Puerto Rico is rather unique. The island is pretty evenly divided. About a third of the population favors statehood, a third favors remaining a commonwealth, and a third favors independence. Then too Republicans in Congress are very resistant to granting statehood because it will very likely come in as a democratic state. There are also economic and fiscal concerns.
It's worse than that - it would be a Democratic, Spanish-speaking state.
The spiral case (also known as the coil campaign, coil case or IUD case; Danish: spiralsagen or spiralkampagnen) is an ongoing investigation into Danish physicians forcing birth control onto Greenlandic Inuit women during the 1960s and 1970s by placing intrauterine devices in thousands of Greenlandic Inuit girls and women, often without consent and under the direction of government officials. The program was created to prevent unplanned or unwanted pregnancies, lower costs, and control Greenland's birth rate. Some cases also occurred after the responsibility of the health care system was transferred to the Greenland government in 1991.
The little Danes experiment, also known simply as the experiment (Danish: eksperimentet), was a 1951 Danish operation where 22 Greenlandic Inuit children (known as "experiment children"; Danish: eksperimentbørn) were sent to Danish foster families in an attempt to re-educate them as "little Danes".[1] While the children were all supposed to be orphans, most were not. Six children were adopted while in Denmark, and sixteen returned to Greenland, only to be placed in Danish-speaking orphanages and never lived with their families again. Half of the children experienced mental health disturbances, and half of them died in young adulthood. The government of Denmark officially apologised in 2020, after several years of demands from Greenlandic officials.
Forældrekompetenceundersøgelse (FKU; lit. 'parental competence examination') is a set of Danish psychometric tests designed to assess the parental competence of those who have or are about to have a child or children. The FKU assessments often take several months to complete and are used when the relevant authorities in Denmark believe that a child, born or about to be born, is at risk of harm or neglect.
…
The tests are administered in Danish. No interpreters are provided for those who, for example, speak Kalaallisut, the mother tongue of most Greenlanders.
…
FKU competency testing of Greenlanders has been characterized as discriminatory and racist. The tests have contributed to the disproportionate placement of children with a Greenlandic ethnic background in foster care, with 1% of Danish children in Denmark being removed from their families compared to 5.6% of Greenlandic children in Denmark being removed.
In November 2024, people in Greenland demonstrated after a Greenlandic woman had her newborn child forcibly removed in Thisted Municipality.
…
Denmark announced in January 2025, that it would end the use of FKU with Greenlandic families although it is still used with other families in Denmark. The law was subsequently changed so that, from May 2025, the use of the FKU with Greenlandic families was banned and a specialist unit named VISO is to be used instead. However, protests occurred in August 2025 after another Greenlandic newborn child was removed from its Nuuk-born mother one hour after birth, subsequent to the mother's competency testing and contrary to the ban. An appeal against the removal was upheld in September 2025, paving the way for the baby's return.
@pease that colonialism is bad and minority populations have been mistreated is not really being contested in this discussion. But do you really think a small non-Caucasian population is going to fair well under a Trump administration that felt it could buy or conquer them ? The current direction of travel in Denmark is probably a better deal than the current direction of travel in America.
I think they already have very similarunits, although not at regimental strength.
It's not regiments of 'ordinary' troops that are needed (IYSWIM), but these small, specialist units, who would be very useful in defending the local population, and in making life miserable for the invader...
There's also the interesting fact that the New JEWEL was one of the very few third-world marxist parties to deliberately maintain their nation's connection with a European monarchy. Though I wonder if the far-left militants who overthrew Bishop were planning to maintain that.
Now, if Britian sent a contingent of forces into Greenland, maybe that would give Trump pause. One officer is not a contingent.
But Britain isn't going to do that is it? And Trump knows it.
Starmer's been trying to appease Trump from the get-go and in geopolitical terms that makes sense - though it sticks in my craw to acknowledge that.
The 'special relationship' has been lop-sided for years.
We're only now waking up to that fact and it'll take us a good while to develop new relationships to augment or replace it.
The UK isn't going to provoke Trump by placing troops in his backyard without it being part of a collaborative venture to guard against Russian or Chinese operations in the Arctic.
We are still allies of the USA don't forget, Trump or no Trump. Any UK government of whatever stripe would be hoping to sit this out until there's a change of US administration whilst trying to forge new or alternative allowances or strengthen existing ones on this side of the Atlantic.
We narrply averted Trump's punitive tariffs. The UK's strategy is to avoid riling him and to sit out his Presidency until someone else takes the helm. Hopefully not Vance.
I think the UK has said it is sending a naval contingent.
From today's Guardian:
The Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, has said Greenland’s defence is a “common concern” for the whole of Nato, as troops started arriving from across Europe as a result of Donald Trump’s threats to take the Arctic island by force.
Troops from France, Germany, the UK, Norway and Sweden, among others, were on their way to Greenland, a largely autonomous territory of the kingdom of Denmark, on Thursday. Denmark also announced it would be increasing its military presence.
As well as providing a show of political support, the European troops were said to be on a short scoping mission, according to one country involved.
The aim was to establish what a more sustained ground deployment in Greenland could look like, partly to reassure the US that European Nato members were serious about Arctic security.
My italics.
It's chilling to think that, if the insane Trump goes ahead with his invasion, this country could be at war with the US in the very near future.
Again, it's more of a gesture to 'reassure Trump that European Nato members were serious about Arctic security.'
It's not about deterring Trump by saying, 'Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough ...'
It's more a case of saying, 'Look, there's no need for you to annexe Greenland because we are your partners and are serious about Arctic security. See, we're putting some boots on the ice to prove it.'
Longer term, if Trump lasts that long, I think he will try to get hold of Greenland but I don’t think he's up for a shooting match with a European 'reconnaissance' force in order to do so.
He wants to discombobulate his European allies and use threats and bullying to achieve his ends.
@pease that colonialism is bad and minority populations have been mistreated is not really being contested in this discussion. But do you really think a small non-Caucasian population is going to fair well under a Trump administration that felt it could buy or conquer them ? The current direction of travel in Denmark is probably a better deal than the current direction of travel in America.
What I was thinking is that, when it comes to colonialism, this looks a lot like a case of better the devil you know…
“We are now facing a geopolitical crisis, and if we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark,” Greenland’s prime minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said at a joint news conference in Copenhagen with Denmark’s prime minister Mette Frederiksen. “We choose NATO. We choose the Kingdom of Denmark. We choose the EU.”
There are a number of ironies in current references to the Monroe Doctrine, which was about keeping the colonialist powers of Europe from expanding further into the Western Hemisphere, being the United States' sphere of influence.
In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . .
…
We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere.
Which, at the the time, would have included Greenland as one of the longest-established European colonies (if not the longest) in that hemisphere.
Beyond that, I think it is revealing to look at current events through the lens of colonialism, alongside recognising what the face of colonialism looks like in the 21st century.
You are misquoting the Monroe Doctrine. The original doctrine was directed against Spain which had just seen its American empire disappear in a bevy of revolutions. Spain wanted those colonies back but after Napoleon's occupation was in no fit state to get them back,
The Monroe Doctrine was never exercised to disposses current colonial powers of their lands, especially Britain which never gave a fig about the Monroe Doctrine.
And no, the Spanish-American War was not about the Mobroe Doctrine.
Monroe asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, and thus further efforts by European powers to control or influence sovereign states in the region would be viewed as a threat to U.S. security. In turn, the United States would recognize and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal affairs of European countries.
Monroe asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, and thus further efforts by European powers to control or influence sovereign states in the region would be viewed as a threat to U.S. security. In turn, the United States would recognize and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal affairs of European countries.
Well it's now not about a "New World" and an "Old World" but the entire planet because we have begun to have a true perception of how small this spinning marble actually is.
If we don't all learn to get along and cooperate and help and share with one another, instead of compete and rob, and covet and control and dominate and destroy, we will be extinct by the end of this century.
Yet another irony of current references to the Monroe doctrine was Great Britain's original attitude towards its declaration and enforcement…
British foreign policy was compatible with the general objective of the Monroe Doctrine. Britain went as far as covertly assisting the South Americans in their fight against Spain. Britain offered to declare a joint statement concerning the doctrine, as they feared trade with the Americas would be damaged if other European powers further colonized it. In fact, for many years after the doctrine took effect, Britain, through the Royal Navy, was the sole nation enforcing it, as the United States Navy was a comparatively small force. The U.S. government did not issue a joint statement due to the recent War of 1812; however, the immediate provocation was the Russian Ukase of 1821 asserting rights to the Pacific Northwest and forbidding non-Russian ships from approaching the coast.
Well it's now not about a "New World" and an "Old World" but the entire planet because we have begun to have a true perception of how small this spinning marble actually is.
Indeed. We really are all in it together. While being in denial of many of the facts, capitalism is moving on from principles of actual growth to fighting over slices of what we all know to be a finite pie.
If we don't all learn to get along and cooperate and help and share with one another, instead of compete and rob, and covet and control and dominate and destroy, we will be extinct by the end of this century.
Given the way that capitalism is swinging back toward colonialism, I don't see many exits off this road.
The current direction of travel in Denmark is probably a better deal than the current direction of travel in America.
Can there be any doubt about that?
Still, I do wonder what damage Trump is doing amongst his (hitherto) loyalists. Perhaps he still believes that loyalty to him is still unchangeable regardless of his actions? But that is a delusion alongside his many others. As I believe we may see shortly.
Still, I do wonder what damage Trump is doing amongst his (hitherto) loyalists. Perhaps he still believes that loyalty to him is still unchangeable regardless of his actions? But that is a delusion alongside his many others. As I believe we may see shortly.
His base is eroding -- polling numbers from December and discussion in Newsweek -- but for domestic reasons, not foreign policy. Three-quarters of Americans oppose a take-over of Greenland (read about it in Politico), and if he does it it won't be popular, but Americans are parochial and typically vote and base their political opinions on domestic policy.
What exactly are the rules and conventions about members of Congress visiting countries with whom the President is negotiating and expressing opinions on foreign policy at odds with the President? Pursuing a foreign policy at odds with the government of the day tends to be frowned upon when the government is sane.
What exactly are the rules and conventions about members of Congress visiting countries with whom the President is negotiating and expressing opinions on foreign policy at odds with the President? Pursuing a foreign policy at odds with the government of the day tends to be frowned upon when the government is sane.
Basically, it is understood Congress people will be in contact with foreign officials when they visit a country. However,
They cannot conduct diplomacy on behalf of the US
They cannot make commitments nor
enter into negotiation.
However they can
gather information
express their views
discuss policy, and
convey congressional concerns.
They do have to coordinate with the State Department. Embassies usually will brief congressmen on the status of relations with the host country.
What exactly are the rules and conventions about members of Congress visiting countries with whom the President is negotiating and expressing opinions on foreign policy at odds with the President? Pursuing a foreign policy at odds with the government of the day tends to be frowned upon when the government is sane.
What exactly are the rules and conventions about members of Congress visiting countries with whom the President is negotiating and expressing opinions on foreign policy at odds with the President? Pursuing a foreign policy at odds with the government of the day tends to be frowned upon when the government is sane.
How about when the government is insane?
Apparently in that case they will keep their heads down, try not to draw attention, and do very little to help the rest of us.
What exactly are the rules and conventions about members of Congress visiting countries with whom the President is negotiating and expressing opinions on foreign policy at odds with the President? Pursuing a foreign policy at odds with the government of the day tends to be frowned upon when the government is sane.
How about when the government is insane?
Apparently in that case they will keep their heads down, try not to draw attention, and do very little to help the rest of us.
The majority of both Congressional Houses are opposed to taking over Greenland. There is talk about passing a resolution to limit Trump using the military to accomplish this. Of course, Trump can veto the resolution, but at least it will give the sense of Congress. There is also talk about impeaching Trump if he does anything. Unfortunately, the Senate will not uphold the impeachment. One other avenue Congress would have is to refuse to fund any landgrab on the part of Trump.
I think the Supreme Court ruling re tariffs is due in a few days. Using tariffs to blackmail allies to support his unilateral move to annex Greenland might well backfire with them. It shows quite clearly why confirmed approval of tariffs has previously rested with Congress, not Presidential executive order.
And it’s yet another sign of his unfitness to be President.
I wonder if Congress will develop a spine? The proposed annexation of Greenland isn’t popular.
PS I also wonder if EU governments will develop a spine? Appeasing Trump is demonstrably a form of weakness. Standing up to him may make things worse in the short term I suppose but I think it’s time to blow the whistle on him.
I think the Supreme Court ruling re tariffs is due in a few days. Using tariffs to blackmail allies to support his unilateral move to annex Greenland might well backfire with them.
Well, I would suspect that most of the judges have already made up their minds about how they're gonna vote, since the written opinions must already be in the works, if the decision is being handed down in a few weeks.
There's not much the EU governments can do. Trump wants them to sell him Greenland, but selling Greenland isn't something the EU can do. The only people who can "sell Greenland" are the people of Greenland. As the EU governments can't actually do what Trump wants there's no option to avoid tariffs by doing that, the options seem to be to simply suck it up and accept that US consumers will need to pay more for goods imported from Europe, with an impact on both European businesses selling to the US and US consumers. Or, to retaliate with tariffs on goods from the US imported into Europe - which will also impact US manufacturers and European consumers. Which will still leave Greenland as a Danish colony heading towards independence.
There's not much the EU governments can do. Trump wants them to sell him Greenland, but selling Greenland isn't something the EU can do. The only people who can "sell Greenland" are the people of Greenland. As the EU governments can't actually do what Trump wants there's no option to avoid tariffs by doing that, the options seem to be to simply suck it up and accept that US consumers will need to pay more for goods imported from Europe, with an impact on both European businesses selling to the US and US consumers. Or, to retaliate with tariffs on goods from the US imported into Europe - which will also impact US manufacturers and European consumers. Which will still leave Greenland as a Danish colony heading towards independence.
This does rather assume a continued acceptance of international norms and principles. You don't have to go back very far in history to see land and the people living on it treated as bargaining chips in international affairs. "Sell Greenland" doesn't mean anything - no-one has the deeds, there is no International Land Registry to affirm title. If EU countries acquiesced and said "Greenland is now acknowledged as a territory of the USA" in return for some form of bribe then Greenland is de facto sold. The wishes of the Greenlandic people *ought* to be decisive but even post-war history is littered with examples of self-determination playing second fiddle to real politik and the simple facts on the ground.
[Well, I would suspect that most of the judges have already made up their minds about how they're gonna vote, since the written opinions must already be in the works, if the decision is being handed down in a few weeks.
The only deadline or “due date” for SCOTUS decisions is by the end of the term—late June or early July. The only thing that can be said at this point is that the tariff decision will come down by the end of the term.
And the justices vote at the end of each week of oral arguments on the cases they heard that week. That doesn’t mean they can’t or don’t adjust their thinking or change their minds based on how an opinion is drafted. But it does mean they voted months ago.
USA Today (Jan. 14, 2026) noted that the ruling on President Trump’s global tariffs “could be decided today… [but] the time of the SCOTUS ruling on tariffs remains unclear”.
NorthJersey.com (Jan. 16, 2026) reported that the ruling was “unlikely today” but “could happen in the coming days”.
Forbes India (Jan. 14, 2026) said the Court “was expected to release its opinions… today” but ultimately did not.
Economic Times (Jan. 14, 2026) said the ruling had been delayed until at least the following week.
People were expecting an expedited ruling because the case was taken on an expedited basis. The teriffs were imposed under the Emergency Economic Powers act. The economic stakes are unusually high. And the Court's January opinion days created a natural window.
The operative word in much of what you cited, @Gramps49, is “could.” Anytime the Court releases opinions between now and the end of the terms, the tariff opinion “could” be among the opinions released. Anything beyond that is reading tea leaves.
What the press and others seem to be relying on is that the Court expedited the briefing and argument schedule for the tariff case. While that might indicate that the Court similarly wants to expedite its decision, it doesn’t necessarily mean that. I have seen courts, including the Supreme Court, expedite briefing and arguments in cases before, and then take their own sweet time ruling. (Or the Court as a whole may be ready to hand down a decision, but one justice is dissenting and is in no hurry to get that dissent written.) While it’s not unreasonable to think the Court may be planning to rule soon, it’s not at all a sure thing.
I reiterate what I said: There are no deadlines by which opinions must be released other than that they have to come down by the end of the term. Experienced court watchers may be able to make reasonably good educated guesses as to when I particular decision will come down, but it’s still a guess. The press and others may think a decision should come down sooner rather than later because “the stakes are unusually high,” but when the opinions actually come down remain completely within the Court’s control and generally is not something the public is privy to.
The Guardian reports that Trump will impose 10% tariffs on 1st February, and increase them to 25% on 1st June, if he hasn't been given Greenland by then:
The wishes of the Greenlandic people *ought* to be decisive but even post-war history is littered with examples of self-determination playing second fiddle to real politik and the simple facts on the ground.
See also the board that's being appointed to oversee the reconstruction of Gaza (something 'good liberals' are rather less vocal on).
The wishes of the Greenlandic people *ought* to be decisive but even post-war history is littered with examples of self-determination playing second fiddle to real politik and the simple facts on the ground.
See also the board that's being appointed to oversee the reconstruction of Gaza (something 'good liberals' are rather less vocal on).
Gaza was indeed one of those I had in mind, but one could easily point to Hong Kong or Tibet, Western Sahara, Diego Garcia, Somaliland, Biafra, Kashmir, Kurdistan etc etc
The board appointed to oversee Gaza is proof that the evils of the colonial system still need to be killed off and buried in the vault of the mistakes of history. Palestine has been right royally screwed over by colonialism since the state of Palestine was created a century ago - first with the British ignoring the terms of the Mandate (which stated that the four states created from the Ottoman Empire in the region were nation states just needing a little help establishing the mechanisms of government) and treating all four states as colonies; then when the other three states (Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan) were finally given independence in 1946/7 Palestine was not also given independence. And, of course, once the nation of Israel was imposed within Palestine the Israeli government proceeded to colonise Palestine and is no better at being a colonial power than anyone else has managed (and, worse than some).
In any reasonable world, the majority of a board to reconstruct part of Palestine should consist of Palestinians - at least a majority of Palestinians. The announced board looks very much like the racism of the British mandate and most other examples of colonial rule, the idea that the indigenousness people are unable to govern themselves and need the help of "civilised white men" to rule them.
Well, Trump's going for economic black-mail to achieve his ends. 10% tariffs on European allies rising to 25% in June unless they accede to his demands thar Denmark and the Greenlanders cede their territory to the US.
Diplomatic experts saying that this is unprecedented in 80 years.
Starmer is ruling out retaliatory tariffs as a trade-war is in nobody's interests.
He's also ruling out the cancellation of the King's visit to the US as it's still vital to maintain good relations with them.
I get that.
But it still sticks in my craw.
There is no obvious way that I can see that the European powers can 'stick it to the man'.
All we can do is tread water until there's a change of administration in the White House.
The rest of Europe may feel they have nothing to lose by activating the EU's anti-coercion protocol. As we chose to leave the EU, Starmer doesn't get a vote about that, but we'll still be subject to whatever Trump decides to do in response. Something tells me it will be more tariffs... it seems to be his answer to everything.
Also, what do you mean by 'if?' Of course Vance will succeed Trump, and presumably continue doing all the same things. The Americans have had senile presidents before, but until now they did their best to keep them from doing embarrassing things in public. I conclude that all the people around Trump approve of what he's doing.
It's instructive seeing how European powers react to external existential threats that raise fundamental questions about European sovereignty and European values, and which pointedly require them to collectively consider the costs involved in upholding these things.
I agree with chrisstiles. Autocratic tyranny must be confronted by whatever means come to hand. And the Greenland threat is a classic example of what autocratic tyranny looks like.
To expand a little, what Barnabas said above - even apart from the very practical consideration that Trump seems to give more respect to those adopt a more robust approach.
Secondly, are people really envisaging that a putative Democratic administration reverses all the foreign policy decisions Trump makes?
He is surrounded by folk who adopt a 'this is our hemisphere' approach, and it's entirely likely one of them emerges as the heir. Meanwhile the Democratic field is full of people who are lining up to insist they wouldn't get rid of ICE, just improve the training, put QR codes on ICE uniforms, etc. Crucially Rubio as the architect of much of this, had a fairly easy ride through his confirmation hearings.
That's a setting where everything just keeps getting ratcheted further every 4/8 years, and where one can't bank on any interregnum being permanent.
Ok, so how do you @Barnabas62 and @chrisstiles propose that Western Europe opposes the current Trump administration, an almost inevitable Vance administration or a Trump/Vance-lite Democrat administration?
What can we practically do to stop them?
Military action wouldn't do it.
What are you seriously suggesting we do about it? And how would it work in practical terms?
The wishes of the Greenlandic people *ought* to be decisive but even post-war history is littered with examples of self-determination playing second fiddle to real politik and the simple facts on the ground.
See also the board that's being appointed to oversee the reconstruction of Gaza (something 'good liberals' are rather less vocal on).
Gaza was indeed one of those I had in mind, but one could easily point to Hong Kong or Tibet, Western Sahara, Diego Garcia, Somaliland, Biafra, Kashmir, Kurdistan etc etc
Though in previous discussions we've had around here there has been somewhat limited support for a "self determination is paramount" stance when it comes to the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Catalonia, or indeed the UK itself...
They don't, but there are those who think those arrangements should be changed anyway.
I'm not one of them, but international law recognises a difference between colonies like the Falklands or Gibraltar and distinct nations. I tend to see that distinction as more political than anything else but it does exist.
Comments
It's worse than that - it would be a Democratic, Spanish-speaking state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Danes_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forældrekompetenceundersøgelse
It's not regiments of 'ordinary' troops that are needed (IYSWIM), but these small, specialist units, who would be very useful in defending the local population, and in making life miserable for the invader...
There's also the interesting fact that the New JEWEL was one of the very few third-world marxist parties to deliberately maintain their nation's connection with a European monarchy. Though I wonder if the far-left militants who overthrew Bishop were planning to maintain that.
But Britain isn't going to do that is it? And Trump knows it.
Starmer's been trying to appease Trump from the get-go and in geopolitical terms that makes sense - though it sticks in my craw to acknowledge that.
The 'special relationship' has been lop-sided for years.
We're only now waking up to that fact and it'll take us a good while to develop new relationships to augment or replace it.
The UK isn't going to provoke Trump by placing troops in his backyard without it being part of a collaborative venture to guard against Russian or Chinese operations in the Arctic.
We are still allies of the USA don't forget, Trump or no Trump. Any UK government of whatever stripe would be hoping to sit this out until there's a change of US administration whilst trying to forge new or alternative allowances or strengthen existing ones on this side of the Atlantic.
We narrply averted Trump's punitive tariffs. The UK's strategy is to avoid riling him and to sit out his Presidency until someone else takes the helm. Hopefully not Vance.
From today's Guardian:
The Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, has said Greenland’s defence is a “common concern” for the whole of Nato, as troops started arriving from across Europe as a result of Donald Trump’s threats to take the Arctic island by force.
Troops from France, Germany, the UK, Norway and Sweden, among others, were on their way to Greenland, a largely autonomous territory of the kingdom of Denmark, on Thursday. Denmark also announced it would be increasing its military presence.
As well as providing a show of political support, the European troops were said to be on a short scoping mission, according to one country involved.
The aim was to establish what a more sustained ground deployment in Greenland could look like, partly to reassure the US that European Nato members were serious about Arctic security.
My italics.
It's chilling to think that, if the insane Trump goes ahead with his invasion, this country could be at war with the US in the very near future.
It's not about deterring Trump by saying, 'Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough ...'
It's more a case of saying, 'Look, there's no need for you to annexe Greenland because we are your partners and are serious about Arctic security. See, we're putting some boots on the ice to prove it.'
Longer term, if Trump lasts that long, I think he will try to get hold of Greenland but I don’t think he's up for a shooting match with a European 'reconnaissance' force in order to do so.
He wants to discombobulate his European allies and use threats and bullying to achieve his ends.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/15/anger-iceland-incoming-us-ambassador-52nd-state-joke
If there's any humour in the imperial ambitions of Trump and his lickspittles, it's hard to see.
There are a number of ironies in current references to the Monroe Doctrine, which was about keeping the colonialist powers of Europe from expanding further into the Western Hemisphere, being the United States' sphere of influence.
Which, at the the time, would have included Greenland as one of the longest-established European colonies (if not the longest) in that hemisphere.
Beyond that, I think it is revealing to look at current events through the lens of colonialism, alongside recognising what the face of colonialism looks like in the 21st century.
The Monroe Doctrine was never exercised to disposses current colonial powers of their lands, especially Britain which never gave a fig about the Monroe Doctrine.
And no, the Spanish-American War was not about the Mobroe Doctrine.
Well it's now not about a "New World" and an "Old World" but the entire planet because we have begun to have a true perception of how small this spinning marble actually is.
If we don't all learn to get along and cooperate and help and share with one another, instead of compete and rob, and covet and control and dominate and destroy, we will be extinct by the end of this century.
AFF
Indeed. We really are all in it together. While being in denial of many of the facts, capitalism is moving on from principles of actual growth to fighting over slices of what we all know to be a finite pie.
Given the way that capitalism is swinging back toward colonialism, I don't see many exits off this road.
Can there be any doubt about that?
Still, I do wonder what damage Trump is doing amongst his (hitherto) loyalists. Perhaps he still believes that loyalty to him is still unchangeable regardless of his actions? But that is a delusion alongside his many others. As I believe we may see shortly.
His base is eroding -- polling numbers from December and discussion in Newsweek -- but for domestic reasons, not foreign policy. Three-quarters of Americans oppose a take-over of Greenland (read about it in Politico), and if he does it it won't be popular, but Americans are parochial and typically vote and base their political opinions on domestic policy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/16/trump-greenland-envoy-us-denmark
Basically, it is understood Congress people will be in contact with foreign officials when they visit a country. However,
They cannot conduct diplomacy on behalf of the US
They cannot make commitments nor
enter into negotiation.
However they can
gather information
express their views
discuss policy, and
convey congressional concerns.
They do have to coordinate with the State Department. Embassies usually will brief congressmen on the status of relations with the host country.
Apparently in that case they will keep their heads down, try not to draw attention, and do very little to help the rest of us.
The majority of both Congressional Houses are opposed to taking over Greenland. There is talk about passing a resolution to limit Trump using the military to accomplish this. Of course, Trump can veto the resolution, but at least it will give the sense of Congress. There is also talk about impeaching Trump if he does anything. Unfortunately, the Senate will not uphold the impeachment. One other avenue Congress would have is to refuse to fund any landgrab on the part of Trump.
And it’s yet another sign of his unfitness to be President.
I wonder if Congress will develop a spine? The proposed annexation of Greenland isn’t popular.
Well, I would suspect that most of the judges have already made up their minds about how they're gonna vote, since the written opinions must already be in the works, if the decision is being handed down in a few weeks.
This does rather assume a continued acceptance of international norms and principles. You don't have to go back very far in history to see land and the people living on it treated as bargaining chips in international affairs. "Sell Greenland" doesn't mean anything - no-one has the deeds, there is no International Land Registry to affirm title. If EU countries acquiesced and said "Greenland is now acknowledged as a territory of the USA" in return for some form of bribe then Greenland is de facto sold. The wishes of the Greenlandic people *ought* to be decisive but even post-war history is littered with examples of self-determination playing second fiddle to real politik and the simple facts on the ground.
And the justices vote at the end of each week of oral arguments on the cases they heard that week. That doesn’t mean they can’t or don’t adjust their thinking or change their minds based on how an opinion is drafted. But it does mean they voted months ago.
USA Today (Jan. 14, 2026) noted that the ruling on President Trump’s global tariffs “could be decided today… [but] the time of the SCOTUS ruling on tariffs remains unclear”.
NorthJersey.com (Jan. 16, 2026) reported that the ruling was “unlikely today” but “could happen in the coming days”.
Forbes India (Jan. 14, 2026) said the Court “was expected to release its opinions… today” but ultimately did not.
Economic Times (Jan. 14, 2026) said the ruling had been delayed until at least the following week.
People were expecting an expedited ruling because the case was taken on an expedited basis. The teriffs were imposed under the Emergency Economic Powers act. The economic stakes are unusually high. And the Court's January opinion days created a natural window.
What the press and others seem to be relying on is that the Court expedited the briefing and argument schedule for the tariff case. While that might indicate that the Court similarly wants to expedite its decision, it doesn’t necessarily mean that. I have seen courts, including the Supreme Court, expedite briefing and arguments in cases before, and then take their own sweet time ruling. (Or the Court as a whole may be ready to hand down a decision, but one justice is dissenting and is in no hurry to get that dissent written.) While it’s not unreasonable to think the Court may be planning to rule soon, it’s not at all a sure thing.
I reiterate what I said: There are no deadlines by which opinions must be released other than that they have to come down by the end of the term. Experienced court watchers may be able to make reasonably good educated guesses as to when I particular decision will come down, but it’s still a guess. The press and others may think a decision should come down sooner rather than later because “the stakes are unusually high,” but when the opinions actually come down remain completely within the Court’s control and generally is not something the public is privy to.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/17/trump-tariff-european-countries-greenland
See also the board that's being appointed to oversee the reconstruction of Gaza (something 'good liberals' are rather less vocal on).
Gaza was indeed one of those I had in mind, but one could easily point to Hong Kong or Tibet, Western Sahara, Diego Garcia, Somaliland, Biafra, Kashmir, Kurdistan etc etc
In any reasonable world, the majority of a board to reconstruct part of Palestine should consist of Palestinians - at least a majority of Palestinians. The announced board looks very much like the racism of the British mandate and most other examples of colonial rule, the idea that the indigenousness people are unable to govern themselves and need the help of "civilised white men" to rule them.
Diplomatic experts saying that this is unprecedented in 80 years.
Starmer is ruling out retaliatory tariffs as a trade-war is in nobody's interests.
He's also ruling out the cancellation of the King's visit to the US as it's still vital to maintain good relations with them.
I get that.
But it still sticks in my craw.
There is no obvious way that I can see that the European powers can 'stick it to the man'.
All we can do is tread water until there's a change of administration in the White House.
But if Vance succeeds Trump ...
Also, what do you mean by 'if?' Of course Vance will succeed Trump, and presumably continue doing all the same things. The Americans have had senile presidents before, but until now they did their best to keep them from doing embarrassing things in public. I conclude that all the people around Trump approve of what he's doing.
That's the worst strategy possible. This isn't reversible by a change of administration.
Secondly, are people really envisaging that a putative Democratic administration reverses all the foreign policy decisions Trump makes?
He is surrounded by folk who adopt a 'this is our hemisphere' approach, and it's entirely likely one of them emerges as the heir. Meanwhile the Democratic field is full of people who are lining up to insist they wouldn't get rid of ICE, just improve the training, put QR codes on ICE uniforms, etc. Crucially Rubio as the architect of much of this, had a fairly easy ride through his confirmation hearings.
That's a setting where everything just keeps getting ratcheted further every 4/8 years, and where one can't bank on any interregnum being permanent.
What can we practically do to stop them?
Military action wouldn't do it.
What are you seriously suggesting we do about it? And how would it work in practical terms?
Though in previous discussions we've had around here there has been somewhat limited support for a "self determination is paramount" stance when it comes to the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Catalonia, or indeed the UK itself...
I'm not one of them, but international law recognises a difference between colonies like the Falklands or Gibraltar and distinct nations. I tend to see that distinction as more political than anything else but it does exist.