Greenlanders Reject Trump With 85% Majority Against Joining US
(Bloomberg) -- Greenland's population is overwhelmingly against leaving the Danish realm in favor of the US, dealing a blow to President Donald Trump's insistence the island is keen to join.
Texas HOA Charged With Discrimination for Banning Section 8 Renters
Budapest Mayor Aims to Block Orban's Plans to Build 'Mini Dubai'
Trump's Federal Funding Pause Threatens State Financials
Vienna Embraces Heat Pumps to Ditch Russian Gas
Billionaire Developer Caruso Slams LA Leadership Over Wildfires
A Verian poll, commissioned by Danish newspaper Berlingske and Greenland's Sermitsiaq publication, showed 85% of the population on the self-ruling Arctic territory don't want to be part of the US. About 6% said they'd prefer the country over Denmark and 9% were undecided, according to the survey published Tuesday.
Trump insists he wants to take over the world's largest island for security reasons and has refused to rule out using force. He has also argued Greenland's population would prefer to be part of the US. His interest in the territory stems from his first term in office.
'The people of Greenland are not happy with Denmark,' Trump said Jan. 21. 'You know, I think they're happy with us.'
That view is not shared by Greenland's leaders, many of whom are instead pushing for independence. While the island is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, its 57,000 inhabitants have extensive home rule.
'We don't want to be Danish, we don't want to be American, we of course want to be Greenlandic,' the territory's prime minister, Mute B. Egede, said recently.
Meanwhile, Denmark is doing its best to navigate the spat with Trump. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen earlier on Tuesday worked to drum up support from European allies with a whirlwind tour of Berlin, Paris and Berlin, seeking to project unity while avoiding antagonizing the US president.
'Trump shouldn't have Greenland,' Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Denmark's foreign minister, told local media in Copenhagen on Tuesday. 'Greenland is Greenland. The Greenlandic people are a people also in the sense of international law,' and they ultimately determine their situation.
The poll had 497 interviews conducted on the internet Jan. 22-26, including a representative sample of Greenlandic citizens aged 18 or older. Statistical uncertainty on the responses is about 3.1 percentage points.
The poll also showed 45% of Greenlanders view Trump's interest in Greenland as a threat, Berlingske said. Only about 8% would take a US passport if they had to make an instant choice between Danish and US citizenship, according to the newspaper.
--With assistance from Sanne Wass.
What Trump's Tech Billionaires Are Buying
Forget Factories, Small US Towns Want Buc-ee's Gas Stations
The CDC Won't Give the Public a Full Picture of Fertility Treatment Risks
Elon Musk's Inaugural Highs (and Lows)
How Kendrick Lamar Turned Beef With Drake Into Music Superstardom
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
27 minutes ago
- CNN
Putin promised to make Ukraine pay for its airbase attacks. What does he have left?
The operation, codenamed 'Spiderweb,' was 18 months in the making. Dozens of hidden drones emerged from trucks parked in Russia, racing to airfields thousands of miles from Ukraine and destroying at least 12 bombers. Although the operation was a huge boost for Ukrainian morale, many in the country braced for Moscow's retaliation. Their fears sharpened when Russian President Vladimir Putin told his US counterpart Donald Trump on Wednesday that the Kremlin would 'have to respond' to the attack. Russia's initial retaliation began Thursday night, in the form of a massive drone and missile strike on Kyiv and across the country. Russia's Ministry of Defense described the strikes as a 'response' to Kyiv's 'terrorist acts.' The attack was punishing, but not qualitatively different to what Ukraine has grown used to over three years of war. Olha, a 67-year-old resident of Kyiv who asked to be identified only by her first name, told CNN that if Thursday night's strikes were Russia's retaliation, then Ukraine faces 'many such retaliations – once a month, even more.' Russia's response so far to Ukraine's extraordinary operation has raised questions about Putin's ability to escalate the war and exact the retribution that many of his supporters have clamored for. And it has left Ukrainians wondering if it has already felt the brunt of Russia's response, or if the worst is yet to come. In determining Russia's retaliation, analysts say, Putin has faced several constraints. One is political: Mounting a large-scale, innovative response to the 'Spiderweb' operation would be akin to admitting that Ukraine had inflicted a serious blow against Russia – an impression the Kremlin has been at pains to avoid, said Kateryna Stepanenko, a Russia analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, a think tank in Washington DC. In a meeting with government ministers on Wednesday, Putin received a lengthy briefing on recent bridge collapses in Kursk and Bryansk, blamed by Russia on Ukraine. Yet, aside from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's reference to recent 'criminal provocations' by Kyiv, there was no mention of the 'Spiderweb' operation. In Russian state media's coverage of Putin's call Wednesday with Trump, little was made of the Russian president's pledge to 'respond' to Ukraine's attack. Instead, the reports focused on the outcome of recent peace talks in Istanbul. Stepanenko said this is part of a deliberate strategy. 'Putin is trying to make this go away and hide this failure yet again,' she told CNN. She said a high-profile response 'would contradict the Kremlin's strategic objective of making it all go away and sweeping this under the rug.' Putin has also faced material constraints. Whereas Russia's near-daily strikes on Ukraine used to involve just dozens of drones, they now routinely use more than 400. A day before Ukraine's 'Spiderweb' operation, on May 31, Russia launched 472 drones at Ukraine – a record in the three-year war, which was surpassed again during Sunday night's attacks, which used 479 drones. 'Russia's response is constrained by the amount of force they're constantly using,' said William Alberque, a former NATO arms control official now at the Stimson Center think tank. 'How would you know if Russia was actually retaliating? What would be more brutal than them destroying apartment flats or attacking shopping malls? What would escalation look like?' Russia's pro-war community of Telegram bloggers was not short of ideas. Some prominent channels said that Kyiv's strikes on Moscow's nuclear-capable bombers warranted a nuclear strike on Ukraine. Others called for a strike using the Oreshnik ballistic missile, which was unveiled by Putin last year, and has so far been used only once against Ukraine. Although Putin often praises his new missile, it has limited uses, said Mark Galeotti, a leading Russia analyst. 'The Oreshnik is really geared for a particular kind of target. It's not that accurate… and it's not a bunker-buster,' he told CNN, meaning the missile would struggle to take out key manufacturing and decision-making hubs that Ukraine has moved deep underground. 'If you're going to deploy it… you want it to have a target that's worthy of the name.' One target could be Ukraine's security services, the SBU, which masterminded the 'Spiderweb' operation, he said. 'But that's not something you can do quickly,' he cautioned. 'In some ways, Putin has already swept away most of the escalation rungs at his disposal, which means that he doesn't have the option for clear punishment.' In a sign that Moscow's 'retaliation' may be ongoing, Russia's Ministry of Defense said it had struck a Ukrainian airfield in the western Rivne region on Sunday night – a week after Ukraine's attacks on Russian airfields. The ministry said the attack was 'one of the retaliatory strikes' for Kyiv's 'terrorist attacks' against Russia's airfields, suggesting there may be more to come. Yuriy Ihnat, a spokesperson for Ukraine's air force, said the attack on the airfield was 'one of the biggest ever carried out by Russia.' Although air defenses 'performed very well,' he said it was 'impossible to shoot down everything.' Although Putin may be constrained in his ability to respond to Ukraine's spectacular operation with one of Russia's own, this may not matter on the battlefield, said Galeotti. 'From a political perspective… it's the Ukrainians who demonstrate that they are the nimble, imaginative, effective ones, and the Russians are just thuggish brutes who continue to grind along,' he said. 'But from the military perspective, in some ways, that's fine.' While Ukraine may have the initiative in terms of headlines and spectacle, Russia still has the initiative on the battlefield. Russian troops have opened a new front in Ukraine's northern Sumy region and are now just 12 miles from the main city. And on Sunday, Moscow claimed that its forces had advanced into the central Ukrainian region of Dnipropetrovsk for the first time, after months of clashes. The question is whether 'Putin is willing to accept whatever damage happens on the home front, precisely for his slow attrition grind forward,' said Galeotti. Alberque, of the Stimson Center, said a lot rests on whether Ukraine has been weaving more 'Spiderwebs,' or whether its drone attack was a one-off. 'The fact that this operation was a year- and-a-half in the planning – how many other operations are a year-in right now?' he asked. Two days after the drone attack, Ukraine's SBU unveiled another operation – its third attempt to blow up the bridge connecting Russia and the occupied Crimean Peninsula. The bridge over the Kerch Strait was not significantly damaged, but the attack reinforced the SBU's commitment to impressing upon Moscow that there are costs to continuing its war. If 'humiliating' operations like those continue, Putin will come under greater pressure to deliver a response that is different in kind, not just degree, Alberque said. 'Putin is such a creature of strongman politics,' he added. '(The Kremlin) is going to look for other ways to strike back, to show the Russian people that Putin is a great wartime president who is inflicting horrible damage on his enemy, rather than a victim of these spectacular Ukrainian attacks.' CNN's Kosta Gak and Victoria Butenko contributed reporting.
Associated Press
27 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Canada plans to hit NATO spending target early and reduce US defense reliance, Carney says
TORONTO (AP) — Canada will meet NATO's military spending guideline by early next year and diversify defense spending away from the United States, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Monday. Carney said Canada will achieve NATO's spending target of 2% of gross domestic product five years earlier than it had previously planned. 'Our military infrastructure and equipment have aged, hindering our military preparedness,' Carney said. 'Only one of our four submarines is seaworthy. Less than half of our maritime fleet and land vehicles are operational. More broadly we are too reliant on the United States.' According to NATO figures, Canada was estimated to be spending 1.33% of GDP on its military budget in 2023, below the 2% target that NATO countries have set for themselves. Canada previously said it was on track to meet NATO's spending target by the end of the decade. 'Our goal is to protect Canadians, not to satisfy NATO accountants,' Carney said. The announcement of increased spending came as Canada is about to host a summit of the Group of Seven leading industrialized nations in Alberta on June 15-17, and before the NATO summit in Europe. It also comes as NATO allies are poised to increase the commitment well beyond the 2% target. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said last week that most U.S. allies at NATO endorse U.S. President Donald Trump's demand that they invest 5% of gross domestic product on their defense needs and are ready to ramp up security spending even more. Carney has said that he intends to diversify Canada's procurement and enhance the country's relationship with the EU. 'We should no longer send three quarters of our defense capital spending to America,' Carney said in a speech at the University of Toronto. 'We will invest in new submarines, aircraft, ships, armed vehicles and artillery, as well as new radar, drones and sensors to monitor the seafloor and the Arctic.' Canada has been in discussions with the European Union to join an EU drive to break its security dependency on the United States , with a focus on buying more defense equipment, including fighter jets, in Europe. Carney's government is reviewing the purchase of U.S. F-35 fighter jets to see if there are other options. Carney said that the U.S. 'is beginning to monetize its hegemony: charging for access to its markets and reducing its (relative) contributions to our collective security.' 'Middle powers compete for interests and attention, knowing that if they are not at the table, they will be on the menu,' Carney said. Trump's calls to make Canada the 51st U.S. state have infuriated Canadians, and Carney won the job of prime minister after promising to confront the increased aggression shown by Trump. Carney said that the long-held view that Canada's geographic location will protect Canadians is becoming increasingly archaic. European allies and Canada have already been investing heavily in their armed forces, as well as on weapons and ammunition, since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022.
Forbes
30 minutes ago
- Forbes
Travel Ban Reinstated By Trump With Mostly Muslim Countries
President Donald J. Trump, citing national security concerns, has reinstated and expanded the controversial nationality-based travel ban first introduced during his initial term. The new ban, formalized in a Presidential Proclamation that came into effect on Monday, June 9, 2025, suspends the entry of nationals from 19 countries, primarily targeting Muslim-majority and African nations. The proclamation fully suspends immigrant and nonimmigrant visa issuance to nationals of 12 countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It imposes partial restrictions on B-1/B-2 tourist visas and F, M, and J student and exchange visas for nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Exceptions apply to green card holders, dual nationals, certain special immigrant visa holders, athletes in international competitions, and immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. The administration relies on a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the president to suspend the entry of any class of noncitizens deemed 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' That authority was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which ruled 5-4 that President Trump's third version of the travel ban was constitutional, emphasizing executive deference on immigration and national security. But critics argue that this expanded ban perpetuates discriminatory intent, noting the disproportionate impact on Muslim and African nations and the invocation of Trump's 2024 campaign pledge to 'restore the travel ban and keep radical Islamic terrorists out.' Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School, predicts court challenges but warns that they may fail under the current precedent. 'Even if this expansion is legal, it is not good policy,' he said. 'Families will be separated, and we are not necessarily safer.' The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called the order 'ideologically motivated,' 'unnecessary,' and 'overbroad,' criticizing its chilling effect on lawful travel, academic exchange, and humanitarian reunification. Legal scholars have started to question the constitutionality of this policy. More specifically, they contend that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits governments from denying equal legal protection, while the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids favouring or disfavoring any religion. Critics argue that Trump's policy, which targets specific nations commonly associated with certain religions, risks violating both clauses by enabling discrimination based on nationality and faith. Additionally, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished national origin quotas to prevent such bias. By reinstating restrictions linked to religious or national identity, opponents claim the policy mirrors discriminatory practices that the law aimed to eliminate. Jeremy Robbins, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, noted: 'Blanket nationality bans have never demonstrated any meaningful national security value. This ban hurts our economy and punishes immigrants who qualify to come legally.' According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) 'In total, just under 162,000 immigrant visas and temporary work, study, and travel visas were issued in fiscal year 2023 to nationals of the affected countries in the now banned visa categories, according to the Migration Policy Institute.' Nationals from the banned countries represent more than 475 million people globally. Beyond family separations, the ban may deter students, scientists, and health professionals at a time when the U.S. is experiencing labor shortages in STEM and healthcare. Universities like Harvard have expressed alarm at the targeting of international students, as the administration simultaneously suspended new visas for foreign scholars at select institutions, further stoking fears of ideological purges in academia. The 2025 travel ban echoes policies from Trump's first term and extends their scope. The first 'Muslim ban' of 2017 was repeatedly struck down until a more narrowly tailored version survived judicial review. Today's ban, while more procedurally refined, raises the same fundamental concern: are Americans safer by denying entry based on birthplace? Lyndon B. Johnson's signing of the 1965 INA famously stated that 'the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system' would never return. Critics now argue that President Trump has revived that very shadow, using presidential proclamations instead of legislative quotas. 'This is not national security—it's national scapegoating,' said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. 'It undermines constitutional values and stigmatizes entire populations for political gain.' The legality of the 2025 travel ban reinstated as it is may pass muster under Trump v. Hawaii, but its morality, logic, and long-term consequences remain in question. As lawsuits mount and civil rights groups prepare their defences, the nation must decide: do we protect ourselves by shutting doors or by standing firm in our values of openness, equality, and due process?
