Return to Transcripts main page
Inside Politics
New CNN Poll: 75 Percent Oppose U.S. Taking Control Of Greenland; Danish Official: WH Meeting "Could Have Been A Lot Worse"; Virginia Democrats Move Forward With Redistricting Effort; Supreme Court Ruling On Voting Rights Act Could Impact More Than A Dozen Majority Minority Districts In The South; DHS Posts Echo Rhetoric Linked To White Nationalist Groups. Aired 12:30-1p ET
Aired January 15, 2026 - 12:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[12:30:00]
DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: -- answer is pretty clear. 75 percent of adults in CNN's latest poll say they oppose the U.S. attempting to take control of Greenland. Only 25 percent favor that idea. Even among Republicans, there's a lot of opposition. Look at that, 52 percent of them support it. Now that's low for Republicans on any policy that President Trump champions.
My panel is still at the table with me, including our Political Director/Washington Bureau Chief/podcaster/, David, what do you think?
DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, first of all, when's the last time you saw a poll number where 75 percent of Americans agreed on anything?
BASH: Right.
CHALIAN: I mean, like, it's just not a number we see all that much. And I'm glad you highlighted the partisan difference. The fact that Republicans are evenly split on this, again, if you're inside the West Wing of the White House and you're strategizing about how to consolidate your team, you're looking at this and saying, we're splitting our team on something right now. We're not consolidating it.
And so it just shows that on this issue of acquiring Greenland, Donald Trump is just -- it's not -- he's not where the country is and he's not unified --
BASH: Can you say that he's on an island?
CHALIAN: A very cold, chilly island.
BASH: Sorry.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: A chilly (ph) island.
BASH: Don Bacon is a Republican in the House. He is retiring. He is in a swing seat. And he has been much more candid about how he feels since he said he's not coming back. But this -- what he said, and what I'm going to read to you goes further than we've heard from anybody.
And it really gives you a sense of where people are on this Greenland issue. He said, "I'll be candid with you. There are so many Republicans mad about this. If he went through with the threats, I think it would be the end of his presidency. Bacon said he would lean forward impeachment," excuse me, "lean toward impeachment in such a scenario."
Next time I'll put my glasses on.
TIA MITCHELL, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: So I thought that was interesting because we know that's something that President Trump has expressed concern about. That if Democrats, for example, get control of the House after the midterms, that he will face another impeachment.
So to me, what I read into that was Representative Bacon kind of speaking to an audience of one to say, hey, this is -- if you're afraid of impeachment, don't go there.
SCIUTTO: Yes. Listen, I'll tell you who's extremely nervous about this, Denmark and Greenland. And I spoke to Danish and Greenland diplomats both before and after this White House meeting, people who were in the meeting. Prior to it, they were extremely nervous because they are a hard no on this.
And there are no -- and they're saying, no damn the consequences, right? That's the Danish position, the Greenland position. If this breaks the relationship with the U.S., fine. You know, we're out.
And they were genuinely concerned that when they walked in the meeting with Vance and Rubio, that Vance and Rubio would basically say, this is the president's position, take it or leave it, easy way, hard way. They came out of the meeting feeling a bit better than they expected in that at least they feel that there's a dialogue going forward.
But what did not --
BASH: That's a low bar.
SCIUTTO: It's an extremely low bar considering you're treaty allies, right?
CHALIAN: Right.
SCIUTTO: You know, you're supposedly on the same side. But what was still clear to them is that the president's position hasn't changed. They just hope that by having a dialogue that perhaps over time they can find a path forward.
But, I mean, it'll be a test, right? Because here's an ally that is not going to negotiate on this. They're going to say no. What does that mean for the relationship? What does Trump do then? Does he deploy troops? We don't know. CHALIAN: And we saw Putin getting involved in this as well, right? I mean, what do you make of the president's argument, Jim, or what are your sources saying that absent the U.S. trying to control this, that Russia and China go in? You could imagine that having some resonance of an argument, but --
SCIUTTO: Yes.
CHALIAN: -- Putin kind of wanted to play in this space and blow that out of the way.
BASH: Exactly.
SCIUTTO: Putin says, no, we're not interested. The truth is, by current existing treaties, the U.S. could quadruple, quintuple, you know, multiply its presence there by 10 --
BASH: Yes.
SCIUTTO: -- under current treaties. So if that's the real motivation and not expanding the real estate footprint --
BASH: Yes.
SCIUTTO: -- of America under Trump, you already have a solution.
BASH: Just real quick, I want to show everybody a picture of Trump on the cover of his favorite magazine from the 80s, TIME Magazine, Trump's Next Move. I mean, that really is --
CHALIAN: Wow.
BASH: -- well done in illustrating what he has going on, for the most part, because these are things that he started.
MITCHELL: Yes.
BASH: These aren't things that global situations that he is defending, he is --
MITCHELL: Creating situation.
BASH: -- creating.
MITCHELL: But what he's not doing always, or oftentimes, is explaining to the American people why these situations are being created, why they are in the best interest of the American people, how he's going to resolve them, what's the long-term plan. He's just not bringing people along.
And of course, we've said many times on this show, he's definitely not doing what he campaigned on, well, not focusing on the domestic issues that he campaigned on.
[12:35:05]
CHALIAN: Yes, which of those chess pieces in that picture is bringing prices down? Which -- I don't know which one that is.
BASH: Doesn't say, but I'll put my glasses on.
Up next, another red state and another blue state enter the redistricting wars. Can President Trump even achieve a decisive advantage ahead of November midterms? Can he do that with his plan anymore? We'll explain. We'll show you the maps, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:40:05]
BASH: The redistricting wars are not over yet. Fresh off a blue wave in state elections this past November, Democrats in Virginia are pushing to redraw their maps in a way that could add up to four Democratic seats, could. The legislature there could vote this week to put a ballot measure in front of voters to allow them to do just that.
Now, they're trying to pave the way to sell it to voters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Trump and MAGA Republicans are trying to rig the midterm elections so they can lock in power. But we can restore fairness with an amendment that gives Virginians the power to level the playing field. And it's temporary, reaffirming our commitment to bipartisan redistricting. This year, our Commonwealth can defend the common good by voting yes for fair elections.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: And my smart panel is back, including CNN's Zach Wolf. I am going to put on my glasses because I do want to broaden it out as we start this discussion about redistricting. So everybody looks at the map to see where we are.
So, so far, Republicans have redistricted in an effort to pick up nine likely GOP seats. Democrats have added five likely Democratic seats in California. A court gave Democrats another in Utah. That leaves the GOP with a net of three seats. It would mean Democrats would need to pick up six GOP seats to retake the majority. That is as of right now, and it is very much a moving target, David.
CHALIAN: And I should also say, these are guesstimates, right?
BASH: Right.
CHALIAN: I mean, like some of those districts redrawn in Texas could end up being more competitive than we think. And maybe --
BASH: Exactly.
CHALIAN: -- it's not going to net five seats. But there's no doubt that at this moment, Republicans maybe have made the bar just a tiny bit higher for Democrats to reach, as you suggest. I'm not sure if the political environment stays what it is today, and Donald Trump remains as unpopular, that that is going to sort of have an immense impact on the outcome of the battle for control of the House.
But there are two major pieces on the board here still, Virginia, which you just talked about, where the Democrats are trying to --
BASH: Can you put up the map there?
CHALIAN: -- play this game. And in Florida, where Ron DeSantis has called for a special session for late April to deal with this. And then there is still the mystery of this Supreme Court decision that everybody is waiting on. So separate and apart from all this mid- decade redistricting, which nobody had on their bingo card a year ago, if we were sitting around this table, that we'd be talking about this as having real world impact on the midterms maybe.
But the Supreme Court may strike down the Voting Rights Act, and that will have consequences as well if they do it early enough for states to have to deal with it this midterm election year.
BASH: Yes. And I want you to talk about the Voting Rights Act. For people at home, what you're looking at right now are the two remaining states that are still sort of in the process of -- we told you about Virginia. The -- if we go back to the Virginia congressional map, currently it's six Democrats, five Republicans, and the proposed maps that they're pushing forward on could make it either nine to two for Democrats or 10 to 1 for Democrats.
And Republicans are trying to push back and gobble up some current Democratic seats and counter Virginia by putting them in the red column. But the point that David just made is about the Voting Rights Act --
MITCHELL: Yes.
BASH: -- which is a question about it, another one.
MITCHELL: A big one, yes.
BASH: A big one before the Supreme Court, which could kind of make what we're talking about null and void, effectively.
MITCHELL: Yes, it would -- particularly in the Deep South, it would really change virtually every Southern state's map. In Florida, you have seats --
BASH: Can you explain what's before them and how that is so?
MITCHELL: Yes, they're -- so they're looking at whether you can factor in race, quite frankly, in how you draw a map to allow communities of color to elect a candidate of their choice. That doesn't mean that the candidate has to match that community of color. It just means that the community of color, the seat is drawn in a way that gives them voting power.
BASH: And this was a real core part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
MITCHELL: Right, and it comes because, prior to the Voting Rights Act, white lawmakers would draw maps to dilute the voting power of voters of color. And so our nation decided we wanted to codify the fact that that wasn't what the type of country we wanted to be, and we passed laws to prevent that from happening and protect the voting rights of people of color.
But of course, the Voting Rights Act has been dismantled in other ways in recent years. This is just the latest portion of the Voting Rights Act to be challenged. Quite frankly, I think the writing on the wall doesn't look great for this being upheld, although we're still waiting to see what the Supreme Court ultimately decides.
That'll affect, in Florida, for example, there are seats drawn to allow black voters to elect the voter of choice, but also seats that allow Hispanic voters to elect the voter of choice.
[12:45:07]
Of course, in a state like Georgia, there are several seats that are targeting black voters, saying for Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, we can go on and on.
BASH: Yes, I mean, there are some estimates that if the Supreme Court strikes this part of the Voting Rights Act down, Democrats could lose 19 seats.
ZACHARY WOLF, CNN POLITICS SENIOR WRITER: Well, and I think everybody does expect the Supreme Court to do something further chipping away genre. It's been John Roberts' longtime goal, it seems like, to chip away at the Voting Rights Act, and this is another big opportunity to do that.
But, you know, looking at those maps, I think it's really interesting. We talk about red states and blue states from the presidential level, but this, you know, kind of unexpected war has created a situation where you could have only one Republican lawmaker in Virginia, which is an evenly split state.
California Republicans could be almost gone. There are more Trump voters in California than there are in Texas. Similarly, in Texas, where there were more Harris voters than there were in New York, you could have almost all Democratic seats gone.
BASH: Such an important point.
WOLF: So it's like, it's the -- Congress will change in the coming years in ways that we can't really anticipate because of this.
BASH: We can't anticipate. It's going to be --
WOLF: Yes.
BASH: -- even more partisan and everybody's going to be more dug in, sadly.
Coming up, why is DHS echoing white nationalist rhetoric in new recruitment posts? We have new reporting from Zach on what appears to be a disturbing Trump administration trend. You're going to want to see this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:50:57]
BASH: As the Trump administration ramps up its immigration crackdown, ICE is looking to expand its ranks and their recruitment push on social media is echoing some rhetoric that has been linked to white nationalist groups. Like this ad from DHS that says, quote, "America has been invaded by criminals and predators. We need you to get them out." Or this message, "We'll have our home again," adding, quote, "Join ICE."
These ads appear to be a nod to the far right replacement theory, which is the belief that white people are being replaced by immigrants. Now, there's also this DHS ad that says, "The stakes have never been higher and the goal has never been more clear. Reimmigration now."
That term has roots in neo-Nazi ideology, refers to what critics say is a form of ethnic cleansing. And now the Trump administration, they're using it. The State Department is even creating an office of reimmigration.
As my colleague, Zach Wolf, details in a new piece that you really need to read on CNN.com, it's coded language and it is part of a pretty disgusting trend across the Trump administration.
And Zach is here now. Wow.
WOLF: Yes, wow. And, I mean, the first thing you want to do is prove or show definitively that this language is coded. I talked to people at the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, you know, is that term, you'll have your country back, white nationalist term.
And, you know, they sent me, you know, quotes from Telegram, posts that links to the Proud Boys where before the Trump administration in recent years, that term is used. There's a song that white nationalists have listened to that, you know, uses that term. So certainly Proud Boys, white nationalists would see that poster and feel comfortable and feel happy about what the administration is doing.
But there's also the element that this is not even that coded. I mean, in that image, you have the cowboy racing across the plain to rescue the country, you know, and this goes all over these DHS recruitment ads in particular, but it extends way beyond that.
And if you start looking at other social media posts, other things, you talked about remigration. That's one that the experts are really concerned about because of the neo-Nazi ties to it. But the Department of Labor, they have multiple posts.
BASH: Yes, I want to play that. So you mentioned -- and this is important, it isn't just DHS as they're recruiting. Just watch a little snippet of what is coming out of the Department of Labor. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: One homeland, one people, one heritage. Remember, you're an American, and we're going to put up some other posts that they put on social media.
WOLF: Yes, I mean, you don't need to go to the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism to see that one heritage is going to be language that appeals to white nationalists. There are, of course, many heritages in this country, you know, the melting pot. So that language is disturbing, I think. In any event, you don't have to show that it's coded.
MITCHELL: I just -- the reason why I think there are people at home like, OK, so what? But here's why this is problematic. When you're thinking about the potential of our federal government recruiting people who are white nationalists or have white nationalist leanings, then these become the people who may be interacting with you as federal law enforcement.
BASH: Yes.
MITCHELL: They may be in a hiring position and therefore not excluding certain candidates. Like, there could be real repercussions for years and decades to come if this messaging is leading to, you know, different people joining the federal workforce.
BASH: There's one other thing I want to show, which is a little bit more coded, I think, if you have to know to know.
[12:55:01]
This is a post from the White House just yesterday, "Which way, Greenland man?" And the same kind of post from DHS in August, "Which way, American man?" Well, in 1978, there was a white supremacist, William Gayley Simpson, who wrote, "Which Way Western Man?"
And among the things that he wrote is, "Race consciousness and discrimination on the basis of race are absolutely essential to any race's survival and to any nation's survival. That is why the Jews are so fiercely for it themselves, because they mean not only to survive, but to become master and fiercely against it for us, because we are their intended victim."
CHALIAN: Let's just say, as Zach said, some of this isn't all that coded. OK, let me give the full benefit of the doubt, OK, to the people that are creating this for a moment here. Even if this is not intentional, even if this is not by design to recruit white nationalists, when you see that there is comparisons, that there are language comparisons and efforts, why wouldn't you just stop dead in your tracks and be like, we want no part of this, we don't want this to be part of our (INAUDIBLE). BASH: It created a department in the State Department.
CHALIAN: That's what I'm saying. So I'm being --
BASH: Yes.
CHALIAN: -- like --
BASH: Yes.
CHALIAN: -- falsely kind here for a second --
BASH: Being charitable.
CHALIAN: -- charitable, but still, the moment you see that there are valid comparisons, why don't you stop dead in your tracks and say, this is not for us, this isn't how we want to go about this?
BASH: I think that was a rhetorical question.
CHALIAN: It was.
BASH: Thank you for joining Inside Politics. Thank you for that reporting. CNN News Central starts after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
