Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Major Storm to Lash U.S. With Damaging Ice, Heavy Snow; Trump Urges Immediate Negotiations for U.S. To Own Greenland; Halligan Leaves DOJ After Judge Calls Her Leadership a Charade; ICE Using Face- scanning Software to Check Immigration Status; Appeals Court Pauses Restrictions on ICE Agents' Tactics. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired January 21, 2026 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

ALLISON CHINCHAR, CNN METEOROLOGIST: -- But then you also have the more southerly track, which means cities like Charlotte, Columbia, even Atlanta getting significant amounts of ice. So right now, there's a little bit of flexibility in terms of exactly who's going to get the worst conditions.

And we're likely going to need at least one more day of model data to really start to get more of a concise agreement on what the forecast is going to be. What we do know is for the areas that are just going to get snow and only snow. They are likely going to pick up significant amounts of snow.

This dark purple color you see in the center here, now you're talking at least a foot of snow in some of these places and also some areas could end up picking an inch of ice.

ERICA HILL, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": An inch of ice, oh my goodness. All right. As we keep a close watch on that is certainly, of course, the concern for those areas that aren't used to it. Allison, appreciate it. Thank you.

A new hour of "CNN News Central" starts right now.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": Ruling out the use of force, President Trump says he won't seize Greenland using the military, but he isn't backing down from his demand that the territory go to the U.S.

And Lindsey Halligan is out. The attorney who was handpicked by the president to pursue criminal charges against his perceived enemies is out of a job after a judge called her leadership a "charade." And ICE agents are not required to wear body cameras. So, why are agents using phone cameras to record some of the incidents they're involved in?

We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to "CNN News Central."

We are following Breaking News as President Trump takes his tough talk on Greenland over to Europe and Europe is responding. This hour, a major trade deal between the E.U. and the U.S. is now on ice as European leaders prepare for an emergency meeting. The president arguing today for immediate negotiations over Greenland to begin, saying the U.S. wants, "the right title and ownership of Greenland, "which is of course a Danish territory.

And moments ago, while seated right next to the head of NATO, President Trump was asked what price he would pay.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I could see that. Yeah, I can see that.

I can see that. 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: CNN's Alayna Treene is live for us at the White House. Alayna, several big takeaways here including the biggest one, the president ruling out military force, though maybe not economic force.

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: That's right. I think, you know, the president got up there on stage after -- moments after really touching down in Switzerland to deliver the speech to the World Economic Forum.

And essentially, he said, I am calling on all of our European allies to have immediate negotiations about his desire to have the United States acquire Greenland. That was the word that he used. And so, definitely that putting people on edge.

But then he did say what he hasn't been saying thus far around this conversation, which is that he is ruling out military intervention, and he repeated that. He essentially took it off the table again when meeting with other foreign leaders later in the day.

Listen to how he put it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

TRUMP: We'll see what happens. The military is not on the table. I don't -- I don't think it'll be necessary. I really don't. I think people are going to use better judgment and use their best judgment. And I don't think -- that will not be necessary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: So that's somewhat of a relief, I think, to countries like Denmark, of course, which Greenland is part of. But this is still, of course, a concerning conversation and one that isn't going to end with this today. I think a couple of things I want to note here, though, from what the president said, he reiterated the reason he believes not only the U.S. needs Greenland, but he kind of said that it deserves it.

He talked about the NATO alliance, arguing that not only the United States, but he personally, he argued, has done more for NATO than any other country. He said because the United States has such a strong military, that Greenland would be more secure with the United States having ownership of it and that Europe would be more secure than any other country.

And a lot of what he was saying, Brianna, really gets back to the president's broader foreign policy view, which is very transactional here when it comes to foreign policy. This idea that the United States is kind of owed some of this. He used the same type of rhetoric when talking about tariffs on other countries, all to say, we're going to have to see where this goes and potentially how far the president is really willing to go at this point.

If it's not military intervention, what he's willing to do to try and twist the screws with many NATO allies that are very much against this.

KEILAR: Yeah. And how they react to it. Alayna Treene, live for us at the White House, thank you. Erica?

[14:05:00]

HILL: Joining us now, retired U.S. Army Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt. General, when we look at all of this, part of what I'm struck by is the way that, and Alayna was talking about this a bit, but the way that President Trump is framing this.

He is the only, or the United States more broadly, the only ones who could actually defend Greenland. And he went on to say, all we're asking for is to get Greenland including right, title and ownership because, he said, you need the ownership to defend it. You can't defend it on a lease. Do you agree with that? It's impossible to defend on a "lease"?

BRIG. GEN. MARK KIMMITT, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, it is impossible to guarantee that we can defend Greenland on the basis of a treaty alone. Treaties can be abrogated. Treaties can be walked away from. Denmark may just say, we don't like the Americans for one reason or another.

So, there's no question that the indisputable right of ownership would include the ability to ensure that if we put military forces, if we put the Golden Dome up there, that it could never be taken away. Now, the probability of Denmark walking away, of Greenland walking away from the treaty at this point in time, pretty low. Ten years from now, who knows?

HILL: Right. Who knows? I mean, the reason that there is less of a military installation there now is because it was drawn down by choice by the United States at the end of the Cold War. So Brianna and I were talking earlier today, but also yesterday with Jim Townsend, who helped in those moments with that drawdown, and we were talking about building it back up.

It would have to be built back up to some extent. Give us a sense of what's the reality of that? How long would it take and how quickly would it be effective if that's what the president is after?

KIMMITT: Well, it would certainly take a long time if that's going to be included in the Golden Dome. Now, Jim was right. We pulled it down, part of that was because it was no longer necessary. We had longer range interceptors that could be based in the United States. Our radars were better, could be based in the United States.

But if you're talking about the comprehensive ability to ensure that the United States wouldn't be struck out of the blue by the Russians in particular, you're going to need a large infrastructure there and large capability. All you have to do is take a globe at home and turn it on its side, and you can see how instrumental Greenland is between the United States and Russia.

HILL: And you can also see why Denmark may not want to hand it over to the United States in that moment. The fact that we keep hearing the president say he's not confident NATO would come to the aid of the United States when, in fact, I mean, this is the one time that Article 5 right has been invoked was in the wake of 9/11 when NATO did come to the aid of the United States. It is somewhat remarkable --

KIMMITT: Let me push back on that.

HILL: Yeah.

KIMMITT: The fact remains is the greatest worry of the Europeans when it comes to Russia is a land ground invasion coming from the east to the west. They don't have a lot of concern about the Russians coming over Greenland or firing over Greenland. They'd be protected against that.

This notion that somehow the Europeans share the same risk with Russia that the Americans do, that is true. But the way that the Russians would accomplish their mission and their goals, attacking Europe versus attacking the United States, are two very, very different things.

HILL: So, do you agree with the president this is, in fact, a very real and very urgent matter of national security for the United States that also includes the security of Europe?

KIMMITT: Yes.

HILL: And to that end, do you think there's another way the president could have gone about this to get Europe on board for more of a U.S. presence?

KIMMITT: Look, I'm not going to sit here and argue about style and technique. In the military, we talk about ways, means and ends. I think we can all agree on the ends. It is a national security imperative. The capability of Russia and, for that matter, China and, to some extent, Iran one day necessitates a relook at Greenland and its focus and its importance to the national security of the United States.

I'm not going to sit here and get into the political side or the tactical style points that the president is using. I just know that Greenland is important. We need to make sure it's part of the American national defense structure. I hope we can do this without bruising as many elbows as we've seen so far.

HILL: Do you worry about national security and safety if the U.S. were no longer part of NATO?

KIMMITT: No.

HILL: So, the U.S. would be fine without NATO?

KIMMITT: NATO would not be fine without the United States.

HILL: That was my next question.

(LAUGH)

KIMMITT: The United States is more important to NATO than NATO is to the United States. It's been the finest security arrangement in history. I've served on NATO missions. I've actually worked at NATO, working with Nick Burns, who I see is coming up later. Kosovo, Bosnia, all of those were done much better in the NATO construct. But could the United States go it alone? I'd prefer that it didn't, but could it go it alone? Yes.

[14:10:00]

HILL: Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, really appreciate your insight and your expertise. Thank you.

KIMMITT: Thank you.

HILL: Still ahead here, President Trump's hand-picked U.S. District Attorney, Lindsey Halligan officially says goodbye to the Justice Department after what could be described as a turbulent tenure. Plus, ICE agents seen using cell phone cameras amid sweeping immigration raids in cities across America. Why and how they're using these devices. That's a CNN Investigation just ahead.

Plus, an emotional day in court as the defense presents its case in the double-murder trial of Brendan Banfield. That and much more ahead right here on "CNN News Central."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:15:12]

KEILAR: Now to the departure of a controversial Justice Department figure, Interim U.S. Attorney, Lindsey Halligan leaving the office of the Eastern District of Virginia yesterday after a Trump-appointed federal judge said this about her leadership, quote, "This charade of Ms. Halligan masquerading as the United States Attorney for this district in direct defiance of binding court orders must come to an end."

You may recall President Trump hand-picked Halligan, his former personal attorney, to replace Erik Siebert, who had failed to charge known Trump adversary, New York Attorney General, Letitia James. So let's talk about what happened here. We have CNN Correspondent, Katelyn Polantz to walk us through it.

OK, give us the details on why Halligan ultimately had to leave.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Brianna, there's a lot of different ways you could cut it from whatever perspective you're in, but the bottom line was that time was up for Lindsey Halligan. She had come into this job in September, sent there by Donald Trump. She got those indictments of James Comey and Letitia James, and then they were dismissed, partly because of how she had handled them in the court, or she had run into issues with that in the court.

But, at the end of the day, it was 120 days from that and the court in Virginia said, we actually are going to start looking for someone else to go into this job because no one has been Senate-confirmed. It's been too long for the administration to send their choice alone into this district to lead the office. Before this happened though, yesterday, there was a moment where a federal judge just lit into her, a Trump appointee. His name's David Novak.

He had asked her to explain why, even after she had lost the case of Comey and Letitia James and had been told by another judge she didn't have the power of the U.S. attorney, why she kept signing criminal filings. She defended herself vigorously in court and said, I can, I've been sent here.

But the judge wrote, Ms. Halligan's response, in which she was joined by both the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, contains a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show and falls far beneath the level of advocacy expected from litigants in this court, particularly the Department of Justice.

The court will not engage in a similar tit-for-tat. It was not a very pleasant opinion for Lindsey Halligan to get on her last day, and the court also said he was not going to tolerate obstinance or the charade of her being the U.S. attorney there.

KEILAR: Well, then who's going to get the job?

POLANTZ: Great question. There isn't someone right now who is the U.S. attorney or the acting or the interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, a very important prosecutor's office that does national security cases, really big stuff, and also had gotten recently the warrant secured for The Washington Post reporter, things like that. There's been a lot of chaos there, but as of now, the person signing these records or filings in court, it's the deputy attorney general and whatever line prosecutor is working on a case. KEILAR: Very interesting. Katelyn, and we know you'll continue to cover this story. It's not the end of it. Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much. An unlikely tool being used by federal agents in the president's sweeping immigration crackdown. CNN investigates dozens of videos showing ICE officers using cell phone cameras. How and why they're using them, we have that straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:23:18]

HILL: Law enforcement officials in and around the Twin Cities are accusing ICE of targeting some of their off-duty officers, all of whom are people of color, noting that over the last couple of weeks, they have received numerous accounts of federal agents allegedly committing civil rights violations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHIEF MARK BRULEY, BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA POLICE: We started hearing from our police officers the same complaints as they fell victim to this while off-duty. Every one of these individuals is a person of color who has had this happen to them. One particular officer that shared her story with me was stopped as she passed ICE going down the roadway. When they boxed her in, they demanded her paperwork, of which she's a U.S. citizen and clearly would not have any paperwork.

When she became concerned about the rhetoric and the way she was being treated, she pulled out her phone in an attempt to record the incident. The phone was knocked out of her hands, preventing her from recording it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: So the chiefs there are calling for better supervision, also accountability from federal agents. DHS, for its part, says it has no record of the claims, but says it will look into them. Now, meantime, CNN is learning how some federal agents are using their own phones to deploy facial recognition technology in the field. So keep in mind, federal agencies like ICE are not required to wear body cameras.

Some agents, though, have been seen using cell phones to record their encounters, as we saw with the ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Good earlier this month in Minneapolis. CNN's Priscilla Alvarez is here to explain more about the practice, so -- which is just a fascinating reporting and I encourage everybody to read the full story.

What is driving this tactic of federal agents recording things on cell phones?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So there are multiple contributors here, but what we found, we, a team here at CNN, in reviewing these dozens of videos is that they can be used for multiple purposes. [14:25:00]

That includes, for example, scanning someone's face to identify their -- to identify them and confirm their immigration history. It also includes gathering content for social media. As we have seen, the Department of Homeland Security and the White House consistently posting operations on social media, and also recording the actions of agents as well as the protesters that they are confronting when they are doing these immigration enforcement operations.

But in reviewing these videos, we found that the app that has been used is called Mobile Fortify. It was developed by the Homeland Security, and it is based off of Customs and Border Protection immigration data sets. So, what does that mean?

Essentially, what they do here, they being the agents, is they can scan someone's face and if they have had an interaction with immigration agents, if they have an immigration history in this country, then they will be pulled up in the system, and they can move forward, potentially, with the arrest, detention, and possible removal of that individual.

Now, U.S. Customs and Border Protection similarly has facial recognition technology that they use that works in a similar fashion. And the sources I've talked to about this call it efficient because before, typically, they would have their mobile biometric devices, so they'd be doing fingerprinting along the way. Now, in a statement, the Department of Homeland Security described it this way.

They said, quote, "It is used -- the app is governed by established legal authorities and formal privacy oversight which sets strict limits on data access, use and retention." Mobile Fortify has not been blocked, restricted, or curtailed by the courts or by legal guidance, and is lawfully used nationwide. I should also note the Department of Homeland Security said that they are trying to expand the access of body cameras, but they did not say whether it's going to be a requirement.

I will say, however, Erica, where the concern lies among experts, as well as others, is what happens when U.S. citizens are caught up in this. So, there are these at-large operations is what we call them, so federal agents fanning out in communities to conduct their operations and their arrests. When that happens, they may confront protesters. They also may just confront civilians who are U.S. citizens.

So if you are scanning their faces, where is the permission structure to do that? For example, similar technology is used at TSA at airports. In that case, passengers can choose whether or not their faces are scanned. It's not the case, however, here because, according to a document we found, they do not have to ask for permission. So that's where you see that this gets quite murky very quickly when they're not only deploying it for their purposes, which they find effective, but when other people, U.S. citizens in particular, get swept up in that.

HILL: And just really quickly, what is the policy on that information that they gather? I mean, where does it go once they take those pictures on the phone?

ALVAREZ: Well, that is something that we were asking as well. This is part of a lawsuit right now in terms of the "indiscriminate use of the app" and whether it's violating the residents' rights in Minnesota. This is something that the Department of Homeland Security disputes. We also found that, again, ICE does not have to provide the opportunity for someone to decline to have their face scanned.

HILL: Right.

ALVAREZ: So, this is something that was deployed last year to make it easier for federal agents, but now, with these operations, it makes it all the more confusing for everyone else.

HILL: Yeah. It does. Again, as I said, it's such great reporting from you and your team, and I really encourage everybody to read the full report. Priscilla, thank you.

We do want to get you to some Breaking News now. Just coming in to CNN, the U.S. Court of Appeals temporarily lifting restrictions on use of force against protesters by ICE agents. CNN's Whitney Wild joining us now with these new developments. So, what does this decision mean practically speaking, Whitney?

WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT: Erica, it means that the prohibitions that had been put on ICE and other federal immigration officers before are for now on pause. So, let me walk you through the background of this case.

This was filed by around half a dozen peaceful protesters, they say, who say that in the course of their attempt to protest ICE and other federal immigration agents' activities, they were hit with chemical munitions. They say that this was a violation of their First and Fourth Amendment, basically saying that ICE's use of tear gas and other types of non-lethal munitions prevented them from exercising their First Amendment right to protest. So they filed this federal lawsuit.

Friday, a federal judge had put limitations on the uses of force that ICE can employ in the field. For example, basically, the initial order said that they could not arrest peaceful protesters without cause. They could not use other non-lethal munitions such as pepper spray. The judge in this case had also said that they could no longer stop and detain drivers when there is no reasonable articulable suspicion.

And basically, saying that these peaceful protesters that we've seen throughout Minneapolis who are following these ICE agents, that that is not enough for federal agents to do a traffic stop. DHS obviously does not agree with that, and so they filed this emergency motion, basically calling this judge's initial order a massive overreach. They say it was way too broad. So the court --