US Vice President Vance to visit Greenland, the island Trump wants to control
NUUK, Greenland, March 28 (Reuters) - U.S. Vice President JD Vance will visit Greenland on Friday at a time when President Donald Trump is renewing his insistence that Washington should take control of the semi-autonomous Danish territory.
In a scaled-back version of a trip plan that had angered authorities in both Greenland and Denmark, Vance was expected to fly to the U.S. military base at Pituffik in the north of the Arctic island.
Under the terms of a 1951 agreement, the U.S. is entitled to visit its base whenever it wants, as long as it notifies Greenland and Copenhagen.
The initial plan had been for Vance's wife, Usha, to visit a popular dog-sled race together with national security adviser Mike Waltz, even though they were not invited by authorities in either Greenland or Denmark.
Waltz, who has faced pressure over Trump administration officials' discussion of sensitive Houthi attack plans on the Signal messaging app, will still be on the Greenland trip, according to a White House source.
Greenland's acting Prime Minister Mute Egede called the visit a provocation as the country has not yet formed a new government after a March 11 election.
Public broadcaster KNR reported on Thursday, without identifying its sources, that a pro-business party that emerged as the winner of the election will present a broad coalition on Friday.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called the U.S. visit " unacceptable" although Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen welcomed news of the revised visit as a positive, de-escalating step.
By changing the trip, the Trump administration is seeking to refocus the discussion on the topics it is interested in: the U.S. presence on Greenland, military capabilities available, and the wider security of the Arctic, said Catherine Sendak, head of the Transatlantic Defense and Security programme at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a Washington-based think tank.
"A change of course was needed," Sendak told Reuters. "It is positive, given the very public back and forth between the Danish and Greenland governments and the Trump administration about the intent of the initial visit."
Still, Trump reiterated his desire to take over Greenland, saying the U.S. needs the strategically located island for national and international security.
"So, I think we'll go as far as we have to go. We need Greenland and the world needs us to have Greenland, including Denmark," he said on Wednesday.
Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen condemned what he called Trump's escalated rhetoric.
WHO BENEFITS FROM DISPUTE?
The question now is how far Trump is willing to push his idea of taking over the island, said Andreas Oesthagen, a senior researcher on Arctic politics and security at the Oslo-based Fridtjof Nansen Institute.
"It is still unlikely that the United States will use military means to try to get full control over Greenland," he told Reuters.
That would break with many fundamental principles and rules that the U.S. has benefited from and has been a pillar for, he said.
"But it is unfortunately likely that President Trump and Vice President Vance will continue to use other means of pressure, such as ambiguous statements, semi-official visits to Greenland, and economic instruments," he added.
"And the real winner in this unnecessary drama is Russia, who gets exactly what they want: discord in the transatlantic relationship."
Tom Dans, a former member of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission during Trump's first presidency, said Vance's visit would help the Trump administration understand where it can collaborate further with Greenland.
"They're trying to put the picture together for the future and understand where the best intersections are going to be for U.S. policy and investments to help Greenland," Dans, a businessman, told Reuters.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
'There is no Plan B': Republicans make a daring bet on the debt limit
WASHINGTON — As Republicans barrel toward a critical deadline this summer to lift the debt ceiling, they say there's no 'Plan B' to avert an economically disastrous default if they fail to pass the massive bill for President Donald Trump's agenda in time. Congressional Republicans are eyeing increasing the debt limit by $4 trillion to $5 trillion so the government can keep borrowing to meet the country's obligations. It's part of their broader domestic policy package, which the Senate needs to pass before it can go back through the House and ultimately to Trump's desk for his signature. And the GOP only has three votes to spare in both chambers. 'There is no Plan B,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Tuesday when asked by NBC News if he has a backup plan for the debt limit. 'It's Plan A. We have to get it done. Failure is not an option.' It's a risky gamble by GOP leaders, who are putting all their chips on passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act by the debt ceiling deadline. 'We're going to get reconciliation done,' Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said when asked what the party's fallback plan is on the debt ceiling. (Reconciliation refers to the budget process Republicans are using to pass their bill, which allows them to bypass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate and cut Democrats out of the process.) The Treasury Department has urged Congress to raise the debt ceiling "by mid-July" to safely avoid default. The Congressional Budget Office projected this week that the deadline may be later, 'between mid-August and the end of September,' although that won't be official unless the Treasury Department agrees. If Republicans fail to pass their sprawling bill in time, they would need to negotiate with Democrats to pass a standalone debt limit extension through the 60-vote process in the Se nate. But there have been no negotiations between party leaders on that front, according to Republican and Democratic aides with knowledge of the dynamics. One GOP aide said the party is 'full steam ahead on Plan A' and suggested there may still be time to consider a fallback if they absolutely need to. Some Republicans say it's a deliberate tactic to drive up the urgency of passing their filibuster-proof bill. 'We should be set an expectation that we're getting this done in July, and it includes the debt ceiling,' said Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C. 'I think the minute you start talking about a backup plan, you're going to have a backup plan.' If Republican leaders eventually decide they want to cut a bipartisan deal on the debt ceiling, it's unclear what — if anything — Democrats would demand. Some, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, and Rep. Brendan Boyle, of Pennsylvania., have insisted on abolishing the debt limit entirely in order to prevent the full faith and credit of the United States from being used as leverage in policy negotiations. That's an idea Trump recently endorsed. 'I am very pleased to announce that, after all of these years, I agree with Senator Elizabeth Warren on SOMETHING,' Trump wrote on Truth Social last week. 'The Debt Limit should be entirely scrapped to prevent an Economic catastrophe.' But there's scant support within the GOP for it, as Republicans have found success using it to extract concessions from Democratic presidents in the past. There's no indication that Democrats would respond in kind this year if Republicans came to them and asked for their votes on the debt ceiling. 'I'm not debating hypotheticals,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said when asked what he'd want in exchange.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
General Trump has entered the fray and this is just the beginning
Donald Trump has long had a keen fascination with swashbuckling generals from the Second World War. His rally speeches are peppered with anecdotes about General Douglas MacArthur and he used a clip from one of his favourite war movies to open his event at Manhattan's Madison Square a week before last year's election. 'Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser,' says George C Scott, playing Gen George Patton in the 1970 movie Patton. What could be more Trumpian? The president's first administration was packed with generals and retired generals. Mr Trump made no secret of his admiration for their can-do attitude and straightforward command structure until, that is, he soured on their adherence to rules and legal norms. This time around, his flood-the-zone strategy of bamboozling the media and Democratic opponents with a constant stream of executive orders, public comments, and proclamations could come from one of Patton's real-life quotes: 'As long as you attack them, they cannot find the time to attack you.' This week, Mr Trump is leaning into his role of commander-in-chief in a much more literal sense. He has deployed active service personnel as an arm of domestic policy to back his massive deportation push. As protests grew in response to immigration raids around Los Angeles, he took the highly unusual step of deploying National Guard troops at the weekend despite the opposition of the California governor. On Tuesday he used a speech honouring soldiers to defend his decision against charges it was a politically motivated stunt. 'Generations of army heroes did not shed their blood on distant shores only to watch our country be destroyed by invasion and third-world lawlessness,' he said at the army base in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. A day later, the first of 700 Marines arrived in Los Angeles. And he has left open the possibility of going even further, using the Insurrection Act, which authorises the president to deploy military forces on American soil to suppress domestic violence in certain scenarios. 'If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it. We'll see,' he said from the Oval Office. And then there is Saturday's military parade. More than 100 military vehicles and thousands of soldiers are set to roll or march down Constitution Avenue in front of the White House. Black Hawk and Apache helicopters will fill the skies. It will be the $50 million fulfillment of a dream Mr Trump has had since 2017, when he was a guest of Emmanuel Macron, the French president, at a Bastille Day parade. Hundreds of troops marching down the Champs-Élysées beneath plumes of red, white and blue smoke trailing behind fighter jets, left a deep impression on Mr Trump. 'It was one of the greatest parades I've ever seen,' he later said. 'We're going to have to try and top it.' A parade during his visit to China in 2017 also got the Trump seal of approval. He called it 'magnificent'. Then, he was quietly advised then that it would not be appropriate to parade the nation's military might through the capital. But like so much of his thwarted first-term agenda, he has spent the past four years staffing up with officials who can make his dreams come true. Officially, Saturday's parade will mark the 250th birthday of the army. And it doesn't hurt that it falls on the 79th birthday of Mr Trump. Critics say he is abusing the nation's armed forces for his own ends. 'He views the military as political props,' said John Bolton, who worked as Trump's national security adviser in his first term before falling out with him. 'He thinks they make him look good.' The event could serve another purpose, illustrating how Mr Trump is bringing the nation's biggest and strongest institutions into line. And as commander-in-chief he is the one to call the shots, illustrating his hold on power. Members of Washington's diplomatic corps will be in the audience on Saturday. 'He just likes the pomp and circumstance,' said one, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'I don't see an attack on democracy. Mr Trump looks around at other leaders and thinks that this is the sort of thing that a head of state gets.' In the meantime, polls suggest a limit to what he can do as commander-in-chief. A new YouGov survey found that 47 per cent of Americans disapprove of deploying the Marines to Los Angeles, with only 34 per cent approving, despite other polls showing that voters approve of the broader deportation operation. And while legal scholars will debate whether Mr Trump's decision to deploy troops stands up to scrutiny, and whether it breaches a federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prevents the use of American forces to enforce domestic laws, the president sees things in black and white. He knows where the battle lines are drawn as he made clear in his Fort Bragg speech. He used highly partisan language to slam the Los Angeles protesters and to champion the armed forces. 'They're heroes. They're fighting for us,' he said. 'They're stopping an invasion, just like you'd stop an invasion.' His armed forces are all part of Mr Trump's us-against-them view of the world.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Leavitt knocks reporter for asking a 'stupid question' about protests
By White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt knocked a reporter for asking a 'stupid question' when being queried Wednesday over potential protests at President Donald Trump's military parade on Saturday. NOTUS' Jasmine Wright called attention to the warning Trump gave Tuesday in the Oval Office as he heralded the upcoming parade, which is to mark the Army's 250th anniversary - and takes place on the president's 79th birthday. 'By the way, for those people who want to protest, they are going to be met with very big force,' Trump said. 'And I haven't even heard about a protest, but you know this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.' Wright asked Leavitt to 'clarify what kind of protest President Trump does support or find acceptable.' 'The president absolutely supports peaceful protests. He supports the First Amendment. He supports the right of Americans to make their voices heard,' the press secretary answered. 'He does not support violence of any kind, he does not support assaulting law enforcement officers who are simply trying to do their jobs.' 'It's very clear for the president what he supports and what he does not,' Leavitt continued. 'Unfortunately for Democrats that line has not been made clear, and they've allowed this unrest and violence to continue and the president has had to step in.' Wright then asked 'if there were peaceful protests on Saturday' would they be allowed to go forward. 'Of course the president supports peaceful protests. What a stupid question,' Leavitt snapped. She then moved on to the next reporter during a quick, 26-minute briefing. Organizers with the 'No Kings' movement are planning demonstrations across the country to coincide with Saturday's military parade and concert, to take place alongside Constitution Avenue and then at the Ellipse. 'No Kings' planners have pushed potential demonstrators to not take to the streets in D.C. - where there is already a robust security response. The White House, Capitol and certain roadways have been outlined with fencing ahead of Saturday's events. Instead 'No Kings' organizers have encouraged people to protest in Philadelphia or in suburban Maryland and Virginia, instead of D.C. proper. During Tuesday's briefing, Leavitt was also asked if the president sees himself as a 'king.' 'The president views himself as the president of the United States of America,' Leavitt said. 'This is a constitutional republic and we want to see all of our citizens be proud of the country in which they are given the privilege and the blessing to live.' Tuesday's briefing was dominated by questions about ongoing protests in Los Angeles - with demonstrations also popping up in major cities including New York and Chicago - all over Trump's 'mass deportation' plan. Leavitt tried to justify Trump federalizing California's National Guard members and U.S. Marines to deal with the LA unrest by pointing to 'those images of foreign flags being waved by illegal criminals and by violent rioters in the face of cars blowing up and flames in the city.' She showed a number of photos of burning cars at the top of the briefing. 'President Trump saw these images and he said that is not going to be accepted or tolerated,' Leavitt said. 'And hence why he deployed the National Guard and United States Marines who have helped quell the violence.' California Gov. Gavin Newsom has sued over the National Guard use arguing that Trump lacked that authority to do so over the wishes of the governor. Leavitt was asked Tuesday whether other Democratic governors would be asked ahead of a similar National Guard deployment. 'Well, President Trump was in contact with Gov. Gavin Newsom despite some of the claims he's made in the last couple of days,' Leavitt said, noting that Trump called the California Democrat Friday evening. Leavitt said Trump gave Newsom 24 hours to 'get it together' before making the decision to federalize California's National Guard. She didn't commit to Trump getting Democratic governors' permission if a similar thing happened again. Leavitt instead argued that law enforcement officers have been 'kneecapped by incompetent Democrat policies and Democrat politicians,' using incorrect grammar to disparage the rival party. She concluded the briefing after being asked why Trump hasn't made more clear his support for 'First Amendment protection.' 'Why is he not out saying all peaceful protesters will be protected?' asked David Sanger of The New York Times. Leavitt answered that 'two things can be important at the same time.' 'And the president, as I just answered, supports the right of Americans to peacefully protest. He supports the First Amendment. But that is not the majority of the behavior that we have seen taking place in Los Angeles,' she continued.
