to do is look at where the relationship still functions. Look at the way the militaries still work together. The European at a functional level, they still talk to each other, they still cooperate. They're trying to look at where the businesses still work with each other. Business leaders here have told me they still have very good relationships with their American

counterparts and with the American market. They're trying not to look at this border peace. They're trying, Kier Stama, as already said, we're not going to have any part of this. They're trying to sort of glide over the difficult bits, Greenland, the Board of Peace, in order to get as much American attention and as much as American commitment as they can to the one single issue that Europe thinks is most critical, and that is Russia and the threat from Russia. European countries very keenly feel the threat from Russia,

and they know that Ukraine can't win this war without American help. So they're prepared to swallow an awful lot. They'll take NATO light. They'll take trade relationships diminished in order not to push America away completely. But as everyone's been saying this morning, they have realized a fundamental reality, which is that something is shifted. And that is the problem in the long term for the United States. It will need Europe again. At some point, it's going to need Europe in this, in what is the real battle of the 21st century, which is the threat from China.

And it'll need European businesses and it'll need European leaders. And those European leaders may not be there in the way that they have because of the way. that Donald Trump talks about them, treats them, comes here to Davos and belittles them. And I think that that is the problem for Europe at the moment. It's a kind of how do we, how do we man up, get ourselves defending ourselves so that we don't have to rely on the United States in this way that we do at the moment, but make no mistake, we understand that this relationship is not what it was. Very damaged, very damaged relationship. Katty, thank you very much. Live from Davos. Appreciate your coverage. To a point, Sam was

earlier about comments made by the U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Seems to be disappointing so many people, but on a bigger level, Ed Luce, can you talk about how authoritarianism happens? I mean, you've just written a book on the life of my father and what drove him to work, ultimately, in the interests of America and democracy. And Besant was so insulting to Denmark, calling it irrelevant. And as Joe pointed out on Twitter, and as was mentioned here, Denmark had the highest per capita death rate of all coalition countries, all of them finding with America after 9-11.

How can you go to the schools that you went to and climb up in business? and become the U.S. Treasury Secretary and be Scott Besant to say what he has said about Denmark without batting an eyelash, if I may. What has happened with Scott Besant and others who seemed to be perhaps the people who would be going into this administration and perhaps being those who would hold the line who find themselves crumbling beneath the clutches of Donald Trump? It's a really good question about Besson. Can I just add to your point about Denmark, I'm giving more per capita, 53 dead in Afghanistan, and that being the only time that Article 5 of NATO was ever invoked after 9-11, the Europeans invoked it.

It's never been invoked at another time, and Trump made a big portion of his speech that if we were under attack, our NATO allies wouldn't come to our help. But that's the one time it's been invoked. that's one thing that did happen. And by the way, Britain lost 676 people in Afghanistan. And that's higher than America's per capita death rate there, too. And he's called Britain's stupid recently. But as regards Besson, I think our definition,

we've sort of been defining deviancy downwards in Trump 2.0. Our definition of an adult is way, way lower than it was in 1.0. We had people like Secretary of Defense Mattis who were really good blocks and HR McMaster and Rex Tillerson, who were really good blocks on Trump's worst instincts. Now we have an administration that are amplifiers of his worst instincts. And in that sort of redefined idea of who is an adult, Scott Besson, does I think, very undeservedly, being defined by many as the adults in the room. In fact, he's just another sort of part of the Greek chorus that is doing so much damage to relations with allies.

And what your father and many other American grand strategists would agree on is that America's great power, its most sort of potent advantage against the Soviet Union in those days. but China today is the ability to mobilize alliances all around the world. And Trump is putting a torch to that. Many, 50 years of building. Add loose, the Financial Times and MSNows von Hilliard. Thank you both very much for being on this morning. We appreciate it.

And still ahead on morning, Joe, we're digging into stunning new reporting about ICE agents, being told they can forcibly enter homes without. out a judge's warrant. We'll have the latest on that. Plus, what we can expect on Capitol Hill today as former special counsel, Jack Smith, testifies before the House Judiciary Committee in just a few hours.

And as we go to break, a quick look at the travelers' forecast this morning from Accuethers, Ariela Scalese. Arella, how's it looking? Well, Mika, as millions prepare for the major snow and ice storm for the end of the week, The Accuator forecast in the Northeast today, not all that bad as temperatures improve to the 40s in Boston, New York City, but it will be a bit breezy. Into the southeast temperatures have also come up a bit, but watch for periods of rain in Atlanta in your Accuader exclusive travel forecast.

That could lead to some times of delays into the afternoon. Also delays in Boston, Philadelphia, due to the wind. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, make sure to download the Accuadier app. All right, to the other big. story we're following this morning that broke late yesterday an internal immigration and customs enforcement memo obtained by the Associated Press shows ICE officials told officers and agents they can forcibly enter homes of people subject to deportation without warrants signed by judges. Now, the memo from acting ICE director Todd Lyon shared by whistleblowers

with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal is dated May 12th. It authorizes agents to forcibly enter homes using only an administrative warrant instead of a warrant from a judge when a person has a final order of removal. This reflects, of course, a major departure from the longstanding practice of requiring judge-signed warrants to enter homes. It also is a clear Fourth Amendment violation. The memo also instructs agents to knock and announce, state their identity and purpose, give occupants time to comply, avoid entries before 6 a.m. or after 10 p.m., and to only use, quote, necessary and reasonable force. The whistleblowers say it was secretively rolled out, shown only to select officials

and verbally briefed to others. According to the group, Whistleblower Aid, quote, Together our clients are aware of multiple DHS employees who faced retaliation for expressing their concerns and or disagreement with the May 12th Memo's policy change, likely constituting prohibited personnel tactics, practices. One client is aware of a seasoned government instructor tasked with teaching this new doctrine, who chose to resign rather than be forced to teach

what they understood to be unlawful. In response, a DHS spokesperson defended the policy, didn't deny it, defended it, saying individuals with administrative warrants have had, quote, full due process, and that administrative warrants have long been recognized as immigration enforcement. Joining us now, MSNalSNF senior legal reporter and former litigator Lisa Rubin. MSNOW, Justice and Intelligence reporter Ken Delanian, along with MSNNANN, contributor, Mike Barnacle. Ken, I'll start with you. So first of all, I'm just wondering what MAGA Republicans think of the concept of law

enforcement being able to break into people's homes without an actual judge-issued warrant. But more importantly, it now seems to explain what we're seeing out there because there's a lot of behavior out there that does not vibe with law enforcement procedure. We've seen homes being broken into. We've seen cars being broken into. We've seen videos of ICE agents inside stores. And I think a lot of people interested in the law being followed are wondering, how did they get in there? Why do they feel emboldened to break in? What do you make of this memo and is it a violation of the law? Yeah, Mika, good morning. This is incredible and important reporting by the APs, Rebecca Santana.

And she says in the story that the AP doesn't really know, no one knows, to what extent they've actually used this memo and acted on this memo. But they documented at least one case where they said they saw ICE officers break into the home of a Liberian immigrant and drag him out. and then they later learned that that was based only on an administrative warrant. And you asked what MAGA Republicans are going to think of this. Look, let's be real here. Maga Republicans and many Donald Trump supporters are angry and annoyed that there are so many people running around the United States who have final orders of removal.

Illegal immigrants, immigrants in the country illegally, who should be deported and ISIS is trying to find them and they can't find them. And it's a really difficult administrative problem. And it's existed for years. But that doesn't trump the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. No matter whether they have an order of removal and administrative warrant, the Fourth Amendment applies to all persons in the United States, not just American citizens.

And there's a long litany of Supreme Court decisions and other case law that suggests that the Fourth Amendment applies in all of these contexts. There's no such thing as an administrative warrant that allows law enforcement officers to break into a home without approval of a judge. because people are supposed to be secure in their persons and papers. That's a fundamental precept of the Constitution. So, you know, this thing we don't think has been tested in court, and most legal experts who have looked at this have said that it won't survive a court challenge.

But right now they're acting on it, as you said, we're seeing ICE agents do these things and we don't know what the legal basis is, but this memo suggests that this is one of the things. And the other really telling thing about the story you alluded to this is that, should She reports that the memo is not in wide circulation. In fact, the security around it is really telling. They're not letting people keep copies of it. They're letting people read it and then they're taking it back. And somehow these whistleblowers manage to obtain a copy and slip it to a senator. And that's how it's gotten out. But this is really an alarming and troubling development. And I'm glad you're highlighting it this morning.

So, Lisa, you've seen the whistleblower complaint. Let's lay out a little bit from a legal point of view, the difference, the important difference between a warrant issued by a judge and this administrative warrant. There's a reason that there are restrictions on searches of people's home built into the Constitution. But what is the distinction between those two kind of warrants? An administrative warrant is exactly what it sounds like. It's issued by somebody within the agency. It doesn't have a judicial check on it. A judicial warrant is something that is presented to a judge with grounds for the warrant and is signed by a judge.

And that has always been sort of the dividing line between when you can search somebody's home and when you can. Now, Willie, there are exceptions, even under the Fourth Amendment. For example, if you're in hot pursuit of a suspect, can you enter a home without a warrant? Sometimes yes. If you need to prevent imminent violence to someone, for example, you hear a domestic violence episode or a likely killing behind a door. Can you enter without a warrant? Sure. But this doesn't reach any of those exceptions in the case law under the Fourth Amendment to when you can enter a home without

that judicial warrant. So what kind of an umbrella are they using, are the ICE personnel potentially using to go into a person's home under what umbrella? I don't know. I mean, essentially what they're saying is if this is incident to an arrest of someone who is subject to a final order of removal, that a search predicated on an administrative warrant alone is enough to get through the door. We have not seen the entirety of the memo. We don't know whether it has an underlying constitutional justification, but theoretically, according to this whistleblower disclosure, people at ICE have advised that this meets their constitutional standards. As Ken just said, I'm a little dubious of that. So apparently ICE has no responsibility from the administrative level at the top of ICE to publish

this memo so the public can look at it? They don't. And in fact, like there are, for example, a couple of weeks ago, my colleague Falling Gallagher and I were looking at ICE policy and CBP customer and border patrol policy on the use of force. We were, surprised that that memo existed in a public format and only because it was an exhibit in litigation that's existing right now about the use of force against protesters and other citizens. Were it not for that, would we find it on ICE's website? Absolutely not. They have no obligation to publish it and oftentimes take great pains to keep these things from the public. But what Ken described goes well beyond that. It's not just keeping it from the public. It's preventing people

within the agency from even maintaining a copy of their own. That suggests a level of secrecy around this that goes well beyond simply having internal policies for internal consumption only. And because of this now, these raids certainly be open to legal challenge. We'll see if that comes going forward. We'll keep an eye in it. Meanwhile, former Justice Department Special Counsel, Jack Smith, will appear on Capitol Hill this morning for a highly anticipated public hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.

It will be Smith's first opportunity to testify publicly of, about the two investigations he led into President Trump over Trump's handling of classified documents and alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Smith vehemently defended his investigations during a closed-door deposition last month, saying there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt in both cases, as well as evidence to convict Trump in a third case

over the January 6th Capitol attack. Smith expected to face tough questioning, of course, from Republican lawmakers, who've accused his investigations of being politically motivated that hearing set to begin at 10 o'clock Eastern time. So Ken Delanian, what are you hearing about what we all might hear now out in the open from Jack Smith today?

This is going to be fascinating, Willie. Look, nobody knows these cases better than Jack Smith. He lived this and marinated in this for years. And he was, according to the reporting by Carol Lenig and other people who have written and dealt deeply into this, he was a hands-on manager. He knew every part of these cases. And we've seen from the private testimony that he gave to Congress that he is a devastatingly effective interlocutor and explainer of the evidence against Donald Trump.

And the problem that Republicans are going to have, they're going to make a lot of speeches. They're going to try to ask gotcha questions. They don't have a scintilla of evidence, though. They've never produced it that Jack Smith was somehow or anyone around him was influenced by politics or was manipulated by Joe Biden or other Democrats. There's just no evidence of that. And so what they're going to be confronted with is, is it cool and calm, Jack Smith, reciting the massive amounts of evidence that he believes he had, that he could have convicted Donald Trump in both of these cases, both the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election

and the willful retention of classified documents and, more importantly, the obstruction of justice, the ordering of AIDS to destroy video evidence that he charged in those cases. he's not going to be able to make long speeches. The way these hearings go, it's five-minute rounds. But I expect that he will have some devastatingly effective lines to show the public exactly what was at stake here. And puzzling on the political side, Lisa, that Republicans want to throw out into the open a re-litigation of all the evidence that Jack Smith does have in both of these cases.

What are you expecting to hear from him today? Well, I think one of the things I'm expecting, really, is what we can't hear, because Judge Aline Cannon has ruled that he can't discuss it, or at least the report can't come out in the public domain. And that's volume two of the special counsel's report about the classified documents case. That has been under locking key effectively since the special counsel was done with it.

Judge Cannon issued an order in January of 2025, precluding the release not only to the public, but to the chairs of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. And it remains so. She basically re-uped that order recently and said that it has to remain under locking key at least until February 24th. Not coincidentally, that prevents Jack Smith

from talking about that. He is under instruction from the Department of Justice not to reveal any information that's in the report that otherwise couldn't be released through the report itself. So we may see some skirmishes between Jack Smith and members of the committee or their staff today about what are the acceptable boundaries of what he can testify to.

This is a person who, as Ken said, is an incredible command of the facts. And yet, some of that, command can't be on display today because of a judge's ruling and the Department of Justice's interpretation of the same. All right. And then there's this. The Supreme Court seems poised to allow Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to keep her job despite President Trump's bid to fire her. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of three Trump appointees to the nation's highest court, said during yesterday's oral arguments that Cook's firing could, quote, weaken, if not, shatter the independence of the Federal Reserve.

At least five other justices sounded skeptical of the effort to remove Cook from office on the basis of mortgage fraud claims. Cook attended the hearings alongside Fed Chair Jerome Powell, who faces his own criminal investigation by the Justice Department. She wrote in a statement afterwards, this case is about whether the Federal Reserve will set key interest rates guided by evidence and independent judgment or will succumb to political pressure. She added, I will uphold the principle of political independence and service to the American people. The court's next step will be to decide whether to allow Cook to remain on the Fed board while sending the case back down to lower courts for more evidence. gathering. A decision is expected to come in the following weeks or months. And Lisa Rubin, we're waiting for a couple of things from the Supreme Court that would be helpful to clear up. In this case, it seems to be leaning in the wrong direction for President Trump. What do you make

of what we've got reported so far? I think that's exactly right. I listened to the arguments yesterday, Mika, and I saw a bunch of pragmatism from people who are oftentimes sort of steeped in law, Justice Kavanaugh, not only referring to the fundamental importance of the independence of the Fed, but also questioning the Solicitor General, John Sauer, asking him, isn't it true, essentially, that what goes around comes around? If we allow the president to fire Lisa Cook on what he considers cause here, isn't it true that when the next guy comes in, he'll just fire everybody at the Fed, and won't that destabilize economic policy in this country? When it comes to economic policy, Mika,

the other thing that we're waiting for, as you just referred to, is that tariffs ruling, which other people think, and I would include myself in this, is also not going to go particularly well for the president, could be one of the first markers of this Supreme Court's willingness to constrain him in his ever-expanding notion of presidential authority and power. I expect that the court will tell him

that the emergency economic, act that enables him to enact those tariffs. The act on which he is relying doesn't justify the tariffs that he's imposed here because there was, in fact, no such emergency. I think the president is going to find himself increasingly cabined by this court, which is going to insist on its own right to judicial review and their ability to say what the law is. That's inconvenient for this president, but it is a fundamental precept on which this republic is based. Many people encouraging the Supreme Court to move along a little bit quicker on the tariff question, at least. Can Blanian, before we let you go, just quickly back to the Lisa Cook case.

Sometimes we have to read between the lines when listening to the court. There wasn't a lot of reading between the lines yesterday. It seemed that most of the justices to a man and a woman, conservative and more progressive, were deeply, deeply skeptical of President Trump's argument and his attorneys. Yeah, that's right. One of the most dramatic moments along those lines was when John Roberts, the Chief Justice, asked John Sauer, the Solicitor General, if we believe your argument that courts don't have the power to reinstate an officer, why are we here?

It was just coming from Roberts, that dry wit that he has was just really set at all. And there was another moment where justice has made clear that Elise Cook hasn't even had a chance to respond to these allegations of mortgage fraud, which, of course, deal with conduct that has nothing to do with her role on the Federal Reserve. And Sauer had to acknowledge that. So it was a rough day for the Solicitor General and the Trump administration. willie guys all right ms now justice intelligence reporter ken delanian and ms now senior legal reporter lisa reuben thank you both very much for your insights this morning and coming up a lot more ahead to cover here on morning joe we're going to bring you a live report from main as the department

of homeland security launches what they are calling operation catch of the day it's their ice involvement in main operation catch of the day Plus, the latest from Capitol Hill as the Republican-led House Oversight Committee votes to hold the Clinton's in contempt of Congress. This, of course, is all related to the Epstein files, which is now, I don't know, one month and three days, one month, four days late. A law was passed to release all of them, and many are asking, where are they? Also ahead, Democratic Governor Mikey Cheryl of New Jersey will be our guest. Days after being sworn in as the second-war. woman ever to lead the Garden State. Morning Joe is back in just a moment. Welcome back. The Department of

Homeland Security says it has started to make immigration-related arrests in the state of Maine. Operation Catch of the Day is designed to detain people suspected of fraud or other crimes and put them through 30-day reviews. That's similar to a system being used in Minnesota as well. Officials say the operation targets roughly 1,400 people from places, including Somalia, Honduras, Guatemala, and other places. And ICE officials told Fox News that 50 arrests have been made so far. We're going to get a live report from Maine in just a few moments to hear what's happening on the ground there. Today, the National Urban League will host its second annual Demand Diversity Roundtable, gathering together voices from different minority groups to discuss the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The event was launched last year as a response to President Trump's sweeping actions as soon as he was inaugurated, focus on dismantling DEI initiatives. Joining us now, the president and the CEO of the National Urban League, Mark Morial. And Sam Stein has the first question for you there in Washington, Sam. Sam? Good, Mika, good Sam. Mark, I think these two stories are actually pretty interconnected. What's happening with ICE in different communities, the attacks on DEI, it comes from the same place, which is, do we feel comfortable as society with having diverse citizenry?

And I'm wondering if you see connections between the two. And also, secondarily, look, I don't think it's breaking news to say that DEI has as a phrase, as a concept. is fairly concretely under attack right now. Why do you feel it needs defense? Are you seeing any sort of public turning on the idea that DEI is something actually valuable? Yeah, so good morning and thank you for having me. The bottom line is a year after the attacks had begun,

the American people, according to polling will release this morning from a Democratic and a Republican pollster, overwhelmingly support the concept of equal opportunity and diversity, equity, and inclusion. They've rejected these attacks. They want employers. They want America to reflect the very best of all communities. They want underrepresented groups to have a fair and equal opportunity. So the loud voices coming from the far right do not reflect the majority of the American people.

And that's a point we want to make because we want to give courage to corporate leaders, to employers, to members of Congress and other elected officials that when they stand up for equal opportunity, when they stand up for diversity, equity, and inclusion, the American people across the board are behind them. And just sort of thinking back to your time in elected office as a mayor, we see what's happening in Minneapolis right now. were about to see something, something similar happened in potentially Portland, Maine. Harrowing stories. I mean, the latest in Minneapolis that really grabbed my attention is a five-year-old kid who was brought into

custody essentially has bait to go get his father. But it really does put a strain on local elected officials. Can you give us some insights into what a mayor, like in this case, Jacob Fry, has to do what they have to deal with? Or is it just

so see generous that you We can't even, you can't even contemplate it. Well, Jacob Fry, Tim Walts, Brandon Johnson in Chicago, other mayors, J.B. Pritzker, who stood up forcefully to these actions are to be applauded because we all know they are anti-American. Immigration enforcement strategies have gone too far. That's what the American people believe. That's what we see on television. And one of the concerns as a mayor you would have is this is going to damage your economy.

This is going to discourage people from visiting your. your city. It's going to discourage people from going out to a restaurant, to a movie, to see their friends. So it's counterproductive. And I think they've got to stand up. We're at a moment in American history where principle and fundamental values are at state. This is more than policy. This is about what kind of nation we want to have. And so when we gather today, we're saying we want a nation that includes everyone. And we've got to stand up to restrictive, oppressive, unconstitutional policies that seek to place America in a place that we know is on America. Mark, the Davos Conference, the global conference, is coming to an end today out in Switzerland.

A year ago, if you were there, diversity was talked about, inclusion was talked about two years ago, three years ago, huge topic, not mentioned this year. And many corporations, global corporations, American corporations, are not only not mentioning it, they're running from it. What do you do to combat that? It's a great question. We've got to convince people that corporate leaders in the C-suite should not be like ostriches with their heads in a hole, that they've got to hear what their customers are saying. And the polling we released today reflects that sentiment. They've got to understand what many of their main street investors are saying.

And then they've got to channel into what is required for them to get the best talent to compete with the Chinas, to compete with the Indias. This is my message for American business leaders. You've got to stand up for what's best. And you've got to say to the government, you can't restrict or limit my ability to get the best talent in the way that I think is appropriate and the way that I think is fair. So I believe, and this is why we're doing what we're doing, we want to give some courage to people across the board, to stand. stand up what is right and what is we know best for corporate America and best for the American economy. And I think you'll see this curve change once again in the future because while it may not be talked about, it's on the minds of many, many people. Mr. Mayor, before we let you go,

we observed Martin Luther King Jr. Day, obviously this week on Monday, a special day for a very long time in this country to think about his legacy and the civil rights movement itself. And that's been, well, watered down, to put it mildly by this administration in many ways, not an acknowledgement from the president himself of the holiday, personally either. What would be your message to this administration that does seem to be trying to erase in some ways the uncomfortable parts of American history? This administration should consider its legacy. Do they want to be seen in history as the administration that tore, divided, diminished what I call what I call one of the great, great movements in American history to include everyone in the economic,

political, and social mainstream. And I really believe that their direction destined them to be looked at years from now as being, I think, a failure. And this is why this is so important. Every American president, Republican or Democrat, has acknowledged the contributions of Dr. King. Ronald Reagan signed the holiday bill. George W. Bush and his father both visited Ebenezer Baptist Church. Of course, Democratic presidents, no doubt. And it's important for every president to recognize you're not the president of the people who elected you. You're the president of all of the American people.

And that's my message to this president and to every president that will succeed him. The Demand Diversity Roundtable held this morning, 11 o'clock Eastern there in Washington, president and CEO of the National Urban League, Mark Morial. Mr. Mayor, always good to see you. Thanks for being here. Appreciate it.