World
Trump says Greenland ‘essential’ for security: Could he take it by force?
President Donald Trump has said the United States needs Greenland for its “national security” after naming Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as special envoy to the Danish Arctic island, prompting protests from Copenhagen.
“We need Greenland for national security, not for minerals,” Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida on Monday, adding that Landry would “lead the charge”.
list of 3 itemsend of listRecommended Stories
Landry said he would make the Arctic territory “a part of the US”.
The comments drew sharp rebukes from Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen.
“You cannot annex another country … Not even with an argument about international security,” they said in a joint statement. “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders and the US shall not take over Greenland,” they added.
Since Trump returned to the White House in January, he has commented on several occasions about his desire for the mineral-rich island, a demand Denmark and many other European nations have steadfastly rejected.
So, what does Trump sending an envoy mean for Greenland, and could he succeed in acquiring it?
Why is Trump saying Greenland is ‘essential’ to US national security?
The US president insisted that the resource-rich island is “essential” for security reasons, rather than for its mineral resources.
“If you take a look at Greenland, you look up and down the coast, you have Russian and Chinese ships all over the place,” he said on Monday, while adding that the US has “many sites for minerals and oil”.
Trump’s interest in Greenland is not new.
During his first term as US president from 2017 to 2021, he mooted the idea of buying the island from Denmark. Trump then postponed a 2019 visit to the Nordic country after Danish PM Frederiksen slammed the idea.
He has refused to rule out the use of military force to seize control, noting in March that the US would “go as far as we have to”.
Geographically part of North America, Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, lies about 2,900km (1,800 miles) from New York – closer than it is to Copenhagen, Denmark’s capital, which is situated roughly 3,500km (2,174 miles) to the east.
The semi-autonomous territory has a population of 57,000 people.
Why has Trump sent an ‘envoy’ to Greenland – what does that signify?
On Sunday, the US president appointed Louisiana Governor Landry as special envoy to Greenland, prompting anger from Copenhagen, which summoned the US ambassador to explain the decision.
Following the announcement, Landry said it would be an honour to serve in a role meant to “make Greenland a part of the US”, further amplifying Denmark’s concerns about the White House’s intentions.
Taking to his social media platform Truth Social, Trump said Landry is aware “how essential Greenland is” for US national security.
Marc Jacobsen, a professor at the Royal Danish Defence College in Denmark, said while Trump is “clearly serious” about his interest in Greenland, it is unlikely he would try to take it by force.
“But we certainly see attempts to gain influence through other channels such as strategic investments and pushing narratives that portray Denmark as a bad partner,” Jacobsen told Al Jazeera.
“The appointment of Jeff Landry as special envoy and Tom Dans as the leader of the US Arctic Research Commission should be seen as new elements in this strategy,” he added.
How have Greenlanders responded to this latest move?
Lokke Rasmussen, the foreign minister of Denmark, said Trump’s appointment of Landry confirmed continued US interest in Greenland.
“However, we insist that everyone – including the US – must show respect for the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark,” he told the AFP news agency.
On Monday, Greenland’s Prime Minister Nielsen said Greenland is friendly towards Washington and that “they know there is no obstacle to the United States increasing security in the Arctic on Greenlandic territory if they wish to do so.
“But going from that to pressuring to take over a country that is populated and has its own sovereignty is not acceptable,” Nielsen told the daily Sermitsiaq.
People in Greenland broadly favour increased independence from Denmark – but not the transfer of sovereignty to the US.
In 2009, Denmark granted Greenland extensive self-governing powers, including the right to pursue independence from Denmark via a referendum.
In August, Denmark summoned the US charge d’affaires after at least three officials linked to former President Trump were spotted in Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, gauging local sentiment on strengthening ties with the US.
In March, US Vice President JD Vance and his wife, Usha Vance, were accompanied by White House National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright on a tour of the US’s Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland “to receive a briefing on Arctic security issues and meet with US service members”, according to a statement released by Vance’s office.
However, Greenland’s acting head of government, Mute Egede, wrote in an online post at the time that Greenland had not in fact extended any invitation for an official or private visit.
In response to Landry’s announcement, European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa said Arctic security was and will remain a “key priority” for the EU, “one in which we seek to work with allies and partners”.
“Territorial integrity and sovereignty are fundamental principles of international law. These principles are essential not only for the European Union, but for nations around the world,” they said on X.
On Tuesday, French President Emmanuel Macron reiterated France’s backing for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both Denmark and Greenland.
He said Greenland “belongs to its people” and Denmark “serves as its guarantor”.
Why is Greenland strategic for the US?
Trump has repeatedly emphasised that the Arctic’s strategic geography – particularly Greenland’s position between North America and Europe – is key to US defence and global security interests.
Its location, offering the shortest route from North America to Europe, would give Washington leverage for its military and its ballistic missile early-warning system.
The US is also interested in placing radars in the waters that connect Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom. These waters are a gateway for Russian and Chinese ships, which the US wants to track.
The island also hosts the Pituffik Space Base, a major US military installation used for surveillance and missile warning operations.
What mineral resources does Greenland have?
Trump has denied that its mineral wealth is the real reason he is so interested in Greenland. However, it is rich in mineral resources critical for the production of modern technologies, including rare-earth elements for electronics and clean energy, as well as uranium, zinc and other base metals.
It also holds potential oil and gas deposits, though their extraction is restricted. Surveys indicate that Greenland contains a substantial share of the critical raw materials identified by the EU.
Which other countries are scrambling for positions in the Arctic and why?
Several countries have become increasingly active in the Arctic in recent years.
Climate change and a rapidly melting ice sheet are the main reasons the Arctic has become a geopolitical hotspot.
The Arctic is heating at a rate four times faster than the global average, increasing its accessibility for maritime trade routes and resource exploration – including by non-Arctic countries as well as those with an Arctic presence.
China has deployed vessels capable of serving both military surveillance and research functions in the region. The purposes are to collect data and secure access to resources and shipping lanes, which are emerging as a result of melting ice.
Last year, Canada unveiled a 37-page security policy detailing plans to enhance its military and diplomatic presence in the Arctic, citing threats posed by increasing Russian and Chinese activity.
In recent years, Russia has expanded its naval presence, deploying missile systems and ramping up weapons testing in the Arctic.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has also noted Trump’s interest in the region.
During an address at the International Arctic Forum in the Russian city of Murmansk, the largest city within the Arctic circle, earlier this year, Putin said he believed Trump was serious about taking Greenland and that the US would continue its efforts to acquire it.
“It can look surprising only at first glance, and it would be wrong to believe that this is some sort of extravagant talk by the current US administration,” said Putin, adding that he expects the US to continue to “systematically advance its geostrategic, military-political and economic interests in the Arctic”.
Putin also expressed concerns about Russia’s neighbours, Finland and Sweden – both of which have borders inside the Arctic circle – joining NATO, the transatlantic military alliance between North America and Europe. Finland joined NATO in 2023, and Sweden joined in 2024.
“Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic, but we will closely follow the developments and mount an appropriate response by increasing our military capability and modernising military infrastructure,” Putin said.
Could the US take Greenland by force?
Jacobsen said if the US were to invade Greenland, it would mean the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Denmark and the US are founding members of NATO, a European and North American military alliance founded in 1949.
“On a personal level for Trump, it would also mean the end of any ambitions for getting a peace prize, which he has strived for so long,” Jacobsen told Al Jazeera.
“All his efforts to end the wars in Ukraine, Israel-Palestine and elsewhere would have no effect to this end.”
Jacobsen added that there are still “reasonable people in the right positions” who would pull the “handbrake on such an unreasonable idea like invading Greenland”.
“I truly don’t believe it will happen,” he added.
World
Netflix Says No to Warner Bros. After Price War, Beltway Concerns
And just like that, Netflix has bowed out of its pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery’s streaming and studio assets.
Late Thursday, the streaming colossus announced that it has decided against raising its $82.7 billion bid for a big chunk of the WBD properties, leaving Paramount Skydance with what amounts to the winning offer. Under Paramount’s latest revision to its original proposal, David Ellison’s media conglomerate will fork over some $111 billion for everything under the WBD tent, including the sports-heavy cable networks division.
Among the backers of Paramount’s $31 per share, all-cash bid are Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Citi and Apollo, which are providing a $57.5 billion debt commitment, and Ellison’s father/Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, who has guaranteed a $45.7 billion equity commitment.
In a statement issued by co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters, Netflix noted that Paramount’s latest escalation made any further attempt to claim the WBD assets a bad bit of business. “The transaction we negotiated would have created shareholder value with a clear path to regulatory approval,” Sarandos and Peters wrote. “However, we’ve always been disciplined, and at the price required to match Paramount Skydance’s latest offer, the deal is no longer financially attractive, so we are declining to match the Paramount Skydance bid.”
Netflix went on to thank the WBD brass for “running a fair and rigorous process” before going on to characterize the assets as “a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price.”
Meanwhile, as part of its sweetened offer, Paramount will foot the bill for the $2.8 billion termination fee WBD now owes Netflix.
Netflix’s announcement arrived just hours after Sarandos met with White House staffers to discuss his company’s bid for the WBD assets. President Donald Trump was not on hand for the meeting.
Paramount’s updated offer all but guarantees that it will walk away with the WBD spoils. While shareholders must vote to approve the deal, the amount of cash in play and the absence of a viable alternative suggest that the transaction will get the green flag.
Upon closing, the Paramount deal will bring CBS Sports and Turner Sports under one roof, thereby creating a massive rights portfolio that includes the NFL, NHL, Major League Baseball, college football, the Masters, the UFC and March Madness.
Uniting the rights to the marquee men’s college hoops tourney would effectively close the circle on the partnership forged in 2010 by former CBS Sports chairman Sean McManus and ex-Turner Sports president David Levy. After McManus determined that CBS could no longer afford to go it alone with its coverage of March Madness, the two execs hashed out a 14-year, $10.8 billion rights deal that would see the Turner networks share the burden—and the spoils—with CBS.
Ten years ago, the two partners extended the deal through 2032, tacking on another eight years of Madness for an additional $8.8 billion.
Having been subjected to a Beltway cross-examination and at least one disapproving social media salvo by the president, Netflix may have come to the conclusion that the regulatory fix was in. Earlier this month, Sarandos was grilled by a Senate committee in an antitrust hearing that often teetered on the edge of the profoundly unserious. In one heated exchange, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) asked why “so much of Netflix content for children promotes a transgender ideology?”
Hawley began his line of questioning by inquiring into relevant matters (labor concerns, theatrical windows), before veering into the culture war lane near the end of his allotted time. He concluded by expressing his concern that Sarandos and Netflix “don’t share my values or those of many other American parents,” a vibes-based assessment which the framers of the Sherman Act neglected to consider 136 years ago when they were going about the business of outlawing monopolistic practices.
Later in the hearing, Eric Schmitt, the junior senator from the Show Me State, told Sarandos that Netflix was responsible for creating the “wokest content in the history of the world.” Again, this was an antitrust hearing, not a meeting of a network standards and practices division.
Ellison turned down an invitation to testify at the hearing.
Netflix’s decision to bow out of the running was made shortly after the WBD board determined that Paramount’s latest bid was the “superior” offer. Paramount’s strategy to usurp Netflix as the front runner was reinforced by an aggressive campaign to assure WBD shareholders that it has a far better shot at successfully negotiating any potential regulatory hurdles.
Misgivings about Netflix’s chances were further amplified last weekend when President Donald Trump made a dig at a Netflix board member.
Trump on Saturday took to Truth Social to demand that Netflix bounce Susan Rice from its board of directors “IMMEDIATELY, or pay the consequences.” A former Obama and Biden administration official, Rice poked the bear during a podcast appearance in which she insinuated that “it is not going to end well” for corporations and news organizations that “bent the knee” to Trump.
When asked by the BBC about Trump’s anti-Rice salvo, Sarandos tried to shrug the whole thing off, saying of the president, “He likes to do a lot of things on social media.” Sarandos went on to assert that the executive branch has no say in the matter, and while that may be accurate from a legal standpoint, the Netflix co-CEO may want to take a gander at the big pile of nothing that used to be the East Wing of the White House. Stranger things (sorry) have happened.
“This is a business deal. It’s not a political deal,” Sarandos said. “This deal is run by the Department of Justice in the U.S. and regulators throughout Europe and around the world.”
The day after Sarandos brushed off Trump’s remarks, Paramount upped its offer to WBD to $31 a share, to be paid in all cash. This marked the 10th revision of Paramount’s original bid and included billions in additional financial incentives. Just hours after WBD acknowledged receipt of the beefed-up proposal, Ellison, the chairman and CEO of Paramount, attended the State of the Union Address as a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
The Justice Department, which just two weeks ago dismissed Gail Slater, the head of its antitrust division, is said to be looking into Paramount’s proposal. Under federal law, antitrust enforcers are at liberty to scuttle any deal that poses a threat to fair and competitive business practices.
On Wednesday, House Democrats petitioned U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to provide a full accounting of why the DOJ ousted Slater, noting that her ejection has left a “leadership vacuum” at a time when “the antitrust division is handling historic cases.” Signed by Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House judiciary committee, and Jerry Nadler, a Democratic congressman from New York, the letter stated that Slater’s departure leaves the DOJ bereft of “any principled antitrust experts left to guard the antitrust division from [a] cascade of corruption.”
Hand-picked by Trump to lead the antitrust division, Slater was confirmed by the Senate last March by a 78-19 vote.
World
Tour guide arrested after drawing stick figure on 4,000-year-old pyramid
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
An Egyptian tour guide was arrested after allegedly sketching a stick figure onto the side of the 4,000-year-old Pyramid of Unas while leading a group of tourists.
Video of the incident, which circulated widely on social media, shows the man leaning toward a lower section of the pyramid’s outer casing while tourists stand nearby listening. He is then seen attempting to wipe the markings away with his hand, though remnants remain visible in the footage.
In a post on X, Egypt’s Interior Ministry said the guide “damaged an antiquity by drawing on the outer casing of one of the pyramids” while explaining the site to tourists. Although the initial report mentioned the general Giza area.
The ministry said the investigation was launched after the video spread online, prompting an antiquities inspector to file a report with the Saqqara Tourism Police Station identifying the guide. Officials said the markings were later removed by specialists.
An Egyptian tour guide was arrested after allegedly sketching a stick figure on the 4,000-year-old Pyramid of Unas in Saqqara, officials said. (Egyptian Ministry of Interior)
Authorities apprehended the suspect, who confessed to the act during questioning, according to the ministry.
“Legal measures have been taken,” the ministry added, noting that specialists have since removed the markings.
Local media outlets, citing the Interior Ministry’s investigation, identified the site as the Pyramid of Unas in the Saqqara necropolis south of Giza.
VANDALS HIT YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK WITH GRAFFITI ON BOULDER, MORE
An Egyptian tour guide was arrested after allegedly sketching a stick figure on the 4,000-year-old Pyramid of Unas in Saqqara, officials said. (Egyptian Ministry of Interior)
B.C. for the Pharaoh Unas, is historically significant for containing the earliest Pyramid Texts. These religious inscriptions consist of more than 200 spells carved into the pyramid’s interior walls, forming what scholars consider the oldest known collection of funerary texts.
ARCHAEOLOGISTS FIND 1,600-YEAR-OLD CHURCHES AND MURAL OF JESUS IN EGYPTIAN DESERT SETTLEMENT
An Egyptian tour guide was arrested after allegedly sketching a stick figure on the 4,000-year-old Pyramid of Unas in Saqqara, officials said. (Egyptian Ministry of Interior)
The pyramid is located within the vast Saqqara necropolis, part of ancient Memphis – Egypt’s first capital and now a UNESCO World Heritage Site that contains a sprawling complex of tombs, temples and pyramids.
Egypt has increased enforcement and preservation efforts at archaeological sites in recent years as officials seek to protect ancient monuments that attract millions of visitors annually.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Under Egypt’s Antiquities Protection Law, damaging actions such as writing on or damaging archaeological sites can carry prison sentences and fines, with the exact penalties varying by offense.
World
Italy calls for suspension of EU carbon market
Italy’s Industry minister Adolfo Urso urged the European Union to suspend its carbon market until the bloc presents a revised proposal due this summer, citing the hardship faced by European businesses because of high power and carbon costs.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Emissions Trading System (ETS) is the bloc’s mechanism for making companies pay for their pollution, with the dual aim of reducing emissions and encouraging industry to invest in more sustainable alternatives.
In Europe, the ETS currently covers heavy industries, power plants as well as airlines and shipping. Additional sectors such as international aviation, landfills and incinerators will be included in the upcoming review by the European Commission.
But Urso said the ETS is to blame for Europe’s competitiveness problems because the bloc’s climate policy tool has a “perverse effect” and is preventing European companies from competing with China and the United States.
“We are all aware that the mechanism of the ETS, as it is currently drafted, is only a tax, a tariff on the energy-intensive companies that struggle to remain competitive,” Urso told reporters on the sidelines of a gathering of industry ministers in Brussels on Thursday. “It is necessary – we are all aware – to review it in a substantive way.”
“To do this properly, it is necessary to suspend the ETS mechanism while awaiting a reform that must necessarily be comprehensive,” Urso added.
Urso added: “If we are in the face of the collapse of the European chemical industry and the crisis of European ideology, we cannot wait for the time of negotiations within the European Union to find a solution.”
The Italian minister said that in the meantime, “we are looking for an effective organic solution,” adding that he will ask the European Commission to suspend the ETS.
Italy’s plea joins that of industry leaders who have recently asked the EU to urgently act to reduce energy and carbon costs. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has recently touted the same idea, driving down carbon market prices, only to backtrack on it a few days later.
Nordic business leaders back ETS
In a letter sent to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra, a group of Nordic industry associations representing Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway urged the EU to maintain the ETS, highlighting its role as a key European advantage and as a source of certainty for investments in clean technologies.
They backed the ETS as a “market-based and technology-neutral policy instrument” that helps reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
“Reforming the system must be done carefully, because it has such a significant impact on the economy and competitiveness, in addition to the climate,” the Nordic leaders suggested.
The four industry associations argued that future prosperity in the EU is linked to the ETS since its revenues can bring about decisive investments in clean energy production, critical infrastructure, electrification, and ultimately the decarbonisation of industry.
“Efficient use of the EU’s own resources is central to achieving almost all the Union’s major strategic aims, and these efforts require reliable access to both public and private financing,” reads the letter dated 23 February and seen by Euronews.
Since its inception in 2005, the ETS has slashed emissions by 39%, with revenues exceeding €260 billion, according to the EU data.
Hindering technological innovation
Carlo Carraro, President Emeritus and Professor of Economics at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, criticised the Italian government’s stance on the ETS, saying the attack risks weakening a policy that has proven effective in reducing emissions in regulated sectors.
“Innovation and competitiveness are now inextricably linked to decarbonisation,” Carraro said. “Hindering the transition exposes businesses to increasing technological and financial risks and makes the country less competitive”.
Similar thoughts were voiced by Chiara di Mambro, Director of Strategy Italy and Europe at the environmental think tank ECCO.
“Suspending the ETS as proposed today or subsidising gas, as envisaged in the Government’s recent decree, would move Italy in the opposite direction (higher energy prices): weakening the price signal, increasing market uncertainty, and ultimately delaying the transition away from expensive fossil fuels,” di Mambro said.
Italy is already on track to overhaul its electricity market, which would strip carbon costs from power bills. Instead, Di Mambro suggests using fiscal revenues or dividends from energy companies to reduce the burden of levies on electricity bills.
-
World1 day agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts2 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Oklahoma1 week agoWildfires rage in Oklahoma as thousands urged to evacuate a small city
-
Louisiana4 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology6 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Denver, CO2 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology6 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making