Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Interview with Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA): Trump Weighs Military Action in Iran and Deadly Protests; Smithsonian Removes Details on Trump's Impeachments from Exhibition; Stocks Waver But Recover in Response to Fed Chair Investigation. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired January 12, 2026 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Returning now to our top story, President Trump weighing his military options in Iran, where hundreds of anti- regime protesters have reportedly been killed in recent days. A short time ago, Iranian state media published a statement from the Supreme Leader warning American politicians to, quote, stop their deception and not rely on what he called treacherous mercenaries. But earlier, Iran's foreign minister said his country is ready to negotiate with the U.S. based on mutual respect and interests.

Yesterday, President Trump claimed that Iran had called the U.S. to negotiate. And the source says that the foreign minister has been talking recently with Trump's Mideast envoy, Steve Witkoff.

Let's talk now with Democratic Congressman Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts. He's a Marine Corps veteran who served in Afghanistan. Congressman, we know Trump is weighing various options here, military strikes, new sanctions, cyber operations. What do you think is the most likely option and what is the wisest option here?

REP. JAKE AUCHINCLOSS (D-MA): Good afternoon. Thanks for having me on. The protesters in Iran are fighting for values that Americans recognize and hold dear ourselves: freedom, self-determination, prosperity. And the United States government should ally ourselves with those righteous demands. They've been failed by the Ayatollah for decades now.

This president, though, needs to operate within the bounds of congressional authorization, and he needs to marry any actions that he takes with political strategy that prevents boots on the ground and has popular legitimacy.

[15:35:00]

To me, the clear next step that already has congressional authorization and has clear popular legitimacy inside of Iran would be to expand internet freedom operations. The Iranian government is shutting down the ability for Iranians to connect with one another online. We have Starlink 1.0 and 2.0 capabilities that could expand that interconnection, and we should be using it.

KEILAR: So, I mean, how important is Starlink? How important is Elon Musk in this?

AUCHINCLOSS: Doesn't need to be Elon Musk directly, but the technologies themselves are vital. So just to rewind the clock here, back in 2021, the United States stood up the Open Technology Fund designed to provide anti-censorship technologies and tools to people living under authoritarian regimes. That has had a big footprint in Iran successfully. But the Iranian government has been able to crack down on citizens' access to the internet through GPS jamming technologies.

Now, there's a second-generation technology, direct-to-cell technology, that would basically circumvent that GPS jamming capability. And the United States government needs to take the $30 million that Congress has already authorized and appropriated and surge that to solving this problem immediately.

KEILAR: So Iran's parliamentary speaker said the U.S. military and shipping targets in the Middle East will be considered legitimate targets if the U.S. hits Iran with a military strike? How seriously are you viewing that threat?

AUCHINCLOSS: Always take seriously threats from adversaries like Iran. Doesn't mean that we should flinch every time they try to flex, though. I think the actions against Iranian nuclear facilities last year, Israel's successful operations against Iran have demonstrated that its air defenses and its military infrastructure, both its elite infrastructure under the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its conventional infrastructure, are very degraded, that it has really bad problems with command and control, and it has really hard problems with morale and legitimacy within its own ranks. So that should not be a dispositive factor for us.

KEILAR: The view of some Iran experts is that the Iranian military appears to be holding with Iran's government regime. They're in lockstep, even considering joining the crackdown on protesters, which has not been the case in some past protests. Could these U.S. threats and promises of support for protesters backfire and undermine the protesters.

AUCHINCLOSS: I think that rally around the flag effect is probably overstated. That was an argument last year about the strikes in the nuclear facilities, didn't really materialize. I do think, though, it's wise to pair a credible threat against Iran with defection incentives for senior regime officials, particularly, again, within the IRGC, which is to be able to say to these individuals, listen, this is going to go one of two ways. This is going to go very badly for you, and you can look at Hezbollah, you can look at Syria to see that story, or we can offer a package that allows you to leave the country, to degrade the IRGC before you leave the country, and be able to escape the worst of it. Those kinds of defection incentives can be very successful against regimes that are tottering.

KEILAR: Aside from the rally around the flag effect, could it just have the effect of making the protests look less organic? I mean, when you think of the support that may or may not be lent by the U.S. to protesters, if ultimately you were to take this to some type of destabilization of the regime that might have to come organically from protests and from within, is that something that could be threatened? How carefully does the U.S. need to be stepping.

AUCHINCLOSS: Yes. It's a thoughtful question. It's exactly by the way what Congress should be deliberating, which is why the president needs to ask for congressional authorization, whether it strikes in Iran or strikes in Venezuela.

My view is that the Iranian regime has in the past looked to three different pillars of credibility. One has been the ability to deliver some kind of improvement in standard of living over time. One has been Islam and the ayatollah as the steward of Islam. And the third has been the demonization of America and Israel.

Those first two pillars have crumbled. There's no legitimacy left on those two pillars. And so the demonization of Israel and America candidly is going to happen regardless of what America or Israel does, because it's the only traction that this regime can try to get for popular legitimacy. I don't think it's going to work. But I also don't think the United States should view that as a reason to not engage.

[15:40:00]

KEILAR: Do you think the president may have more leverage here because of his removal of Maduro in Venezuela, because of his threats towards Greenland, which I know so many Democrats and certainly even some Republicans have concerns about, because of his harsh rhetoric towards Cuba. Do you think that might be the case?

AUCHINCLOSS: Greenland, I think, is a separate instance. Greenland just makes him look foolish. I mean, every strategic imperative that the United States might have in Greenland, we can accomplish in concert with our NATO ally, Denmark. Threatening to invade NATO just makes the president look unhinged.

I do think the president's actions last year against the Iranian nuclear facilities has stiffened the spine of our interlocutors in the Iranian government. I think they understand that there is the real capability to put force on target, if necessary. And the key, though, is for the President to work with Congress to have the authorization so that Iran understands that there is bipartisan backing for any actions that he may take.

And again, expanding Internet freedom already has congressional authorization and appropriations. It does not risk putting any boots on the ground and is thereby clearly the next most appropriate action for this president.

KEILAR: Congressman Jake Auchincloss, thank you so much for being with us. Appreciate it.

AUCHINCLOSS: Take care.

KEILAR: And ahead, details about President Trump's impeachments removed from an exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery. We'll have that next. [15:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: The Smithsonian has taken down details about President Trump's impeachments from an exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery, we've learned. The museum removed the text last week when they replaced an old portrait of Trump with a newer image of him.

KEILAR: Yes, you can see the two images here, the black and white portrait of Trump with his fists on the resolute desk. That is the new exhibit. It notes only his birth date and that he is the 45th and 47th president. The portrait on the left is the one that was taken down. And according to the museum website, the previous label included more details and the sentence, quote, impeached twice on charges of abuse of power and incitement of insurrection after supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. He was acquitted by the Senate in both trials.

CNN presidential historian Tim Naftali is with us now. And you went to check it out.

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: I went to look at it.

KEILAR: Tell us a little bit about what you saw and why this is so significant.

NAFTALI: Well, this is significant because this exhibit is not, it's not a new exhibit. It's, in a sense a permanent exhibit that is updated every so often, and all the presidents are represented. And the presidents who were impeached, you read about it in their label. So there's a description of Andrew Johnson having been impeached. There is a description, and why.

There's a description of Bill Clinton having been impeached and why. In the case of both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, they were both acquitted. That's mentioned too, acquitted in the Senate. And Richard Nixon, although he wasn't impeached, he resigns because of a scandal, that's explained. Indeed, his pardon is also explained in the Ford label.

So it's not like the other labels don't talk about the darker sides of American history and embarrassing moments for presidents. So then you go to the Trump, President Trump's picture, which looks like he's firing all of us, you know, it's about scowl, and there's nothing. And that's the reason it matters.

Because every other president is treated, historically, and we get nothing about President Trump. And what's really surprising and disturbing is that it's not like that text didn't exist. It was just removed when they replaced the picture. And the question I have is, why?

I can understand why, when you have a president who's in office, you don't have text about the history of their term. That makes sense. So why not just have something for his first term? After all, there was no National Portrait Gallery Hall of Presidents when Grover Cleveland was president, so they never had this Cleveland problem before.

But instead, what they do is they remove the text, and there's nothing, and it doesn't make sense to me.

SANCHEZ: So what do you make of the Smithsonian and a statement telling CNN that they're going for a more minimalist approach to the American president's exhibition?

NAFTALI: OK. Well, I was in the public history business, and let me tell you, the public deserves to have explanations before things are removed. And if something is removed, it should be explained. You just don't remove something and leave a gap.

Because, I mean, I studied the Cold War and that's what the Soviets did. They eliminated -- they actually removed people from pictures. We don't -- we're not supposed to do that in this country. Certainly not in a democratic country.

So, I'm not going to quibble with the Smithsonian. I just think that they must have anticipated that this would have happened. I mean, after all, the Museum of American History had a similar controversy.

Why didn't they learn from that and just make the changes all at once? If you were going to change all the labels, change all the labels at once. Why remove the most controversial label and be that as the only one that doesn't exist anymore?

To my mind, this was a PR nightmare. It may also reflect some pressure from the presidency -- from the president. I have no evidence of that, but I do know something about borrowing things. When you borrow something and you're running a public museum, you have a loan agreement, and you deal with the people lending it.

[15:50:00]

I don't know what conditions the White House might have placed on lending this new picture to the Smithsonian. Maybe they actually wanted to rewrite the old label and maybe the Smithsonian said, rather than rewrite it, let's just not have a label.

I don't know, it's not anywhere -- I'm not doing reporting here. but I know a little something about the way these institutions work. It seems to me that what the Smithsonian did was the worst possible thing because it raises questions of censorship and the denial of facts. This is not about interpretation. These are facts.

Other presidents who were impeached are so described. Why not President Trump?

KEILAR: How are you viewing the move knowing the Smithsonian is actually facing a deadline here shortly? It's a January 13th deadline to turn over an array of materials to the administration or face federal funds being withheld.

NAFTALI: Well, I think that's just a terrible thing on the part of the administration. Our White House should be way busier with many more important things for the American people than to start editing texts and forcing the edits of texts for political reasons. So I think professional historians could be working with the Smithsonian.

It is our 250th anniversary. This is a good time to update things. And then, you know, look at the texts and come to some understanding whether they represent the nature of the historical debate on these issues. One of the things I learned working for all of you, working as the head of a museum and a library, was the fewer adjectives and adverbs, the better.

What you want to do is present people with facts and let them make up their own minds. To the extent that there are adjectives and adverbs that might be seen as political, professional historians and curators could work with the Smithsonian to remove them. But I don't think an active White House should do it because it would make it partisan and political. And after all, what the American people expect when they go to the Smithsonian is nonpartisan history.

KEILAR: Tim Naftali, thank you so much for being here in studio. Appreciate it.

SANCHEZ: Good to see you in person.

NAFTALI: Nice to be here.

KEILAR: This just in, Senator Mark Kelly's legal team filing a lawsuit to block Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from cutting his military retirement pay and reducing the rank that he retired at. Last week, the Pentagon announcing administrative action against Senator Kelly, who is a retired Navy captain, for participating in a video urging U.S. service members to refuse illegal orders. Kelly's lawsuit argues the punishment violates his First Amendment rights and is meant to stifle criticism. The Defense Department has not responded to a request for comment.

SANCHEZ: Ahead, how Wall Street is reacting to the Trump administration's stunning investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell. We'll show you how the bell sees the markets when we come back.

[15:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: We're just a few minutes away from Wall Street's closing bell and while stocks, as you can see, opened lower, they did eventually recover.

KEILAR: Yes, overall, investors seem unfazed by the unprecedented federal criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich is joining us now. So they're unfazed here, Vanessa. What more can you tell us?

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, a really muted day on Wall Street. You can see the Dow just hovering above 100 points, the Nasdaq and the S&P not even breaking 100 points. So investors really signaling that they think there's a low probability that this DOJ investigation into Jerome Powell will actually be successful.

We did, however, see investors moving their money into gold and silver. That is a sign that investors are looking for some safe havens for their money. You can see gold up there, more than 2 percent silver up almost 8 percent. This as the dollar did weaken today.

But really, guys, the drama is unfolding between the Department of Justice and Jerome Powell. The DOJ launching this investigation into Jerome Powell to check whether or not he lied to Congress when he testified before them in June, both in terms of the scope and price tag of the renovations of the headquarters of the Federal Reserve. This is something that President Trump has really latched onto, questioning whether or not Jerome Powell has handled this situation appropriately.

And all of this has brought out some voices that we really don't hear from, usually. One of those voices is Jerome Powell. This is a man who is usually very, very measured in his response to all of the noise outside of the Federal Reserve. But last night, he sharpened his tongue. Listen to what he said in a video message.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEROME POWELL, FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIR: This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. Those are pretexts. The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

YURKEVICH: Now, for the first nine months of this year, the Federal Reserve held interest rates steady because they said that they were waiting to assess what President Trump's tariffs would mean for the economy, both with employment and inflation. But in the last three meetings at the Federal Reserve, the Fed did cut rates three times in a row, setting the Fed funds rate to its lowest level in three years.

All of this, though, is bringing out additional voices that maybe we wouldn't hear from normally two Republican senators. First, Tom Tillis of North Carolina, who said that he's not going to support any nominee that is put forward for the Federal Reserve's chair position as long as this DOJ investigation is ongoing. And then we heard also from Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who said that very much she spoke to Powell this morning and she said that the investigation is nothing more than a quote, attempt at coercion.

[16:00:00]

So, listen, Jerome Powell is heading out. His term is ending in May. There is someone that is going to be heading in, guys. But, ultimately, the question is, what does this mean for the president, that person who is going to be nominated, and Jerome Powell? This creates a mess for all of them.

KEILAR: Certainly does. Vanessa, thank you so much.

"THE ARENA" with Kasie Hunt starts right now.