Denmark summons US ambassador over report of Greenland spying
Denmark 's Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen has voiced serious concerns over a report in the Wall Street Journal alleging that the US has ordered its intelligence agencies to intensify spying activities in Greenland.
Mr Rasmussen stated he would summon the acting US ambassador to Denmark for clarification.
Speaking to reporters at an informal meeting of EU foreign ministers in Warsaw, Mr Rasmussen expressed his unease, saying: "I have read the article in the Wall Street Journal and it worries me greatly because we do not spy on friends."
He further emphasised his intention to address the issue directly, adding, "We are going to call in the US acting ambassador for a discussion at the foreign ministry to see if we can confirm this information, which is somewhat disturbing."
The Wall Street Journal report, published on Tuesday and citing two anonymous sources, claims that the US is escalating its intelligence gathering on Greenland, linking this activity to President Donald Trump 's previously stated interest in acquiring the island.
The intelligence gathering reportedly will focus in part on identifying individuals in Greenland and Denmark who support the Trump administration's interest in taking over the island.
A US State Department spokesperson said the department does not comment on intelligence matters.
The spokesperson referred to an earlier comment from National Security Council spokesperson James Hewitt, who said Mr Trump has been very clear that the US is concerned about the security of Greenland and the Arctic.
Mr Trump has repeatedly said he wants to take over Greenland, a semi-autonomous Danish territory in the Arctic.
He has refused to rule out annexation by force, creating a diplomatic crisis between the US, Denmark and Greenland.
The leaders of Denmark and Greenland have said only that Greenlanders can decide the territory's future.
However, they have found themselves treading a delicate line between firmly dismissing US ambitions over Greenland and trying to maintain good ties with their traditional ally.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Attorneys in NCAA antitrust case to share $475M in fees, with potential to reach $725M
The attorneys who shepherded the blockbuster antitrust lawsuit to fruition for hundreds of thousands of college athletes will share in just over $475 million in fees, and the figure could rise to more than $725 million over the next 10 years. The request for plaintiff legal fees in the House vs. NCAA case, outlined in a December court filing and approved Friday night, struck experts in class-action litigation as reasonable. Co-lead counsels Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler asked for $475.2 million, or 18.3% of the cash common funds of $2.596 billion. They also asked for an additional $250 million, for a total of $725.2 million, based on a widely accepted estimate of an additional $20 billion in direct benefits to athletes over the 10-year settlement term. That would be 3.2% of what would then be a $22.596 billion settlement. 'Class Counsel have represented classes of student-athletes in multiple litigations challenging NCAA restraints on student-athlete compensation, and they have achieved extraordinary results. Class Counsel's representation of the settlement class members here is no exception,' U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken wrote. University of Buffalo law professor Christine Bartholomew, who researched about 1,300 antitrust class-action settlements from 2005-22 for a book she authored, told The Associated Press the request for attorneys' fees could have been considered a bit low given the difficulty of the case, which dates back five years. She said it is not uncommon for plaintiffs' attorneys to be granted as much as 30% of the common funds. Attorneys' fees generally are calculated by multiplying an hourly rate by the number of hours spent working on a case. In class-action lawsuits, though, plaintiffs' attorneys work on a contingency basis, meaning they get paid at the end of the case only if the class wins a financial settlement. 'Initially, you look at it and think this is a big number,' Bartholomew said. 'When you look at how contingency litigation works generally, and then you think about how this fits into the class-action landscape, this is not a particularly unusual request.' The original lawsuit was filed in June 2020 and it took until November 2023 for Wilken to grant class certification, meaning she thought the case had enough merit to proceed. Elon University law professor Catherine Dunham said gaining class certification is challenging in any case, but especially a complicated one like this. 'If a law firm takes on a case like this where you have thousands of plaintiffs and how many depositions and documents, what that means is the law firm can't do other work while they're working on the case and they are taking on the risk they won't get paid,' Dunham said. 'If the case doesn't certify as a class, they won't get paid.' In the request for fees, the firm of Hagens Berman said it had dedicated 33,952 staff hours to the case through mid-December 2024. Berman, whose rate is $1,350 per hour, tallied 1,116.5 hours. Kessler, of Winston & Strawn, said he worked 1,624 hours on the case at a rate of $1,980 per hour. The case was exhaustive. Hundreds of thousands of documents totaling millions of pages were produced by the defendants — the NCAA, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC — as part of the discovery process. Berman and Kessler wrote the 'plaintiffs had to litigate against six well-resourced defendants and their high-powered law firms who fought every battle tooth and nail. To fend off these efforts, counsel conducted extensive written discovery and depositions, and submitted voluminous expert submissions and lengthy briefing. In addition, class counsel also had to bear the risk of perpetual legislative efforts to kill these cases.' Antitrust class-action cases are handled by the federal court system and have been harder to win since 2005, when the U.S. Class Action Fairness Act was passed, according to Bartholomew. 'Defendants bring motion after motion and there's more of a pro-defendant viewpoint in federal court than there had been in state court,' she said. 'As a result, you would not be surprised that courts, when cases do get through to fruition, are pretty supportive of applications for attorneys' fees because there's great risk that comes from bringing these cases fiscally for the firms who, if the case gets tossed early, never gets compensated for the work they've done.' ___
Reuters
14 minutes ago
- Reuters
ECB should watch out for price hikes from U.S. tariffs, Schnabel says
DUBROVNIK, Croatia, June 7 (Reuters) - The European Central Bank has made "great progress" in taming inflation but it should watch out for fresh price hikes caused by U.S. tariffs, ECB policymaker Isabel Schnabel said on Saturday. The ECB cut interest rates on Thursday for the eighth time in the past year and signalled at least a policy pause next month as it waits for the growth and inflation outlook to become clearer. Schnabel, the most prominent voice in the hawkish ECB camp that favours higher interest rates, celebrated inflation returning to the bank's 2% target. "I think we've made great progress, and as you know, our most recent inflation number was even below 2%," Schnabel told a conference in Dubrovnik. "Of course, that was to a very large extent driven by energy, but we do see that also the more persistent components are coming down and that is that is very, very good news." Croatian central bank governor and fellow hawk Boris Vujcic said the ECB was "nearly done" cutting rates provided that inflation settles at 2% as expected. But with the ECB now projecting inflation at 1.6% next year, other ECB policymakers, and especially Portugal's central bank governor Mario Centeno, are even worrying it may slow down too much. Schnabel said the ECB should rather switch its focus on possible, new "shocks", such as a global trade war waged by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration against its trading partners. She cited academic research showing that a 1% increase in producer prices around the world would result in a 0.2% increase, on average, in domestic producer prices in major economies. "Even in the absence of retaliation, the tariffs would be expected to be inflationary and even more so if there is retaliation," she said. As an example, Schnabel cited China's decision to restrict its exports of rare earths, which is forcing automakers and their suppliers to shut down production of certain models. China said on Saturday it was willing to accelerate the examination and approval of rare earth exports to European Union firms. Schnabel also cited ECB research showing that the effect of so-called trade diversion -Chinese producers shut out of the United States flooding European markets with their goods - was small. "If the effects were not small, you can be sure that there would be counteracting measures coming from the European Commission," Schnabel said. She argued all this suggested trade tensions would affect all economies, limiting the scope for the ECB's and U.S. Federal Reserve's monetary policies to diverge. "I expect this trade conflict to play out as a global shock that's working through both lower demand and supply," she said at the conference hosted by the Croatian central bank. "We can discuss which of the two effects on inflation is larger because that determines the net effect. But in any case, I would not expect a sustained decoupling (between the ECB and the Fed)," she said. Speaking on the same panel, Bank of England policymaker Megan Greene stuck a different tone, saying trade fragmentation should help bring down inflation in Britain, giving the BoE an "opportunity for monetary policy divergence going forward".
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
JD Vance breaks his silence on Trump and Musk feud after seeing Elon's Epstein tweet during Theo Von interview
Vice President JD Vance's first reaction to Elon Musk 's Trump-Epstein tweet was caught Thursday on Theo Von's podcast. On the 'This Past Weekend w/ Theo Von,' episode released Saturday, Von showed Vance one of the most viral tweets from the pair's feud, in which the Tesla CEO claimed, '@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.' 'Ok, wow. I haven't even seen this one,' Vance said, explaining he was on a plane amid Musk and Trump 's online exchanges. 'First of all, absolutely not. Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein,' Vance said. 'Whatever the Democrats and the media says about him, that's totally BS.' The social media exchange came just a week after Musk left his DOGE role in the Trump Administration. Vance chalked Musk's online outbursts up to him 'being new to politics' and frustrations that his 'businesses are being attacked non-stop' since he joined the White House. Musk's departure followed a Wall Street Journal report citing insiders who claimed that even Trump was getting frustrated with Musk and was doubtful whether his goals within DOGE could be reached. Musk has since spoken out about his disapproval of the Trump-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which includes various policy changes, including tax cuts, welfare reform, and infrastructure investments. 'Elon is entitled to his opinion,' Vance told Von on the podcast. 'I'm not saying he has to agree with the bill or agree with everything that I'm saying. I just think it's a huge mistake for the world's wealthiest man — I think one of the most transformational entrepreneurs ever — to be at war with the world's most powerful man, who I think is doing more to save the country than anybody in my lifetime.' Vance added, 'I just think you've got to have some respect for him and say, 'yeah, we don't have to agree on every issue.' But is this war actually in the interest of the country? I don't think so.' Despite Musk going 'so nuclear' online, Vance is hopeful that he can 'come back into the fold' within politics. 'I know the president was getting a little frustrated, feeling like some of the criticisms were unfair coming from Elon,' Vance said. 'But I think it has been very restrained, because the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk. And I actually think that if Elon chilled out a little bit everything would be fine.'
