Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

U.S. Warships Moving Toward Iran?; Border Patrol and ICE Officials Defend Tactics. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired January 23, 2026 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

GREGORY BOVINO, BORDER PATROL COMMANDER: It's heartbreaking. They're not with any family. They're with social services or Office of Refugee and Resettlement. So the child is in the least restrictive setting with a family member.

I don't think it gets any better than that. And as far as the care, the best care that I have seen is ICE, U.S. Border Patrol and what -- and the way we treat those illegal aliens that come across the border.

QUESTION: Can you give any details as to what that facility is like? What's the kids' life like?

BOVINO: I will let Marcos talk about it. It's an ICE facility and not a Border Patrol facility.

Sir.

MARCOS CHARLES, ACTING EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: So, our family residential centers, I had the privilege of working in one back in 2015.

So I can tell you firsthand they get top-notch care. They have medical care. The food is good. They have learning services. They have church services available. They have recreation. They have special caregivers to see to the needs of the children and the mothers or families that are there.

It's better -- honestly, it's better than social services. So, if we sent the kid to DSS, they would be way, way worse off than being there with their parents in an FRC.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, guys.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: All right, so there it is. We just heard from representatives from the Border Patrol and from ICE.

Priscilla, what do you think?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So, a couple things to clear up, based off what we know about the family.

So they crossed together in December of 2024. They crossed, however, using an app at the time known as CBP-1 that allowed migrants to make an appointment to legally present at a port of entry to then have the chance to seek asylum in the United States.

Now, the Trump administration has criticized that this app ever existed under the president's predecessor. But all the same, in that moment, this family was doing something legally that several thousand other people had done and had signed up to do. Whether you agree with that policy or not, that was the case there.

So they did not cross the border illegally, as we have seen with other families, where they would have crossed between ports of entry and presented to border agents. We're still trying to get more clarity on the criminal record. There was a lot of emphasis on undocumented immigrants in the United States with criminal records.

We have not found that to be the case with this father. So what remains unclear is why he was targeted, which goes to the bigger question here. So I have covered this for a long time. ICE typically works under some sort of priority set.

That means that they are searching for national security risks, for public safety threats. And the administration has said that's their priority, even if they have taken the guidance internally away or off the books.

When you are targeting a family -- or if you're targeting a father who has a -- who came as a family to the United States, that is a choice made by law enforcement to arrest that individual and therefore potentially take into custody the rest of the family.

And in the past, say, under the Obama administration, where there was similarly family detention, that was who they chose not to deem as a priority for arrest. So there are some changes here that are paving the way for a situation like this.

Now, yes, the father requested, to the best to our knowledge to stay with the son in custody, which is what happens when you go to a family detention facility. But all the same, that son is not with his mother. Again, the Department of Homeland Security says and from our -- what we're hearing from on the ground, there was a lot of fear and tension in that moment about whether the mother should have opened the door, concerned about her coming into custody.

So this is all quite confusing perhaps to folks to see this unfolding to get the answers here. But what the -- what we know and what's not disputed is that there has been a decision here by federal immigration authorities to arrest a father who came as a family that we do not know any criminal record of, which does open the door to taking an entire family, including the children, into custody.

And what the family attorney has also said is that they came in through a process that was legal. It was purposely set up so that legal migration would go down. And so they have been in that process. And what we have been trying to get answers on is whether at some point they became undocumented and were here unlawfully. But while you're going through that process, the federal government

will recognize -- recognizes that you are trying to obtain an immigration benefit in the United States and has put things in place like allowing you to work as you go through that process.

And that is something that Congress has done. So that is in the books as a federal law.

BLITZER: And if you're applying for asylum in the United States and going through that lengthy process...

[11:35:02]

ALVAREZ: Yes.

BLITZER: ... you are in the U.S. legally, right?

ALVAREZ: Yes. Yes.

And, by the way, I do want to note, because the -- Bovino did talk about U.S. Border Patrol and kids and the care of kids. There is truth to that. I mean, under the Biden administration, there was a surge of children who arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border.

I talked to multiple U.S. Border Patrol agents who had to care for children who had no parent with them. So there is truth to that, but that was a different time, right? Now we're talking about plucking families out of the interior, where they have a family life that has been set up, and they have been taken out of that routine to now be in federal custody.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: And so, again, there are things that we don't know, but bottom line is, this family, as far as we know, came here and went through the legal process at the time...

ALVAREZ: At the time.

BROWN: ... seeking asylum. We don't know whether that was terminated at some point or not.

But, if it wasn't, it would mean that other families that were also here going through that same process seeking asylum could be...

(CROSSTALK)

ALVAREZ: Yes.

It would mean that you would continue to go, you, the individual, would continue, and the family would go through immigration court. The only person who can order you removed in the United States is an immigration judge. So you have to go before the court at some point and go through the process, and an immigration judge will decide whether or not you can stay here or whether you're deported.

In the absence of that, then you are here going through a process. And so there are hearings in place that this family would go through to -- for a judge to ultimately make that decision. There have been policy changes that have made this all the more confusing for anyone going through it about whether or not their asylum claim is even eligible anymore.

And so that is why we keep coming back to, was the application terminated? But it would still be the judge who would decide if they're removable.

BROWN: All right. Thank you for bringing the very important context and the facts. We appreciate it, Priscilla.

I want to bring in now former Homeland Security Executive Secretary Deborah Fleischaker, who worked under the Biden administration.

You just heard our conversation. You heard what some top CBP and ICE officials said at that press conference. And I just want to get your reaction, first of all, to what you heard.

DEBORAH FLEISCHAKER, FORMER U.S. HOMELAND SECURITY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: Well, thank you for having me on.

first reaction is that a day after we heard the vice president talk about meeting Minneapolis residents halfway and de-escalating the tensions, the press conference sounded like more of the same escalating rhetoric, which doesn't seem to help calm things down.

In particular, in the case of the 5-year-old child and his father, I think there was a lot of misleading information provided there. There were a lot of claims that people should do things the right way. Well, this family did. They appeared at the border under the CBP-1 app. That was a legal pathway available to people at the time.

And all evidence points to the fact that they're moving through their asylum hearings and complying with the immigration laws, so -- with their immigration obligations. So it doesn't make sense to me that they were targeted.

BROWN: What do you say to their argument that we are basically cleaning up the mess from the Biden administration because of all the people who crossed the border, including children who were traveling alone? How do you respond?

FLEISCHAKER: Look, I believe in immigration enforcement. I believe in targeted, careful immigration enforcement. What we're seeing now isn't that.

I believe that ICE should be going after public safety and national security threats. There's no evidence that this father and his child were public safety or national security threats. And I wonder who wasn't picked up because they were focusing on them.

BROWN: I think that's an important nuance, because the polls show that the majority of people want those people who are here illegally and criminals, have convictions, so forth off the streets.

But, clearly, it is going beyond that and a choice is being made to arrest people, in this case, like -- or detain, I should say, Liam and his father, who, as far as we know, the father does not have a criminal record. But, again, we're still reporting all of this out.

We have also seen these images that appear to show federal agents holding protesters on the ground and spraying them in the face with chemical agents. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem says those sorts of chemical agents -- we have some video right here -- are only used when -- quote -- "there is violence happening."

But we see it when they're on the ground being held. I mean, is what you see aligned with the standard training that these agents receive?

FLEISCHAKER: It's certainly not aligned with anything I saw while I was with the Department of Homeland Security. Law enforcement officers, public safety is paramount and de-escalation is paramount. And what we're seeing isn't public safety and it isn't de-escalation.

[11:40:02]

I would also say that people do have a First Amendment right to protest. And that right seems to be being challenged by the department in the way that -- in the way that they are responding.

BROWN: From what you -- your experience, how well -- how well are they trained in understanding people's First Amendment rights and where that line is?

FLEISCHAKER: Look, I think the training used to be quite good.

There was a very robust training program in Georgia that all agents, all new agents went through. There were robust retraining requirements depending on the topic. I think we have seen those training requirements get watered down in the rush to hire new agents.

And I think you can tell simply, by the fact that they have made the training 47 days in honor of Trump being the 47th president, the lack of seriousness in terms of substantive coverage.

BROWN: I want to ask you about this memo obtained by the Associated Press authorizing federal immigration officers to use force to enter people's homes without a judge's warrant. It's an administrative warrant.

During your time at DHS, which goes back to 2011, are you aware of any other administrative warrants or any guidance issued about the ability to use these administrative warrants? What do you think?

FLEISCHAKER: Oh, I mean, that would not have happened.

And if it would have -- if it had happened, it would have been handled in a disciplinary. The Constitution is clear. ICE training was very clear that this would be a constitutional violation. They are trying to change the law under our -- in front of our faces.

BROWN: All right, I want to play this moment from the press conference of Minneapolis now, where we just heard the ICE official explain how people without criminal records may get swept up in what's happening on the ground. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: What about the other people? Are you taking people into custody that you don't have a criminal past, like the people you have talked about? Are there people that are going through the green card process, the asylum process? Are those people being detained now too during the surge?

CHARLES: We operate through intelligence and targeted enforcement. We are looking for certain individuals. As we're looking for these individuals, if there is somebody that is illegally in the country and amenable to removal from this country, we will arrest them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: What is your reaction to that?

FLEISCHAKER: Look, I think they are -- the administration is changing law and policy in the real time.

Of course, ICE targets people, but they're claiming that anybody here without legal status and even some people who do have legal status are viable targets. That's not something that we would have -- we would never have defined those people as enforcement priorities, and they wouldn't have been targeted for enforcement.

BROWN: And when you say even those here with legal status, are you talking about someone who is going through the proper channels for the asylum process? Is that what you mean? Or what specifically do you mean?

FLEISCHAKER: I'm talking about that. I'm talking about green card holders. I'm talking about people with temporary protected status.

There are lots of people who have legal status in the U.S. who are being targeted currently.

BROWN: All right, Deborah Fleischaker, thank you so much for your time.

And we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:48:23]

BROWN: Well, new this morning, President Trump says a major convoy of U.S. military ships is heading toward Iran, but that he'd rather not use it to strike the country as it grapples with the recent wave of protests against the regime.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're watching Iran. We have a lot of ships going that direction just in case. We have a big flotilla going in that direction.

And we will see what happens. It's a big force, but we have an armada. We have a massive -- we have a massive fleet heading in that direction. And maybe we won't have to use it. We will see.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: The president went on to cite Iran's claims that it had called off land executions of protesters last week, something he said the U.S. is watching very closely -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, for more on all of this, I want to get some analysis and bring in Ambassador Richard Haass. He's the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ambassador, thanks so much for joining us.

A U.S.-based group reports nearly 5,000, nearly 5,000 protesters on the streets of Iran have been killed since anti-government demonstrations began in late December. What do you suspect motivated President Trump's decision now to send this aircraft carrier battle group, the fleet of U.S. warships, towards Iran?

RICHARD HAASS, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Look, Wolf, as you know better than anyone, it's often hard to discern this president's motives.

But the United States, our policy over -- since late December has been a failure with Iran. We encouraged people to come out in the street to challenge the regime. The regime's security forces were willing and able to use deadly force. Thousands of people, whether it's 3,000, 5,000, 10,000, got killed.

[11:50:10]

At least for the time being, this regime has reestablished order. So the United -- there was a real disconnect between what United States was talking about and what it was -- what we were prepared to do.

So I think the real question going forward is, is this administration prepared to use force? But, if it does, is that likely to bring about the desired result. Towards what end? What's this administration's definition of success in Iran right now? Is it to rein in their nuclear program, missile programs, drone programs?

Is it to bring about a more democratic Iran? We haven't heard anything from the administration on that.

BLITZER: Well, we did hear from the president repeatedly that the U.S. effectively destroyed the Iranian nuclear program in that so- called 12-day war. Did they?

HAASS: Look, we obviously set it back fairly dramatically. You can't destroy know-how. That's in people's minds. We don't know where there may have been pieces of the program squirreled away. Lots of places weren't necessarily identified to U.N. inspectors, weren't known to U.S. or Israeli intelligence.

I have got to assume that the Iranians have made a strategic decision they'd like to see that program rebuilt. I expect there's a few people there who think they never would have been attacked had they had a nuclear program, almost a North Korean model.

So, yes, we set it back, but that is not a problem that's been taken care of once and for all.

BLITZER: From your perspective, Richard, is this a strategically smart move by the president to send this Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier battle group towards Iran right now into the Persian Gulf? How do you expect Iran will receive and respond to this?

HAASS: Well, I'm a little bit uneasy with it, Wolf.

But don't get me wrong. I'd love to see regime change in Iran, so long as it led to something demonstrably better than what's been in place for nearly half-a-century. And this is a regime that's in real trouble economically.

That said, I'm not sure it's on the edge or cusp of collapse. So I haven't heard anything remotely looking like a strategy. Are we prepared to use force, against what kinds of targets? What gives us confidence to believe, if we would have hit certain targets, it would have the certain desired political effect? Are we prepared to negotiate?

If Iran simply said, we will give you this access to our nuclear program, what's left of it, or this access for a missile program, are we prepared to do that? As you know, what we ended up doing in Venezuela was incomparably less than regime change. It was a very narrow leadership change.

So I'm watching all this, and I can't sit here and give you a confident analysis of what our objectives are or what our definition of successes.

BLITZER: I want to get to another sense of the issue while I have you.

As you know, President Trump unveiled his new Board of Peace yesterday tasked with overseeing the reconstruction of Gaza. But, last night, he announced the board was rescinding its invitation to Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney.

What do you make of who is and is not on this new Board of Peace?

HAASS: I think the Canadians might think themselves somewhat fortunate. It's a pretty ragtag outfit. Let's be blunt about it.

Most of America's allies in Europe and Asia are not on it. A lot of our countries, smaller countries with limited capacity, are. Many of those involved, shall we say, are anything but democracies.

So, so far, Wolf, I got to tell you, the mission of this new outfit is a little bit suspect. They want to move beyond Gaza, but it's not as though they have succeeded in Gaza. It's a strange combination of countries. United States is chair. Countries seem to have to ante up a billion dollars if they're going to be there for a few years.

A lot of them aren't in a position to do that. The idea that Russia would be involved, of all countries involved in a peace effort, George Orwell would be proud. So I think there's more questions than answers about what this new group, what it's going to be able to accomplish and what it's going to try to accomplish.

BLITZER: And, finally, some -- the very important issue of Greenland, on one hand, President Trump says this new framework deal would allow the U.S. to do -- quote -- "whatever we want," his words, "whatever we want."

Meanwhile, the NATO secretary-general, Mark Rutte, says U.S. ownership of Greenland -- quote -- "didn't come up" during his meeting with President Trump in Davos. How do you interpret all of this?

HAASS: This is one of the stranger things I have witnessed. Essentially, what we now have is pretty much what we had all along.

[11:55:00]

Ever since 1951, the United States has had the ability to have really intimate military and defense relationships on Greenland. Maybe now we will add a certain economic dimension to develop rare earth minerals. But after all this storm and drama, essentially where we are is where we could have been a few weeks ago if we'd simply dispatched the secretary of state to carry out some traditional diplomacy.

But the real cost of all this is, the U.S.-European relationship is seriously damaged. The U.S. reputation, I would argue, in Europe and beyond has been seriously damaged as a result of how we have gone about this.

BLITZER: Good point.

Ambassador Richard Haass, as always, thank you so much for joining us.

And, to our viewers, thank you to you as well for joining us this morning.

BROWN: "INSIDE POLITICS" with our friend and colleague Dana Bash starts after a short break.

Stay safe in the snowstorm, everyone. Have a great weekend.