Return to Transcripts main page

What We Know with Max Foster

Trump: We Have "Framework" Of Future Deal On Greenland; Trump: Won't Impose Tariffs On NATO Countries That Were Scheduled To Go Into Effect On February 1; Trump Makes Barrage Of False Claims During Davos Speech. Aired 3-4p ET

Aired January 21, 2026 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:32]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

MAX FOSTER, CNN HOST: Donald Trump says there may be a deal on Greenland.

This is WHAT WE KNOW.

At this hour, we have breaking news. It's from Davos in Switzerland, where U.S. President Donald Trump says he has the outline of agreement on

Greenland, one that would put an end to plans to enact new tariffs on nations opposed to U.S. acquisition of the island. The announcement comes

after a speech made by the president of the World Economic Forum in Davos today, demanding that the U.S. be allowed to buy Greenland.

In an online message, though, posted just minutes ago, Mr. Trump said that he's formed the framework of a future deal on Greenland and indeed the

wider Arctic, crucially, after discussions with NATO's secretary general, he went on to say the solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the

United States of America and all NATO nations. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the tariffs that were scheduled to go

into effect on February the 1st. I spoke to a Danish lawmaker in the last hour saying that's a huge relief to Europe.

Kevin, we were just hearing from Mark Rutte on the show a couple of minutes ago, confirming the statement as well, saying he totally agrees with it,

but there's so little detail.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, and Rutte even suggesting that he had been with Trump as Trump was typing out this truth

social message. Of course, we know that they had been meeting in Davos. That meeting just ended in the last 10, 15 minutes or so. And certainly,

quite a striking comedown from the president, at least when it comes to this tariff threat, which is the only item of all of this that the

president can control himself.

In the end, the president saying that this threat of new import taxes on those countries that had opposed his bid to take over Greenland was now off

the table because he has this framework in place. But of course, is the details of that framework that are going to prove so critical, in which we

really have no idea about at the moment. And I think its important that the president says that he worked this out with Mark Rutte, with the secretary

general of NATO, but didn't necessarily mention any discussions so far with the Danes, the country that currently controls Greenland. And that, of

course, will be another major sticking point as the president works to fulfill this bid.

But I think it is seems certain. The one thing I think we could probably say pretty explicitly is that Mark Rutte would not have agreed to any

framework with President Trump. That includes the U.S. taking full ownership of Greenland. You know, that's something that the European

nations have said, that they oppose, that Denmark itself says it opposes, that. Most Greenlanders say they oppose. And so clearly, whatever this

framework looks like, somehow stops short of that ultimate ambition of president Trump's, which is so notable because that is where he set the bar

during his speech at Davos earlier today, saying that none of this would make any sense unless the U.S. had what he called the title to that entire

Arctic island.

So certainly, a lot of details outstanding about what precisely this means. And certainly well look to get those from White House officials and well

look them to get them from President Trump as he continues his foray in Davos this week, the one sort of off ramp that you have heard, American

officials talking about, at least quietly in the background over the last several days, is trying to enhance this treaty that the U.S. already has

with Denmark and Greenland, allowing it to put U.S. military bases there. You know, this has been something that has been in place for quite some

time. It had always been an open question of why the president was so insistent about owning Greenland for national security purposes. If this

treaty already existed, and if it already allowed him to do just that.

But one thing that officials were sort of discussing behind the scenes was coming up with a way to enhance that somehow, to have some kind of, you

know, signing ceremony with the president that would allow him to show himself fulfilling his pledge to take over Greenland. So, if it is sort of

that that the president is talking about, that would, I think, be notable. But so many details unknown at this point, even as the president makes this

really kind of remarkable announcement hours after that speech in which he seemed very committed to pursuing full ownership of Greenland.

[15:05:00]

FOSTER: I have an idea. It's just an idea at the moment. But as you say, Rutte wouldn't be able to agree to something without speaking to members.

So perhaps what Rutte has done here is convinced Trump that the existing treating treaty with Greenland was enough, but his expanded some sort of

negotiation with him around the wider Arctic. So the, you know, the arctic isn't controlled by one single country. I'm wondering if Greenland is, as

an issue, is being folded in with the rest of the Arctic under NATO, and perhaps Trump is looking at controlling the Arctic now.

LIPTAK: I mean, his Truth Social does seem to hint at that when he says that he's talking about, quote, the entire arctic as part of this

framework. Those arguments have been made to Trump in the past. You know, he has talked with Rutte, talked with Emmanuel Macron, talked with other

European leaders about the Arctic and about NATOs focus on it.

And in fact, that was why many of these countries sent troops to Greenland in the first place over the last several days was because they wanted to

demonstrate their commitment to protecting the Arctic region. And so, if that's the argument that Mark Rutte made to President Trump, he was able to

break through, I think in a way that no one was able to previously.

Of course, we know Mark Rutte has sort of a reputation as a Trump whisperer. The president, even in his speech today, was praising him, even

as he was kind of denigrating NATO as an entity.

So I think, you know, that's -- seems like a likelihood as part of what this framework is. And I think the other aspect of that is to try in

President Trump's view, is to try and include something in this deal that would preclude Russia and China, which are the two countries he has accused

of trying to make inroads in Greenland, trying to sort of preclude them from going forward with those plans.

Now, what the Greenlanders have said and what the Danes have said, is that the presidents threats on that have been overblown, that they haven't seen

any evidence of China or Russia, you know, sailing ships in the region or trying to make sort of nefarious attempts on the island. But I think

including that in writing is something that certainly seems like it would go a long way, just given what the president has been saying about this

over the last several weeks.

FOSTER: Okay, Kevin, thank you.

Let's go to Richard Quest. He's been speaking to Mark Rutte in the last few minutes.

RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR AT LARGE (via telephone): Hi. Hopefully you can hear me, Max. I'm now back down at the conference center at

congress center waiting where we expect President Trump is going to walk past. If you take a look at the Truth Social statement that was put out, I

-- you heard Mark Rutte -- the president is now, Donald Trump is now walking down the stairs, coming down stairs here at the Congress Center.

You can probably see the picture now of the president walking down whether or not he's going to stop or talk. He stopped at the first area where he's

going to speak. He's now walking across. He's now speaking --

REPORTER: President Trump --

QUEST: Donald Trump, he's speaking over at one side of there. Can't hear what he's actually saying at the moment. He's coming over towards our

direction, listening.

(CROSSTALK)

QUEST: He's walked straight past.

(INAUDIBLE)

FOSTER: So, Richard Quest is currently at Davos next to Donald Trump. He's just listening out for anything that Donald Trump has to say.

(INAUDIBLE)

FOSTER: Okay. These are the live images we've got. I'm just trying to listen in.

REPORTER: How will you ratify it, Mr. President?

REPORTER: What did Mark Rutte said?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, he's a great leader. I think he's fantastic. The secretary general was representing the other

side, which is really us, too, because, you know, very important member of NATO. I've done a lot for NATO, and it's really nice. I mean, it's a deal

that everybody's very happy with.

REPORTER: Does it still include you? Does it still include does it still include the United States having ownership of Greenland, like you've said,

you wanted?

TRUMP: It's a long-term deal. It's the ultimate long-term deal. And I think it puts everybody in a really good position, especially as it

pertains to security and minerals and everything else.

REPORTER: Have you already spoken?

REPORTER: How long? How long is it, Mr. President?

TRUMP: What?

REPORTER: Have you spoken to other European leaders?

[15:10:00]

TRUMP: Yes, I have.

REPORTER: How long? How long would the deal be, Mr. President?

TRUMP: Infinite.

REPORTER: Did you speak to Denmark? Did you speak to Denmark?

TRUMP: There's no time limit. It's forever.

REPORTER: And how would you ratify the deal?

TRUMP: It's signed forever.

REPORTER: Will there --

REPORTER: But you haven't signed anything yet, right?

TRUMP: That's forever.

REPORTER: Will there be an effect? Will there be an effect? But is it a good thing for your people?

TRUMP: What happens is people are out there and they're working it right now. They're working the details of the deal, but it's what's called an

infinite deal. It's forever.

REPORTER: You talked about -- you talked about being concerned, Mr. President, about Russia trying to come and take over Greenland. If you're

worried that Putin would do something like that, why invite him to join your board of peace?

TRUMP: Because we want everybody. We want all nations. We want all nations where people have control. People have power. That way we're never going to

have a problem. This is the greatest board ever assembled, and everybody wants to be on it.

But I have some controversial people on it. But these are people that get the job done. These are people that have tremendous influence. And, you

know, but all babies on the board, there wouldn't be very much. So, he was invited. He's accepted, many people have accepted, I think I don't know of

anybody that hasn't accepted, but it's going to be great.

I think the board of peace will be the most prestigious board ever, and it's going to get a lot of work done that the United Nations should have

done and will work with the United Nations. But the board of peace is going to be special. We're going to have peace.

It started off with Gaza, the Middle East. We've got peace in the Middle East, tremendous peace in the Middle East. Nobody thought that was

possible. And that happened by taking out the Iran nuclear threat.

Without that, it could have never happened. But the board is going to be, I think, really fantastic. And I think it will be the most prestigious board

of any board ever in world history. Thank you very.

REPORTER: Thank you, Mr. President.

FOSTER: Live comments there from President Trump at the Davos meeting in Switzerland after a bombshell announcement, after a bombshell of a speech

earlier on today where he absolutely insisted on getting control of Greenland but actually just answered a question there in relation to

whether or not he's still seeking the acquisition of Greenland. And he didn't respond to that.

Let's speak to Kristen Holmes at the White House.

Kristen, when he was asked about, does this deal still involve acquisition of Greenland? He simply says it's a very long-term deal. It implies that

it's not about acquisition anymore.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. Yeah. That would be the exact same read that I have is that if it was about

acquisition and if it said that he was going to, or the United States was going to acquire Greenland, he would have obviously led with that.

President Trump is very good at walking around a topic when it's something that he doesn't want to talk about.

Now, as we have said, there were a number of administration officials that were looking for an off ramp here. They saw that this was not going in the

way that President Trump wanted it to go, that it was not likely that there was going to be any kind of giving up of Greenland. And on top of that, we

were actually starting to see an enormous amount of pushback from European officials reminder that the E.U. essentially froze on any kind of continued

negotiations when it came to a trade deal.

After President Trump announced that he wanted to still acquire Greenland, and any country that opposed that would get an additional 35 percent

tariff. This was not going in the direction that President Trump and the administration had hoped, and it was very clear that there was an increased

amount of tension.

Now, you know, and we know that they were looking for they being some administration officials, Republicans, an off ramp for President Trump as

he continued to push on this. And it certainly seems as though they found that in this framework of a deal. President Trump gave no specifics other

than saying that both NATO, European officials, European leaders, he was happy with this deal. He said it was infinite. When asked how long the deal

was.

When they asked if he would if he had signed something, he said, no, but it's going to be a deal that is forever. And then again, dancing around

this issue of whether or not he would acquire Greenland. One of the things that President Trump has said over and over again is that he would not stop

short of actually having U.S. control of Greenland. But when asked that question again, no real answer there.

And we know from the leaders of Denmark, from the leaders of Greenland, that that was not on the table, that there was absolutely no way in which

they were going to give over Greenland or they were going to sell Greenland. And so, it appears that whatever this is, is likely to be a new

document that will build up U.S. military in the region, that will build up NATO alliance -- NATO facilities, NATO military in the region. And somehow

satiate President Trump's desire to have increased security when it comes to Greenland.

[15:15:00]

But I do go back to what we heard President Trump say yesterday, because it doesn't sound very different. Yes, he has talked to the NATO leader. Yes,

he has delivered this speech.

Yesterday when he was standing in the briefing room talking to reporters, he said, I think well come to a deal with -- about Greenland that NATO will

be very happy with. Now you have 24 hours later, him saying they came to a deal that NATO is going to be very happy with.

It just shows you where President Trump's mind was going to Davos, despite the fact that he was still kind of holding out or dangling this idea of

military intervention when it came to Greenland, but that there was clearly something else in the works in terms of an off ramp, in terms of

negotiations, as they moved forward, because obviously, what President Trump was saying publicly was not something that NATO would have been happy

with, not something that the officials in Denmark or Greenland would have been happy with.

But now, of course, you have him saying that everybody is pleased with whatever this is, this very loose framework is because we've got no details

really yet. They are all happy with it and that he is talking to the leaders. So, this appears to be certainly an off ramp for President Trump,

as we've seen this escalation in tension grow with their European allies.

FOSTER: But Mark Rutte, the head of NATO, must have come back with something else to make everything happy. It wouldn't just have been a climb

down from President Trump. And I just wonder if this reference to the entire arctic region is something that we should be looking at. Obviously,

the Arctic itself isn't controlled by one country, so I'm wondering if Mark Rutte has suggested, let's make this bigger than Greenland.

Let's talk about the entire Arctic and how we in Europe can support you defending that whole region.

HOLMES: I think that's right. I think that security is a concern. I also think you've heard President Trump talk about mining, talk about oil

reserves, talk about critical minerals. And that is something that there might have been a conversation about as well.

Yes. We have heard from the leaders of, of the region saying that they haven't seen as many security threats as the United States has said. But

also when they were here, they did acknowledge that the region has become a much more -- there was a much greater need to have security in that region

than they had in the past. I think that, yes, Mark Rutte would have come with something to offer, whether or not it's just a renewal of a contract

that really outlines what the U.S. is capable and what allowed to do in the region, applying to the Arctic as well.

But I also do think that it is important to note that there have clearly been concessions on the behalf of the White House and President Trump, when

you have the president pushing this idea that there was no other way that he would be happy unless he, the United States, was going to acquire

Greenland, and then having him answer the question in a roundabout way in which it does not sound like the U.S. is going to acquire Greenland.

FOSTER: The idea of the renewal of that original agreement that they have with Denmark, which effectively allows the U.S. to do anything in Greenland

anyway, does sound like the most likely scenario here, doesn't it? But how do you suit that up to make it look like something new, when it's actually

no change at all? I'm just thinking it must be the deal -- some part of the deal, because Mark Rutte wouldn't have had the authority to speak on behalf

of Denmark. Anything beyond what's existing there in terms of a deal.

HOLMES: Well, I would also believe that Mark Rutte knows how to deal with President Trump. And he knows how to have a conversation with him and to

placate him, and to also appeal to him in a way that several of these other European leaders do not know how to. We know that he has been coaching some

of them on how to talk to President Trump.

What to look at here, largely, if you're going to talk about them just renewing the contract that they already had and bolstering it up. And

again, as you said, it already says the United States can do very almost anything that they want within the country. Think about what the United

States has said that they want, which is increased military presence, increased access to various, critical minerals and oil.

And then you can look at this with an announcement that might come from the United States to talk about what exactly they're going to do in line, or,

as they announce this framework. So, you could have two things happening. Now, one of the things to note is that President Trump could have already

expanded or built more military bases in Greenland. There wasn't really anything stopping him.

And in fact, we heard from some officials saying that they would welcome more military presence or expanding the base. But if you see this kind of

renewal of a deal laying out the framework lasting infinitely, as President Trump has said, and then couple it with perhaps an announcement about what

they're going to do in terms of building up both U.S. forces and NATO forces in that region.

[15:20:01]

And that is something that obviously Mark Rutte could offer is here's what we will do from NATO. We will put in these amount of resources, whether it

be financial or military, into that region. That is something that then you can have -- you can package as a whole deal there. It certainly seems as

though that's the direction that this is going in. As you noted, obviously, Mark Rutte cannot negotiate on behalf of Denmark, but there are certain

things that he can provide in terms of bolstering up security there and supporting the United States that might be appealing to President Trump.

FOSTER: I appreciate it. Kristen, a lot of information to process very quickly, but we're doing our best. Thank you so much.

We'll have more after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: And more now on our breaking news that Donald Trump says he's reached a framework of a future deal on Greenland, Donald Trump says it's

the meeting with the NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that led to this extraordinary announcement. This is what he had to say just a couple of

minutes ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK RUTTE, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: I want to thank you again for what you did since coming in in January. Trump, 47, basically getting the Europeans

and Canada to really step up. And that led to the enormous success we had in the Hague with the 5 percent, which is crucial to defend ourselves and

to also equalize with what the U.S. is paying. This was a problem already there since Eisenhower.

I always tell the Europeans, you're completely committed to NATO, but there is also that one irritant, and that is this factor that the Europeans are

not paying the same as the U.S. was paying, and we solved it. And this is crucial also because we need the money to protect ourselves. There's one

thing I heard you say yesterday and today you were not absolutely sure that the Europeans would come to the rescue of the U.S. if you will be attacked

-- let me tell you -- they will.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Nic Robertson is in Greenland's capital, Nuuk.

So, an extraordinary day for you to monitor from there and the people of Greenland. At one point it was, you know, you're being acquired now,

according to what we heard from Donald Trump.

[15:25:02]

That isn't the plan anymore. But there's this wider Arctic plan which somehow Rutte seems to have negotiated, and he can't have made any, you

know, sizable decisions about Greenland specifically without speaking to the Danes. So, what on Earth do you think is in this framework?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: You know, I think this has been the narrative for some time, Max, if you go back to last week when

the foreign minister of Denmark, the foreign minister of Greenland, were meeting with the vice president of the U.S. and the secretary of state,

Marco Rubio, in the White House. They thought they came away with a narrative of common understanding that the Arctic and security in the

Arctic was a common thing, that they could work together on, and they came back. And then then NATO came to join bigger military exercises.

Look at how to provide that security in the Arctic. That was always the narrative here, coming from the Danes, coming from members of NATO.

President Trump put threatened tariffs on those particular countries. They responded by saying that, you know, that there would be an economic cost of

the United States that appears to have been somehow some kind of misunderstanding.

Mark Rutte, yesterday, secretary general, NATO, saying that that he thought that there was commonality of the need for security in the Arctic. The

Arctic is a massive place from here in Greenland to the coast of Russia, is well over a thousand miles away. The Arctic stretches all across there.

Arctic security is a much bigger thing than just Greenland security. It gets to those roots that the nuclear-powered submarines from Russia take

around the coast of Norway and head off into the Atlantic. That's a long distance here from Greenland to that whole Arctic security is kind of the

thrust of where NATO, the Danes and others have been pushing the conversation and explaining that to the White House.

Now, it appears that President Trump, is on board with that. That has been there as an off ramp. The idea that when President Trump was asked by

Kaitlan Collins a short time ago is the issue of sovereignty, United States wanting to take control of Greenland, still on the table, still an issue,

as President Trump has said only a few hours ago. Yes. Whiplash on this question, an issue. He talked about it as a very long-term deal, an

infinite long-term deal now.

The shortage of detail on it is what concerns politicians here. I think people here collectively breathing a sigh of relief because they're not

facing an imminent military maneuver. They are now seeing that there's a diplomatic off ramp, the question of sovereignty and the details around

that will still be a concern until they can-- until they get sight of that.

But the idea of working together as NATO with the United States, providing increased security across the arctic, was something that Mark Rutte has and

others have been pushing as a common issue. And now, President Trump seems to buy into that. But again, he's given us -- they've given us the

headline, but not the detail. And I think that's what people are waiting for.

But is the current situation diffuse and the tensions of a few hours ago diffuse? I think, yes, in the minds of people here for now, they recognize

that everything can change on a dime. But for now, there's a sense of a little bit, a little bit of relief.

FOSTER: You've worked with mark rutter many times and other European leaders. All this tension today, huge criticism for European leaders. But

Mark Rutte seems to have done something quite extraordinary here, managed to tap dance between the two sides. We're also hearing from our White House

correspondent how he's actually been coaching some of the European leaders.

I mean, how would he have gone into this? What do you know about his tactics?

ROBERTSON: Well, Mark Rutte has an extraordinary job to do, as Jens Stoltenberg did before him with President Trump over Ukraine. The NATO

secretary general is not an individual speaking for one country. And this you find whenever you ask Mark Rutte, Jens Stoltenberg, any of the

predecessors a question about NATO, they speak for the 32 nations that make up NATO. They cannot speak for one. When they say something, it has to be

that reflects the commonality and the perhaps agreed view of all of them.

So I think he's been able to stay at -- Mark Rutte stayed out of the limelight yesterday, met with the Danish foreign minister, the Greenlandic

foreign minister, and he came out of that meeting and he talked about a commonality of understanding over the Arctic.

Yes, it is very surprising, I think, to most people, that President Trump would have come with so much -- bluster is an understatement. But so much,

belittling, if you will, at a personal level, not just of Europe as a continent and its position in the world a downward trend he talked about,

but also some of the leaders and the Mark Carney and Canada as well, came in for this high criticism.

[15:30:07]

How could somebody coming in, President Trump coming in, pour so much criticism on them and then suddenly do what may be some kind of U-turn or

new agreement here? I think the reality and the way that I think people may understand it is that this was in the works. Some threads of this were in

the works already that the Arctic security, the commonality that Mark Rutte talked about it, the Danes had talked about it, the Danes had talked about

their surprise when these sanctions were put on for wanting to show that they could provide additional Arctic security sanctions. Tariffs were

threatened.

So, the narrative has been there, I think, in the background. President Trump really puts people perhaps off balance with the way that he comes

into this. But I think most people would believe that he didn't change his mind instantly inside the room with Mark Rutte, that this was coming and

that this is part of his negotiating style.

It's a negotiating style, it has to be said, that is really damaging at the moment. The transatlantic relationship. That's what we've been hearing from

European leaders today. And I don't think that is going to change.

President Trump's mercurial nature is still a point of huge concern in Europe, and that won't go away overnight. And I think people will be able

to better understand President Trump, his new position if its new, when they get the details of whatever it is that's been agreed about, U.S.

military bases, U.S. missile bases, access to minerals here in Greenland, given that the door was open and there was a -- that the United States

could have what it wanted already.

So, what's new? That's not entirely clear at this moment.

FOSTER: No. Well, we hope to get a bit more on that for sure. Certainly, the people of Greenland are behind you. It has been a seismic moment, as

you say, hasn't it? Because Europe lost trust in America, they suddenly realized that they've put too much into American security and assumed it

would be there.

And now they realize it hasn't been. They have to. Europe has to build up its own security. So that's a big job for Europe.

But it's also significant for America because the European security system was integral to the U.S. system as well, which is what Donald Trump doesn't

always seem to accept.

ROBERTSON: And this has been a criticism of European leaders that they haven't been tough enough when negotiating and talking with President

Trump, whether it's on Ukraine, whether it's on Greenland, and quite simply because they recognize that their economies are so tied to the United

States, their security is so tied to the United States.

Something many U.S. presidents have been telling European countries for a long time, you need to do more on defense. You need to spend more on

defense. And they are now. And President Trump has taken some credit for that.

His methods and tactics have left a very bad taste in the mouths of certain European politicians. That's not going to go away. But if what President

Trump has achieved here is to focus minds on the changing nature of Arctic security over the long term and the need to spend more money here, then

certainly he will have sped that up. But it is perhaps going to be at the expense of trust and the recognition of Europeans that they cannot be so

reliant for their -- for their security on the United States, which means they'll spend more on their own defense industries, that they will find

commonalities in their own defense industries, something that they've talked about for years, you know, narrowing down the number of different

tanks they make, the number of different fighter jets they make, sharing the burden there.

That's something I think we'll see more of in the future. It is a long term, 10, 15, 20-year future, and that will be at the detriment of the

relationship with the United States and the detriment potentially going forward of the U.S. arms industry, because Europe will rely more on itself.

That's one of the lessons that I think Europe is having with the United States over the past few months.

FOSTER: Nic Robertson in Nuuk, thank you so much for your broad analysis of this very complex issue. We'll be back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:37:45]

FOSTER: On our top story. In the past hour, U.S. President Donald Trump has said he's reached a framework deal that would satisfy his demands on

Greenland. Posted on Truth Social, President Trump said that after talks with NATO's chief, he would no longer impose new tariffs on European

countries that opposed his plan to annex this island.

Here's what Mr. Trump told our Kaitlan Collins just a few minutes ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's a long-term deal. It's the ultimate long-term deal. And I think it puts everybody in a really good position, especially as it

pertains to security and minerals and everything else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOSTER: Our business editor at large, Richard Quest, was also there amongst people trying to get in touch with Trump, but also with Rutte.

You've been trying to juggle what's going on there. But the other thing he said to Kaitlan, she asked him about acquisition, whether he was still

talking about, he didn't answer it, implying that he's not talking about acquisition of the island any longer.

QUEST: I think the core point on this is bearing in mind were talking about this framework of a deal, and Rutte was in the room when that Truth

Social post was written, and they agreed with it in all. But bearing in mind that they were able to do this. It has to have been within the area of

what they can talk about. In other words, nothing to do as -- my microphone still.

FOSTER; Okay, Richard, we're going to come back to Richard once his mic --

QUEST: No, hang on, hang on, hang on. I found it. Hang on.

FOSTER: They do slip in the cold.

QUEST: That's better. Yes. Sorry. Yeah. It does things, you know fumble fingers. Yeah.

Now, bearing in mind that Mark Rutte was in the room when the post was written and he could only agree to something that didn't involve the

sovereignty of Greenland. That or Denmark, that only involved the areas of NATO which he will then put to the NATO council. It's clear that this is

some sort of arrangement less than ownership. It is not what it is -- what it looks like and how far it encompasses into the Arctic. We'll find out in

the days ahead.

But Donald Trump and Mark Rutte being able to reach any form of framework without impinging on sovereignty, because that's something Rutte wouldn't

have done. And I'm guessing and reading, if you look, look again at the Truth Social and look further down where it talks about the discussions

that will take place with Marco Rubio, that will take place with other leading -- with the vice president of the United States, with the foreign

ministers.

Those are, I guess, the technical talks that will now take place that will flesh out this framework, which is less than sovereignty. And I imagine

that there will be some form of NATO council in the not-too-distant future, where full briefings and acceptance of this will be put forward.

It is an extraordinary development. I think there will be those, Max, that will say, all of this could have been reached without the pain and angst

and agony of the last few weeks, but we haven't yet seen the framework.

FOSTER: Yeah, we'll have to wait. Richard. Thank you.

We're going to keep across any developments we have on that, but certainly, NATO has confirmed the Truth Social post. We'll soon have the closing bell

on Wall Street. Stocks are surging on this news. Presumably, the Dow Jones climbing after that announcement from President Donald Trump saying tariffs

on European countries against his plans to annex Greenland would not come into effect.

This is our business breakout.

Jamie Dimon, the head of JPMorgan Chase, says Donald Trump's plans for a cap on credit card interest rates would be an economic disaster. That's

what he's focusing on. Trump wants Congress to cap interest rates at 10 percent for a year, Dimon told a panel in Davos, where Richard is, that the

plans would cause most Americans to lose their access to credit.

Snap has settled a lawsuit accusing social media companies of harming a teenager's mental health. A 19-year-old is accusing Snap, TikTok, Meta and

YouTube of creating addictive features. Snap's decision to settle means its CEO will no longer testify when the trial begins next week in Los Angeles.

Ryanair's boss is celebrating after dragging Elon Musk into a public feud. Musk took aim at the airline on X after Michael O'Leary said he wouldn't

install Musk's Starlink technology for in-flight Wi-Fi. The pair called each other's -- each other idiots, amongst other things. O'Leary says

Ryanair's ticket sales have been -- well, have seen a boost as a result and offered Musk a free ticket.

Donald Trump's efforts to control the U.S. Federal Reserve may have taken a big hit. Today. The U.S. Supreme Court sounded very skeptical earlier when

it heard arguments about Trump's efforts to fire governor, Fed Governor Lisa Cook. Even justices seen as staunch Trump allies asked tough questions

of the government's lawyer, questioning the ramifications of allowing a president to have that much power over the Fed.

Let's go to Phil Mattingly.

And, Phil, I was really interested in the comments coming from the court today talking about public interest, because we were talking about the

independence of the Fed. If it lost that, it could cause an economic crash. They're having to consider things much bigger than the specifics in this

case.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And what was fascinating, there are a couple of pieces. But to get directly to your point, was justices weighing

and asking questions about the potential economic repercussions of a decision, siding with the administration in this effort to fire for cause,

they say, with limited process leading up to that decision when we watched it all play out, whether or not it could lead to a potential recession,

whether or not this could have dramatic effects over time.

And as Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative, justice, made very clear, this will come back again and it will turn into a process where each political party

will do the same exact thing every single time there's a change inside the White House. That kind of big picture view and the very distinct concern

about economic ramifications for everyday Americans was not necessarily the type of breakout you often see in a Supreme Court argument tied to that,

and something you also don't see, particularly over the course of this first year of Trump administration efforts that have reached the Supreme

Court.

Conservative justice after conservative justice after conservative justice, five out of the six in the majority had very clear skepticism and very

tough questions for the solicitor general, making the case from the administration side of things over the course of the arguments,

underscoring the fact that at one point it seemed like they weren't having a discussion necessarily about how to rule in one side or the other, but

basically how to rule and in what -- what the scope of that ruling would be in favor of Lisa Cook.

Now, where this goes going forward is still kind of an open question. We're expecting a couple of weeks here before any final decision is made. And

this is just about the temporary injunction that was put on the effort to fire Lisa Cook. But I think what it all underscores is the Fed has always

been carved out as this kind of quasi-independent entity.

[15:45:02]

And as the president has moved forward over the course of these first 12 months in office and really taking control of every other independent

agency in the Supreme Court has signed off every single step of the way. The Fed remains distinct. The Fed remains outside of his grasp, and even

the conservative justices, many of whom have a much broader view of executive authority than some of their predecessors, they're on that page,

too, and at least at this point, it looks like it's not a good sign for President Trump and his efforts to fire a sitting Fed governor.

FOSTER: How do you think he's going to react to just the idea that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with him?

MATTINGLY: I mean, how do you think? It's -- it'll be the same --

FOSTER: I think a lot of people will be reassured that it feels like there are still checks on the presidency, and if its anyone, it should be the

Supreme Court.

MATTINGLY: Yeah. And by the way, I'm not trying to make light of what your question, but it's a really great one in this moment because this is -- if

you want a good kind of reference point, look at what's happened with tariffs where the tariffs that the president put on really make up kind of

the backbone of his tariff regime that he's utilized, including the efforts to put tariffs on European countries that apparently now no longer is the

case based on what we've seen today.

The Supreme Court skepticism related to that from conservative justice has drawn sharp criticism from the president. I suspect you will see the same

here. But to your point, the holding of the guardrails is something that when you talk to Washington officials, including Republicans, they

appreciated this point.

FOSTER: It's a huge case. Phil, really appreciate it. Thank you.

We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FOSTER: Greenland was not the only topic of Donald Trump's speech in Davos. It was pretty long. The U.S. president says people will soon be

prosecuted over the 2020 U.S. election, too. Mr. Trump has repeatedly called his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden rigged. But he didn't say who

would be prosecuted.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It was a rigged election. Everybody now knows that. They found out. People will soon be prosecuted for what they did.

[15:50:06]

It's probably breaking news, but it should be. It was a rigged election. You can't have rigged elections.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: There's no evidence the 2020 election result was fraudulent, as far as we've seen.

CNN senior reporter Daniel Dale has been looking at this.

You know, a case does need evidence. I mean, where is he going to find it?

DANIEL DALE, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, he's been claiming over and over that it has now emerged that the election was indeed rigged, never provided

even a shred of real evidence for that.

And that was far from the only false claim he made in this speech. This was a laundry list of the usual, claiming that he secured 18 trillion in

investment in the U.S. That figure is nearly double the White House's own wildly inflated figure.

Claiming things like he's secured no tax on Social Security in the U.S. He did not achieve that, claiming that he's ended eight wars. That list

includes two situations that were never wars at all, and one war in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo that has not ended.

And he also delivered a barrage of false claims on the subject of NATO and Greenland, saying, for example, that the U.S. has never gotten anything

from NATO, not mentioning the fact that the one and only time NATO's Article Five collective self-defense provision has been invoked was to

defend the United States after the 9/11/2001 attacks in which multiple members went to war in Afghanistan to fight for the U.S. and suffered

casualties there.

He also claimed that Greenland is a mere piece of ice, not mentioning the fact that not only is it a giant landmass, but more than 56,000 people live

there. And he said that the U.S. was foolish. He said, quote, "stupid" for giving back Greenland to Denmark after operating there in the Second World

War.

He didn't mention, though, that the agreement in 1941 that allowed U.S. military forces to operate in Greenland explicitly and repeatedly noted

that Denmark retained full sovereignty over Greenland at the time. So, he said, we're foolish for giving it back, but it was never a U.S. possession

to give back in the first place.

FOSTER: In terms, you know, these very long speeches and he gives so much information, doesn't he? But the detail is often quite vague. I mean, what

do you see about how he builds these arguments? Is he plucking information that works for him, or is he actually using inaccurate information?

DALE: It is heavily inaccurate. There are some facts and figures that are accurate. Generally, when they're written into his prepared texts, those

seem those tend to be the ones that are more researched by his staff than others, but especially the ones that he ad libs. The impromptu numbers are

overwhelmingly incorrect.

FOSTER: Okay. Daniel Dale, appreciate your analysis.

We'll be back in a moment

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:55:28]

FOSTER: A quick recap of our breaking news tonight. U.S. President Donald Trump says he has the outline of an agreement on Greenland, one that would

put an end to the plans to enact new tariffs on nations opposing the U.S. acquisition of the island. The announcement comes after a speech made by

President Trump at the World Economic Forum in Davos today in Switzerland, demanding that the U.S. be allowed to buy Greenland.

A lot to take in. Richard has all the latest. For international viewers from Davos, even after the break. But the American stream will also have

the latest reporting there.

I'm Max Foster. That is WHAT WE KNOW.

END

TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS