These are the three social evils Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. warned would destroy America from within: Militarism, materialism, and racism. Decades later, they help explain the divisions in our country that led to the January 6 attack by protesters on the U.S. Capitol. Of the three, however, the role our recent wars have played in exacerbating these conditions is often the most overlooked.
Video produced by Khody Akhavi.
Any hopes that Wednesday’s meeting of Greenland and Denmark’s foreign ministers with Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio might point toward an end of the Trump administration’s attempts to annex the semiautonomous arctic territory were swiftly disappointed. “Fundamental disagreement” remains, according to Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen.
That these talks would yield no hint of a resolution should not be surprising. Much of Trump’s stated rationale for seeking ownership of Greenland — the need for an increased U.S. military presence, the ability to access the island’s critical mineral deposits, or the alleged imperative to keep the Chinese and Russians at bay — is eminently negotiable and even achievable under the status quo. If these were the president’s real goals he likely could have reached an agreement with Denmark months ago. That this standoff persists is a testament to Trump’s true motive: ownership for its own sake.
In the past two weeks and throughout his first year in office, Trump has made no secret of his desire for territorial expansion or his fixation on incorporating Greenland into the United States. “The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation — one that increases our wealth, expands our territory, builds our cities, raises our expectations, and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons,” he declared in his inaugural address. “Anything less” than U.S. possession of Greenland, Trump wrote on Wednesday, “is unacceptable.”
These have not been mere one-off statements or sleep-deprived Truth Social posts, but reflect a deep component of Trump’s governing philosophy and understanding of his historical role as U.S. president. Last year, The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump went out of his way to acquire a portrait of President James K. Polk, which he hung in the Oval Office. The president made it clear that this was an homage to the territorial expansion that occurred under Polk, who doubled the size of the United States by waging a war of conquest on Mexico. “He got a lot of land,” Trump said at the time.
Trump apparently believes presiding over a similar acquisition would cement his legacy. In 2021, he told journalists Peter Baker and Susan Glasser that securing Greenland was “not different from a real estate deal” and suggested that it would earn him a place in U.S. history. He further explained his rationale: “Look at the size of this, it’s massive, and that should be part of the United States.”
These are the kind of accomplishments that the president believes could get his face on Mount Rushmore. One can imagine Trump’s delight at seeing history books credit his name with the first expansion of the U.S. map in nearly 100 years. All the better that the acquisition of Greenland would allow the United States to leapfrog Canada to become the world’s second largest nation, an achievement that the superlative-loving president would certainly relish. Never mind that expanding U.S. territory through coercion would seem to conflict with his fixation on winning the Nobel Peace Prize — after all, Teddy Roosevelt was able to do both.
Despite the abundant evidence for the expansionist motives driving Trump’s Greenland ambitions, much of the resulting commentary has focused on debunking his claim that acquiring the territory is essential for U.S. national security (and to a lesser extent, that it offers a bonanza of oil and critical minerals).
These arguments are important, as the administration has publicly staked its effort to annex Greenland on these claims. It’s therefore vital to note that the U.S. already has the ability to expand its base and troop presence in Greenland under the 1951 Greenland Defense Act, and that it has drawn down that presence since the Cold War entirely of its own volition. Indeed, Denmark and Greenland have stated their openness to an expanded U.S. presence under the current framework. Likewise, it matters that Russian and Chinese naval vessels are not constantly stalking the waters around Greenland as Trump alleges, and that Greenland and Denmark have already been cooperating with U.S. efforts to keep Chinese investment out of critical infrastructure on the island.
Yet there is some risk that a domestic and international response which focuses unduly on rebutting Trump’s security claims inadvertently grants some legitimacy to his annexation drive. For even if the president’s arguments had more merit, the attempt to seize an ally’s territory through coercive diplomacy or military action, against the will of its inhabitants, would still be wildly illegitimate. The notion that the United States ought to be able to invoke its “national security” to run roughshod over self determination, sovereignty, and decades-long treaty commitments ought to be opposed on its own terms.
That successive U.S. governments have previously invoked national security to justify such abuses is unquestionable. Trump himself has cited national security as license to do everything from raising tariffs on kitchen cabinets to fast-tracking deportations. An annexation of Greenland would only be an unusually flagrant and self-defeating expression of this tendency. As the danger of a president who views his power as essentially unlimited becomes more clear, however, it is incumbent upon the American people, elected officials, and international actors to draw a firm line on principles like territorial integrity and self determination.
Some have argued that the Trump administration’s national security arguments point to its real, more limited goals for Greenland — namely, securing greater military access to the island while ensuring Russia and China are kept at arms length.
While it’s hard to reconcile this view with Trump’s statements or the fact that the U.S. could already do these things under its present arrangements with Greenland, it's entirely possible that Trump will find a need to back down from, or at least postpone his designs on the territory. He may be thwarted by defiant congressional Republicans, or persuaded that the consequences for transatlantic relations are too great and that the idea is too unpopular domestically. He may be distracted by another foreign or domestic crisis. Regardless, he could easily pocket an agreement with Greenland and Denmark to increase U.S. troops and bases on the island, as well as deals for U.S. companies to extract oil, gas, and critical minerals there. This would be enough for him to claim victory, and for his allies to claim that actually, this was what he was after all along.
Certainly this outcome would be acceptable to most parties involved. It may suit Denmark, ultimately, to treat Trump’s national security concerns as very serious and try to address them, playing for time while also planning for the possibility that he might simply declare U.S. annexation of Greenland via Truth Social post.
In any case, no one can count on him giving up and moving on. Trump has made it abundantly clear: he views the U.S. acquisition of Greenland as an end unto itself — another way to impose his will on history. That he might be willing to use force or coercion to achieve this goal will remain a live possibility for the duration of his presidency.
Top photo credit: HAGSHULT, SWEDEN- 7 MAY 2024: Military guards during the US Army exercise Swift Response 24 at the Hagshult base, Småland county, Sweden, during Tuesday. (Shutterstock/Sunshine Seeds)
Wednesday’s talks between American, Danish, and Greenlandic officials exposed the unbridgeable gulf between President Trump’s territorial ambitions and respect for sovereignty.
Trump now claims the U.S. needs Greenland to support the Golden Dome missile defense initiative. Meanwhile, European leaders are sending a small number of troops to Greenland.
On Wednesday, Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio sat down with Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenlandic Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt, attempting to find common ground on what has become a surreal crisis.
“There was a fundamental disagreement,” Rasmussen told reporters afterward. Rasmussen said he was unable to change Trump’s position: “It’s clear that the president has this wish of conquering over Greenland.” His Greenlandic counterpart, Vivian Motzfeldt, reiterated her compatriots’ firm stance: “Greenland does not want to be owned by, governed by or part of the United States.”
The meeting, arranged after a week of escalating threats from Trump, was supposed to defuse tensions. Instead, the president is unmoved in his determination to seize Greenland. While the parties agreed to establish a “high-level working group” to continue discussions, this seems to be nothing more than a stalling tactic. The president continues to insist that Greenland must be “in the hands of the U.S…. anything less than that is unacceptable.”
With the narrative of “Russian and Chinese ships off the coast” falling apart, the White House has pivoted to a new rationale: the Golden Dome. Trump is now emphasizing that full control of Greenland is “vital” for his proposed multi-layer missile defense system designed to intercept hypersonic and ballistic threats. “NATO should be leading the way for us to get it,” Trump insisted. “IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!”
Vice President Vance reinforced this position, arguing that “the entire missile defense infrastructure is partially dependent on Greenland.” While there is no denying the strategic value of the island, the U.S. Space Force already operates the Pituffik Space Base with full radar coverage.
Experts dismiss Trump’s claim that annexation is required for Golden Dome to work, arguing that the existing agreements, specifically the 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement, already permit the project’s expansion and any necessary modernization on the island.
The Golden Dome argument appears to be bureaucratic cover for an ideological desire to expand the map. As Rasmussen pointed out, there is zero evidence of Russian or Chinese interest in colonizing the island, rendering the administration’s preemption argument moot.
Rubio has been tasked with coming up with a proposal to purchase Greenland, estimated to cost $700 billion. While Rubio tells Congress that the military threats are merely rhetoric to pressure Denmark, the financial offer is being presented as serious.
Danish Foreign Minister Rasmussen shot down the idea with a stinging rebuke of the American social model: “There’s no way that the U.S. will pay for a Scandinavian welfare system and Greenland,” said Rasmussen. “You haven’t introduced a Scandinavian welfare system in your own country.”
Greenland’s answer is just as firm. Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen stated Tuesday, “We choose Denmark. We choose NATO, the Kingdom of Denmark and the EU.” The 34-year old Greenlandic leader is walking a tightrope. As a pro-business leader, Nielsen wants American investment, but he refuses to let Greenland be treated like a prize to be acquired.
When asked for a response to Nielsen’s loyalty to the current order, Trump turned to personal intimidation: “I disagree with him. I don’t know who he is... but that’s going to be a big problem for him.”
All of this just shows the administration’s fundamental misunderstanding, or willful ignorance, of Greenland’s constitutional status. Even if Copenhagen wanted to sell Greenland, it lacks the legal authority. The 2009 Self-Government Act gives Greenlanders the final say on their future.
The crisis has bled into Congress. On the expansionist right, Senator Randy Fine (R-Fla.) has introduced a legal framework for Greenland to be recognized as the 51st state. “Greenland is not a distant outpost we can afford to ignore — it is a vital national security asset,” Fine declared, arguing that control of the island equals control of Arctic shipping lanes.
In response, Representative Jimmy Gomez (D-CA) introduced the “Greenland Sovereignty Protection Act.” This bill would block federal funds from being used to “invade, annex, purchase, or otherwise acquire” the island. The bill would also prohibit funding for troop surges or influence campaigns aimed at affecting Greenlandic opinion. Gomez warned that threatening allies “weakens international law and puts NATO at risk.”
Republicans aren’t united on this. Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) joked, “Psst, Denmark… Tell this administration the Epstein files are in Greenland… they’ll lose all interest.” Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Representatives Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Don Bacon (R-Neb.) introduced a Sense of Congress bill affirming the U.S.’ partnership with Denmark and Greenland and recognizing America’s responsibility to comply with treaty obligations and solve any disputes peacefully.
Sen. Murkowski and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H). introduced the “NATO Unity Protection Act” to prohibit the use of DoD or State Department funds to blockade, occupy, annex or otherwise assert control over the sovereign territory of a NATO member state. Even House Speaker Mike Johnson tried to cool things off, stating, “All this stuff about military action... I don’t think anybody’s seriously considering that. And in the Congress, we’re certainly not.”
The Danish government has confirmed that Danish soldiers would shoot back if invaded. Denmark allocated $6.5 billion last year to boost its military presence in the Arctic. After Trump brushed off Denmark’s defenses as “two dogsleds,” the Danish Armed Forces and European allies announced increases in their military presence in Greenland.
To send a message, a group of European countries is sending a small, symbolic force to Greenland. Germany has sent a 13-person reconnaissance team; France has redeployed 15 soldiers; Sweden is sending officers; Norway, the Netherlands and the UK have contributed single-digit personnel. The White House has stated that European troops in Greenland won’t change Trump’s mind.
These forces, barely 30 personnel in total, obviously cannot defeat the 200 U.S. troops already stationed at Pituffik, let alone any reinforcements. Rather, their purpose is political. As one French diplomat noted, “We’ll show the U.S. that NATO is present.” With European troops on the ground, any U.S. incursion becomes an attack on Germany, France, and the UK simultaneously.
The rhetoric from European capitals is apocalyptic. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius have warned that American military action against a NATO member state would mean the end of the alliance. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk went even further, stating that such an attack would be “the end of the world as we know it.”
The “high-level working group” will convene in Copenhagen next month, but expectations are minimal. The administration seems committed to acquisition despite the diplomatic dead end. There is a clear off-ramp, but it requires the White House to accept that sovereignty is not a transaction.
Legitimate security concerns regarding the Golden Dome can be addressed through the 1951 Defense Agreement, which has served U.S. interests for 75 years. As for critical minerals, the U.S. should pursue access through commercial diplomacy and joint ventures that respect Greenland’s high environmental standards.
The handful of European soldiers now stationed in Greenland won’t stop American military action if Trump decides to attack. But their presence raises a question every American should ponder: How did we become the threat our own allies need protection from?
The Trump administration’s new executive order to curb arms industry stock buybacks — which boost returns for shareholders — has no teeth, but U.S. lawmakers could and should take advantage.
The White House issued an Executive Order on Jan. 7 to prevent contractors “from putting stock buybacks and excessive corporate distributions ahead of production capacity, innovation, and on-time delivery for America’s military." The order empowers the Defense Secretary to "take steps to ensure that future contracts prohibit stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance, insufficient prioritization or investment, or insufficient production speed."
The administration is right to call attention to military contractors getting rich on the taxpayer’s dime, but Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate commerce and control federal funding, not the president.
He could certainly encourage voluntary compliance with the order by recommending that Congress cancel or withhold contracts from firms delivering what it considers excessive stock buybacks, shareholder dividends, and executive compensation. But President Trump proposed a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget on the same day he released his executive order, and he remains committed to a “peace through strength” agenda partly characterized by the expensive pursuits of military and technological dominance. The $1.5 trillion budget proposal is reason enough for military contractors to call the president’s bluff.
What's more, the defense industrial base cannot absorb a $500 billion plus up to the Pentagon budget. It’s a small industry with a limited number of major players and workers. Should Congress approve a $500 billion increase in a single fiscal year — through the reconciliation process, if at all — it would further cement existing incentives for contractors to develop poorly designed, unreliable, and overly expensive weapon systems. The Pentagon would hastily award lucrative contracts to firms eager to answer the president’s call for a greater rush to production.
The president’s executive order will likely amount to a flashy political stunt, but lawmakers can take meaningful action against shareholder-first business practices in an industry so reliant on government contracts. The most obvious action is to reduce weapons purchases, making it cost-prohibitive for contractors to continue prioritizing shareholders over everything.
Short of a reduction in weapons procurement spending, it would be bold for lawmakers to challenge contractors’ financial positions by instituting caps on authorized but unissued stock, what’s traditionally known as “treasury stock.” If a publicly traded military contractor was limited to owning a certain percentage of its own stock, its board would have lesser ability to manipulate common stock prices during downturns caused by poor contract performance or geopolitical tumult.
Lawmakers could further narrow the applicability of these caps by limiting them to contractors that generate a certain percentage of their revenues from government contracts.
Another option is for Congress to further reduce the tax advantage of repurchasing stock instead of issuing dividends to investors. Buybacks are relatively tax efficient because they are tax deferred. Investors pay capital gains when they sell the stock, whereas dividends are taxed as income. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 established a 1% excise tax on stock buybacks exceeding $1 million, which the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated will generate $74 billion in revenue from fiscal years 2022 to 2031. At the time, there was Democratic support for an excise tax of 4%, which would vastly reduce the tax incentive for contractors to repurchase shares.
Realistically, the most viable path for Congress to rein in arms industry stock buybacks is to be specific about its expectations for military contractors — and most importantly, issue penalties when contractors fail to meet those expectations. As previously mentioned, the government can refuse contracts to companies already behind schedule and over budget on existing programs. If firms risk future ineligibility for Pentagon contracts, it might encourage them to share honest cost estimates during the bidding phase — when contractors so often underestimate cost projections to win contracts.
Congress can also disqualify firms from future contracts if they repeatedly refuse to provide the Pentagon with the cost information necessary for the department to negotiate fair prices, particularly with sole-source suppliers. Data denials are a well-documented, persistent issue in the arms industry, yet contractors continue to get away with them.
At the end of the day, talk is cheap, but meaningful legislative action can change contractors’ financial incentives long-term. This is critical to holding firms accountable to their contractual commitments and the president to his word, especially given the administration’s recent investment in L3Harris.
Partial government ownership can offer public officials greater opportunity to cash in on government contracts, as reduced risk boosts a firm’s valuation. But it can also shift a firm’s focus away from shareholder returns and toward investment, should the government effectively leverage its financial stake — which ideally comes with board representation and voting rights.
Should it choose to take it, Congress has an important opportunity to shape the outcome of these partnerships and to curb industry buybacks more generally.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.
