Return to Transcripts main page
Isa Soares Tonight
Trump Once Again Questions NATO's Commitment to Defending U.S.; Trump No Plan to Acquire Greenland by Force; Trump: Reached Framework Deal on Greenland with NATO Chief. U.S. President Donald Trump Says He Won't Use Force to Acquire Greenland; Netanyahu Agrees to Join Trump's Board of Peace; U.S. Supreme Court Skeptical Over Trump's Attempt to Fire Fed's Lisa Cook. Aired 2:00-3p 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]
MAX FOSTER, HOST, ISA SOARES TONIGHT: A very warm welcome to the show, everyone, I'm Max Foster in for Isa Soares. Tonight, doubling down on
Davos. U.S. President Donald Trump demands control of Greenland, but says he won't use force to acquire the NATO-protected territory.
I'll speak to a member of the Danish parliament. Plus, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agrees to join Trump's Board of Peace for Gaza,
despite the international arrest warrant against him for alleged war crimes.
And it's show-time time -- showdown time for the Federal Reserve's independence as the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in Trump's attempt
to fire Lisa Cook from the Fed. We'll have all the details just ahead. We begin, though, with President Trump's appearance on the world stage.
A speech jammed full of insults for American allies, along with generous praise for himself. The World Economic Forum in Davos, Mr. Trump called for
immediate negotiations to discuss the U.S. acquisition of Greenland, and made a significant turn by backing away from his previous threats of
possible military action.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We probably won't get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would
be, frankly, unstoppable, but I won't do that. OK, now everyone is saying, oh, good. That's probably the biggest statement I made because people
thought I would use force.
I don't have to use force. I don't want to use force. I won't use force.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: The President slammed Denmark as ungrateful for refusing to give up control of Greenland, arguing that Denmark owed the U.S. for defending
it during World War II, and many of the dignitaries in attendance were likely squirming in their seats when Mr. Trump took direct aim at European
allies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We believe deeply in the bonds we share with Europe as a civilization. I want to see it do great. That's why issues like energy,
trade, immigration and economic growth must be central concerns to anyone who wants to see a strong and united west, because Europe and those
countries have to do their thing.
They have to get out of the culture that they've created over the last ten years. It's horrible what they're doing to themselves. They're destroying
themselves. It's beautiful places. We want strong allies, not seriously weakened ones. We want Europe to be strong.
Ultimately, these are matters of national security and perhaps no current issue makes the situation more clear than what's currently going on with
Greenland.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Well, President Trump also used the opportunity to slam NATO, one of its -- one of his frequent targets. He once again questioned whether the
Trans-Atlantic alliance would be there to defend the United States in a time of crisis.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: So, what we have gotten out of NATO is nothing except to protect Europe from the Soviet Union, and now Russia. I mean, we've helped them for
so many years. We've never gotten anything, except we pay for NATO. And we paid for many years until I came along, we paid for, in my opinion, 100
percent of NATO because they weren't paying their bills. Most of the countries weren't paying anything.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Our business editor-at-large Richard Quest is on the ground in Davos for us. Kristen Holmes joins us from the White House watching from
there. Richard, this was an-about-turn, wasn't it? The fact that he's moving away from using force to take Greenland, but he seems as determined
as ever to get his hands on it somehow
RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR-AT-LARGE: Yes, and I think that's what's fascinating about what took place today. He said, I'm not using
force. And you can hear this massive sigh of relief across everybody here and across the leaders.
And then conveniently, ignoring the bit where he says, you know, I still want Greenland. I want it very badly. And I want to start negotiations
immediately.
[14:05:00]
And then he says, and if you don't give it to me, I will remember -- what people are saying here is, you know, that's classic sort of Mafioso. That's
a nice country. It'd be a shame if something happened to it. The reality is that the speech, which was very long, it was a reprise of what we heard him
say in Washington the day before.
Except it was also remarkably personal, and in some cases would have been found offensive because he did attack certain leaders. He mocked them, he
gave -- he did impersonations of them, and it left people here wondering, what have we just been through?
For instance, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, afterwards, he said he found the thing boring but quite remarkable that the U.S. President
would put people through that. To anyone who sat through -- and Kristen will certainly be familiar with this.
To anyone who sat through long Donald Trump speeches, what we heard today was de rigueur. But to those who don't, who only hear headlines, to those
who only hear the snapshots, it will have been an absolute eye opener to hear him stand there for more than an hour and a hour, basically slagging-
off United States closest allies.
FOSTER: Kristen, he's insulted his allies. Now he expects them to join negotiations premised on buying Greenland, which is something that they
won't even entertain. So, what's the strategy here? It's very difficult to see how any of these European leaders can enter these talks.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it certainly is difficult to see that, but we have seen kind of a pattern in the past when
it comes to President Trump trying to strong-arm various leaders of various countries. Part of his tactics here are constantly undermining these
leaders of foreign countries.
Whether they are our allies or adversaries. It's just one of the things that he does. He gets up there on the stage in the same breath that he
says, this idea of he supports Europe, he supports our European allies. We want our European allies to succeed.
He goes after each of these various leaders and kind of mocks them, makes fun of them. Now I will note, it seemed as though President Trump did not
have any issues continuing these conversations with European leaders earlier. And I will remind you that it was just a few days ago that he was
posting a private text message exchange with Emmanuel Macron on his social media.
It did seem for a while there that Macron still wanted to meet with President Trump. Now, of course, that's been moved off the table, but this
is a pattern for President Trump. Now, in terms of the strategy, he's clearly trying to strong-arm here.
One of the things that we had heard from a number of people within the White House was that, there was no appetite for actual military engagement
when it came to Greenland. This was something President Trump was doing as a sort of posturing.
And as we know, President Trump will often take things to the very edge before he might back away. Now, clearly, he felt the need to say out loud
that he was no longer considering or was not going to use military force.
And as Richard said, and that's got to be a breath of fresh air for a number of these European allies who have been on edge, particularly going
into this meeting, wondering if President Trump was going to try something when it came to the military in Greenland.
You also heard, though, in that same speech, President Trump talking about how strong our military was, and kind of a threatening way. As Richard
said, this idea of we won't forget if Greenland or if Denmark doesn't hand over Greenland.
But then on top of that, talking about some of the capabilities that the United States military has, is not an accident. That is something that
President Trump does to project -- to project strength. Now, when it comes to actually buying Greenland, President Trump just moments ago said that
was still on the table.
But as you note, Denmark and Greenland officials have all said that it's not something that is remotely up for negotiation. What is interesting in
all of this, let's take the President's bluster out of this. There was a meeting that the leaders of Greenland and Denmark had here at the White
House, with the President not there, where the Secretary of State was there and the Vice President.
The reason why I bring that meeting up is this. President Trump's rhetoric hasn't changed. But coming out of that meeting, you heard these officials
saying they were going to develop this talking group or working group to try to come to a solution.
Which means that behind the scenes, there are some kinds of conversations that are happening, which it doesn't mean that it's completely about
turning Greenland over to the United States. Now, what those negotiations are, we're not sure.
But if you have these leaders saying that they're cautiously optimistic and they're going to start this working group, clearly, there's some kind of
back door communicating going on while you have President Trump doing what he does, which is this out loud bluster about how he's going to take over
Greenland.
FOSTER: Kristen, thank you. Richard, we should also mention that after that speech, the European parliament effectively blocked the U.S.-Euro --
EU trade negotiations --
[14:10:00]
QUEST: Yes --
FOSTER: Which could have a massive effect on the global economy, and potentially more significant than these negotiations.
QUEST: Well, and there's also going to be a European -- an emergency European Council dinner tomorrow night, being called by the Council
President Costa. Yes, because nothing -- look, everything changed today and nothing changed. The threat to Greenland in terms of sovereignty exists as
much now as it did when we all woke up this morning.
And it is -- it is the modalities, in a sense, that is going to be the challenging part of it. I will say, though, that the U.S. -- the way the
U.S. has now been talking about the European economies, about the weaknesses in Europe, has done nothing in a sense to ingratiate themselves
to the Europeans. The Europeans are still angry, furious and hurt.
FOSTER: Richard Quest, Kristen Holmes, really appreciate your time. Let's explore this further. John Bolton, serving as a national security adviser
during the first Trump administration and as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush.
He understands all of this. He can -- he's our best insight probably into Donald Trump's thinking here as well. Ambassador, if I could ask you first
of all about what Donald Trump said about not using force to take Greenland, does he mean that? Lots of people saying it's just a tactic?
JOHN BOLTON, AUTHOR & FORMER U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, I think he never had any intention to use force. But that's the way he operates.
And it's -- that's not an excuse because I think operating that way is very corrosive in an alliance, which I don't think Trump understands.
You know, he's done business with a lot of people around the world in his business career, usually only once. And I think that tells you something.
FOSTER: Then he talks about negotiations with Europe, Denmark specifically, about buying Greenland. Denmark has made it a 100 percent
clear it cannot enter any negotiations on that basis. So, where is that going?
BOLTON: Well, this is where he started back in 2018 and '19, that he wanted to buy Greenland. When I had the occasion to have the NSC staff do a
lot of research on this subject, Greenland has made it clear -- the Greenlanders have made it clear they're going to decide their own future.
The Danes aren't going to sell them. So, we're still in a bargaining mode. But I would say the same thing about the way he spoke at Davos today. It
has an incredibly corrosive effect on the alliance structure, bilaterally with Denmark and with the entire NATO alliance.
It's not getting him any closer to his goal. He doesn't understand that, and he doesn't really care. But here, I think it's important to make this
point. He may be the President, but when he speaks like that, he does not represent the American people who didn't vote for this kind of approach,
who don't agree with the damage he's doing to the western alliance.
And I think it's very important that whether it's Mark Carney or other leaders of NATO members, that they distinguish between what they object to,
which is Donald Trump, and the rest of the country.
FOSTER: Can I just ask you his reasons for wanting Greenland? Today, he talked about -- because obviously, they've got this deal, the United
States, where they can effectively do anything in Greenland. But he said, you know, you can't defend a country with a lease.
BOLTON: Well --
FOSTER: And then he said --
BOLTON: He said at the speech today --
FOSTER: He also psychologically he wants it --
BOLTON: And he said last week in response to a reporter's question that it's psychologically important to own Greenland. So, to be clear and to
follow up what I just said, is psychologically important to Donald Trump, but not to anybody else I know of.
And that is a signal that if he really believes that, that you have to own something to defend it, they better take notice. And, you know, Japan,
South Korea, where we have defense facilities -- and by the way, a large number of European countries where we have defense facilities, apparently
under the Trump view, we need to own them, too. This is crazy talk. And it does not reflect what most Americans think.
FOSTER: Well, it's had a huge impact all around the world. Let's hear some reaction to the speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK CARNEY, PRIME MINISTER, CANADA: It seems that every day, we're reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry. That the rules
based order is fading. That the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.
[14:15:00]
EMMANUEL MACRON, PRESIDENT, FRANCE: It's as well a shift towards a world without rules, where international law is trampled underfoot, and where the
only law that seems to matter is that of the strongest and imperial ambitions are resurfacing
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: Forgive me, those were speeches before Donald Trump's speech today. But you know -- you know, the sentiment is still there. Ambassador
Bolton, what is this new world order we're seeing shaped here?
BOLTON: Well, I just disagree with the idea that Donald Trump alone is going to change everything. And I think it's important for other leaders to
take into account when they react to what Trump says or what they think he's going to say, that they not be complicit in expanding the amount of
damage that he's doing.
I think that we've got to remember he's got three years to go. That's a long time. It's true, but it's not forever. And the issue is going to be
whether we can repair the damage that he's done, put things back together, or whether you're going to throw it all overboard.
It's utterly unnecessary to do the latter. It's unpleasant to have to deal with Trump, I recognize that. But if you just say, OK, everything we worked
on since 1945 is down the drain, then people who accept that as their approach, I think are equally to blame with Trump.
FOSTER: Well, this is where this Board of Peace he's creating comes in, doesn't it? Where, you know, he's -- you know, he's hinted this is going to
replace United Nations. He invites heads of state on to a panel. He has complete control over it, and he's invited President Macron, for example,
of France.
He said no, because, the Foreign Minister suggesting it could undermine the United Nations. But now, there's word that he's going to force people or
that put pressure on heads of state to join it. So, he's forcing that complicity, isn't he?
BOLTON: Well, I don't think anybody is under any obligation to join it. I don't think it's going to amount to anything. And if it were to replace the
United Nations, then you wouldn't notice any difference, frankly.
FOSTER: OK, Ambassador John Bolton, really appreciate your time today. Staying in Davos, we're on Thursday. President Trump will host a ceremony
for the signing of his controversial new Board of Peace. I just mentioned it. The board was originally created to oversee the rebuilding of Gaza, but
President Trump has now suggested it might replace the U.N.
About 35 nations are expected to attend Thursday's ceremony. Out of the 50 that were invited, Israel's Prime Minister has accepted an invitation,
China and Russia have also been asked to join, a permanent seat would cost a billion dollars. Kylie Atwood is standing by.
I guess it depends who accepts seats on this board, because at the moment it's looking like a lot of strong men, which could run this alternative to
the United Nations, as it were.
KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN U.S. SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: That's right. There's a lot of questions about how, you know, the final composition of this board is
going to look because as we understand it, there were dozens of invitations that went out late last week.
Along with that invitation, there was also a charter effectively describing what this board was set out to do. And it's the language in that charter
that gives countries pause about potentially joining their concerns, being that this is an alternative, this is seeking to replace the United Nations.
And President Trump yesterday effectively said that it could in some ways replace United Nations because from his perspective, the U.N. hasn't lived
up to its potential. Now, the reason that there are these concerns is that the charter does not at all mention Gaza.
Obviously, this is a board where the intention, as most people understood it, was set out to find a solution, to find ways to rebuild Gaza. But the
charter itself doesn't mention Gaza at all. It mentions, you know, trying to look at the world and peace conflicts throughout the world and finding
solutions to those.
So, one thing that is important, however, is number one, we'll have to watch and see who shows up at this board-signing tomorrow. According to a
senior administration official, about 35 of the about 50 countries that are invited or planning to attend.
We don't know if all of those will join the board. But the other thing is that President Trump notably said during his speech today that another
fundamental piece of the peace plan for Gaza that this administration has put together is Hamas disarming.
But we haven't actually learned much about who is going to do that disarming of Hamas when the administration expects it to take place.
[14:20:00]
But he said during his speech earlier today, that there is a time frame that he's thinking of. Listen to that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have peace in the Middle East. There are some little situations like Hamas, and Hamas has agreed to give up their weapons. Now, you know,
they were born with a weapon in their hands. So, it's not easy to do. When they were born, they were born with a rifle in their hand.
It's not an easy thing for them, but they -- that's what they agreed to. They've got to do it. And we're going to know, Jared, over the next 2 or 3
days, certainly, over the next three weeks, whether or not they're going to do it. If they don't do it, they're going to have -- they'll be blown away
very quickly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ATWOOD: So, obviously, we'll watch and see what the repercussions will actually be for Hamas if they don't disarm in the coming weeks as President
Trump says is his expectation. The other thing I want to point out about this Board of Peace is that, the charter says that it is Trump who will be
chairman of it indefinitely.
What that means is that he could conceivably be the person who is in charge of this body beyond the few years that are left in his presidential term,
and that gives him some great power if this board is something that actually gets off the ground and has teeth, we'll have to watch and see if
that's the case.
Because as you know, there are countries that have already said they're joining, but there are countries that have said they aren't like France.
FOSTER: Yes, OK, Kylie, thank you so much. Still to come tonight, one of Donald Trump's many controversial moves to grab power goes before the U.S.
Supreme Court. A look at the probing questions asked by the justices when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FOSTER: For a year, Donald Trump's efforts to expand presidential power have gone largely unchecked. But today, the U.S. Supreme Court appears
ready to stop him, at least, when it comes to his efforts to pressure the Federal Reserve.
The court heard arguments just hours ago in the case of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, who Mr. Trump wants to fire over unproven allegations of mortgage
fraud. The justices seem very skeptical about letting the President have that much power over an independent agency.
Even conservatives who typically side with Mr. Trump asked pointed questions about the ramifications of firing Cook.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
BRETT KAVANAUGH, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: Your position that there's no judicial review, no process
required, no remedy available, very low bar for cause that the President alone determines.
[14:25:00]
And that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve that we just discussed.
SAMUEL ALITO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: 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?
AMY CONEY BARRETT, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: 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?
(END AUDIO CLIP)
FOSTER: For some analysis of what we heard today? Let's bring in CNN's chief supreme court analyst, Joan Biskupic. Thank you so much for joining
us. I mean, those sound-bites really speak to this. This is -- I mean, it's on many levels, isn't it? There's Cook's personal story, Trump's story of
power.
But actually, for the wider world, I'm talking about the whole world, the independence of the Federal Reserve is under question here. And that is
central to the global economy.
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: That's right. Max, good to see you. And I have to say sitting there, I really felt from all nine
justices concerned for that independence of the Federal Reserve. This isn't like the other independent agency administrators who have come up to the
supreme court asking for relief from being fired or threatened with being removed.
This, the court acknowledges, is a different kind of entity given its control over, you know, the country's monetary system setting rates for
interest, so that -- the Fed had a very good day at the Supreme Court and Lisa Cook did, too, because what troubled them was the way that Donald
Trump went about it.
You know, there was a lot of attention on the fact that he essentially had tried to fire her over Truth Social. He hadn't given her any ability to
respond to counter the charges. You know, those were the kind of notice and hearing, procedural safeguards that are part of any kind of interest in
ensuring that someone is being treated fairly in the American system.
That was really evident there. And then I think one of those -- all those sound-bites really revealed kind of where this court is now, but especially
the one from Amy Coney Barrett, who said look, we've heard from all these economists who say, you know, you're going to trigger a recession if you're
allowed to remove this independent governor for, you know, what seemed to be pretextual reasons.
And she tried to pin down Donald Trump's lawyer, U.S. Solicitor-General John Sauer on that. And he said, well, there's going to be a risk. And she
said, well, I don't know if we want to take that risk. We're not financial people. We're not economists. We're judges.
And the other thing she raised and other -- she's a conservative, but some of the liberals definitely raises sort of the nature of the offense here.
She -- you know, she supposedly put down on two mortgage applications that they were for her primary residence.
And she has definitely denied any wrongdoing. But she said through her lawyer today that, you know, one of them might have been inadvertent. It
caused no real fraud. This is not a problem here. And it was done before she was even appointed to the Fed.
And the justices themselves seem to acknowledge that this is -- this was not a serious offense at issue here. So, problems in across the board, both
in the facts and the law for the Trump administration. And to go to your initial point, Max, this is one where they're just not going to join him.
FOSTER: Yes, because they're looking at the public interest, aren't they? That's the big question --
BISKUPIC: Yes --
FOSTER: About the economy. CNN chief supreme court analyst Joan Biskupic, appreciate your analysis as ever.
BISKUPIC: Thank you.
FOSTER: A second rail tragedy hits Spain. At least, a person is dead and 37 injured after a commuter train derailed in Catalonia, northwestern
Spain, on Tuesday. According to the regional government, the incident occurred after a retaining wall fell onto the tracks.
This comes just two days after Spain's deadliest train crash in more than a decade, when two high speed trains collided near Cordoba, killing 41 and
injuring many more. Still to come tonight, President Trump, addressing world leaders in Davos. We'll dive into his clearest statement yet on his
desire to acquire Greenland.
Plus, I'll be joined by Rasmus Jarlov; a member of the Danish parliament, to get his reaction to President Trump's threats. That's after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:30:00]
FOSTER: As I mentioned earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump wrapped up his speech at the World Economic Forum. Just a short while ago, the president
criticized Europe saying it was heading in the wrong direction. He also falsely claimed that the U.S. has never got anything out of NATO. In fact,
the only time the Alliance invoked Article 5, NATO came to the defense of the U.S. after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Denmark had one of the
alliance's highest death rates in Afghanistan.
Speaking of Denmark, which is responsible for the defense of Greenland, President Trump continued to demand control of the Arctic Island, but he
says he has no plans to acquire it by force.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Without us right now, you'd all be speaking German and a little Japanese perhaps. 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? But now what I'm asking for is a
piece of ice cold and poorly located that can play a vital role in world peace and world protection. It's a very small ask compared to what we have
given them for many, many decades.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOSTER: And since then, he's made an announcement, we'll bring you that in just a moment. But President Trump has repeatedly said that the U.S. needs
to control Greenland out of national security concerns. Nick Paton Walsh takes a look at the politics playing out in the region.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: The race for Arctic control has run through the Cold War and now the melting ice of
the climate crisis. The Russians had long been ahead. It is really their biggest coastline and Defense Hub. These dots, they're bases. They've
expanded and developed some facilities, this likely a nuclear missile storage facility. They've added MiG-31s runways, often overshadowing NATO.
But Russia's development has, it seems been challenged by its invasion of Ukraine. One estimate putting casualties from ground units from their
Arctic ground forces at about 80 percent. Now, remember, the capabilities of bases count more than their sheer number, but the U.S. has around eight
in Alaska and is down to one in Greenland. NATO member Canada, an ally, is enhancing three, bringing it up to about nine and Norway's coastline, also
a NATO member, is peppered with military facilities.
Militaries, though are also here partly for economic reasons. Their climate crisis and ice store has left vital shipping routes often open like these,
a shorter path that China is keen to exploit and potentially, there are the rare earth minerals, other resources that are easy to get to if the ice
sheet gives way.
[14:35:00]
But the Arctic's role in defense is vital to Russia and its enemies. What's important is the Kola Peninsula here where Russia keeps its second-strike
nuclear submarines. They need to get through the so-called Bear Gap and the Giuk Gap in order to move on towards the United States. And so, an unlikely
nuclear war would also be fought over Arctic skies with most missile paths over this area and so it's likely where most missile defenses would be best
placed as well.
Look, a weakened Russia, an ice melt, possibly leading to more resources exposed and busier shipping lanes. This is all heightened competition up
here in a series of vital races.
Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER: In the last couple of minutes, President Trump posting on social media, a big announcement actually, he is not going to impose the tariffs
that he had threatened against European countries over Greenland. They were due to take effect on the 1st, they no longer will, which is a big climb
down. But the reason for that, he says, is he had a meeting with the NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte, and they formed the framework of a future
deal with respect to Greenland in fact the entire Arctic region, he says. He says it's going to be very good news, we'll get more information later
on, but there's some sort of framework to a deal now.
Let's bring in Rasmus Jarlov, he's a member of the Danish Parliament, former Danish Minister of Business Affairs as well. Thank you for joining
us. I don't know if you've had a chance to see this post that Donald Trump has just put up, but he's cancelled the tariffs against those European
countries that he -- that were opposing his plan for Greenland. So, that's good news.
RASMUS JARLOV, DANISH PARLIAMENT MEMBER: Yes, absolutely, that's good news and it's also good news that the threat of a military invasion is not on
the table. That was a very important clarification and of course I look forward to seeing what Trump has in mind together with Mark Rutte. But we
should be able to find a way to secure the Arctic without the U.S. annexing part of Denmark.
And let me just say one thing in regards to Trump's comments today. If any American is under the impression that we are ungrateful for what the United
States has done for us, that's completely wrong. We're deeply grateful for the liberation of Europe that was done by the United States, Britain,
Canada, the Russians and others, and for everything the Americans have done to provide security in Europe ever since then.
It does not translate into a right to take part of our country. We're trying to pay back by being a very good and loyal ally and I think we are
doing our part with spending more than three percent on defense now and having taken some of the toughest fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and also
leading in the support for Ukraine, where Denmark has paid more than any other country per capita which is a big contribution to the fight against
Russia.
So, we are trying to do what we can but we are deeply grateful for what the Americans have done for us. That's important to say that so that no one has
a wrong impression about that.
FOSTER: Yes. You've also said that you're happy to speak to the Americans about security in Greenland. You're not comfortable obviously speaking
about any sort of handover of authority of Greenland. But we now hear that Mark Rutte has formed the framework of a future deal. You know that would
obviously include you, that discussion, but you would only be able to get involved if this wasn't about acquiring Greenland. So, I'm just wondering
where the middle ground is here. What might Mark Rutte have suggested?
JARLOV: I have no idea. Absolutely no idea what he has suggested because as far as I know we've not been more than those talks. I certainly haven't.
So, I don't know. But we're willing to talk about a lot of things. If the Americans want to have a stronger military presence in Greenland, door is
wide open. Exploration of minerals is also possible. The Greenlanders have been looking for international investors for a very long time without
really finding any.
And we can talk about a lot of other things. But we can't compromise with the sovereignty and we cannot compromise that the Greenlanders must be in
charge of their country. They don't want to be governed by the Americans. That's something we just can't do and we can't reasonably expect it to
agree to that.
FOSTER: From what I'm reading here, this is now bigger than Greenland anyway. They're talking about defense of the entire Arctic region and
President Trump has mentioned the Golden Dome. So, this is the protection system he wants to create against missiles heading towards America which
may well go over Greenland.
[14:40:00]
You presumably haven't got any opposition to, you know, increasing America's defense capability on the island.
JARLOV: Not at all. I mean they already have that one so-called Space Base in northern Greenland that protects the United States from missiles flying
over the North Pole towards the United States. It does not protect Greenland but it protects the United States. So, there's a difference
between protecting Greenland protecting the United States from Greenland. And the first thing protecting Greenland is done by the Danish military.
The United States does not have troops in Greenland that protect Greenland itself.
And the other thing about protecting the United States is something they're so welcome. The door is wide open. And, you know, they used to have 15,000
troops up there during the height of the Cold War and they've scaled it down to 150 at that one base. Some places the bases are still there.
There's runways, there's buildings, there's a couple of ghost towns where there used to be American bases. They can move right back in. They're more
than welcome.
FOSTER: But it's confusing to think of a future framework when you've basically given all access the Americans want to Greenland in the first
place. Are they going to be able to build whatever they want anyway?
JARLOV: To be honest that is one of our challenges because we can't see what the Americans would gain from an annexation. They already have full
access to Greenland the only thing they would get if they actually annexed Greenland would be that of course the Western alliance will burn down. But
also, they would only get more expenses because Denmark pays for sustaining Greenlandic society today and we also spend a lot of money on defense.
We have invested about $14 billion just in the last year in ships, unmanned planes, radars and many other capacities. So, we're also contributing a lot
to keeping the Arctic safe. And we'll continue to do that and we'll be happy to invest even more. We'll be happy to have a discussion with
Americans if they don't think we're doing enough, let us know what you think is missing and we'll look into that. But we are doing a lot and we
have kept Greenland safe for 650 years.
FOSTER: And a huge contribution to NATO forces always as well. Thank you so much for joining us, Rasmus Jarlov.
Let's bring in Kevin Liptak from Washington to get a bit more on this breaking news out of Washington. Kevin, so we know that the tariffs have
been cancelled on those European countries due to come into effect in February. What I'm interested in is what you think the framework for any
deal might be because it seems very different from what we were hearing earlier on in the day from Donald Trump.
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Absolutely. You can't imagine a bigger reversal. You know, the president, even though he was
ruling out military force earlier today, made pretty explicit that he was going to accept nothing less than full U.S. ownership in Greenland. And
it's impossible to imagine Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, somehow agreeing to that in their meeting that just concluded in the last couple of
hours.
You know, I think it's also notable that in this Truth Social message the president said nothing about agreeing to a framework with Denmark which is
the country whose Greenland is Danish territory. The president didn't necessarily mention having any negotiation with the country who actually
controls that island at the moment. He's leaving it quite vague.
I do think, you know, having talked to officials over the last several days about some of these potential off ramps that the president had in front of
him they did have several that they were at least trying to work through. And when you talk to European diplomats who were in discussions with
American officials in discussions with American lawmakers who had been visiting Europe over the last week, they did have a number of ideas about
how to potentially walk the president down off of this.
And I think the most sort of likely one, in their view, was some sort of enhanced treaty, you know, enhancing the treaty that's already in place
that allows the U.S. to put military bases in Greenland, to put radar, to put missile silos, that sort of thing, and trying to sort of enhance that
up and to create something essentially that the president can come out and sign and sort of make it appear as if he had gotten something out of this
increasingly harsh rhetoric that he had been employing on Greenland.
And so, of course we'll have to see what exactly he's talking about here. He provides exactly zero details about what this framework actually looks
like but it does seem clear that in discussing this with Mark Rutte he was able to come up with something that at least satisfied him -- satisfied his
demands in the near-term. And so, of course we'll have to see what exactly that is.
But I think it's also significant that he has pulled back this tariff threat which had caused, of course, so much concern in European capitals
but had also caused a lot of concern in the markets. And we saw that play out yesterday. And of course, now we're seeing the markets really react
very positively to the president's message that those tariffs are off the table for now. The Dow up about 745 points at the moment.
[14:45:00]
And so, clearly President Trump recognizing that we know that that's something that he responds to quite frequently. But you can't really
imagine a bigger climb down after that speech earlier today to just several hours later saying that he had come up with a tariff threat. And so, we'll
have to see what exactly he's talking about here. with some sort of framework that will satisfy all of his demands.
FOSTER: He talked about the treaty you referred to as well where -- between Denmark and America that they can effectively do whatever they want
in Greenland. This is the point that Danes have been making all along. And I just put it to that Danish lawmaker. He seemed quite baffled about, you
know, any enhanced version of that because they've got complete freedom of access anyway and they can build anything they want on this. It's going to
be interesting to see, you know, how different this is.
There might be an indication, though, Kevin in the post because he says he's not just about Greenland, he's talking about the entire Arctic region,
which may be the reason he's gone to NATO because it's bigger than Denmark and Greenland.
LIPTAK: That is true. And I think the other sort of aspects that the president has been so consumed with, you know, over the last several weeks
is his view that China and Russia are finding their way into Greenland are using the openness that he views that territory having as an inroad to the
Arctic at large. I think it's possible. And you -- I have heard this among officials is that in any sort of enhanced agreement that he creates with
Denmark it would include provisions that would disallow China from operating there in the future.
Now, the Danes have always said that the president's casting this as a major concern at the moment are overblown, you know, they say that they
have not seen evidence that Russia or China are operating in that vicinity at the moment. But that hasn't necessarily eased the president's rhetoric
or the president's concerns. And so, you could see that potentially becoming part of whatever this framework is as well. Some sort of explicit
mandate that those countries are not allowed from basing anything in Greenland or operating in that vicinity.
But you're right, it's always been a question of if the president was so concerned about this why he didn't start reopening some bases in Greenland
as was already allowed in this treaty. You know, during the Cold War there were more than a dozen U.S. military facilities in the country and all but
one of them were closed. There's only that one Space Force base that exists that J. D. Vance had visited earlier this year. The president and his
administration had taken virtually no steps to boost that up despite their concerns and despite the president's increasingly bullish language about
taking over Greenland.
But clearly, Mark Rutte had identified a way to convince the president that he could come out of this essentially saying that he had accomplished
something. And Mark Rutte clearly is someone who knows how President Trump operates very well. He spent a lot of time trying to cultivate him and it
appears at least for now to have worked.
FOSTER: OK. Kevin Liptak, appreciate it. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:50:00]
FOSTER: Let's recap our breaking news. As I mentioned earlier U.S. President Donald Trump's appearance at Davos has created shockwaves on the
world stage. He says he's developed a plan now that would satisfy his demands for Greenland. He said the deal which he discussed with NATO
secretary general meant he wouldn't need to roll out new tariffs on European allies that were against the island's annexation. Mr. Trump added
that more discussions regarding the Golden Dome missile defense system were ongoing and that Greenland would have an essential role within that. Let's
bring Kevin back in. I'm just looking at the markets Kevin. They're up significantly.
LIPTAK: Had been. I mean, even President Trump mentioned in the speech today acknowledged that all of his rhetoric around Greenland had caused an
effect. He called it Iceland when he was speaking but clearly, he meant Greenland. And obviously, we know that the president is acutely attuned to
how the markets are responding to all of this.
Of course, we just don't know at this point what this framework would consist of. The president mentioning a deal not just for Greenland but the
entire Arctic region. And I do think it's worth pointing out that this bid to bolster security in the Arctic is something that the Europeans and that
NATO have in fact been pushing for the last week or so. That is what drove these countries to send those small clutches of troops to Greenland in the
first place that had caught the president's attention and had led him to issue this tariff threat.
And so, this idea that the president is now accepting this deal in a lot of ways it appears to be what had been on the table for a number of days
already.
FOSTER: Stay there Kevin. We're just going to bring in Richard Quest who's at Davos where Trump is as well. Richard what do you have?
RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR-AT-LARGE: OK. So, I'm now in the Congress Center and just standing in front of me is Mark Rutte, the NATO
secretary general. He's on the telephone now having obviously some very serious conversations. But I've had a briefing from Rutte's people and
officials with him are saying that by and large they agree with the Truth Social that was put out by the U.S. president. When I specifically said, so
this phrase being used is a framework being put together, they agreed with that phraseology.
FOSTER: And what do you read into that? Because --
QUEST: Bear with me, Max. (INAUDIBLE) the secretary general is now about to walk past me and I might try and get a question to him as to what he's
asking about. So, just let me -- I realize this is all a bit messy, but he is in front of me at the moment. Now, he's going --
Do you accept the phrase framework, Mr. --
No, he's now walking away again. So, the understanding that I've got is that there is -- that they do -- they were in the room when the Truth
Social was put together and was written. They accept the phrase that a framework of a deal is there. But what they point out is the rest of the
Truth Social, which talks about the negotiations that have to take place, the various parts that need to be put in place around that framework deal.
Wait a minute, here he comes. It looks like he's coming now back to me. So, here comes the NATO secretary general. Just bear with him while I ask him.
Mr. Rutte, do you accept this phrase of framework deal has been put together?
MARK RUTTE, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: I had a very good meeting, but I'll speak to you maybe later and tomorrow, but it was a very good meeting.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The confirmation, is there a deal? Is there framework done?
QUEST: Right. He's now telling us that -- hang on, I need to hear this.
RUTTE: It's something we still have to -- yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, but I'm not going to do a full presentation here. Where are we going to?
[14:55:00]
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just please, what can you confirm? We just depend on the U.S. president so far.
RUTTE: His Truth Social post is exactly to the point. I totally agree with that. It was a very good meeting.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. And what does it read exactly? What does it look like?
RUTTE: Read the Truth Social post and you will see everything.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I read it. But -- details on what --
RUTTE: Not more than you have the Truth Social post, frankly, I think. And also, that there will be more conversations.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK. Does any details you can confirm (INAUDIBLE)? I mean, you just said that there --
QUEST: So, there you are, Max. I don't know how much of that you were able to hear of the secretary general.
FOSTER: Well, he certainly -- he totally agreed with the post. Is that what I heard?
QUEST: That's exactly what he said. He -- they were in the room when it happened. They were in the room when it was written. They agree with that
phraseology.
Now, I think that this is when it's going to be classic Donald Trump. This is when it's going to get very messy. Because Donald Trump has now put out
this Truth Social as a framework -- as a Truth Social being a framework. But what that means --
QUEST: Richard, we're going to come back to you probably at the top of the hour. Because you've got to digest that. But Richard confirming from Mark
Rutte that Truth Social post saying a framework has been agreed about the future of discussions around Greenland. I'll have more after the break with
"What We Know."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:00:00]
END
