Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
Last month, officials from the United States, Denmark, and Greenland had a regular meeting in Greenland’s capital, without discussing any U. S. military or financial takeover of the territory. However, this changed when President Trump announced special envoy Jeff Landry, who expressed on social media his intent to “make Greenland part of the U. S.” This announcement surprised Denmark and senior U. S. officials who were caught off guard by Trump’s move, which seemed to disregard standard diplomatic channels.
Trump’s policy-making has often been erratic and made without input from national security officials, unlike prior administrations. Instead, decisions appeared to be influenced by a small group of Trump’s close aides, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Vice President JD Vance, among others, while military threats regarding Greenland and new tariffs on allies emerged from these discussions. Trump’s approach has allowed for quick decisions, but it risks damaging relationships with important allies.
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly responded to concerns about the administration’s surprising actions regarding Greenland and other situations, stating that those who leaked information were not involved in sensitive discussions and that Trump had effectively pursued his America First foreign policy. Recently, a tense situation arose after Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller’s interview, where he declined to rule out the use of military action to acquire Greenland. This caused confusion and concern in Washington and among allies, prompting lawmakers to express anxiety over possible unilateral military action without congressional consultation. Some Republican lawmakers even raised fears about impeachment risks if the administration moved to invade Greenland.
To ease tensions, Trump later backed off on tariff threats and mentioned reaching an agreement framework with NATO regarding Greenland. Despite the alarm caused by the military threat, it seems that a military option was never seriously pursued, according to sources close to the administration. Critics, such as Kori Schake, noted that Trump’s unpredictable threats have undermined trust with allies.
Trump and his supporters argue that controlling Greenland is essential for countering threats from Russia and China in the Arctic, despite the existing U. S. military base on the island and a treaty with Denmark that allows the U. S. to expand its presence. Trump’s tendency to centralize foreign policy decisions and prioritize trusted aides over established experts has been evident throughout his presidency. This method has also impacted other areas, such as negotiations concerning the war in Ukraine and U. S. policy in Syria, often leading to decisions that surprised many officials within the administration.
In these instances, officials who typically would be informed about significant negotiations were left out of discussions, and the implementation of policies seemed concentrated among a select few aides. A State Department spokesperson defended the administration’s collaborative efforts, asserting that the criticisms from anonymous sources reflected a lack of judgment in executing Trump’s agenda.
