Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Renews Demand for Greenland, Calls Denmark Ungrateful; Trump Slams U.S. Allies By Name in Davos Address; Justices Skeptical of Trump's Push to Oust Fed Governor; Trump Meets with NATO Secretary General. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired January 21, 2026 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Negotiations not force. President Trump renews his demand for Greenland and makes it more clear how he plans to take the territory. We're following reaction from American allies.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: Plus, the Supreme Court hears arguments about limits on the president's power. At stake, the independence of the country's most important financial institution.

And we're also tracking a massive winter storm with the potential to cripple cities across the U.S. with snow and ice. These major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KEILAR: President Trump amplifying his demand for Greenland on the world stage and facing the leaders that he's been pressuring to let him have it, calling for immediate negotiations to begin. And for the first time, saying publicly he will not use force, not military force, to get that Arctic territory, which, of course, is part of Denmark. One of his key arguments for the takeover, the U.S. is the only nation in the world, he says, that can defend Greenland?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's the United States alone that can protect this giant mass of land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and improve it, and make it so that it's good for Europe and safe for Europe and good for us. 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)

KEILAR: CNN's Kristen Holmes is live for us at the White House. Kristen, the president spoke at length, and European allies were listening.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: They certainly were. And a lot of what president said was these digs at these various European allies. Now, one thing he did say, as you noted, was this idea that the U.S. was not going to use force when it came to Greenland. That is something that we know that our European allies have been bracing for.

Inside the White House, I had talked to a number of officials who said there was absolutely no appetite to use military force. But of course, President Trump was taking it as far as he possibly could. They were arguing that this was part of a negotiating tactic.

But at this point, it does seem as though President Trump has ruled out this idea of using military force. But despite that, despite the fact that maybe some of our allies are now breathing a sigh of relief on that, it didn't really slow President Trump down from really ripping into a number of our allies, including at times Denmark, saying that they were ungrateful. Now, President Trump sought to give some kind of reasoning as to why it was so important for the United States to own Greenland outright.

This is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: 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)

HOLMES: Brianna, it should be noted, part of why these comments are so confusing and so concerning for a number of our allies is you have to look at the way that these mutual agreements work with various countries across the globe, like Japan, like the Philippines, and also the very premise of NATO. The very premise of NATO is that no one owns another right out, but that you are part of an alliance that would come to the rescue or support of another country should they need it. President Trump, in these remarks about Greenland, is essentially writing off all of these mutual agreements and, of course, NATO in itself.

Because that is the premise that it is built on, this idea of an alliance, a pact of working together. So by saying you won't protect something that you don't own, it seems as though he's saying that he would have to own any NATO country or any of these countries that there is a mutual relationship with in order to protect them, and that is just not the understanding of the rest of the world, or that these agreements lay out.

KEILAR: Yes, many places with these agreements.

[13:05:00]

And, Kristen, one of the most notable reactions so far involves trade, because the European Union, a short time ago, freezing work on a U.S. deal indefinitely, an EU-U.S. deal. Tell us about this.

HOLMES: Yes, it's a little bit confusing as to how exactly this is going to work, because they basically just stopped the signing of the ratification of this deal. The two entities, the European Union and the United States, had come to a trade agreement back in July, and parts of that had already been put into practice, despite the fact that they hadn't officially signed this deal. So whether this means they're actually going to roll back some of what had already been put into place, or if it means that they're just going to stop moving forward on some of the parts of premise of these of this deal that had not actually come to pass yet.

That part we're trying to find out and what exactly that means, but some pretty harsh words here from the group in charge of this trade deal. We had one person saying that the U.S.-European trade deal was on ice indefinitely. They are clearly taking the president's remarks seriously, and they are saying it is because President Trump not only reiterated this threat that he was going to try and take over Greenland, but on top of that, he said he was going to impose an additional additional 35 percent tariff on any country who opposed him trying to take over Greenland. Something that appeared to be a red line for the European Union as they went to ratify this document.

KEILAR: Kristen Holmes live for us at the White House. Thank you -- Erica.

HILL: Well, the president today, as we've been noting, is continuing to push this idea that Denmark is simply incapable of protecting Greenland.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We saw this in World War II when Denmark fell to Germany after just six hours of fighting and was totally unable to defend either itself or Greenland. After the war, we gave Greenland back to Denmark. How stupid were we to do that? But we did it. But we gave it back. But how ungrateful are they now?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: CNN international diplomatic editor Nic Robertson is live in Greenland. So, Nic, a really remarkable moment. How is it sitting today with Greenlanders hearing those words from President Trump?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: You know, I think there's a tiny amount of relief that the president said that he isn't going to do this by force, but there's a reality check here that they just don't trust him at the moment. They listen to his language and there was nothing in his language that was really reaching out to them as people saying, you know, don't worry about your concerns about the environment and, you know, and your way of life and your traditions, which is what people do worry about here. It was all about minerals, it was all about security, it was all about, you know, essentially, from the perspective of people here about changing Greenland. And of course, the underlying thing that the president is still sticking to is that he still wants sovereignty of Greenland.

And that's something people are very, very clear here that they don't want to have. The government today -- here in Greenland -- actually issued a pamphlet, instructions for people what to do in a time of crisis. You know, keep enough food in your house, food and water for five days. Have a weapon and ammunition so you can go hunting, so you can resupply yourselves with food.

A very, you know, careful analysis of what to do in a crisis. Have a first aid kit available, all these things. So I think psychologically, the people of Greenland really feel that they're still in a bad place. They really concerned that that hard option perhaps hasn't gone away and they're looking to their allies and hoping that allies say stay strong.

And that we heard from the Danish foreign minister today saying very clearly, we're willing to talk to the United States about what they want but not at the expense of the sovereignty of Greenland. So that the fundamental issue that troubles people here that still exists that hasn't gone away.

HILL: And one can understand why they are still so concerned When it comes to European leaders, we are also hearing tougher messages from them at Davos. It's not just President Trump. Is there a sense that their approach is, in fact, changing toward President Trump and changing collectively?

ROBERTSON: You know, the European Union leaders are having an emergency meeting tomorrow. So that sort of collective messaging, we may get a sense of it coming from there. But I think there is a reality check that's happening.

And Mark Carnier and Emmanuel Macron, the French president, Canadian prime minister, of course, have both been quite clear about it in the language that they've been using. And the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, as well, has come under heavy criticism from President Trump in the last couple of days. And remember, for all these politicians, just like President Trump, they have constituencies at home, and their room for political maneuver at home, in part, depends on how they deal with President Trump.

[13:10:00]

Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, is criticized when it looks like he's getting pressured and is being browbeaten by President Trump. Emmanuel Macron won't look well in his standing at home if he doesn't stand up. So the language is getting tougher.

The reality is there that this isn't the same United States, and they need to take a tougher line. And trying to get along and bump along with President Trump hasn't been enough. And this is why the conversations that are happening and will happen tomorrow about Greenland, about how Europe deals with that collectively, are very likely to take a very firm line.

President Trump is not using the sort of soft diplomatic language that they're used to, the soft diplomatic language that sometimes changes people's minds. Tough language puts people's backs up and often doesn't get the results that perhaps a protagonist wants.

HILL: Yes, absolutely. Nic, appreciate it, thank you.

Still ahead here, the president facing an uphill battle at the Supreme Court as conservative justices, including Trump appointees, throw some tough questions about his attempt to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook.

And an emotional Prince Harry testifying. We are in London with the latest from his court battle against a British tabloid.

A bit later, that extreme winter storm we are tracking is set to bear down on nearly half of the continental U.S. We're talking sub-zero temperatures, several inches of snow and ice. The forecast and the path coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

[13:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: The case that tests presidential power and the independence of the Federal Reserve. Today, the Supreme Court hearing arguments on the president's attempt to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook from the Central Bank. But does he have the power? The justices appeared to signal they do have some doubts.

HILL: It does seem that they do have some doubts. Trump, of course, tried to terminate Cook last August over alleged mortgage fraud, claiming she had reported two homes as her primary residence. Cook has denied the accusations.

Our friend, Phil Mattingly, was listening to these arguments. Bit of a rough morning, I would say, for the attorney representing the Trump administration.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and when you guys chuckle about had some doubts, to be fair, the Solicitor General has not gotten a lot of doubt from the six conservative justices. It doesn't mean they don't ask hard questions, but the degree to which the skepticism was pervasive across the conservative majority over the course of John Sauer's time during the arguments today that, again, the Trump administration official who was arguing the case, was striking. And it was not just one or two.

It was pretty much across the board. Just take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH, 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. I mean, that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve that we just discussed.

JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO, SUPREME COURT: Is there any reason why this whole matter had to be handled by everybody, by the executive branch, by the district court, by the D.C. Circuit, in such a hurried manner.

JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT, SUPREME COURT: We have amicus briefs from economists who tell us that if Governor Cook is -- if we grant you your stay, that it could trigger a recession. How should we think about the public interest in a case like this? CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, SUPREME COURT: If you're correct that courts do not have the authority to reinstate a removed officer, why are we wasting our time wondering if there's cause or not?

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTINGLY: So, just for anybody keeping track, that was process, that was authority, that was the independence of the Fed, that was underlying allegations. That was pretty much every element that the Justice Department has tried to argue in their favor in this case. And it signaled the fact that there are real concerns that go far beyond just whether or not the president can fire somebody here when it comes to the Fed.

And it was also clear that the Supreme Court justices were listening to those concerns, cognizant of those concerns, and have also made clear in the past that the Fed is a different level of independent than any other federal agency where they've given a lot of difference to the president.

KEILAR: It's not that they didn't ask tough questions of Cook's side, but it felt that they were sort of operating on this, OK, well, how is it going to be structured that she wins, not if Cook wins.

MATTINGLY: Yes, exactly. And I think we don't know what this is going to look like. And let's be very clear, tea leave reading is kind of a fool's errand in general here, but it was a striking difference in tone from what we had seen conservative justices in the past. I think the biggest question right now is, all right, how do they navigate whatever they decide here? And what the outcome actually is.

I would note, though, to your point, there are tough questions for the Cook team as well about kind of how do you define for cause, which, by the way, doesn't have a very good definition, which complicates things. And what are the limits to the president's authority? Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO: How about if after the person assumes office, videos are disclosed in which the officeholder is expressing deep admiration for Hitler or for the Klan?

PAUL CLEMENT, ATTORNEY FOR LISA COOK: I can only imagine where these typos are going to eventually go. I'm going to stick with my position. And I'm going to say that's an official that would be impeached in a heartbeat. And the fact that they would be impeached in a heartbeat is going to cause them to resign in half a heartbeat.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTINGLY: We just quickly know, however this kind of turns out, Lise Cook was obviously in the room, the Fed governor. So was Jay Powell, the Federal Reserve chairman, who's obviously dealing with his own. Just support related issues, Ben Bernanke, the former Fed chair, was there as well. It was a real show of force behind Lisa Cook. HILL: Show of force, show of support.

KEILAR: Yes, and it really shows the stakes here. So interesting. Phil, thank you so much for tracking that for us.

[13:20:00]

Next, we're learning of a rejected last-minute deal as Republicans move to hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress.

Plus, President Trump airing his grievances with NATO on the world stage. Raising fears the decades old alliance is in jeopardy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Let's go straight to Davos, Switzerland, where President Trump is meeting right now with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

[13:25:00]

MARK RUTTE, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: Just briefly, I just wanted to say again, as I did this morning when I was on a panel, I want to thank you again for what you did since coming in -- in January, Trump 47. Basically, getting the Europeans and Canada to really step up, and that led to the enormous success we had in the Hague was 5 percent, which is crucial to defend ourselves and to also equalize what the U.S. is paying. This was a problem already there since Eisenhower.

I always tell the Europeans, you are completely committed to NATO, but there is also that one irritant, and it is this factor, that the Europeans were not paying the same as the U.S. was paying. And we solved it, and this is crucial also because we need the money to protect ourselves. There's one thing I heard you say yesterday and today, you were not absolutely sure that the Europeans would come to the rescue of the U.S. if you will be attacked.

Let me tell you, they will. And they did in Afghanistan, as you know, for every American who paid the ultimate, for every two Americans who paid the ultimate price, there was one soldier from another NATO country who but not come back to his family, from the Netherlands, from Denmark, particularly for other countries. So you can be assured, absolutely, if ever the U.S. will be under attack, your allies will be with you. Absolutely. There's an absolute guarantee. I really want to tell you this because this is important.

It pains me if you think it is not. And under your leadership, this alliance is stronger than ever.

TRUMP: Thank you very much. It's a great compliment. Any questions?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President, the Danish foreign minister rejected your call to negotiate on Greenland. What will that --

TRUMP: I didn't call him. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sorry. The Danish foreign minister rejected what you said in your speech that you were hoping to negotiate to acquire Greenland, essentially saying that this is not something that they are willing to discuss. So what will those negotiations --?

TRUMP: Well, they didn't tell me that. So when they tell me, because I don't like getting it secondhand. If he wants to tell me, he'll tell me that's in my face.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And when will you be discussing this?

TRUMP: I have no idea. I'll be discussing it with this man right here. He's frankly more important.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, when you said you would remember if Denmark did not agree to a deal on Greenland, what did you mean? What are the consequences?

TRUMP: You'll have to figure that out for yourself. You're a smart guy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, do you see a price for Greenland that's reasonable?

TRUMP: I could see that, yes. I can see that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How would you calculate it?

TRUMP: But there's a bigger price, and that's the price of -- the price of safety and security and national security and international security having to do with many of your countries. That's really the price, and that's the big price. And as you know, we're doing the Golden Dome.

It's going to be very expensive, and it's better if we have Greenland than it is without. It's going to be safer, it's going to be stronger, it's going to be better for Europe, and it's going to be better for us. And so we'll see what happens.

Any other questions?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it reassuring to hear the NATO Secretary General say NATO will defend the United States if it comes under attack?

TRUMP: Well, I hope that that's true. I mean, he's a good man. He's never lied to me before. You know, we've had a good relationship, and he made that statement that's nice. And I just -- you know, when I see what's happening with Greenland, I wonder, because I want Greenland for security. I don't want it for anything else.

We have so much rare earth. We don't know what to do with it. We don't need it for anything else.

And in terms of Greenland, you have to go 25 feet down through ice to get it. It's not something that a lot of people are going to do or want to do. No, this is security we're talking about. And I can say one thing about Mark. He wants security, and he wants

security for all of us, I think. We're a member of NATO. He wants security for NATO and beyond. So when he says that, Steve, I think it's, you know, it's very nice. OK. Thank you very much, everybody.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, press. Thank you, press.

TRUMP: Thank you.

KEILAR: All right, we're listening to President Trump there meeting with the NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, and also top officials in the Trump administration. He had said to all of these European leaders that he thought NATO would not respond if the U.S. were threatened, if they were attacked, even though the only time Article 5 has been invoked was --

HILL: In the wake of 9/11.

KEILAR: That's right. And it was actually NATO allies who came to the defense of the U.S. It was really interesting to hear Rutte respond to that.

HILL: It was. And as we're listening to these responses, there's been so much anticipation about what the response will be in this moment, certainly with them face-to-face. The fact that the president is continuing to double down on this is about security, it was also remarkable that he said he tried to brush off what has been said about rare-earth minerals, saying, basically, we have everything we need. This is all about, all about security.

KEILAR: Yes. He said, we have so much rare earth, we don't know what to do with it.

Let's bring in former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO policy, instrumental in the American drawdown from Greenland after the Cold War. Jim, you're really the person to talk to on this. What are you making of what you've heard from the president today at Davos? And what you just heard the NATO secretary general say to him?

JIM TOWNSEND, FORMER DEPUTY ASST. SECY OF DEFENSE FOR EUROPEAN AND NATO POLICY: Well, it was interesting. The secretary general really has to walk this narrow line now.