Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Trump Weighs Iran Military Intervention Amid 500 Plus Protester Deaths; Israel "Monitoring" Iran, Ready To "Respond With Power"; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Is Interviewed About Trump Admin's $10B Welfare Fund Freeze In Blue States Paused. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired January 12, 2026 - 11:00   ET

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

COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Incredible play call and execution by San Francisco to take the lead and they held on a 23-19 win. The defending champion Eagles are going home. The Niners will face number one seed Seattle next.

[11:00:16]

Now, New England's Drake Maye, the MVP candidate quarterback in just his second season through his first playoff touchdown, putting the Patriots up 16-3 over the Chargers with Hunter Henry on the grab. And then the Pats defense was all over. Chargers quarterback, Justin Herbert. They sacked him six times in this game. Head coach Mike Vrabel took a team that was 4-13 to a 14-3 team in year one. Patriots get their first playoff win since the 2018 season. They play the winner of the Steelers-Texans game tonight.

Now, you have to see this. Check out Vrabel, so hype. He was chest bumping, having a blast with his guys and he got a bloody lift. He will likely be the coach of the year. You can never fault him for having passion. That's for sure. He will bring it just as he did when he was a player for the Pats on they roll. Good stuff. Wolf?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: And as I always say, Coy, and you say it as well, go Bills.

WIRE: There we go.

BLITZER: Very, very important. Coy Wire, thank you very, very much.

The next hour of The Situation Room starts right now.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, weighing his options. President Trump considering military action in Iran as Tehran's brutal crackdown on protesters grows even deadlier.

BLITZER: And transgender rights going before the U.S. Supreme Court. The landmark cases that could have very far-reaching consequences for athletes.

Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer with Pamela Brown and you're in The Situation Room. Happening now, President Trump says a U.S. military strike on Iran is among the options he's considering this morning. The President has said he would consider military action if the regime began killing anti-government protesters.

BROWN: Those demonstrations are now in their third week. A U.S.-based human rights group says more than 500 protesters have been killed in the government crackdown. And Tehran resident -- a Tehran resident, tells CNN the violence is much worse than you can imagine. Authorities now say that there are counter protests in support of the regime. And these are images from Iran's state-run television.

CNN's Kristen Holmes is at the White House. Kristen, what are you hearing from the administration? What's the latest there?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Pamela, we've talked to a number of U.S. officials who essentially say that there are several agencies involved in trying to get the President ready to prepare him for any kind of action. We know there's going to be a series of briefings this week, including tomorrow, when President Trump will convene his top national security advisors.

So let's talk about what exactly they're considering. We know this. Potential intervention options are military strikes against the Iranian regime, a number of options targeting security services being used to tamp down the protests, cyber operations going after the Iranian military or regime targets, and new sanctions against regime figures or sectors of Iran's economy.

Again, this is what we're hearing from these U.S. officials. Now, there is some hesitation within the White House, within the administration of actual military action, concerned that this might backfire, that you might see the protesters then rallying around in support of the government or action or more action against those protesters. Now, as this seems to be ramping up, President Trump did say yesterday that Iran had reached out, hoping to negotiate. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yesterday, Iran called to negotiate. Yesterday, the leaders of Iran called. They want to negotiate. I think they're tired of being beat up by the United States. Iran wants to negotiate, yes. We may meet with them. I mean, a meeting is being set up. But we may have to act because of what's happening before the meeting. But a meeting is being set up. Iran called. They want to negotiate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: So not ruling out any action before a meeting. We were told that the Iran foreign minister reached out to Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. But one thing to really keep in mind here, this is now the second week in a row in which we're talking about these major foreign interventions involving the U.S. military, not talking about domestic policy, which is sure to upset or at least frustrate some Republicans who were hoping that the new year would mean turning towards the United States, the affordability crisis, and of course, the midterm elections.

BROWN: All right, Kristen Holmes, live for us from the White House. Thank you so much. Wolf?

[11:04:58]

BLITZER: And new this morning, Israel's military now saying it's keeping a very close eye on Iran. IDF officials say they'll be ready to respond with power if needed. Iranian leaders have said if the U.S. launches a military strike against Iran, Tehran could retaliate against Israel.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond is joining us from Jerusalem right now. Jeremy, what's the mood there? Are people on alert?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, there's no question that Israelis are on alert for potential escalation of violence with Iran, although there are no indications as of yet that that is slated to take place imminently. The Israeli military saying that it is on high alert that they are, "monitoring developments, prepared defensively, and equipped to respond if necessary."

A lot of that stems from Iran's threats yesterday regarding retaliation in the event of U.S. strikes on Iran, making clear that not only would U.S. military and commercial bases be targets for the -- for Iranian retaliation, but also Israel would also be a potential target. The Israeli prime minister held security consultations yesterday evening with Iran very high on that agenda.

But as I said, there is no indication right now that Israel is preparing a strike of its own against Iran, with many in Israel's security establishment seeing -- believing that it's better to stay out of this moment right now where Iranians are rising up in such significant numbers against the Iranian regime.

Instead, what we are seeing are diplomatic steps, such as Israel's foreign minister urging the European Union to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. But in moments like these, Wolf, this is where the risk of miscalculation is so potentially high, with both Israel and Iran monitoring each other's military movements for any signs of a potential strike, which could trigger the other side to try and strike first.

Meanwhile, inside of Iran, we know that at least 500 protesters have now been killed, according to the organization Human Rights Activists in Iran. Those are figures that CNN cannot independently confirm right now as that near total blackout of communications, not just internet, but phone calls and text messages, does seem to be continuing inside of Iran. But the reports are that more than 10,000 people have been arrested so far, and that the Iranian regime is seeking to carry out a pretty brutal crackdown of these protests, as we have seen them do in other moments, where they felt like the rule of Ayatollah Khamenei and his regime was potentially at risk. But it does seem, based off of the very few bits of information that we're able to get out of Iran, that those protesters are still taking to the streets, businesses and shops set to close early with another night of demonstrations in the offing. Wolf?

BLITZER: And, Jeremy, as you know, the Iranians are not only threatening to launch strikes against various targets in Israel, if the U.S. were to launch a strike against Iran, they're also threatening to launch tart -- to launch strikes against U.S. targets in the region, not very far away from Iran. We've got a map showing where there are thousands of U.S. troops, the 5th Fleet in Bahrain, in Qatar at the Al Udeid Air Base, the Camp As Sayliyah, the U.S. Military Central Command has troops all over the Persian Gulf area, potentially vulnerable troops. How worried should their families, all these troops who are there, U.S. troops, be worried right now about a potential Iranian strike against not only Israeli targets, but U.S. targets?

DIAMOND: Well, it is certainly a possibility. For now, Iran is only talking in terms of retaliation. So we will have to wait and see, you know, as President Trump is set to convene with national security officials tomorrow to discuss some of these options, what kind of option he chooses. And there's no question that in mind, in the President's mind and on the table in the Situation Room as they discuss all of this, will be the possibility of retaliation against U.S. forces in the region.

We know that previously, when there -- when the United States carried out strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities over the summer, the United States took significant steps to protect its forces in the region, and ultimately those Iranian strikes that we saw that did target U.S. bases in Qatar, that ultimately those did not cause any serious injuries or deaths of U.S. forces because of those steps that were able to be taken.

But nonetheless, Wolf, a very volatile moment in the geopolitical sense, and of course on the ground in Iran, a moment of fear, but also filled with hope that perhaps this could be the moment that protesters actually are able to reach further than they ever have before towards trying to topple the regime in Tehran.

BLITZER: Yes, I've been to the Camp As Sayliyah, U.S. ground forces there. It's the regional headquarters of the U.S. Military Central Command in Qatar there, and I'm sure they're taking steps right now with the possibility that Iran could launch some strikes there as well as in Bahrain and elsewhere. Jeremy Diamond in Jerusalem for us. Thank you very, very much.

[11:10:14]

BROWN: All right, still ahead here in the Situation Room, Wolf, the Trump administration tries to freeze billions of dollars for social services and child care in several Democratic states. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand says it is outrageous and immoral, and she joins us next in The Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:15:01]

BROWN: Happening now, the Trump administration's freeze of $10 billion in social assistance and child care funding in five states led by Democrats is paused as the case moves forward. California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York recently sued the administration and argued this freeze is both unconstitutional and political. The Trump administration argues the freeze is necessary because it claims the funding has been used fraudulently, although it did not provide specific evidence.

Joining us now is Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. What have you been hearing from your constituents about this and what it could look like for them in real life?

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): New Yorkers are terrified that they will not have availability of child care. As you know, without child care, parents can't go to work. They're not going to work. They can't feed their kids. They can't pay for heating. They can't pay for rent. And so people are anxious and afraid that this $10 billion cut is going to directly harm their children. President Trump has given us no evidence of the fraud that he claims. We have no evidence of fraud in New York State. And so I think this is a political act that is harming America's children, and it is immoral.

BROWN: The news of this freeze came just days after the White House paused federal funding of child care programs in Minnesota amid the deepening federal probe and allegations of fraud involving social services there. Is there any benefit to ensuring that the wrong people aren't getting access to the programs that vulnerable Americans rely on?

GILLIBRAND: Any allegation of fraud should be fully investigated, and we can't tolerate fraud in the system. But again, President Trump has leveled these charges without any evidence, and he's targeted five Democratic states, and the people that are hurt from this are children, our most vulnerable children, and working parents who need to go to work to put food on their table. So I think President Trump should be focused more on the American people and less on politics.

BROWN: All right, let's talk about some other affairs happening right now that we're focused on today. Another important story is what the President said last night about Iran. Let's watch and listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: There seem to be some people killed that aren't supposed to be killed. These are violent. If you call them leaders, I don't know if they're leaders or just they ruler through violence. But we're looking at it very seriously. The military is looking at it and we're looking at some very strong options. We'll make a determination. The leaders of Iran called, they want to negotiate. I think they're tired of being beat up by the United States. Iran wants to negotiate, yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BROWN: Where do you stand on possible U.S. military intervention in Iran?

GILLIBRAND: Well, first of all, I stand with the protesters in Iran who have been protesting for freedom, for democracy, for an economy that works for them. They're on the streets demanding justice and demanding a stronger economy so they can feed their families and demanding the nature of this regime which is such a repressive authoritarian regime ends. And so I support those protesters. The United States has to be very careful and thoughtful about how it responds in this moment.

We don't want to undermine the protesters. We don't want to create an appearance that the protesters are following the President of the United States. They are fighting for their own freedom and for a new type of country. So we should be very thoughtful about how or why or when we get involved. And President Trump should not be using our troops or having boots on the ground without the prior authorization of Congress.

BROWN: All right. And that brings me to Venezuela because, of course, there have been any members of Congress who say that the President should have consulted Congress on what has played out there in Venezuela. The Senate is expected to vote this week on a resolution limiting President Trump's war powers without congressional authorization. Multiple Republicans sided with your party to advance that. Why to you is it so important this passes?

GILLIBRAND: Well, first of all, when our men and women are deployed anywhere around the globe, the American people have to be part of that decision. That is why Congress can authorize the use of force and authorize going to war because our constituents will let us know if this is something they support or don't support. American people are tired of forever wars.

We were bogged down in both Afghanistan and Iraq for 20 years, and there was a very high cost of American lives and treasure in those military actions. So before we start another war in Venezuela over what issue we don't know, obviously, this is not regime change because President Trump has kept in the same leadership outside of Maduro. And Maduro, make no mistake, was a very bad man who was extremely repressive and horrible to the people he purported to represent and subverted their own democracy.

[11:19:56]

It clearly is not about drugs because he's not done anything, and it seems to be about oil. And our military men and women should not be sacrificed to make oil companies richer in America, and for the President to steal oil and put it in his own bank account. That's what he's talking about, and he should be focused on the American people. He was elected to focus on food costs, on housing costs, on getting our economy working again for working American,s and he is literally focused on Venezuelan oil instead.

BROWN: When you say stealing oil and putting it into his own bank account, what do you mean specifically?

GILLIBRAND: Well, I think he said that he wants to set up an account offshore. Again, that violates multiple laws, it violates the Receipts Act, it violates the legislation that requires Congress to authorize spending. And so, again, President Trump is chaotic and unclear. He doesn't tell the American people why we're there. He makes assertions and allegations without any type of founding or information or facts, and that's why Congress needs to be involved.

So, for this resolution that we just passed on Thursday of last week to take it out of committee, it is now going to come to the floor. Our goal is to keep the five Republicans that stood with us to say President Trump does not have the authorities to send troops to Venezuela to start a war without the authorization of Congress.

BROWN: And before you go, Senator, I want to talk about what's been going on in Minnesota because there are some progressive Democrats who are urging the party to draw a red line in government funding negotiations over ICE provisions after that fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis by an ICE agent. What is your position on that?

GILLIBRAND: So, first of all, my heart goes out to Renee's family. I can't imagine the suffering that her wife is going through and her child. I think there needs to be a thorough investigation by Minnesota law enforcement to get justice for this family. I think Congress needs to ensure that we have oversight and accountability over the Homeland Security Department and ICE, and the actions that are taken. And so we need a lot more transparency and accountability in Congress. And we will look at these issues of funding as perhaps a way to stop President Trump from taking actions that are harming American people.

BROWN: So does that mean that you support ICE provisions being a sticking point in funding negotiations?

GILLIBRAND: It's something I will certainly look at.

BROWN: All right, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, thank you so much.

GILLIBRAND: Yes.

BROWN: Good to see you.

BLITZER: And up next a pivotal case now headed before the U.S. Supreme Court that potentially could change the rules for transgender athletes nationwide. We'll update you when we come back. You're in The Situation Room.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:27:30]

BLITZER: Happening now, the U.S. Supreme Court is taking up transgender rights once again. Justices are joining a heated national debate over whether states can keep trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams without violating federal anti- bias laws or the U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantee. The court will hear two cases on this issue.

BROWN: CNN chief Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic is here. So tell us about these two cases. One involves a college student and another involves a 15-year-old high school student.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: That's right. This pair of cases tomorrow are among the most closely watched for this entire session. The first one involving the girl who started as -- the trans girl who started as a middle schooler, is now in high school. Becky Pepper Jackson now does shot put, but she started, you know, on the track team, wanted to be able to play, and because of a West Virginia law, was initially barred from that.

The other involves a woman by the name of -- trans woman by the name of Lindsay Hecox, playing for Boise State, running track and field for Boise State. Both of them won at preliminary stages in lower courts, but now they're coming before a Supreme Court that has been increasingly skeptical of trans rights.

BLITZER: And as you point out, Idaho and West Virginia enacted these laws banning transgender women and girls from women's sports teams four or five years ago. The cases have been in the courts ever since.

BISKUPIC: That's right. Idaho's ban was actually the first in spring of 2020, and now we have about 27 states have adopted these bans. So you can imagine the national attention on these two trans women as they try to be able to compete on these teams while 27 states.

BROWN: Wow, 27 states. And in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law protected transgender workers from discrimination. I believe, is it Justice Gorsuch who spearheaded that.

BISKUPIC: That's right.

BROWN: And many people thought that ruling would extend beyond the workplace, right. But a lot has changed.

BISKUPIC: Everyone thought that that was going to usher in a whole new era of trans rights. But what has happened since has been the opposite at the Supreme Court in the states. While we've had these 27 states passing these bans against trans women in sports, there have been scores of other kinds of anti-trans legislation.

And at the U.S. Supreme Court last year, the justices pulled back on the 2020 ruling when they ruled by a 6-3 vote. We now have the six justice conservative super majority that states could in those cases pass bans on any kind of transgender medical care for youths who wanted to transition.

[11:30:07]