Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump's Federal Worker Buyout Extended; Trump Sued By 22 States On Health Research Funding Cuts; Trump Removes Top Government Ethics Official; Greenlanders React To Trump's Attempt To "Control" Island; Trump Orders Treasury To Stop Making "Wasteful" Pennies. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired February 10, 2025 - 17:00   ET

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

[16:59:47]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: Welcome to "The Lead," I'm Phil Mattingly, in for Jake Tapper. This hour, a duo of winter storms is about to slam much of the United States with double digits of snow predicted in some places. And I see rain, travel delays, and power outages in others. Our meteorologists are tracking the latest threats ahead.

Plus, say farewell to the penny. President Trump orders the Treasury to stop producing one cent coins, saying they cost more to make than they are worth. But could cutting those costs actually raise prices higher when you're at the store?

And leading this hour, one of Trump's most expansive attempts to dramatically reshape the federal government has hit another roadblock, at least for now. A federal judge deciding last hour to extend the deadline for federal workers to accept the administration's legally dubious buyout offer, a deadline that had already been pushed to 5:00 p.m. today, just seconds from now. Let's get straight to CNN's Kaitlan Collins. Kaitlan, there are a range of poor fights playing out right now. This is the latest that's been challenged fairly successfully in court. Where are we now?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, since Trump has been in office, Phil, and we've seen a slew of executive actions coming from him. He's about to sign more in about half an hour from now. This has really been the only obstacle that he's faced since returning to power. It has been the courts and the federal judiciary that has stepped in and blocked several of the moves that he's tried to take.

Some of them the White House was certainly expecting, like when it came to birthright citizenship and overturning the 14th amendment and that executive order that he signed day one that he was in office. They knew that was going to be a court fight. It was almost by design because they wanted it to get eventually in front of the Supreme Court and we'll see where it ends up.

But they're also now facing it on other measures here, like when it comes to Treasury officials getting access to certain things or the President's attempt to try to buy out the federal government by offering two million federal workers this offer to continue working and still get paid, which of course we are seeing the judiciary be very skeptical of that offer. And the way this has progressed over the weekend that is the most notable development is how we are seeing Trump's top allies responding to this.

Most notably the Vice President J.D. Vance, who posted in a tweet over the weekend essentially arguing that judges here, who he says they try to tell the general how to conduct a military operation. That would be illegal if they tried to command the A.G. how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's illegal. This is the most important sentence of this tweet, though. He says judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.

And so when we are seeing Democrats and other critics of this administration say this is the borderline of a constitutional crisis, it is the word legitimate there that I think does the most work. Now where you are not seeing that same argument and that same nuance that's coming from J.D. Vance's tweet is what Elon Musk is saying, where he was responding to that judge over the weekend who for now temporarily is blocking the access to the Treasury data.

He's saying that judge should outright be impeached because he did not agree with them and did not side with them. That is a step further than obviously what we are seeing here. And so this is the real question and turning point for this White House going forward, which is do they continue to appeal these matters in the court and seek that as their legal recourse or is there a point where they start defying the orders from these judges.

We have the judge today saying that they were defying his order to release a lot of federal money for grants. He was saying very clearly it was very obvious in his statement that they should continue doing so and that they are not complying with that order.

MATTINGLY: Yeah, it's an open question. It's fascinating that in the Treasury case you mentioned, they made very clear they are complying even though they vehemently disagree. We'll see kind of how this continues to play out. I do want to ask you, Kaitlan, about J.D. Vance. The president was asked about his future. What did he say?

COLLINS: Yeah, this has always been a question ever since Trump picked J.D. Vance to be his running mate. And then of course now is his vice president and is there in the East Room for a lot of press conferences or in the Oval Office for a lot of the key briefings or executive order signings. He's in Paris right now at the A.I. Summit. And Trump was asked, does he view J.D. Vance as his successor in this political movement that he has created and very clearly has a firm grasp on? Trump had a very quick one word answer when he was asked that question by Bret Baier.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS HOST: Do you view Vice President J.D. Vance as your successor, the Republican nominee in 2028? DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No, but he's

very capable. I mean, I don't think that it, you know -- I think you have a lot of very capable people. So far, I think he's doing a fantastic job. It's too early.

BAIER: Right.

TRUMP: We're just starting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Now, if you report on Trump and talk to people who know Trump behind the scenes, that answer is not surprising that he outright said no. It may not be exactly what J.D. Vance's team wants to hear necessarily in a situation like this, but they'll argue, you know, this has kind of been the question in this clip and save moment that happened right there is what happens in two years from now when the 2028 field is starting to take shape and Trump cannot run again despite how he is jokingly mused in public about seeking a third term.

And there are people running for that Republican primary, including, as we presume, J.D. Vance to be one of them. What does that moment look like and if Trump endorses him? So obviously it's something to watch as this goes on for right now. I don't think it's going to be some kind of rift in their relationship tomorrow, but certainly is a moment to watch going forward in terms of how this does shake out and who Trump does believe is the heir apparent for his MAGA movement.

[17:05:02]

MATTINGLY: It's true that it's early. It's also true there's a reason you and I were both grinning when we came back from that clip. Kaitlan Collins, thank you, my friend, as always, appreciate it. Well, back to that major legal ruling now, a federal judge extending the deadline once again for federal workers to decide whether to accept Trump's so- called buyout offer. CNN's Manu Raju is on Capitol Hill. Manu, you asked Speaker Johnson about these orders. What did he say?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, you know, he and other top Republicans are treading very carefully. They know, of course, the importance of the courts and the fact that they are a co- equal branch of government, but they also don't want to anger Trump and want to make sure that they are not getting in a crosswise with how the administration plans to handle this court orders including that one that came out on Friday that said that the Treasury Department payment systems could not be accessed by J.D. Vance and his top DOGE officials and that they should destroy those records that were downloaded from those systems. I asked whether or not -- asked the Speaker himself whether or not he believes that the White House should comply with those orders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Should the White House comply if the federal court orders them to do something such as destroying the records that they downloaded from the Treasury Department? REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Well, look, their appellate processes and

all of that, I haven't followed the latest on the litigation, but obviously we have systems that have to work. We're fully supportive of what the DOGE effort is doing and what the president is doing. It's a very aggressive agenda that was promised to the voters. Remember, he's delivering on campaign promises right now. We are going to be codifying a lot of these changes and what they've uncovered is frankly shocking. This is a good development. I wish the courts would allow the executive and the legislative branches to work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: I also asked the Senate Majority Leader, John Thune, about this as well. He indicated that the courts had called balls and strikes. He reiterated the importance of the role of the courts. He did not say directly that the White House absolutely should comply, but Senator Susan Collins made a swing vote. He was asked about this just moments ago by reporters in the hallways about J.D. Vance's tweet. He said, I personally think that the administration has to follow the court rulings.

She also criticized President Biden, then President Biden, how he handled student loan rulings as well while he was president. So you're hearing some difference among how some Republicans are approaching it, but top Republicans at the moment, they say the courts are important, but they're not directly calling on the president to obey those orders, Phil.

MATTINGLY: Manu Raju, live on Capitol Hill. Thanks so much. Let's bring in our panel now. And Tom, I want to start with you because I feel like there's not actually like a debate here. Like, if the court orders something, if there's a restraining, like, you comply, am I wrong on that?

TOM DUPREE, FORMER PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, GW BUSH ADMINISTRATION: That's how we've interpreted the law and the Constitution for, you know, a few hundred years.

MATTINGLY: Yes.

DUPREE: So the short answer to your question is yes. And look, I will say this. The vice president is right that I think that there is a core area of executive power that courts shouldn't interfere with and can't interfere with. For example, directing military operations. The vice president is correct on that. But it doesn't follow from that that if a court issues an order that the president or the vice president thinks infringes on their executive power, that they have the right to disregard it.

In fact, the Chief Justice of the United States in his annual report just a few months ago, no liberal key, he came out and said that our system is based on respect for the rule of law, that everyone, presidents included, follow court orders even if they disagree. If they disagree, they can challenge it up through the system. That's how we're built. They take it up to the Supreme Court. But if the Supreme Court in the United States says you have to do this, historically at least, United States presidents have complied.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I mean, Phil, to that point, you can go through the appellate process, Tom, you know this well. I would also wonder if the president can mandate, you saw the Speaker saying we want to codify some of these changes. Tom, could the president mandate some of his cabinet secretaries to attempt to do what DOGE is doing by finding ways, making some of those cuts within some of those agencies and not having sort of this outside ancillary group doing some of those efforts?

DUPREE: Yeah, look, I mean, the president certainly can direct people in the agencies to carry out his agenda. There's no problem. That's how our system works. But at some point, I think the courts are probably going to step in.

I mean, we've already seen Democratic attorney generals and everyone and their brother filing lawsuits, litigating, trying to stop it. And I think that the administration is going to confront the fork in the road fairly early on here. Are they going to comply with the cases that they inevitably will lose? And they'll lose some of them, maybe a lot of them, but will they comply?

KAREN FINNEY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Right.

DUPREE: Or will they basically give the hand to the federal courts?

FINEY: I think that's the question, right? That for those of us who are looking at the big picture of what's really happening here in terms of Trump's efforts to really consolidate power in the executive branch and sort of saying, daring people, go ahead sue me, right? Knowing that, I mean, that has been his MO for years, knowing that he can continue to do what he wants to do while this is playing itself out in the courts.

But meanwhile, it's the -- we're looking over here, what's going on over there? And so again, this consolidation of power with a lack of transparency where you have this unelected billionaire who has a personal financial stake in many of the things that he's technically investigating.

[17:10:01]

And will Trump -- I mean Trump, some have already said it's unconstitutional. He doesn't seem to care. We know he doesn't care about the rule of law. So that becomes a very serious question as to whether or not he will actually comply or continue to ignore it or continue to just, you know, do what he usually does and make the legal process continue to play itself out.

MATTINGLY: Certainly a lot of different --

FINNEY: Yeah.

MATTINGLY: -- cases within which they could make these decisions on. Right now they say they're complying; the Justice Department has. I got to ask you; you were traveling with the President yesterday. The J.D. Vance comment, which I don't think came up in your very lengthy Air Force One impromptu press conference, Again, I keep saying, Kaitlan and I are grinning for a reason. It's because we've seen this process play out before with other Trump associates. I'm not saying that's what's happening here. What was your read on that?

JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: Well, number one, President Trump isn't ready to name a successor. And naming a successor would mean that he's on his way out, or that he's a lame duck, or that somehow somebody else might be more important or more interesting than he. That's not something that the president is going to say. Certainly not to his sitting vice president, who he wants to report to him and who does report to him.

So I just don't think he's there, but it's got to have sent some shockwaves through the Vance team, as well as given permission to other Republicans around the country who are considering perhaps stepping in a couple years to run to say, okay, J.D. Vance doesn't have the president's blessing, that's good for me.

MATTINGLY: J.D. Vance was touching down in Europe roughly around when these comments were coming out -- shortly before the comments came out. A big first international trip for this administration.

MASON: Welcome.

MATTINGLY: Yeah.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTINGLY: Empowered, but I'm not the next person up. Is that the point here? Is Trump trying to send a message here or is he just --

SINGLETON: Look, I don't think you want to follow what Democrats did by coronating prematurely someone who may be your successor and that person may not be as successful. I said let's wait two years and see what the playing field may look like. Maybe J.D. Vance looks strong today and two years from now. He may not look as strong once Democrats start to outline who some of their candidates may be.

So I think the president is making the right decision. Let's wait and see what the next couple of years are going to look like, and if in two or three years J.D. Vance is that guy then the entire party will come and corral behind him and support him. But if he's not, let's leave it open for other Republicans to potentially throw their hats in the ring.

MATTINGLY: I mean, in everyone's defense, like, there's a lot going on right now.

FINNEY: Sure.

MATTINGLY: I don't feel like we necessarily need to be going down this pathway. But to that point, for Democrats right now.

FINNEY: Yeah.

MATTINGLY: We've heard them try and kind of get their hands around, all right, this is the thing we want to focus on.

FINNEY: Yeah.

MATTINGLY: Perhaps we use the government spending bill as that's our place to fight.

FINNEY: Yeah.

MATTINGLY: That's where we've got some leverage. How are you hearing about things right now?

FINNEY: Well, let me tell you. So Democrats have been playing hopscotch while Republicans are playing "Grand Theft Auto 4." And we're finally starting to realize let's put the chalk down and let's actually focus on what are those lanes where we can pursue like the legal cases, like -- or legislatively, really the budget, that's really the only place where they do have power.

And so they are looking at whether or not they're -- what do you want to negotiate for and what are we willing to -- how far are you willing to go? Andy Kim yesterday said, he's willing to shut down the government. Not everybody is there. We also know that there will be some Republicans who won't agree with some of the things, right?

MATTINGLY: The world is --

SINGLETON: I just want to say quickly, really quick.

MATTINGLY: Yeah.

SINGLETON: Look at the approval ratings of the president, 54 percent, the highest it has ever been. Look at 70 percent of the American people saying that he's doing exactly what he promised to do and they support these efforts. And so I think if you are Democrats, while they're trying to figure out what their messaging is going to be, they need to be careful to not push too hard because the American people, generally speaking, appear to be supportive of the mandate so far that Donald Trump has.

FINNEY: Although I think what we're going to see when the impacts of the things that Trump is doing start to roll in like small businesses that are being impacted by these tariffs. The bird flu, right? We haven't had a report from the CDC on bird flu in over a week which is important because the price of eggs is going up.

So I think as the impacts of some of these things, what if you're a kid who's waiting for your Pell Grant and you're told you're actually not getting it? That's when I think things will turn. And that's gonna be the other leverage point, the mobilization that Democrats will need to use.

MATTINGLY: Before we go, what you said before Shermichael was speaking.

MASON: What I said was, will the Republicans --

SINGLETON: Right.

MASON: No, not at all, the Republicans who -- no, not at all.

MATTINGLY: Yes, Shermichael --

(CROSTALK)

MASON: Blame it on this guy. Is, you know, will Republicans who do disagree actually say so? And that's so far largely not been the case over the last three weeks. But I also think your point about the polling is spot on. I've said that before too. Watch the polls. So far, the polls are showing that the electorate is largely supportive of what he's doing because it is largely, with a few exceptions, what he said he would do.

MATTINGLY: The pendulum swings. I've just --

FINNEY: Yeah.

MATTINGLY: I've been through it before. This may be different. We'll all have to see it.

MASON: Give it some time.

MATTINGLY: Tom's gonna explain to us what's legal and what's not throughout the course of the pendulum swinging.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTINGLY: Thank you guys.

DUPREE: I'll tell you what's legal.

MATTINGLY: Appreciate it, my friend. Thank you guys very much.

[17:14:59]

Democratic lawmakers protested Trump's latest moves today, but as the minority in both the House and the Senate, is there anything they can really do to stop the White House? I'll ask one of the senators who joined protesters today. That's next.

Plus, the U.S. could soon stop making pennies. How much of an impact will that have on the economy? And what about your wallet? Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: In our "Health Lead" today, Democratic attorneys general from 22 states are suing the Trump administration for slashing funds to public health research funding. The new lawsuit is against the National Institute of Health policy to lower the maximum, quote, "indirect cost rate" that research institutions can charge the government. CNN's Renee Mars joins us now. Renee, tell us more about the lawsuit and why researchers say the funding cuts would be devastating for their research. RENE MARSH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So Phil, the NIH is saying that these cuts could essentially save the agency some $4 billion annually.

[17:19:59]

But the medical and scientific research community are saying that the cost could actually be well beyond just dollars and cents. What they're saying is that this could essentially mean that Americans are waiting much longer for cures for diseases and sicknesses because this will be devastating to research that's already underway and quite disruptive.

So last week, let's take a step back. The NIH, they issued this guidance document stating that all indirect cost rates for its grants would be reduced to 15 percent. That would be for existing grants and new grants. And again, this was a document that came out last week and went into effect today. Keep in mind that's one business day from when the agency actually made the announcement.

Now in order to do research, a lot of these medical researchers are saying, look, we have building costs, we have lab costs, we have to staff the labs. Like all of that has to be paid for in order for you to even begin the process of doing research. And that is what these so-called indirect cost rates are all about. They help pay for that sort of maintenance and overhead.

And with that being slashed, they are saying it will certainly impact how much research they can do, be disrupted to the research that's currently underway. And that is the argument that we are seeing in this lawsuit. Twenty-two Democratic attorneys generals, they say in this lawsuit, and I'm quoting, that this agency action will result in layoffs, suspension of clinical trials, disruption in ongoing research programs and laboratory closures.

They're asking for the judge to essentially halt this reduction in the grants. They're also pointing out that this is illegal. They point out that the Trump administration tried to do this back in 2017. Congress was quite alarmed by this back then. And they essentially put a law in place that said that medical research dollars had to be consistent. But this lawsuit really gives some real life impact of what we're talking about here, what could be at stake.

They point out Michigan State University, for example. They say that they are studying initiatives like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, autism in children. They get about $136 million in NIH funding, and they say a reduction in that would certainly impact that sort of research and medical advancement that they're looking to make there.

MATTINGLY: Rene Marsh, important story. Great reporting as always. Thanks so much. I now want to bring in former dean of Harvard Medical School and professor of physiology at medicine at Harvard, Dr. Jeffrey Flier, and professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins, Dr. Theodore Iwashyna. Dr. Iwashyna, I want to start with you, because it seems obvious the public, benefits from the outcomes of medical and public health research from various universities across the country. Kind of to what Renee was talking about, take this into people's living rooms, into their kitchens. What does it mean for this policy change?

THEODORE IWASHYNA, PROFESSOR OF PULMONARY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, JOHNS HOPKINS: You know, so it's going to be devastating if it's actually implemented. I think there are a couple different things it means. So some of it means, right, our children and our grandchildren, when they get sick, there are going to be cures that wouldn't be available to them if this goes through. But it's not just how sick our kids might get because cures are being prevented.

It's also that right now, if my mom needs to go to get a second opinion in an academic medical center, that researcher and that physician scientist likely does both research and clinical work, and that combination is supported by the NIH. It is what makes our center so great. If these research dollars aren't there, people can't stay on the cutting edge. My mom doesn't get a second opinion.

And the last part is, of course, that health research has been a tremendous driver of economic opportunity. It creates other businesses. It spins off pharma jobs. And if we rip the heart out of university research by not paying for the infrastructure, we need in order to do that research, where are those new jobs and new corporations going to come from?

MATTINGLY: Dr. Farrell, a lot of what you hear from folks who support this is, look, there's enough money already there. They don't turn out enough in terms of outcomes to justify what's being spent here. How do you counter that?

JEFFREY FLIER, FORMER DEAN HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL: Well, I counter it by pointing out that it's not true. You know, the United States, over the last decades, has developed the greatest biomedical research community the world has ever seen. Of course, we'd like it to be more effective in producing cures for more diseases and treatments, but it has been remarkable.

[17:24:51]

And it has taken place through a social contract between the government, the NIH, and several thousand institutions around the country, where thousands and thousands of researchers are conducting research with funds that they get from the NIH. It's by far the largest funder for biomedical research of all kinds. And the reason this recent thing came up is there was a decision decades ago to have the research funding come in two basic forms.

One is the funds that go to an investigator who has the idea and carries out the work in their laboratory, and that pays for some salaries and supplies and equipment that they control. And if they get the grant, if they're fortunate enough to get it, they deploy those funds. But that, of course, does not allow a research community to exist with those funds alone.

There are tremendous costs of maintaining the facilities, the infrastructure, the specialized cores, the computing, the administrative compliance functions, all of those need to be carried out. And the decision was made and it's going on for decades, that those funds are computed by a branch of the Health and Human Services Department based upon audited data, and then they turn into an additional amount of money.

It's not taken away from the direct cost to the investigator, but it's an additional amount of money that goes to the institution to allow it to maintain its research excellence. And in this case, on Friday afternoon, they announced that part was going to be dramatically cut by Monday morning, and billions of dollars that are budgeted by all of these institutions would go away.

And I can tell you that if you know anything about research you would know that being told let's say for Harvard Medical School, which I used to run, that as of today for the coming year $60 million being taken away from our budget to support our research enterprise. That will have a terrible, terrible effect. All the details are not known. People are scrambling to figure out what would they have to do, but it will be it to the detriment of the research that Americans in the world depends on.

MATTINGLY: Yeah, the uncertainty along with the scale of the dramatic change. It's certainly something we'll be keeping an eye on going forward. I appreciate you both for taking the time this afternoon. Thanks so much.

FLIER: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: And this just in, we're learning President Trump has just removed the person who heads the Office of Government Ethics, a director appointed by President Biden. We'll dig into this big change coming in right now. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:32:12]

MATTINGLY: Breaking news. In our Politics Lead, we are now learning President Donald Trump has just removed the director of the Office of Government Ethics. Now that is not necessarily a place you necessarily pay attention to all the time, but it is definitely one that senior government officials are keenly aware of, as they have to file their financial disclosures through that office. And we do know that the individual who was just let go, I believe the Senate just gave another five-year term or gave a five-year term in December.

Let's go straight to CNN's Jeff Zeleny at the White House. Jeff, what's actually happening here?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: You're right, Phil. I mean, this position was confirmed just in November on a vote of 50 to 46 by the Senate. It's a five-year term, as you said, and like so many watchdogs across the government, these terms are intended to go from administration to administration to sort of bypass them. So it's not a four-year term, but this is just one more example here of the Trump administration having its own way, wanting its own people throughout a variety of positions. We've seen it starting with the FBI, going on and on and on. We're almost losing track of it here. But the -- the watchdog here, his name is David Huitema. I may be mispronouncing that. I apologize. This is an -- an official inside the government who we don't hear from that much. This is a watchdog, someone who is -- is keeping an eye on things, where financial reports go, as you said. And we are told now that he has been dismissed by this administration.

MATTINGLY: Jeff Zeleny, you're not faulted for losing track at this point. We've seen just about everybody up and down the line, including people who technically can't be fired by the President, at least as far as we know, get dismissed, or at least get letters that they are dismissed. Jeff Zeleny, I appreciate the hustle coming out here for the breaking news. Thanks so much.

I -- I want to bring back former Justice Department official, Tom Dupree. You know, Tom, explain to people what this position is, what OGE actually does.

TOM DUPREE, FORMER PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTY. GENERAL, GW BUSH ADMIN.: Sure. This is an office that reviews financial disclosures from the most senior government officials to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest and other issues that might prevent them from serving in that role. In some cases, they might require people to divest themselves of investments, to sell stock, or to take other precautions to ensure that they can execute their executive duties fairly and impartially.

MATTINGLY: And -- and to that point, you know, we have seen all the cabinet nominees have submitted their disclosure documentation to this office under that, the now, I guess, former head of the office. They've been posted. That's -- we all go through it and enjoy quite a bit, seeing kind of where everybody's potential issues lie there. The decision to remove somebody who has a five-year term, to Jeff's point, we've seen FBI director, we've seen kind of up and down the line in terms of independent regulatory agencies, the administration saying, we want our people, period, end of story. Is it problematic?

DUPREE: Yes. Look, this, like so many other things, is a break with tradition. In other words, the President has made clear that he wants his own people in these roles, notwithstanding what, as you'd note, has historically been a tradition of allowing people to be appointed under one president. And then have a term of service that extends into the next administration, precisely to take partisan political considerations out of the equation.

[17:35:17]

Trump wants someone in there he trusts, someone he knows, someone that he views as loyal. As to whether he can do it, yes. I mean, look, the President is in charge of the executive branch, and he has the power to remove people who serve in the executive branch. The one thing I don't know is whether the OGE directorship is subject to the same notification requirements that the inspector generals are. As we know, there is a requirement that the administration notify Congress if it's going to remove inspector generals. The administration didn't comply with that requirement.

And it's possible there are similar congressional notification requirements that apply to this position, but in the end, it's kind of irrelevant because the administration is not abiding by them regardless.

MATTINGLY: You -- you make a good point. There are so many -- these are just questions that have never really been brought up before because everybody just kind of assumes this is outside the realm. These people have five-year terms. They're supposed to be apolitical. I have not heard a ton of political criticism directed at the Office of Government Ethics. The thing I would ask, though, is in terms of ethics in this administration, we hear a lot, it's not the norm, it's not tradition, but it's not technically against what the executive branch could do or the executive authority of the president. Is that essentially the guiding force now for these issues?

DUPREE: I -- I -- I think that states inaccurately. I mean, I think the philosophy of the administration from a legal perspective is to do things that they legally have the right to do or at least believe that they have the right to do regardless of traditions, regardless of norms. I think in the president's view, he was sent to Washington precisely to break up the system, precisely to destroy these norms that have existed for so long. And look, this position isn't one that's going to grab headlines.

I bet you not one out of 1,000 people could even have named who the head of the Office of Government Ethics was. But I think what this underscores is that what the Trump administration is prizing here are people that the president has confidence in, that he's appointed. He recognizes that in many respects in Washington, D.C., personnel is policy, and he wants to have control over the personnel that are filling his new administration.

MATTINGLY: Which was always the plan, and he made clear that it was his big mistake of his first term. But the levels deep they have -- they have gone over the course of this process shows, I think, an understanding of what exactly they want to do and who they want to go after that I don't think many people totally grasp going into this. Tom Dupree, appreciate the hustle.

DUPREE: Absolutely.

MATTINGLY: Well, still on this to-do list, President Trump says he wants to buy Greenland. But how do the people who actually live there feel about that proposal? We sent CNN's Donie O'Sullivan to find out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:41:40]

MATTINGLY: In our World Lead, with all the changes in recent weeks, you may have forgotten about one of the more bewildering proposals made by President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Greenland is a wonderful place. We need it for international security. And I'm sure that Denmark will come along.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: To be clear, it's very real. On Wednesday, a Senate committee led by Senator Ted Cruz will hear -- hear arguments from experts on the value of, quote, acquiring Greenland. But Denmark has made clear the territory is not for sale. And the people of Greenland, well, they have their own thoughts on the offer. CNN's Donie O'Sullivan traveled to the world's largest island to speak with the locals. And Donie joins us now. Donie, what do people say in there right now?

DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Phil. Yes, well, nobody we spoke to there wants to be formally part of the United States. But a lot of people there also do not want to be part of the Kingdom of Denmark. They want to break free of what they see as a colonial past. And -- and so some folks are a bit more practically considering a closer relationship there with the United States. Have a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

QUPANUK OLSEN, GREENLAND ELECTION CANDIDATE: I really want this statue gone.

O'SULLIVAN: Why?

OLSEN: Because why should he be up there? Why isn't it a Greenlander up there?

Trump wants to buy my country, Greenland.

O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): This is Qupanuk Olsen.

OLSEN: Today, Mikko (ph) and I are having whale skin.

O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): She's known as Greenland's biggest influencer, and she's running in the island's upcoming elections. She's a native Greenlander, and for her, this statue of an 18th century missionary is a daily reminder of Denmark's control of her country.

O'SULLIVAN: So you would like to be independent of Denmark?

OLSEN: Yes.

O'SULLIVAN: But that doesn't mean you want to be part of the USA?

OLSEN: No. I don't -- I don't want to become a part of the USA. I definitely don't.

O'SULLIVAN: You don't want to be an American?

OLSEN: No. O'SULLIVAN: Why not?

OLSEN: Why should I? Why should we just be taken by another colonizer?

O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): Native Greenlanders, or Inuits, make up almost 90 percent of Greenland's population.

O'SULLIVAN: Is all this interest in Greenland because of Trump, is it a good thing or is it a bad thing?

OLSEN: In my opinion, it's a good thing. Because it's speeding up our independence process, so I see it as a good thing.

O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): When the Nazis took over Denmark during World War II, the United States stepped in to protect Greenland.

TOM DANS, FORMER U.S. ARCTIC COMMISSIONER: Americans died for this country. In my own family, my -- my grandfather watched his -- his shipmates die.

O'SULLIVAN (voice-over): Another sign of the U.S. here is Tom Dans, who was appointed to the U.S. Arctic Research Commission during Trump's first presidency.

O'SULLIVAN: When Trump first brought up Greenland, people treated it like it was a joke. People thought, that's crazy. But you're saying it's not so crazy.

DANS: It's not crazy at all. Greenland, due to its geographic position, is kind of the front door for North America.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

O'SULLIVAN: And Tom there does not have a role in the current Trump administration. But what he is outlining, you know, is -- is very important, that Greenland they view as the front door to the United States. And look, the Arctic right now in control of the Arctic, particularly because it is prime real estate for bases when it comes to missile detection systems and -- and also bases for satellites. That is a prime -- prime space there.

[17:45:06]

Also, there is, because of melting, because of climate change, new shipping routes are opening in the Arctic, which of course the U.S. wants to control. And not to mention, there is many, many natural resources on that island when it comes to fishing and mining and whatever else. And Qupanuk, the woman you saw in that story there, she's actually running for an election. There's elections on March 11th, so just a few weeks away in Greenland, where all of this is going to weigh very heavily on Greenlanders.

MATTINGLY: Great reporting, as always. I implore people, take this seriously. The administration means it. Donie O'Sullivan, as always, my friend, thanks so much.

O'SULLIVAN: Thanks, Phil.

MATTINGLY: Well, the days have taken into your pockets for one more penny. Why are you doing that? They might be coming to an end, but does the order for the U.S. to stop making pennies have a real economic impact? We'll explore it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:50:33]

MATTINGLY: In our Money Lead, your change will soon change. President Trump ordered the Treasury to stop making pennies, saying they cost the U.S. more to make than they are worth. So what does this push against the penny actually mean for your piggy bank? To give us her two sense, I can't take credit for that, but -- but it doesn't make me love it any less. Let's bring in CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich. First, how much does it cost to actually make a penny?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS & POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: OK, so the President is right. It does cost more than one cent to make one cent. It costs 3.7 cents. Three cents of that is for the production, 0.7 cents is for the distribution and administration of the penny. But in 2023, costs of the penny rose by 20 percent, and that is because the materials used to make it, zinc and copper, rose in price.

And last year, the Treasury produced about 3.2 billion pennies, but the treasury ended up losing money on them. Why? Because a lot of people like us, we just throw pennies into drawers, we throw pennies into penny jars, we drop them on the street, we don't pick them up. So, so many pennies fell out of circulation and the Treasury had to produce more.

And Phil, there is actually support for getting rid of the penny. The National Association of Convenience Stores wants to get rid of the penny because they say that using pennies for transactions slows them down by one to two seconds, and that simply makes a difference for them, Phil. Time is money in the convenience store world.

MATTINGLY: Like it seems -- it seems like there's a lot of support for this. Does it actually save us money? Does the action here actually do anything?

YURKEVICH: Well, if you get rid of the penny, you're going to have to round up or round down. And I imagine a lot of retailers are going to want to round up in price, and that's where the nickel comes into play. So to produce a nickel, though, it costs 13.8 cents to do so. And the treasury would have to produce about 2 to 2.5 million more nickels in order to make up for the price -- in order to make up for the penny going out of circulation. So you end up spending a little bit more on the nickel to get rid of the penny.

But overall, as you said, there is support for getting rid of that loose change. People not too fond of pennies, but it definitely is going to change the way consumers spend and potentially, as you've said, Phil, the prices of things.

MATTINGLY: Yes. I -- I mean, look, let's be honest. When was the last time you used a penny?

YURKEVICH: I was going to use one for this live shot.

MATTINGLY: Yes.

YURKEVICH: And then, of course, I forgot it. So there's a lost penny for you out of circulation.

MATTINGLY: And that would have been the most you've used a penny in probably years, maybe. Vanessa Yurkevich, it's -- it's fascinating from like an actual cost price --

YURKEVICH: Yes.

MATTINGLY: -- the actual benefit perspective. Appreciate the reporting as always, my friend. Thanks so much.

YURKEVICH: Thanks.

[17:53:23]

MATTINGLY: A one-two punch of winter weather is on the way, starting in just a few hours. Our meteorologists have the latest forecast in moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: This just in to CNN. A source tells us, Steve Bannon is in talks to plead guilty to New York state criminal charges. This is related to Bannon's former fundraising campaign aimed at supporting Trump's southern border wall. Prosecutors say he defrauded donors of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now, a court hearing is scheduled for tomorrow morning. A lawyer for Bannon declined to comment.

Well, more on our National Lead, as parts of the U.S. recover from back-to-back winter storms, two new storms are gearing up to bring more snow and icy conditions to the Midwest and Northeast. Nearly 30 million people are under winter weather alerts right now. CNN's Derek Van Dam has the latest in CNN's Extreme Weather Center. Derek?

DEREK VAN DAM, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Yes, Phil, buckle up. We've got a one-two punch of winter storms impacting the eastern third of the country. First storm system, the more immediate threat. Let's focus in on what this could potentially bring. This is exact wording from the National Weather Service out of Blacksburg, Virginia.

The ice storm potential with this could bring down numerous power outages, outages that may last for multiple days, and creating travel that is nearly impossible. And it's all because of this first storm system. As it moves in, it will lay a sheet of ice across this region, heads up Roanoke, the spine of the Appalachians.

And then we see the system depart, but look at how quickly the secondary storm starts to fill in behind us. So we're talking about back-to-back winter storm potentials for this region. We will get snow for the nation's capital into places like Baltimore and Philadelphia, Chicago to Detroit.

The second storm will also bring a fresh layer of snow on the ground. But honing in on this ice storm potential, remember Hurricane Helene and the recovery efforts over western North Carolina. If you get a half an inch to three quarters of an inch of ice, that is going to cause significant problems.

Now on the warm side of this storm system, we've got a flash flood threat. So significant rainfall across the Tennessee River Valley, stretching into Alabama and North Georgia. Excessive rain leading to flash flooding, a possibility both Tuesday and Wednesday.

[18:00:02]

And to make matters worse, behind the storm system, extremely cold air. We're talking 25 to 40 degrees below average for this time of year. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Derek Van Dam, thanks so much. You can follow the show on X @TheLeadCNN. If you ever miss an episode of The Lead, you can listen to the show wherever you get your podcast. The news continues on CNN with Wolf Blitzer in "The Situation Room."