Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Trump Claims "Framework" Deal On Greenland With NATO Chief; House Democratic Leaders To Oppose DHS Funding Bill Over ICE Concerns; Supreme Court Conservatives Skeptical Of Trump's Firing Of Fed Governor. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired January 21, 2026 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[16:00:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And even from the president this morning, insisting that the U.S. would own Greenland, then being asked about it, kind of dodging the question from Kaitlan Collins. We're looking for more details on this deal he's talking about.

THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Breaking news as we come on the air this hour, the United States could soon be negotiating a deal involving Greenland.

Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's good to have you with us on this Wednesday. When just moments ago, President Trump left a meeting with the NATO secretary general and announced they had reached a, quote, framework for a future deal with respect to Greenland.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Great security, great national and international security to deal that people jumped at. Really fantastic for the USA, gets everything we wanted. The deal is going to be put out pretty soon and we'll see. It's right now a little bit in progress, but pretty far along.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Some details there, but not many. But it was enough for the markets. Just moments ago, the Dow closed over 100 points up or excuse me, almost 600 points up, with many hoping that a trade war with Europe could be avoided. One critical question is whether this deal would grant the United States ownership over Greenland, which President Trump has repeatedly said he feels he needs in order to guarantee America's interests in the Arctic.

We at CNN asked the president that question. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's a long-term deal. It's the ultimate long-term deal. And I think it puts everybody in a really good position.

REPORTER: How long would the deal be, Mr. President?

TRUMP: Infinite.

REPORTER: Did you speak to Denmark? Did you speak to Denmark?

TRUMP: There's no time limit. It's forever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right, let's get off the sidelines. Head into THE ARENA. My panel will be here to weigh in.

We're going to get started with CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.

So, Kristen, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the only thing that we know about this framework is that we don't really know very much. What else do you know?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Kasie, it's been a roller coaster over there watching President Trump in Davos. I mean, we start with this speech in which he says there's not going to be any military action when it comes to Greenland. A huge relief to our European allies. Then he threatens Denmark, says that they're ungrateful for the protection and the help that the United States gave them during World War Two. He continues to threaten these tariffs.

And then, coming out of this meeting with the NATO secretary general, puts on Truth Social that not only have they come up with a framework, but on top of that that he is removing those tariffs that he had threatened against any country who oppose the United States taking over Greenland. Now, he did talk briefly with CNBC in an interview and still was very shy on details. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have a concept of a deal. I think it's going to be a very good deal for the United States. Also for them, and we're going to work together on something having to do with the Arctic as a whole, but also Greenland. And it has to do with the security, great security, strong security and other things. The secretary general of NATO and I -- and some other people were talking, and it's a kind of a deal that I wanted to be able to.

INTERVIEWER: Where does Denmark? Did they weigh in on what they want, what they would agree to?

TRUMP: Well, I assume they did because he very much represents -- he's a strong leader, Mark -- you know, Mark Rutte and he -- I assume he's been speaking to them. He's been speaking to all of them.

(END VIDEO CLIP) HOLMES: So again, CNN asked specifically, does this mean that the United States is going to acquire Greenland, something that President Trump has essentially said as a non-negotiable. He danced around that question, saying it was a very long deal, an infinite deal, but no answer to the acquiring there.

And I do want to point one thing out. Kasie. Well, actually two things. One, the idea that we know Republicans, we know some administration officials were looking for an off ramp here. The tensions were just escalating too quickly between President Trump, the United States and our European allies.

Nobody wanted to take them on. There was no appetite for U.S. military forces in Greenland. But the other thing I want to point out here is what President Trump just said there about NATO and how they've come up with this great agreement that NATO is very happy with.

The reason why that's so telling to me, is what we heard from President Trump just yesterday when he came out and gave this press conference, and when he was asked specifically about Greenland and NATO, he said, we're going to come up with a deal that NATO is very happy with. It gives you a little bit of insight into where President Trump's head was when they headed into Davos. This idea of a potential off ramp, this idea of a potential negotiation as he was still publicly saying that it was either buying Greenland or bust.

We are asking for anymore details here. It should be noted that there is a long-term deal that has been signed between Denmark and the United States years and years ago.

[16:05:04]

President Trump says it's a bad deal, but it would have already allowed the United States to build up military forces in that region. So even if this is a new framework, we're going to have to look at the details very carefully, because the United States still had a lot of power of what they could do in Greenland. But President Trump hasn't chose to do any of those things at this time.

HUNT: All right. Kristen Holmes reporting for us at the White House -- never a dull moment. Kristen, thank you very much.

Our panel is here in THE ARENA. National political reporter for "Axios", CNN political analyst Alex Thompson; Republican pollster, CNN political commentator Kristen Soltis Anderson; former senior policy adviser in the Obama White House, also a CNN political commentator Ashley Allison; as well as former Republican congressman and former house speaker pro tempore, Patrick McHenry.

Thank you all for being here.

Mr. Speaker, my favorite title for you. Your least favorite. I know the joke is probably old by this point, but I want to ask you what the markets had to do with what we're hearing from the president here. I'm going to read we did get a statement just in from NATO about what the president said. So, there was this meeting. They say the secretary general had called

the meeting very productive meeting with President Trump. They discussed the critical significance of security in the Arctic region to all allies, including the United States. Discussion among NATO allies on the framework the president referenced will focus on ensuring Arctic security through the collective efforts of allies, especially the seven Arctic allies.

Negotiations between Denmark, Greenland and the United States will go forward, aimed at ensuring Russia and China never gain a foothold economically or militarily in Greenland.

So, they seem to align themselves here with the president. But we can also put up what the markets were doing today. They, of course, really dipped on all of the news and the uncertainty yesterday. Interest rates had a tumultuous time.

This is the close. But you could see this kind of line as this news comes out. Everything kind of takes a sigh of relief here, as you know, this is the basically the day at Davos.

Is this what is driving? I mean this does feel like a flip from the president, who was very recently saying that force was not off the table and said, you know, I want Greenland.

PATRICK MCHENRY (R), FORMER SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Well, the markets do have a massive say with this White House, with this administration. And they're speaking. The last time the bond market spoke and actually had a voice was pre-financial crisis. And this was James Carville said, you know, if I die, I want to come back as the bond market, right? It's the most powerful force in the world.

And then it's been dead, dormant for 20 years. Now, it's coming back and having a powerful say in our debates, in politics. This White House is indexed to it. The person to look most closely to on what the market is saying and the impacts not for today, but what it could be saying next week and next month is Scott Bessent, who is the most tapped in treasury secretary we've had in in a long, long time to market sentiment.

So, the markets did have a say here. It's a substantial thing if the United States and Europe has a fisher like what was contemplated, the doom and gloom of just yesterday. But a deal looks like it's been done.

HUNT: I want to play a little bit of what Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, said yesterday. Kind of think about this in in a big picture way, because this, again, took place kind of at the height of these tensions between the Europeans and the United States of America, as driven by President Trump.

But it's really kind of a remarkable and different way of thinking about the world order. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: The middle powers must act together, because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu. We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is. We are taking the sign out of the window.

We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn't mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Congressman, how significant is it that some of these powers that have been with the United States of America inside the framework that we built after World War Two for so long, are basically looking around and saying, okay, actually, we need to accept that this is basically over.

MCHENRY: It is significant. I think Mark Carney has an intellectual frame that is surpassing anything we've seen in this debate, with Europeans or with other former allies, former traditional allies of the United States. He's trying to put out an intellectual frame for the West to unify.

What they need to see is past the Trump administration. There are some acceptable norms in American politics. The Trump administration is a break with some of those, but still with national security arrangements. you still see the Trump administration with deep connectivity with NATO, with our leadership within NATO, our leadership within Ukraine, and a resolution with Ukraine, both with military capacity and other capacities we bring to the table. You see this with our allies globally.

[16:10:01]

And so while there is a statement against Trump, and what is this current administration's policy, those things still largely remain, as does the economic capacity and connectivity of the United States and the West writ large. So, it's a very dicey thing. But a new order for sure.

HUNT: Kristen Soltis Anderson, you obviously look at this from the perspective of talking to Americans. I mean, part of what the Europeans are grappling with is that the American people sent Trump back to the White House, right? Like they sort of breathed a sigh of relief when Biden was elected. There was this kind of promised return to the status quo. And then, lo and behold, the American people sent Donald Trump back to the White House.

I mean, how do you think about this from that framework?

KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. I mean, I think that with Trump's first term, a lot of people around

the world thought that was weird, but that that was an aberration. And I think with Trump going back to the White house, the American voter sending him there, and not just on sort of a ticky tacky small, you know, like it was a pretty clear he won. And I think the world is adapting to the fact that that -- you can no longer say it was an aberration. This is the new normal.

That's why somebody like Mark Carney in Canada has said, you know what? We're going to change our plans in terms of things like EVs. We're going to allow in Chinese EVs or other countries sort of making different deals and calculations about who they want to align with. And I think it's one of the risks of things feeling so chaotic. I mean, as the old order fades away, the old order was pretty good for the United States, even though many voters rightly feel like we didn't get a fair deal. We were paying a lot for European defense. There were lots of things about the old order that did keep us safe. And so what is it in this new order that's going to keep us safe? If Americans suddenly feel under threat, the public opinion can change.

ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I'd also just add that every European business and political leader is learning what every New York City business and political leader learned about Donald Trump's freewheeling, chaotic negotiating style decades ago is that he goes public --

HUNT: People like Patrick McHenry learned.

(LAUGHTER)

THOMPSON: Yeah, he goes public with an incredibly outrageous, maximalist position. And then and then everyone scurries and tries to figure it out. Some people like, you know, try to go, you know, mano a mano with him, which is what you're seeing in the Canadian p.m. do some try to quietly, you know, acquiesce, try to make him good. Then he comes out and says he has the concepts of an agreement and claims victory.

HUNT: Concept of a plan. In two weeks, well see it, right?

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, I heard concepts of a plan in a debate as well. And Americans are losing or their health care plans are skyrocketing. And that is something very similar that Trump always does.

I totally agree with you, Alex, that this is his negotiating style. He is going to swing for the fences and then he comes out. I suspect that the agreement is very similar to what we already have that will expand our military bases in Greenland, that we will not acquire the property.

We will -- all the -- all the big things that he has said. He's now walking back for a couple reasons. One, public sentiment does not want us to go to war over Greenland. They don't want us spending billions of dollars to acquire when they can barely buy groceries. Right now in America.

The other thing, though, that in terms of American security, that I'm curious, is that when you alienate your previous or even present allies who become your future friends, who are we then going to be aligning ourselves with? Is it is it a Putin? Is it a Xi? Is it -- who are the people that in this new world order that the Carney is suggesting that we are in? Where do we stand in it? And that is a big question that Americans might not be wanting to

grapple with day to day as a kitchen table issue, but we should, because in three and a half years, in three years, Donald Trump won't be the president. And where will that leave us as a country?

MCHENRY: Well, they'll still leave us with the largest military on the planet, the best funded military technological infrastructure on the planet, the best intelligence gathering operation on the planet with the most up to date nuclear arsenal.

HUNT: About that lately. But yes, I take your point.

MCHENRY: But all of this. Well, but were so far more advanced to them with our industrial capacity. So, we still sit on a number of key prizes that the world still envies.

ALLISON: Yes.

HUNT: Which and frankly, there will not be a resolution in Ukraine unless the United States, as is there to Taiwan, will not be protected unless the United States is there. There are some significant things this administration still cares about and is going to be a key deliverer on, that is in the ahead for the next three years.

ALLISON: We still rely on allies in the past to also support us. Like after 9/11 when we were going into war. So we don't -- we are the strongest power in the world, but we also sometimes want friends to come in and to battle with us. And will we have that?

ANDERSON: This is -- this is a key sort of challenge with a lot of things Trump has done over the last year, is he goes to achieve things that lots of people might say are nice, right? Having a better military defense system in Greenland would be a good thing. Having a more secure border would be a good thing. Having fairer trade deals with other countries is a good thing.

It's the how you get there that has people pulling their hair out and going, did it have to be like that? And that's the thing that keeps Donald Trump from having a job approval. That is 55 percent. Instead, it's 40 percent.

HUNT: So briefly. And, Alex, I want to give this to you. We're coming up on time here. But, Ashley, mentioned three and a half years. And if you think that Donald Trump left American politics at the water's edge when he went to Davos, you would be mistaken because Gavin Newsom was standing in the back of the room watching the president speak, and the president actually addressed Newsom directly. I want to show that.

And, Alex, I'd like you to weigh in on it. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I used to get along so great with Gavin when I was president. Gavin's a good guy. I will say this, if I were a Democrat governor or whatever, I would call up Trump. I'd say, come on in, make us look good because were cutting crime down to nothing and we're taking people out, career criminals who are only going to do bad things, and we're bringing them back to their countries.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Alex, say a lot without saying anything.

THOMPSON: I mean, he gave Gavin Newsom everything he wanted. Gavin Newsom couldn't even get in for one of his speeches today. But the fact that Donald Trump referenced him while he was in the room got him on camera. The whole reason he went there is to sort of make himself the Trump foil.

HUNT: Right. Well, and he afterwards said that Trump's speech was boring, which may be the ultimate, ultimate troll.

All right. Coming up next, here in THE ARENA, the power play at the Supreme Court today. Just who exactly is skeptical of the president's move to fire a member of the Fed might surprise you.

Plus, the upcoming vote in the House that could unite or divide Democrats. We're going to talk with one of them. New York Congressman Pat Ryan will be here live

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PAT RYAN (D-NY): I shared with the caucus this morning, and the leadership team has shared with the caucus that that well be voting no unless there are any substantive changes or amendments in the rules committee.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:21:08]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: If I'm helping NATO and I've until the last few days when I told them about Iceland, they loved me they called me daddy, right? Last time, very smart man. Said he's our daddy. And now what I'm asking for is a piece of ice cold and poorly located that can play a vital role in world peace and world protection. It's a very small ask.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: A very small ask. That is how President Trump is characterizing his plot to acquire the Danish territory of Iceland. Did he say no? Greenland, I think, is what he meant.

Those remarks coming hours before the president posted that there is a, quote, framework of a future deal to do with the Arctic island, but it is still unclear exactly what that means. The president sending this message to world leaders earlier.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: They have a choice. You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no and we will remember.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. Joining us now, Democratic congressman from New York, Pat Ryan. He's also an Iraq veteran who sits on the House Armed Services Committee.

Congressman, very grateful to have you here. Really appreciate it.

I just want to get your initial reaction to we have both the president and also now the spokesperson for the NATO secretary general, saying that there was a productive meeting. There has been a framework that has been agreed to, to deal with Greenland.

Are you confident that this can be a good deal for both the United States and for NATO?

REP. PAT RYAN (D), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE : I think if we zoom out over the first three weeks of 2026, the amount of damage done to our allies that we spent decades building, the violation, the gross violation of our constitution in the unlawful attack on Venezuela, all while not at all focused on the things that my constituents care about primarily, which is lower the cost of housing, health care, groceries and utilities. This is the deal itself. We'll see the details, but I think the clear thing is the president is failing and flailing all across the board.

And this is another attempt. He can't even get the country's name right, for goodness sakes, which is just pathetic. So, I don't have a lot of confidence this will be good for the American people. I don't think this likely makes us more safe.

HUNT: Congressman, the big piece of this, of course, was that the president seemed willing to set aside the use of force to acquire Greenland. What does it say to you that the president was willing to make that threat? And how big of an impact do you think that has on our long-term relationship with NATO?

RYAN: Well, irreparable damage has already been done in this first year to critical alliances. NATO, for sure. But our allies in the Asia Pacific have seen us. We've tariffed them. We've insulted them.

We've barely mentioned them in our national security strategy, decades of work to keep the American people safe by building strong, bedrock alliances where rather than us fighting and spending our blood and treasure, it's our allies in partnership, that's all being eroded, literally minute by minute, and major damage was done today in Davos.

I think it's important that people understand this will not make us more safe in the long run whatsoever. And it probably means the world as it gets more dangerous, is more expensive for us to keep the American people safe, meaning we're all paying more, which of course, no one wants to do right now.

HUNT: I want to play something that the president said to -- over the course of his trip to Davos about -- well, the word is dictator. [16:25:10]

I'll play the comment for you. Well talk about it on the other side. Take a look

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We had a good speech. We got great reviews. I can't believe it. We got good reviews in that speech. Usually they say he's a horrible dictator type person. I'm a dictator.

But sometimes you need a dictator. But they didn't say that in this case. And no, it's common sense. It's all based on common sense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: He says sometimes you need a dictator. How did you how do you interpret the president's comment that sometimes you need a dictator?

RYAN: I hadn't heard it until you played that one. But he said this multiple times over the years. I mean, he's held up, Kim Jong Un as someone that he emulates. Of course, he's essentially, on his knees for Putin these days. In terms of just doing his bidding left, right and center.

So, again, certainly the American people want a democracy and do not want a dictator. We know that. Certainly, my constituents know that what they really want is somebody to actually deliver for them, make our community and our country more affordable, which Trump is not doing more safe, which he's actually slipping backwards on these actions and I think more free.

I mean, we're seeing fundamental American freedoms that I risk my life 27 months in combat to protect being eroded. We've got an ICE mass detention facility being planned in my own district in the Hudson Valley, which is their strong opposition to and were fighting back on. But this is a really dangerous time. Whatever the whatever phrase he chooses to use, the American people are less prosperous and safe a year in than they were last year. And that's incredibly infuriating.

HUNT: I'm glad you raised the question of ICE, sir, because, you know, as we wrap up here, the House Democratic leadership made it known that they're going to oppose the DHS funding bill over concerns about ICE. Is that where you want to see your leadership? Is that going to help you on the ground in the Hudson Valley, which is a relatively competitive place to try to win an election?

RYAN: My district is one of the last ones left. That's a, you know, a purple moderate district. There is incredibly pretty broad, incredibly broad, opposition to what ICE is doing. Both the -- what was, I think, very clearly a murder committed in Minneapolis by those agents.

But what's happening in our own district, I mean, with no coordination with any local officials or state officials, we learn from "Washington Post" reporting that they want to set up a mass detention camp at an old warehouse in my district, and we've seen -- thankfully, I'm proud of this. We've seen Republican leaders and Democratic leaders, local elected officials saying, we do not want this here. This is not good for our community. It's wrong for our country.

I think in particular, these mass detention warehouse system that they are wanting to set up is just straight up un-American. And my constituents agree with that. I think we're in another situation where a year in Trump has totally lost track of where the people are, and he's listening to the Stephen Millers and the Kristi Noem sycophants, and they're just wrong. And the American people are going to send a message that they don't want this anymore.

HUNT: All right. Congressman Pat Ryan, thanks, as always, for spending some time with us. Hope you'll come back soon.

RYAN: Thanks for having me.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, the Supreme Court appears ready to rein in Donald Trump on at least one thing. We're going to go inside today's blockbuster case about presidential power.

But first, the ultimatum heard round the world. How Donald Trump's message to world leaders is being received. Former supreme -- NATO supreme allied commander will be here next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: They have a choice. You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no and we will remember.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:33:34]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Does it still include the United States having ownership of Greenland like you said you wanted?

TRUMP: It's a long-term deal. It's the ultimate long-term deal. And I think it puts everybody in a really good position, especially as it pertains to security and minerals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: After meeting with the NATO secretary general, President Trump now says there's a framework for a future deal over Greenland. It comes just hours after the president spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he again renewed his demand for U.S. control of the island.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: All we're asking for is to get Greenland, including right title and ownership, because you need the ownership to defend it. You can't defend it on a lease. Number one, legally, it's not defensible that way. Totally. And number two, psychologically, who the hell wants to defend a license agreement or a lease?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. Joining us now in THE ARENA, former NATO supreme allied commander, the retired Admiral James Stavridis, who is now, of course, the CNN senior military analyst.

Admiral, so grateful on days like this that you are part of our family, because we did get the president coming out of this meeting with the NATO secretary general with a tune that sounded completely different than the one he's been humming for the last 48 hours.

[16:35:02]

What changed do you think?

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: I think the pushback from our European colleagues landed. I think number two, the stock market cratering yesterday landed. I think the manifestations of sell America landed. I think concerns about a sell off of U.S. T-bills landed. All of that came together.

And, you know, Kasie, life is always compared to what? And compared to where we were a couple of weeks ago, a week ago, where President Trump was talking about not taking force off the table. I take him at his word at Davos. That's off the table.

So now, the two options remain. You can buy it, doesn't appear to be for sale. So that's where we have now landed. Which is to say let's work out a long term deal. It could be a lease. It could be some form of free association like the Marshall Islands. There are a number of different paths to take.

But I for one, as a former NATO supreme allied commander, I'm very glad to see talk of using our troops to conquer Greenland appears to be off the table.

HUNT: Admiral, forgive me for you know, wondering if you're NATO, if you're the Danes, if you're a Greenlander, why would you believe the president today? If you've seen him say something totally different a couple of days ago, what kind of faith can people have that, because this is what he's saying today. That's going to be true in a week and a month in a year.

STAVRIDIS: Clearly, our overall credibility with the Europeans has been eroded by this whole episode. I think we can work through this. If you go back 20 years ago after the invasion of Iraq by George Bush, there was a lot of angst out of Europe at that point. Things can work through and fundamentally, the advantages both for Europe and for the United States of being in an alliance like NATO are quite profound.

But, Kasie, you're absolutely right. My circuits are lighting up with a sense from Europe that the United States may not be the reliable partner we have been. And to conclude what this may lead to is a Europe that stands up, builds a big defense industry, and goes its own way in the world. And by the way, I wouldn't be surprised to see Canada join in some manner, a kind of an association with the European Union. And I think all of them will be looking at. I wonder what a partnership with China might look like.

We're not the only game in town. That's what I'm hearing from Europe right now.

HUNT: Wow. That's remarkable.

You know, I'm glad you raised Canada because Mark Carney, Canadian prime minister's speech got a lot of attention and a lot of kind of traffic and discussion. I want to play a little bit of what he said, as well as a couple of the other leaders that we heard from, and we'll talk about it on the other side. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT: It's as well a shift towards a world without rules, where international law is trampled.

URSULA VON DER LEYEN, EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT: Nostalgia is part of our human story. But nostalgia will not bring back the old order.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: And Carney used that word, "nostalgia," too, and basically said nostalgia is useless. I that kind of taken together this idea that we are in a new world order. I mean, is this rupture, to use Carney's word, permanent?

STAVRIDIS: I hope not, and I think not. I do want to make a comment. I thought the sunglasses on Macron were amazing and he ought to just keep wearing those. Although we all know he sadly has an eye infection, but I am, for one, still cautiously optimistic. We can -- we can land this plane again.

Again, if you look back at different times in the U.S. journey post- World War Two, there have been times Vietnam, many of our European allies were disdainful of our engagement there. I mentioned the invasion of Iraq. Now we've been through a pretty difficult period right now, by the way.

I give a lot of credit to the secretary general of NATO, Mark Rutte, former prime minister of the Netherlands. Somebody I knew well during my time in command in Europe. He is very smart in how he is working through all of these challenges.

So short answer, Kasie. I think this can be repaired, but I would encourage people to read that speech by Mark Carney.

[16:40:06] It is a remarkable piece of kind of statesmanlike from someone who is not only the current prime minister of Canada, former central banker of the United Kingdom and a former central banker of Canada. He has impeccable credentials -- economic, political. That speech is worth listening to as a cautionary tale.

HUNT: Really interesting.

Admiral, very briefly, before I let you go, we have some new reporting from the New York times just in here. They cite three senior officials familiar with the president's discussion with the leader of NATO. And they say the compromise discussed would give the United States sovereignty over small pockets of Greenlandic land where the U.S. could put military bases. I realize you're learning this right along with our viewers, but what's your reaction to that initial reporting?

STAVRIDIS: I think that would be a smart option to consider. And I'll give you another island where that already exists. That would be Cuba, in the island of Cuba. That small piece of Cuba, Guantanamo Bay.

We have not as sovereign territory, but with a lease in perpetuity, as long as we keep continuing to pay nominal fees to the Cubans who don't even cash the checks, that would be, I think, a smart option to consider. And it would give us everything we would need, because 95 percent of Greenland is a massive ice sheet. The parts we want minerals, ports, bases -- that would be worth focusing on. There might be a deal in all of that.

HUNT: All right. Admiral James Stavridis, always enlightening to have you, sir. Thank you so much for being here.

STAVRIDIS: You bet, Kasie.

HUNT: All right. Coming up, we all know "you're fired" is one of Donald Trump's best-known quotes. Now, the Supreme Court will decide if he can actually do it for one key position.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:46:28]

HUNT: The Supreme Court today appearing deeply skeptical of President Trump's attempt to oust Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her job. The court's conservative majority repeatedly raising concerns about how the president's actions impact the independence of the Fed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Your position that there's no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available, very low bar for cause that the president alone determines. And that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve that we just discussed.

(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: The case coming after Trump tried to fire Cook last year, alleging that she committed mortgage fraud. She's denied those accusations.

She released a statement today after the arguments, writing this, quote, "The case is about whether the Federal Reserve will set interest rates guided by evidence and independent judgment, or will succumb to political pressure. For as long as I serve at the Federal Reserve, I will uphold the principle of political independence in service to the American people."

CNN chief domestic correspondent and anchor Phil Mattingly joins us now.

So, Phil, walk us through what happened in court today and what we expect to happen next.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: I think what was so striking, in case we have -- we've had a lot of opportunities to listen to Supreme Court arguments over the course of the first year, particularly on issues that relate to presidential power and presidential authority and the 6-3 conservative majority. Many of those have gone the way of the president and allowed him to exert more authority, particularly over independent agencies.

I think what was so fascinating about this nearly two hour argument today is conservative justice after conservative justice in that 6-3 majority, five out of the six laid out very clear skepticism about specific points and made very clear that the Fed is not just considered independent, it is very much, in their view that independence that's the bedrock of really the global economy is something that they are very, very keen on upholding here.

Now, you heard Samuel Alito raise concerns about process. He played that really critical sound that we heard from Brett Kavanaugh, who also made very clear about what this could portend going forward if it was allowed to go the Justice Department's way. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAVANAUGH: Let's talk about the real world downstream effects of this, because if this were set as a precedent, it seems to me just thinking big picture what goes around comes around all the current presidents appointees would likely be removed for cause on January 20th, 2029. If there's a Democratic president or January 20th, 2033. And then we're really at will removal. So, what are we doing here?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: A question at the end that I often ask myself at various points in the current news cycle. But kidding aside, I think just listening to Amy Coney Barrett question or raise concerns about the economic repercussions where the Justice Department to receive an emergency order here that would allow the president to temporarily fire the Fed governor, the scale of concerns, the kind of pervasive nature of them, not just amongst the courts liberals, making very clear that it doesn't seem like they're questioning whether or not to side with one side or the other.

It's more about the scope of a ruling in Cook's favor. So, we'll have to wait and see where that all heads. But for the Trump administration and for the president in particular, who has certainly broken every precedent that we've all been aware of as it relates to the Federal Reserve and talking about the independence of the Fed.

[16:50:04]

This doesn't look to be going his way and the backdrop of all of this, of course, is the Justice Department subpoenas of Fed Chair Jerome Powell, who was in attendance at this argument today, his case or the issues that he's dealing with did not come up, but it was notable that he was there making very clear the support behind the scenes for Lisa Cook throughout this process.

HUNT: Really fascinating little tidbit of reporting there.

Phil Mattingly, thank you very much for that.

Our panel's back. We're also joined by CNN legal analyst, national security analyst Carrie Cordero.

Congressman, I want to bring this to you just because and I want to go to Carrie. The Fed and the way that the president is interacting with the Fed, there is something about it that is different from the ways in which he has tried to you know, strong arm, other pieces of the federal government, other policies of the United States of America to his will.

Can you kind of -- help us understand from your perspective as someone who's done so much work on these issues, why that is

MCHENRY: Because of economic policy. The presidents distinct view on economic policy. He wants low he wants low rates for cheap money for the American people. That was actually his business career. He wants -- he wants the cheapest money possible to buy hard infrastructure, to buy buildings. So, he is a debt guy, as they would say, in the markets, oriented to the cost of credit and the availability of credit.

The Federal Reserve is -- sits at the center of that. And for the last 50 years, politicians on Capitol Hill would add to the Federal Reserve's obligations beyond monetary policy. First as a housing regulator, then a credit regulator, then finally with the Biden administration. They wanted it to be a climate regulator.

It should not be any of those things. It should set interest rate policy as it was intended when it was constructed 115 years ago. The interesting part about the debate right now what we heard from the Supreme Court is that they get the fact that a central bank is not a novel concept to the United States. It predates us. The English Central Bank is about 350 years old. We modeled the first and second bank of the United States that the founding fathers put together to deal with American debt, post American Revolution. This was not new for the Founding Fathers. On an independent monetary

board, it has actually been the center of our politics for a long, long time. From the progressive era of the politics of the 1890s through the Great Depression, the causes of the Great Depression. The Fed has been -- the central bank and monetary policy has been the center of all these economic policies.

So, for the president to touch it is not new. The way this president has touched the Fed is distinct. And this is a key moment for the court to rule on whether or not the Fed is mostly independent or mostly not independent.

HUNT: And, Carrie Cordero, does what the congressman just laid out there sort of the significance of the Fed in the context of our system for all of these for centuries. Does that help explain why it seemed like the conservatives on the court, who, by the way, have given the president enormous leeway across the board and including immunity at one point, explain why they look at this and they're like, I don't know why. I don't know if we're comfortable with that.

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah. I mean, Kasie, listening to the oral argument this morning, it did seem like many of the justices were really quite mindful of the historical significance of this case. Because there has not been previously a Fed governor that is fired by a president, as well as the consequences. They were very cognizant of the consequences of their decision here.

One or two of the justices speaking about the potential economic consequences, just on the decision today. And remember, this oral argument was not necessarily supposed to be about the merits of the case, whether or not Lisa Cook as a governor could be fired. It was really supposed to be about whether or not she could stay in her position while her challenge moves its way through the lower courts.

HUNT: Really interesting. Alex Thompson, the politics of this actually incredibly important for the midterm elections, among other things.

THOMPSON: Well, in terms of the politicization of the Federal Reserve, which is really what this is about, is how much power does the president have over that body? And you're seeing Scott Bessent increasingly a man in the middle here trying to reassure markets that the Fed is still going to remain independent and that in order to keep the economy and the markets going.

I'd also say that the other big battle here is really just the Supreme Court versus this white house, because this is the first full Supreme Court term we have had since Trump has gone into the office.

[16:55:04]

And you're seeing that the justices aren't just skeptical about this case, about other potential powers as well, like tariffs.

HUNT: Yeah, going to be going to be really remarkable situation there. All right. Carrie Cordero, thank you very much for joining us today.

Really appreciate it. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right. Thanks very much to my panel. Really appreciate you guys being here today. Thanks to all of you at home for watching as well.

Don't forget, you can now stream THE ARENA live. You can catch up whenever you want in the CNN app. You can scan the QR code below on your screen.

You can also catch up by listening to our podcast. There's a QR code for that, too. Follow us on X and Instagram. We're @TheArenaCNN.

But, of course, do not go anywhere because Mr. Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".

Hi, Jake.