Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

U.S. in Talks with Russia over Ceasefire; Samir Puri is Interviewed about Ceasefire Talks; Democrats Search for New Strategy; New Accusations Against Mahmoud Khalil. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired March 24, 2025 - 06:30   ET

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

[06:30:00]

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: Criminal investigation into allegations of sexual exploitation of women and girls. The pair still face human trafficking charges in Romania and they claim they returned there to clear their names.

Right now the U.S. and Russia are in talks in Saudi Arabia over Russia's war on Ukraine. Yesterday, the U.S. team met separately with Ukrainian officials. Ukraine's defense minister called those talks productive and focused.

Until a ceasefire deal is reached, Russia doesn't seem to be letting up. Ukraine says Russia launched drone attacks over the weekend, killing at least six people, including a five-year-old.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE WITKOFF, SPECIAL ENVOY TO THE MIDDLE EAST: The elephant in the room is, there are constitutional issues within Ukraine as to what they can concede to with regard to giving up territory. The Russians are de facto in control of these territories.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, "THE TUCKER CARLSON SHOW": Yes.

WITKOFF: The question is, will they be - will the world acknowledge that those are Russian territories?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: CNN's Clare Sebastian joins us live from London.

Can you talk about what we know about today's talks?

CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Audie, I think big picture, it's worth stepping back. We are really, at this point, working backwards from where we were less than two weeks ago when Ukraine signed on to a U.S. proposal for a full 30-day ceasefire.

Last week we saw that call between Presidents Trump and Putin, where Putin basically rejected the idea of a full ceasefire but did promise to stop attacks on energy infrastructure. It doesn't seem that that has been kept up in force despite the Kremlin's claim that it has. So, today, what we're looking at, following on from those U.S.-Ukraine

talks on Sunday, are looking at technical issues around a partial ceasefire. They are, as the main topic the Kremlin says today, looking at the Black Sea, reviving the so-called Black Sea grain initiative that lasted for a year but Russia allowed to lapse in the summer of 2023, which allowed for safe maritime corridors so Ukraine could continue to export its critical grain supplies to global markets. Russia pulled out, saying that it still had obstacles in the way of its own food exports.

So, they're looking at this again today. And while we see some optimism coming from the Trump team, Steve Witkoff over the weekend saying that they're looking at real progress this week, the Kremlin is very much playing down expectations. Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, again this morning saying there is still a lot of work to be done on technical issues, making it clear that we're still at the early part of this. They may also, again, look at energy infrastructure. There was some confusion last week over what was agreed in that call between Trump and Putin. But I think overall this is very technical this week. But still for Ukraine, a very concerning moment when you hear rhetoric like that coming from Steve Witkoff. The concern with this bilateral track between the U.S. and Russia is that Russia will continue efforts to persuade the U.S. that it is Ukraine standing in the way of peace, even as we see these attacks continue.

CORNISH: That's CNN's Clare Sebastian reporting from London.

Now, I want to follow up on something Clare was talking about, because if a lasting peace can be achieved between Russia and Ukraine, what exactly would that look like? And we're going to bring in Samir Puri. He's the director of the Centre for Global Governance and Security at Chatham House. He was also a ceasefire monitor in east Ukraine in 2014 and 2015.

First, I want to start with the fact that you have had a firsthand view of kind of what it can look like to police these borders. Can you tell me a little bit about your experience?

SAMIR PURI, DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AND SECURITY, CHATHAM HOUSE: Yes. Well, great to be with you.

Now, of course, that was a decade ago. The first Russian invasion of east Ukraine. Much more limited. A very different kind of conflict. Extremely difficult because the ceasefire line then, as it would also be, now runs sort of in a jagged way, sometimes between settlements, sometimes separating communities. It's very hard to monitor this.

And, of course, the ceasefire that I was involved in monitoring didn't last. It broke down. That was the Minsk Accords that everybody understands. This time around the task is going to be so much harder because the war has been so much more devastating.

CORNISH: Right. It's also a war where we've seen Ukraine using government intelligence, et cetera, to hold off Russia using technology. Just drones. How is that critical and how does that play into monitoring any kind of ceasefire this time around? PURI: Right. So the mission I was part of, we had four very

underpowered drones. Technology and drones has, of course, moved on leaps and bounds in the decades, I think, without question, drone monitoring, satellite monitoring and other verification techniques were really crucial in giving Ukraine some confidence to - and whatever they sign up to, whenever this process actually gathers some momentum - more momentum than it already has, that there will be some sort of monitoring.

And then, of course, the other side to that is - is there any accountability mechanism if Russia breaches whatever ceasefire agreement comes through (ph). That will also be a huge part of Ukraine's lack of confidence in the process at this early stage.

CORNISH: You've also said that if major powers are retreating to their boltholes and talking - and failing to talk about questions around global governance, that that can be damaging to future security.

[06:35:04]

Can you talk about what that meant, especially in light of what we just heard earlier, where you have a U.S. official saying, look, the world needs to recognize that Russia's already taken x amount of land and it's sort of de facto theirs. What are some of the things that you're concerned about?

PURI: So, one of the things I'm concerned about is of all the regions of the world that are adjusting to Trump's change of tone, total change in tone in U.S. foreign policy, it's the Europeans that are feeling that change of tone the hardest. The Ukrainians, like you say, they've been relying on the U.S. for military support, intelligence support. But the Europeans, the British, the French and the others have kind of made this bet that the U.S. would always be sort of on their side and having their backs.

So, when I'm sort of talking about major powers retreating into their boltholes, it's the U.S. being seen as a disruptor in a way that China is seen as a disruptor by some countries. It is extremely hard to plan anything for the future, and it's also extremely hard to work out just how committed the American government will be, this American government, to holding Russia to account, to maintaining whatever it signs up to, in whichever ceasefire arrangement comes out of this process. But I do think there will be something that comes out of this process. And I do think we're at the beginning of what will be a very long, meandering negotiation involving the Russians, the U.S. and Ukraine.

CORNISH: But I want to follow up on one thing, because a lot of Russia watchers have not just seen this as long and meandering, but stalling. And at best, if something comes out of it, it will be just Russia biding its time until after the Trump administration.

Here you are again, right, talking about this after so many years of having been a monitor at the last ceasefire. What are your thoughts on this? PURI: It's a really important point. The Russians are extremely

skilled at using negotiation processes as a smokescreen for carrying on with their military ambitions. And I've directly experience this. In February 2015, I was stationed in Kramatorsk in the Donbas. At the same time, the Russians were mounting an offensive through their separatists to take a particular town. They were negotiating in Belarus the Minsk two deal. So, they fight and they talk at the same time.

And that's the trap Zelenskyy is very, very keen to avoid being pushed into a corner by the Russians doing this fight, talk, fight, talk. And we're seeing that because of Russian airstrikes, as your previous reporting has mentioned, have not let up in terms of that military pressure on Ukraine. And, of course, Russia still wants to take more of the Donbas so that it captures those four regions that Steve Witkoff failed to mention by name, I think, in his previous interview last week.

But we must all remember, (INAUDIBLE), Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk and Donetsk. Putin's forces don't yet control all four of those regions, and they want to before, you know, the fighting stops.

CORNISH: Samir Puri, director of the Centre for Global Governance and Security at Chatham House. Thank you.

PURI: Thank you.

CORNISH: All right, I want to turn to domestic politics because here Democrats are still struggling to find a new strategy. There's a new book people are talking about called "Abundance" that argues that Democrats need to focus less on red tape, more on results.

And I want to bring it to the group chat because it has been all over the - look at your - the resignation about abundance discourse.

Who can explain abundance? Ashley, can you?

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Oh, why me. OK, no, no, I will. I will.

CORNISH: Oh, not you. OK. Who can actually explain abundance 101?

STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN POLITICS SENIOR REPORTER: It seems to be what it is all about is this idea that Democrats have created so many regulations they're stifling growth.

CORNISH: Your environmental reviews, your worker protections, your DEI - yes.

COLLINSON: Right. (INAUDIBLE) stuff for building new homes, et cetera. They're making it more difficult for people to afford homes. And this seems to be some attempt, and there's some other attempts to, to like shift the party a little bit towards the center, a bit like the DLC, the Democratic Leadership Council in the early 1990s.

The question I have is, you know, this is an intellectual exercise. The Democrats really looking for an intellectual exercise. Everything we're seeing is that (INAUDIBLE) -

CORNISH: Please cut to Ashley's face.

COLLINSON: The response to Trump is emotional and intellectual.

CORNISH: Have - like, I know, and that's a good point -

ALLISON: Yes.

CORNISH: Because when I think of who has the crowds right now, it's Bernie Sanders, AOC actually drawing physical people, actual people, not substack (ph) readers. But that doesn't mean this movement can't catch in some way.

Ashley.

ALLISON: Well, I mean, do - do people feel like they're living in abundance right now? So, I think words actually matter too. You might - the door might close before you even see who -

CORNISH: But that's their argument.

ALLISON: Yes.

CORNISH: Their argument is the Trump world is all about saying what you can't have, what you can't do, and we want to show people -

ALLISON: But is that what people want? I think you have to meet people - I think this is - this is what happened this last election is that we talked about - I have a friend who always says, like, Democrats make a documentary and Republicans make a blockbuster movie. And people, more often than not, want to go see a blockbuster movie and not a - a doc.

So, I think what Democrats need to do is acknowledge the pain. And I'm not saying that some didn't and that the vice president didn't, but it's acknowledge where people really are.

CORNISH: Do you think that this abundance thing doesn't really do that, acknowledge?

[06:40:03]

ALLISON: Look, I talk about abundance in my life in a different way, but not through politics. I'll just say that I think that the thing that Donald Trump is so good at is telling people there is only a certain amount of abundance. That's why you have to deport all these immigrants. That's why you can't -

CORNISH: Yes, it's a zero-sum game.

ALLISON: Right.

CORNISH: Yes.

ALLISON: So, I just - I'm not - I'm not - I'm going to take a different approach.

JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Some of that's -

CORNISH: Jonah, have you had thoughts on this.

GOLDBERG: I have a different take on this.

CORNISH: OK.

GOLDBERG: Go, Yoni Applebaum of "The Atlantic" has a fantastic book called "Stuck," which gets at a lot of this.

CORNISH: Yes.

GOLDBERG: Mark Dunkelman, professor at Brown, has a book called "Why Nothing Works," which also gets at this. I think those are better books and better arguments than the abundance argument.

CORNISH: Which is from Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson.

GOLDBERG: Ezra Klein, right. And - which I'm not trying to denigrate too much of the Klein book. But my point is, is that the abundance argument is very utopian, and it's very much aimed at really hardcore ideological progressives and say, hey, there's a better way. That's a useful argument to have. The Dunkelman and Applebaum books are much more aimed at the simple fact that starting at the local level, but also at the national level, the progressives have screwed things up by gunking up the works with all sorts of red tape that makes it impossible to get things done. It is - it is - it keeps people, you know, only one in 13 people move, change addresses every year now. It used to be like two in five. And that lack of mobility makes people feel locked in, makes people feel like even if they wanted to make - improve their lives, they can't. All that kind of stuff.

CORNISH: Yes. I mean there's a variety of reasons for that though, right? I mean -

GOLDBERG: There's a bunch of reasons for it. But my - but the point I'm trying to get at is that the reason why Trump - part of what is appealing to Trump is that claim of common sense. Sort of like, what was appealing about Biden was that claim of normalcy.

The better argument for Democrats isn't some utopian notion of abundance, if we could just give state planners all the power in the world to do exactly what they want, it's just to get - it's to say, lets just do common sense stuff. Let's help people.

CORNISH: Yes, but it's sort of a baffling mix of people giving advice to Democrats.

GOLDBERG: Yes.

CORNISH: Stephen, can you weigh in?

COLLINSON: I don't really think that a lot of these reviews and examinations after elections end up really contributing an awful lot. There was the Republican review after 2012 after Romney lost.

CORNISH: That's still in a drawer somewhere. Just -

GOLDBERG: The party went the opposite way of the autopsy and Trump won.

COLLINSON: Yes.

CORNISH: Yes, exactly.

ALLISON: Exactly. Yes.

COLLINSON: But I think parties go where their supporters want to go. And what you most often see is parties change direction when you have a personality that leads the party in a certain direction, which is what happened with Trump, and it's happened (INAUDIBLE).

GOLDBERG: But that's why we can't have nice things.

CORNISH: Yes, or it captures attention. Like, I just want to play one clip because at town halls this is where we see Democratic voters really voicing their frustration in very specific ways.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We're not OK. I'm going to just cut the (EXPLETIVE DELETED). We're not OK.

None of them are going to save us. I am so sorry. I've been waiting every day, but they can't right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: So, we're hearing that Nancy Pelosi saying, Hakeem Jeffries, use your power. But I love hearing from a voter -

ALLISON: Yes.

CORNISH: Because when I think about that Tea Party movement for Republicans, even though it's not what it was then, it changed the trajectory of things.

ALLISON: Yes, I think Democrats need to be listening. If you - I'm not going to say that if you go to a town hall you're already an overly engaged person, but you probably do go to the PTA, you probably - you probably show up a lot, and including on Election Day.

There are segments of the Democratic coalition that they need to be listening to. The folks coming who are saying, they are not OK. Just don't hear I'm not OK, but ask, why are you not OK? What makes you feel like that? What - what could I do? Tell me one thing I could do to make you feel like we are a step better for you feeling like you are OK.

Then there are people who will never go to a town hall, who never - who show up sometimes, but not often at the polls. You need to go talk to them too and say, why did you sit out this election cycle?

CORNISH: Yes, it's a fact finding, not a report out, basically.

ALLISON: It is. It's not - not a report out.

CORNISH: Yes.

ALLISON: You have to listen to people and - and not just take advice from the towers of D.C.

CORNISH: The towers of D.C. OK, well, we're going to hear more about this in the coming days. Trust me, people are talking about it.

Still ahead on CNN THIS MORNING, the White House Easter Egg Roll, a time-honored tradition. Now companies can join in, of course, for a price.

Plus, why the losers of this year's Super Bowl are also getting a White House invitation.

And we're going to have more from the group chat after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:48:38]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JASON MILLER, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SENIOR ADVISER: We have a runaway judiciary. We have these district courts who are trying to step in and make laws to impact then effectively or make precedent that would impact the entire country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: That's Donald Trump's senior adviser, Jason Miller, once again attacking judges who have ruled against the president. One of those cases centers around a Palestinian activist, Mahmoud Khalil. He's the Columbia grad student in federal custody. He's currently fighting deportation. The Justice Department now argues that he committed immigration fraud. They say he failed to disclose some details about his background when he applied for a green card.

Joining me now to talk about this, Shan Wu, defense attorney and former federal prosecutor.

Shan, thanks so much for being here with us this morning.

First, I want to set the table because we have a bunch of different examples here. Are you effectively seeing ways that the Trump administration is looking at people who have legal status and finding ways that they're vulnerable to deportation?

SHAN WU, DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Generally, yes. I think the way that it is affecting all people in this situation, whether they're citizens, have legal status, not legal status, is the Trump administration's approach is simply to not follow any of the normal processes. And we can certainly refer to that as, you know, violating due process. But in plain English, what that means is, there's no process at all.

[06:50:04]

They're just rounding up people. The reasons for targeting those people or talking to them, very unclear, as we saw in these sort of mass deportation efforts they made. And it's not even correct to call them deportations because deportation is a legal term in a legal process. You know, the rounding up, putting them on planes, not even clear who they've rounded up. And there's no transparency there. So, that's really the way that it's really broadly affecting all citizens, is this lack of any discernible process.

CORNISH: So, for example, when we talk about Mahmoud Khalil at Columbia, they said that on his application he left out that he was a member of a U.N. Palestinian relief agency. Is that the kind of thing that in the past would have been enough to get these proceedings going?

WU: Sure. They could get the proceedings going with all sorts of issues, including if there's something fraudulent or incorrect about the original application, you know, not having any inside information or coming on his case, particularly. Again, they can offer these justifications or reasons, but they need to have it determined through a process. Bring it before an immigration judge to figure out what's going on here. And that's what's missing at the moment.

CORNISH: One of the big fights we hear a lot about are these - the D.C. Court of Appeals looking at the deportation flights to El Salvador, where Venezuelan migrants are being sent. The national security advisor was asked about this, this weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE WALTZ, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: We are saying -

MARGARET BRENNAN, CBS NEWS HOST, "FACE THE NATION": Venezuela is directing these gangs?

WALTZ: We are saying that TDA is acting as a proxy of the Maduro regime. This is how the Alien Sedition Act applies. And we cannot have district judges interfering with the commander in chief's actions to take care of, in the way he deems necessary, a terrorist organization.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: The administration fighting very hard to try and make this connection. Can you talk about why?

WU: The why is they want to really rely upon the original presidential immunity decision, this idea that at its core something that you can't touch at all is the president's executive power to be a commander in chief, to make military decisions, including about national security. That's what they want to lean into. However, while that may be true, it's - this is not a situation of

immunity. He's not being charged with anything. And again, it goes back to the same problem they always do here is there's no process. That's a fine argument to make. It may fly with a judge. It may not fly with a judge. It may ultimately fly with the Supreme Court, may not. But they need to go through the process and simply blustering about it in the media saying no judge can review this, that's obviously wrong. Obviously, a judge can review it. And that's the issue. They have to allow the courts to review it. They're going to have to answer Judge Boasberg, for example, questions as to what are the details, when did you fly, who did you fly.

CORNISH: That's former federal prosecutor and defense attorney Shan Wu.

Thank you for joining me this morning.

WU: Good to see you.

CORNISH: OK, it's 52 minutes past the hour. I want to give you your morning roundup. A few more stories you need to know to get your day going.

A murder suspect in Georgia under arrest. And according to immigration officials, he was in the country illegally. The man is from Honduras. He's accused of killing a 53-year-old mother of five in an Atlanta suburb earlier this month. The 21-year-old suspect reportedly crossed the border four years ago.

And the losers of this year's Super Bowl getting a special invitation. Typically only given to the winners. The Kansas City Chiefs have been invited to the White House. So, why? Well, the president says it's because they missed their visit in 2020 due to the pandemic. Don't worry, Eagles fans, Philly also got an invite. They will visit in late April.

And Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney calling for an election on April 28th, saying he needs a strong mandate because President Trump wants to break Canada so the U.S. can own it. Carney got comedian Mike Myers, of course famous Canadian, to do a campaign ad with him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: What are the two seasons in Toronto?

MIKE MYERS, COMEDIAN: Winter and construction.

CARNEY: Wow, you really are Canadian.

MYERS: Yes.

But let me ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, will there always be a Canada?

CARNEY: There will always be a Canada.

MYERS: All right. Elbows up.

CARNEY: Elbows up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Carney's conservative rival also campaigning on standing up to the U.S.

So, it's a tradition that dates back to the 1800s. The South Lawn of the White House turns into a springtime celebration as children and adults alike gather for the annual Easter Egg Roll.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT (April 13, 1998): The first official White House Egg Roll occurred here in 1878, when President Rutherford Hayes was living in the White House. Now, a lot of things have changed since then.

[06:55:02]

Today, that you need to know is, that for the very first time, hundreds of thousands of young people will be experiencing the White House Egg Roll through the internet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: The internet. A series of pipes and tubes.

But this year, as one planner notes, it's not your grandmother's Easter Egg Roll. President Trump, the businessman, looking to add his own flair with corporate sponsorships ranging from $73,000 to $200,000.

The group chat is back for a segment that, in my notes, is titled "Egg Roll Ethics." So, Stephen, I want to start with you, because this shouldn't be a shock given Teslas on the White House lawn and the gold card/green card situation of paying in order to get into the states. But how do you see it?

COLLINSON: Right. The concept of White House ethics seems to have been completely swept away by this administration. I guess the - the problem here is that companies are paying for access to a White House event, and even to officials and potentially the first lady according to our reporting. That seems to be a pathway to corruption.

CORNISH: But all thing - all kinds of things are sponsored these days.

COLLINSON: True.

CORNISH: So, is it just perception? Is it that Trump's past indicates that this actually will curry favor for those companies? Like, what is it that makes it nerve-wracking?

GOLDBERG: Yes, I mean, I think it's of a piece with the trade policy and all those things. He likes systems where your business deals are improved if you get a seat next to him at a dinner. That kind of thing.

I think - I was trying to wonder - I was wondering where that Clinton clip was going.

CORNISH: Right.

GOLDBERG: I think - I think what we need to do is take the era of online sports gambling and Easter Egg Rolls and combine them. We can - now we -

CORNISH: You want to actually bet on the children?

GOLDBERG: I want to bet on the children.

CORNISH: I knew that's - I knew that was where this was going.

GOLDBERG: (INAUDIBLE) races, you know?

ALLISON: The Easter Egg Roll, on the day -

CORNISH: Yes.

ALLISON: Is the best thing ever.

CORNISH: Yes.

ALLISON: The weeks leading up to it, they're, like, crazy parents trying to get tickets and - and so I actually wonder -

GOLDBERG: And now corporations.

ALLISON: And now corporations. And I do wonder what impact, you know, sponsoring this event. But I'm not going to take the bait on this one. I just want the kids to have fun, actually.

CORNISH: You're calling my egg roll ethics bait? You are - you are correct.

ALLISON: No. No, I mean it - on - on the scheme of things, I just can't this morning, you know?

CORNISH: No, that's fair. And it was always - it's always been ancillary, fun event.

ALLISON: Yes.

CORNISH: I mean I think historically even, during segregation, black families were not even allowed at the White House Egg Roll. And so, if you are in the D.C. area, you know, you go to the zoo on that day because that is where there was, like, actual events.

COLLINSON: The problem is that it seems now becoming about administrations competing with each other to have the most spectacular egg roll. It does - it seems to have gone a long way from its origins.

ALLISON: Instead of lowering egg prices. COLLINSON: And - oh, yes.

CORNISH: I let you say it. But I was wondering.

ALLISON: I mean, we're talking about eggs in a different type of way. I - it's all about the eggs, right?

CORNISH: I know. Between the - getting artificial food dyes that RFK wants that's being reported in "The Wall Street Journal," and the price of eggs, it feels like the Egg Roll is not long for this world.

GOLDBERG: Well, it's great news. The secretary of agriculture recently said that we're going to start importing eggs to lower egg prices. The sad thing is, apparently increasing trade only works to lower prices for eggs. For no other product, right? For everything else we got to have higher taxes on it. But for eggs, the administration understands that if you lower tariffs and import more, the price will lower.

CORNISH: Oh, that's a specific economic theory.

GOLDBERG: It just works - it only works for eggs.

CORNISH: Is that from the Chicago school, or where does that -

GOLDBERG: It's an egg-centric theory but it's old school (ph).

ALLISON: Oh, see what you did this morning.

CORNISH: OK. Last minute, we're going to talk about what we're keeping an eye on today, this week.

Stephen.

COLLINSON: These talks in Riyadh about Ukraine. I think there's a lot of reason to be skeptical about the administration's approach.

CORNISH: Yes, we heard some.

COLLINSON: Not least because of Steve Witkoff seems to have adopted a lot of Putin's positions since he met the Russian president. But at least Ukrainians and Russians and the U.S. are in the same place. Perhaps something could happen.

CORNISH: Yes, that is remarkable. Thank you for - for talking about it.

GOLDBERG: So, I'm looking forward to Usha Vance, the second lady's trip to Greenland. J.D. Vance, over the weekend, was talking about how Denmark's a bad ally, and that's one of the reasons why we need Greenland.

CORNISH: And we should be clear, because Denmark has control of Greenland, not the U.S.

GOLDBERG: Denmark has quasi sovereignty over Greenland, right.

CORNISH: Yes, exactly.

GOLDBERG: And I suspect the plan is, is they're hoping that Greenland has some protests, some ugliness, that they can then turn up the gain on this whole nonsense about taking Greenland.

CORNISH: Oh, you think that's what the administration wants?

GOLDBERG: I think that - I think it is a - the best case scenario for them is that there's some ugly - because the Greenlanders are very mad about this because -

CORNISH: Yes, they just had an election.

GOLDBERG: Right.

CORNISH: So, OK.

And, Ashley.

ALLISON: Well, we were talking about what's the Democratic message? We are seeing a lot of Democrats, governors and mostly members of Congress and senators go all around the country. I want to see who else is going to start doing these tours around the country, outside of their district, to see, one, if - if they have political ambitions, but, two, if they can actually curate a narrative that is resonant with the broader American people.

[07:00:06]

CORNISH: Yes. Usually for political reporters we wait until they go to Iowa and then we start saying, he's running, or she's running.

ALLISON: But it's looking different.

CORNISH: But here it is -

GOLDBERG: But now they start podcasts.

CORNISH: OK.

ALLISON: Right. Right.

CORNISH: Oh, is that all it takes?

ALLISON: Right.

CORNISH: I'll be announcing my run shortly.

I want to thank you all for waking up with us. Thank you for a bright and cheerful panel.

I'm Audie Cornish. "CNN NEWS CENTRAL" starts with your headlines right now.