Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump: We Have Framework of Future Deal on Greenland. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired January 21, 2026 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT: ... 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 of Appeals now staying that order. So practically speaking, it is business as usual for these federal immigration officers as they continue to work in Minneapolis. Again, this is an administrative stay, so it is possible that later on the court might change its mind. But for now, that Friday order that limited what ICE agents can do in the field has been put on pause -- Erica.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: All right, a really important development there, Whitney. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Still ahead here, the president once again lashing out at NATO, questioning the alliance itself, as well as its relevance to the United States. We'll speak with the former U.S. ambassador to NATO for his reaction to the president's fiery speech. That's next.

[14:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: All right, as world leaders have been in the midst of deciphering President Trump's speech today at Davos, this just in from his Truth Social account. This is a very important statement the president has made here. He says, basically, there is a framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland. I'm going to read this in its entirety.

He says, "Based upon a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic region. This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America and all NATO nations. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st. Additional discussions are being held concerning the Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. Further information will be made available as discussions progress. President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and various others as needed will be responsible for the negotiations They will report directly to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter." Signed, the president.

We are joined now by the former U.S. ambassador to both NATO and China, Nicholas Burns. Just in time, ambassador, as some big news comes through from President Trump. What do you make of this?

NICHOLAS BURNS, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: Well, it sounds certainly better than yesterday's news. It sounds a little bit promising. Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, has always had a way of working with President Trump, and I think President Trump clearly respects him. We'll have to see about this. The devil will be in the details.

But the obvious off-ramp here, Brianna, is that Denmark and the European Union are not going to permit the United States just to take Greenland for a price. And so, if the deal here is that the United States can build up our military forces on Greenland, and there's a 1951 agreement between the United States and Denmark that prohibits it and -- excuse me, permits it and welcomes it, that might be the off- ramp.

It won't be Greenland being sold to the United States. It won't be, as President Trump said this morning, by force of arms. It will be a deal among NATO members, and that's what should happen. I hope that's what this agreement means, but we'll have to see more details before we can be definitive about it.

KEILAR: One, in the terms of it, and just talking to folks who -- we've been talking to Jim Townsend, who was a very significant figure in winding down in the negotiations to wind down that presence in Greenland by the U.S. He basically said, it's not that tough to do. You just put your heads together and figure it out.

So if you take the president, in good faith at what he's saying here, Ambassador. And he's saying that this solution would be a great one for the USA and all NATO nations, talking about a framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and the entire Arctic region. What do you think that could look like?

BURNS: Well, what it could look -- let's hope that this is what's happening. It could be a NATO agreement with the United States, NATO member agreement to build up NATO forces on Greenland. This is important because a lot of the capacity in NATO is not with the United States. It's with Finland and Sweden and Norway, Denmark and Canada. They have the icebreakers that are absolutely pivotal for military or commercial operations in the Arctic, and we don't.

I think we're down to one usable icebreaker, maybe two at this point. So that's the obvious off ramp here. That it was -- it always made sense for the United States to try to strengthen security against the long-term threat and there is a long-term threat of Russia and perhaps even China with our NATO allies and get off this administration kick that we somehow could take it from Denmark, Greenland, buy it from them or take it by force. If that's what this means, that's been the obvious solution all along. That will be a good solution, but we'll have to see the details.

KEILAR: When you're looking at this Greenland obsession and you are looking at President Trump's approach to Venezuela, what is it revealing to you about his worldview, the way the U.S. relates to the region that it's in and how it can be in charge of everything that goes on here.

[14:40:00]

And does that bring up concerns for you?

BURNS: You know, it could have been the belief, especially after Venezuela, and that was such a brilliant military operation by the United States Armed Forces, that the United States can do just about anything it wants to do in the world by expressing our power by threats. And that didn't happen this time in Greenland. You saw Prime Minister Carney, President Macron, stand up to President Trump yesterday.

It's clear that the Europeans believe this is an existential issue. They can't just carve out a piece of their territory and give it to the United States. So I think President Trump, in my judgment, miscalculated here and a bit of hubris in trying to assert that somehow, we could bully and threaten our way into a solution.

And I hope very much that the White House has reconsidered this, and that now we'll see a negotiated solution, not for the sale of Greenland, because I don't believe the Danes will ever do that, but to have NATO commit substantially to build up its forces, and the United States would be part of that. You know, we once had, just a couple of decades ago, 10,000 U.S. forces In Greenland, we're down to about 200 people in one base. The Danes have been crystal clear. They welcomed the United States to build up our presence along with the NATO allies there.

KEILAR: Yes, it's a matter of getting together and meeting and working it out. Ambassador, if you could stay with me just for a moment here, I do want to go over to the White House and bring in Kristen Holmes, because, Kristen, this is quite an announcement coming from the president on Truth Social, quite a turn here.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Brianna, look, we know Republicans were looking for an off-ramp, and certainly this would seem like an off-ramp. There are absolutely no details in this, but it does turn down the heat. We had this idea of looming tariffs on countries, any country that opposed President Trump and the U.S. takeover of Greenland, things were not going well.

It was becoming increasingly tense with our European allies, and everybody at one point was looking for some kind of off-ramp, our European allies, Republicans, as some administration officials. How could they get out of this? Because President Trump obviously had pushed this all the way to the brink.

Now, they clearly had toned down the rhetoric a little bit. President Trump was still scathing in his speech earlier today, but we know, he said, he wasn't going to use military force. Then he said that he supported our European allies.

Again, all of this was sprinkled in between attacks on European leaders and scathing remarks towards our allies and NATO as a whole, but those were different points than we had heard him make before. It was a clear softening of rhetoric when it comes to what he was going to do with Greenland. Now he has said that he has met with Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, and they've come up with some framework.

They are basically saying they don't have to give any details because there aren't any details yet. He says that J.D. Vance is going to be a part of it, that the Secretary of State Marco Rubio is going to be a part of it, that Steve Witkoff is going to be part of it, and they will answer to him and that it will come together down the road.

But this is a clear de-escalation, and something that so many Americans, Republicans, administration officials were hoping for because it takes the heat off. But it allows President Trump to say that there has been some kind of agreement worked, worked on, that there's going to be some kind of concession made, is what he's clearly trying to get at here with this framework when it comes to NATO, when it comes to Greenland. But without having to give any details.

And remember, one of the things that our European allies were so angry about was this idea that he was going to threaten 35 percent tariffs in addition to tariffs that these countries are already paying if they opposed him taking over Greenland. And this idea of taking over another NATO country. Now, one of the other things that I had been told weeks ago was something that the United States was looking at was trying to build up our U.S. military forces.

So kind of piggybacking off your last guest, Nicholas Burns, this idea of building up NATO forces this idea of building up U.S. forces all within Greenland. Talking about security. We heard, just a reminder, the leader of Denmark and Greenland when they were here in the U.S. in Washington meeting with the vice president and with Marco Rubio saying that they agreed that there were some changes that need to occur because of the changing security concerns in that region. So here you're seeing all this kind of come together and again it takes the heat off of a situation that had just been growing more and more intense and more and more untenable by the day.

KEILAR: Yes, it certainly was. And let's go back to Ambassador Burns to talk with him a little bit. You hear that, Ambassador Burns, very welcome by Republican lawmakers and lawmakers, period, both sides of the aisle as an off ramp. I wonder, though, if you see this as an off ramp or is this a U-turn for President Trump from that demand that the U.S. own Greenland?

[14:45:00]

Because just, you know, a few hours ago, he was talking about psychologically, the U.S. can't defend a place it doesn't own.

BURNS: You know, I don't think that the White House anticipated how tough-minded the Europeans would become on this issue. You've seen this extraordinary unity, and so if this is a backdown or a U-turn, as you say, it would be welcome, because there is a deal here, and it's the NATO deal that we talked about before. That the U.S. would honor our commitments to our allies, work with them, strengthen the military presence of all of us, including the U.S., on Greenland.

But it became clear by this morning and certainly by the speeches that the European leaders have been given, this was existential. They weren't going to back down. If the administration would just concede a simple point that every president has conceded, has accepted willingly, that Denmark is sovereign in Greenland, that it's part of Danish territory, the Kingdom of Denmark.

Then I think the Danes and the Europeans will negotiate, I think, quite willingly and openly and well with the United States. If the president insists on putting on the table a sale or coercion, then I think the talks won't go very far. So this looks to be promising, Brianna, but I think we have to see the details first to be sure about it.

KEILAR: Yes, there are no details.

HILL: Important to note, which which is not the first time that we've had to deal with that. The lack of details initially, but but also early indications. We just look in the corner of your screen there, the Dow. That's the S&P 500, but the Dow also up. So the market's liking this.

KEILAR: They don't need the details.

HILL: They just want the headline.

KEILAR: They want the headline. Ambassador Burns, thank you so much for being with us.

BURNS: Thanks so much, Brianna.

KEILAR: We've been talking about off ramps. We've been talking about U-turns. That's kind of a ski jump there, I think, what the market's doing.

HILL: It is.

KEILAR: Let's get in a quick break and be right back after Trump has claimed now that a framework has been reached on the future of Greenland. The U.S. is not going to own Greenland.

HILL: An important note there, yes.

[14:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HILL: Staying on the breaking news here, President Trump just announcing on Truth Social that the U.S. and NATO have, in his words, formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the president writes, the entire Arctic region, adding, "This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America and all NATO nations. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st."

KEILAR: The president referencing his prior threat to impose tariffs on European countries that oppose his bid to acquire Greenland. Stephen Moore is with us now. He's a former economic advisor to President Trump.

OK, how are you understanding this, Stephen? Because this is sort of -- it's short on details. It doesn't say we're going to own Greenland, which was what the president was insisting on before. But is he backing away from that demand as you are looking at this?

STEPHEN MOORE, FORMER TRUMP ECONOMIC ADVISER: This is sort of vintage Trump in terms of negotiating. First, he comes out with this very hardline position that we may invade Greenland and so on. And now, by the way, just in a, you know, few minutes since that declaration came out by Trump, the stock market went way up, which means they're relieved that it looks like we're going to get a peaceful negotiation here.

And also the markets are relieved, in my opinion, that the tariffs are not going up as well. So this is Trump negotiating, this is his style. But we will see.

But I think everyone feels a lot better today than we did yesterday about the situation in Greenland.

HILL: Stephen, stay with us. I do want to bring in, though, our colleague, Nic Robertson, who is on the ground in Greenland. So, Nic, this news and again, you know, as we're talking about, it's really a headline. We don't have a lot of details. But even just this Truth Social post about there being a framework here, what is the initial response?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: The initial response is this is a positive step, that there's an understanding of a way forward. And building on the fact that President Trump had said earlier today that he didn't want to use force, I think people are still very concerned. They don't have the details.

And I think if we're very clear about what's happened here, this idea of that President Trump is putting forward as a way forward here, that there is a broader Arctic security, that that can be part of the -- of how the issue of security around Greenland is addressed. This is something that Denmark has been saying for a number of days.

This is something that Mark Rutte, the secretary-general of NATO, has been saying for days. It does appear now -- and the White House hasn't responded to this before -- it does appear now as if they are accepting what the Europeans have been proposing. and that President Trump initially put tariffs or threatened tariffs on those countries that were joining in the NATO exercise here to show how they could provide that additional Arctic security. President Trump now saying -- and we heard that it said a couple of days ago that it misunderstood that, now saying it's not going to put the tariffs in place. Now saying it's going to go along with this idea of looking at the security of Greenland in the broader scope of Arctic security.

And remember, the Arctic is a very large place.

[14:55:00]

It's more than a thousand miles from here, even from the other side of Greenland, to Russia, where the -- where the Russian ships are moving more freely because of ice, where Russian ships do transit to go into the Atlantic towards the United States. That's more than a thousand miles away. So this is what what's being pushed has been pushed for the last few days as a solution. And it does appear as if President Trump is picking up on that.

However, his language about wanting to annex Greenland that he put forward just a couple of hours ago, that appears to still stand. And as long as that stands, that's going to be a concern here. So, again, it's the details the people where I'm standing in Greenland are going to want to understand about what President Trump thinks that he is moving forward towards.

KEILAR: Yes, that's thing that he doesn't explicitly back away from that demand, and yet European allies, Denmark, have made clear that the U.S. is not going to own or acquire Greenland. And yet the president also doesn't reiterate his demand here that the U.S. will acquire Greenland. I do wonder, because there has been this openness, you know, the Danes are a NATO ally, there's been this openness to negotiating an increased U.S. military presence in Greenland.

Are there conditions of a U.S. presence there that Greenland or Denmark has been opposed to? Short of acquiring Greenland, what is there for President Trump to achieve here, to wrangle over with Denmark or Greenland?

ROBERTSON: Denmark has been very clear from the outset that the 1951 defense agreement, the agreement between the United States and Denmark that is about Greenland, that that stands and that is open and that gives the United States ability to have any number of troops at any number of bases they want in Greenland. The only stipulation in terms of sort of extracting minerals and rare earths is that there -- is that the United States meets the environmental standards and requirements here in Greenland. So the door has been open on that basis of 1951, many, many decades ago.

What we've heard from the Danish foreign minister in the last couple of hours, he said, we are open to any amount of discussion about the United States concerns. We are not open to discussion about the sovereignty of Greenland. So it appears very clear, and it has been clear, and the Danes have been frustrated and surprised at the response from the White House in the past week since the foreign minister met with Vice President J.D. Vance, met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio inside the White House almost a week ago now.

They've been shocked and surprised at the United States' position that the White House has taken with tariffs, the language and tone, because they also have made clear that the doors open for any number of troops. And we're not hearing from the Danish authorities or from the Greenland government who say they recognize all the benefits that have come from their close association, close support to the United States, the United States' footprint, small as it is at the moment, inside of Greenland, they're grateful for all of that. And they're ready to do a whole lot more.

So, again, as the words that were sort of being said here last week, the United States has been pushing at an open door. Is President Trump cracking open that door, or is he going to stand on the threshold and say, sorry, I'm going to come in the room when I own the room? Not clear.

MOORE: Can I just respond to that for a minute? Because I think it's important for people to understand, acquiring Greenland, I think, is still on the table. You know, what's been taken off the table is this idea that somehow, we would have some kind of military takeover of Greenland. But look, we purchased Alaska, we've purchased a lot of territory in the history of our country. It would probably have be done with the, you know, I would suggest --

KEILAR: Stephen, let me -- what's the difference on that though because he said no military force as he spoke at Davos then he has a meeting with Rutte where he talks about the importance of discussing this, of negotiating with Rutte. Then coming out of that he -- it seems that there is a change between his speech stressing no military force. It seems there's something else.

MOORE: He feels very strongly about the United States eventually acquiring Greenland. So he's keeping them a little bit off balance. But you could see a resolution here that would be in the benefit of everyone. It could be the benefit of the Europeans in terms of better national security. It could be the benefit of the United States so we can have our missile defense system.

And the people of Greenland, I mean, we could pay every Greenland resident $100,000. They could get rich. We could, you know, make their lives better. So I think that's still an option. But it would have to be something approved by the people in Greenland, by the American people, and by Denmark.

HILL: It's important to point out, too. I know the idea is starting to be floated at $100,000. That needs a lot more context and a lot more information to see if that would happen. But to your point about what can happen now, those are all things that can actually happen in the moment without any pressure from President Trump because of that 1951 agreement. So we didn't actually need to get to ...

END