Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

RFK Unveils New Dietary Guidelines; Marco Rubio Speaks Out on Venezuela. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired January 07, 2026 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:02]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: So, let's listen in to that on this very busy news day.

QUESTION: Why are you doing this behind closed doors?

MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, there's a lot of operational details that can't be discussed publicly, obviously, for obvious reasons.

So, as we move forward, we will describe our process, which is a three-fold process in Venezuela. I have described it to them now. Step one is the stabilization of the country. We don't want it descending into chaos.

Part of that stabilization and the reason why we understand and believe that we have the strongest leverage possible is our quarantine. As you have seen today, two more ships were seized. We are in the midst right now, and, in fact, about to execute on a deal to take all the oil. They have oil that is stuck in Venezuela.

They can't move it because of our quarantine and because it's sanctioned. We are going to take between 30 and 50 million barrels of oil. We're going to sell it in the marketplace at market rates, not at the discounts Venezuela was getting. That money will then be handled in such a way that we will control how it is disbursed in a way that benefits the Venezuelan people, not corruption, not the regime.

So we have a lot of leverage to move on the stabilization front. The second phase will be a phase that we call recovery. And that is ensuring that American, Western and other companies have access to the Venezuelan market in a way that's fair, also at the same time begin to create the process of reconciliation nationally within Venezuela, so that the opposition forces can be amnestied and released and -- from prisons or brought back to the country and begin to rebuild civil society.

And then the third phase, of course, will be one of transition. Some of this will overlap. I have described this to them in great detail. We will have more detail in the days to follow. But we feel like we're moving forward here in a very positive way.

(CROSSTALK) QUESTION: Some senators who were in that briefing describing your operation variously, is that you're winging it, that there's no plan for Venezuela going forward.

(CROSSTALK)

RUBIO: Yes, they're going to say that. I used to be a senator too. That's what you always say when it's the other party.

The bottom line is, we have gone into great detail with them about the planning. We have described it to them. In fact, it's not just winging it. It's not just saying or speculating it's going to happen. It's already happening.

Like, the oil arrangement that we have made with PDVSA on their sanctioned oil that they can't move, understand they are not generating any revenue from their oil right now. They can't move it unless we allow it to move, because we have sanctions, because we're enforcing those sanctions.

This is tremendous leverage. We are exercising it in a positive way. The president described it last night. Secretary Wright will have more to say on it today who is involved in running this portfolio. And we feel very positive that not only will that generate revenue that will be used to the benefit of the Venezuelan people, and we're ensured that that's what the case is, but it also gives us an amount of leverage and influence and control over how this process moves forward.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, on Denmark, why has the administration not taken Denmark's offer to discuss the situation in Greenland?

And will you...

RUBIO: Well, I will be meeting with them next week.

QUESTION: But will you take military intervention off the table?

RUBIO: I'm not here to talk about Denmark or military intervention. I will be meeting with them next week. We will have those conversations with them then. And -- but I'm not having anything further to add to that today.

QUESTION: Can you clarify your comments to lawmakers?

RUBIO: What? What? What?

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Does the U.S. intend to buy Greenland? Can you clarify your comments to lawmakers this week?

RUBIO: Well, that's always been the president's intent from the very beginning. He said it very early on. I mean, this is not new. He talked about it in his first term. And he's not the first U.S. president that has examined or looked at, how could we acquire Greenland?

There's an interest there. But so I just reminded them of the fact that not only did Truman want to do it, but President Trump's been talking about this since his first term.

(CROSSTALK)

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: ... statement last night saying that the military option...

(CROSSTALK)

RUBIO: You've lost a lot of weight.

(CROSSTALK)

RAJU: Thank you, Mr. Secretary, that the military option is on the table.

So, is the administration really willing to risk the NATO alliance by potentially moving ahead in A military operation?

RUBIO: Guys, what I think the White House said yesterday is what I will tell you now, and I have always said. The president always retains the option if he -- every president, not this president, every president always retains the option.

I'm not talking about Greenland. I'm just talking about globally. If the president identifies a threat to the national security of the United States, every president retains the option to address it through military means. As a diplomat, which is what I am now and what we work on, we always prefer to settle it in different ways.

That included in Venezuela. We tried repeatedly to reach an outcome here that did not involve having to go in and grab an indicted drug trafficker. Those were unsuccessful, unfortunately.

QUESTION: The people of Venezuela are waking up to the same regime. Do you not worry about that?

RUBIO: Well, first of all, the bottom line is that there is a process now in place where we have tremendous control and leverage over what those interim authorities are doing and are able to do.

But, obviously, this will be a process of transition. In the end, it will be up to the Venezuelan people to transform their country. We are prepared under the right conditions using the leverage that we have, which includes the fact that they cannot move any oil unless we allow them to move it, to...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

RUBIO: Well, again, I'm not going to give you a timeline on it. We want it to move as soon as possible. But we didn't expect this would -- it's been three days since this

happened, four days since this happened. So I understand that, in this cycle in society we now live in, everyone wants instant outcomes. They want it to happen overnight. It's not going to work that way.

[11:35:00]

But we're already seeing progress. With this new deal that's been announced and more deals to follow, you're already seeing how the leverage the United States has over those interim authorities is going to begin to lead to positive outcomes.

(CROSSTALK)

RAJU: What does this cost American taxpayers? Americans -- how much -- how long should the American people...

RUBIO: It doesn't cost us...

(CROSSTALK)

RAJU: The U.S. involvement in Venezuela, how much will it cost the U.S. taxpayer?

RUBIO: Well, it isn't going to cost us any money.

For example, this oil deal that's happening doesn't cost us any money, on the contrary. And if it opens up...

(CROSSTALK)

RAJU: ... cost no money to the American taxpayer?

RUBIO: Well, look, I can't -- I don't have the numbers. What operation are you talking about, the entire thing?

RAJU: Yes.

RUBIO: Well, these troops are going to be deployed. None of these troops sit in a dry dock waiting for action. They're deployed somewhere in the world. If they're not here, they're somewhere else.

Just today, our forces not deployed to the Caribbean seized a boat, a sanctioned boat tied to the IRGC that tried to flee from us. That happened somewhere else. We are constantly involved in action. We have boats in the Mediterranean. We have ships in the Middle East. We have ships in the Indo-Pacific.

These ships, if they weren't in the Caribbean, they'd be somewhere else conducting activity. That's what the Navy does.

Yes. (CROSSTALK)

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: I want to emphasize that question from CNN. The question is never asked how much does it cost when they're in the

Mediterranean or the Red Sea or the Indian Ocean or the Pacific. But now that they're in our hemisphere on a counter-cartel mission or ensuring that an indicted individual comes to justice, now you're asking the question of cost.

It's a disingenuous question to begin with. You're trying to find any angle possible to undermine the success of one of the most historic military missions the world has ever seen. The level of sophistication that Senate just was briefed on and the House was briefed on at a classified level is something only the United States of America can accomplish.

The world is taking notice of that. Certainly, Venezuela is taking notice of that, and it continues because two oil tankers, two overnight were seized by the United States of America, stateless or sanctioned, because the oil blockade, the quarantine of oil out of unsanctioned or stateless -- sanctioned or stateless vessels continues.

That leverage will continue, as Secretary Rubio outlined. So our military is prepared to continue this. As he said, the president, when he speaks, he means it. He's not messing around. We are an administration of action to advance our interests, and that is on full display.

We're happy to brief the House and the Senate.

(CROSSTALK)

RUBIO: Two quick things. OK, number one, because we have to go because we have got to brief the House -- and if we don't and they're pissed at us, we're going to -- you guys better defend us that it was because we were talking to you.

I would make one more point, and it's a very interesting point. One of those ships that was seized that had oil in the Caribbean, you know what the interim authorities are asking for in Venezuela? They want that oil that was seized to be part of this deal. They understand, they understand that the only way they can move oil and generate revenue and not have economic collapse is if they cooperate and work with the United States, and that's what we see are going to happen.

We have got to go talk to the House, guys. I apologize.

(CROSSTALK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: All right, so there you have the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth briefing reporters following their first major classified briefing to members of Congress that just wrapped up. Now they're going to another one. They wrapped up with the Senate members. Now they're going to go to the House members and brief them as well.

We heard a lot talking about Venezuela. Didn't hear much about Greenland right there, but we did hear a lot about these two oil tankers that the U.S. military has seized overnight in the area around Venezuela and the U.S. decision to take charge and to make sure that any revenue coming in from the sale of Venezuelan oil winds up in U.S. banks, so that the U.S. can control all that money.

We're looking at some of the pictures of those huge oil tankers, those two oil tankers that were seized right there.

Manu Raju, our chief congressional correspondent, is up on Capitol Hill.

Manu, you have been monitoring all these developments. What's been the reaction, at least so far, not just from Democrats, who are very critical, but Republicans?

RAJU: Yes, look, and I want to just emphasize, because I was asking those questions to the secretary of defense and the secretary of state about how they plan to proceed, not just on the issue of Venezuela, but also in Greenland, at the very beginning of that gaggle.

And it was very notable that the secretary of state tried -- didn't really want to engage too much about Greenland. He didn't want to get into the prospects of the possible military action in Greenland. Remember, that's what the White House left on the table last night in that pretty extraordinary statement that it put out, saying that military -- a military option is on the table.

But we pressed Rubio time and time again to explain whether that's exactly the right course of action. I asked Rubio whether he's willing to go down the route, whether the administration's willing to go down the route of potentially disrupting the NATO alliance and going ahead with any sort of military action to acquire Greenland.

He said, look, military options are always on the table, but we're not here to talk about Greenland. He went on to talk about how presidents, not just Trump, but other presidents in there past have wanted to get, acquire Greenland in different ways or have more United States real estate on Greenland, had been interested in other past presidencies as well.

[11:40:08]

So he really tried to distance himself or at least keep -- the administration suggests that it wasn't totally focused at this moment on acquiring Greenland, despite all the attention that statement got last night. He wanted to keep the focus on Venezuela, which is what his argument was right there, Wolf, which you summed up perfectly, which is an effort to try to impose this oil embargo to try to use as leverage to force the Venezuelan regime that is now in place to make some changes in its policy to eventually lead to free and fair elections.

Democrats came out of that briefing, though, Wolf, really concerned about simply -- they say that there's just simply not a plan, a lot of vague promises, in their view, and a lot of -- few details on how they plan to actually achieve these critical objectives in this foreign country and what will happen if they don't comply or don't listen to the administration's demands.

That's another big question as well. Will they actually go on and have to use military force again? I tried to ask Secretary Rubio and Secretary Hegseth about whether or not they would actually have boots on the ground, American boots on the ground in Venezuela.

They made very clear not to answer that question, nor would they exactly say, Rubio wouldn't, about how long the U.S. plans to be involved in Venezuela, only saying that this is just beginning. They plan to effectuate change there, but how long they will take and how much it will cost Americans in the long run, both in terms of troops and in taxpayer dollars still unclear despite these closed-door briefings, the House one happening right now at this moment.

BROWN: All right, Manu Raju, thank you so much.

And joining us now is CNN chief political analyst and former senior adviser to President Obama David Axelrod.

I'm wondering just what your thoughts are from what we heard from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, especially when it comes to Greenland? Because it is clear he did not want to go there. He said, I'm meeting with NATO officials next week.

And then, when pressed on it, he reiterated, well, the president has always said he wants to buy Greenland and every president retains the right to use military force. But what is unusual here is, of course, not every president comes out threatening to acquire territory of a NATO country through military force.

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.

Listen, I think my biggest takeaway, and it has been for the last several days, is, number one, there is a shocking improvisational quality to all of this. This seems like the triumph of tactics over strategy. And not a lot of thought was given to next steps relative to Venezuela.

And then there was this riffing about Venezuela, Colombia, Cuba, and of course, then Greenland became prominent, and Stephen Miller helped that along. And it's like, you get a sense of kind of frantic running around trying to figure out what comes next, which is very unsettling.

It's unsettling to the world to see foreign policy, national security policy made this way. I think the concern always has been that, once you remove Maduro, who inarguably was a brutal dictator, but you leave the structure in place, what happens next?

And how is the -- will the regime actually surrender to the wishes of this president, or will they resist?

BROWN: It's clearly a mystery right now how this is going to unfold, but I mean, could this be really good for the United States?

AXELROD: In what way?

BROWN: Well, I mean, they talk about cutting down on drugs coming to the U.S. and the benefits from the oil coming from Venezuela.

(CROSSTALK)

AXELROD: Well, let's talk about that, because what this clearly wasn't about was drugs, OK?

And the fact that the focus is completely on oil now tells you that. I think drugs were the pretext to remove Maduro. Look, drug abuse is a serious problem in this country. Venezuela is not a huge contributor to it, certainly not on fentanyl, which is the main killer.

BROWN: Certainly a smaller player.

AXELROD: So I think that was a pretext to put pressure on Maduro. The president has, even going back to his last administration, talked about privately, according to the reporting that we have seen, getting the oil.

I mean, he was obsessed with why we didn't get the oil from Iraq. And I think this was all part of putting pressure on Maduro. So I don't think the drug problems that we have in this country are going to be affected much by what happened here.

And if this were the president's concern, he wouldn't be pardoning other leaders from the same region who were convicted of drug trafficking. No, this was about oil. And I think we're going to continue to see this Friday. He's meeting with the oil executives.

[11:45:09]

This is the president's project. But there are all kinds of ancillary concerns about the stability of that country. What does happen to democracy, which clearly is not also the focus of this administration, despite what the secretary of state said there, because the president really undermined the majority of Venezuelans who voted for a democratic regime.

So I hope it -- I always hope it works out well for America, but we shouldn't be left to -- with sort of hopes as we try and guess what the actual strategy is going to be.

BLITZER: As you know, the White House says President Trump is looking at what they describe as a range of options to acquire Greenland, which is part of Denmark, a NATO ally.

And the actions that we saw over the weekend in Venezuela underscore the U.S. willingness to use military action if they want to. They're not ruling out military action to acquire Greenland. That would be a violation, Though. Everybody seems to agree, on Article 5 of the NATO Charter...

AXELROD: Yes.

BLITZER: ... which says that any attack on any NATO ally is an attack on all NATO allies.

AXELROD: Right.

BLITZER: And they all have to respond in unison.

AXELROD: Yes. Well, the president's been sort of casual about these alliances from the beginning. And he's been -- he's been hostile to NATO in his rhetoric from the time of his first presidency.

But this would be a death knell for NATO, it seems to me, if they were to do this. And you could see the secretary of state was not eager to engage in that discussion because he knows that as well. And the thing is, if it's really about national security and concerns about Russian and Chinese activities in that region, we have a base on Greenland.

And probably through the normal channels we could expand our footprint in Greenland. So all this saber-rattling seems more about empire- building than it does about national security. And it's going to destabilize the very institutions that have helped keep peace since World War II in the world.

And, again, this is an improvisational president, and everybody is forced to react to his improvisations. And in a very unstable world, that's really concerning.

BLITZER: Yes, very concerning.

BROWN: Yes. And just to pick up on your point on Greenland, the United States has pulled back on its military presence there over the last several decades, right? And there is still this agreement between Greenland and the United State, Denmark and the U.S., to put the military there.

Go ahead.

AXELROD: Can I just say one thing about the -- the American people are watching this and they're saying, like, what about us? What about our concerns?

And I think the suspicion has been raised, and I think it's a question that needs to be answered, is this a whole bunch of pyrotechnics that were timed at least to try and change the subject from, for example, ACA premiums going up this week and concerns that are very much closer to home?

So I think that there are a lot of people who are saying, I don't know about this Venezuela thing, this Greenland thing sounds a little nuts, but when are we going to get around to my concern, which is the cost of things and my ability to pay my bills and that the president ran and was determined to solve?

I think one of the reasons that the press secretary threw in some discussion of drug -- prescription drug costs was to sort of signal, well, we're still focused on that. But I think this is very much a distraction from what is the main concern of the American people.

BROWN: All right, David Axelrod, thank you so much.

BLITZER: Cost of living.

AXELROD: Yes.

BLITZER: In other words, it's still the economy, stupid. Is that what you're saying?

AXELROD: It still is, Wolf.

BROWN: It always is.

AXELROD: It still is all these years later.

BROWN: And whether or we're not talking about it, people will -- are experiencing it.

(CROSSTALK)

AXELROD: In their lives, there's never been any diversion from that issue.

BROWN: Right.

AXELROD: Yes.

BROWN: All right, David Axelrod, thank you so much, as always.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:51:30]

BROWN: Breaking news, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just unveiled new dietary guidelines urging Americans to consume less sugar and to eat more protein.

BLITZER: This marks the first major change since the guidelines were first published back in 1980.

Let's go live right now to see the chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

So what jumped out at you about these new guidelines, Sanjay?

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well there's a lot of things in there that are going to sound pretty familiar in terms of eating real foods, eating whole foods, limiting sugar consumption, as you just mentioned, and also linking the fact that the chronic disease epidemic in the United States is so linked to how we eat, how we nourish ourselves.

So all that had some pretty similar notes to guidelines in the past. By the way, the guidelines are updated every five years automatically. That's a congressional act since 1990. So, seven or eight times, the guidelines have been updated. This will be through 2030. Top couple lines there on that graphic you see there, limiting ultra-

processed foods, I mean, that's obviously a big one. And just to give you a sense of how recent this is, ultra-processed foods weren't even mentioned in the previous guidelines.

So this is new. We know that we should limit ultra-processed foods. They're a little vague in terms of what that means, but obviously just cutting back. Also, as you mentioned, again, 10 grams or less of added sugar per meal. It's a different way of sort of framing this.

In the past, they talked about how much sugar you might eat throughout the day, how many carbohydrates. Now they're saying, per meal, 10 grams of sugar or less. I think the areas that are going to get a lot of attention is this idea of promoting full-fat dairy, which is something Secretary Kennedy has talked about before, even sort of giving a head nod to butter and beef tallow as healthy fat options, obviously of concern, especially for people who have cardiac disease.

I will point out, when I really dug into the guidelines, they do say, the caveat is that your full consumption of these fats should be no more than 10 percent of your daily diet. So, if you're eating 2,000 calories, for example, no more than 200 calories should come from these sorts of fats.

I also thought -- I thought they were going to lean heavily into alcohol abstinence. They didn't do that with these guidelines. They basically said less alcohol is obviously better. But, recently, as you guys may know, World Health Organization, American College of Cardiology, they have come out really strong on alcohol recently, saying no amount of alcohol is good for your health.

That is a change that we have seen over the last couple of decades as well.

BROWN: Yes.

BLITZER: Sanjay, explain what full-fat dairy really means. A lot of our viewers are hearing about that and are a little confused.

GUPTA: Yes, so full -- if you think of milk, for example, whole milk, instead of skim milk or 2 percent milk, things like that, same sort of things with other dairy products.

There was a lot of talk about beef tallow, you guys may remember, last year sometime...

BROWN: Yes.

GUPTA: ... even encouraging restaurants to cook with beef tallow.

If you talk to just about any cardiology organization, they're going to have concerns about that, because that is so linked to higher cholesterol and higher cholesterol linked to heart disease. But, again, I do want to say, if you read the guidelines carefully, they're still saying only 10 percent of your calories should come from these sorts of fats. So it's not like saying, hey, basically, this should now be your diet.

I don't think anywhere in the guidelines is suggesting that.

BLITZER: All right, we will monitor all of this. Sanjay, thank you very, very much.

GUPTA: You got it.

[11:55:00]

BROWN: And we have some breaking news -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, some major breaking news coming out of Minneapolis right now.

Officials say there's been a shooting involving federal law enforcement. We do not know the condition of anyone involved. Take a look at this live look at the scene. You can see a large police presence. We're working to get more details on what exactly happened. CNN will bring you all the very latest developments. That's coming up.

And, to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us this morning. You can always keep up with us on social media @WolfBlitzer, @PamelaBrownCNN.

BROWN: We will see you back here tomorrow after what has been a very busy news day.

"INSIDE POLITICS" with our friend and colleague Dana Bash starts after a short break.