TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The president's strategy drove recent events. He and the speaker discussed it at length on Sunday. The president may have goaded China into a bad position, leading them to be perceived as bad actors. The U.S. is willing to cooperate with allies and trading partners who did not retaliate. The message was simple: don't retaliate, and things will turn out well.

Speaker 0 notes that Trump used the Davos stage to demand Greenland back, warning allies to back off or face massive tariffs, calling Greenland “a piece of ice.” Speaker 1 says the goal is a piece of ice for world protection; the U.S. could have kept the land but chose not to, giving Greenland a choice to say yes and be appreciated or no and be remembered. Greenland is reportedly protesting in the streets, saying “hands off our country.” Speaker 0 adds that Trump has struck a deal framing a future agreement on Greenland and the Arctic, posted on Truth Social, stating that based on a productive meeting with the Secretary General of NATO, Marruta, a framework for a future deal with respect to Greenland and the Arctic has been formed, and that tariffs scheduled for February 1 will not be imposed. Speaker 2 challenges the claim, noting NATO doesn’t own Greenland, and questions whether Marruta can make such a deal. Speaker 0 continues the exchange, joking about not wanting a Met Gala, and suggests the post hints at the U.S. taking control of Canada as well because of Arctic interests. Canadian Prime Minister Carney responds by saying Canada will invoke Article 5 and support NATO to protect Denmark, with Denmark also unwilling to cede sovereignty following the framework. Speaker 2 adds that two people are deciding the fate of Greenland, and another participant begins to speak. Speaker 0 provides population context, saying about 57,000 people live in Greenland. Speaker 0 then mentions Putin’s response, quoting a brief remark that he’s “kinda behind this idea.” Speaker 2 notes Ravasi’s commentary and asks for a referendum, which Speaker 3 says would give Greenlanders a semblance of deciding for themselves, though it’s unclear how such a referendum would impact broader strategic interests. Speakers turn to Ralph Schulhammer, who is in Austria, to assess European reaction. Speaker 3 says Trump’s rhetoric in Davos was “very Trumpian” but contained carrots as well as sticks: he highlighted ancestry, support for a strong Europe, concerns about migration and energy policy, and suggested that Europe must strengthen itself to be a true partner; otherwise, the U.S. may retreat. The discussion acknowledges sentiment that Europe’s elites tend to frame issues as global rather than addressing national needs, with Speaker 3 arguing that policy-wise there can be shared interests, but communication strategy differed from Trump’s approach. The panel considers whether Greenland’s referendum would matter, noting that many peoples pursue autonomy but that Greenland’s outcome would not necessarily alter large strategic interests. They discuss historical precedents of land acquisitions and acknowledge the Greenland dispute sits at the intersection of Arctic strategic interests and great-power competition, including China and Russia’s activity in the region. Speaker 3 emphasizes that the future of Europe should be anchored in defending European territory and citizens, not only global agendas, and critiques the perception that Europe should always prioritize global issues over internal concerns. In closing, Speaker 0 references Macron’s overture to meet in Paris, noting Trump’s remark that Macron won’t be in power much longer. Ralph Schulhammer is thanked for his insights, with recognition of his Hammertime podcast.

The speaker confirms the USMCA is in place and considered a good deal for all countries. The speaker expresses dislike for the previous person they worked with on the deal, claiming she was terrible and tried to take advantage of the deal. This led to a bad relationship that was ended. A negotiation is coming up in the next year or so to adjust or terminate the USMCA.

The White House announced the deal with the UK because the deal was complete, contrary to claims. The president and prime minister spoke about the phenomenal deal, and discussions will continue. Trade deals involve an initial agreement, framework, and deal, followed by finalizing details. The numbers are determined, and market access will remain. The president is committed to a 10% baseline tariff, not just for the UK, but for all trade negotiations with other countries. The president is determined to continue with the 10% baseline tariff permanently, even after the deals are done.

The world has been cheating the U.S. for decades with tariffs and non-tariff barriers like VAT taxes, dumping, currency manipulation, and technical and agricultural barriers. These barriers transfer $1.2 trillion of wealth abroad annually, and $18 trillion since the U.S. started running deficits. The president's strategy is to charge other countries what they charge the U.S. It's easy to calculate the tariff differential, but non-tariff barriers are much higher. The U.S. paused for ninety days, knowing countries would want to bargain, and anticipates potentially having 90 deals in 90 days. The speaker believes this pause was a success for President Trump, and they are going to get this done for the American people.

The negotiating party returned completely, and the negotiations were completely successful. A champagne bottle was opened to celebrate the successful negotiations.

Speaker 1 states that a deal with Canada is not being held up, but rather, there are different concepts being considered. Speaker 1 favors tariffs because they are simple, easy, and precise. Mark has a more complex, but also very good, idea. They are going to consider both concepts. Speaker 1 believes a deal is achievable if both parties agree.

The European Commission's retaliatory tariffs are still on the table if a deal with President Trump cannot be made. Speaker 1 believes a deal can be made and offers to help. Their goal is to invite President Trump to Italy for an official visit and explore the possibility of a meeting with Europe, advocating for frank discussions to find mutually beneficial solutions. Speaker 1 believes that together, both sides are stronger and is committed to finding the best way to reinforce this strength on both sides of the Atlantic. Speaker 0 claims that making a deal with Europe will not be a problem because the U.S. has something that everyone wants.

China has agreed to fully open its country, which will be beneficial for both China and the United States, and will promote unification and peace. China will also suspend and remove all of its non-monetary barriers. The agreement needs to be formalized, but China has agreed to open up.

The speaker claims his administration brokered a historic ceasefire between India and Pakistan using trade as leverage, suggesting they trade goods instead of nuclear missiles. He praises the "very powerful," "strong," "good," and "smart" leaders of both countries. He expresses hope the ceasefire will hold and commends Marco Rubio, Marco Stanup, JD Vance, and the entire group for their hard work. He suggests arranging a dinner between the leaders. He states that millions of people could have died from the escalating conflict.

The European Commission's retaliatory tariffs are still on the table if a deal with President Trump cannot be made. Speaker 1 believes a deal can be made and aims to invite President Trump to Italy for an official visit, potentially organizing a meeting with Europe. The goal is to frankly discuss everyone's needs to find a mutually beneficial middle ground. Speaker 1 believes that together, both sides are stronger and is seeking the best way to reinforce both shores of the Atlantic. Speaker 0 claims that making a deal with Europe will not be a problem because the U.S. has something that everyone wants.

The president increased tariff rates to offset Chinese retaliation, escalating the situation. Both sides added 25% tariffs, with China implementing additional non-tariff measures that effectively created an embargo on trade. This embargo is considered unsustainable for both sides.

All 13 Canadian Premiers are in Washington and will visit the White House today to prevent a trade war between Canada and the United States. This is an unprecedented event as it's the first time all Premiers have traveled to Washington together, and they will now meet at the White House. The Premiers have been meeting with U.S. lawmakers, lobbyists, and business leaders to advocate for a continued trade relationship. As the Premier of Ontario, I want to emphasize that Canadians are resilient and proud, but we also value our strong trade relationship with the U.S. Americans and Canadians share close ties in supply chains, culture, and many other aspects. We need to finalize this deal quickly and move forward together.

The speaker states they are in dialogue with the prime minister and believes he is happy with how they treated them with tariffs. The speaker addresses foreign leaders, urging them to terminate their tariffs, drop barriers, and stop manipulating currencies, which they claim is devastating. They request these leaders buy tens of billions of dollars of American goods. The speaker asserts tariffs protect the country from economic harm and will lead to unprecedented growth, adding that this growth has already started.

The speaker states that China wants to make a deal with the United States and believes China has to make a deal. China made a mistake when it retaliated. When America is punched, the president punches back harder, which is why 4% tariffs will go into effect on China tonight at midnight. The president believes that Xi and China want to make a deal, but they just don't know how to get that started. If China reaches out to make a deal, the president will be incredibly gracious but will do what's best for the American people. The Chinese want to make a deal, but they just don't know how to do it.

The tariff on China will increase to 25% because China retaliated against the U.S. More than 75 countries have contacted the White House to negotiate better trade deals. There will be a 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs during negotiations, and the tariff level will be reduced to a universal 10%. According to the Treasury Secretary, President Trump's negotiating strategy has brought more than 75 countries forward to negotiate. Countries that do not retaliate will be rewarded with a 10% baseline tariff. China's tariff will be raised to 25% due to their insistence on escalation.

The speaker presented to the European Council different possibilities for free trade agreements. The most attractive option is cooperation between the EU and CPTPP (Asian countries), as both desire structured cooperation. This cooperation could be the beginning of redesigning the WTO, reforming it for the positive and avoiding past mistakes. The goal is to show the world that free trade with a large number of countries is possible on a rules-based foundation. Engaging in this project between the CPTPP and the EU is important because of its potential impact.

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently visited Canada to sign an agreement for increased collaboration between the two economies. The purpose of this summit is to further strengthen the framework discussed during that visit. Although the summit is short, lasting only a day and a half, it provides an excellent opportunity for Canadian officials to discuss shared priorities with European leaders.

Trump removed the Philippines and Indonesia from his tariff hit list at 19% each, and Japan at 15%. Japan has $550 billion invested in the U.S. and has created thousands of jobs. According to Speaker 1, the U.S. just signed the largest trade deal in history with Japan. He states that it's a great deal for everybody, a lot different from deals in the past, and that the U.S. is doing really well as a country with a lot of money flowing in.

With this agreement, reciprocal tariff rates will decrease to 10% on both the United States and Chinese sides, representing a 15% reduction for the United States and a 15% reduction for China. A 90-day pause period for negotiations will commence, with commitment from both countries. China will also remove countermeasures currently in place. However, other tariff measures implemented by the United States in the past, including those from 2018, tariffs under other statutory authorities, and tariffs related to fentanyl, will remain unchanged for now.

Glenn: Welcome back. We’re joined again by Seyyed Mohamed Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and a former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. There’s talk in the US of seizing Kharg Island, which would handle 80–90% of Iran’s oil shipments, effectively a nuclear option to shut down Iran’s economy. What would be Iran’s likely response if the US pursued this path? Marandi: It would be a major problem to access the island because the US would have to fly over Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf. Iran would retaliate if Iranian territory were occupied, taking the war toward a major escalation. The regimes hosting the island would have to pay a heavy price, far greater than now. For the United States, the island is well protected, with Iranian assets on the shore supporting the islanders, and it’s farther from the US Navy and closer to Iran’s shore. But more importantly, such an aggression would be futile: it would not change the Persian Gulf trade through Hormuz, which Iran has effectively controlled by requiring permission to pass. An invasion or occupation would lead to fierce combat and punishment of the regimes that enabled it—Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar—desert-based states with oil and gas but little water. If the US succeeds in taking the island, Iran’s retaliation would involve destroying assets of the cooperating countries. Long-term, Hormuz could be effectively closed, with upstream infrastructure damaged and no oil or gas able to move, making a later reopening contingent on a peace agreement. The operation would be logistically, militarily, and economically disastrous for global markets. Glenn: There are reports Iran is mining Hormuz. Do you know anything about that operation? Marandi: Iran hasn’t mined Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, or the Indian Ocean. The Iranian navy capable of wartime actions is largely in underground tunnels and includes speedboats, surface-to-sea missiles, and a network of underground bases. Iran has not moved to mine the Gulf. It does not want escalation. Iran has always negotiated; US claims that Iran wanted nuclear weapons at the negotiating table are rejected by Iran, the fatwa, and IAEA history. If negotiations had failed, the US invasion would be unjustified. Doha and Qatar are prepared to restart gas facilities and allow oil to flow if peace returns. If the US escalates to destroy key infrastructure, Iran will retaliate, and Iran can hurt US assets and its proxies more than the US can hurt Iran, with long-term global energy consequences. Iran has been striking bases in the region and says it is prepared to continue until after the midterm elections. Glenn: The US energy secretary says the US Navy is studying options to escort tankers through Hormuz. What are the main challenges? Marandi: It would be virtually impossible. Iran’s navy is largely underground, with mines, surface-to-sea missiles, and drones capable of targeting Hormuz from Iran. If open war begins, Iran would retaliate against regimes hosting US bases. Even if Hormuz were opened temporarily, without oil, gas, tankers, or production, there would be no purpose, and energy prices would spike permanently. The US would likely be forced to accept Iran’s terms for peace to allow oil to flow. Glenn: Trump has spoken of further destruction if needed, but says he’s run out of targets. What do you expect from the American side? Marandi: The US is already targeting nonmilitary sites and civilian targets in Iran. They slaughter civilians, including families and children, with premeditation. They could intensify attacks on oil, gas, electricity infrastructure, which would invite Iran to retaliate. Iran’s society is united, with people on the streets despite the bombardments. If the US destroys infrastructure, Iran would respond, but Iran does not want escalation; it would be catastrophic for the global economy. The media in the West is controlled, and there is little outrage at threats to destroy Iran. Glenn: Israeli and American aims now—what’s at stake, and how end this? Marandi: Since the Gaza genocide and Lebanon escalation, Zionism is increasingly viewed as evil, and public opinion against Zionism is growing in the US. The destruction of Israel’s credibility is the greatest defeat, not battlefield losses. End this war now would be prudent; as Iran strikes back, global sympathy for Iran grows and the empire weakens. If Israel were to use a nuclear weapon, that would be catastrophic and could prompt broader proliferation. Glenn: Any chance Iran could retaliate against Britain or European states? Marandi: Europe and the US will have diminished presence in the region; bases would be forced to leave. He notes the possibility of false-flag attacks in the West and asserts Zionist manipulation as a risk, but emphasizes Iran’s determination to defend sovereignty and support for Palestinians and others. Glenn: Just a final note—Iran had three negotiations, not two, including the JCPOA. Thank you for joining. Marandi: Thank you.

The speaker believes President Trump has "won" because 40% of the world's countries are supposedly trying to reduce tariffs with America due to his actions. The speaker claims China wants a deal, not primarily for economic reasons, but to "save face." China's economy is allegedly in its worst shape in 25 years, making it unable to withstand further economic conflict. The speaker asserts China is quietly seeking a deal with President Trump, similar to 40% of countries worldwide. The speaker urges seizing the opportunity and pursuing a deal aggressively.