Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
Trump Speaks At World Economic Forum Amid Push For Greenland; Trump Makes Thinly Veiled Threat To Europe Over Greenland; ICE Agents Using New Mobile App During Crackdown; Mexico Sends 37 Alleged Criminals To U.S. Under White House Pressure; Supreme Court Considers Trump's Bid To Fire Lisa Cook. Aired 12-1p ET
Aired January 21, 2026 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:00:35]
ZAIN ASHER, CNN ANCHOR: President Donald Trump said he will not use force to acquire Greenland.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: The second hour of "One World" starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What I'm asking for is a piece of ice. It's a very small ask.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The president of the United States is on a mission. He says the U.S. won't take Greenland by force, but there are other options on the
table. What are they and will they work? We'll ask a spokesperson for the Trump administration.
ASHER: Also ahead, mass abduction in Nigeria. Moments ago, we spoke to the foreign minister here. What his government is doing to make incidents like
this a thing of the past?
Plus.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VALERIA LEON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is the third operation of its kind in just one year, something unprecedented in the relationship
between the two countries.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Ninety-two prisoners and counting. Who are they and why are they being sent to the United States in the first place?
ASHER: And later, diving deep with Michelle Obama, the former first lady reveals how she knew Barack was different.
All right. Coming to you live from New York, I'm Zain Asher.
GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. You're watching the second hour of "One World."
The European Union says that it's indefinitely freezing work on a trade deal that's been under discussion with the United States, creating an even
deeper fracture in the fragile transatlantic alliance.
ASHER: Yes. It comes after President Donald Trump lashed out at Europe during his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos and doubled down on
his threats to take over Greenland.
Trump says he wouldn't use military force to grab the island, Danish territory that NATO has pledged to defend. But he did call for immediate
negotiations to acquire what he referred to as a big, beautiful piece of ice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: 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.
They have a choice. You can say, yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say, no, and we will remember.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Trump said that the U.S. needs Greenland to build a defensive Golden Dome for America's and the world's security.
CNN's Nic Robertson is in Nuuk, Greenland. But first, let's go to Kevin Liptak, who's joining us live in Washington.
So, Kevin, I guess the big announcement here from the president is that the military option is not on the table in terms of the president's desire to
acquire Greenland. He didn't get into the tariff threat, though.
Is that still on the table against those countries that -- and I guess it ultimately comes down to Greenland, but then the other eight E.U. or NATO
countries that have also joined in military exercises recently that the president threatened tariffs against, are they still on the table?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: It appears as if they are and the president, even though he uttered those four words, I won't use
force, I think still very much intent on fulfilling this goal of annexing Greenland, of bringing it under U.S. control and making very clear that he
didn't see anything short of that as acceptable, essentially saying he needed the title to that entire island because otherwise, psychologically,
he didn't think it would make sense to come to Greenland's defense.
And so, I think if you were a European official listening to this speech, certainly those four words would have been welcome. And if you were looking
for sort of any kind of glimmer of hope amid this sort of generational rupture in the transatlantic alliance, I think you would have been pleased
at that.
But otherwise, this was not a very friendly speech from the president. It was combative. It was sort of meant to humiliate some of these European
leaders in a lot of ways when the president said that if the United States had not come to Europe's defense during World War II, that they would all
be speaking German and a little bit of Japanese.
And when it comes to the tariffs, the president certainly not backing down against this tool that has caused so much consternation in European
capitals.
Now, we should note that that tariff threat remains on the table for now. We don't necessarily know how the Supreme Court will rule. They're
considering whether these tariffs are indeed legal and constitutional, but clearly, the president remains intent on using those as the centerpiece of
both his economic policy and his foreign policy.
[12:05:10]
You know, I think the underpinning of this speech, you know, it's a long speech. It was meandering, like most Trump's speeches are at this point. We
should note he referred to Greenland as Iceland four times in this speech.
I think if there was sort of a consistent theme, it was this very sort of downtrodden approach to Europe. He said that many of his friends just don't
recognize it anymore, really kind of castigating the leaders for economic policies and immigration policies he said had essentially ruined a once
great continent.
And you could see him kind of weave that throughout this speech, really kind of berating some of these leaders for policy decisions that they had
taken in their own countries over time. And really kind of linking that to this bid to take over Greenland, suggesting that Europe had so sort of
degraded itself over the past half century or so that they was no longer able to defend this very strategically critical piece of land and also
castigating NATO itself, questioning whether NATO would come to the United States as defense, despite the fact that over the course of its history,
the only time it has evoked Article Five is after 9/11.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Kevin Liptak, thank you.
Let's bring in Nic Robertson, who is in Nuuk, Greenland.
ASHER: Nic, just in terms of the reaction that we've seen so far from Greenlanders over Trump's speech, as Kevin mentioned, it was meandering.
Obviously, he insulted a lot of European allies, but he did mention one key thing that I'm sure a lot of Greenlanders would have been pleased to hear.
This idea that for now, military action, in order to take over Greenland is off the table.
Do Greenlanders actually trust Trump to keep his word?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: I think in a word, no. They really hope that he might or they hope that he will, but I -- but I
don't think that they've seen anything in his language today and -- and the way that he articulated himself or even the way that he talked about
Greenland, a big lump of ice.
That's 57,000 people who live here have just been told that their home, the place that they love, that their -- that their parents grew up and their
ancestors grew up in, all of that is a lump of ice.
So the language that he was using to sort of belittle and berate European countries, European leaders, he's really, in a way, used a similar, if you
will, phraseology to describe Greenland, not in a positive way.
And there was nothing in that speech that President Trump gave that was an outreach to the -- to the people of Greenland, a positive thing.
In fact, for many of them, it will have reinforced the way they feel that outsiders talk about Greenland as -- as a strategic location, as an asset
of resources, as somewhere to develop and all of that's alien to them. They don't see it that way and they worry, you know, in the way that President
Trump described developing it for resources that that will harm the country. Of course, there is a huge worry that president might have gone
ahead and -- and invaded.
And I think at that point, you know, we've heard from the government today, the government of Greenland has -- has issued an 11-page pamphlet for the
population of what to do in a crisis. Keep five days of water, have dried food, dried fish, dried meat. Hunting is a good source of food in a time of
crisis, this says, have weapons and ammunition available.
So the government here is still preparing the people here of Greenland for a worst-case scenario. And that's part of -- part of the concern and then
the other part is just the negotiating tactics President Trump will use against European partners, that concern that they want the Europeans to
keep the united position supporting Greenlanders in their -- in their sovereignty.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Nic Robertson in Nuuk, Greenland. Thank you.
ASHER: All right. Let's bring in Tommy Pigott. He is the principal deputy spokesperson at the U.S. State Department and that's where he joins us
live. Thank you so much for being with us.
So, obviously, we all watched Donald Trump's speech there at Davos. I think my first question to you if -- is that if Denmark refuses to sell Greenland
to the United States, if military action, military intervention at this point in time is off the table, and if E.U. allies, at least for now, are
standing up to the U.S., even in the face of tariffs, then what exactly is President Trump's strategy to ensure that the U.S. still is able to take
over Greenland?
TOMMY PIGOTT, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY SPOKESPERSON, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT: Well, look, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals, lots of ifs that need to
happen to answer that question. But what I will stress is the president has made the compelling case for why the United States needs to own Greenland
and how that will benefit the people of Greenland, the NATO alliance and the security of the United States.
[12:10:15]
The primary responsibility of each NATO partner is to defend their own territory. It's the primary responsibility of each NATO partner to defend
that territory.
And the United States is the only NATO partner that can defend Greenland from the modern-day threats that we have seen, the encroachment from our
adversaries. The president continues to make that case and have these hard conversations with our security partners.
Hard conversations about security need to happen with our security partners to make sure that we are addressing the modern threats that we all face.
GOLODRYGA: Tommy, you mentioned modern-day threats. It's interesting because the president was arguing that one of the justifications for the
U.S. acquire in Greenland was that more Americans died in defense of Greenland than Danes in World War II, and then suggesting that Denmark is
just not serious in its own defense. We're talking about some 80 years ago.
We do know that fast forward, the one time that Article Five was invoked, Danish soldiers, as well as many other European soldiers, but I believe the
most per capita from Denmark served alongside the United States, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. And it's also notable that I didn't know this
factoid, that outside of the United States, the Fourth of July is celebrated the most with the biggest ceremony in Denmark.
So, what is the logic then? And is it U.S. policy to judge our relationships with other countries and their military standards today based
on what occurred 80 years ago?
PIGOTT: Well, he's offering a historical analysis, but also an analysis of the threats we face. That was also part of that speech, of course, the
strategic location of Greenland, but the modern-day weaponry, the modern threats that the NATO alliance faces.
As the president stressed, this is about having a strong NATO alliance. He also wants to see a strong Europe. He stressed that again and again in that
speech.
But he also stressed that the only NATO partner, as I said, that can ensure Greenland's defense is the United States. That is what he's talking about
here. And we need to have these hard conversations with our security partners in order to have that robust alliance.
And one additional piece of context here is that it was because of the president's leadership that we've seen the five percent increase of GDP
spending commitments from our NATO allies that have actually revitalized that alliance.
So the president, of course, is committed to a strong NATO alliance and the U.S. ownership of Greenland, as the president said, would contribute to
that.
ASHER: Tommy, let me reframe my first question for you slightly differently. Just in terms of how the president is actually going to go
about to force a sale of Greenland at this point in time, that is what I'm curious about, especially when you consider the fact that Denmark has, of
course, said, no, Trump has come out today and said multiple times in that speech, it's not going to be any military intervention at all in terms of
his means of acquiring the island.
And on top of that, European leaders are standing up to the U.S. and not caving in because of the tariff threat.
So, what is the president's strategy now for trying to take over Greenland?
PIGOTT: Well, look, we're seeing engagement with our allies and partners. We're seeing conversations on this. The president has an array of options.
And I'm not going to predict what option the president will choose to use, but he's making that compelling case at Davos. He's making that compelling
case to our NATO allies and to the American people.
He's making it again and again. And we're seeing engagement throughout his time there on this issue as well as other issues of concern.
So the president is going to continue making this argument and we'll see how the president proceeds when he decides to proceed on certain options.
But the president has an array of options to make sure, again, that we're having this ownership of Greenland that would benefit Greenlanders, the
NATO alliance and the American people.
GOLODRYGA: So to use a line that we've heard from a number of administration officials might makes right, wouldn't that apply then to a
united force of NATO, which as you rightly correct, because the president as well as his predecessors, but specifically this president had really
made it an issue that all NATO members contribute more to their own defense budgets.
Would that not be a bigger threat to U.S. adversaries, a collective stronger NATO, which we should note the U.S. has been underfunding its --
its amount of resources dedicated to the Arctic now for years? Wouldn't it be a bigger threat to stand up to our adversaries as a collective unit than
as a fractured one?
PIGOTT: Well, you're acting like those two things are mutually exclusive. As the president indicated today, the United States owning Greenland would
make NATO stronger, so we're seeing that defense spending.
And many of the same arguments actually were made at the time when the president was calling for this increase in defense spending, when he was
initially calling for this and then of course because of his leadership, we saw those commitments.
But we're going to see a stronger NATO if the U.S. owns Greenland, for all the reasons the president outlined.
Again, it is the primary responsibility of each NATO country to defend the territory they have that's in the charter.
[12:15:00]
And the United States is the only NATO partner that can ensure the defense of Greenland from the encroachment on our adversaries given the modern-day
threats that we see. So the president, again, making that case that it will lead to a stronger NATO. It's better for Greenlanders and it's better for
the United States.
ASHER: Just in terms of one of the tools that the president is using right now and that is the threat of tariffs against a lot of E.U. partners,
obviously, tariffs, as we have seen time and time again throughout the past year, they usually invite mirror responses. We've seen a number of E.U.
countries talking about counter tariffs.
There is a massive economic setback at stake here for American exporters who rely on the European market. There are a lot of economic risks involved
in this particular strategy for the United States, right Tommy?
PIGOTT: Well, we've seen tariffs deliver results for the United States, talking about the broader tariff strategy in general. $20 trillion are
close to it coming into the United States in the form of investments.
We've seen factories come back to the United States. We've seen trade agreements across the world that were made possible because of President
Trump's leadership and the tool of tariffs that is instituted.
So we've seen tariffs deliver real results for the American people both on the economic front but also on other fronts. There's been tariffs enacted
for other purposes as well.
It's a tool the president uses to great effect for the national interests of the United States. And we've seen time and time again the agreements
that it's led to has benefited the United States, has benefited those other countries that have entered into these agreements.
And ultimately, when it comes to trade, balanced relationships lead to stronger relationships. That's one of the key points the president is
making.
GOLODRYGA: Tom, if I can pivot to Iran, we have more U.S. assets that are moving into the region including F-15s, a carrier strike group as well.
This coming after the rhetoric from the president of the United States has increasingly been more acrimonious and dire in terms of the legitimacy of
the Iranian regime saying that the country needs new leadership, telling those protesters last week that help was on the way.
Given that language, given the movement of assets, can we expect some sort of kinetic or non-kinetic U.S. response in the coming days?
PIGOTT: Well the president, as he's indicated, as the press secretary has indicated, retains his options. It's a situation he is monitoring
incredibly closely.
We've seen some action the president has taken regarding sanctions, regarding tariffs, for example, in both those instances.
And I think the broader context here is also incredibly important. From day one of this administration, you have had an administration that has enacted
a maximum pressure policy against the Iranian regime to make sure the Iranian regime does not have the revenues necessary to fund their malicious
activities, to fund their terrorist proxies, to fund a nuclear program that was obliterated by the president.
And so what you have in the Iranian regime is that a regime that's wasted its vast wealth not on -- it hasn't funded infrastructure for water, food
or energy, instead it's wasted that wealth on its malign activities and we have a maximum pressure policy to address that.
GOLODRYGA: No one is disagreeing with you, but when we're showing this headline below you that says the president is ready to, quote, wipe them
off the face of this earth. Does that mean regime change? Does that mean something similar to what we saw with Maduro and Venezuela? Is this a
strike on the leadership itself with a missile of sorts? What does he mean when he uses that language?
PIGOTT: Well, the president, again, retains his options. I believe in that certain circumstances referring to an interview on NewsNation regarding
reports that there were assassination attempts or otherwise.
I'm not going to predict or rule out options or say what the president is going to do. But what I can say is that we have a maximum pressure policy
that president is monitoring this incredibly closely and he retains his options to address this issue.
ASHER: All right. Tommy Piggott, live for us. Appreciate your time. Thank you.
PIGOTT: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Thanks, Tommy.
Well, turning now to Nigeria where authorities are dealing with another mass kidnapping.
ASHER: Yes. These are scenes, take a look here, from a church in northern Kaduna where the head of the Christian Association of Nigeria says that
more than 170 worshippers were kidnapped during services over the weekend. Nine people have since been returned. Police confirmed that they were aware
of the abductions.
Last hour, we spoke with Nigeria's foreign minister who told us security challenges in his country are part of a bigger picture.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YUSUF MAITAMA TUGGAR, NIEGRIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: It's very important to see the conflict for what it is. It's a regional conflict that has spilled over
into Nigeria. It is not removed from the conflict in the Sahel. It's not removed from what happened in Libya many years ago.
It's not removed from the proliferation of weaponry, of fighters and climate change issues and so many other complex issues. So it's important
to look at it holistically and come up with a lasting solution and that's what we're trying to do.
And I think with regards to narratives, it's also important to see Nigeria for what it is, a very diverse country that actually has not fed badly
compared to countries that are more homogenous, that we have been living with each other in -- in peace, in spite of some of the fringe or -- or
even conflict areas, in border areas that, yes, now cascading downwards, but very important to define it for what it is so that we can find the
right solutions.
[12:20:30]
We have forest guards. We have several other initiatives. In fact, we have done very well with the fight against Boko Haram. We were trying to sort
out the thousands that had surrendered. Some were innocent victims caught in conflict areas until the coup in Niger and Niger pulled out of the
multinational joint task force.
That was working so well because it allows for the right of pursuit. It allows for soldiers, Nigerian soldiers to pursue terrorists into Niger and
vice versa.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: All right. Really important conversation that we have there. Hopefully we'll follow up with him.
Well, they say that a picture is worth a thousand words, but when it comes to ICE, how those pictures are captured is sparking controversy. We'll look
at agents' use of mobile phones in the field, up next.
ASHER: Plus, Mexico sends dozens of alleged gang members to the U.S. under pressure from the Trump administration.
GOLODRYGA: Plus, you're looking at what may be a key piece of evidence tied to Sunday's high-speed train crash in Spain. Experts say it may hold
important clues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: All right. At least one person has died and 37 others were injured on Tuesday after a community train derailed near Barcelona in Spain. The
accident coming just two days after Spain's worst railway disaster in many years.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. We also want to show you some new video tied to Sunday's deadly crash. Experts say it could be a chunk from the undercarriage of the
high-speed train and may hold clues as to what caused the crash killing that killed at least 42 people.
Search teams located this large piece of metal submerged in a small stream near the crash site.
ASHER: U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi made an unannounced visit to Minneapolis on Tuesday and she brought a message for the state's leaders.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[12:25:00]
PAM BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Whether it's a public official, whether it's a law enforcement officer, no one is above the law in this state or in
this country. And people will be held accountable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Her Department of Justice also sent Minnesota's top official subpoenas. All of them Democrats, we should note.
Sources tell CNN that federal investigators want to know if they obstructed immigration enforcement efforts in the state.
ASHER: And Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey say they will not be intimidated into silence.
GOLODRYGA: Meanwhile, federal immigration officers are using a new tool in the field, their cell phones, specifically an app called Mobile Fortify,
developed by the Department of Homeland Security to scan faces and access detailed personal information.
ASHER: Yes. This is different than body cameras, which ICE agents do not have to wear, thanks to an executive order from President Trump.
Experts say law enforcement officers are better served with the body cams, leaving their hands free and their attention undivided.
Priscilla Alvarez joins us now live from New York with the story.
So, what more do we know about this app?
PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is an app that was rolled out last year that allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, among
few others, to be able to scan someone's face and immediately know their immigration history, whether, for example, they are the target that they
are looking forward to arrest, detain, and possibly deport.
But a team here at CNN reviewed dozens of videos to put together a clear picture of how exactly federal agents are using their mobile phones.
And in addition to Mobile Fortify, again, to scan those faces and confirm immigration history, they're also using them to gather content for social
media or to also record the actions of the agents as well as the protesters that they are often confronting with while on operations, as we have seen
in Minneapolis.
Now, again, going back to this app, this was an app that was developed by the Department of Homeland Security. It pulls from U.S. Customs and Border
Protection Immigration data sets. That's where if someone has had a run-in with immigration officials, they'd be able to pull up their information
there.
Now, the sources that I've talked to about this app tell me that it is efficient before they would use these mobile biometric devices that allow
them to do fingerprints out in the field. But this has proven to be far easier for them to do when they are out doing operations.
Now, the Department of Homeland Security did provide a statement on the app. And they said, quote, "Its use is governed by established legal
authorities and formal privacy oversight, which set strict limits on data access, use and retention. Mobile Fortify has not been blocked, restricted
or curtailed by the courts or by legal guidance. It is lawfully used nationwide."
Now, you also mentioned body cameras. That is something that the department says they are also working on expanding access for federal agents, but they
did not clarify whether that would be a requirement moving forward.
Of course, part of the concern here is that as federal agents are doing what we call at-large operations, so operations out in the community, they
are often also confronting U.S. citizens and other civilians and scanning their faces as well or at the very least what we see is them pulling up
their phones and recording the interactions.
And so that has caused a lot of privacy concerns or prompted privacy concerns among experts and lawmakers because, for example, while similar
technology, facial recognition technology is used at TSA, at airports, passengers have the choice as to whether or not they decide to have their
faces scanned. In this case, they do not have the choice. So that is part of the ongoing concern.
Now, there was a lawsuit filed against the Department of Homeland Security that says or alleges that there's been an indiscriminate use of Mobile
Fortify, I'm quoting there, that is violated resident's rights.
DHS disputes these claims, but what it goes to show here is the concern about this technology that while officials say is efficient when they're
doing immigration enforcement operations can be much more murky when they're also confronting U.S. citizens over the course of those operations.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Priscilla Alvarez, thank you so much.
ASHER: All right. Mexico's government has just sent dozens of criminal suspects to the U.S. under pressure from the Trump administration.
Mexican officials say they are high-impact criminals with an alleged ties to some of the country's most powerful drug cartels.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. This is the third such transfer this past year as U.S. President Trump ramps up pressure on Mexico to do more to stop drug
trafficking.
CNN's Valeria Leon has the details.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LEON: In the first anniversary of President Trump's second term, Mexico announced the transfer of 37 inmates to the United States. This is the
third operation of its kind in just one year, something unprecedented in the relationship between the two countries.
In total, Mexico has now sent 92 high-risk criminals across the border. This latest transfer began at El Altiplano, one of Mexico's highest
security prisons.
[12:30:04]
Seven military aircraft flew the inmates into U.S. territory, sending them to six cities, San Diego, San Antonio, Washington, D.C., Houston, New York,
and Pennsylvania.
According to a post on X by Mexico secretary of public security, Omar Garcia Harfuch, these 37 inmates were operators within major criminal
organizations and were considered a real threat to national security.
The government emphasized that the operation respected Mexico's sovereignty and was carried out under the agreement that that penalty would not be
considered.
The request for their transfer came from the U.S. Department of Justice, but this wasn't the first time. Back in August, Mexico sent another 26
inmates to the U.S., a group that included figures like Juan Carlos Felix, the son-in-law of Sinaloa Cartel founder Ismael "El Mayo" Sambada, and
Servando Gomez "La Tuta," a well-known leader of Los Caballeros Templarios.
That August operation had been preceded by the first transfer, carried out early in February when Mexico handed over Rafael Caro Quintero, one of the
most wanted fugitives in the United States since 1985, after the kidnapping and murder of DEA agent Kiki Camarena.
And here's the key point. None of these three historic transfers were formal extraditions. Mexico insists they are not extradition at all, but
rather transfers carried out under a cooperation framework between both countries.
Valeria Leon, CNN, Mexico City.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And still to come for us, what are the limits of presidential power over the U.S. Federal Reserve? We'll have details ahead on the
arguments being made today and the crucial Supreme Court hearing.
ASHER: And later, North Korea's film industry takes a dramatic turn. How North Korea is taking a cue from Tinseltown. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:35:15]
GOLODRYGA: All right. Welcome back to "One World." I'm Bianna Golodryga.
ASHER: And I'm Zain Asher.
More now on what was perhaps the most keenly anticipated speech in recent memory at the World Economic Forum. Donald Trump in Davos making a case for
the U.S. taking over Greenland but also stating for the first time that the U.S. will not use force to get it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: 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?
And all we're asking for is to get Greenland, including right title and ownership because you need the ownership to defend it. You can't defend it
or at least. Number one, legally it's not defensible that way, totally. And number two, psychologically.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: In the wake of the president's threats, a committee of the European Parliament blocked a vote to ratify last year's trade deal between
the U.S. and the E.U. It is not clear whether that means the entire agreement is off.
Well, back here in the States this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over President Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor
Lisa Cook.
ASHER: Yes. Cook is fighting allegations of mortgage fraud. She has not been charged any crime and denies any wrongdoing. She remains in her job
for now.
This case has major implications to the scope of presidential power over independent agencies. If the court rules in Trump's favor, it could lower
the bar significantly for removing a Fed official.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Time now for "The Exchange." Let's discuss this pivotal case with Natasha Sarin, professor of law at the Yale Law School.
Natasha, it is good to see you.
Interesting that Fed Chair Powell was also in the courtroom today. An unprecedented step. We're using that word almost daily now if not hourly
because coming after again word last week that an investigation by the DOJ into the Fed Chair was underway.
In this session, by all appearances, it was about two hours and seemed to be very rough in terms of the administration's arguments for the
justification over the president's attempt to fire Lisa Cook.
Just talk about why out of all of the issues that have come before this Supreme Court, the Fed seems to stand separately as an independent entity,
even in the eyes of the Supreme Court and why that is so sacrosanct apparently, even for them.
NATASHA SARIN, PROFESSOR OF LAW, YALE LAW SCHOOL: Yes. And it is -- this is a case that is about a mortgage fraud allegation, but it's really about so
much more than that. It's about the independence of our central bank, which is sort of one of the underpinnings of our economic security.
And I think that's something that this Supreme Court realizes. In fact, it's something that they went out of their way in a case that had nothing
to do with the Federal Reserve to state explicitly in a previous term, which is that the Fed has this unique structure, they've called it this
quasi-private public structure, that means that where in other cases, the court has been skeptical of infringing upon the president's power to remove
at will officers that are politically appointed.
In the Federal Reserve's case, there has been a sort of concern that allowing too much power of the executive over the Federal Reserve kind of
threatens to undermine this special status. And that's something you heard in oral argument today, reference time and time again by Lisa Cook's
lawyers, which is that whatever the case may be with respect to this particular provision, this sacrosanct nature of the central bank and the
importance of its independence is something that this court should take very seriously as it decides to weigh in on this case.
ASHER: Yes, absolutely. Because one of the things that we've talked about time and time again is Trump's goal, just in terms of reshaping the Fed
board and this idea of who he might end up choosing to replace Lisa Cook with.
And obviously that goes to the heart, as you just intimated there, to the independence of the Fed and the importance of that independence, because
obviously, the Federal Reserve has to be able to make monetary policy decisions in order to fight inflation without any pressure from the
executive branch.
So, if the court ends up ruling against Cook in this case, what is at stake, Natasha?
SARIN: Yes. And I think that's, by the way, why you saw Chair Powell in the room. This is a case that is about the fact that the central bank must be
free to make decisions about the interest rate trajectory that are informed by its dual mandate.
It cares about employment and it cares about inflation and it cares about nothing else, not the political whims of any particular executive, nor
what's most conducive to trying to get politicians elected in the next cycle.
[12:40:26]
And if the court decides to rule against Lisa Cook at this -- in this case, this case is about whether or not a particular allegation meets the bar for
for-cause removal.
But what it's really about is it's about whether or not the executive is going to be able to have the authority to try and reshape the constitution
of the Federal Reserve in order to effectuate his political whims.
And a ruling against Lisa Cook in this case is going to be moving us in the direction of a less independent and a more politically motivated central
bank. And I think that's why you heard an oral argument, a lot of skepticism from the justices that that was directionally where we might
want to land.
GOLODRYGA: And, of course, all of this coming as we're waiting to hear the Supreme Court decide on whether the president's use the executive office's
use of tariffs the way the president has imposed them are in fact legal.
You and many others have suggested, that is not the case that the power of the purse remains with Congress.
What are you expecting to hear from the Supreme Court? And are you surprised that we have yet to hear from them on this case?
SARIN: You know, it's so interesting. I think we're about to see a series of kind of blockbuster moments with respect to economic policy because
we're going to get a decision on tariffs from the Supreme Court.
We're also going to get a new nominee for the Federal Reserve to be chair when Chair Powell's term expires in May. And you heard the president say
this week that that is likely to come in the next week, certainly before the end of the month.
And I think these moments are so interesting from the Supreme Court's perspective because this is a court that in large part has been very under
-- very keen to embrace a view of the executive as very powerful.
And it's sort of this like unitary executive theory that the executive has a lot of authority, that the president has a lot of authority to shape
policy and to shape the contours of his administration.
But in these particular settings, with respect to these really broad based economic powers that are at play in this tariffs case, but also with
respect to the Federal Reserve centrality in our economic policy, I think these are two cases where this court, even though it embraces this broad
idea of presidential authority, is likely to have a little bit of skepticism about whether or not Congress actually intended to give such
broad powers to the president.
And I suspect that in the tariffs case, if you listen to oral argument, you also heard a fair degree of skepticism that this type of authority should
sit with the president.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Rare that you have so many world leaders and business titans waiting anxiously for the Fed to rule specifically on this tariffs
case.
Natasha Sarin, thank you so much. Good to see you.
And we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:45:59]
GOLODRYGA: All right. We're going to take you back to Davos, Switzerland where president trump is meeting with world leaders and CEOs at a
reception. Let's listen in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Young people generally soldiers a little bit in towns, but for the most part, they're soldiers. Every single month they're dying. So I think
we're going to do well there.
But we have Scott Bessent who everyone knows and Howard Lutnick and these guys are doing a fantastic job with (INAUDIBLE).
(APPLAUSE)
They were both -- they were both recommended by many of the people in this room. I say, what do you think of Scott? Oh, he's fantastic. What do you
think of Howard? Very different type?
I would say these are two exact opposites And I like that. I like that. They are the exact opposite. You know, I never thought of it that way. I'm
just saying that I'm -- I'm looking at you two, you are in every way.
But they're tremendously talented people. And very successful people. And I like bringing successful people in because there's a reason for success.
It's one of the reasons that we've had such success.
You know, we -- we took over a country with a border that was a disaster where millions of people were coming in. Millions of people were coming in
every single week. I mean, literally a week would have millions of people and a lot of -- and they weren't vetted. Totally open border.
You have people come in. You could look at them. I don't want to say what - - how -- how to well define that because they always discriminate, so I don't discriminate.
But you can look at some people and say they're criminals. And we took in tremendous numbers of murderers, drug dealers, mental institution, insane
asylum people. People that were in insane asylum, institutions for the mentally ill and dangerous, very dangerous. They dumped them into our
country like we were -- like we were dirt.
And we're doing a great job of getting them out, but it's, you know, takes a lot of time, a lot of effort. Then it's -- it's an nasty business too.
But if they were bad someplace else, they're going to be bad here.
They killed people in their country, whether it was Venezuela or the Congo or any of the countries where they came in. The Congo, they emptied out
their jails into our country.
In Venezuela, they did the same thing. And then many other countries, they did the same thing. So when you read all these stories about ICE, you'll
understand they're -- they're doing a hell of a job because we can't have those people in our country. And we're getting them out.
But we're doing numbers in terms of people investing in the United States like we've never had before, I guess. It's because of November 5th, the
election. But the election gave us a view and it's a view on tariffs to protect our country because our country is being plucked. Like you pluck a
chicken.
Our country was being plucked and it wasn't good. And, you know, you can only take so much of it.
And we've changed it around very quickly. And we've had -- we'll have Scott, I'd say $600 billion worth of tariff money coming in. And I think
we're going to have maybe more than that.
By -- yes, by next year, it'll be much more than that. That's not including the countries that -- the countries and companies because we have countries
coming over and building, but we have companies, great companies coming in.
Apple is spending $650 billion. I mean, it's so many. One just announced 10 billion. Toyota. Mr. Toyota and Japan.
So, what's your name? Toyota. I said, oh, do you own the car company? Yes? Ninety-two percent. I said you didn't have to be that specific.
But I said you're rich. Yes. Yes, I'm rich. But he's -- he just announced he's going to do $10 billion worth of plants. I mean, it's amazing what's
going on. Look, it's -- it's amazing. We've never had anything like it or close. Nobody else has it.
So I think in terms of your investments, you're in great shape. I don't even ask anybody how you're doing now. It's like everybody is making so
much money. Oh, look who I see. Tim. Hi, Tim Cook.
He's been good for 650. Think of it. $650 billion. OK. Can you imagine? That's what he's going to be investing. More than that. I think it's going
to end up being more. He's great. And he's great. He's done some job. You have done really some job.
[12:50:15]
And we have so many people in this room that have done a job. I don't know how many have done better than Tim, but some are right up there with you.
We better -- you better get your ass moving, I'll tell you.
But fantastic people. Fantastic people. But I -- I go around and I say meet the biggest people, biggest business people. I say, congratulations. They
say, in what? I said, you've doubled your net worth since I've been president, right? He said, yes, even more than that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: All right. You've just been listening to the U.S. president speaking in front of a room full of CEOs at the World Economic Forum.
We'll have much more news after this short break. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Former first lady, Michelle Obama, addressed her recent comments about America's readiness for a woman president on the podcast, "Call Her
Daddy."
She said change takes time, but that she was ready to be proved wrong. Now, this comes in response to her remarks last year when she said the U.S. is
not ready for a woman in the White House.
Mrs. Obama also highlighted how hard it is for women to be ambitious in today's world, especially when it comes to relationships, referencing her
own.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHELLE OBAMA, FORMER U.S. FIRST LADY: We didn't start up our relationship as, I'm going to try to, yes, you know. It may be. It would have. But I
think we kind of entered it , you know, as -- as peers, you know.
And we developed our relationship because we had the same kind of humor and we'd make the same kind of jokes and we'd find the same things kind of
corny, you know. And I was being fully myself.
The fact that that made him think we should date, right? It's like that meant that -- like that didn't repel him. That was like -- he was like, and
I was like, no, we shouldn't date because that looks tacky. And it was like, I don't care what people say.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: She has been so open about her relationship with Barack and the ups and downs over the years, which I think is one of the reasons why a lot of
us really resonate with her.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Fancy great mantra too. I'm going to use it. I don't care what people say. We do not care what people say All right. Except for you
folks at home watching.
That does it for this hour of "One World." I'm Bianna Golodryga.
[12:55:01]
ASHER: I'm Zain Asher. Thank you so much for watching. "Amanpour" is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
