GEOFF BENNETT: President Trump's remarks in Davos, Switzerland this week forced Western leaders to reevaluate their relationship with the U.S.

That's as tensions escalated here at home over the ongoing immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota.

For more, we turn tonight to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.

That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW.

Good evening, gentlemen.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Hi, Geoff.

DAVID BROOKS: Good evening.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, David, what did we learn this week from President Trump's climb-down on acquiring Greenland about his instincts, his sense of leverage and the limits of his approach?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, he does have a method that he uses over and over again, which is to overreach, to offend everybody, and then back off.

And he sort of did that.

And that would be the nine explanation of what happened this week.

The serious explanation is that this, I think, was probably the final break in the postwar international order, that we have taken it for granted that we in the West, as we call it, are democracies aligned and friends with each other.

And what really struck me this week was how many European leaders, Mark Carney, from Canada, how much pleasure they took in being bitterly breaking, divorcing with America and that we're never going back to that.

And I asked Europeans, like, is it like that Taylor Swift song, we are never getting back together?

And they said, yes, that's what it's like.

We are never getting back together because they say, you might elect a sane person in 2028, but you're always four years away from another one of these.

And so they're really rethinking the whole global architecture.

And it should be concerning to Americans.

As Robert Kagan wrote in "The Atlantic" this week, we're going to look back on the Cold War with nostalgia.

And we're going to look back on the post-Cold War world as if it was paradise and that we're just entering, as Kagan wrote, the most dangerous time in American foreign policy since World War II.

GEOFF BENNETT: Jonathan, should allies take some reassurance from the outcome, that Trump ultimately backed off his tariffs and territorial demands or concern about the way that it started?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: I think the allies, particularly with Greenland, they understood what was happening.

And I think, to David's point, this was the break.

Going after Greenland, territory of Denmark, NATO ally, the president of the United States was willing to blow up NATO in order to get Greenland.

And I watched that -- the speech he gave at Davos with just my jaw on the ground for how many norm-busting things he said.

And I kept going back to, again, to David's point about the Europeans thinking we're one election away from this happening again, when Vice President Kamala Harris went to the Munich security summit the first year of the Biden/Harris administration, she gave a speech.

She sat down with the outgoing president, who asked, President Biden says America is back, but the question is, for how long?

Europeans have been wary of the United States since the first term of Donald Trump.

And I think the speech by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, to me, was the rhetorical break, because what I heard from him in style and language was all the things we're used to hearing from an American president, setting the table for what it means to be a global collective unit that is as much about security as it is about mutual prosperity.

And it was the Canadian prime minister who stood up for that, only to be threatened the next day by the president of the United States for saying the same -- those exact words.

GEOFF BENNETT: You mentioned Mark Carney, Canada's prime minister.

Here he is in his own words.

MARK CARNEY, Canadian Prime Minister: Let me be direct.

We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

The middle powers must act together because, if we're not at the table, we're on the menu.

We shouldn't allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules will remain strong if we choose to wield them together.

GEOFF BENNETT: A rupture, he says.

And, David, if governing by strength and spectacle is a defining feature of the Trump era, how sustainable is that approach for allies who are trying to manage this relationship for the next three years?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, well, it's governing by pure rancor.

And Donald Trump has set out to create a world where gangsters can have free rein and that the people who believe in the use of force above the rule of law, they should be able to run the show.

And what's perverse about it is that he seems to have gone back to some sphere of influence idea from the 19th century, giving Russia that region, giving China that region, as long as we get to control our region.

And this is simply -- it's just an illusion to think you can take this approach and it won't lead to bloodshed.

We have already seen, since 2013, I think I mentioned in this show some weeks before, that the number of people who died in war deaths from 1990 to 2013 was like 15,000 a year.

After 2013, it surges to over 100,000 people a year.

So we're already seeing a massive ramp-up in bloodshed.

And then when you get to where it's gangster versus gangster, we can expect that to continue or to exacerbate.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, while at Davos, the president launched what he's calling the Board of Peace.

And the board's official mandate was to help oversee the Gaza Strip under an Israel-Hamas cease-fire deal brokered by the Trump administration last year, though the president has hinted at broader ambitions here.

It's not exactly clear how this will all operate.

And, Jonathan, some allies worry that this board could undermine the U.N.

But could the opposite be true?

Could this board -- I mean, could the reason the board exists, could that be because the U.N.

has struggled to adapt to modern conflicts and geopolitical realities?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: I mean, maybe.

Sure, a Board of Peace on paper sounds great, but who's on this board?

And who created it?

And who is going to be the person who can be the president of this Board of Peace long after he's no longer president of the United States?

Donald Trump.

You were just showing a moment ago I believe it was the family photo of the people who were there on the Board of Peace.

There's no France, there's no United Kingdom, there's no Western alliance.

It's all potentates from the Middle East and Viktor Orban and other people who don't exactly care really about small-D democracy and liberal small-D democratic values.

So, forgive me if I am not jumping for joy over the Board of Peace and what they're going to do for Gaza or do to Gaza.

GEOFF BENNETT: How do you see it?

I mean, are you in this moment where you have these sort of ad hoc coalitions replacing permanent institutions like the U.N.?

DAVID BROOKS: It could be.

I'm one who believes that the Trump administration, going back to Abraham Accords in the first term, that was superior in regards to the Middle East than the Biden administration or the Obama administration's policies.

And so I think they have done some good things in the Middle East.

And if they can pour investments into Gaza, God bless them.

I'm a little dubious they can do so with Hamas running Gaza and unwilling to step down.

Who's going to want to invest?

And so it is still a fact that you can call an international confab, but unless you actually prefer democracy and a place that will be stable, I'm very dubious that it's going to work.

GEOFF BENNETT: Let's shift our focus stateside with what's happening in Minneapolis with the ICE enforcement.

As we speak, there are thousands of people in the streets of Minneapolis protesting.

We learned this week about an internal ICE memo that allows agents to enter people's homes without a judicial warrant.

They're using administrative warrants.

At what point does this aggressive enforcement start to undermine constitutional guardrails, Jonathan?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Start to?

One could argue that it's already happening, that you have ICE busting into people's homes, snatching people off the streets, or, as folks in Minneapolis are saying, people are being kidnapped, cars left in the middle of the road, sometimes still running with the possessions inside because ICE has snatched people off the street.

What is happening in Minneapolis and Minnesota, it breaks my heart because we are seeing these constitutional norms that you're asking about being eroded before our very eyes, being not just challenged but abused.

That's the word I'm looking for, abused.

When you look at a 5-year-old who -- and his father who are in process, the asylum-seeking process, which means they are not undocumented, being used as bait, and then shipped to Texas with his father, or Mr.

Thao, the 57-year-old who earlier in the week was hauled out of his home in boxer shorts and Crocs and a robe in 12-degree temperatures, I mean, what is happening to the people of Minneapolis, to American citizens?

There was just a report today of a U.S.

Army vet who was taken into custody for eight hours there in Minneapolis.

At some point, at some point -- well, I was going to say the administration will have to see the error of its ways, but they will not.

And this gets to the thing where I say my heart's broken, but my heart is full, watching the protests in Minneapolis of people taking to the streets to stand up for their own constitutional rights, but to stand up for their communities and for their fellow folks who live in Minneapolis, because they -- people should not have to live in fear the way that they're living there in Minneapolis right now.

It's not -- just at a moral level, how can anyone look at what's happening in Minneapolis and not stand up and not fight back and not push back?

Because if it's happening in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a state that's 75 percent white, it's coming to you next.

And it's already happening in Maine.

GEOFF BENNETT: David, how does all of this strike you?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, the domestic analog of the foreign policy.

It's a theory that we should rule by force.

And I think what we have seen is a disillusion of the ideals of what democracy is supposed to be all about.

And one of the things I'm curious about is, how will the American people react?

How are they reacting to the image of the 5-year-old kid Liam?

And I think that we already know from polling that large majorities do not approve of what's going on.

They think ICE is overbearing, cruel and ruthless.

But how much will they react?

Will it cause a break in public opinion of the sort of we haven't seen since the first Trump term?

Maybe.

You have to remember -- I remember, when I first started the conservative movement, there was a strong libertarian presence.

And the single greatest thing they were talking about over and over again was federal troops violating due process rights, First Amendment rights, Bill of Rights.

And this is exactly what's happening under the Republican Party.

So there still is a libertarian element within the Republican Party.

Are they going to say, what the heck?

I did not sign up for this.

And we will see if that happens.

But this is one of those issues, if there's ever going to be a break on the Trump coalition, I would think this would touch a chord.

GEOFF BENNETT: David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, thanks to you both, as always.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thanks, Geoff.

DAVID BROOKS: Thank you.