Return to Transcripts main page
State of the Union
Tensions Flare After U.S. Citizen Killed In ICE Shooting; GOP Senator Mullin On Deadly ICE Shooting. Interview with Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) on Possible U.S. Strikes Against Iran; President Trump Eyes Greenland after Venezuela Attack; Trump Administration Lays Out Aggressive New Foreign Policy. Aired 8-9a ET
Aired January 11, 2026 - 08:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[08:00:30]
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Hello. I'm Jake Tapper in Washington, D.C., where the state of our union is drinking from a fire hose.
We are live this morning with a special two-hour edition of STATE OF THE UNION to try to make sense of an incredibly newsy week. And we're going to begin this morning with the tragedy in Minnesota after an ICE agent shot and killed 37-year-old American citizen Renee Good during a confrontation in Minneapolis.
The shooting has sparked massive protests across the United States, and typically, officials would wait for an investigation to be completed before making any assertions about what happened or who was to blame. But that is not what the Trump administration did.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: She was a agitator, probably a paid agitator, but in my opinion, she was an agitator.
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I can believe that her death is a tragedy, while also recognizing that its a tragedy of her own making and a tragedy of the far left.
KRISTI NOEM, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: It was an act of domestic terrorism. A woman attacked them and those surrounding them and attempted to run them over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem will be here live in studio, coming up to discuss all of that and more.
Joining us right now is a close ally of President Trump, Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.
Senator, thanks so much for joining us.
You have said that Kristi Noem, the secretary of DHS, was, quote, "absolutely, 100 percent correct," unquote, in her near-immediate characterization of the incident and her description of what Renee Good did as, quote, "domestic terrorism".
Your colleague, Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, notes that, quote, "It was very unusual to have a senior law enforcement official to draw conclusions about an event where the scene was still being processed. Generally speaking, law enforcement would recognize that a life was lost, that families are changed forever. The shooter's life will change forever. We're collecting video. We're trying to assess the situation," unquote.
Why is deviating from what Senator Tillis enunciated there -- why is that appropriate? Why not wait for an investigation before asserting what happened?
SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): Well, Jake, I think you could go two ways, too. I mean, you played with all the Republicans said, but you didn't play with any of the Democrat lawmakers said about the ICE agents. I mean, it's true that both sides went out there quickly defending their side.
The fact is that Renee Good was interfering with police activity. There's no question about that right now. There was no question at this point that she accelerated after she was given verbal commands to get out of her vehicle, and the body cam footage clearly shows -- different angles from different people's phones, clearly show that she accelerated straight towards the ICE agent.
They had the right to defend themselves. Once she blocked the ICE agents from doing their job, they exited the vehicle, gave a verbal command. She wasn't listening, and then she purposely tries to accelerate and run over -- I don't know if she purposely tried to run over the ICE agent, but there was an ICE agent position in front of her vehicle. She accelerated to them. At that point, that vehicle becomes a lethal weapon, and the agents had the right to defend themselves, and they did so.
TAPPER: I will be playing some of the comments that Democratic officials have made to Democrats later in the show. But it is also true that the Republicans, the president, the vice president, the DHS secretary are actually in charge of the ICE agent.
You yourself just now asserted --
(CROSSTALK)
MULLIN: But, Jake --
TAPPER: I'm just -- I'm just -- I'm just saying, like, that will come up later in the show, but I'm not asking you about it.
The ICE agent, you just asserted that the woman clearly tried to run over the guy, and then you said, at the very least, she was going forward while he was in front. I think that does illustrate the fact that this is, at the very least, a widely disputed incident full of ambiguities and interpretations.
How can anyone be confident that she was trying to attack the officer instead, if she was trying to flee the scene?
MULLIN: It -- fleeing the scene, it doesn't make any difference. If you accidentally run over a police officer, you still are being charged with involuntary manslaughter. If you are accelerating at a fast rate of speed, driving your vehicle down the road and you cause a death of a civilian, you are charged with involuntary manslaughter because you're driving your vehicle in a reckless manner.
In this particular case, she purposely blocked the ICE agents. Is that disputed? No. We know she purposely blocked the ICE agents. Is it disputed that she accelerated after the ICE agents gave her a verbal command to get out of the vehicle? No.
Now, did she know the ICE agent was in front of her? We don't know, but she -- but we do know that she accelerated and she hit the ICE agent. At that point, that vehicle is a lethal weapon.
[08:05:01]
And that police officer has the right to defend themselves.
It is -- it's -- it is mind-blowing to me why we are defending someone that was acting this in this manner when she -- it was clearly, that she hit an ICE agent, and that's law enforcement that's enforcing our nation's laws. We don't get a choice on which laws we enforce and which laws we don't enforce. The police officers are doing their job. And she was interfering in their job.
If you don't want to be in harm's way, don't get in the way of police officers from doing their job.
TAPPER: I'm not making the case that Renee Good's protest tactics were wise or safe. The question is, did her actions warrant being killed?
MULLIN: It would -- it was a vehicle being used in a lethal manner. Was she accelerating towards a police officer? The answers to those are yes. And in that case, the officer has to make a split decision to protect his life. And that's exactly what he did here.
It is no different than you having a gun in your hand, or having a knife in your hand that is considered lethal weapon. And the officer has to make a split decision to protect his life and those around them's lives. And that's what this ICE officer did.
TAPPER: You said that she clearly hit him. I don't know that that's true. It may be true. It may not be true. It does seem that he stepped to the side and was able to avoid getting hit in a horrible way, and he was seen walking fine afterwards. Again, I'm not defending what she did, I'm just saying she didn't -- she didn't run --
(CROSSTALK)
MULLIN: What's the difference in a horrible way --
TAPPER: Well, she didn't -- MULLIN: What's the difference in a horrible way or not? It's like
saying, well, I didn't really shoot you completely. I just shot you in the arm. But I shot at you.
That's -- it doesn't matter. The vehicle was being used in a lethal manner, and he has a right to use lethal force at that time.
TAPPER: It may be --
MULLIN: And I mean, I've heard reports saying that -- well, why didn't you just shoot the tires out? Okay, give me a break. Like that's going to stop a vehicle.
TAPPER: Yeah, I didn't say that.
MULLIN: Same thing that these people are saying -- I know, but I'm just saying these reports out there.
There is obviously -- I mean, there's video, Jake, you can see the video. It's widely spread across the Internet, from different angles that you can clearly see him being struck by the vehicle, in front of the vehicle. It doesn't make any difference if he was struck or not when he was standing in front of the vehicle and she was giving verbal commands to leave the vehicle, and she accelerated at that point, he doesn't have five seconds, 10 seconds, he has a split decision on what he can do to protect his life and those around his life.
So, remember, there's a crowd around there, too. What if she accelerated out of control at that point, too? But he did -- she did hit him and he did use lethal force. And unfortunately, his life has changed. Her family's life has changed. This should have never taken place.
But what we do know is that law enforcement had the right to be there to enforce the laws. She was interfering with law enforcement from doing their job, and that is a federal offense.
TAPPER: So it may be that she hit, I don't know. I'm waiting for the results of the investigation, but let's -- let's take a look more closely at some of the images of the shooting, as you just referenced.
From the view I'm showing right now is the -- this is the first video that we all saw. Officer Ross is obstructed when he appears to fire the first shot. You can't see because the other two ICE agents are there.
But when he fires the second and third shots, he appears to be at the side of the vehicle, not in front of the vehicle, firing through her window to her left.
Were the second and third shots warranted if by then he was shooting from the side and out of harm's way?
MULLIN: Well, that's very selective imaging that you guys are using there, because you can use a lot of different images in just that. You could also use the one where he's actually hit by the car. (CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: I'm granting you your first -- I'm granting the first shot. I'm just saying, what about the second and third?
MULLIN: I get that, but let's just talk about that real quick.
Anybody that's been trained in law enforcement or with -- with -- even in military, you don't get -- you don't train just to shoot the one shot. You're always trying to shoot two or three shots, typically it's three. It's called a triangle -- one, two, three or running the buttons one, two, three or a zipper.
So, everything you're trained in with muscle memory is a three shot go. And that is -- and you can go -- you can talk to any law enforcement agency you want to that's went through CLEET certification or much higher levels of training with a weapon. So, the three-shot is a full-fledged muscle memory.
However, she is still accelerating -- accelerating at this point when he was firing the first and second shot, it wasn't a clean stop. And so, the threat was still taking place. It was still an active threat because the vehicle was still acting in a manner of a deadly weapon. And until that completely stops, he has to eliminate the threat.
And unfortunately, like I said, this officer's life is turned upside down. Mrs. Good's life and her family, obviously -- Mrs. Good's life is lost, but her family's life has turned upside down. It should never have taken place.
But the real story is, is why were they even out there?
[08:10:00]
They shouldn't have been out there interfering to begin with. And those that are paying for professional protesters to obstruct the justice -- the law enforcement, that at some point, they need to start being held accountable because they're costing people their lives. And --
TAPPER: Yeah, we don't know that she was being -- we don't know --
(CROSSTALK)
MULLIN: These individuals need to held -- be held accountable.
TAPPER: We don't know that she was being paid. She obviously was protesting. We don't know that she was being paid.
I want to ask you, when it comes to just like what appropriate responses are for law enforcement when they're feeling threatened, you were at the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. We just honored the fifth anniversary of that horrible day. On that day, more than 140 police officers were injured when that violent mob stormed the complex. President Trump ultimately pardoned all of them. More than 1,000 of the rioters, including those who physically attacked police. So, using this assessment of when law enforcement can shoot, when they
feel threatened, would those officers have been justified shooting dozens of the January 6th rioters who were, as we see on video, physically attacking police in ways that caused them harm?
MULLIN: You know, it's interesting you bring that point up because remember, the Democrats went after President Trump saying that he agitated the crowd to do that when he also said that he went, he told him to go down and peacefully demonstrate. But yet they try to pin that on President Trump.
In my opinion, when you're using lethal force at all towards law enforcement, they have the right to use lethal force, too, if they're feeling threatened. And I made that very clear at the time of that riot that I said, it is a miracle that the Capitol police didn't use lethal force because in that manner, in that position, I wouldn't blame them from doing so.
I also went down to the triage center when -- when those officers were being medically attended before we could get them to the hospital and visited almost every single one of them.
So, yes, I think the Capitol police had the right to defend themselves in a lethal manner if they felt threatened, which some of them obviously did.
But that goes back to my original point before you switched to that point is George Soros, who is obviously paying these agitators and paying for these protests to go on, he should start being held accountable because he's costing people's lives. And there's no question that he is obviously behind this. We know this, and that's not indisputable at this point, but that's a big difference between the First Amendment and purposely disrupting and purposely getting in the way of law enforcement -- of people -- for our law enforcement from doing their job.
TAPPER: I'm just saying, we don't know that George Soros is directly involved in this specific incident.
But let's turn to foreign policy, because I want to ask you about what's happening in Iran. President Trump posted on Truth Social yesterday that, quote, "The USA stands ready to help all the demonstrators in the streets." "The New York Times" reports that the president has been briefed on options for military strikes on Iran against the government of Iran in support of the protests.
Would you support military strikes against the Iranian regime?
MULLIN: You know, the Iranian regime has been attacking the United States, said they're at war with the United States. They publicly said that just a simple two weeks ago. We know they're the world's sponsor on terror, who have made USA their main target.
The president has made it very clear that we're not wanting to interfere with what the Iranian people are doing by trying to take back their beautiful country again. We're not at war with the Iranian people. It's the terrorist regime that's trying to run that country that is at war with us.
And the president has made it very clear that if they begin to kill their own people and slaughter them, that the United States will be forced to interfere at that point. And I would back the president in having that strategy of protecting the Iranian people from the right to restore their country to what it used to be in the 1970s.
TAPPER: It does appear as though they are they are killing and slaughtering the demonstrators in the streets. So, we shall see what comes next.
Senator Mullin, always good to have you on the show. Thanks for getting up early for us. We appreciate it.
MULLIN: Thanks for having me on. Absolutely.
TAPPER: Coming up, is the Minneapolis shooting a turning point in the Trump administrations immigration crackdown? Our panel will weigh in.
Plus, President Trump says the only thing constraining him on the world stage is his own morality. I'll ask a top Democratic senator what he thinks of that, ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:18:24]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NOEM: This appears as an attempt to kill or to cause bodily harm to agents. An act of domestic terrorism.
MAYOR JACOB FREY (D), MINNEAPOLIS: This was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION.
You heard there federal and local officials giving quite different views of that deadly encounter in Minneapolis between an ICE agent and 37-year-old American citizen, Renee Good, who was protesting the ICE activities.
My panel joins me now.
So, Xochitl, you posted on X -- we should note for people who don't know, you used to work with the Justice Department under Biden. You posted on X that when you were at the DOJ, they updated their use of force policy for the first time in 20 years. What does this new policy say?
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So the new policy was right after the George Floyd murder, which took blocks -- it was blocks away from what happened here.
TAPPER: Four blocks, yeah.
HINOJOSA: Four blocks away.
And what -- and what happened is that law enforcement needed some sort of guidance on when they could use deadly force. And there's -- it's very specific about when a car is driving away, you should not use deadly force unless there is no other way to stop a potential car from either killing somebody or causing harm.
In this instance, and I think that it's very -- if you're looking at all of the videos, as we've seen over and over, it is very clear that the officer could have potentially done things like step away, things like that. He did not necessarily need to use deadly force. And so, I think there is a big question about whether or not this officer is, was in compliance or was not in compliance with this guidance.
[08:20:04]
Now, I will also say, and J.D. Vance said this earlier, officers have immunity in a lot of these instances. It is very hard to prosecute an officer or an agent whenever something like this happens.
TAPPER: A federal law.
HINOJOSA: A federal law enforcement --
TAPPER: It's tough to prosecute them on a state level.
HINOJOSA: Correct. There should still be an investigation, et cetera., but I think the end result will -- it will be very hard that I do not believe that there will be some sort of criminal action here. Could he get fired? Yes. Could there be a civil lawsuit on behalf of the family? Absolutely.
But I think that if you're looking at the video and looking at the policy, it's clear that he is in violation.
TAPPER: So -- but Senator Mullin interprets it differently than what Xochitl said because he's talking about the first shot and the threat that the officer felt, according to Senator Mullin, not the driving away part of it.
BRYAN LANZA, SENIOR ADVISER, TRUMP 2024 CAMPAIGN: Listen, here's how I understand. I don't serve in law enforcement. I certainly think there's a huge tragedy. What took place in Minnesota.
But, you know, I have plenty of law enforcement friends. And their number one thing is to come home safely every night, right? And when a car is veering towards you, whether it hits you or it doesn't, it's veering towards you that causes you to think you might not make it home that night, and you have to take action.
I prefer an investigation to happen. I don't like the fact that we're calling somebody a domestic terrorist without an investigation. But when I grew up, I grew up in L.A., you know, law enforcement was everywhere, if you impede -- TAPPER: Daryl Gates era.
LANZA: Daryl -- exactly. Daryl Gates era.
If you impede on an arrest, there's -- there's a high likelihood you're going to end up dead. And so why does -- what I would understand is why are we in the era that any citizen can now impede an arrest taking place and expect nothing to happen? You do that now.
HINOJOSA: Policies are now in place.
LANZA: But you --
HINOJOSA: That was happening too much.
LANZA: How about you not impeding an arrest? How about we tell the general public these guys have a right to be there. They're going to do the arrests. The politicians should tell them to get out of the way. Let them do the rest.
Instead -- instead, what we're having is politicians demanding confrontations. Public policy, people demanding confrontations. CNN's favorite policeman, Michael Fanone, he's talking about, you know, people using guns against ICE enforcements to deal with these situations.
All that's happening on the left is truly an escalation. I think it needs to stop.
TAPPER: Fanone is no longer works for CNN, and we are going to run that clip --
LANZA: It's despicable.
TAPPER: -- in the next hour. We don't have --
LANZA: He's literally asking for a confrontation with law enforcement and citizens, a gun exchange.
TAPPER: We're going to run that clip, and then we don't have it ready right this second.
Do you think that there is culpability by these protest forces, whether it's George Soros, as Markwayne Mullin was suggesting, or others in terms of encouraging people to put themselves in harm's way?
SABRINA SINGH, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't think that protesters should put themselves in harm's way and impede law enforcement actions. I think that there is a conversation that needs to be had. I also grew up in L.A. I'm very familiar with the LAPD. I actually think law enforcement is a good thing, and I think 98 percent of law enforcement officers executing their actions on the street are doing it on behalf of protecting the community.
This was not an example of that. And I also think that, you know, if you are peacefully protesting, I think that's okay. I think if you want to stand outside a federal courthouse and protest and make your opinions heard, I think that's allowed. But when you are getting in the way of an action, I do think you are putting yourself in harm's way. And I don't think we should be encouraging that.
I do think that on the Republican side, what I would like to see from Republican colleagues is encouraging peaceful protest. I think that is something that is allowed under the First Amendment, and we should encourage all citizens to do that. But again, when you're putting yourself in harm's way, and I think there absolutely has to be an investigation, what happened here on -- on this tragic shooting of a mother who has children.
But I don't think she at any time was a threat to the law enforcement officer, but that's what an investigation is for.
TAPPER: Yeah.
SINGH: And frankly, I think its concerning that the head of the DHS said that, you know, she's automatically a domestic terrorist.
TAPPER: So, we heard from two Republican congressmen. We've heard a lot of rhetoric on the left and the right. But, Jonah, I want you to react to what we've heard from Congressman Wesley Hunt of Texas and Randy Fine of Florida.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. WESLEY HUNT (R-TX): The bottom line is this, when a federal officer gives you instructions, you abide by them, and then you get to keep your life.
REP. RANDY FINE (R-FL): If you get in the way of the government repelling a foreign invasion, you're going to end up just like that lady did yesterday.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: What do you think?
JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's grotesque and idiotic. Look, I -- Sabrina was saying, look, you -- protesters shouldn't get in the way of law enforcement action. If this was IRS agents, you know, in Texas going after somebody and right wing protesters were getting in the way, there would be a lot of people on the left saying, how dare you get, you know, this insurrectionist and all that kind of thing. It's dumb on either side.
At the same time, getting in the way of law enforcement is not a capital offense, punishable by summary execution, which is what these goofballs are saying. There's so much stupidity in all of this when people say, oh, so she should just be allowed to get away? Well, maybe they have her license plate. They know where her home is, they can arrest her later.
[08:25:00] The idea that somehow if you get in the way of law enforcement, that the only choice is summary execution is a barbaric and ridiculous piece of rhetoric. But there's so much ridiculous rhetoric going on these days.
I miss -- I'm so nostalgic for the days where politicians welcome the opportunity to say, hey, let's not get ahead of the facts. Let's let the investigation proceed, right? Instead of domestic terrorists or first-degree murder, right? We don't know either of those things, and we have enough experience at this point to know that video, no offense to your chosen profession, but video can be misleading.
TAPPER: Yeah.
GOLDBERG: Like we know this. We know this from the George Floyd thing. We know this from Rodney King.
TAPPER: How about the Del Rio incident when there were photographs of border patrol agents with Haitian migrants during the Biden years, and it looked like they were whipping them. But it turns out they weren't right.
GOLDBERG: Right, and the Biden administration jumped the gun and overinterpreted the video.
TAPPER: They did.
The panel is going to be back later in the show, so don't go anywhere.
Coming up next, as mass protests rock Iran, President Trump says the U.S. is ready to help. What exactly does that mean?
Democratic Senator Mmark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, joins us next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:30:30]
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION.
"The New York Times" is reporting that President Trump has been briefed in recent days on potential military strikes against Iran in response to the regime's violent efforts to suppress mass protests in the country.
Joining us now is the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, Virginia Senator Mark Warner. Thank you so much for joining us, Senator.
So "The New York Times" has reported that the president's been briefed in recent days on options for military strikes against the Iranian regime although President Trump is said to have not made a final decision.
Are you hearing anything? You're the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Do you think it's likely that the administration will move forward with any military action? And should they?
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): Well, Jake, first of all, the Iranian people want to get rid of this awful regime. We stand with their courage. We don't have great visibility into Iran. And Iran has shut off the Internet over the last few days.
But if we step back for a moment, Jake, let's look at this. This president, in less than one year in office, has used the American military to launch strikes in six different countries -- Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Nigeria, Venezuela. He's got 20 percent of the American fleet off the coast of Venezuela blockading that country.
He wants to increase the military budget by 50 percent to a $1.5 trillion. How does that affect anybody's cost of living? How does that what does that say to young people around the country, which may mean American troops could be deployed all over the world? And this was the president that was supposed to take us out of a lot of foreign wars.
I don't get it. I don't understand what his overarching policy is other than don't piss off Donald Trump.
TAPPER: So you don't support any potential military strikes against the Iranian regime?
WARNER: I think -- I think we should put his along with others around the region, as much pressure in support of the Iranian people. But the idea of military strikes, Jake, I know it goes back. The last time America intervened militarily in Iran was 1953, when a CIA-led coup overthrew the Iranian regime to protect oil, by the way. And that ultimately, most historians would say, was what led to the ayatollahs' rise in the 1970s.
I think when we mess with the internal dynamics of a country like Iran, which is extraordinarily complex, only half the nation is Persian heritage, we ought to do that carefully. And I don't think we have enough visibility at this point to start at least planning major military actions when we've already struck, as I mentioned, six different nations in less than a year.
TAPPER: Former President Obama has expressed regret for not more aggressively supporting Iranian protesters back in 2009. If you don't support military action beyond sanctions, what should President Trump do right now to support the Iranian people?
WARNER: I think there are ways we can call upon the international community, which, by the way, because we walked away from the JCPOA doesn't have as much international support.
I do think the strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities was successful, but as we showed, it didn't obliterate the facilities. And public reporting has said Iran's in the process of building back its capability.
But the idea -- I want to know what the president is talking about. Is he simply talking about another airstrike? Is he talking about boots on the ground in Iran to take out military facilities when we've already again, remember, we've got 20 percent of the fleet off the coast of Venezuela at this point, maintaining a blockade.
TAPPER: Yes.
WARNER: So the Ford, which is the aircraft carrier down there, it's supposed to be deployed to the Middle East. Even America, with its amazing military presence and our military did extraordinary in Venezuela -- we get stretched pretty thin.
TAPPER: So on that topic, on the topic of the United States' role in the world, I want you to take a listen to what President Trump told "The New York Times" a few days ago, when asked if there were any checks on his use of American military power around the world.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes, there's one thing -- my own morality, my own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[08:34:46]
TAPPER: What's your reaction?
WARNER: My reaction is all Americans -- and frankly, I've got to believe the rest of the world -- if we're depending on Donald Trump's morality to decide whether we put troops in harm's way, that is not what our Constitution set up.
That is why our country was founded on the notion that one individual can't take our country to war. You've got to consult with Congress, which this president has completely blown off throughout his whole first year. And I would say both Democrats and Republicans alike he's not consulted with.
And I think we're in unprecedented ground. Again, six different nations attacked by American military in less than a year.
And again, many of these regimes are bad guys, I agree. But America -- the last thing I thought was Donald Trump was going to be the world's policeman for his moral view of the world. That's not what I think we signed up for.
TAPPER: I want to turn to the ICE shooting in Minneapolis. You have said that all the facts need to come out. That everyone needs to be held accountable.
There are Democrats -- Democratic officials who have just declared that this was a murder. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ILHAN OMAR (D-MN): We have seen them terrorize so many of citizens in the fifth district and across Minnesota. And that has tragically led to this murder.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): At the end of the day, what we saw today is a murder.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: That's Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, two Democratic members of Congress. Do you have any issues with them calling it a murder?
WARNER: Listen, I've got issues with any public official, including the Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem calling it domestic terrorism. I'm a little bit old fashioned. When an American citizen is killed by a federal law enforcement official, we ought to let the investigation take place without jumping to conclusions. I mean, that's what our system is about.
But I do think there are concerns when we've got -- you know, remember we're beefing up ICE 10,000 more agents. They are not getting the traditional five months training.
Literally, Jake, the training for the ICE agents now is 47 days. Why 47 days? Because Donald Trump is the 47th president.
And the idea of going into neighborhoods and going after folks is not traditional ICE training. I think this is kind of an Orwellian circumstance where we've got cities on edge all across America.
We wanted the border shut down, right, I agree with that. But sending ICE agents into community after community, where they're perhaps not fully-trained, puts us in, again, unchartered territory and not something I think the vast majority of American people want.
TAPPER: To be clear. This ICE agent in particular, had at least ten years' experience. He wasn't one of these new agents with a short training.
WARNER: So be it. And again, that's why there ought to be an investigation. I also -- I don't want to claim to be any kind of legal expert, but the idea, my understanding is that the administration is trying to completely cut out any state role in this investigation and handle it entirely federal.
I don't think, at least in my memory, that is not the way that you cut out all of local law enforcement in terms of an investigation where there's been a shooting.
TAPPER: Funding for the federal government is going to expire at the end of this month. There's a growing push among Democrats to freeze funding for ICE, even if that were to result in another government shutdown, would you support that?
WARNER: Listen, I think we went through the longest government shutdown in American history last year. I don't think we need to repeat it. I do think we need to go ahead and get our appropriations bills done, keep the government operating. And I do hope, and I think we're starting to see a little bit of
splintering when my good friend, Senator Tim Kaine got the War Powers Resolution passed in the Senate the other day. Finally, Republicans are starting to find their spine and saying, you know what? Congress has got to provide some level of check on Donald Trump.
Again, go back to Donald Trump's own words. If the only constraint on his power and use of military force, where we've used in six different nation states in less than a year, is Donald Trump's own morality -- if that doesn't scare the dickens out of you, I don't know what does.
TAPPER: Is there any one of those military interventions that you think we should not have done, the United States?
WARNER: Well, listen, I think -- I think it is better that Maduro is gone. Yes. Do I think there are bad leaders all across Asia and Africa? Should the American military and parts of South America go after all of those nation states? Should we be threatening Colombia and Mexico?
We may not like their leaders, but they were both elected by the democracies, by their own people.
Where does this end? Again, I thought Donald Trump was the guy that was going to take us out of these countless wars.
And remember, Jake, we have literally 20 percent of our fleet. The cost day to day of maintaining the fleet off the coast of Venezuela to maintain that oil blockade so that we can get Venezuelan oil, which, by the way, the oil companies didn't sound too keen about going into.
[08:39:48]
WARNER: I mean, it's going to take a couple years to rebuild Venezuela's oil infrastructure.
Is our fleet going to maintain that blockade for the next two years? What are the costs? What does that do to our military preparedness around the rest of the world?
This is not the way the president is supposed to operate. They're supposed to operate in conjunction, make the case to the American people, make the case to the world, and frankly, make the case to the Congress.
TAPPER: Senator Warner, thank you so much for your time this morning. We appreciate it.
WARNER: Thank you, Jake.
TAPPER: President Trump is feeling emboldened on the world stage. Did his own party just give him some sort of reality check? Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not.
I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way. But if we don't do it the easy way, were going to do it the hard way.
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: By what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? Obviously, Greenland should be part of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[08:44:49]
TAPPER: Obviously.
Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION.
President Trump is clear. He wants Greenland as part of the United States. How far is he willing to go to get it?
My panel is back with me.
So Jonah, he says, if we don't do it the easy way, we're going to do it the hard way -- taking Greenland.
JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, we don't know exactly what he means by the hard way, but they won't rule out the idea of like using military force and intimidation, which would mean the end of NATO, which would mean a complete violation of everything that we've built as a -- as a foreign policy enterprise for the last hundred or so years.
TAPPER: You haven't said anything yet that President Trump would disagree with. It's just that you think it's bad.
GOLDBERG: I think that's right. I think it's bad.
TAPPER: And you think that it's fine.
GOLDBERG: And so -- but I do think like it's an important point. There are a lot of people who want to say this is all part of Trump's grand strategy, and he's got these theories, and you listen to Stephen Miller, you know, translating stuff from the original German.
And the thing is, like, he likes the Monroe Doctrine because he thinks the Monroe Doctrine agrees with him, not because he agrees with it. He likes any legal argument that says the president can do whatever the hell he wants.
It is not like they have a serious thing about this. And he just -- we have a treaty already with Denmark that says we can do whatever we need to do in Greenland.
SABRINA SINGH, FORMER DEPUTY PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: That's why we don't need to take it.
GOLDBERG: That's why we don't need it.
SINGH: Surge troops at a base that we already have.
GOLDBERG: And when he's asked -- and when he's asked about it, he just says, well, I think psychologically owning it just is much more valuable.
TAPPER: But he also says that there are a bunch of Chinese and Russian ships there --
SINGH: Yes.
TAPPER: -- and people on the ground in Greenland say that's not true.
SINGH: The Arctic is a contested area in that --
TAPPER: No, no. But I mean on Greenland.
SINGH: Oh, on Greenland. I mean -- no, I think I think we would certainly be aware of a presence of a foreign adversary.
I mean, of course, they have presence all around the world. But to the extent that they are, you know, have bases like we do, that's not the case.
I mean, there are ship presence that the Trump administration is rightfully raising concern about, and the Arctic is something that we know is a contested space.
So if the president wants to surge troops and surge resources and capabilities to the Arctic, I don't think anyone's going to object to that.
But taking Greenland by force, I mean, not only would that end the NATO alliance, that would essentially upend the rules-based international order that we've known since World War II, and one of the greatest defensive alliances in history.
So I don't know why we would want to do that. And I frankly think even though Republicans continue to throw cold water on the idea, I think you do have to take the president at his word.
TAPPER: So, Bryan, we saw some pushback to this notion of an all- powerful president in the Senate when five Republicans broke with their party and voted with Democrats on this, on limiting President Trump's power when it comes to Venezuela in a War Powers Act.
Does that suggest trouble for the president? Or what do you think?
BRYAN LANZA, SENIOR ADVISER 2024 CAMPAIGN: Yes, I think so. I think you're seeing some of these senators and some of these house members sort of find their spine again. They realize that they're a third branch of government. And I think from the administration's standpoint, they're not happy.
You know, they sort of like the rubber stamp that they've been getting.
But it's an election year. An election year -- what we've learned over the years over history, is that politicians are the most self-serving people out there. And they're going to figure out what helps them more than anything else. And if it means laying out the president and disagreeing with him and becoming more separate as the economy becomes difficult, they'll absolutely do that.
I mean, you have to remember, you know, during -- I think it was during the Bush era, Senior Bush, you had the operative for the senatorial committee say we need to distance ourselves from Senior because the economy was so bad.
I mean, these things happen throughout history if their own parties start to separate as you get closer to an election year.
TAPPER: Xochitl, you heard Senator Warner there take issue with President Trump saying the only thing that can restrain him on the world stage is his own morality and his own mind. He says it's the only thing that can stop me. I don't need international law.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, he has an expansive view of the presidency, and we saw this at the start. He does not care what the courts say.
The Supreme Court last year ruled that he is immune from any sort of conduct. Congress isn't going to check on him. He's fired the inspector generals.
So I -- at this point, there is nothing that can stop him from either using military force somewhere, for taking over Greenland, for, you know, whatever, spending billions of dollars in Venezuela. And I -- and it is it's remarkable.
What I also think is remarkable is all of these things that we're talking about, his own morality, it's going to cause people and the American people more money to go into Venezuela, to take over Greenland, all of these things.
And at a time when costs are rising, this only -- the American people only get the bill. And if I were Republicans in tough districts right now, I'd start backing away from Donald Trump, because that is not going to help them win reelection.
LANZA: Let me add that, you know, as bad as the environment is, when you start to look at the generic between Democrat and Republican, its only about a two-point spread.
Four years ago, it was about a 15-point spread. So it's not this -- this huge wave that we saw four years ago that was going to challenge Republicans, you know, their hold on leadership.
And now it seems to be sort of a small wave. It could get larger and it's only going to get larger if the president focuses on more on international things and not the domestic things that matter to the American people.
[08:49:49]
SINGH: I mean, on that point, though, I think that there was a poll that came out just at the end of December that said like 70 percent of Independents do not support taking military action in Venezuela.
And I think the number that you really need to pay attention to are those Independent voters, because they will determine the swing.
And frankly, I think I mean, Xochitl's right, if I am these Republicans in Congress, I would slowly start backing away into the bushes and distance myself.
GOLDBERG: But I don't know if we take Greenland, the price of reindeer and herring will come down. And that's what the American people want. More Affordable Nordic products.
TAPPER: I love reindeer.
When we come back, how President Trump views Americas place in the world. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: Anyone wondering what exactly President Trump's so-called Don- Roe Doctrine actually means should look no further than my interview this week with top Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who laid it out in fairly stark terms.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MILLER: We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power.
[08:54:50]
MILLER: The United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere.
We're a superpower. And under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Senator Bernie Sanders' response to that was that Stephen Miller was explaining imperialism.
Now, some might say that this enunciated vision of the world is really not any different from how the U.S. has occasionally conducted itself, whether in Vietnam or Panama or Iraq.
But the president's recent threats against not just Venezuela, but Colombia, Mexico, Cuba, to say nothing of Greenland and NATO ally Denmark, well, it does represent a stunning break with nearly eight decades of postwar American diplomatic leadership and one that indicates a president who feels completely unconstrained by international norms.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I don't need international law. I'm not looking to hurt people. I'm not looking to kill people.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But do you feel your administration needs to abide by international law on the global stage?
TRUMP: Yes, I do. I -- you know, I do, but it depends what your definition of international law is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Now the Monroe doctrine was about preventing European countries from seizing any further territories in this hemisphere.
The Don-Roe doctrine insists on American impunity to do whatever the U.S. wants, insisting on American control of Greenland, even if that means fracturing NATO.
This is all about the western hemisphere, of course, or as the State Department put it in a tweet, "Our hemisphere".
Anyone surprised by Trump's new expansionist view of American foreign policy might not have been paying attention during his inauguration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation, one that increases our wealth, expands our territory, builds our cities, raises our expectations and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: "Expands our territory, carries our flag into new horizons". Turns out he was serious about that. And if you look at the national security strategy that the White House released last November and what they call the Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, Team Trump also wants to expand this beyond the hemisphere to the Indo-Pacific when it comes to freedom of navigation and supply chains and access to critical minerals -- critical materials, or preventing adversaries from dominating in the Middle East when it comes to oil and gas. And to the whole world when it comes to A.I., biotech and quantum computing.
So buckle up.
Don't go anywhere. Our special edition of STATE OF THE UNION continues next.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem will be here live in studio. Stay with us.
[08:57:32]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
