Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Trump Slams U.S. Allies by Name in Davos Address; Supreme Court Hearing Argument on Trump's Firing of Lisa Cook. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired January 21, 2026 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: -- prime minister, you know, at NATO -- I'm sorry, at Davos yesterday saying, you know, the time has run out for us to choose between being, you know, a happy vessel and a miserable slave. I mean, that is massively strong language to talk about in America.

So, the idea of tariffs, like a trade war is apparently still on the table, unless that changes with his, you know, bilats, that would presumably raise the specter of Europe unleashing its, what's called its bazooka, in other words, European tariffs back onto the United States, which nobody wants.

But I think the idea of keeping NATO whole has been achieved by President Trump's speech, even though he trashed a lot of European leaders, he then ended, do you remember, by saying you're all brilliant in this room, so much power, so much leadership, we're so closely aligned with Europe, we have so much in common, all of that. So, he's trying to have it every which way, but over, quote/unquote, "acquiring and the acquisition" of Greenland, he said he's seeking immediate negotiations for that.

And then came the goodfellas script, we can either do it the easy way or the hard way. He said if you agree, we'll be most appreciative. If you disagree, we will remember. So, that's a threat, and that's presumably some kind of economic threat. So, I think that has to be ironed out, certainly, by European leaders.

And one last thing, President Trump says the world is nothing without the U.S., and Europe is nothing without the U.S. protection. But the Finnish president, Alexander Stubb, who has a good relationship with President Trump, said in answer to a question, Europe, I'm a hundred percent sure, can defend itself. And he talked about everything Europeans are doing, conscription, paying more on their militaries, and all of that. To, if the worst comes to the worst, have a rump NATO without the United States. That is basically what's going on.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Christiane, hold on for a moment. We're now being told President Trump is meeting with a small delegation from Switzerland itself, even though he was pretty critical of Switzerland in his formal remarks. Let's listen in.

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: It's an honor. I speak about you often. You're a great country, beautiful country. You do make great watches, too. That I can say. There's nobody like you for watches, which is a big deal. But I appreciate the treatment we've been given, and we will always reciprocate. And thank you very much for having us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. It's a pleasure. And with your team, we have a good relationship. We are working hard to finalize the agreement. We have this joint agreement. But I'm optimistic that we can go forward. And the investment pledge, the private sector promise, I think, are on the way. And we always see this unbalance you mentioned during your speech is actually on the correction. It's actually we have the last statistic, a surplus $8.8 in the favor of U.S.

But at the end, what's it's important for me and for the two countries, it's a win-win perspective. And I think my team on your team are working out to find something very, very good.

TRUMP: Very good. Is there really a surplus? Because that's a very unusual thing with Switzerland.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think in the last couple of months it started to reverse.

TRUMP: Well, that's unusual.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And when they bring --

TRUMP: That's never happened before. I'm very proud of that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And when they bring back -- '

TRUMP: I'm pretty proud of that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When they bring their pharmaceuticals to America, then that'll settle it.

TRUMP: Yes, that's a very big thing. We need all pharmaceuticals are coming into America. So, it's really a big thing. Press. You have any questions, please?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, are you going to meet today or tomorrow?

TRUMP: I believe it's tomorrow.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We just want to clarify that.

TRUMP: Yes. OK. Switzerland's a great place, and we appreciate being here. Thank you all very much.

BLITZER: All right. So, there's the president of the United States meeting with a small delegation from the host country Switzerland over there praising Switzerland, even though he was pretty critical Switzerland the trade deficit that the United States has had over the years with Switzerland over the years.

I just want to point out in his formal remarks, he said, we've never gotten anything. His words, we've never gotten anything from NATO. All we are asking for is Greenland. It's a very small ask. Direct quote from the president. I don't know if they'd be there for us, he said, referring to the NATO allies. Pretty extraordinary, Pamela, to hear the president in Davos at this Economic Forum with all these European leaders so critical of the NATO alliance so critical of the European allies.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. I mean, again, it's worth reiterating the very important context of the fact that the European allies came to the U.S. Defense right after 9/11 right and lost soldiers, lost their own citizens fighting the war on terror.

[10:35:00]

It was the only time Article 5 of NATO has been invoked. And, you know, the president, instead of mentioning that said NATO has never done anything and that he's not sure it would ever be there for the United States.

I want to go to an interview that are Kaitlan Collins just did with California Governor Gavin Newsom for his reaction of President Trump's Davos speech.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Call that a remarkable speech. You were obviously named by President Trump during that speech. What was your reaction to what he had to say about you?

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): None. I think he said something very different last night. I didn't hear Newscum. I heard news -- you know, green scam. But I mean, come on, it's -- it was remarkably boring. It was remarkably insignificant. He was never going to invade Greenland. It was never real. So, that was always a fade. And so, he says what we should negotiate. Well, everybody here has been willing to negotiate for a year.

So, it had fire, fury. It signified absolutely nothing. Even by Trump's standards, I was rather curious. And there was boorish parts of it. But those were not even that consequential, including name checking people. He likes people he didn't like. So, you know, I just -- I was not -- honestly, it was just -- I was a little disappointed. It's a little nonplussed.

COLLINS: Did it stand out to you that he said Iceland multiple times when he was talking about Greenland?

NEWSOM: You know, and that it -- every time a windmill turns it costs $1,000, a lot of stuff stands out. None of this is normalized. There's a normalization of deviancy and consciousness and, you know, comments and commentary. No other president -- he's held to the curve. He's graded on a curve. I mean, it's a really some jaw dropping and remarkable statements that just, you know, fly in the face of facts and evidence and common sense.

So -- but they're so -- you've heard them over and over and over again. And again, for the European audience that may have a new speech. My God, there wasn't anything new about that speech for the American audience. The only thing that was new is he said he's willing to negotiate. But wait a sec, that's not new either, because he's been saying we've wanted to negotiate for over a year.

COLLINS: You criticized world leaders when you got here, saying that some of these European leaders have capitulated to the president.

NEWSOM: In the past.

COLLINS: And you said you should have brought knee pads. What have you heard from them since then?

NEWSOM: A lot. I heard a surprising number say, glad you made those comments. The exact opposite of what you might expect. They needed to hear those comments, and I know that people in America have that point of view and perspective. And so, I was very --

COLLINS: Do you want to name names?

NEWSOM: Absolutely. But I'm -- I would like to. And I thought yesterday's comments by Prime Minister Carney were effective and Macron's comments. (INAUDIBLE) president's comments were effective. And they helped shape. But the markets more so what Trump said today and how Trump said it. It's not even -- it's all of this is so simple, so basic. It's not complex. And so, you know, markets are back. Gold is still running higher. So, there's some medium- and long-term uncertainty.

COLLINS: Last question for me. You think that he changed talking about military force in Greenland because the markets were affected?

NEWSOM: I don't think it was - I don't think the military force was ever real in the first place. But I think the tone reflected deep anxiety here. Bessent, you know, talk about him reflecting the anxiety heard from everybody. I mean, all the business leaders reflected in the markets when they open, reflected in the comments of the leadership here yesterday and three critical speeches, I think, reflected a tonality of this speech. And so, in every way, it didn't surprise me at all, except for how just redundant it seemed to be with what he always says.

COLLINS: Thank you, Governor.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: All right. So, there you heard Kaitlan Collins interviewing the governor of California, Gavin Newsom. And it was very clear. You know, he's potentially, as we all know, a presidential candidate coming up in 2028. And he was being very, very critical, not surprisingly of Trump's speech.

BROWN: Yes, he called it remarkably boring. And he also suggested that President Trump toned down his rhetoric on Greenland by making it clear he doesn't want to use military force because of the way the markets and other economic indicators have reacted to that. I also want to get to some other news just coming in. We've heard President Trump say a couple of times he's going to be meeting with the president of Ukraine, President Zelenskyy. And we have now learned that he plans to meet with Zelenskyy in Davos on Thursday.

[10:40:00]

So, initially, our understanding was that Zelenskyy would not be there. Now, he will be there meeting with President Trump, of course, talking about the war in Ukraine.

BLITZER: And Trump said they'd be meeting later today. But that was a mistake, they're going to be meeting tomorrow, presumably when Zelenskyy actually shows up in Davos.

BROWN: Yes. All right. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: We'll have much more on the President's historic speech in Davos, Switzerland, that's coming up. But right now, I want to turn to the other major breaking news we're following right now. The United States Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in a case that potentially could fundamentally alter the scope of presidential power. The case centers around Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

[10:45:00]

BROWN: And it could have a big impact on the economy as well. Cook is challenging President Trump's attempts to remove her from the Fed board and the longstanding independence of the nation's central bank is at stake. CNN is also reporting this morning that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is expected to attend the hearing. This comes as we know that the Trump administration is investigating Powell. Powell has said he has done nothing wrong.

I want to bring in CNN Chief Domestic Correspondent Phil Mattingly. Phil, bring us up to speed with what's been happening so far with these oral arguments.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: So, let's start with the fact this is a remarkable case with no precedent in terms of the president moving to remove a Fed governor for cause. The difficulty with that heading into this case is there is no definition of what for cause actually means, at least a legal definition that's understood.

So, a portion of the start of these arguments has been trying to figure out what the administration, the Justice Department's solicitor general, John Sauer, has been presenting up to this point. What the administration uses to define that and whether or not Lisa Cook, the Fed governor, hit the threshold in the eyes of the justices. What has been more remarkable, and we're actually chatting about this on digital, and Steve Vladeck is confirming my view.

BROWN: That's always good. MATTINGLY: Which is all that really matters when it comes to the Supreme Court of it has been remarkable to watch the conservative justices level very significant questions that seem to imply significant concern about how this all happened.

Justice Samuel Alito, who doesn't often come at the Justice Department officials or the Trump administration during the cases that are argued, doesn't mean that he is going to go one way or another in this argument, but making very clear that he thought the way this case was presented, the fact that the mortgage documents in question are not actually in the record of the case, just social media posts with screenshots of them, and expressed some frustration of that.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh just moments ago saying flat out, what is the independence of the Federal Reserve actually for? Amy Coney Barrett talking about the potential economic repercussions here. Conservative justices right now are not cutting any slack to the solicitor general. We'll obviously see how these arguments play out, but there seems to be a lot of skepticism in the early stage of these arguments.

BROWN: Yes, and it's notable because the court has been more sympathetic, the conservatives on the court has been more sympathetic to the president when it comes to firing people from other agencies, but the Federal Reserve clearly is different, right? And you are kind of seeing that in the questioning and they're making that clear. What is the purpose of the Federal Reserve being independent? Let's actually go inside the Supreme Court and listen in.

D. JOHN SAUER, ATTORNEY FOR FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Two points there. I dispute the characterization that these tools have been unleashed. The president has always had this tool to remove governors for financial improprieties. Now, the history is, including twice in the last four years, governors who have been credibly accused of financial improprieties have resigned. They haven't forced the president to remove them.

And I think the more sort of fundamental point is that cause is a standard that is quite deferential to the president. Congress consciously adopted that instead of a more restrictive standard like INM. That was, by all appearances, a legislative compromise between two camps, one of which wanted to give the president complete control.

JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH, SUPREME COURT: I agree with you that there's a balance here, and so I understand that. I'm not saying there's no interest on the other side here. I get that. But again, thinking about the real world and the brief of the former governors of the Federal Reserve, I mean, your position, again, because you say, well, the president can't say it's for policy reasons, which may be what's really, again, in not talking about the current situation and other situations in the future, what's really driving it.

It incentivizes a president to come up with what as the Federal Reserve former governors say trivial or inconsequential or old allegations that are very difficult to disprove. It incentivizes kind of the search and destroy and find something and just put that on a piece of paper. No judicial review, no process, nothing. You're done. I mean, again, what are we doing when we have a system that that incentivizes that and leads to that? Now, again, you can dispute that you think it's going to lead to that. And again, I'm not talking about the facts of this case. I'm taking I don't know the facts of this case. I'm taking no position on that.

SAUER: This court has since Martin against Mott running all the way through Trump against the United States, Trump against Hawaii, a whole host of decisions, a court that consistently afforded the president the presumption of regularity in his action and consistently declined to probe a president's actions for their subjective motivations.

And so, in the hypothetical question that you pose, that hypothetical future president should also be afforded the very same sort of deference. And --

[10:50:00]

KAVANAUGH: But that leads -- I mean, that brief, that amicus brief cites Justice Scalia's dissent in Morrison, which is always a good place to look for wisdom. And the concern that you're putting all these resources because you can't say it's for policy, but all these resources, let's find something, anything about this person. And then we're good. And by the way, there's no judicial review. So, we're really good. And there's no administrative process.

SAUER: And again, I disagree with that. I think that that argument, that presumption, when it applied to the president, contradicts a very, very two very strong strains in this court's jurisprudence that go back to the founding.

KAVANAUGH: And what's the fear of more process here in the sense that process protects you in the sense of helping you make better, more accurate decisions? And it helps process helps you then convince people on the outside that you've made a --

BLITZER: All right. We're going to continue to monitor these arguments being made before the United States Supreme Court, an important case that potentially could have huge ramifications on presidential power. I want to bring in Deborah Pearlstein right now. She's a constitutional law professor over at Princeton University and a former U.S. Supreme Court clerk, also with us, CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck.

Deborah, walk us through how we got here. What is the Trump administration arguing and how have lower courts previously ruled on this?

DEBORAH PEARLSTEIN, FORMER CLERK FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE STEVENS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: So, the way we got here was several months ago, the president decided, apparently spontaneously to fire one of the governors of the Federal Reserve, a move that hasn't happened in in more than a century of the history of the Federal Reserve. There was a lawsuit she sued challenging the president's the legality of the president's firing. Federal Reserve governors can only be removed by law for cause. That suit has now made its way to the court.

But to be clear, the underlying constitutional question, how much power does the president have to remove Federal Reserve governors isn't before the court. Technically, what's before the court is whether she had any right to process and what it actually means what suffices as good cause to remove a Federal Reserve governor? The justices so far are seeming remarkably skeptical across the board of the argument that there can be a removal of a Federal Reserve governor with no evidentiary finding of any kind.

BROWN: And I want to bring in Steve on this, if you would, Steve, remind our viewers the stakes here, because you might say, oh, well, why should I care if a Federal Reserve member was fired? Well, there could be major implications on how this is ruled in terms of the economy and in terms of presidential power, right?

PROF. STEVE VLADECK, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER AND EDITOR, "ONE FIRST" SUPREME COURT NEWSLETTER: That's right. I mean, we've been talking about this all summer, really, since last summer when President Trump tried to remove Lisa Cook. The problem here is that the for-cause removal protection that Deborah was referring to, if cause means whatever the president says it is, then, of course, the Fed is no longer independent. Then the president could remove Lisa Cook. The president could remove Jay Powell. The president can remove any member of the board at any time and for any reason.

And it's not just that economists worry about those implications. It's also the Supreme Court does. I mean, back in last July, the court went out of its way even when it allowed President Trump to remove that cause, members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The court said the Fed is different and the Fed's independence is actually a structurally important part of our separation of power system.

That independence, Pamela, wouldn't mean very much if the Trump administration wins this case, because then it would be independence on paper only and the president could do whatever he wants, whatever he wants, as we saw in his comments this morning at Davos.

BROWN: I want to follow up with you about what conservative Justice Samuel Alito brought up, basically asking the solicitor general, which is the attorney defending the federal government, John Sauer, why this was so rushed. He said, is there any reason why this whole matter had to be handled in such a hurried manner? And he said the Cook case is being done in a very cursory manner. To remind our viewers, this is being done on an emergency appeal. That line of questioning does not bode well either for the Trump administration.

VLADECK: No, I mean, we should say it is still early. I mean, as we're sitting here, the solicitor general is still at the lectern. We haven't even heard yet from former Solicitor General Paul Clement on behalf of Lisa Cook. So, maybe we're going to hear just as much skepticism on the other side.

But, you know, I heard skepticism in the first round of questioning from Justice Alito, from the Chief Justice, from Justice Kavanaugh, from Justice Barrett. Lisa Cook probably needs two of those votes to actually prevail in this case. And it sounds like she has maybe three or four of them.

[10:55:00]

And keep in mind, right, back in October, the Supreme Court already allowed Lisa Cook to at least temporarily remain in her position on the Federal Reserve Board by deferring this application pending today's oral argument. This argument so far is bearing that out, that there was not a majority back in October that was willing to allow the president to fire Lisa Cook. And there may not be a majority today.

BROWN: And of course, this is all against the backdrop of President Trump just speaking in Davos. And as our Matt Egan pointed out there, he was talking about interest rates, that the interest rates in the United States should be the lowest in the world. So, you can't forget the politics here, right, Wolf?

BLITZER: Trump is -- for a long time, has been obsessed with the interest rates, thinking that Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, is way too slow in lowering those interest rates. If he had lowered them earlier, the economy would have been in much better shape. And he's been very critical of Jay Powell for that.

BROWN: Yes, that's right. And Lisa Cook's attorney has argued that this is all about policy agreements, not actual any fraud. All right, everyone, stay with us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]