The News
Greenland is becoming a problem for the White House with the GOP Congress.
As President Donald Trump’s administration refuses to rule out the use of the military to assert US control of the Danish territory, Republicans are more urgently warning his advisers to tamp down their rhetoric toward Greenland.
Even as most Republicans praise the president’s ouster of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro amid criticism from longtime US allies, some in the party worry that Trump’s intensifying interest in taking Greenland could harm the US’ standing in NATO. As Europe conveys its harsh disapproval, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters Wednesday he would meet with Danish officials next week but declined to offer further details.
Ahead of that meeting, Republicans are hoping to see the administration cool down the way it talks about Greenland. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s Tuesday statement that “utilizing the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief’s disposal” undercut lawmakers who had laughed off Trump’s remarks about taking the island.
“I think that military action against Denmark or Greenland should be off the table,” Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., told Semafor.
Asked if the administration should stop reminding its allies that Trump could use the US military in Greenland, Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said “sure, they should,” adding that “we need to not threaten a peaceful nation that’s an ally where we have a military base already.”
Lawmakers in both parties will get the opportunity to discuss their concerns with Denmark’s ambassador to the US, Jesper Møller Sørensen, at a Thursday meeting that will include Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, according to a person familiar with the planning.
“Every time the administration brings up its desire to have Greenland, I just don’t understand it. We’re dealing here with Denmark, which is a NATO ally, and it makes no sense to me for the United States to be talking about somehow taking control of Greenland,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told Semafor.
Even buying the country, as some in the administration have suggested, “doesn’t make sense to me either,” Collins said. And Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she hates the administration’s rhetoric about buying Greenland or seizing the country: “I don’t use the word hate very often, but I think that it is very, very unsettling.”
“Threats and intimidation by U.S. officials over American ownership of Greenland are as unseemly as they are counterproductive,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, the party’s former Senate leader.
Privately, some close to Trump are skeptical he’ll actually go with military action in Greenland. But Denmark is clearly rattled. One House Republican staffer described the country as “livid” and told Semafor that “every time this goes on the news, the ambassador emails everyone and complains and comes and does meetings and yells at us.”
In this article:
Know More
Underpinning the schism between Trump and his party over how to talk about Greenland is his long-running skepticism of NATO members’ commitments to their own defenses, as well as his administration’s cool attitude toward further aid to Ukraine.
The president celebrated an agreement by most NATO members last year to hike their defense spending commitments to 5% of GDP, but he posted critically about the alliance on social media on Wednesday.
“We will always be there for NATO, even if they won’t be there for us,” Trump wrote.
The Senate, however, is particularly stocked with strong NATO supporters.
“At a time when the president has been so successful in increasing the support for defense among NATO countries … we ought not to be in a position in which we’re threatening to use military force in Greenland, against Greenland or Denmark,” Moran said.
Some Trump allies sought to walk the line between prodding Europeans to do even more and committing to defend NATO.
“Denmark is an ally of ours, a NATO ally. Obviously, we respect the NATO structure. I remind folks that the only time Article 5 for NATO has ever been invoked is for the United States after 9/11,” said Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont. Article 5 is the alliance’s provision for collective defense by member nations against armed attacks on one of their own.
“But the truth is, this is an alliance. It’s not an American task force,” Sheehy added. “So if they’re going to continue to be a NATO alliance, let’s make sure all NATO states are carrying their weight.”
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said the US taking Greenland would essentially end the NATO alliance. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C, said that’s a “bit overstated.”
“I don’t think we’ll need to use the military for Greenland. The option’s on the table,” Graham said. Given the US’ interest in fortifying the Arctic, he added, “I don’t think it’s a bad idea to ask who’s going to be in charge. And how does it work for us?”
Asked on Wednesday about the escalating situation, Leavitt said Trump’s team prefers diplomacy in Greenland and is “currently talking about what a potential purchase would look like.” But she again didn’t rule out military involvement, saying “all options are always on the table.”
Room for Disagreement
Even after that, many Republicans still dismissed the idea of a military option in Greenland — including House Speaker Mike Johnson, who said “I don’t think anybody’s seriously considered it.”
Calling the president a “master negotiator,” Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said the press secretary was merely stating facts about the US and its president.
“I’m quite confident that the two countries, our country and Denmark, can work something out in a business relationship to take full advantage of the resources that Greenland possesses to the benefit of the Western world and the free world,” Cramer said. As to military action, he said “I personally have a hard time believing that that’s even possible.”
At least one Democrat agreed. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., said he doesn’t “support invading” Greenland but that a conversation about it makes sense. He said “ideally” the US could purchase the island (Denmark has underscored that it is not up for sale).
“Why can’t we all acknowledge that Greenland has significant strategic value and real minerals as well?” Fetterman said. “We need to have a strong, strong connection there, and it has important strategic interest for our country for other reasons.”
Notable
- An existing agreement already gives the US wide latitude in Greenland, The New York Times reported.
Shelby Talcott and Eleanor Mueller contributed.