Trump at Davos: 'I won't use force' to acquire Greenland

0:00Support for Here and Now Anytime comes from MathWorks, creator of MATLAB and Simulink software for technical computing and model-based design. MathWorks, accelerating the pace of discovery in engineering. and science. Learn more at mathworks.com. WBUR Podcasts, Boston. Come to your own judgment of what can be done, what's reasonable. Propose that. Do it behind closed doors and negotiations and come up with a way for Trump to portray this as having him gotten something. If President Trump won't take no for an answer on Greenland, maybe Europe can convince him he's getting a deal?

0:55It's Wednesday, January 21st, and this is Here and Now, Anytime from NPR and WBUR. I'm Chris Bentley. Today on the show, the Supreme Court seems skeptical of President Trump's claim that he can fire whomever he wants from the Federal Reserve Board. Also, the U.S. withdrawal from global humanitarian efforts could contribute to a growing refugee crisis. In the decades that I've been working on humanitarian and development aid and in this sector, I have never seen this kind of collapse of what you could call a moral leadership.

1:40But first, President Trump flew to Switzerland to address a crowd of some of the world's richest and most powerful people today. Though his remarks were very similar to what he might have said at a campaign rally in rural America, one thing everyone was waiting to hear, he told the World Economic Forum in Davos that he would not use force to take Greenland. That's news because he hadn't previously ruled out using the military to seize the Danish territory. But he's not exactly proposing a compromise either. They have a choice. You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no, and we will remember.

2:22Trump said it's not enough that Denmark already lets the U.S. station its military on Greenland. He wants the U.S. to own it. And all we're asking for is to get Greenland, including right title and ownership, because you need the ownership to defend it. Kurt Volker has some thoughts. He was U.S. ambassador to NATO under President George W. Bush. He was also part of the first Trump administration, and he's now with the Center for European Policy Analysis. Here's his conversation with Robin Young. And I want to go right to Greenland. This week you told NPR's Steve Inskeep that you think the president is right, that there are security issues in that area of Greenland, more maritime traffic, we know because of climate change, and also that the U.S.

3:10withdrew forces from bases in the region and could send them back to provide security. Today, as we heard, President Trump is indicating he doesn't want to do that, and he also said he doesn't want to pay for it. So what do you think his demand for Greenland is about? Yeah. Well, first off, I think the way he presented his remarks in Davos today indicate that he expects to negotiate. This is a good thing. He also indicated that he's not going to use force to take it over. That's also a good thing, something that people were worried about because that would have really destroyed NATO. So now we're into the discussion about, well, what does he really want?

3:47Is it unfettered access so that we can defend the United States, North America from Greenland, radars and Golden Dome and so forth? That's achievable. Is it access to the mineral resources? That's achievable as well. So if we start talking about these things in detail, it may be that he ends up with a quote-unquote yes that he's happy with. If he is just focused on sovereignty, however, I think it's going to really run aground. No one in Greenland wants to be part of the U.S. Denmark does not want to give it up. And there's no reason why he has to have that in order to achieve concrete U.S. objectives.

4:23Well, what do you think? I mean, from what you heard and from what you know, working with this president, you have said, as you just did, he could get the rights to do all of these things. He already has, by treaty, many rights to bring troops back and such. but he could get even more without ownership. Do you think that this is a negotiating tactic? Because some think that this is about something you've talked about, which is a sphere of influence policy, that it is about the landmass. Well, he has said that himself, and Stephen Miller said that even more explicitly in some interviews last weekend.

4:59But I don't know that that is exactly where President Trump is. I don't think we know yet what he will settle for. I think he was beginning to realize that there's no public support for the U.S. taking Greenland. There's no congressional support, even among Republicans. They think this is way too far. But if he stakes this out as an extreme position and then negotiates from there to get some things that are beneficial, that could very well be what he does. You mentioned money. And certainly, I think he would like to get money. He would like to have European nations, and Denmark in particular, provide finances or host nation support to sustain or support an increased U.S.

5:36presence in Greenland. That makes sense. Okay, and so hold that thought right there for a second, because I think it's important here to remind people who you are. You were a special unpaid envoy to Ukraine in Trump's first presidency. Now, President Trump and his then-lawyer Rudy Giuliani wanted Zelensky to dig up dirt on then-former Vice President Joe Biden. A whistleblower filed a complaint that you and others were trying to contain the damage. That's a quote by advising Zelensky at, you know, Ukrainian officials request. They didn't know what to do. Advising them on how to handle pressure from Giuliani.

6:09But Giuliani then said that your participation gave his actions State Department approval. Although one could say, you know, he and Trump in that were throwing you under the bus. You resigned. I want to put that aside. And people at the time said you were one of the good guys. You were trying to stave off disaster. But from that experience, what would you tell NATO countries now about trying to navigate what also seems like it did, you know, years ago when he was demanding of Zelensky that he dig up dirt? This demand for Greenland seems, you know, insane to some people in Europe. How would you advise them how to navigate that?

6:51Right. Well, let's leave 2019 in the past. But I always say, half-jokingly, that the default setting in Europe is to wait and then worry and then complain. That doesn't work with President Trump. What you need to do is know what the issues are, know what you think should be done, and be proactive in proposing it. Engage him and get into the discussion. What would you say to people of Greenland who would say, I don't think we should negotiate with him at all. We don't want any more U.S. in our territory. Well, I'm not sure that's the way most people in Greenland think. They don't want to become part of the United States by force or even involuntarily by some other means.

7:32But they have loved the United States for decades and decades. We've been very popular. They would love to have more U.S. investment. A larger U.S. military presence is going to benefit the economy. So I don't think they're hostile to the United States. They just don't want to be taken over. Well, I guess when it comes to what seems to be at the heart of this today, at least, which is Greenland, it sounds like you'd be advising people to move past a lot of the bombast and concentrate on what needs to be done to get what Europe needs and also assuage what Trump wants. Exactly. Come to your own judgment of what can be done, what's reasonable.

8:11Propose that. Do it behind closed doors in negotiations and come up with a way for Trump to portray this as having him gotten something. Longtime diplomat, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, Kurt Volker in Davos. Thank you so much. It's been my pleasure. Thank you. Coming up next. Trump's power to influence the Federal Reserve faces a crucial test before the Supreme Court today. Robin has that story when we return.

9:00as 15 minutes, SelectQuote's licensed agents will compare policies from trusted, top-rated insurance companies to find you the best fit for your health, your lifestyle, and your budget. And they work for you for free. Get the right life insurance for you and save more than 50 % at SelectQuote.com slash anytime. That's 50 % off at SelectQuote.com slash anytime. Well, today we're also following that major Supreme Court case. Justice is looking at President Trump's attempts to remove Board of Governors member Lisa Cook for allegations she denies. He announced in August that he would fire her while he was also pressuring the Fed to lower interest rates.

9:40But the case is also a test of the independence of the Federal Reserve itself, which is supposed to make decisions that impact inflation, hiring the global financial system, without political interference. So we have two opinions. Let's start with Mark Chenoweth, president of the law firm, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which wrote a brief supporting President Trump. Mark, hi. Good to be with you. So today, the justices, even conservative justices, seemed skeptical of the administration's position. No president has fired a sitting Fed governor in the agency's 112 years. Why do you think Trump should be the first to fire one now?

10:19Well, I think what Solicitor General Sauer said was that in other circumstances, when this kind of thing has arisen, that federal governors have resigned. Lisa Cook refused to resign, and that's why he fired her. Well, the Trump administration wanted to fire her because of unproven allegations of mortgage fraud, which she denies. And today, Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns that the president can do this firing without review from the courts. 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.

11:07So you say what, Mark? Well, I think that you have to remember that the Federal Reserve doesn't just issue interest rate decisions. The Federal Reserve is also a regulatory body that puts lots of different regulations on banks, on credit card interest rates, and that kind of thing. And so if the position is that the president doesn't have control over people who are regulating things within the executive branch, that would be new. And that wasn't what was done when the Federal Reserve was created. So if Congress doesn't think the president should be able to remove people who exercise executive power, then it needs to separate the rate-setting function that the Federal Reserve has from the regulation-writing function that the Federal Reserve has.

11:50Because as things stand right now, the Constitution gives all of the executive power to the president. And to the extent that a Federal Reserve governor is exercising that executive power, they need to be subject to removal. Well, but these regulatory agencies in particular were created to be independent. You know, this is why isn't this just presidential power? Why isn't this interference? Well, you say that Congress created them to be independent, but that's precisely why there's a constitutional question here. How much independence can there be? Independent from what? But in the oral argument, for example, you heard Paul Clement, who was representing Ms.

12:31Cook, talk about, well, you could impeach them. You could impeach Federal Reserve governors. And I thought that the Solicitor General had a very good comeback to that when he said, well, wait a minute. That would make them like Article III judges where they can only be removed based on impeachment. But that's not what Congress did. What Congress did was set a for-cause standard, and the president removed her for-cause. If the Congress thinks that a for-cause standard isn't sufficient and they want to do something more like an inefficiency, neglect, and malfeasance standard, then Congress can change the law and put that in.

13:06But that's not what the statute has now. Right now, the statute confers discretion on the president to remove Federal Reserve governor's for-cause. Okay, Mark Chenoweth, president of the new Civil Liberties Alliance. We have someone to respond to everything you've said. Thank you. Thank you. Good to be with you. And let's bring in Ty Cobb, former federal prosecutor and former special counsel of President Trump in his first administration, who is against the president's attempts to fire a Fed board governor. Ty Cobb, your response to what you just heard from Mark? So I thought what Mark said was interesting.

13:38Interestingly, neither of the key points that he made, bifurcating the various functions and the four cause debate, none of that actually really was fleshed out at all in the hearing today. And in fact, the point on the four cause issue is not the standard, it's the reviewability. And I think the— Meaning what? Meaning what? Flesh that out. Who gets to decide? Yeah. Yeah. Well, not only who gets to decide, but, you know, how do you distinguish, as the court, as the justices made plain today, you know, what good is the four-cause standard if it can be pretextual? And clearly in this case— Oh, you have to interpret for us pretextual?

14:22Yeah, meaning, you know, what if it's a lie? What if it's like, you know, what if it's just fraudulent and because Trump wants lower interest rates and like he did with the architectural review board on the ballroom, you know, replaces everybody with sycophants and people who are going to go his way. And that's the concern. That's what Justice Kavanaugh made clear, which is that the independence of the Fed is at risk here. And it's threatened by, you know, by the way that Trump went about this. You know, and Justice Comey Barrett made plain that, you know, how is a true social post actual notice?

14:58I think what you heard today is a lot of the justices reaffirming what they said in Wilcox about, which was only six months ago, about the independence of the Fed and also making it plain that more process was clearly needed here. You are joining other voices we're hearing now that the arguments are over saying that it seems as if the court, including the conservative justices, are leaning against the administration. I believe that to be the case. I think it's difficult, you know, based on the arguments, you know, to, you know, go one way or the other. I think there were tough questions for both sides.

15:33But clearly, clearly they were very demanding of Sauer about why is this so rushed and why was there so little why was there so little devoted to fleshing out the facts? Yeah. Well, and Sauer again, speaking for the administration, we have less than a minute here. What's your sense then? I just want to look ahead. The courts are also considering the president's ability to launch tariffs. Betting markets say the court might go against that as well. What were your thoughts having heard today? So I did. So today on the tariffs, I didn't really. No, I'm saying that what the court is leaning towards.

16:10on the Fed. So I do believe the court is leaning toward keeping Ms. Cook in her position, at least until the dispute is resolved. I think that'll be what it does. I also think they're going to rule against the president on tariffs. Ty Cobb, who worked in the first Trump administration, thank you so much. My pleasure. We've got to take one more short break and we'll be right back with some more news.

16:46It's been one year since the Trump administration first froze funding for the United States Agency for International Development. U.S. aid was essentially wiped out. More than 80 % of its programs have been canceled, and the remainder put under the purview of the State Department. That's had a huge impact around the world, says Charlotte Slenta, Secretary General of the Danish Refugee Council. Here's a bit of her conversation with Indira Lakshmanan. I mean, in the decades that I've been working on humanitarian and development aid and in this sector, I have never seen this kind of collapse of what you could call a moral leadership.

17:26It has been sadly contagious, so it's not limited to the U.S. at the moment, but countries look to the U.S. as an example. And we now live in a world where a number of wealthy nations are in what you could call a race to the bottom. Other countries have also cut in aid, including the UK, Germany, France, and others, and thereby actually pulling back from helping the world's most vulnerable people. Tens of millions of people in need could not be reached by eight groups due to the cuts. And that is US cuts, but it's also cuts by UK, Germany, and France. Charlotte, you're now at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where the tycoons of the world and the economic ministers from all the rich countries are gathered.

18:18President Trump is there, too. Is there any discussion there among world leaders about how to alleviate world poverty, which is, of course, a source and a root of the migration crisis that affects the developed world? The conversation that is taking place on the global stage in Davos is a lot about the hard power discussions. But obviously we cannot ignore how the international aid and assistance saves lives and brings about stability. And that's why wealthy nations must stay engaged and committed over the long run. I participated in a very interesting meeting last night with state actors, but also with the private sector, to see how we can actually engage the private sector to try to speed up and expand their engagement, the private sector's engagement, in replacing some of that aid that is now being cut by state actors.

19:18And that is obviously very, very important at this period of time that we invite new actors into this equation so that these people who suffer tremendously can actually be supported by other sources of income. You can listen to that whole conversation, including what those other sources of income might be, right now at hereandnow.org. There you'll also find more reaction from Europe to President Trump's speech in Switzerland today. And Robin Young takes a trip to Plainville, Massachusetts, where local author Jeff Kinney is using some of the money he made off his incredibly popular Wimpy Kid book series to give back to the community with a bookstore and gathering space.

20:02Question for you, Jeff. You have said that the Wimpy Kid is kind of based on your own childhood and a sense of yourself that you had at the time. Is this taking care of a town and creating space for people, repairing something? from your life? Well, that's deep. I honestly think the things that we're doing are really a reaction to our political environment. You know, we grew up in a time, even recently, where we didn't even ask our neighbors about their politics or, you know, friends didn't even know. And now it's just so polarized that I just think that we feel like we can play a part in that healing.

20:39and you know just sitting next to your neighbor can do a lot. Recently Julie and I were in a small restaurant and a father and son sat right next to us and the son bore a striking resemblance to our son at the same age. So we struck up a conversation with them and we we found out that they're from Plainville also and this kid plays basketball just like my son did. And so before you knew it My son was training this kid. This kid came to my son's adult league, men's league basketball game. My son's going to go to this kid's game. It's because of the proximity that we had in that restaurant, we got to know our neighbors.

21:18And we think those types of stories are going to happen again and again and again in the spaces that we're creating here. Okay, let's make it not so deep. What would Greg Hefley think of this? What would the Wimpy Kid think of this? To me, if this was his dream, a steamroller would roll over him or something would just not happen. I think Greg Hefley would be very bitter to know that some grown-up is capitalizing on his diaries and spending his money on a beer garden where he can't even enjoy the product. There we go. That's the last deep. More from Jeff Kinney at hereandnow.org. Remember you can also keep up with us on Instagram and TikTok And best of all, by following this podcast Wherever you're listening to us now Whether it's Apple, Spotify, NPR One Click that follow button We've got new episodes every single week of the year

22:24That's our show for today Here and now, anytime comes from NPR and WBUR Boston Today's stories were produced by Sam Rafelson, Jill Ryan, and Wilder Fleming Today's editors were Todd Vont, Michael Scotto, and Kat Welch Technical direction from Caleb Green and Matt Reed Our theme music is by Mike Moschetto, Max Liebman, and me, Chris Bentley Our digital producers are Allison Hagen and Grace Griffin And the executive producer of Here and Now is Alan Price Thanks for listening. We'll be back with you tomorrow

23:02I'll see you next time.