Congress must speak out as Trump shreds US interests on Greenland

The directive follows Trump’s refusal last weekend to rule out using military force to secure U.S. control over Greenland.

This is bad stuff. After all, Denmark is not China, Russia, or Iran. Instead, it is a close and historic U.S. ally that saw 43 of its young men fight and die alongside Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan (applied to the U.S. population, this casualty rate would amount to 2,365 deaths). Unlike other European North Atlantic Trade Organization allies such as Italy, which somehow gained Trump’s deference, Denmark has significantly increased defense spending. In 2022, Denmark spent just 1.37% of GDP on defense. In 2025, however, it will spend more than 3% of GDP on defense — a higher proportion than all but a few NATO allies, including the United Kingdom.

All of this explains why Denmark is fearful and angry.

In response to the report, Denmark summoned the U.S. Ambassador for a diplomatic rejoinder. Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen says he doesn’t “know if it’s true because it’s in a newspaper. But it doesn’t seem to be strongly rejected by those who speak out. That worries me.” Yet, the report did gain effective confirmation via Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s rebuke to the Wall Street Journal for reporting on what she said was classified information.

To be clear, Trump is absolutely correct in identifying Greenland’s strategic importance. New trade routes will open up proximate to Greenland as the polar ice caps melt. New energy and rare mineral development projects will also become possible. This matters regarding the economic and security potential of the United States, but also because Russia and China want to stake their own claims there. Russia is particularly focused on securing dominance in the Arctic, having invested significant sums of money in military and civilian capabilities to penetrate ice packs and take territory. Trump is also correct that Denmark neglected Greenland-related defensive measures until recently.

Still, the best and only way to respond to this new reality is to work with Denmark on it. Denmark has increased its commitment to boost Greenland’s defense alongside the U.S., and is open to much bolstered U.S. economic engagements on the island. But Trump’s callous dangling of the threat of military force against an ally is both absurd and immoral.

It is absurd because a large number of U.S. military officers would likely refuse an order to attack an ally unprovoked. Indeed, the Supreme Court would likely rule such an order as an unlawful act of executive overreach absent justifying cause, and in contradiction with lawful U.S. treaty obligations enshrined in law.

The Trump administration’s employment of the intelligence community is also wrong here. Yes, efforts to identify and solicit support from individuals sympathetic to U.S. interests constitute a familiar U.S. intelligence strategy around the world, including in allied countries. However, when applied within the territories of allied nations, these efforts are almost always pursuant to general pro-American attitudes or designed to influence a specific matter, such as legislation or foreign government decisions.

These efforts are manifestly not pursued, as with Greenland, to solicit action that is in fundamental conflict with an ally’s sovereignty. To do otherwise is to betray an ally by disregarding the most inviolable part of any alliance: basic respect for national sovereignty. Thus, while Trump’s orders to the intelligence community might be lawful, it is those directing these orders that are behaving like “deep state” conspiracists against the national interest, not, as Gabbard claims, those being tasked to follow these orders.

The national interest rests on alliances that serve American interests. There is no credible interest in alienating a close ally, thus provoking the mistrust of all other allies. Who in the Trump administration seriously thinks this is a good way to secure boosted Danish or allied support on issues such as technology and tariff restrictions toward China? Who thinks it is a good way to earn allied popular and political support the next time a president wants allies to send troops into harm’s way alongside Americans?

IRAN TERRORIST THREAT UNDERLINED BY SIGNIFICANT UK ARRESTS

Sen. Risch and Rep. Mast must speak up publicly and more directly.

What the Trump administration is doing in Greenland and against Denmark is morally wrong and utterly antithetical to U.S. strategic interests.