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