Return to Transcripts main page
The Brief with Jim Sciutto
CNN International: Trump: We Have "Framework" of Future Deal on Greenland; Trump Says He Won't Use Force to Take Greenland; Trump: Zelenskyy and Putin "Stupid" if They Can't Get a Deal Done; Sweden Welcomes Trump's Tariff Threat Withdrawal; Trump Addresses World Leaders as He Upends Global Order; Trump to Meet with Zelenskyy on Thursday in Davos; Supreme Court Weights Trump's Bid to Fire Fed. Gov. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired January 21, 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]
LYNDA KINKADE, CNN ANCHOR: Hello and welcome to our viewers. Joining us from all around the world, I'm Linda Kincaid live in Atlanta, Jim Sciutto
will join us shortly. You're watching "The Brief."
Just ahead this hour, U.S. President Trump ruling out using military force to take control of Greenland. He says a framework for an agreement is now
in place after meeting with NATO's secretary general. Trump also says Putin and Zelenskyy can come together for a peace deal, and if they don't, he
says, they're stupid. And the U.S. Supreme Court questions Trump's authority to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook.
It was a day of disruption in Davos. President Donald Trump claims he has now reached a framework with NATO's Secretary General, Mark Rutte, for a
future deal on Greenland. Here's what he told reporters after the announcement came out on Truth Social.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: It's a long-term deal. It's the ultimate long-term deal. And I think it puts everybody in a really good position.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How long will the deal be, Mr. President?
TRUMP: Infinite.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KINKADE: A NATO spokesperson says allies will focus on ensuring Arctic security and that negotiations over the island will continue between the
U.S., Denmark and Greenland.
Well, the U.S. president says he would no longer impose new tariffs on European nations that opposed his ambitions for the Danish territory. Just
hours earlier, he promised not to use military force to acquire Greenland for the first time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We probably won't get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won't do
that. OK? Now, everyone's saying, oh, good. That's probably the biggest statement I've made.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KINKADE: Our Kevin Liptak is following the developments from Washington and joins us now. Good to see you, Kevin. So, after threatening to take
control of Greenland and impose tariffs on European allies who oppose that, President Trump is now signaling that there is a framework deal in place.
What are you learning about that? And why does he say it gives him everything he wants?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes, and he's offering virtually no details about what the framework actually is, nor is Mark
Rutte, who the president said he worked all of this out with.
I do think, though, that there are a few things that we can say. One is that this framework almost certainly stops short of full ownership by the
United States of Greenland. And I think, you know, when Kaitlan Collins asked the president that, his four-second pause as he thought about what to
say just gives you an indication that this is not necessarily a deal that meets that bar which he had set only hours earlier during that speech to
Davos.
And I think it's also clear that Mark Rutte, who has been working on this very intently for the last several weeks, would not have agreed to a
framework that included U.S. ownership of the entire island of Greenland, just given that Denmark said that that was a nonstarter, that most
Greenlanders say that they don't want to be part of the United States. And so, that seems, I think, at this point pretty clear.
The other aspect of this framework that I'm learning about just in the last hour or so, that it's that it will include a renegotiation of the 1951
treaty between the United States and Denmark that allowed for a U.S. military presence in Greenland in perpetuity. This is something that was
signed back then. It was really used during the Cold War when the U.S. had more than a dozen military bases in Greenland. All but one of them were
closed once the Cold War ended.
And this is something that had been brought up repeatedly over the last several days as President Trump asserted these claims that the U.S. needed
Greenland for national security, asking why this treaty wouldn't cover what he was looking for. And what Rutte had been working on sort of behind the
scenes was trying to come up with a plan that would include reopening this treaty, renegotiating it, and allowing the president to say that he had
accomplished something.
[18:05:00]
And I do think we also got a clue in a statement from a NATO spokesperson who said that negotiations between Denmark, Greenland, and the United
States will go forward aimed at ensuring that Russia and China never gain a foothold economically or militarily in Greenland, which I think is a
suggestion that as they reopen this treaty, that they will include some specific provisions that would preclude Russia or China from getting
involved there.
And so, even though we don't have really any specific details, at least from officials, about what exactly this framework includes, we are getting
hints about where this is all potentially headed.
KINKADE: All right. Good to get that development from you. Kevin Liptak for us live from Washington, D.C. Good to see you. Thank you.
Well, Denmark's foreign minister says we welcome it. The POTUS, the president of the United States, has ruled out to take Greenland by force
and paused the trade war. Now, let's sit down and find out how we can address the American security concerns in the Arctic.
Well, our Nic Robertson is live for us in Greenland and joins us now. Good to have you there for us, Nic. So, this is a territory of about 75,000
people there. It's located in the northeast of Canada. There have been significant protests in both Greenland and Denmark opposing U.S. control.
I'm wondering what the mood is there right now. Given this massive shift from Donald Trump.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes, I think after the president's speech, big speech in Davos, where he said that he ruled out a
military takeover of Greenland, there was a sort of a sense of relief, slight and tempered, because they weren't sure, not sure how much or if
they can trust President Trump. I think the other details that have followed today have really sort of enhanced that feeling that the country
may have really dodged something bad.
There are, of course, questions at the moment, because people don't know precisely where President Trump is going to come down on the issue of
sovereignty that he talked about so important to him this afternoon. Now, talking about it in terms of a long-term deal, a deal that could be of
infinite length. And we're hearing from Kevin this renegotiating the 1951 treaty between the United States and Denmark over Greenland.
I think that the takeaway from here would be, and given all the sort of noise that President Trump has made and the fact that, you know, Denmark
had tried to sort of step up and show that there was a way with NATO to begin training larger military exercises to have that broader Atlantic
security that President Trump is talking about here.
And bearing in mind that the Arctic here, the broader Arctic security, that the Arctic here spreads more than a thousand miles away here to the coast
of Russia, where those Russian nuclear-powered submarines come out of Murmansk, other places in the north of Russian coast there, down past
Norway into the Atlantic and become a problem for the United States and NATO allies. This is a massive area. And I think what Denmark had tried to
do, that President Trump a couple of days ago said they had misinterpreted and threatened tariffs on these NATO countries, has clearly taken a step
back from that.
So, the sense here is, if President Trump has sort of come on board with something that stops short of sovereignty and deals with his Arctic
security concerns, even if it's been done in such a roughshod way, I think the sense here is, therefore, let him take the win and people here will
breathe a sigh of relief that they're not going to wake up in a few weeks and discover that they're Americans.
That said, there are, of course, many details to learn. And I think perhaps the other takeaway here is that very often this is how we see President
Trump make deals or initiate the start of plans. We saw this around the ceasefire in Gaza that accomplished something, but the details were scant
in the beginning. And this feels equally scant on details, but might be the beginning of something where those details evolve because they're not
finalized yet, evolve and appear over time.
KINKADE: And, Nic, it was interesting listening to the Davos address by the U.S. president where he repeatedly referred to Iceland when talking
about Greenland. Of course, it wasn't once, it was four times saying that the stock market dipped because of Iceland, even though Iceland is a
separate sovereign nation. What does this repeated mix up suggest, given that Trump has been saying that Greenland is critical to U.S. national
security?
[18:10:00]
ROBERTSON: You know, I think the clue here is is not the way that he misspoke and, you know, something that he'd criticize President Biden for
doing during his time in office. I think really the clue here is in President Trump was paying attention to what the markets were saying, that
the markets didn't want a military invasion. In fact -- of Greenland. In fact, they responded positively when the president took that off the table.
And equally, there was concern in the markets about the potential for escalation of tariffs. And the president has taken those off the table.
So, I think while he misspoke and the White House press office has said that he was talking about an island of ice rather than Iceland itself,
because the president had talked about Greenland as being a huge, you know, a huge piece of ice previously, then the misspeaking is perhaps an
indication -- that is an indication perhaps that of the number of hours that has been putting in, the little sleep that perhaps he got on the plane
on the on the on the way over, his long press conference yesterday, his long speech again today. He wouldn't want and he did joke about his age and
being one of the oldest people in the room.
But I think the key here is really that he was talking about how the markets were reacting. And that, I think, has brought about the pressure on
him to change position here and accept something that he wasn't apparently willing to accept even several hours earlier.
KINKADE: Yes, exactly. He really does react to the markets. Nic Robertson for us out there in the cold in Greenland. We do appreciate it. Thank you.
Well, I want to welcome now the Danish member of European Parliament, Anders Vistisen. Good to have you on the program. Thanks for your time.
ANDERS VISTISEN, DANISH MEMBER OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: Thank you for having me on.
KINKADE: So, you told the president, President Trump, in your European Parliament address, using an expletive laced speech that has now gone
viral, that Greenland is not for sale. Today, Trump ruled out military force in taking Greenland. He dropped the tariff threats. What's your
reaction to this so-called long term framework deal that, given that we don't know very much about it at this point in time, but the fact that
taking control of Greenland is off the table?
VISTISEN: Basically, it cannot be interpreted any other way than it is a humiliating retreat from the president who both had to put away his
military threat, but also had to put away his customs threats and tariffs.
On the other hand, it is not the right way to go about things, to negotiate with a Dutchman who is head of an international organization about a treaty
with the Kingdom of Denmark. He doesn't have any specific right to do so, and there is no legal framework binding whatever they talked about in
Davos, and that is also what Greenlandic members of the Danish parliament have stipulated this evening.
KINKADE: I want to hear more about that, because you did note that Greenland has been part of the Danish kingdom for 800 years. Trump now
claims that this new framework agreement will last forever. Does this align at all with Denmark's position? It's very hard to say.
VISTISEN: Again, this is typical Trump, go out boast about having a big triumph, but no details and no concrete idea of what is next to come.
Frankly, I think that the American administration seems quite unknowledgeable about what is the current treaty framework. There is
already an existing right for NATO troops, including American troops, to use shipping around Greenland, fly over it militarily, and so on and so
forth. There is already an existing treaty that governs military bases from the U.S. in Greenland.
So, this, I think, is mostly an exercise in communication to save a little bit of face from a NATO general secretary who likes to call Trump, Trump
Daddy, and loves this kind of diplomacy where there's not much backbone but a lot of greasing the wheels of Trump.
KINKADE: President Trump frames Greenland as critical to U.S. security due to Russia and China. From your perspective, do those nations pose a real
security threat?
VISTISEN: I think everyone living in Europe finds Russia to be a threat. So, if the president is very concerned, he could stop his games with
Ukraine and help them to win momentum in that war and to remove the resources from Russia's Arctic exploration into the Ukrainian wall if that
was the real concern behind all of this.
[18:15:00]
But there's not really any factual basis of a massive Russian or Chinese takeover in China. So, again, it's a little bit of a periodic victory in
the sense that he is gaining something that doesn't exist in reality. And of course, if that's a victory, and if that's the art of the deal, I think
that book should not have sold any copies.
KINKADE: I wonder, from your perspective, how this controversy and Trump's, you know, repeated push to take Greenland has weakened unity
amongst NATO members.
VISTISEN: There's no doubt that the threat itself in military intervention, together with a lot of comments Trump has made over the years
about not really being, you know, steadfast in his defense of small NATO countries, in especially Central and Eastern Europe, is weakening NATO
because NATO is only a deterrent if it's credible.
So, if people don't believe that the NATO allies will come to each other's aid, as Denmark and other NATO countries did after 9/11, then of course,
the defensive alliances lose meaning. And therefore, I think the lesson that we have learned in Denmark for the last couple of years is that we
don't see America as a very reliable military ally anymore. And we must be able to have our own deterrence against Russia, with our neighboring
countries in the Baltic, Nordic region, Poland, Germany and Great Britain.
And of course, we hope that America will stand behind its promises. But I don't think that pledge is credible to the same extent as it was 15 or 20
years ago.
KINKADE: Anders Vistisen, a Danish member of the European Parliament, we really appreciate your perspective and time. Thanks for joining us.
Well, still to come, Jim Sciutto will be back with much more news on how Sweden is reacting to these new developments over Greenland. The country's
deputy prime minister will join us live from Davos next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR, "THE BRIEF": Welcome back to "The Brief." I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.
U.S. stocks finished sharply higher after President Trump said that a, quote, "framework" of a deal had been reached with NATO over the future of
Greenland. Trump also called off his threat to raise tariffs on eight NATO nations in that dispute. In an interview with Richard Quest, the president
of Latvia had this to say about today's developments.
[18:20:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EDGARDS, RINKEVICS, LATVIAN PRESIDENT: I think it's good news because that's something that we were advocating for beginning -- from the
beginning of the whole issue, that everything that is related to the security of Greenland should be dealt through NATO, through collective
defense efforts. And apparently, I believe that that framework includes most probably more military engagement of NATO troops.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: The secretary general of NATO said a short time ago that there is still, quote, "a lot of work" to be done to get to a deal. A spokesperson
for NATO also said in a statement, quote, "Discussions among NATO allies on the framework the president referenced will focus on ensuring Arctic
security through the collective efforts of Allies, especially the seven Arctic Allies."
Sources tell CNN that part of that framework deal would include renegotiating the 1951 agreement, which formalized the U.S. military
presence on Greenland. NATO officials have discussed allowing the U.S. to build more bases, military bases on Greenland, on land that would be
considered sovereign U.S. territory.
At Davos, NATO's chief spoke about the focus on Arctic security.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK RUTTE, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: We need to defend the Arctic. We know that the sea lanes are opening up. We know that China and Russia are
increasingly active in the Arctic. President Trump and other leaders are right. We have to do more there. We have to protect the Arctic against
Russian and Chinese influence. And that's exactly what NATO ambassadors decided to do in September. We are working on that, making sure that
collectively we will defend the Arctic region.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Our Nick Paton Walsh took a look at the politics playing out in the Arctic region.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: The race for Arctic control has run through the Cold War and now the melting ice of
the climate crisis. The Russians had long been ahead. It is really their biggest coastline and Defense Hub. These dots, they're bases. They've
expanded and developed some facilities, this likely a nuclear missile storage facility. They've added MiG-31s runways, often overshadowing NATO.
But Russia's development has, it seems been challenged by its invasion of Ukraine. One estimate putting casualties from ground units from their
Arctic ground forces at about 80 percent. Now, remember, the capabilities of bases count more than their sheer number, but the U.S. has around eight
in Alaska and is down to one in Greenland. NATO member Canada, an ally, is enhancing three, bringing it up to about nine and Norway's coastline, also
a NATO member, is peppered with military facilities.
Militaries, though are also here partly for economic reasons. Their climate crisis and ice store has left vital shipping routes often open like these,
a shorter path that China is keen to exploit and potentially, there are the rare earth minerals, other resources that are easy to get to if the ice
sheet gives way.
But the Arctic's role in defense is vital to Russia and its enemies. What's important is the Kola Peninsula here where Russia keeps its second-strike
nuclear submarines. They need to get through the so-called Bear Gap and the Giuk Gap in order to move on towards the United States. And so, an unlikely
nuclear war would also be fought over Arctic skies with most missile paths over this area and so it's likely where most missile defenses would be best
placed as well.
Look, a weakened Russia, an ice melt, possibly leading to more resources exposed and busier shipping lanes. This is all heightened competition up
here in a series of vital races.
Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCIUTTO: Well, Sweden, one of the newest members of NATO, welcomed President Trump's decision to withdraw new tariffs on European allies over
Greenland. Joining me now is the Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden, Ebba Busch. Thanks so much for joining us and taking the time.
EBBA BUSCH, SWEDISH DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: Yes, of course. It's in the middle of the night, but hey, what don't we do for the Americans?
SCIUTTO: We appreciate it. As you heard there, CNN and others are reporting that one element of the framework of this deal is that the U.S.
would be able to build more bases in Greenland on parcels of territory that would then become sovereign U.S. territory. Is that your understanding of
framework as well?
BUSCH: I think it's still too early to say. And I mean, of course, this was a welcomed message today. It was the only way to move forward because
we've been very clear from many European leaders, Sweden amongst them, that Europe needs to toughen up and hold the line. And I think the news of today
is actually reaping the fruits of holding that line much harder than European leaders have done this previous year in the second term of the
Trump administration. But today's progress might be tomorrow's headache. It's still too soon to tell what this deal really entails.
[18:25:00]
SCIUTTO: So, you're not confident that the crisis between the U.S. and NATO has been averted?
BUSCH: No, we're not out of the woods. And let's be very clear. The last few weeks, apart from a very turbulent first year, has been very damaging
for the relationship between the European Union, Europe as a whole, and the U.S. I mean, a lot of mothers like myself have to answer questions. I had
to answer a question for my 10-year-old son. Is there a chance that U.S. might be interested in Sweden? And what do we do then? That's the type of
questions that the younger generation in Europe is asking themselves. So, trust has been truly damaged, and this will take time to repair.
SCIUTTO: I'll tell you, I get similar questions for my own kids. That was going to be my next question. In little more than 24 hours, President Trump
goes from leaving open the possibility of military action to take Greenland to announcing that some agreement has been reached. Does that kind of back
and forth do lasting damage to the alliance in your view?
BUSCH: For sure. And my message to President Trump and to the Trump administration is, it's time to come to your senses and calm down. But it's
very apparent to me that President Trump does not answer well to weakness. He answers to power and people speaking from a place of strength. And this
is the reason I think it's been very good that out of this very tense atmosphere that has been here during the last few days, there's a sort of
European determination that is being forged from this.
And Sweden is one of the countries that is now, we're doing our homework. We'll reach 2.8 percent of GDP in defense spending this year. We're set on
a good trajectory to meet the 5 percent target in a few years' time. So, we're building strength in our defense. We're building strength in our
economy. We've managed to tackle inflation. We have one of the strongest stock markets for IPOs right now currently in the world.
This is the type of homework that Europe needs to do and build back Europe strong in that sense and decide when to hold the line, when to not budge.
And we're not going to be bullied or answer to blackmail in the next few years. And I think that's the way to move forward for European leaders.
SCIUTTO: Do you believe that NATO unity on Greenland in recent days helped push President Trump to back off, to compromise?
BUSCH: Yes, I hope so. And let me be very clear. I mean, we're a strong newcomer to the NATO alliance. Sweden is an Arctic country. We've always
been, we will always be. We bring unique Arctic military competences to the alliance. And the security of the Arctic region is a joint interest for
both the U.S. and Europe. We need to work together on this. We need stronger ties and bonds across the pond, across the Atlantic.
And I think here NATO has for sure been helpful. But I mean, the alternative, what would that have entailed? That would have in essence
meant deteriorating completely the very core of the NATO treaty. So, welcomed, but of course, completely necessary to end up with the news of
today.
SCIUTTO: As you know, this is not the first time President Trump has publicly questioned the NATO alliance or attacked NATO allies or dismissed
NATO allies. And not just President Trump, the Treasury Secretary said, Denmark is irrelevant. Again, a U.S. treaty ally of the U.S.
Deep down, do you, does the Swedish public, does the Swedish government trust that the U.S. would come to your defense in the event of an attack?
BUSCH: Let me be very clear. The Americans can trust the Swedes. The Americans can trust the rest of the NATO to come to their rescue if that is
needed. I heard President Trump in his speech today question whether that would be true. Well, if you make a deal with a Swede, if you make a deal
with the Swedish Bush administration, that's a handshake that you can trust. I'm not going to change my policy tomorrow in a new tweet.
And I think political stability is now a currency that is really on the rise. And there is only one way to move forward. It is calm, cool and
collected. And let's make sure we take care of the NATO, the essence of NATO.
[18:30:00]
Because if we don't, that's a weakness that Russia sees. That's a weakness that China sees. And I'd rather work together with the Americans on energy,
on natural resources, on mining, on how to cut red tape to make sure we have heavy investments in the western part of the world. This is the
homework that we should be doing together instead of what we've seen now.
And just to add to that, hearing the speaking points of Lutnik and President Trump over the last few days, they need to be updated. They're
talking to us like Greta Thunberg was running the European Union. She's not. I represent the center right-wing government of Sweden. We're tough on
crime. We're no bullshit government. We've pushed down migration to the lowest level in 40 years. We have the lowest tax levels in 50 years. We
don't mess around. And this is where we should be working together to strengthen our collaboration and strengthen our sovereignty in our end of
the world.
SCIUTTO: Well, as we continue to watch the state of that relationship across the Atlantic, we'd love to welcome you back on the show. Ebba Busch,
thanks so much for joining.
BUSCH: Anytime.
SCIUTTO: Well, we are rounding up a day of high drama in Davos. We're going to return there right after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Returning now to our top story, President Donald Trump says that the U.S. and NATO allies have reached at least the framework of a deal that
would satisfy his continuing demand to control all or part of Greenland. The president posted on Truth Social that after talks with the head of
NATO, he would no longer impose new tariffs on NATO nations that opposed his plan to annex the island. Part of the framework includes renegotiating
an agreement from 1951 which formalized the U.S. military on presence on the island. That's according to a person familiar with the matter.
[18:35:00]
The treaty allowed an American military presence in Greenland in perpetuity. NATO's secretary general, Mark Rutte, was asked about
Greenland's future relationship with Denmark, which of course has sovereignty over Greenland, on Fox News just a short time ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Greenland still -- is it still under the kingdom of Denmark in this framework deal?
RUTTE: That issue did not come up anymore in my conversations tonight with the president. We very much focused on what do we need to do to make sure
that that huge Arctic region where change is taking place at the moment, where the Chinese and Russians are more and more active, how we can protect
that. That was really the focus of our discussions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: So, what exactly of an agreement did they come to? Richard Quest is one of the first to get reaction from the NATO secretary general. He
joins me now from Davos. I mean, you heard there in my interview with the Swedish deputy prime minister that she certainly does not believe they're
out of the woods here with this sudden turn. As you've been speaking to people there in Davos, do they believe that this crisis has been averted
now or that it might blow up again?
RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR-AT-LARGE AND CNN ANCHOR, QUEST MEANS BUSINESS: No, not averted, but maybe slowed down or the temperatures being
taken down. When Kaitlan Collins asked President Trump about whether sovereignty was still an issue, the president paused for four seconds
before he actually answered that no. And he never actually said that, no, it's not a question of owning Greenland anymore.
When I saw Mark Rutte earlier today, I mean, I saw him just immediately after he'd spoken to it, been with President Trump, where he'd actually
initially said the framework did actually exist as the framework. And he had been in the room when President Trump had written that Truth Social.
This is what Mark Rutte said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Mr. Rutte, do you accept this phrase of framework deal has been put together?
RUTTE: I had a very good meeting, but I'll speak to him maybe later tomorrow. But it was a very good meeting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUEST: Right. Now, the point here is, Jim, Mark Rutte would not be able to come to a deal if sovereignty was involved. He just wouldn't. I mean, you
know, he's got to speak for NATO. He's a former European prime minister. He knows what's involved. So, one only assumes that sovereignty is not at
issue. The renegotiation of this treaty, the ability to give the United States more of what it wants, but in a NATO context.
Now, how is the president going to dress it up in a sense? How is the president going to avoid having stood here in Davos? And said it's got to
be about ownership. If you lease it, it doesn't matter. Well, it could be a bit of humble pie that has to be eaten there.
SCIUTTO: Sure. And listen, how do you walk back from what, as you well know, the Danish and Greenlanders saw as a quite personal, even existential
threat to their own sovereignty? Can you describe the tone of the reaction to the president's remarks there? Was their anger, derision?
QUEST: You're talking about the speech overall. I think there was just amazement. Remember, you and I, we sit through a lot of the president's
speeches because we hear the feeds coming in on a daily basis. People here don't sit through an hour and a half of this rambling diatribe that goes
across every issue, that looks into everything. They don't hear how suddenly, one minute it's Minnesota and scams in Minnesota. Next minute,
it's being -- it's the Biden -- it's sleepy Joe Biden, and then finally moving on to something completely irrelevant.
But today, he insulted Europe. He talked about the Second World War. He said we'd all be speaking German or Japanese if it hadn't been for the
United States. Overall, there was such -- well, one person said to me it was so offensive in some parts that people really could not believe that
they had been witness to the president of the United States using such terms, especially when he then went on to mock Emmanuel Macron, who, of
course, is suffering rather badly from a bad eye infection.
SCIUTTO: Well, they better get used to it. As you and I know, it's not the first time and unlikely to be the last. Richard Quest in Davos, thanks so
much.
Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy had said he did not plan to travel to Davos, but now he is expected to go and to meet with President Trump tomorrow.
We're going to have details next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:40:00]
SCIUTTO: President Trump says he will meet with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Davos on Thursday. Trump said he believes the
Ukrainian president and Russia's Vladimir Putin are at the point where they can get a peace deal done. He added if they don't, they're, quote, "stupid.
Zelenskyy had said earlier that he would only meet with Trump if negotiators make progress on post-war prosperity and security plans for his
country.
U.S. Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley of Illinois joins me now. He co- chairs the Congressional Ukraine caucus, also sits on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, thanks so much for taking the time.
REP. MIKE QUIGLEY (D-IL), MEMBER, U.S. HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND MEMBER, U.S. HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Thank you, glad to be back.
SCIUTTO: What do you believe is at stake in this meeting tomorrow? Because as you know, Zelenskyy said, I'm not going to go unless there's a reason to
go. Now, he's going. He has said he does not see a dead end yet in in the talks. Do you expect significant progress tomorrow between Trump and
Zelenskyy?
QUIGLEY: Look, we've been through this for a year now with the president. I don't expect anything, you know, from Alaska on. This is the president
saying one thing and doing absolutely nothing else, doing absolutely nothing to hold Putin accountable. And he's treating them as equals in this
and forgetting that is Russia who invaded.
So, I think the reason Zelenskyy is saying he has to go or really believes he has to is he has to show the president and the United States that he is
trying. But the fact remains Putin has never backed off his maximalist demands. He is still not doing that. And for anyone to expect otherwise,
unless the United States changes its course, you're waiting for nothing.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Given that, and you and I have been talking about that for a long time now, has Europe effectively concluded that they together with
Ukraine are effectively on their own when it comes to direct defending Ukraine, that U.S. Support minimal might remain, but at the end of the day,
this is theirs to defend?
QUIGLEY: I think that's true. I think it's true. Overall, I think NATO needs to assume that they are on their own. They think this president will
come to their aid, despite what he may occasionally say, that -- they're putting themselves at great risk.
[18:45:00]
So, I think they understand that in Moscow. I'd like to think the European leaders understand that situation, and it is scary and frustrating. You
know, add on to what's taking place in Greenland. There's a lot of refresher courses here for the American public to understand why that NATO
alliance matters. Remember that the Danes fought with us, and more Danes per capita died alongside those wars than the United States.
But you know, I serve on the Intel Committee. The information alone we share with our allies keeps our troops safe. It keeps us safe. Those
alliances matter. Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his last inaugural said, you know, we have learned that the only way to have a friend is to be one and
that we are safety is dependent on the safety of nations far away. It's a smaller world than it was then, it's a scarier world.
SCIUTTO: Listening to the Swedish deputy prime minister earlier, she said that European unity and strength, frankly, in the face of Trump's threats
to take Greenland helped turn this around. I wonder, do you believe that Europe might learn the same lesson or is learning the same lesson with
Ukraine that just saying no to Trump on concessions, for instance, land concessions that Ukraine doesn't want to make that that's the only way
forward, that playing nice just doesn't work with him?
QUIGLEY: Absolutely. I mean, the unity matters too, and they understand now that they're under much greater threat. So, I hope they react to that
threat appropriately. You know, it's frustrating because, you know, all those lives that were lost in the Second World War that helped create a new
world liberal order, a democratic order, it's all a threat now, and it is - - you know, this is a president who is transactional. His foreign policy is mercurial. I dare say, transactional, unhinged, destabilizing. One day it's
imperialistic, the next day it's isolationist and all in the wrong spots. He's got his hemispheres confused.
So, a NATO better understand this and recognizes as soon as they possibly can. And we're all the worse for that.
SCIUTTO: Listen, I mean, we have a lot of data now. A lot of Trump positions and statements over the course of a year in his second term about
his distaste or dislike for the current rules based international order with U.S. leadership. Even with the walk back on Greenland, if it holds,
did he reveal through this that the U.S. is just not going to play by those rules anymore?
QUIGLEY: I think he reveals that he only cares about himself and what we can get out of it. What's in it for us? I mean, just think if our history
was replete with that, the Marshall Plan would come with a -- you know, we'll do this if you pay and we make a profit. The face of Europe would be
much different right now.
So, it is indeed a much more destabilized world. And it's a world that's less safe. It's a world where those in Moscow, Beijing and elsewhere are
going to say, well, the United States has lost its legitimacy and the world has no trust in it. It's a better place for them. It's -- for those
countries that will be opportunistic like Putin was, I think it's an invitation to chaos.
SCIUTTO: Congressman Mike Quigley, nice to have you back. Thanks so much.
QUIGLEY: Thank you. Take care.
SCIUTTO: Coming up, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing the case of Lisa Cook, the Fed governor. President Trump wants to fire the independents of
the U.S. Central Bank hangs in the balance.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:50:00]
SCIUTTO: The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of the Fed Governor Lisa Cook today. She's the U.S. Central Bank official which
President Trump tried to fire last year. Trump's solicitor general argued the president has the power to remove Cook amid unproven allegations of
mortgage fraud. The arguments were met with deep skepticism, including from several conservative justices appointed by Trump. Justice Brett Kavanaugh
suggested that Cook's removal would set a bad precedent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH, SUPREME COURT: Your position that there's no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available, very low bar for
cause that the president alone determines, and that would weaken if not shatter the independence of the Federal Reserve that we just discussed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Notably, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, also in the president's crosshairs, attended today's hearing to give support to his colleague.
Joining us now, Scott Alvarez, former general counsel at the Fed. Scott, good to have you.
SCOTT ALVAREZ, FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL, FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD: Good to be here. Thank you.
SCIUTTO: So, first, a big-picture read, because a lot of folks who heard those arguments, including the skeptical questions from Kavanaugh or
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, read into that that this court seems positioned to rule against Trump on this firing. Was that your reading of the
arguments today as well?
ALVAREZ: Yes, it was. I thought that the fact that Justice Kavanaugh, also Justice Barrett, and the chief judge, Roberts, all seemed to be skeptical
of the government's arguments. And clearly, the three, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, were also skeptical of the government arguments. So, it seemed
like there was a clear majority here in favor of at least sending the case back to the lower court.
SCIUTTO: The Supreme Court, as you know, has repeatedly allowed this president to fire leaders at other independent agencies. What difference
are they seeing with the Fed in particular, based on the arguments you heard today?
ALVAREZ: Yes, there were two things that were interesting there. One is that the Supreme Court seems to be looking at the history of monetary
policy and banking in the United States, going back to the founders, the first bank of the United States, second bank of the United States, and
believe that -- they seem to believe that history illustrates that monetary policy should be and has traditionally been done by folks that are not
fireable by the president. The president doesn't have control over those folks. They were often actually private sector people.
But the other thing is that the government didn't challenge the four cause provisions as they apply to the Federal Reserve, which is unlike all the
other cases. In the other cases, the government has taken the view that the president has sole power to hire and fire. Here they conceded that the for
cause provision should apply to the Federal Reserve.
SCIUTTO: Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked the administration's lawyer, the solicitor general, John Sauer, why he seems to be afraid of a hearing for
Cook's case, given that she was not given a hearing. Does that weaken -- because this gets weaken that the government's case here, because it gets
to your point about, you know, how do you establish cause?
ALVAREZ: Yes, that was actually an interesting discussion because it has several parts. One is what is notice to the person who's being fired? And
then what kind of procedure and how much time should they have to answer the notice that they might be fired?
[18:55:00]
And there, the -- Lisa Cook's side conceded that perhaps posting on a website or a tweet could be adequate notice. But that the question then
becomes, is there prejudgment along with that notice? And that was a place for argument here, that the president gave this Truth Social announcement,
but he said, I'm going to fire you. And so, he had prejudged the question. And Lisa Cook's side took the view that that didn't really give her an
opportunity to address the issue.
SCIUTTO: The president makes a lot of announcements on social media. Scott Alvarez, thanks so much for walking us through it.
ALVAREZ: Yes. Thank you.
SCIUTTO: And thanks so much to all of you for joining. I'm Jim Sciuto in Washington. You've been watching "The Brief."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:00:00]
END
