Jeffrey Goldberg: Nick, so, on your show this week, the upcoming show, you're going to be talking about splits in the Republican Party on these ideological questions.

And, you know, I do find it hard to believe that J.D.

Vance is looking to have yet another foreign military intervention.

I forgot until you mentioned, you know, Nigeria and Somalia.

We just sort of dismissed those.

Take us inside the Republican fight.

Nick Schifrin: It's not even a Republican fight.

It's a White House fight, right?

I mean, to me, the core foreign policy debate, and I'd like to think that, you know, on Compass Points, we're going to reflect this, is -- Jeffrey Goldberg: That was a nice plug.

Nick Schifrin: Oh, thank you.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes, that was nice.

Nancy Youssef: It's well done.

Nick Schifrin: You know, on one side you get a traditional -- well, let's call it a traditional Republican approach, what Marco Rubio was perhaps, right?

Jeffrey Goldberg: Muscular interventions.

Nick Schifrin: Right.

And Corey Shockey from the American Enterprise Institute kind of represents that on our show.

And so we want to help the Iranian protesters, especially if we've created a moral red line.

We want our friends in Europe to be our allies and our friends and not threaten them, right?

Then you've got, if you will, the J.D.

Vance, as Steve Witkoff has been on this side, certainly in the argument, the restrainer, let's call it, right?

Why are we focused on Latin America?

Why are we bombing Iran?

Our focus should be China.

Donald Trump was elected in 2016 to be a restrainer president.

What happened to that?

Defense priorities, a think tank in D.C.

has Jen Kavanaugh as their representative and she's on the show.

And then somewhere in the middle, as we've been, you know, basically acknowledging, the president goes either way or not, and that's Heritage Foundation.

Jeffrey Goldberg: That's Heritage.

Nancy, this is an interesting question because it's not that Trump might have all of these thoughts at different points in the day.

Is that a fair statement that he encompasses all of this, which is why there's so much confusion?

Nancy Youssef: I think that's absolutely fair.

And so I think what's astonishing is he came in as an America first president, that he wasn't going to get involved in international affairs.

I think the shock is not that he has so many different ideas, but that it's so at odds with what he promised the administration would be.

Remember, he campaigned on fixing the economy, bringing -- removing illegal immigrants from the country.

And now at this start of 2026, we're focused so much on foreign policy and intervention and the U.S.

military might overseas.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

David, I want to turn to you.

You spent a very large number of hours with the president just last week, you and three colleagues.

I'm going to ask you this question because you were just in the gold showroom that the Oval Office now is.

I'm going to ask you a gold-related question.

So, Machado, the Venezuelan Nobel Peace Prize laureate, the Venezuelan opposition figure, literally gave her physical Nobel Prize to Trump as a way of saying thank you, and also encouraging him to help her become president of Venezuela, one assumes.

Tell us about that episode and why he took it.

David Sanger: So, strange episode.

He has made no secret of his desire for the Nobel Prize.

He's made no secret of his anger that President Obama got one, as he said, you know, after just being here a few weeks, right?

And there was some element of, you know, embarrassment that he had not even done anything yet when he got that.

But along the way, something strange happened, where the president seemed to mix up having the medal itself with being named a laureate.

And at some point the Nobel Committee came out and said, once Nobel Prizes are awarded, they're awarded.

That's it.

They are not -- Jonthan Karl: They can't be given away.

They can't (INAUDIBLE) for all time.

David Sanger: People have given away, some have sold the actual medal, but that doesn't mean that the person who buys the medal or receives it as a gift is the Nobel laureate.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Wait, are you telling me that if I eat lunch in Pulitzer Hall at Columbia University, that does not make me a Pulitzer winner?

David Sanger: It may not.

Jeffrey Goldberg: This is a very disturbing turn of events.

Jonthan Karl: Vladimir Putin stole Bob Kraft's Super Bowl ring.

I mean, he's got a Super Bowl ring.

Jeffrey Goldberg: What does that say to you about a type of person?

Jonthan Karl: Well, it tells me that he's not a Super Bowl champion, though, you know?

Jeffrey Goldberg: But go to your interview.

Yes, well -- yes.

David Sanger: Yes.

So, you know, in the interview, the interview is remarkable for a couple of reasons.

I mean, first, when we asked him, why do you feel you need to own Greenland since under the treaty that we have with Denmark, you can open up the 15 or 16 bases that the U.S.

used to have and closed down.

And he said, you know, it's psychological.

I just feel like I need to own it.

This was the New York real estate guy in the president basically saying, I know the difference between -- Jeffrey Goldberg: He looks at a building and says, I want that building.

David Sanger: And to some degree, I think there's a bit of that going on with the Nobel Peace Prize here as well, right?

He wanted to show off and own the medal.

Now, he does have a medal down the hall.

It was won by Teddy Roosevelt in 1906.

But that doesn't seem to -- it doesn't seem to quite do it.

The amazing thing when we also did the interview was that was the moment where he said, nothing can stop me, even international law, depends on how I interpret international law.

Jonthan Karl: No.

But he also said his morality.

His morality -- Jeffrey Goldberg: The only thing to keep restraint is his own morality.

Yes, that was an interesting statement.

Jon, I want to -- speaking of which, let's pivot to some domestic issues.

The president is threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act in Minneapolis.

We just saw today that they're -- the Justice Department is investigating the mayor of Minneapolis and the governor of Minnesota now for maybe obstruction of justice.

Tell us what it means to invoke the specter of the Insurrection Act.

Jonthan Karl: Well, look, he came very close to doing this in 2020.

He wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act to crack down on the George Floyd protests in 2020.

And he was largely stopped from doing so by his defense secretary at the time and his attorney general, who both tried to convince him and also tried to kind of do a little bit of, you know, distracting him from actually going through with something that he really did want to do.

There's nobody around to make that argument now.

Look, it's a perilous situation because there are absolutely provocations on all sides in Minneapolis.

And if it gets violent again, I don't think that he would hesitate to send in active duty U.S.

military, which he would have to invoke the Insurrection Act to do.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Nancy, you're a Pentagon correspondent.

Is there any sign to you that anyone in the civilian or military leadership in the Pentagon right now would argue against this, if the president said the 82nd Airborne is going to Minneapolis?

Nancy Youssef: I think they would be objections to it.

I don't know how aggressively they would make the argument.

But what you're talking about then potentially, you know, the Insurrection Act allows the military to detain people, to do conduct arrests.

I think if you look at ICE, many people see it as a political force on behalf of the Trump administration.

What happens when you have members of the 82nd smashing windows, detaining Americans alongside those forces?

So, I don't know how aggressively they'll make the case inside the Pentagon, but I know that it goes against the very ethos of the military that is so desperate to not be politicized.

That would be the most demonstrative display of the politicization in the military if it happens.

Nick Schifrin: Yes.

I mean, Nancy, I'm sure maybe you agree with this, but I don't know a single service member, whether enlisted or an officer, senior, junior, who wants this to happen, right?

Civilian leadership, fine, you know, maybe they'll have debates with the president, but no soldier, no Marine, no airman, no sailor wants to be seen as a political arm.

They took their oath, they take their job seriously, and there is, at least among the people I talk to, a great fear and reluctance to take that step.

Jonthan Karl: But, again, the secretary of defense.

And one of the other key things here is you have seen the top ranks of this administration make it clear they believe that ICE officers have, in the words of the vice president, absolute immunity.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

You know, there's this criticism we've heard again and again of government officials, former, current members of Congress, leaders of Congress, that they don't call out what many people would see as this administration's excesses.

But here's Jerome Powell, chairman of the Federal Reserve, pushing back on his own threat, the threat of criminal investigation.

Just watch this for one second.

Jerome Powell, Chair, Federal Reserve: The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public rather than following the preferences of the president.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Nancy, you talk to a lot of ex-military leaders, ex-defense secretaries.

You're familiar with all these people.

Jerome Powell, very frankly, comes out and says, this is nonsense what they're doing.

I've been struck, going back to what Nick said.

I've been struck by the fact that there's very little said in public by people who obviously feel as if the military should not be used in various ways that Trump is thinking of using them.

What is the breaking point for them?

Nancy Youssef: You hope if they're asked to do something illegal.

I would note that Senator Mark Kelly has been charged.

That has a chilling effect.

Their service members are being threatened to be dropped in rank, that they lose their retirement.

There are real tangible threats that they can make.

I'm not justifying silence, but when you talk to people and ask them, why haven't you said more?

They come back to you with real fears that they could experience.

David Sanger: And you see that -- Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

I'm sorry to -- I have to wrap it up, but it's a -- we'll have you back to -- David Sanger: It's a good point.

Jeffrey Goldberg: -- to make the next point.

This is not a four-hour Trump interview.

We're going to have to leave it there.

I'm sorry.

But I want to thank our guests for joining me, and I want to thank you at home for watching us.