Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

DOJ Investigates Anti-ICE Protesters; Disabled Woman Dragged Out of Car and Arrested by ICE; Trump Ramps Up Pressure on Greenland. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired January 19, 2026 - 23:00   ET

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: A source tells CNN the bunker is now being upgraded to meet evolving security threats. Again, it is under what is now the demolished East Wing.

Thank you all for watching "NewsNight." You can watch me in just a few hours, 7 a.m. to 10 a.m., on CNN News Central. I'll be there with Kate Bolduan and Sara Sidner. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Tonight, the DOJ tells anti-ICE protesters who interrupted a Minnesota church service, we're coming after you. But the law they're citing now, last year, they claimed that was weaponized. Plus, she was dragged from her car and detained by federal agents even though she told them she was disabled. Aliya Rahman joins me exclusively to tell her story and also tells us what happened to her after she was detained. And Trump ramps up the pressure on Greenland and says it's linked to him not getting the Nobel Peace Prize. Talk about a grudge. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

So, turns out the FBI did investigate Jonathan Ross. That's the ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Good but only for like a New York minute. The FBI briefly opened a civil rights investigation into him, only to drop it shortly thereafter. But the investigation into Governor Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey and Renee Good's widow and even Renee Good herself, those are still on the table, apparently. And now, investigators are looking into anti-ICE protesters who interrupted a Minnesota church service.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CHANTING)

UNKNOWN: Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you! This is a house of God!

UNKNOWN: Why are you (INAUDIBLE) with the protesters? Why are you not standing up (INAUDIBLE)?

COATES: Now, this is what happened in St. Paul just on Sunday. Now, the demonstrators say that they were protesting an ICE official who also appears to be a pastor at the church. But it's unclear if he was actually there. But Trump's DOJ, they are promising to investigate the people who disrupted this service.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: We are absolutely investigating. Our civil rights unit has already sent experts out to Minneapolis today. The civil rights unit, the U.S. attorney's office, the FBI, DHS is investigating this. It's a crime. And so, they will face a jury. If they're convicted, they will go to prison.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: (INAUDIBLE) or the law the DOJ is accusing these protesters of violating. They're trying a thing called the FACE Act, short for Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Yes, clinics as in reproductive health clinics. But that law also applies to places of worship. And it basically bans force or threats and physical obstruction against people going into abortion clinics or trying to exercise their First Amendment right at a house of worship.

Now, you might be wondering, this ever invoked? Has this been done recently? When was the last time there were major prosecutions under the FACE Act? Well, you know, I looked it up. And it was actually during the last two years under President Biden. And it was done so against anti-abortion activists.

But then guess what? It gets interesting because just three days into Trump's second term and actually the day before the March for Life, he actually pardoned them, nearly two dozen people who were convicted of blocking access to health clinics and sometimes violently doing so. In fact, this is what President Trump said at the time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Twenty-three people were prosecuted. They should not have been prosecuted. Many of them are elderly people. They should not have been prosecuted. This is a great honor to sign this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: (INAUDIBLE) about some of the people who were prosecuted. One is anti-abortion activist Lauren Handy. She's actually 30 years old when she was sentenced to nearly five years in prison for leading a blockade inside of an abortion clinic.

The DOJ says that she and her co-defendants -- here's the quote -- "forcefully entered the clinic and set about blockading two clinic doors using their bodies, furniture, chains and ropes."

One co-defendant pushed a nurse. Another prevented a woman with labor pains from entering. People in that group weren't the only ones actually that got pardoned. Bevelyn Beatty Williams also received one.

[23:05:01]

And she was 33 when she was sentenced to more than three years in prison for blocking patients from entering a Planned Parenthood. Now, her charting document says that she pressed her body against the door, refused to move, and crushed someone's hand who was trying to let a volunteer into the clinic.

Now, the story actually doesn't end with the pardons because interestingly enough, the next day, the Justice Department Civil Rights Division sent out a memorandum, and it accused the federal government of weaponizing the FACE Act. And in it, they said, "Future abortion-related FACE Act prosecutions and civil actions will be permitted only in extraordinary circumstances."

So, that extraordinary circumstances had me wondering when it comes to anti-abortion activists blocking the clinks with chains and ropes. Trump's DOJ at that time called it weaponization.

Now, the other part of the law is implicated, a house of worship. And it was anti-ICE protesters who interrupted that church service. So, I have to wonder now, based on what was done in the past, will they suddenly reverse that directive and try to reactivate FACE once again? Will this be the extraordinary circumstance?

I'm joined now by one of the people who organized this protest and could face an investigation from the Department of Justice, Nekima Levy Armstrong, who's also an attorney. Nekima, thank you for joining me today. I'm sure you've had quite a busy day, as everyone has been, following along with what has been going on.

I want to point right to this, Nekima, because the DOJ, they have said, all but promised, that the Civil Rights Unit, although it's a division, the Civil Rights Unit, they say, is on the ground in Minneapolis tonight, and they are promising to bring charges against you and other protesters. Have you heard from the DOJ? Do you have any indication that you are or will be charged?

NEKIMA LEVY ARMSTRONG, ATTORNEY, ORGANIZER OF PROTEST AGAINST ICE: Hi, Laura. Thank you for having me. No, I have not heard from the DOJ. But I think that it's interesting that the Trump administration will charge everyone except people who are actually violating the law.

For example, we're here still mourning the ICE killing of Renee Good, which happened on January 7th, an innocent mother, an innocent wife who was literally trying to protect her neighbors by showing up in that community, trying to back away. And as we know, ICE agent Jonathan Ross positioned himself in a way to be able to shoot Renee Good multiple times at close range.

However, the Justice Department has announced that they will not be investigating Jonathan Ross, which is absolutely absurd and outrageous because it signals to ICE agents that you can literally kill and get away with it.

And so, to have them trying to crack down on those of us who are not just anti-ICE, but also people of faith -- I'm not just a lawyer and an activist. I am also an ordained reverend and itinerant preacher.

And so, for me, personally, to help lead that protest -- this was about a reckoning. You know, being able to go into a so-called place of Christianity, which is what I believe in, and to find out that one of the pastors, David Easterwood, is not just a pastor, but is also the actual director of the ICE office in St. Paul, Minnesota. So, the federal, the Whipple building that you all hear about, he is the overseer of those ICE agents who are wreaking havoc upon our community. And as a matter of fact --

COATES: Nekima, I want to hear you, I want to finish that point, but I'm very interested in a couple of things you said. I want to unpack. Number one, obviously, without the benefit of an investigation, which everyone has been calling for, they will simply undermine what you have said and say the officer was not violating a law. We can -- you don't have to disagree on that point. We don't have to even talk about it. I'm just saying what they are saying about this officer and why there is no investigation.

But they are saying and they suggest that you have broken the law, the idea of the FACE Act in particular. And because you yourself, as you described, a woman of faith, an ordained minister, there are many who would question your decision to lead a protest into a house of worship. And I've heard anything from, is there no sacred space to why do you say things like so-called Christianity or so-called worship in this particular place?

[23:10:01]

What's your reaction to -- there has been a lot of criticism to your choice of venue and your words now. What's your reaction?

ARMSTRONG: I didn't choose the venue. The venue chose us when they decided to have a pastor --

COATES: Well, you chose -- but you did choose to go to that place in particular, right?

ARMSTRONG: I'm saying in terms of the controversy --

COATES: OK.

ARMSTRONG: -- surrounding this pastor, who is also the director of ICE in St. Paul, Minnesota. And so, as a Christian, as a woman of faith, it was my duty to go into city's church and to confront the situation and to raise awareness to the congregation. I do not have any regrets about going in and raising the question. So --

COATES: What was the question specifically, Nekima? I want to understand. What was your question? I want people to hear the reason and the goal you had for going inside as opposed to outside. What did you want to bring to the congregation's attention?

ARMSTRONG: Absolutely. Yes. So, I want to explain what happened. So, we've heard reports that BLM stormed, you know, city's church, which is absolutely not true. We came in in a very orderly fashion. We participated in the praise and worship that was going on at the church. We participated in the prayer. During the prayer by head pastor, Jonathan Parnell, one of the things that he said is, chasten us, oh Lord, and help us to get our house in order. Once he finished that prayer, I stood up and I said, excuse me, pastor, you just prayed that God would chasten you and also help you get your house in order. And he said, correct. And I said, well, help me understand why David Easterman or Easterwood is a pastor at this church, but also works for ICE.

As I was making, you know, stating this question, the pastor suddenly goes, shame, shame, because he didn't want the rest of the congregation to know about this pastor's double life.

COATES: Well, hold on, Nekima.

ARMSTRONG: And as a matter of fact --

COATES: I'm going to ask you. I'm sorry for the delay. I'm talking over you. But I do want to have this conversation. There are some who -- I'm hearing what you're saying, and it sounds like there's an inconsistency that you feel between working for ICE and being a Christian or being a pastor in this church. Do you believe --

ARMSTRONG: Being a pastor of the church.

COATES: OK. So, do you believe this would extend beyond an ICE agent to law enforcement more broadly? Have you questioned the Christianity or faith of others who work for organizations with which you do not agree?

ARMSTRONG: First of all, I am a Christian --

COATES: I know.

ARMSTRONG: -- just as the people of this church are Christians. And so, I am focusing specifically on the terrorism that ICE has engaged in on our streets, the abuse, the violence, dragging people, actually launching high-grade military weapons in our community, and knowing the fear that exists in our community.

And so, to have someone being a pastor where you think about the pastoral care that they give, the whole foundation of Christianity, which is to love your neighbor as you love yourself, how can you out of one side of your mouth say that that's what you believe and on the other side of your mouth unleash ICE agents upon our community, exploiting people's vulnerabilities, making people afraid to leave their homes, to go to medical appointments, to get groceries, to take their children to school?

The math isn't mathing, Laura. And so, as a Christian, it is my duty. Anyone who has read the Bible knows that Jesus walked boldly into the temple and flipped over the table of the money changers. He said, you're not acting as if this is my father's house. And there are plenty of prophets who showed up in churches, calling out the pharisees and the sadducees. These were so-called religious leaders who professed Christianity but, inside, they were full of dead men's bones. And this is something I take very seriously. My Christianity informs my activism. That's why I'm constantly calling out elected officials, other people in positions of authority who do not follow through on behalf of the people, but who focus on their own interests. So, in this situation --

COATES: The bible does say as well. I mean, look, gosh, my grandfather is somewhere in heaven right now saying, who was also a preacher, is probably partially smiling and partially telling me to read again. But it does say judge -- let's not ye be judged. It does also talk about a well not being able to sprout salt water and fresh water from the same thing.

[23:15:00]

I see the contradiction you're speaking about as you're describing it. However, there's also the law. And what they are pointing to in a search or a request for an investigation will be the idea of why you chose to go inside as opposed to making your viewpoints heard outside of that particular house of worship. Is that the appropriate place to have done so or outside? Which do you think was more in line with your goal and the law?

ARMSTRONG: Absolutely going inside. We were invited inside. And like I said, we participated in the first part of the service. And I stood up and spoke directly to the pastor as a reverend, talking to the pastor, asking a question.

It was the pastor who chose to say shame and not engage me in a civil dialogue when he had the opportunity to do so. He is the one who was trying to conceal this information to his congregation.

And I say this because in the middle of our demonstration, several of the protesters actually engaged parishioners in dialogue around this situation, helping to explain why we were there, helping to talk about the contradiction between Pastor Easterwood serving as both the pastor and serving as the director of ICE. And many of those individuals didn't even know that the pastor was serving in that dual role.

I feel that that is a form of deception. The leadership of the church had a duty to let the congregation know about this pastor's dual role because, again, so many in our community, whether you're an immigrant or an American citizen, are terrified of ICE because of the havoc that they have wreaked upon our community, the unchecked violence, literally dragging people out of their vehicles, out of their homes, pulling guns on people, kicking down people's doors. And these are not exaggerations. These are documented reports.

COATES: Nekima, I'm going to speak to, later in the show, a woman who was actually taken out of her car and hear about her experience. That now viral clip of her being removed. I want to get her insight on this.

I have to wonder whether people will agree with you, that it is the duty of every church or really employer to talk about the role of every one of the congregants. That is a discussion that will have to happen in the public square as is our democracy.

Nekima Levy Armstrong, thank you for joining and explaining your position.

A "Laura Coates Live" exclusive, that very woman I talked about, that ICE dragged out of her car in Minnesota, talking for the first time about the ordeal and directly refuting what ICE, what DHS is claiming about her. We'll hear from her directly next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE).

ALIYA RAHMAN, DISABLED WOMAN DRAGGED OUT OF CAR AND ARRESTED BY ICE: (INAUDIBLE). I'm disabled. (INAUDIBLE).

COATES: By now, you've probably seen this video from Minneapolis. A woman being dragged from her car while driving through a protest against President Trump's immigration crackdown. She was arrested two blocks from where an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good a week before.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You heard her screaming, I'm disabled, as agents carried her by her arms and her legs from her own car. Tonight, we know her name, Aliya Rahman. In just a minute, you'll hear from her for the first time in an exclusive interview. Aliya says she was never part of the protest that day. She was simply just trying to go to her doctor's appointment. But in a statement, the Homeland Security Department called Rahman a --quote -- "agitator," adding she -- quote -- "ignored multiple commands by an officer to move her vehicle away from the scene." She was arrested for obstruction.

The Minneapolis police chief, Brian O'Hara, he watched the video. He sees it differently.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHIEF BRIAN O'HARA, CHIEF, MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT: Obviously, I don't know why law enforcement officers initially approached the vehicle. It pisses me off to see that, to see men doing that to a woman who's disabled. It pisses me off. If those cops work for me, they'd have a problem right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: With me now, Aliya Rahman and her attorney, Alexa Van Brunt. Thank you both for being here. Aliya, I want to start with you because this has been viral. People have seen this video over and over again. People have many opinions. This is what happened to you. It is your life. It is your journey. But the government, they're calling you an agitator. So, can you just help me understand? Walk me through what happened in those moments before these agents dragged you from your car.

RAHMAN: Yes. Thank you for having me. Happy birthday, Dr. King. I'm really happy that you asked this question, right? Because I have been so concerned that folks might be distracted from the real issue at hand by instead debating why I proceeded slowly through a militarized traffic jam full of pedestrians and a cacophony of conflicting instructions.

I was on my way to the doctor. I was on a main road. That is a direct road from my house to the parking lot. Suddenly, there's traffic in the road. There are vehicles blocking it ahead, vehicles that later I understood were ICE vehicles. People around me trying to understand what to do. And I think that you see the rest.

[23:24:58]

COATES: So, you weren't -- I mean, in beginning of the video, you see the federal agents saying something to you before you were dragged out. They say that you were given what they call repeated warnings. I just heard you say, this cacophony of conflicting commands. What were they saying to you? What did you understand to be happening?

RAHMAN: Well, I think I didn't understand what was happening, right? I am a disabled person who has autism, right? That is a big piece of this. But I think even someone who doesn't have the kind of auditory process and challenges I do would not know what to do with the sentence, move, I will break your effing window, and then back and forth between move, get out, trying to open my door, more threats of breaking a window, which I don't understand the functional purpose of. And I -- it's not a warning. It's a threat of violence. That really shouldn't be packaged with an instruction.

Yes, I mean, I'm happy to tell you about what my ears hear in that situation, but in my ears, my autism also comes with an auditory sorting challenge where multiple human voices like a loud party or on a chaotic street all sound like they're the person talking to me. So, that's one reason why you see me looking and trying to identify which lips are talking to me. But, of course, that's not possible because ICE officers wear things that cover their mouths and faces except for their eyes, right?

COATES: So, it's -- it is so informative for you to explain what it was personally like for you, for us to have watched the video and now to understand at least a part of what you were experiencing in that, because there is a conflicting report from their vantage point that tries to explain what you were thinking or feeling, and you've done it yourself.

But I want to be clear, you say you were not there to protest ICE. You were there on your way to an appointment, and you stopped in the traffic, and they got the conflicting reports and commands. Were you there to protest ICE? Had you ever protested ICE before in that arena? RAHMAN: No.

COATES: So, when you went that day and you were detained, as you said, what was that like for you once you were? What happened after they took you?

RAHMAN: Number one, I experienced a very specific set of dehumanization practices during the six stages of detention and processing that I counted before I went unconscious and was taken out in an ambulance. Number two, during every one of those stages, I clocked ICE agents doing things that indicated they were not aware of what their job was or how to do it.

Lots of, where's this? What do we do next? You know, agents had to stop at all five stages. Agents had to stop, ask someone else what to do, where basic things were. There were local staff who seemed to know some of that thing. But I distinctly heard two of them at one point say to each other, we don't want to step on ICE's toes, when I was trying to get medical care.

And the third is that the practices I experienced with like my own body, ears and eyes do not make sense to me as an immigration or public safety strategy because they make things less safe. And honestly, I was not separated from a citizen of any other country. I think people believe this is just immigrants in there. And it is not. I was told that if I were a normal human, nothing would be a problem.

COATES: They said that to you?

RAHMAN: We have now heard from -- oh, yes. You know, when I asked for disability accommodations and I said, did anybody bring my cane with me from the car? I need that to walk. Not stand but walk because my balance is bad. They said, there's no canes here. They stood me up in leg irons and said, walk, pushed my back. Walk, you can do it. Nobody said, maybe we should find something else. There was no medical screening. I was never once asked for my I.D. Even told I was under arrest, never charged.

COATES: Wow.

RAHMAN: And when they -- yes. I sat there and somebody finally noticed I was, you know, not able to balance, even sitting. And they said, I think there might've been a wheelchair around here the other day, because I kept asking, can you at least get a wheelchair? People said, I don't even know if we have those. That's not the answer to that question. That's never should be happening.

[23:29:57]

And when they put me in the wheelchair, finally, an officer said, wait, you were driving, right? So, your legs do work.

COATES: What?

RAHMAN: You know, I refrained from saying -- yes. I refrained from saying, hey, have you ever seen a handicap parking spot, sir? What -- but the thing is, right, people are going to say, well, none of that stuff is illegal. It's just me. But I have read too many books to think that things are OK when this level of dehumanization is happening because it means officers are probably trying to get through their day when they have been given orders that are not righteous and they are to hurt people.

COATES: Alexa, I have to ask you. And (INAUDIBLE), forgive me. My own sister is mobility impaired. She drives with the assistance, had to accommodate and adapt her car so many different times to be able to still function and live in the same way that she wants to. I get emotional thinking about it. But my blood is boiling thinking about --

ALEXA VAN BRUNT, ATTORNEY FOR ALIYA RAHMAN: Yes.

COATES: -- that experience. So, can you just describe from the legal perspective of it?

VAN BRUNT: Yes.

COATES: She has been -- was detained. The DHS says --

VAN BRUNT: Right.

COATES: -- that she was arrested for obstruction.

VAN BRUNT: Yes.

COATES: Are you aware if she is facing any charges? I have to for a second compartmentalize the dehumanization just to get through the question. You have to forgive me. Have you heard if she is facing any charges?

VAN BRUNT: I have not heard. And if she were, they would be completely baseless because the people who violated laws at that scene were the DHS officers. And in particular, every officer and the way they treated her, once they found out she had a disability, because Aliya was very upfront about it. She told the officers, I am a woman with a disability, I have autism. She yelled it. You can hear it on the video.

And they escalated at that point, and then subjected her to a very brutal use of force, pulling her out of the car, slamming her down on the ground, and then carrying her like an animal, is the only way to describe it. That violates every police standard and how you're supposed to interact with somebody in a car. And it violates every standard and how you're supposed to interact with somebody with a disability.

COATES: Do you plan on taking legal action?

VAN BRUNT: We're in the investigative stage right now. We've been very lucky because so many people did catch not only the small segment of video that we've seen on the news, but much longer tape of the entire incident showing the blockade of the entire street, which Aliya said is a major thoroughfare and not a protest site in Minnesota. It is how people get through towns, how they go north. And it's certainly the only way that Aliya could get to the doctor that morning.

So, we've been collecting video, we've been collecting evidence, we're talking to witnesses and, yes, we're investigating our options for legal recourse because, as I said, there were a lot of legal violations happening at that scene. And people should be held accountable because, certainly, DHS is not holding its own agents accountable.

COATES: Aliya, I want to give you the last word here because I'm concerned. How are you doing now? This must have been extremely traumatizing. And every time you speak about it, it must be very triggering to even recall. How are you?

RAHMAN: I am not afraid. City of Minneapolis is beating back the siege of Minneapolis. We are winning. So, there are more of us than them, and there always will be. And that is keeping me moving. We're going to win this thing. We are. We're powerful.

COATES: Aliya Rahman, Alexa Van Brunt, thank you both for sharing.

VAN BRUNT: Thank you, Laura. Really appreciate being here.

COATES: Still ahead, America's allies, well, they are watching in disbelief as the president intensifies his push to acquire Greenland, threatening tariffs, and very clearly saying that his peace prize snub, that's factoring into his decision. So, is Europe about to hit back? Congressman Eugene Vindman joins me on that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Norway's prime minister says he got a text from President Trump yesterday. I want to read some of that text. "Dear Jonas: Considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America."

He's talking about the United States acquiring Greenland and as what's good and proper for the United States. It was a response to some European leaders who had texted him on Saturday asking if he could deescalate following his new threat to raise tariffs on European countries opposed to U.S. control of Greenland.

I'm joined now by Democratic Congressman Eugene Vindman. He's also a retired army colonel and a member of the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman, thank you for being here. You heard the president. He says that Greenland is necessary for national security.

[23:40:00]

Of course, this text implies that he no longer has to think of -- quote, unquote -- "peace" after not getting the Nobel Peace Prize. I think I know the answer to this question already when I asked it, but is this the way to negotiate with our allies?

REP. EUGENE VINDMAN (D-VA): No, Laura. Thanks for having me tonight. You know, it's dumb and destructive. We have a treaty with Denmark that allows us basically full access to Greenland for national security purposes. There is no reason why the president ought to be engaging in this. And, frankly, I'm at a loss, and I think it is time to break glass. We're rapidly approaching an emergency situation here.

COATES: But what's behind that break glass? It's often the critique of people in Congress. It's the idea of, OK, we're hitting it. But what is the power, what is that mechanism behind it?

VINDMAN: Yes. Well, first of all, the reason why it's a break glass situation is because Denmark is obviously a NATO ally. NATO stood shoulder to shoulder with us in the wake of 9-11. In fact, 43 Danish soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. And so, they've bled and died with us. And now, we're threatening them.

Congress has a role. I need just a handful of my Republican colleagues to actually stand up and recognize that this is a serious situation. It's not a joke. It's not a laughing matter. And our national security and our standing in the world is at stake.

COATES: Well, the president, though, continues to insist that Greenland is crucial when it comes to the U.S. national security. And he's arguing that if the U.S. does not take Greenland, eventually, Russia, China might, and then Denmark can't stop them. Is that really the case at all?

VINDMAN: No. It's a lie. If either one of those countries attacked Greenland, because Greenland is a territory of Denmark, Article 5 partner, the United States and all of NATO would have an obligation to come to the defense. So, that is a lie. The United States does have important national security interests in Greenland, and so does all of NATO.

We're talking about our partners, we're talking about our allies here. It's not just the U.S. alone. It's the U.S. with our partners and allies. This president seems to think that he needs to demonstrate strength and aggression towards our allies and weakness towards our adversaries. I mean, that's what he has done in the year since he has taken office in Russia, a Russia-Ukraine war. He has promised to end the war, and he has not taken any steps, really concrete steps to do that.

COATES: I want to play for you what a member of Danish parliament said tonight talking to my colleague, Jim Sciutto. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RASMUS JARLOV, DANISH MP: We will, of course, defend Greenland. If there is an invasion by American troops, it would be a war, and we would be fighting against each other. We know that the Americans are stronger than us and you have a much stronger military than ours, but it is our duty to defend our land and our people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: My God. Could this escalate into an armed conflict the way he has described?

VINDMAN: Well, this president is obviously enamored with military force. I mean, just think about the last year. We've had strikes in Yemen, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, and most recently Syria. So, this president is enamored with the tool, the really exquisite tool that the U.S. military is.

But to use that against a NATO ally, I mean, can you -- I mean, just listening to the politician, the Danish politician talk about having to defend himself from American aggression. It's just outrageous. It's practically inconceivable.

And we have to do something as Congress, as a co-equal branch of government to stop it. The margin in the House is so narrow that we literally need just a handful of Republicans to finally see the light.

COATES: Do you have that handful? Behind the scenes, have they said anything?

VINDMAN: You know, there are a number of my colleagues -- there's a lot of grumbling. But, you know, it doesn't matter until they're ready to come out publicly and actually stand against this president's policies. I've heard grumbling behind closed doors, whether it's related to Venezuela or other activities of the president that the Republicans feel powerless.

But they're the majority power party. And if they can't manage to act as a majority, they don't deserve to lead. And we're now less than 10 months from the midterm elections. I mean, kick them all out. Either lead or get out of the way.

[23:45:00]

COATES: Congressman Eugene Vindman, daunting times. Thank you.

VINDMAN: Thank you.

COATES: I mean, so, will Republicans come out and oppose the president on this or will they look the other way? The panel is here to debate all of that next. Plus, what Secretary Scott Bessent said about the tariffs in Greenland that might have undermined the administration as the law, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): We need a commander in chief, not a Twitterer in chief. We need someone with judgment and the temperament to keep this country safe. I don't know anyone who would be comfortable with someone who behaves this way having his finger on the button. I mean, we're liable to wake up one morning and Donald, if he were president, would have nuked Denmark.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: That was Ted Cruz 10 years ago during the Republican primary against then candidate Trump.

[23:50:00]

Well, here's Senator Cruz now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CRUZ: I want to commend President Trump for being single-mindedly focused on America First, on U.S. economic interest and U.S. national security interest. I believe it is overwhelmingly in America's national interest to acquire Greenland.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: How's that for a 16 flashback? I want to talk about it with T.W. Arrighi, former communications aide to Senator Lindsey Graham, and Neera Tanden, former domestic policy advisor to President Biden.

First, I want to begin with what we just heard the president say. He had a gaggle outside of the championship game. Indiana won. Sorry to spoil it for everyone. But he's on his way to Davos. And here's what he said about what's going on. He said, if anyone thinks that Norway doesn't control the Nobel Prize, they're just kidding. They have a board, but it's controlled by Norway. And I don't care what they -- you know what? Let's play it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: If anybody thinks that Norway doesn't -- doesn't control the Nobel Prize, they're just kidding. They have a board, but it's controlled by Norway. And I don't care what Norway says.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: OK. Well, is it Greenland? Is it Norway? Is it the Nobel Prize? What? Unpack this for me, T.W. Obviously, what he's focused on, he cares most about. The Nobel Peace Prize remains a fixation even through his conversation about acquiring Greenland and talking about national security. Why this fixation?

T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUSH DIGITAL GROUP, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS AIDE TO LINDSEY GRAHAM AND MIKE POMPEO: I think he has had it for a long time. I think starting when Barack Obama was awarded it before he even did anything in office, and he sees the successes he's having internationally, and saying, why not me? We can disagree with whether he should be worried that much about it or not, but he is.

Greenland is a separate matter altogether. And I hate bringing this up all the time, but it's good to know this is not even close to a new matter. Since 1867, we've been talking about the strategic importance of Greenland, its natural resources. "The Wall Street Journal" today had some really powerful maps, talking about Greenland and why it's so important.

COATES: But he's not talking about those maps. He's talking about Norway which, again, does not actually control the Nobel Peace Prize, just so we're very clear. He doesn't believe them.

ARRIGHI: Yes. I don't know much about --

COATES: But you're talking about -- well, maybe you'll win one day.

(LAUGHTER)

But he -- and give it to Trump. But he is not talking about the maps. He's not focusing on the things. Whatever you're going to say, I know it's going to be probably well-thought out and tied to a national security interest. That's not what Trump is saying at all.

ARRIGHI: Well, maybe not in that clip, but he has been talking about Greenland and the importance of Greenland for a while now. Like I said, it's not a new thing. Look, this is a president of action. Like him or dislike him, he's a president of action. You heard the congressman right before mentioned some of the strikes that Donald Trump has put forward this term, whether it be in Africa, whether it in the Middle East, those were actually good things. That stopped killing. That took away a nuclear program off the map.

Now we say, hey, look, we have China building the polar Silk Road, we have Russia, 2007, planting a flag in the North Pole. This is a man of action. We're not just going talk about it, we're going to do something about it.

COATES: Neera?

NEERA TANDEN, POLITICAL CONSULTANT, DEMOCRATIC THINK TANK, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: What is the thing he's going to do about it? What is he going to do? Is he going to make us all pay higher tariffs for punishing European allies? Is he going to threaten a military invasion or do a military invasion? When you say he's a man of action, what is the action that you think is justified to basically take over Greenland?

ARRIGHI: I think this is all one big negotiation tactic by Donald Trump.

TANDEN: OK.

ARRIGHI: So --

TANDEN: So, I think that's an important point.

ARRIGHI: I think having ownership of that island is a massive and important deal for America.

TANDEN: OK. COATES: I want to play for a second before you respond. What do you had to say to Jim Sciutto earlier tonight? Actually -- do we have this? So, this was earlier today. The prime minister talking about the Nobel Peace Prize. But then earlier today, a Danish parliamentarian spoke to Jim Sciutto, Neera, and said essentially that they have a duty to defend Greenland, from Denmark. They'd have that duty.

And this is somebody -- we heard from Congressman Vindman who talked about the sacrifices that the Danish have made post 9-11 as well as the United States, and the idea of a conflict between them and the United States military who he acknowledges lethal, strong military. What is the reaction?

TANDEN: With all due respect, I have to say, I think this whole conversation is insane. OK? The United States has access to Greenland. It has access to military bases. It could build more military bases. Just because the president is interested in something doesn't mean it makes any sense at all. OK?

The idea that we are threatening our NATO allies with military action is actually crazy. We don't have to act like it's normal. Republicans don't have to justify and rationalize it.

[23:55:00]

They could just actually put the country first and say it does not make sense to destroy the NATO alliance. The singular strength of America has been behind the NATO alliance. Destroying the NATO alliance actually helps Russia and China. It's odd to destroy the NATO alliance and say you're doing it to strengthen our relationship vis-a- vis China. That actually doesn't make any sense.

But can I just say an additional point here? It's that the president himself is -- what makes this totally crazy is the president's own words, which is it's really about a Nobel Peace Prize for himself. We don't have to rationalize it. His own words are there. We don't have to go around and say it's this or that. It's what he has actually said.

COATES: Quick.

ARRIGHI: Laura, we heard that Donald Trump was torturing the NATO alliance when he was demanding they meet their defense obligations. And they actually did. They boosted --

TANDEN: I mean, that is total --

(CROSSTALK)

-- ending the NATO alliance.

ARRIGHI: Here's the problem.

TANDEN: Nor was he actually threatening military action.

ARRIGHI: Here's the broader problem. Here's the broader problem. When everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency. This is in the strategic interest of our country, and we should --

TANDEN: Maybe it's an actual emergency.

COATES: The debate continues. T.W., Neera, thank you both so much. And thank you all for watching. "The Story Is with Elex Michaelson" is up next with a big underdog win in the college football national championship.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)