Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: The President, who is also inviting Vladimir Putin to join
Speaker 2: the board, sitting down with leaders and diplomats two by two,
Speaker 2: signing a charter establishing the new entity. Now, today's events
Speaker 2: coming on the heels, of course, of the continued talks
Speaker 2: to end the war in Ukraine. Reports Now the administration
Speaker 2: is eyeing regime change in Cuba, and of course, the
Speaker 2: aggressive war of words over Greenland. It has been a
Speaker 2: couple of days, the President, posting on social media as
Speaker 2: he traveled back to the US right now, quote, it
Speaker 2: was an incredible time in Davos. The Greenland structure is
Speaker 2: being worked on and will be amazing for the USA. Quote.
Speaker 2: Joining us now here in our Washington bureau for a
Speaker 2: special conversation as former Vice President of the United States,
Speaker 2: Mike Pence, mister Vice President, welcome back to Bloomberg TV
Speaker 2: and Radio. It's great to see you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Joe.
Speaker 2: Thanks you're starting out well for you. It's been a
Speaker 2: doozy already when it comes to the news cycle, especially
Speaker 2: when it comes to geopolitics, and that's where I'd like
Speaker 2: to start with because I believe that you are in
Speaker 2: favor of what we're seeing in Greenland. I know you
Speaker 2: had some issues with the approach that the President was taking.
Speaker 2: Now that we have the framework for a deal, was
Speaker 2: it worth the cost of upsetting our NATO allies to
Speaker 2: the extent that he apparently did well.
Speaker 1: It was actually back in twenty eighteen when I was
Speaker 1: Vice president that President Trump first expressed an interest. It
Speaker 1: was adding Greenland to the United States, either as a
Speaker 1: territory or beyond, much in the way we purchased Alaska,
Speaker 1: much in the way Thomas Jefferson purchased the Louisiana purchase.
Speaker 1: And I really do believe Joe that there is a
Speaker 1: national security case to be made. The Arctic has become
Speaker 1: much more active with regard to military incursions by China
Speaker 1: and Russia, and having that platform permanently for the United
Speaker 1: States as well as all the mineral rights is key.
Speaker 1: I had concerns, of course, about any suggestion that we
Speaker 1: would use military forces the territory of a NATO ally.
Speaker 1: That would be unacceptable. I also had concerns about the
Speaker 1: President threatening more unilateral tariffs against countries that wouldn't agree
Speaker 1: with turning Greenland over to the United States. So I
Speaker 1: like a lot of people over there in Davos. I
Speaker 1: welcomed the announcement of a framework. Sounds like there'll be
Speaker 1: additional opportunities for a permanent military base as well as mining,
Speaker 1: and I think that sets that sets into motion of
Speaker 1: process that could well someday in the future give way
Speaker 1: to Greenland being a part of the United States as
Speaker 1: a sure. I mean, you look at it, the US
Speaker 1: Virgin Islands were a part of Denmark back in the
Speaker 1: day those were purchased. But to me this was should
Speaker 1: always have been a process of evolution and not you know,
Speaker 1: anything more abrupt than that. And so look, I want
Speaker 1: to commend the present than for finding a way forward
Speaker 1: and a framework that at least leaves open the opportunity
Speaker 1: for a future with Greenland and the United States, but
Speaker 1: also in the immediate term deals with real national security
Speaker 1: concerns and the ability to resource development.
Speaker 2: To the point that we cannot now is there again.
Speaker 2: I know we're still learning what's in the deal because
Speaker 2: we actually don't have a completed deal, but we have
Speaker 2: great access to Greenland now, correct, What was it in
Speaker 2: that first term that you wanted you couldn't get.
Speaker 1: Well, well, quite honestly, since nineteen fifty one, we've had
Speaker 1: a treaty with Denmarks that's allowed us to have a
Speaker 1: virtually unlimited military placement. We only have about two hundred
Speaker 1: soldiers there today, but we've had up to ten thousand
Speaker 1: in the past. But in terms of the development of
Speaker 1: permanent bases, I think the President yesterday used the term
Speaker 1: when he was asked about the duration of the agreement,
Speaker 1: and I think he said forever. I'm not sure the
Speaker 1: previous treaty fell in that category. You know, if there
Speaker 1: is a new long term arrangement that addresses are very
Speaker 1: real and ongoing security concerns in the region, as well
Speaker 1: as expands our ability to develop the resources that are there,
Speaker 1: I welcome that, but I welcome that through negotiation and
Speaker 1: not the kind of tactics that were being talked about before.
Speaker 2: I think a lot of our NATO allies were surprised
Speaker 2: to hear the President suggest that he did not believe
Speaker 2: they would be there to defend the United States if
Speaker 2: called upon in an Article five violation. You of course,
Speaker 2: were in Washington when the only one triggered ever took
Speaker 2: place on behalf of the United States, and I think
Speaker 2: we've all heard to the extent to which that the
Speaker 2: Danes were involved in responding on our behalf to hear
Speaker 2: the Secretary General of NATO say it pains him to
Speaker 2: hear that you don't believe that our NATO allies would
Speaker 2: not be there for us.
Speaker 1: In a time of need, do you well? I just
Speaker 1: history as a teacher. Yeah, I was here in Washington.
Speaker 1: I was a freshman member of Congress show on nine
Speaker 1: to eleven, and I watched our European allies initiate Article
Speaker 1: five and go to war to defend our country. And
Speaker 1: they did that, and so I thought it was regrettable
Speaker 1: as the President speculated about Europe's willingness to stand with
Speaker 1: the NATO allowance and stand with the United States. I
Speaker 1: have every confidence this is the greatest alliance in the
Speaker 1: history of the free world. And my hope is that
Speaker 1: the progress that they made in reaching an agreement over
Speaker 1: Greenland suggests that better days are ahead for the United
Speaker 1: States and our important allies in Europe.
Speaker 2: Sure, and a lot of American blood and treasure was
Speaker 2: spent to build that alliance, as we know, enter the
Speaker 2: Board of Peace. We just saw some images of President
Speaker 2: Trump at the signing ceremony earlier today This is an
Speaker 2: interesting assembly of world leaders, twenty nations, many of them
Speaker 2: not considered allies, including Lukashenko Vladimir Putin. Are these men of.
Speaker 1: Joe, Well, let's take a half step back and say,
Speaker 1: you know, I've walked through the communities in Israel that
Speaker 1: were struck on October the seventh, and I want to
Speaker 1: give President Trump a great credit for standing with Israel
Speaker 1: as they did what needed to be done to take
Speaker 1: down Hamas and the secure CIEs fire. It continues to
Speaker 1: hold to this day, even taking action against Around's nuclear
Speaker 1: program that was historic and important. The Board of Peace
Speaker 1: as a concept for the future of Gaza, I think
Speaker 1: is a welcome one. I was disappointed to see the
Speaker 1: addition of Russia and the presence of other representatives of
Speaker 1: authoritarian regimes and the absence of European allies on the
Speaker 1: Board of Peace. Look this, we all hope for a
Speaker 1: future with Gaza that is peaceful and prosperous. That Hamas
Speaker 1: is utterly disarmed, no longer, no longer a threat to
Speaker 1: the people of Israel and to the region. But I
Speaker 1: think the Board of Peace itself ought to first comprised
Speaker 1: of nations that have a demonstrated commitment to freedom and
Speaker 1: to peace, and Russia doesn't make that list.
Speaker 2: Well, it's important that you went back to Gaza in
Speaker 2: your answer, because that was supposed to be the charge
Speaker 2: of this board. It seems that it will be potentially
Speaker 2: used on a global level, and that the President's chairmanship
Speaker 2: will outlive his presidency. We're not going to be in
Speaker 2: a world in which a Board of Peace with Vladimir
Speaker 2: Putin is helping to set the way forward. In Ukraine,
Speaker 2: for instance, are we more than.
Speaker 1: Three years ago Vladimir Putin launched a brutal and unprovoked
Speaker 1: invasion as Ukraine that rages to this day. Thought. I
Speaker 1: thought President Zelenski's remarks today and of us were important
Speaker 1: and on point. And I, for my part, think that
Speaker 1: whatever these structures are, I've always been someone dubious of
Speaker 1: all these different committees at the United Nations, and now
Speaker 1: we've got a Board of Peace. What we need is
Speaker 1: the free world to be locking arms together against authoritarian
Speaker 1: regimes that would seek to redraw international alliance by force.
Speaker 1: And my hope is that nations in Europe will heeds
Speaker 1: Zelenski's call to take even more decisive action. And I
Speaker 1: think the time has come for the United States Senate
Speaker 1: to pass the strong secondary sanctions against nations that are
Speaker 1: fueling the Russian war machine through the purchase of oil.
Speaker 1: President Trump, I am told informed Senator Graham that he
Speaker 1: would support the bill now more than two weeks ago.
Speaker 1: I don't know what the hold up is. I think
Speaker 1: it's time that we will put even more pressure on
Speaker 1: the way to peace is not through boards. The way
Speaker 1: to peace is through strength and showing Vladimir Putin that
Speaker 1: the free world will not stand idly by while he
Speaker 1: wages this unprovoked invasion against Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Well, as you and I speak, Steve Witkoff and Jared
Speaker 2: Kushner are having a late night meeting with Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 2: And after what you just mentioned, the comments from President
Speaker 2: Zelenski earlier today in Davos, how you rationalize these parallel
Speaker 2: negotiations that are underway, And if, mister Vice President, is
Speaker 2: there any reason why we should expect anything different from
Speaker 2: Putin this time?
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin doesn't want peace, so is this a waste
Speaker 1: he wants Ukraine?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: And I have met Vladimir Putin. I've stood closer than
Speaker 1: I am to you. I've told him things he didn't
Speaker 1: want to hear, and I have never had any illusions
Speaker 1: about the man. Vladimir Putin has made it clear for
Speaker 1: now more than a quarter century that his ambition in
Speaker 1: life is to reassert that old Soviet sphere of influence,
Speaker 1: and Ukraine is a part of that. Crimea in Ukraine
Speaker 1: was a part of that. But his ambitions don't stop there,
Speaker 1: and I hold the view that now is not the
Speaker 1: time for more talk, more summits, more conversation. It's time
Speaker 1: for action and having nations free up those frozen Russian assets,
Speaker 1: as European powers are discussing, make them available to Ukraine,
Speaker 1: but also again passing those strong secondary sanctions that President
Speaker 1: Trump has said he would sign out of the United
Speaker 1: States Senate, sending into the President's desk, putting real constraints
Speaker 1: on the energy industry in Russia that fuels their war
Speaker 1: machine as that way go. Peace through strength has always
Speaker 1: been the American path in my adult life, and it's
Speaker 1: still the answer today.
Speaker 2: Doesn't sound like you expect a breakthrough tonight either. At
Speaker 2: the same time, this is quite a day in Washington
Speaker 2: to see the former Special Counts Jack Smith testify on
Speaker 2: Capitol Hill. I don't know if you had an ear
Speaker 2: on his remarks, but he was pretty straightforward, warning that
Speaker 2: there are potentially catastrophic ongoing threats to US democracy because
Speaker 2: of the failure to hold President Trump accountable for what
Speaker 2: he called his criminal attempts to overturn the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 1: Is he right, Well, I didn't have the opportunity to
Speaker 1: watch the hearings today, but I know what happened that day.
Speaker 1: You sure do, and I'll always believe, by God's grace,
Speaker 1: I did my duty see to the peaceful transfer of power.
Speaker 1: But with regard to our democracy as a whole, it's
Speaker 1: important to remember that every Republican and Democrat on Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill also did their duty that day. After the Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill police quelled the riot, Joe, we reconvened the very
Speaker 1: same day, Republicans had Democrats alike, and completed our duty
Speaker 1: under the Constitution of the United States. I've said that
Speaker 1: it's a day of tragedy, but it ultimately became a
Speaker 1: triumph of freedom because our institutions held, our democracy held,
Speaker 1: and I have great confidence about the future of this
Speaker 1: country and the future of democracy. As a result.
Speaker 2: President says he wants as Attorney General Pam BONDI to
Speaker 2: file charges against Jack Smith, would that be a disservice
Speaker 2: to the nation.
Speaker 1: You know, I honestly think that one of the reasons
Speaker 1: President Trump returned to the White House was because of
Speaker 1: the overt weaponization it took place at the state level
Speaker 1: and at the federal level around the country of the
Speaker 1: criminal justice system. And I would rather see this administration
Speaker 1: end that practice and pulled back from the breach of
Speaker 1: embracing the very, very type of weaponization that the President
Speaker 1: endured for those years. Look, as I said, I think
Speaker 1: the American people know what happened that day. History will
Speaker 1: be the judge of all of us the events of
Speaker 1: that day. But I have great peace that we did
Speaker 1: our duty. I trust myself and our service to the
Speaker 1: judgment of history.
Speaker 2: You know what I haven't brought up yet in this
Speaker 2: entire lengthy conversation is the word affordability, which I think
Speaker 2: the administration wants me to talk about. This is the
Speaker 2: issue of the moment that might drive voters decisions in
Speaker 2: the mids from elections. The President got to this a
Speaker 2: bit in Davos yesterday. But consider some of the ideas
Speaker 2: that we've heard capping interest rates on credit cards, banning
Speaker 2: institutional buyers from the housing market price controls. These are
Speaker 2: pages out of Elizabeth Warren's book, but they're coming from
Speaker 2: this administration. Is this a conservative White House?
Speaker 1: Well, those are not conservative policies. And the organization I
Speaker 1: created when I left the White House, Advancing American Freedom Foundation,
Speaker 1: has been making the case that while the Trump pensiers
Speaker 1: were defined by conservative policies at home and abroad, especially
Speaker 1: economic policies, that things are different now. I mean the
Speaker 1: very idea that we would be imposing price controls on
Speaker 1: credit card companies when Joe, you and I your viewers
Speaker 1: know that would simply limit the access of credit, middle
Speaker 1: and lower income Americans. The price controls also on pharmaceutical
Speaker 1: companies here in the home of the greatest research and
Speaker 1: development of medicines on Earth. But I think the largest
Speaker 1: number and the best way to afford to address affordability,
Speaker 1: if you will, is to end this Liberation Day season
Speaker 1: of unilateral tariffs against friend and foe alike. I hold
Speaker 1: the view that the President's use of that authority is
Speaker 1: constitutionally questionable. I'm hopeful the Supreme Court will overturn the
Speaker 1: president's use of the teriff authority under the emergency statute.
Speaker 1: But there's no question when you look at the numbers
Speaker 1: of Bloomberg does better than anybody else in this economy.
Speaker 1: What's clear is that after six months of these tariffs
Speaker 1: imposed on some of america leading trading partners, that American
Speaker 1: businesses and American consumers are paying American tariffs. We see
Speaker 1: the negative impact on jobs, We see the inflation. Although
Speaker 1: they boast that it's not as bad as it used
Speaker 1: to be, the fact is the reason why affordability has
Speaker 1: made its way into the political conversation is because the
Speaker 1: American people see it at the grocery store and they're
Speaker 1: feeling it as consumers. And so I think ending this
Speaker 1: season of government intervention, whether it be whether it be tariffs,
Speaker 1: which are taxes at the border, whether it be price controls,
Speaker 1: whether it be nationalization of businesses around the country. Now
Speaker 1: thirteen different businesses have been subject to nationalization steps by
Speaker 1: this administration. Let's get back to freedom, Let's get back
Speaker 1: to free markets. And I promise our group and I'm
Speaker 1: personally going to continue to be a voice for the
Speaker 1: principles that have always made America free and prosperous.
Speaker 2: Let's stay in touch with us on your work at
Speaker 2: the AA. It's great to have you back with us
Speaker 2: in our studios in Washington. The former Vice President of
Speaker 2: the United States, Mike Pents, is great to have you
Speaker 2: here on balance of power,