WH Discussing Options For Greenland, Military Not Off The Table

25:07They go beyond this. They're looking at what I've said over months. They have things that are not accurate in there. But they also talk about how I criticize them over firing admirals and generals. I'm on the Armed Services Committee. I have oversight responsibility over Pete Hegseth. When he makes a bad decision, it's not only my right, it's my obligation. We've heard Democrats say that the operation in Venezuela was illegal. Do you think it was illegal? And if so, should the service members who were part of that have refused to obey those orders? So what we were talking about in the video is about a service member being given a specific order and having to make a decision about whether this is lawful or not.

25:52And this is like the reasonable person theory. What you're getting at is constitutional questions. Can a president try to do a law enforcement action on a head of state but use 150 airplanes and the full force of the U.S. military to do that? So these are two different things. Now, Maduro is a bad guy, and it's good that he's gone. It seems like this president, because he had no plan beyond removing Maduro, has now installed Maduro's number two person in Delce Rodriguez. You know, that's what we call in the Navy, fleeting up, when the executive officer becomes the commanding officer. That's the situation we have in Venezuela right now.

26:37Now it is because I don't think they had a plan of what was going to come next. Last month, CNN's K-File reported on video from 2016 of Hegseth talking about, this is back when Hegseth was skeptical of Trump and he worked for Fox. Hegseth talking about the military's obligation to reject any illegal orders. His comments were recorded at an event hosted by the Liberty Forum Silicon Valley. Here's some of that. I do think there have to be consequences for abject war crimes. If you're doing something that is just completely unlawful and ruthless, then there is a consequence for that. That's why the military said it won't follow unlawful orders from their commander in chief.

27:22There's a standard. There's an ethos. There's a belief that we are above what so many things that our enemies or others would do. Do you think there's any substantive difference between what you said and what then Fox correspondent or whatever he was, Pete Hegseth said? Pretty much exactly the same thing. He was a little bit more specific about it. He said it multiple times. He said it specifically about Donald Trump. We're talking about the administration in general and that members of the military have to follow the law. It's in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So that Pete Hegseth, 2016 Pete Hegseth, we're in agreement.

27:58it. But the fact that he can come after me because I said the same thing, it's the height of hypocrisy. Yesterday, I was interviewing Stephen Miller and asked him to clarify what Trump meant when he said that he is running Venezuela. Here's part of what he had to say. We have the United States military stationed outside the country. We set the terms and conditions. We have a complete embargo on all of their oil and their ability to do commerce. So for For them to do commerce, they need our permission. For them to be able to run an economy, they need our permission. So the United States is in charge.

28:37What do you think? Well, does anybody believe this guy? I mean, he obviously does not, they do not have a plan. They need to have a plan. Venezuela used to be a democracy, right? And we should be, at this point, making efforts to help them get back to a democracy, to have a democratically elected government running Venezuela. We do not want to be in the business of running this other country. And by the way, regime change generally has not worked out well for us. Look at South Vietnam, Cuba, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan. It usually does not go the way that we hope, and it often puts service members in serious harm's way.

29:22Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, is headed to the camera next. What he can tell us 24 hours after that classified briefing with top Trump administration officials on the capture of Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro. Stay with us.

29:43The relationship between the FBI director and the president has always been complicated. Unravel the complex dynamic in the CNN original series, Standoff, the FBI, Power and Paranoia. Now streaming on the CNN app.

30:24of not having a plan for what happens next in Venezuela. Leader Schumer joins us now, live from Capitol Hill. Leader Schumer, thanks for joining us. So you said they didn't have answers. What did you want answers to that they didn't provide them? There were so many questions, Jake. When you emerge from that briefing, you got really worried because they don't have a plan. They knew they wanted to take Maduro. That's step one. Steps two through ten, they have no answers for, such as, how many troops will we need on the ground? How much will it cost? How long should it last? Do you have plans to go to other countries like Colombia or Cuba or even Greenland?

31:05Is Stephen Miller going to be involved? Let me just say, it was a classified briefing. I can't tell you exactly what they said, but every one of those answers would disappoint almost all of America. They just didn't have their act together. It was almost a back-of-the-envelope operation. and it was really troubling that to go through, to do what they did, and everyone wants to get rid of Maduro. He's a bad guy. You know, they're glad that he's gone, rather. But it was to not have thought this out. We've been through endless wars in Iraq, in Libya. Trump campaigned on endless wars, and maybe the worst thing of all, or just as bad, he's neglecting what the American people want, Jake, which is lower costs.

31:50Health care costs lower, housing costs lower, grocery costs lower. And he's off on these foreign adventures. That's not what America wants. And that's not America first, which is what he campaigned on. You mentioned Stephen Miller. He was on the show yesterday. He told me that military options to acquire Greenland are not off the table. The White House press secretary also reiterated a message like that today, not off the table. What do you think about that? Obviously, I I know a lot of leaders in Europe are very distressed about that, given that— It's absolutely nuts. We're going to send troops into a NATO ally.

32:25Denmark owns Greenland. We're going to send troops to Colombia. We're going to police the world. When there's so many people hurting at home who are worried about their cost of living, and Trump is doing nothing about it and engaging in these foreign adventures, without planning, without forethought, again, when you sat in that room, you thought it was sort of the back of the envelope. They were just sort of coming up with answers. I'll give you one example. Who do they want to take Maduro's place? You know, now Trump says he's going to be, he's going to run the country. But who is going to be the leader there?

32:57They had no good answer. They don't like the vice president. There are people under the vice president who might be even worse than Maduro. How can you do a serious operation like this, which risks American lives without any planning or forethought? It almost seems like Donald Trump just popped into his head and all the yes people around him just said, go ahead. Let me turn to domestic issues if I can. Democrats shut down the government for 43 days last year in an effort to extend COVID-era health insurance subsidies. Those have now obviously expired. Millions of Americans are going to see their insurance costs rise this month.

33:33Do Democrats have a plan to address that, a plan that could actually pass Congress, get Republican support? and are you willing to rule out another shutdown over that issue? Look, the best way to get this done is for the House on Thursday to pass the three-year extension that Hakeem Jeffries put together in a discharge petition and then to have Thune put it on the floor and it will pass. That's the only way to get this done. We're not going to get health care done if the Republicans stay in shambles. They don't have their own plan. They're divided on every type of issue, whether to privatize it.

34:09Thune and Johnson, the two leaders, said they wouldn't even extend health care benefits by a day, let alone a month, a year, three months, three years. So until the Republicans get their act together, we're not going to get anything done on health care. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, thank you, sir. Appreciate your time. Thanks, Jake. Coming up next, the message today from the head of the Republican Party, that would be President Trump, in the 2026 fight for control of Congress.

34:40Now we're going to make history and break records with the epic midterm victory. And we sure as hell are having a successful presidency. I will say that. In our politics lead, President Trump kicking off the 2026 campaign season today, rallying House Republicans, bolding, predicting his party will defy historical precedents and keep control of Congress in the November midterms. Here now is our panel. Sochi, let me start with you. If Republicans do not pull off that epic midterm victory that Trump predicted, he did make this warning. Should Democrats win? Take a listen. You got to win the midterms because if we don't win the midterms, it's just going to be, I mean, they'll find a reason to impeach me.

35:26I'll get impeached. which prediction is more likely do you think republicans win or democrats win and impeach trump those are your only two choices okay democrats win but i will i don't i'm not sure they're going to impeach trump to be honest with you what i think is funny about this whole thing is not if democrats win this could happen to our country maybe potentially painting another picture it's like no it is about me it is always about him and you can tell that he is nervous he hasn't had any checks within this administration within his first year, whether it's the IGs who he fired or whether it is Congress.

36:00And for the first time, if Democrats win back the House, he will have checks. And that is something that he doesn't like and he's worried about. It's not just impeachment. I think that was a signal that was like, wait a minute, they're going to look in under the hood of the car to see exactly what is happening in this administration. And that worries him. So the other tell, perhaps even more so, was Congressman Dent, what he had to say about the fact that even though he feels he is doing an amazing job, he acknowledged that polls do not suggest that the American people, other than his base, agree with him.

36:36Here's how he put it. I wish you could explain to me what the hell is going on with the mind of the public, because we have the right policy. So, Congressman, what's going on? What the hell's going on with the mind of the public? Well, the mind of the public is such that they're worried about the cost of everything. That's the first thing. And I think sometimes when the president is off, you know, engaged in foreign adventures in Venezuela and folks obsessed with the ballroom and renaming the Kennedy Center, that's really not what the American people have in mind. That doesn't really affect them directly.

37:14But they do care about the cost of everything. They care about what they're going to be paying in their health insurance premiums. They care about the grocery store and housing prices. That's what they're focused on. And it seems that the president is distracted with all these other obsessions and side adventures. So I think that's what's hurting him more than anything else. He gave himself last month, President Trump, an A plus, plus, plus, plus, plus, plus, six pluses on the economy. Take a listen to how he scored House Republicans. The most successful House Republican majority in decades, and we did it with not a big majority.

37:53I announced I was coming over here and I said, I love those Republicans. And I meant it. I said, except for maybe a couple, a couple I don't love. But the people in this room, I don't know if those couple are here. Do you agree that this was the most successful House Republican majority? Well, OK, they passed a reconciliation bill, and that was pretty much it. There hasn't been much done other than that. And by the way, he's made that comment before. I've been in audiences when he was president where he'd say, you're a great group of people. A couple of people I don't like. Back then he was talking about you.

38:24Yeah, me and Jeff Blake were standing next to each other. I think he's talking about us. But let's face it. The American public is, the president has an approval rating in the low 40s for a reason. And on the economy, it's probably around 35, 36. And that's his challenge. That is his problem. And he's got to be able to handle it. And it's affecting Republicans down ballot. They all know that. You have 24, 25 Republicans not seeking reelection in the House for a reason. They know this is shaping up to be a really nasty cycle. And you can't change that with just words or rhetoric. You have to change it with actions.

38:58And I don't see anything on the horizon right now that's going to change the underlying narrative. So, Chi, are Democrats meeting the moment? And I'm old enough to remember, I'm not sure if you are, but Charlie is, when Nancy Pelosi in the minority would be presenting not the contract with America, but her version of that. Six things, six messages, this is what we're running on. Five things, this is what we're running on. Both times I'm thinking about when she reclaimed the majority for the Democrats. Are Democrats doing that or do they not even need to? I think people, I think we were at, it was a slow start at the beginning of the year.

39:31I do think that the Democratic Party putting their health or putting their foot down on health care and the economy and really signaling that that is what they're going to run on in November is finally, we are speaking with one cohesive message, which you never see that from the Democratic Party. And so I do think that the Democratic Party is finally understanding this is what Americans want and this is what they have to discuss. We should note that we noted earlier in the show today marks five years since that horrific attack on the Capitol. What was your reaction today to seeing Enrique Tarrio, who Trump pardoned from a 22-year sentence for his role in planning that riot, march back to the Capitol today.

40:11It was heartbreaking to me, and it was heartbreaking. We prosecuted all those cases, and we did it because you wanted to serve as a deterrence. You wanted to keep people off the streets who have committed those crimes. These are violent criminals who went after our law enforcement, and to see them almost wearing it as a badge of honor as they march towards the Capitol was something that should horrify everyone. Honestly, it should horrify every Republican and Democrat member of Congress. They were the victims that day. And so, honestly, I was text messaging former Justice Department officials, and I was like, please avoid downtown because who knows what they're going to do to do those.

40:45Congressman, whatever happened to the Republican Party in back the blue? You know, what happened on January 6th was an abomination, and everybody knows it, who was there. They understand it. It was an assault on the rule of law. It was an assault on the constitutional order. And look, there are a lot of Republicans out there. I'm part of a group. Our Republican legacy talks about these issues, that we need to get the Republican Party back to a place where we do believe in the rule of law, unity, fiscal discipline, opening markets and getting rid of crazy tariffs. I mean, there are a lot of us out there.

41:18I'm not saying going back to where we were. I'm saying, but get to a better place than where we are now. This is simply untenable. Thanks to both of you. Really appreciate it. And welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, we're learning new details about the U.S. operation to capture the president of Venezuela, with sources saying that the White House told lawmakers that both Nicolas Maduro and his wife hit their heads as they attempted to flee U.S. forces. What else did the Trump administration reveal about the mission? And what comes next for Venezuela? We're going to talk to a Senate Democrat who was inside that briefing in just moments.

41:50Plus, today marks five years since that violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol, fueled by President Trump's lies about a stolen election. In moments, I'm going to be joined by one of the officers beaten by rioters on that horrible day to get his reaction on this somber anniversary, as so many on the right and in the White House try to rewrite what actually happened on January 6, 2021. Also, top U.S. health officials announcing they will overhaul the childhood vaccine schedule and recommend fewer shots for most children. What kind of impact will that have on families across the country? I'm going to talk to Dr.

42:22Paul Offit, who leads the Vaccine Education Center at one of the United States' leading children's hospitals.

42:32The lead tonight, President Trump defiant on this remarkable Venezuela operation, despite growing scrutiny at home and abroad. Listen to his victory lap at today's Republican retreat. It was so brilliant. The electricity for almost the entire country was, boom, turned off. That's when they knew there was a problem. There was no electricity. Caracas. There's no electricity. It's not a. The only people with lights were the people that had candles. This as more lawmakers are promised closed door briefings on the operation. While back at the White House, President Trump will not let the whole Greenland should be part of the United States thing go.

43:11This afternoon, White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt said U.S. military action to seize Greenland is not off the table. This is after White House official Stephen Miller told us on the show yesterday that nobody would be willing to fight the United States over the future of Greenland. CNN's Caitlin Collins is at the White House for us. Caitlin? Yeah, Jake, in that interview with Stephen Miller and the comments that he made to you has prompted a lot of questions for the Trump administration on just how serious the president is about that and obviously how quickly something like that could happen.

43:39It caused the White House press secretary to put out this statement talking about the seriousness of the president's desire to go after Greenland and to obtain Greenland as part of the United States. And she said earlier that he had made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of his and argued that it is vital to deter United States adversaries in the Arctic region. They also said the president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal. And of course, utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the commander in chief's disposal.

44:12Basically, Jake, reaffirming what Stephen Miller said to you yesterday and not ruling out that that is a possibility here. I should note this comes as The Wall Street Journal is reporting tonight that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, when he was on Capitol Hill yesterday briefing lawmakers, said that these threats that are coming out of the administration should not signal any kind of imminent military invasion of Greenland, but are really more of a threat to officials there to show them that, yes, they are serious about purchasing Greenland. Now, we've heard from officials there and in Denmark that it is not for sale.

44:44And so the questions of what happens next there remain to be seen. The foreign minister is actually seeking a meeting with Secretary Rubio on this front. So we'll see what happens there. But obviously this is something Jake the president has said he's serious about for quite some time and demonstrated by this statement and Stephen Miller's comment shows that it is something they are actively pursuing here. Caitlin, you have an update also on the two U.S. service members involved in the Venezuela operation that were wounded. Yeah, our colleague Haley Britsky is now reporting from a statement from the Pentagon that two of those service members are still recovering from the injuries they sustained as this operation to capture Maduro was underway early in the morning on Saturday morning.

45:23We know that several of them had shrapnel bullet or shrapnel wounds that they were recovering from inside the hospital. Five of them, according to the Pentagon, have returned to duty, but two of them are still receiving care as of this hour, Jake. All right, Caitlin Collins at the White House. Thanks so much. And be sure not to miss Caitlin on her show, The Source with Caitlin Collins. Tonight, she's going to be joined by Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen. That's The Source tonight and every weeknight at 9 p.m. Eastern, only on CNN. Joining us now, Democratic Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island.

45:51He's the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. He is also a veteran himself. Sir, you were in yesterday's classified briefing. I want to get to Venezuela in a second. But as Caitlin just noted, the Wall Street Journal reports that Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, told lawmakers that the administration wants to buy Greenland, purchase Greenland, and downplayed any military operation there. Is that what you heard as well? Well, I can't comment. It was classified here now what I heard. But everything that's been publicly stated suggests that the president wants to acquire Greenland.

46:24And the president's rhetoric would suggest by any means. threatening them by force might be a way to create a contractual arrangement, but this is completely unprecedented. Denmark is our NATO ally, and as the president of Denmark pointed out, attempts to seize or to intimidate them into surrendering Denmark would destroy NATO. Well, we had Congressman Don Bacon on the show, a retired Air Force general. He said it's not even needed that Greenland and Denmark would allow us to build as many bases as we want on Greenland anyway. He's absolutely right. We have bases there. We've had bases there since the World War II era.

47:07They're a NATO ally partner. I think they would be highly interested in joining with us to protect their country as well as NATO and building bases, sharing troops, working together. Let's talk about Venezuela, because CNN's learned that Trump officials told lawmakers that Nicolas Maduro and their wife hit their heads as they attempted to flee U.S. forces during their capture. Their lawyers, Maduro and his wife, say that they sustained more significant injuries than that. Maduro's wife's attorney said she had bruising on her ribs. It looked as though that Maduro might have had a limp. Do you buy that it was just minor injuries, they just hit their heads?

47:45I have no other information than what we heard last evening, and they discounted serious injuries. In fact, they tried to make the point that they wanted to get them out alive. But it's not unusual in kind of a situation like that where you're being on and off helicopters, under fire, etc., where you get lots of collateral injuries. There's a Venezuela War Powers Resolution vote coming up in the Senate, likely. On Thursday, Republican Senator Rand Paul told reporters that the operation meets his definition of war and Congress should have been used to invoke, to declare war. Do you think there are enough Republicans in the Senate to vote for a War Powers Resolution in the way that Senate, for those who object to the operation?

48:31Well, I think they should, frankly, because it violates clearly international war. They say it was just a law enforcement operation. It's not a law enforcement operation. When you have Cyber Command, you have aircraft carriers, you have SALT, 160th SOAR from the Rangers, etc. etc. This was a military operation and disguising it as anything else is I think just trying to be deceptive. The other factor too is this operation has been connected to rhetoric about occupying Venezuela which would definitely be illegal. So if there are any boots on the ground that stay there? boots on the ground, or even control by going in and forcing the Venezuelans to concede resources to the United States or anything else like that.

49:26You heard Schumer, perhaps, I'm not sure you actually did, but he spoke to us just a few minutes ago, and he said that he didn't get any good answers at the briefing in terms of what comes next for Venezuela, how much is it going to cost, is the U.S. going to occupy Venezuela in any way. Do you agree with that? Yeah, there seems to be no plan here. There's some concepts that they're floating around, but they have to actually get not only the cooperation of the Venezuelan government, but the buy in from the Venezuelan people. And they have no idea how to go about and do that right now. It's just they have a couple of concepts that they're floating.

50:01I want to turn to some breaking news out of your home state of Rhode Island, because the Justice Department just announced that the suspect in last month's mass shooting at Brown University and the subsequent killing of the MIT professor in Massachusetts, that he admitted to the attacks in a series of short videos that authorities recovered from some sort of electronic devices. Is that true? What can you tell us about it? Will this bring some sort of, I guess closure isn't the right word, but something to the grieving families? Well, it'll help, I think, define the rationale in his mind. First of all, from what I've read about these tapes, it demonstrates that he was a homicidal maniac, that he resented everyone, apparently, because he was the smartest person in the world.

50:49That's why he did this. Well, that's one of the indications that they're getting. But I think they have to do much more research. But, you know, attacking students and then going after his high school classmate who's very successful, is this was rage and jealousy born out of decades of resentment. And then the other thing it seems to reveal, too, is the methodical way he went about it. So you had the worst of two worlds, a homicidal maniac who was very clever and ingenious in what he wanted to do. And it resulted in a real tragedy at Brown University, which has been felt by not just the state around, but the nation.

51:27Yeah. No, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Brown University and MIT as well. Thank you so much, Senator Reid. Really appreciate having you here. The White House tonight says that President Trump is discussing a range of options to acquire Greenland, noting that using the U.S. military is not off the table. Coming up, we're going to talk to the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander about what he thinks of all this.

51:55Coming up in our Worldly, the White House press secretary says President Trump is, quote, discussing a range of options, unquote, for acquiring Greenland, noting in a statement to CNN that, quote, utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the disposal of the president. This comes after what Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller told us on the show last night. Take a listen. The United States should have Greenland as part of the United States. There's no need to even think or talk about this in the context that you're asking of a military operation. Nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.

52:32European leaders are now rallying behind Greenland and Denmark, which owns Greenland, in response to President Trump's renewed interest in acquiring the Arctic territory. Let's bring in retired Admiral James Stavridis. He's the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. So, Admiral, what do you make of the statement from the White House that doesn't exclude the potential of a military incursion to acquire Greenland from our NATO ally, Denmark? Worries me a great deal. When I commanded NATO, I went to Greenland. I saw how close our relationships are there. The one military base on the island is an American military base.

53:11I've observed operations there. We work well with the Danes. We can do all of the military things we want to do, and the Danes and the Greenlanders would cooperate. Look, Jake, there's three ways the United States can get Greenland. Number one, you can send the 82nd Airborne up there and conquer it. Really bad idea. That'll break NATO, and it won't come back from an event like that. Number two, you can buy it. That's not a crazy idea. We bought a lot of this country from Alaska, from the Russians. About a third of the country came from France, Louisiana purchased. And oh, by the way, the beautiful U.S.

53:51Virgin Islands, where'd we get them? We bought them from Denmark about 100 years ago. So buying it is not a bad idea. I'd encourage pursuing that. And then thirdly, where this will likely land is to use diplomacy, soft power, economic engagement. That's the way to go and to pull Greenland toward us in a way that doesn't crack NATO and drive the Greenlanders away from us and turn this into a kind of poison chalice by the time we get it. Do you think Stephen Miller is accurate in his assessment that no one's going to be willing to fight the U.S. militarily over the future of Greenland, which seemed to be a suggestion that if the U.S.

54:29just took it, there isn't anything that the Danish would do? I think geopolitics has become so unpredictable that the idea of Denmark actually putting troops in place in order to prevent Americans from coming. And then what are you going to do when the 82nd Airborne arrives and you've got a Danish armed troops in place? Are you going to attack them? Are you going to shoot at them? I think you said earlier the Europeans are kind of rallying behind Denmark. I'm not sure they're going to send an armed force there. But I know the Danes pretty well. They're tough people. It wouldn't surprise me to see them put a military force there to stand in opposition to a U.S.

55:18force. Again, this is the end of NATO we're talking about. Let's avoid that. The Danish prime minister responded to the president's threats yesterday. Take a listen to what she had to say.

55:32If the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, everything stops, including our NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of World War II. Is that true, do you think? And do you think President Trump's been made aware of the consequences that this action could have on the future of the NATO alliance? Oh, I think it's absolutely true. And by the way, it's not just the end of NATO. I think at that point, the United States would be sanctioned by the European Union. That huge market, and by the way, the largest trading relationship in the world is not US-China, it's not US-Mexico, it's not US-Japan, it's US-Europe, because that economy is roughly just a bit smaller than our own.

56:20So that idea that we can simply go in, take a chunk of territory, and the Europeans will say, oh, okay, no problem. Let's just continue to trade together. Let's continue to cooperate on defense. Let's continue with the NATO alliance. I don't think that's how it would unfold. The president's been proposing the annexation of Greenland in some capacity for more than a year now. The operation in Venezuela served as a catalyst for his renewed interest in Greenland and renewed discussions about this topic. But why have the European NATO leaders not spoken out more firmly against this idea of his before now?

56:55Is it only after the operation in Venezuela that they now take it more seriously? I think that's absolutely right. There's nothing to focus the mind like a hanging in the morning. And I think that, if you will, the events in Venezuela and particularly President Trump's comments that we're going to run it, basically saying we're going to own it. I think that has awoken real concern in a way that the Europeans perhaps did not take it seriously before. Look, bottom line, let's not push this into an apocalyptic ending. We can work with the Europeans. We have for decades. It simply needs to be done with diplomacy, military engagement, economics.

57:41Last thought, Jake, the Greenlanders say, look, we're not for sale, but we're open for business. Let's use that economic toolkit. We can pull Greenland as much as we need to. They'll let us do all the military things we need to do. Admiral James DeVridis, thank you so much, sir. Appreciate it. Top U.S. health officials are announcing they're overhauling the childhood vaccine schedule to recommend fewer shots for most American children. A top vaccine expert is going to join us now. Join us next as we break down what's on the list and what's not on the list of vaccines and the potential impact.

58:21Our health lead now officials at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are now recommending fewer vaccines for most American children. They're removing from the schedule the vaccines against meningococcal disease, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, COVID, rotavirus, and the flu. They're removing those from the broad recommendations of vaccine list. Joining us now is Dr. Paul Offit. He's the director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Great Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, one of the leading children's hospitals in the world. Dr. Offit, the new recommendations reduce the number of vaccines that every child should get.

58:58it closely resembles the vaccine policy of other developed nations like Denmark, we should note. What do you make of the shift? I don't understand the reason behind it. I don't understand the thinking behind it. Do we miss these diseases? We want to see them come back? I mean, what R.K. Jr. would argue is that children are getting too many vaccines, and that's somehow weakening or overwhelming or perturbing their immune system and causing an increase in chronic disease, which is just not true, as study after study has shown isn't true. So by doing this, what he's doing, which is moving vaccines to be something that's just considered to be optional, all he's going to do is increase what's already happened over the past year where we've seen more measles.

59:41We've seen an outbreak of measles that's bigger than anything we've seen in 30 years. We've seen more tetanus than we've seen in the last 10 years. We have 300 children dying of influenza this year, a vaccine-preventable disease, and we've seen more deaths from whooping cough. This is only going to get worse under this man who has for 20 years been an anti-vaccine activist, and he hasn't changed a bit since he's been head of Secretary of Health and Human Services. So the decision to no longer broadly recommend the flu shot to children comes. As you noted, the flu is reaching the highest levels in the U.S.

1:00:10in 25 years, according to the CDC. 11 million people at least have had the flu this past season. 120 ,000 hospitalized. 5 ,000 died. The CDC reports at least nine of those who have died have been children. A new strain of the flu virus this year is a factor. But what will this recommendation, do you think, mean for future flu seasons? No, I think it'll further erode trust in the influenza vaccine. And more and more children will suffer. I mean, that almost 300 children died last year of flu. We haven't seen a number that big since the 2009 swine flu pandemic. And in the midst of all this, we have a secretary of health and human services instead of doing what he should do, which is use his considerable platform and his name and stand up in front of the American public and say, vaccinate your children.

1:00:58He does the opposite of that. He just makes vaccines less available, less affordable and more feared. The opposite of what he should be doing. He is the worst person to be in this position at this time. President Trump reacted to the changes on social media yesterday. He had some advice of his own. He wrote, quote, break up the MMR, that's measles, mumps, rubella shot into three totally separate shots, not mixed. Take chicken pea shot, meaning chicken pox shot separately. Take hepatitis B shot at 12 years old or older. And importantly, take vaccine in five separate separate medical visits, unquote.

1:01:32I don't know where these recommendations come from. The HHS guidance doesn't get that specific. What did you think of that? What is that kind of messaging do to parents and providers trying to give them care? You've talked about the MMR vaccine in the past, but why is asking for more shots a bad idea in your view? It's not a bad idea. It's certainly we need to vaccinate our children. No, no, I mean like breaking up the MMR shot into three shots as opposed to one. That's what I meant. Instead of getting then two vaccines, one at 12 to 15 months of age and then a second at four to six years of age, you'd be getting six shots and at a time when people seem to not want to get more shots.

1:02:13So that doesn't make any sense. And that was born, by the way, of the notion that the MMR vaccine caused autism. When that was born 25 years ago, Andrew Wakefield, who brought up that notion, said we need to separate that vaccine into its three component parts. Well, there have been 24 studies showing that the MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism. So why would separating it out into its three component parts make you less likely to get autism when the vaccine doesn't cause autism in the first place? It just doesn't make sense. But President Trump believes the same things that RFK Jr. believes. And he's been saying it since 2015, which is children get too many, too many shots, which just isn't supported by the science.

1:02:49Unfortunately, we have an anti-science activist as secretary of HHS. And we should note that neither RFK Jr. nor President Trump have any training in science or medicine. Dr. Paul Offit, thank you so much. Appreciate your time. Five years after the January 6th insurrection, a group of pardoned rioters and their supporters marched to the Capitol today. We're going to get reaction from one of the police officers injured in that 2021 attack next.

1:03:22In our politics lead, President Trump's 2024 election win effectively ended the federal criminal prosecution against him, brought by the now former special counsel, Jack Smith. That case focused on Trump's attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which ultimately resulted in the shameful and deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol five years ago today. Now, last month, Jack Smith gave testimony behind closed doors to the House Judiciary Committee about his prosecution of President Trump. That deposition, the video and transcript, was quietly released on December 31st, New Year's Eve in what seemed very much like an effort to bury it.

1:04:00But sorry, no luck on this show, at least, because the testimony offers some new insights into the case that Smith had against President Trump. The decision to bring charges against President Trump was mine, but the basis for those charges rests entirely with President Trump and his actions. That's former special counsel Jack Smith, confident and defiant during a more than eight-hour-long closed-door deposition with the House Judiciary Committee last month. That recorded testimony now publicly released, giving Americans their first chance to hear from Smith. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.

1:04:46We will stop the steal. The timing and speed of our work reflects the strength of the evidence and our confidence that we would have secured convictions at trial. Smith emphasizing during his testimony that Republican allies of President Trump were the backbone of his prosecution. Our case was built on, frankly, Republicans who put their allegiance to the country before the party. We had numerous witnesses who would say, I voted for President Trump. I campaigned for President Trump. I wanted him to win. The former special counsel also revealed who some of those witnesses would have been. The Speaker of the House in Arizona, the Speaker of the House in Michigan.

1:05:25We had an elector in Pennsylvania who is a former congressman who is going to be an elector. Smith described how his investigation showed how these very same witnesses were kept in the dark and misled about the full extent of the plan to overturn the 2020 election. I referenced earlier a congressman from Pennsylvania who had said this was an attempt to overthrow the government. We had other electors who said, I was told that this would only be used if we won in litigation. And obviously that the record in our case showed that the co-conspirators were trying to use their elector votes. Smith also spoke with lawmakers about President Trump's repeated refusal to accept the results of the election.

1:06:08There was a pattern in our case where any time any information came in that would mean he could no longer be president, he would reject it. And any theory, no matter how far-fetched, no matter how not based in law, that would indicate that he could, he latched onto that. Smith described President Trump as the person most responsible for the violent and deadly January 6th attack. This is our capital! including the risk to Vice President Mike Pence. Once the attack on the Capitol happened, he refused to stop it. He instead issued a tweet that, without question in my mind, endangered the life of his own vice president.

1:06:54The former prosecutor also defended his controversial decision to obtain the phone records of some Republican lawmakers, acknowledging his team did not tell judges who the records belong to when requesting the subpoenas. I don't think we identified that because I don't think that was department policy at the time. Want to answer any questions publicly? Republican critics have seized on this move, accusing Smith of infringing on lawmakers' constitutional speech or debate clause protections. It's a claim Smith rejects. I'm aware of no case in the Supreme Court or the D.C. Circuit that says that getting non-content toll records from a third party violates the speech debate clause.

1:07:35Smith also fiercely pushed back against charges that his prosecution was part of an effort to hurt Trump in the 2024 presidential election. I would never take orders from a political leader to hamper another person in an election. That's not who I am. And I think people who know me and my experience over 30 years would find that laughable. There was one major subject Smith repeatedly told the committee he would not discuss in detail the classified documents case against President Trump, citing a court order barring him from talking about that prosecution. I cannot answer that question due to Judge Cannon's injunction.

1:08:12Smith also told lawmakers he knows President Trump likely wants revenge against him. I am eyes wide open that this president will seek retribution against me if he can. I know that. Smith's request to testify publicly was denied by the Republican-controlled House committee. The former special counsel said this about why he made that request. I'm particularly proud of the people I work with, the career public servants I worked with, who've been vilified by President Trump and people who work for him. And I think someone needs to speak up for them. So let's talk about this now with Danny Hodges.

1:08:52He's a D.C. Metropolitan Police officer who was injured in the January 6th attack. And we should note he's here in his personal capacity, not as a representative of MPD. So five year anniversary of a dark day. Let's start with how are you doing? How are you physically? How are you psychologically? I mean, physically and psychologically, I'm very fortunate, comparatively speaking, especially compared to so many other officers from that day who had to medically retire or suffer mental trauma that doesn't let them perform the job anymore. I'm fortunate to still have my job and still have my health.

1:09:28What is it like for you and other police officers, other law enforcement people who put your lives on the line to see all the pardoned January 6 criminals, now pardoned or they got clemency, marching at the Capitol on this five-year anniversary? Yeah, I mean, it's not where a lot of them should be. A lot of them should probably still be in jail. It's really, I don't think they deserve pardons. So many of them committed violent crimes and fought to prevent the transfer of power, fought to thwart the will of the people. And that's not what this country should be about. That's not what any of us should be about.

1:10:10And the fact that they were pardoned really, it just doesn't make sense to me. President Trump addressed the anniversary of January 6th in a speech earlier today. He's specifically referring to the speech he gave five years ago today in which he said, you know, we need to fight like hell or else we're not going to have a country. Here's some of what he said. In my speech, peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol, peacefully and patriotically, Do you know that the unselect committee didn't report it, that I said those words? Do you know that the news never reported the words walk or march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol?

1:10:57In point of fact, obviously, the news media did mention that he said peacefully and patriotically, but he also said a lot of other stuff, a lot of other stuff. And a lot of people in that crowd that were later criminally charged said that they felt like they were taking orders from the president. What's your response to that? Yeah, so it came out in the committee's findings that so many people could not get through the magnetometers to the ellipse where Trump was speaking because they were loaded with weapons. And they told Trump this. And what do you know what his response was? He said, let the people in, take the magnetometers down.

1:11:33They're not here to hurt me. So that means he knew they were armed and he knew they were here to hurt someone. So what did he do with that knowledge is he told him to fight, fight, fight. And then he sent him to the Capitol. It's pretty amazing and discouraging, I would imagine, to see the president continue to whitewash this, to lie about what happened that day. Yeah. I mean, it's never not worked for him, right? It's his whole life lying has just been his go to. and he's never faced any accountability for any of the terrible things he's done. So why would he change now, right? He's never going to face accountability for this.

1:12:14We have to accept that. All right, Officer Danny Hodges, we thank you for what you do to keep us safe here in Washington, D.C., and we thank you for what you went through on that horrible day. Yes. A new sign today that former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg may have his eyes on running for president in 2028. The event just added to the calendar in a key battleground state. That's next.

1:12:44What they're trying to do to me sends a message to all these other retired members of the military, veterans, active duty service members, and just U.S. citizens, that if you say something that this president or this secretary of defense doesn't like, they're going to come after you. And our politically that's Democratic Senator from Arizona and retired Navy Captain Mark Kelly remaining defiant as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth moves to censure the senator over a video calling on troops to resist unlawful orders and also for criticisms he has made about the Secretary of Defense and actions he's taken with generals and admirals.

1:13:19I'm back with the panel, a brand new panel. Good to see you guys. Happy New Year. Happy New Year. So we played sound from Hegseth back in 2016 when he worked for Fox saying that U.S. troops, quote, won't follow unlawful orders. Senator Kelly said it's, quote, the height of hypocrisy that he's being targeted for similar comments. What do you think, Shermichael? Well, look, I certainly want to thank the senator for his service. He served the country admirably. Maybe we may disagree on politics. He is an elected official. He has every right to take an alternative position on how he sees certain things.

1:13:51That said, I am somewhat open to some of the criticism that has come from my side, not only against the senator, but against other Democrats that have, at a minimum, made the appearance that they are suggestive or suggesting to currently enlisted men and women that they don't necessarily have to take orders. We know that they're well-trained not to take illegal orders, and the senator has actually clarified that in some of the interviews I've seen since. But that said, I wouldn't necessarily go after the senator. I think the secretary is doing a pretty decent job with what we've just recently saw in Venezuela.

1:14:25He has a lot of things to focus on right now. But we know from the first term that it was only because there were adults in the room that Trump didn't go off the rails in certain respects. So in terms of this time, in terms of illegal orders or questionable orders that he thinks he wanted the military to do. Right. So I think it is more than reasonable for someone particularly of Mark Kelly's stature. And he also talked about his role in the Senate having this is part of his actual job. He has a constitutional right to say what he thinks. He has a right to say you don't have to follow illegal orders.

1:15:03And again, it's not like this doesn't come out of out of nowhere. This comes out of what we now know about what was going on in the first term. And can we just say if your interview with Stephen Miller is any judge, There are no grownups in the room with this man anymore. Jake, if I could just say quickly, there were even some Democrats who came out and said that the senators, I can't recall the exact number who created that commercial. Six. Six. House and Senate. This wasn't necessary. The messaging was quite off. These weren't members of my party. Some Democrats criticized it. Actually, what you're saying sounds a little bit like what we heard from Senator Tom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, earlier.

1:15:41He talked to a reporter with Huffington Post and he said the video was rage bait. But my gosh, he is a U.S. senator who operates in a political world. I think it has a chilling effect on speech. And I've got a real problem with it. And I think Hegseth over overreach. So, I mean, that's that sounds very similar to what you're saying. Yeah. And also, let's be clear here. I mean, again, it's the Constitution. You can dislike the video. And I forget who it was early on last hour who made this was a Republican congressman. Don Bacon, maybe, who made this argument. He hated the video. Right. You can hate the video, but he has a constitutional right.

1:16:13And now what they're trying to do and going after him, they're making it about Mark Kelly. I mean, what is it about straight talking senators from Arizona? I'll tell you something. They raised a lot of money for Mark Kelly's possible presidential race by doing this. He's turning Mark Kelly into a kind of John McCain. You're going after an American hero. And I think it also reminds people Trump is a draft dodger going after a hero. Look, I just want calmer heads to prevail here. Again, I certainly respect the senator for everything that he's contributed to our nation. I disagree with him on many political fronts.

1:16:44That said, he and the senator and the secretary of war have both served our country admirably. They can disagree on politics, but they both have served. And I think they should see it that way and move forward. So let's turn to this New York House race where Jack Schlossberg is running for Congress to replace Jerry Nadler. And our honestly sincere thoughts and prayers to the Kennedy family and the Schlossberg family for the loss of Tatiana Schlossberg. Another person is joining that race with Cameron Kasky joined the race, but also George Conway, former Republican, now a Democrat, former possible solicitor general nominee in the first Trump administration.

1:17:24He's now running for Congress as a Democrat in this Upper West Side seat. Take a listen. Here's a bit of his campaign launch video. We have a corrupt president, a mendacious president, a criminal president, whose masked agents are disappearing people from our streets, who's breaking international law, and he's running our federal government like a mob protection racket. As for the economy, hey, it's great for him. Crypto, watches, gold and sneakers. But for everyone else, groceries, health care, prices skyrocketing. I'm running for Congress to take the fight directly back to him on your behalf.

1:18:03So, I mean, Kellyanne Conway's ex-husband, former member of the Republican legal world. You know, he was you know, he was all part of the Clinton impeachment stuff back in the 90s. Do you think Democrats will embrace him? It's hard. I'm not sure. Having worked in New York City politics, let me just say, this district is, it's a pretty blue district. So he's going, just to say the least. So he's going to. I don't even know if there's a name for the color blue. Well, I'm wearing my blue today. It's darker than what you're wearing. Yeah. But point being, and that means you're going to have to prove some Democratic bona fides.

1:18:39And I'm not sure it's going to be enough. Now, it's good that he didn't just talk about, you know, how bad Trump is. You've got to talk about. He talked about other stuff, too. What are you going to do? And he's going to have to prove his bona fides on some key Democratic issues. But hey, not bad to have him in the race and keeping the issue up front. Do you want to weigh in on this? I'm just, I'm a bit disappointed. You know, I like George Conaway personally. I think he's a very bright litigator, once a legal scholar on the conservative right side. It always disappoints me when I see people who are formerly conservative move over to the other side.

1:19:12And it's one thing to be critical of President Trump. Maybe you don't like his ethos or his worldview on how politics should be dictated domestically and internationally. And there's an intellectual space to make that case. But that doesn't mean you have to become a Democrat. It really makes me question one's worldview and their philosophy that once governed them, if it was ever really authentic. I'm always bothered by that. But, you know, you could say the same thing about the people who are currently in the Republican Party who were 180 degree different, opposed to Donald Trump, who now are on his side.

1:19:45I mean, clearly there are a number of people in this country, not just George Conway, who no longer think there is a place for them in the Republican Party. And let me tell you, we've been a big temp for a while. So I think we're better adept at handling that. I understand that, but if you believe in something and you believe that something you formally believe in has been hijacked or taken by someone who is not the best. Fight for it. Fight for what you believe. Fight for it. To be a conservative isn't something that you just wake up tomorrow and you switch your mind about. Quick thing, because it's never too early in my view to talk about 2028.

1:20:18So Pete Buttigieg announced today that he's going to head to Wisconsin for a town hall this month to talk about, quote, quote, the everyday challenges people are facing, the cost of housing, child care, health care, and the need for leadership that actually listens. I think there's no question that he is seriously contemplating running for president. Again, it wouldn't be his first time. What do you think? Between now and the day that the Democratic Party announces the rules to get on the stage for the first debate, everybody's running. You should just assume pretty much every Democrat is, they will welcome any kind of speculation that they're running.

1:20:50It's good for fundraising and it's good frankly for Democrats to have someone like him out there. What do you think of Buttigieg as a potential nominee? Is he strong compared to, I mean, like do you worry about him? You theoretically would want Democrats to put up their worst candidate. Of course. No, I don't worry about him at all. But personally, I recall seeing him oftentimes on Fox News being one of the only individuals from the Biden administration who went to talk to conservatives. Now, that's not to say that people lauded everything that he was saying, but I frequently thought it was brave.

1:21:19I thought he learned the cadence of how to communicate with half of the country. And regardless of one's political views, I think that's important, whether he does well or not. Nice. Let's end it on that nice note. Thanks to both of you. Appreciate it. We'll be right back.

1:21:37Let's end the show tonight on some joyful news. I would like to introduce you to Harry Shea Sigel, the very first baby for CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister and her husband Michael. Harry has already led quite an interesting life before making his official debut on December 27th. He helped his mom cover the trials of Sean Diddy Combs in the first trimester. He made his red carpet debut at the Emmys in his second trimester. He interviewed the biggest A-listers in the world for Actors on Actors just weeks before his due date. Mom and baby are healthy and happy and enjoying watching the lead at home. Our biggest congratulations to Elizabeth and Michael.

1:22:14We cannot wait to meet baby Harry. Aaron Burnett out front starts now.

1:22:41CNN next day on the CNN app. I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast, Terms of Service, there's a growing category of products aimed specifically at addressing women's unique health needs. These tools and services are sometimes known as femtech, and they can provide big opportunities and benefits, but they can also come with some risks. To walk us through all of this, I spoke with Bethany Corbin. Bethany is an attorney and CEO of Femme Innovation, where she advises startups, clinicians, and healthcare organizations. In my opinion, what it really does is gives us a collective language to talk about women's healthcare innovation and the tools that are out there so that we can take control of our healthcare experiences and know how to advocate for ourselves in a system that's probably not been designed to advocate for us.

1:23:30Listen to CNN's Terms of Service wherever you get your podcasts.