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
Video: Pakistan Launches Airstrikes on Afghanistan
new video loaded: Pakistan Launches Airstrikes on Afghanistan
By Monika Cvorak
February 27, 2026
Denmark’s Prime Minister Calls For a Snap Parliamentary Election
1:36
Marco Rubio Says U.S. Is Probing Deadly Cuban Shooting
0:45
Amid Chaos in Mexico, False Images Stoked Fears
2:45
Violence in Mexico After Cartel Boss Is Killed
1:40
Violence Erupts Across Mexico After Cartel Boss Killed
0:58
The Japanese Airport That Doesn’t Lose Bags
2:59
Today’s Videos
U.S.
Politics
Immigration
NY Region
Science
Business
Culture
Books
Wellness
World
Africa
Americas
Asia
South Asia
Donald Trump
Middle East Crisis
Russia-Ukraine Crisis
Visual Investigations
Opinion Video
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
World
State Dept authorizes non-essential US Embassy personnel in Jerusalem to depart ahead of possible Iran strikes
Deadline looms for Iran-US nuclear deal
U.S.-Iran nuclear talks intensify in Switzerland as President Trump’s deadline approaches. Vice President JD Vance states there’s ‘no chance’ of endless war in the Middle East.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The State Department is allowing non-essential personnel working at the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem to leave Israel ahead of possible strikes on Iran. The embassy announced the decision early Friday morning and said that “in response to security incidents and without advance notice” it could place further restrictions on where U.S. government employees can travel within Israel.
The decision came after meetings and phone calls through the night Thursday into Friday, according to The New York Times, which reviewed a copy of an email that U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee sent to embassy workers.
The Times reported that the ambassador said in his email that the move was a result of “an abundance of caution” and that those wishing to leave “should do so TODAY.” He reportedly urged them to look for flights out of Ben Gurion Airport to any destination, cautioning that the embassy’s move “will likely result in high demand for airline seats today.”
The U.S. has authorized non-essential embassy personnel to leave Israel amid escalating tensions with Iran. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images; Iranian Leader Press Office/Anadolu via Getty Images)
In the email, Huckabee also said that there was “no need to panic,” but he underscored that those looking to leave should “make plans to depart sooner rather than later,” the Times reported.
“Focus on getting a seat to anyplace from which you can then continue travel to D.C., but the first priority will be getting expeditiously out of country,” Huckabee said in the email, according to the Times.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, U.S. President Donald Trump’s nominee to be ambassador to Israel, arrives to testify during his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Mar. 25, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
TRUMP MEETS NETANYAHU, SAYS HE WANTS IRAN DEAL BUT REMINDS TEHRAN OF ‘MIDNIGHT HAMMER’ OPERATION
The embassy reiterated the State Department’s advisory for U.S. citizens to reconsider traveling to Israel and the West Bank “due to terrorism and civil unrest.” Additionally, the department advised that U.S. citizens not travel to Gaza because of terrorism and armed conflict, as well as northern Israel, particularly within 2.5 miles of the Lebanese and Syrian borders because of “continued military presence and activity.”
It also recommended that U.S. citizens not travel within 1.5 miles of the Egyptian border, with the exception of the Taba crossing, which remains open.
“Terrorist groups, lone-actor terrorists and other violent extremists continue plotting possible attacks in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Terrorists and violent extremists may attack with little or no warning, targeting tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets/shopping malls, and local government facilities,” the embassy said in its warning. “The security environment is complex and can change quickly, and violence can occur in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza without warning.”
Israeli and U.S. flags are placed on the road leading to the U.S. consulate in the Jewish neighborhood of Arnona, on the East-West Jerusalem line in Jerusalem, May 9, 2018. (Corinna Kern/picture alliance via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
While the embassy did not specifically mention Iran in its warning, it referenced “increased regional tensions” that could “cause airlines to cancel and/or curtail flights into and out of Israel.”
Fox News Digital reached out to the State Department and the White House for comment on this matter.
World
Has India’s influence in Afghanistan grown under the Taliban?
Pakistan has accused Afghanistan’s Taliban of serving as a “proxy” for India, amid escalating hostilities between Islamabad and Kabul.
Just hours after Pakistan bombed locations in Kabul early on Friday, Pakistan’s Minister of Defence Khawaja Asif wrote on X that after NATO forces withdrew from Afghanistan in July 2021, “it was expected that peace would prevail in Afghanistan and that the Taliban would focus on the interests of the Afghan people and regional stability”.
list of 3 itemsend of listRecommended Stories
“However, the Taliban turned Afghanistan into a colony of India,” he wrote and accused the Taliban of “exporting terrorism”.
“Pakistan made every effort, both directly and through friendly countries, to keep the situation stable. It carried out extensive diplomacy. However, the Taliban became a proxy of India,” he alleged as he declared an “open war” with Afghanistan.
This is not the first time that Asif has brought India into tensions with Afghanistan.
Last October, he alleged: “India wants to engage in a low-intensity war with Pakistan. To achieve this, they are using Kabul.”
So far, Asif has presented no evidence to back his claims and the Taliban has rejected accusations that it is being influenced by India.
But India has condemned the Pakistani military’s recent actions in Afghanistan, adding to Islamabad’s growing discernment that its nuclear rival and the Taliban are edging closer.
Earlier this week, after the Pakistani military carried out air raids inside Afghanistan on Sunday, India’s Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement that New Delhi “strongly condemns Pakistan’s airstrikes on Afghan territory that have resulted in civilian casualties, including women and children, during the holy month of Ramadan”.
After Friday morning’s flare-up between Pakistan and Afghanistan, India’s foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal again said New Delhi “strongly” condemned Pakistan’s air strikes and also noted that they took place on a Friday during the holy month of Ramadan.
“It is another attempt by Pakistan to externalise its internal failures,” Jaiswal said in a statement on X.
Has India’s influence in Afghanistan grown under the Taliban and what is India’s endgame with Afghanistan?
Here’s what we know:
How have relations between India and the Taliban evolved?
When the Taliban first rose to power in Afghanistan in 1996, India adopted a hostile policy towards the group and did not recognise its assumption of power. India also shunned all diplomatic relations with the Taliban.
At the time, New Delhi viewed the Taliban as a proxy for Pakistan’s intelligence agencies. Pakistan, together with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, were the only three countries to have also recognised the Taliban administration at that point.
Then, in 2001, India supported the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, which toppled the Taliban administration. India then reopened its embassy in Kabul and embraced the new government led by Hamid Karzai. The Taliban, in response, attacked Indian embassies and consulates in Afghanistan. In 2008, at least 58 people were killed when the Taliban bombed India’s embassy in Kabul.
In 2021, after the Taliban returned to power, India closed its embassy in Afghanistan once again and also did not officially recognise the Taliban as the government of the country.
But a year later, as relations between Pakistan and the Taliban deteriorated over armed groups which Pakistan accuses Afghanistan of harbouring, India began engaging with the Taliban.
In 2022, India sent a team of “technical experts” to run its mission in Kabul and officially reopened its embassy in the Afghan capital last October. New Delhi also allowed the Taliban to operate Afghanistan consulates in the Indian cities of Mumbai and Hyderabad.
Over the past two years, officials from New Delhi and Afghanistan have also held meetings abroad, in Kabul and in New Delhi.
In January last year, the Taliban administration’s Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi met India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates.
Then, in October 2025, he visited New Delhi and met Indian foreign minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar.
After this meeting, Muttaqi told journalists that Kabul “has always sought good relations with India” and, in a joint statement, Afghanistan and India pledged to have “close communication and continue regular engagement”.
Besides beefing up diplomatic ties, India has also offered humanitarian support to Afghanistan under the Taliban’s rule.
After a magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck northern Afghanistan in November last year, India shipped food, medicine and vaccines, and Jaishankar was also among the first foreign ministers to call Muttaqi and offer his support. Since last December, India has also approved and implemented several healthcare infrastructure projects in Afghanistan, according to a December 2025 report by the country’s press information bureau.
Praveen Donthi, senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that the costs of avoiding engagement with the Taliban in the past have compelled the Indian government to adopt strategic pragmatism towards the Afghan leadership this time.
“New Delhi does not want to disregard this relationship on ideological grounds or create strategic space for India’s main strategic rivals, Pakistan and China, in its neighbourhood,” he said.
Raghav Sharma, professor and director at the Centre for Afghanistan Studies at the OP Jindal Global University in India, added that the current engagement also stems from New Delhi’s pragmatic realisation that the Taliban is now in charge in Afghanistan and that there is no meaningful opposition.
“States engage in order to protect and further their interests. While there is little by way of ideological convergence, there are areas of strategic convergence, which is what has pushed India to engage with the Taliban, some of their unpalatable policies notwithstanding,” he said.
Is this a new stance towards Afghanistan?
No. India’s growing influence and engagement with Afghanistan began well before the Taliban returned to power in August 2021.
Between December 2001 and September 2014, during the US presence in Afghanistan, New Delhi was a strong supporter of the Karzai government, and then of his successor, Ashraf Ghani’s government, which was in power from September 2014 until August 2021, when the US withdrew from the country.
In October 2011, under Karzai, India and Afghanistan renewed ties by signing an agreement to form a strategic partnership. New Delhi also pledged to support Afghanistan in the face of foreign troops in the nation as a part of this agreement.
Under both Karzai and his successor, Ghani, India invested more than $3bn in humanitarian aid and reconstruction work in Afghanistan. This included reconstruction projects like schools and hospitals, and also a new National Assembly building in Kabul, which was inaugurated in December 2015 when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Afghanistan for the first time.
India’s Border Road Organisation (BRO) also assisted Afghanistan in the development of infrastructure projects like the 218km Zaranj-Delaram highway in 2009 under Karzai’s government.
Under Ghani, New Delhi undertook building the Salma Dam project to help with irrigating Afghanistan. In June 2016, when Modi visited Afghanistan once again, he inaugurated this $290m dam project. In May 2016, Iran, India and Afghanistan also signed a trilateral trade and transit agreement on the Chabahar port.
During this period – 2001-2021 – Pakistan’s unease with New Delhi and Kabul’s new partnership grew.
In October 2011, after signing a strategic agreement with India, Karzai had assured Islamabad that while “India is a great friend, Pakistan is a twin brother”.
But Karzai was critical of Pakistan’s support for the Taliban. In his last speech as president of Afghanistan in Kabul in September 2014, he stated that he believed most of the Taliban leadership lived in Pakistan.
In a 2011 report by a Washington, DC-based think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Amer Latif, former director for South Asian affairs in the US Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, noted that Karzai was walking a “fine line between criticising Pakistan’s activities while also referring to Pakistan as Afghanistan’s ‘twin brother’.”
“It is in this context that Karzai appears to be looking to solidify long-term partnerships with countries that will aid his stabilisation efforts,” he said, referring to Karzai’s visit to India and his efforts to improve relations with the subcontinent.
When Ghani rose to power in September 2014, he tried to reset ties with Pakistan and also visited the country in November that year. But his efforts did not result in improved ties due to border disputes with Pakistan continuing until his administration was overthrown by the Taliban in August 2021.
So why has India maintained ties with Afghanistan under the Taliban?
Initially, when the Taliban returned to power in 2021 following the withdrawal of the US, political analysts largely expected Pakistan to lead the way in recognising the Taliban administration as the official government of Afghanistan, improving bilateral relations which had turned icy under Karzai and Ghani.
But relations turned hostile, with Pakistan repeatedly accusing the Taliban of allowing anti-Pakistan armed groups like the Pakistan Taliban (TTP) to operate from Afghan soil. The Taliban denies this.
Then, the deportation of tens of thousands of Afghan refugees by Pakistan in recent years further strained ties between the two neighbours.
India has ultimately taken a pragmatic approach to the Taliban in order to maintain the good relations it built with Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021, and has somewhat leveraged poor relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan to cement these.
“With Pakistan’s increasingly strained relations with Afghanistan, the logic of ‘enemy’s enemy’ is acting as a glue between Kabul and New Delhi,” International Crisis Group’s Donthi said.
He added that despite the fact that India’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government opposes Islamist organisations, “the strategic necessity to counter Pakistan has led it to engage with the Taliban proactively”.
India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed rivals which engaged in a four-day conflict in May 2025 after armed rebels killed Indian tourists in Pahalgam, a popular tourist spot in Indian-administered Kashmir, last April. New Delhi accused Pakistan of supporting rebel fighters, a charge Pakistan strongly denied.
For its part, Afghanistan took the opportunity to strongly condemn the Pahalgam attack and the Indian Ministry of External Affairs expressed “deep appreciation” to the Taliban for its “strong condemnation of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam … as well as for the sincere condolences”.
India has also condemned Pakistani military action in Afghanistan and has provided aid to thousands of Afghan refugees displaced from Pakistan.
So what is India’s endgame in Afghanistan?
Sharma, the OP Jindal Global University professor, said India wants to ensure that Pakistan and China, whose influence has grown in South Asia in recent years, “do not have a free run”, as “there is a divergence of interest on Afghanistan” with both Pakistan and its ally, China.
“There are security interests New Delhi is keen to further and protect for which engagement [with the Taliban] is the only option,” he added.
Anil Trigunayat, a former Indian diplomat, noted that while Afghanistan and Pakistan relations have their own dynamic, currently the Taliban leadership, even if not a monolith, refuses to play to the tunes of the Pakistan military and its intelligence agency.
“Hence they [Pakistan] accuse Indian complicity in Taliban actions in Pakistan,” he said.
But the Taliban, he said, “understands and appreciates India’s intent, policies and [humanitarian] contributions”, making its leaders keen to continue collaboration with New Delhi.
-
World2 days 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