Return to Transcripts main page

The Brief with Jim Sciutto

CNN International: Machado Says She Presented Trump with Nobel Peace Prize Medal; Two Leaders Fight for Venezuela's Future and Trump's Favor; More European Troops Arrive in Greenland; E.U. Officials Threaten to Freeze Work on U.S. Trade Agreement; Tensions Escalate in Minneapolis After Another Shooting; Trump's Insurrection Act Threat; Kyiv Facing Freezing Temperatures Without Power. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired January 15, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR, "THE BRIEF": Hello and welcome to our viewers joining us from all around the world. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington, and

you're watching "The Brief."

Just ahead this hour, Venezuela's opposition leader, Maria Corina Machado, says she gave her Nobel Peace Prize to Donald Trump. European troops land

in Greenland for joint exercises following the U.S. president's threats to take the island. And growing clashes between ICE officers and protesters in

Minnesota as Trump warning once again he could invoke the Insurrection Act.

The leader of the Venezuelan opposition, Maria Corina Machado, is in Washington to attempt to shore up U.S. support. She met earlier with

President Trump as well as a bipartisan group of senators She says she gave the U.S. president her Nobel Peace Prize as a gift.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARIA CORINA MACHADO, VENEZUELAN OPPOSITION LEADER: I presented the president of the United States the medal of the Nobel Peace Prize and I

told him this, listen to this. Two hundred years ago, General Lafayette gave Simon Bolivar a medal with George Washington's face on it. Bolivar

since then kept that medal for the rest of his life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: We don't know yet what the president's reaction was to that gift. We do know he wanted the prize himself. We should note the Nobel Committee

has made clear the Peace Prize cannot be shared or transferred after it is awarded by the Nobel Committee.

The meeting comes as the White House says Trump stands by his assertion that Machado does not have the support necessary to lead Venezuela. Just

yesterday, the president called Venezuela's acting president, Delcy Rodriguez, of course, Nicolas Maduro's former vice president, a terrific

person following a phone call. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt says the current Venezuelan government has been extremely cooperative.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Secretary Rubio and the administration have been in constant communication with Ms. Rodriguez and

other members of the interim government in Venezuela. They have been extremely cooperative. They have thus far met all of the demands and

requests of the United States and of the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: In Caracas, Delcy Rodriguez delivered her State of the Union -- State of the Nation address. She urged her country to wage a diplomatic

battle with the U.S. saying, quote, "If I ever have to go to Washington as acting president, I will do so standing tall, walking and not crawling."

Kristen Holmes is live at the White House. Kristen, is it clear to you what the next steps are for Venezuela? Trump is still saying Machado doesn't

have the support and that he likes Delcy Rodriguez. Seems like they're happy with the status quo for now.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, for now, certainly. I mean, we know one of the things that President Trump and the

administration was trying to focus on was stability in the administration in Venezuela. That's part of the reason that they had kind of turned their

focus to Rodriguez after the capture, actually before the capture of Maduro, for this idea that, one, they could have her in place and then put

the screws to her.

We know that they've kept the armada that is in the Caribbean with essentially weapons pointed at Venezuela just off the coast. We know that

we've kept sanctions, or at least some of them in place. These are all forms of negotiating tactics to put the screws to Rodriguez to get her to

do what the United States wants.

Now, you heard Karoline Leavitt in the briefing today. She would not give any sort of a timeline on elections or a shift to democracy in Venezuela.

So, it's really unclear what this looks like in terms of steps. All we really know right now is this step or phase one, which is this kind of

stability period where you see President Trump, the United States trying to rebuild the oil infrastructure and continue to use basically the same

regime. Maduro is gone, but Rodriguez is essentially a part of Maduro. She was part of his inner circle. She was his vice president.

[18:05:00]

But to put an enormous amount of pressure on, and Rodriguez seems to be playing ball with the White House in a way that Maduro was not willing to.

So, right now, it does seem as though they are happy with the status quo.

SCIUTTO: It's quite a change, given most of the government remains from the Maduro regime. Kristen Holmes, thanks so much.

Richard Haass is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. He's also the author of the Substack newsletter "Home and Away." Richard,

good to have you.

RICHARD HAASS, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Good to be here.

SCIUTTO: So, I first have to ask you this, given your long history in diplomacy. Is there any precedent or anything close to a winner of a prize,

a Nobel Prize, or similar feeling pressure to give it to the U.S. president to curry favor?

HAASS: I think that's a rhetorical question, Jim. I'm not familiar with anything like it. It was quite a gesture on her part. And I think it's her

attempt to bring the president over, given the conversation he has had, to where he sees a meaningful role for the political opposition in Venezuela.

SCIUTTO: Is it clear to you that he sees a meaningful role? Because listening to Karoline Leavitt today from the White House podium, she

repeated that Trump doesn't quite believe Machado has the support. He said that he likes Delcy Rodriguez. She's being extremely cooperative. They seem

to be prioritizing stability of oil supplies getting out of there. And there's no timeline for elections. Is the status quo going to stick around

for a while?

HAASS: I would think so. This administration, when you think about it, is not about promoting democracy. That's not on their bingo card. They are

interested in access to oil. I also think they have a legitimate concern that if they try to interject Mrs. Machado and basically say, she has to be

the next leader or you need to have elections right away, that could trigger civil conflict. You have a lot of guns and a lot of small groups

running around. My guess is they'd see her as a threat.

So, I think, you know, the real question to me is whether the president opens up a middle ground between the status quo, working with essentially

the old regime minus Maduro, and something that would try to usher in democracy quickly, and whether he's willing to open up some type of a

gradual process. And we'll see.

SCIUTTO: You've written in your recent piece that the U.S. doesn't just lack the means to run Venezuela, as the president claims to be doing right

now, but also the appetite. Explain what you mean.

HAASS: Well, to run a country, you've got to have a real physical presence, a military presence. You've got to be there politically, on the

ground, economically. I mean, think about it. What we did in Japan and Germany after World War II, more recently what we tried to do in places

like Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, nation building, the idea of shepherding a country through a political transition, you don't do that from offshore.

You don't do that by telephone. You've really got to be there. You've got to rebuild institutions. You've got to lead by the hour. And I just don't

see this administration making that investment. A lot of its base would be violently opposed to that type of a foreign or international commitment.

So, again, the president wants the benefits of that kind of a policy without the cost, and it's just life doesn't work that way.

SCIUTTO: You cite, of course, previous examples of failed U.S. efforts at nation building, Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems like the administration is

making the argument that they, for instance, are not making the mistake that the U.S. did in Iraq of taking apart all the institutions there, De-

Ba'athification, all that stuff you're very familiar with. But is there any wisdom in that argument?

HAASS: There is. What we did in Iraq was wrong. We disbanded the military. We disbanded all the institutions so we had no one to work with. This

administration now is going to the other extreme. Rather than nation building, this is just a simple leadership change.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

HAASS: And what they're hoping is this is enough. But as you heard, say, from the leaders of some of the oil companies, Jim, this is not a recipe

for long-term stability. And if you want American companies to make long- term investments, you've got to give them more confidence. That's why I think what the administration is doing might be OK for now, but it won't be

OK permanently.

SCIUTTO: The examples that you'll hear from some of the administration supporters, setting aside Iraq and Afghanistan, are places like Panama or

Granada, let's be frank, much smaller than Venezuela. But they'll say, well, look what we did there. It worked there, it can work here.

HAASS: We had unique relations in places like Panama because of the canal. We also had 25,000, 26,000 troops there. We had an American serviceman

there killed and so forth. So, we had stakes there. We had a presence there. So, because it worked there, it's not an argument it will work here,

it's just the opposite. If we're not willing and we're not able to establish that kind of a relationship with Venezuela, there's no reason to

expect we're going to have that degree of influence.

[18:10:00]

SCIUTTO: Yes. Before we go, I'd like to ask you about Iran, because the President seems to believe, although he has held back on military action

for now, CNN is reporting that the U.S. is now redirecting a carrier group to the region to increase its military options. The president seems to

believe that via military force, he can not only protect the protesters, but perhaps bring down this regime. Do you find that credible?

HAASS: In a word, no. I don't see how force can protect individual protesters. They're being shot at close range with people with small arms.

So, again, lobbing, you know, missiles or using bombers from afar is not going to change that.

This regime still has a lot of backing and the opposition is divided and weak. So, I don't think, as much as I'd love to see this regime join the

dustbin of history, I just don't think it's on the cusp of that. My own view is we probably need to think about a more patient, long-term policy of

trying to bring about maybe political evolution in Iran rather than revolution.

SCIUTTO: Yes. I mean, all those conditions or things don't seem to appeal to this president. Long-term solutions. Richard Haass, thanks so much for

joining.

HAASS: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Well, European military personnel, a small number of them, have now landed in Greenland for joint exercises as President Trump repeats his

threat to take over the territory, whether they like it or not. Those forces come from Germany, France, Finland, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands

and the U.K., joining Danish forces already on the island. It's not a massive group. France so far has the largest contingent with 15 service

members. However, they are still deliberately visible and on an island with less than 60,000 full-time residents.

Nic Robertson is on the ground in Nuuk. Can you describe what this force is for to the best of your assessment and knowledge?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL EDITOR: It's a great question, Jim. And I think you've nailed it there. The French say that they've come here to join

military exercises in the Arctic. The Germans with their 13 troops who have come on a reconnaissance mission to look at ways of reducing, they say, the

security threat caused by Russia and China in the Arctic. And I think that's important when they say Arctic, not Greenland. They're not saying

there's a China and Russia threat around the coast here. The Finns who are sending two people here, they say that they're looking at doing -- looking

at training possibilities here.

But the messaging is not joined up yet. But I think that's what we're going to see change. All these countries have contributed small numbers because

what they're doing is looking at how they can build up and bringing much greater numbers.

So, I think what we're expecting here, and I think what the residents are expecting, is to see a very, very big NATO presence appear on the horizon

here and on offshore and or boots on the ground that's going to present to President Trump the impression that this is perhaps the biggest contingent

of NATO here in many years, and that they can project the kind of security umbrella and deterrence that President Trump seems to want.

But yes, at the moment, it seems like an incredibly small footprint. The Norwegians have sent two troops. The British have sent one. The two -- one

military official has come from the Netherlands. So, very small footprint at the moment.

SCIUTTO: Should we look at that, though, as an advance party, as it were, to build the groundwork -- lay the groundwork for a larger force or is this

it?

ROBERTSON: No, absolutely. This is this is the advance team for a larger force. These are the these are the guys. These are the soldiers. These are

the women who will be here as well. Who will be looking at how do you -- logistically, how do you bring in those really big numbers? What are they

going to do? Where are they going to go?

This, as we understand, is something that will be a very big projection of NATO's deterrence and threat suppression capacity that will have ever been

seen around Greenland.

SCIUTTO: So, tell me, as you're there speaking to Greenlanders, how do they rate the foreign ministers' performance both of Denmark and of

Greenland here in Washington as they met with the president?

ROBERTSON: Yes. I was interested today talking to folks here. They're very emotional about the foreign minister, the Greenlandic foreign minister

speaking in their language in Washington, D.C.

[18:15:00]

That was a sort of totemic moment for them where, wow, we're doing something here we've never done before, remembering it was a Greenlandic --

the Greenlandic foreign minister that wanted to have the meetings in Washington, D.C. We've got we all got the sense that the Danes were leading

the way. Perhaps they were with their experience.

But for the Greenlandic people, that was huge. And she has seen the foreign minister of Greenland is seen as being a real hero. So, she's a strong

supporter of the Greenlandic people. And she's a strong And I'm told, when she comes back here, she can expect to be met by many, many residents from

Nuuk who really want to show their gratitude. And I think that expression gets to the core of just how passionately and deeply people are worried

here.

And about the NATO troops coming, I have spoken to a few -- good few people here about that. Some of them say they don't really -- you know, it's not

really of interest to them. They kind of think, they feel, this is perhaps people who have a more pro-independence feel here, feel that this is really

the Danish government posturing. There are others who say, yes, this is good for us. We need to have this. We need to be sending this very clear,

strong message.

SCIUTTO: Nic Robertson in Nuuk, thanks so much for joining. Still ahead, as Europe debates exactly how to stand up to the U.S. on Greenland, one

answer could lie in trade. We're going to hear from the European Parliament's trade chairman next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCIUTTO: Welcome back. In today's Business Brief, U.S. stocks rose across the board on Thursday. Strong earnings from U.S. financial giants Goldman

Sachs and Morgan Stanley helped boost sediment. Chipmaker Taiwan Semiconductor posted strong results as well. Also, on Thursday, oil tumbled

and gold fell from record highs as the threat of U.S. military action against Iran recedes for now.

E.U. officials are debating whether to freeze work on their trade agreement with the U.S. until Washington stops threatening to take Greenland.

European Parliament members outraged over President Trump's expansionist foreign policy are pushing to suspend voting on key pillars of the trade

package to prove they still have economic leverage over the U.S.

Even before the Trump administration's threats to Greenland, top EU officials believed they could improve the deal. Under the trade framework

hammered out last August, tariffs on most E.U. imports will be subject to 15 percent tariffs, while the E.U. will cut tariffs on hundreds of U.S.

industrial and farm goods to zero.

Joining me now is Bernd Lange. He is chair of the European Parliament's Committee on International Trade. Thanks so much for joining.

[18:20:00]

BERND LANGE, CHAIR, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE: Hello.

SCIUTTO: So, first, I wonder where do your discussions stand? Because as you know, Trump keeps repeating his threat to take Greenland one way or the

other. Have you decided to freeze those talks in response to those threats?

LANGE: No, we are discussing our normal legislative process. And we are a little bit concerned because the reason for going for the deal of Scotland

is to have security and predictability. And this is not given for several reasons.

First reason is some weeks after the deal of Scotland, the USTR lifted more than 400 products from this 50 percent base tariff to 50 percent tariff of

steel and aluminum because these products are containing steel and aluminum. But it is really harming the European machinery production,

agricultural technique, and so on. And this is not in the spirit of the deal.

So, we really plea the USTR before we are lifting U.S. products tariff- free, please reverse this decision taken some weeks after the deal. Secondly, nobody knows what the Supreme Court will rule. And this might be

also lead to some change in the tariff situation in the United States.

And certainly, yes, the geopolitical situation specifically regarding Greenland and the territorial sovereignty of every country in the world,

specifically when it is belonging to Europe. It is also the reason why we are really reflecting now how fast we can go. And we will discuss this next

week again.

SCIUTTO: So, let me ask you this, because President Trump clearly believes he has economic leverage over Europe to even push his other priorities, his

non-trade priorities. Do you believe that Europe has perhaps underestimated trade leverage over the U.S.?

LANGE: We are still always trying to have a really fair deal. I'm not a friend of escalation. But if, for example, these products, I guess the USTR

is calling them derivatives, if they will be not being bought back to the 15 percent, then of course we have to be also quite clear with our economic

power. And no doubt about, we have also some leverage to be strong.

But first of all, I'm trying to have a fair deal until we are still in negotiation with USTR and the Secretary of Commerce.

SCIUTTO: You and others have made the point that there is no standstill clause in the framework as it stands, binding in effect the parties to the

terms of the deal. Do you trust that any final trade deal with the U.S. will hold, or might the president just change his mind the next day or the

next week or the next month?

LANGE: Yes, that's really the problem. There's no certainty, no predictability. And therefore, as I mentioned, we have for three reasons,

some concerns to conclude the agreement immediately. So, we will really try to get some clarity in the three points. But of course, we have also a

clear approach for having, let's say, a safeguard clause.

So, if there is a development, you're quite right, of course, everybody is reading now through social the new communication platform of the U.S.

government. And day by day, we have some surprises there, also in the field of tariff. So, if there is a development which is totally against this

deal, then we have a safeguard mechanism that we can stop our legislation immediately.

And certainly, I guess we need also some kind of sunset clause, so that we have a revision of this whole exercise in the light of the recent

development. So, I guess the parliament will also establish a sunset clause.

[18:25:00]

SCIUTTO: Is there unity in Europe on this? Because of course, one criticism is that Europe considers these big measures and can't come

together. We saw that, for instance, on the frozen Russian assets. Is there a unified European response to both trade policy, but also Trump's moves

against Greenland?

LANGE: I think so. Of course, as I mentioned before, we want to have a fair deal, but it has to be fair on both sides. And at the moment, we have

the impression that on the U.S. side, it is not fair anymore. And therefore, we expect to get some clear answers and clear commitments. And

therefore, we will have next week in the plenary of the European Parliament a debate on this situation, specifically, of course, regarding Greenland.

And even in the Council, the second chamber of the democratic system, the European Union, there is more and more a clear position that we now have to

look more to our economic security and strategic autonomy, and have a more united, stronger position towards this unclear and always day-by-day

surprising situation in the United States.

SCIUTTO: Always day-by-day surprising. You have that right. Bernd Lange, thanks so much for joining the program again.

LANGE: It was a pleasure, as always.

SCIUTTO: Well, checking some of today's other business headlines. The U.S. says it has reached a new trade agreement with Taiwan. Under the deal, U.S.

tariffs on Taiwan imports will fall to 15 percent from 20 percent. The U.S. says Taiwanese firms have also agreed to invest at least $250 billion in

U.S. production.

Officials in the U.K. and Canada say their investigations into Elon Musk's A.I. chatbot will continue despite changes that X is now implementing. xAI

says it will further limit the ability of users to generate sexually explicit pictures of women and children. After a global outcry, California

has also opened up a probe into the matter.

U.S. mortgage rates have fallen to their lowest level in more than three years. The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate sits now just above 6

percent. Experts hope that drop could ease the stalemate in the housing market.

President Trump now threatening to use a law dating back to 1792 in response to protests against ICE after the break. The prospect of U.S.

troops on the streets of Minnesota if he invokes the Insurrection Act. We're going to be live in Minneapolis.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

SCIUTTO: Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Jim Sciutto. And here are the international headlines we're watching today.

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado met today with Donald Trump. She says she gave him the Nobel Peace Prize, hers, as a gift. The

White House says the president still believes Machado lacks enough support in Venezuela to lead the country.

White House says all options remain in place for the president in response to Iran's brutal crackdown on protesters. President Trump says Iran has

given assurances that it would stop killings of protesters and executions. A human rights group reports that the regime and regime forces killed at

least 2,400 protesters. Iranians have now spent more than a week without internet access. The government deliberately does not want images to get

out of the country.

U.S. prosecutors have charged 26 people for allegedly rigging college basketball games and games in the Chinese Basketball Association, the CBA.

The scheme allegedly involved a fixture who would recruit players with the promise of payments. Some of the accused players appeared in games just

this week. The allegations date from previous seasons.

For the second time in a week a shooting involving a federal immigration agent has sparked protests in Minnesota. Now, President Trump is

threatening once again to invoke the Insurrection Act. A Venezuelan national was shot in the leg during this latest incident. The Department of

Homeland Security says he assaulted an officer and was resisting arrest.

Hours later protesters clashed with officers who deployed, as you see here, tear gas, pepper balls, what sounded like flashbang grenades. This comes

one week after an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good in her vehicle. In a social media post, the president said he will stop what he calls

professional agitators.

The Insurrection Act is a centuries-old law which allows the president to deploy troops within the country in certain specific situations. In a

moment, we're going to take a look at the law behind the act.

First, Shimon Prokupecz joins us from Minneapolis. Shimon, can you describe the tenor of the protests there now?

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: I mean, it's been Mostly peaceful here today. There have been some flare-ups because

what's happening is we're outside a federal building here in Minneapolis. And so, this is where right now protesters are coming face-to-face with

federal law enforcement. This is where they drive in, this is some of the offices. And so, this is where, you know, a couple of dozen protesters have

been gathering the last week or so and they came back today after what happened last night.

There have been some flare-ups here where the federal officers they come out in tactical gear to push some of the folks that are out here up onto

the sidewalk to clear the way. They get kind of -- they start to get agitated, the protesters. When cars come out, they try to confront some of

the cars. And so, occasionally, we'll see law enforcement come out in tactical gear to clear them up.

But I could tell you, Jim, that I've talked to some people here in Minneapolis today that are part of this rapid response and these ICE watch

civilian groups or community folks who keep an eye on what's happening with ICE, you know, which is what Renee Good was when she died. So, they told me

that today has been a relatively low-key day. They haven't seen a lot of activity from ICE. They're out there They're watching to see if they see

anything. But so far, today, things seem to be calm. And hopefully, that continues through the night.

You know, last night, what happened was ICE and the federal law enforcement was out doing enforcement and targeted work at night, which is very rare

for them. They usually do these kinds of operations during the day. So, last night there was that flare-up. So, far today, it's been relatively

peaceful and hopefully it continues that way, Jim.

[18:35:00]

SCIUTTO: Yes. We can hope. Shimon Prokupecz, thanks so much. Taking an in- depth look now. The Insurrection Act allows the deployment of troops within the U.S. in certain circumstances. It has been used 30 times since it

became law in 1792. A state's governor or legislature can request that the president invoke it, and that is what happened when it was last used back

in 1992. President George H. W. Bush was asked by then-governor of California Pete Wilson for help dealing with riots in Los Angeles.

Today, Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota, seems unlikely to request that kind of help, certainly. Instead, President Trump could theoretically say

he needs the military to enforce federal authority. The pertinent language seems to give the president the final say. That's when he, quote,

"considers that unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United

States. He may call into federal service such of the militia of any state and use such of the armed forces as he considers necessary to enforce those

laws or suppress the rebellion," end quote.

The Insurrection Act has been invoked over the objections of a governor as well. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy both used it to

facilitate the Supreme Court's civil rights ruling declaring an end to segregation in schools.

Today, the White House press secretary was asked if President Trump will invoke the act now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That's only a press a question frankly, Reagan, the president can answer. But the Insurrection

Act is a tool at the president's disposal. And I think the president's Truth Social posts spoke very loud and clear to Democrats across this

country, elected officials, who are using their platforms to encourage violence against federal law enforcement officers, who are encouraging

left-wing agitators to unlawfully obstruct legitimate law enforcement operations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Joining me now see the legal analyst Joey Jackson. So, Joey the law says in the event of a rebellion that the president can invoke the

Insurrection Act. Does this fit that legal standard?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, Jim, good to be with you. On its face it does not appear to. And I'm concerned about the language the White House

is using, Democrats, leftists. It's not about that, it's about what you asked me, which is, is there rebellion? Are there situations and

circumstances such that people are rising up against the government?

I think if you ask people on the street, they would say the government appears, via ICE, to be rising up against them. And then, if you compare

this to other rulings that have been made, not on the Insurrection Act itself, but if you compare it to the National Guard that the president has

attempted to use in various states throughout this country, I think courts are concerned about facts, and I think courts have concluded where the

president has lost in Chicago on the National Guard issue and lost in Los Angeles on the issue and lost in Portland on the issue, I think courts are

concerned because facts matter.

You just can't -- yes, the president has broad discretion, the president should, he's the elected representative of the people. However, is there an

instance where there is a rebellion or is there an instance where there's just political opposition, as the court said in?

Chicago political opposition is not a basis upon which to allow the National Guard to be there. Again, not decided those cases I referenced on

issues related to the insurrection, but in relation to legal challenges, courts want to know what are the issues on the ground?

Furthermore, Jim, is it just a protest? Can people not protest? Because they have certain issues with regard to how ICE is policing. And if you're

not even protesting but there is some kind of discord, the issue then becomes, is the services on the ground by law enforcement, are they capable

within themselves to actually quell this or do you really need more troops upon more troops to be there?

So, I think all those issues are relevant and are going to go to the legal challenge as to whether the Insurrection Act is an appropriate use in this

circumstance.

SCIUTTO: OK. So, help me understand, because you had -- you referenced the Supreme Court ruling, which prevented the president from federalizing the

National Guard in the States. Is the law the same there? And reading that Supreme Court decision, does that indicate to you that if the president

were to invoke it and it went to the Supreme Court that the court might rule the same this time around?

Because it's also notable that Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurrence on that decision regarding the National Guard seem to tee up the possibility

at least of President Trump invoking another law to deploy troops. Is it clear where the Supreme Court stands on this?

[18:40:00]

JACKSON: So, there's a couple of things that are clear. The first thing that's clear is that we are in a different world nowadays, in terms of just

the discourse, in terms of the chaos, the frustration, and I think the feeling of the people with regard to militaries being used in cities and

whether or not that's appropriate. That's the one thing that's clear.

The second thing that's clear is that the President has, as we know, a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court. We know that it's really not

even close. It's a six to three split. Now, why is that important, Jim, when you have the Supreme Court that are not elected, they're appointed,

but they're lifetime tenure. They're supposed to be completely inoculated from public, you know, types of perception. They don't care what the public

thinks. But it's important because it seems that it's very politicized. It seems that where the Supreme Court may turn out, and I hate to speak like

this, right, when I was in law school, it was about the facts and the law, and the facts and the law drive whatever happens. That's not what drives

it. It seems ideology does.

So, what's clear is he has a majority of the Supreme Court, a few of which he appointed, I should add. And so, the question becomes, is the Supreme

Court going to stay true to constitutional principles and law, or is the Supreme Court going to politicize it and essentially do what the president

wants?

The president has not been checked by the Congress in this country, which has an oversight responsibility. They haven't been exercising it. The

president hasn't really, and just to some degree, has been checked by the Supreme Court. But in large measure, this is the same Supreme Court, Jim,

that said, hey, the president has immunity from criminal prosecution.

And the last point I'll make is that all facts are different. Every case turns on its facts. And so, the fact in Chicago, you know, was what they

were, but the facts in Minneapolis are what they are. And it seems that the people are, you know, exercising their right to protest. Has there been

instances of violence? Yes. Does it equate to a rebellion, as that term is defined? Not so sure.

Last, last point, and that is, yes, the president has broad discretion. Courts have made that clear, too. But does broad discretion mean that you

can invent your own facts? And the other cases that I've talked about, the courts have been very concerned about what's happening. And one court went

so far as to say that, you know, what the administration is saying is untethered from reality, which was a kind way to say, I don't know if the

facts you're pointing to are actual facts at all.

SCIUTTO: Yes, untethered from reality would be the same as saying not true. Joey Jackson, thanks so much for joining.

JACKSON: Thanks, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Coming up on "The Brief," no power, no heat. We're going to take you to Ukraine, where many are struggling as Moscow continues to target the

country's energy infrastructure deliberately in the dead of winter.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:45:00]

SCIUTTO: The temperature in the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, is just 3 degrees Fahrenheit right now. That's minus 16 degrees Celsius, well below freezing.

Many in the capital remain without power as the Russian military continues to target energy facilities. It wants to punish the people of Ukraine.

I'm going to show you an astonishing video. A Russian strike in the western city of Lviv lands right near this worker, on the right side of your

screen. She pauses a moment before continuing to shovel snow as if nothing happened. The mayor called her to thank her for her hard work while

reminding her to put safety first next time that she hears air raid sirens.

Clare Sebastian has more on the struggle of the Ukrainian people just to keep warm.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): There's nowhere to hide from the cold in this Kyiv apartment. This is day five without heating for

Kateryna Skurydina, day three without power.

KATERYNA SKURYDINA, KYIV RESIDENT (through translator): It's very difficult mentally, especially since everything that kept you going before

is falling apart. For example, when there is no electricity, sport keeps me going. I go to the gym, which runs on battery power. Yesterday, they even

cancelled the gym.

SEBASTIAN (voice-over): She says in a moment of desperation, she ordered everything she could to stave off the dark and cold. Power banks,

rechargeable candles, they make it cozy, she says. A Ukrainian clay pot hand warmer. Even a heated blanket for her cat, ironically named Pushok or

Fluffy. A still life of survival in Russia's escalating war of attrition.

Kyiv has become hardened to attacks on its energy grid, but a huge wave of strikes late last week, combined with a severe cold snap took it into

uncharted territory.

PETRO PANTELEEV, ACTING FIRST DEPUTY MAYOR OF KYIV (through translator): The decision was made to suspend the heating system in 6,000 buildings.

This is an unprecedented measure in the history of the central heating system.

SEBASTIAN (voice-over): On the streets, the rumble of ever more generators, the soundtrack to Ukraine's fourth winter at war. No one is

spared, not even the repair crews working 24 hours a day to bring power back online.

We do not even know at home whether there is electricity, says Taras Musienko (ph), as he works to fix a damaged cable. We are all living in

this situation.

Destruction often outpaces repairs for Ukraine's biggest private energy company.

SEBASTIAN: What happens at DTEK behind the scenes when there's a major attack?

OLEKSIY POVOLOTSKIY, HEAD OF ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE RECOVERY OFFICE, DTEK: Actually, the attack may take just a few minutes, but to recover after the

attack, you need months or even years. So, we don't have spare time.

SEBASTIAN (voice-over): DTEK power plants have been attacked eight times since October, the company says, a recent strike blowing a hole in the roof

of this one, letting in the snow.

POVOLOTSKIY: This winter, maybe because the Russians, they're not very progressing on the battlefield, they decided to put Ukraine into the

humanitarian crisis.

SEBASTIAN (voice-over): It's a fate Kyiv is racing to avoid. More than 1,300 shelters known as invincibility centers have been set up in the

capital for people to charge devices and get warm.

The lamp hasn't charged for some reason, says Tamara Viktorovna (ph), who's in her 70s. Everyone here learning new survival skills.

In another heatless apartment across town, Kateryna Voronina, who's 72, and has trouble walking after hip surgery, is struggling to stay positive.

KATERYNA VORONINA, KYIV RESIDENT (through translator): It's scary, of course. I'm holding on, I'm not complaining at all. But yesterday, after

the lights went out, I had what you might call an acute stress reaction. I was crying here all by myself. My friend called me, I couldn't stop.

SEBASTIAN (voice-over): She says she regularly scrapes off the ice forming on the inside of her window and waits.

Clare Sebastian, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: A reminder, those are civilians that are the targets of those attacks. Straight ahead, a new app is taking China by storm, even though it

seems a bit morbid at first. How it's helping the country deal with an epidemic of loneliness.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:50:00]

SCIUTTO: Are you dead? That's the morbid question asked by what is now a viral Chinese app. The phrase was even its name. It's now rebranded as

Demumu after getting huge attention overseas. The app prompts users to check in every day to reassure their loved ones. Mike Valerio will show us

how it works.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MIKE VALERIO, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Are you dead? Tap to confirm. There's a new app making waves here in China. It was first called Sileme,

meaning Are you dead? But the name changed a few days ago to Demumu.

VALERIO (voice-over): Its purpose is straightforward. It's a daily check- in tool for people who live alone.

VALERIO: So, here's how it works. This is the app. This is all of it. And if you don't press this green button, after two days, an emergency contact

you've preselected gets an alert. And then we hope that person checks in with you, potentially visits just to make sure that you're OK.

VALERIO (voice-over): It recently became the most downloaded paid app on China's Apple app store. So, why is an app like this, created by just three

people, suddenly so popular? Well, China's society is undergoing a major shift. More people are living alone, especially in urban areas. Whether

it's young professionals choosing single life or an aging population with fewer family caregivers nearby, safety concerns are rising.

Chinese research estimates that, by 2030, the number of people living alone in China is expected to reach 150 million to 200 million people. For many,

the app offers reassurance. It's a safety net for those who worry about emergencies going unnoticed when they don't have close family members

around.

So, here's what people are saying about it. Quote, "This world has finally gone crazy. Are there really many people who use this kind of software?"

Another comment says, "I actually had this idea before and hope there's such an app. I really need it." Finally, this comment, "This 'are you

dead?' feature is really great and can help many lonely seniors. At the same time, I would suggest naming it to 'are you alive?' as it would

provide more psychological comfort to the elderly who use it."

We've also noticed more young people in China seem to be mocking themselves by downloading the app and saying they're so stressed and busy they need to

check in with loved ones to say they're alive each day.

STUART GIETEL-BASTEN, CHINA DEMOGRAPHICS EXPERT: An app or a piece of technology like this can prevent one person from dying alone or from taking

their own life and to have just one small piece of connection, of course, that is a positive. But what you would never want for this to be is a way

that it that substitutes more meaningful social interactions that substitutes real-life contact.

VALERIO (voice-over): "Are you dead?" is more than just an app. It's a reflection of changing lifestyles and evolving challenges in China, a

simple tool addressing a very real concern.

Mike Valerio, CNN, Beijing.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: In today's Good Brief, a safe homecoming for four astronauts returning to Earth with a medical evacuation, the first one in the history

of the International Space Station.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On behalf of SpaceX and NASA, welcome home, Crew-11.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: SpaceX Dragon, it's so good to be home. With deep gratitude to the teams who got us there and back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[18:55:00]

SCIUTTO: NASA's SpaceX Crew-11 splashed down early Thursday morning off the California coast. The medical issue forced the astronauts to leave the

ISS just about a month earlier than planned. NASA says one of the crew members is doing fine. This is the one with the medical issue. They did not

give any more details. We do wish them all very well.

And before you go, this could be your chance to be in one of those great Super Bowl ads. The candy brand Skittles is holding a contest which will

feature the winner's home in a live commercial. During the big game on February 8th, movie star Elijah Wood, dressed as a, quote, "mysterious

creature," will deliver the treats to the winner. The Marzone brand says to enter, you'll need to be a U.S. resident with a single-family home and a

suitable yard. They say Skittles always delivers delicious, perplexing experiences. That photo's perplexing.

Thanks so much for joining us today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington. You've been watching "The Brief." Please do stay with CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:00:00]

END