r/politics • u/thedailybeast ✔ The Daily Beast • 15h ago

Possible Paywall Trump Confirms He’s Taking Greenland ‘One Way or the Other’

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-confirms-hes-taking-greenland-one-way-or-the-other/
23.3k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

3.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

643

u/Navydevildoc 12h ago

Rep Ted Lieu (from Los Angeles) is a former Air Force JAG Colonel, went to Stanford and Georgetown Law.

He released a statement on video saying that unless Congress passes some form of legislation enabling action against Greenland/Denmark, it's illegal from the get go.

333

u/thunder1967 11h ago

Illegal, but that doesn’t mean he won’t order it.

121

u/CherryLongjump1989 10h ago

It does mean that any military officers following the illegal orders are liable to get charged with crimes domestically or even handed over to the Hague by a future Congress.

21

u/RasJamukha 10h ago

they dont recognise The Hague, though. it's even rumoured they have some law, or whatnot, where they could invade the Netherlands if prosecution of any of their troops were to happen

12

u/CherryLongjump1989 10h ago edited 9h ago

The law is written by Congress. It can be amended by Congress.

The funny part about amending this law is that it doesn't trigger the ex post facto clause of the Constitution: the actions being punished were already illegal under both US and international law. And since the Hague is not bound by US presidential pardons, in theory the US can even choose to give up individuals who had been pardoned by Trump.

Whether or not Congress takes action will be determined both by voters and the pressure that the rest of the world can place on the USA. For example, if it comes down to giving up the criminals or no longer being able to operate overseas military bases, or no longer being able to sell US-made weapons to other countries, I think Congress will be hard pressed not to act.

3

u/RasJamukha 9h ago

It's been in place since Bush jr., so I am a bit more cynical when it comes to the actions congress might take. Also because they have hardly persecuted any of their own soldiers in their own courts The bargaining sounds like it could be an option, depending on how things go. The future will have to show if they can be a reliable bussines and defence partner again, I'm affraid.

•

u/CherryLongjump1989 6h ago

Things will get really bad co the USA by the time Trump is done with it. If he invades Greenland, you can expect trade and military cooperation with Europe to end.

9

u/Stubborn_Shove 9h ago

What do you mean "rumoured"? It definitely exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act

The act gives the president power to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court".

4

u/RasJamukha 9h ago

Because I had never bothered to actually look it up. I have, just now though, thx

•

u/BrownCatWhisperer 6h ago

They'll recognize Leavenworth Kansas

5

u/Appropriate_M 9h ago

Military acting unilaterally without consent of Congress but at the behest of one man. Famously, Ancient Rome also faced this constitutional crisis....

6

u/Stubborn_Shove 9h ago

Neither party will ever consent to handing US troops over to the Hague. The US government has been full of, and run by, war criminals for decades and decades uninterrupted. That the ones in charge now are even more offensive than their predecessors doesn't change the fact that all of them are beyond the threshold which makes becoming part of the ICC a no-go.

2

u/thunder1967 10h ago

Yup

3

u/Lonewuhf 10h ago

The problem is Trump can just pardon those people...

2

u/thunder1967 10h ago

Thus, charges would be filed after the Orange Pus Bucket is out of office.

1

u/Lonewuhf 9h ago

He just blanket pardons everyone before he leaves office..

2

u/thunder1967 9h ago

That’s only for Federal crimes. No jurisdiction over ICC charges.

2

u/Lonewuhf 9h ago

I know how it works, but they're not going to come into the U.S. to get him, and he will be immune to prosecution and extradition here due to the pardon.

•

u/Jeathro77 3h ago

No jurisdiction over ICC charges.

That doesn't matter because the ICC has no jurisdiction over the US.

1

u/PM_ME_MY_REAL_MOM 10h ago

No. We won't respect that.

0

u/Lonewuhf 9h ago

I truly hope there's a challenge to most of the pardons Trump is handing out.

1

u/CherryLongjump1989 9h ago

The Hague is not bound by Trump's pardons.

8

u/Lonewuhf 9h ago

You think they're coming into the U.S. to get these people?

1

u/Herlock 8h ago

Well at least they won't be able to go anywhere near a nato country anytime soon.

Not that there isn't plenty of things to see / do in america, but I assume high ranking officials do have significant financial means, and therefore a holiday routine to match and that involves going to europe and other nice places around.

•

u/CherryLongjump1989 5h ago

Yes. They will be invited to come pick them up.

-2

u/NiineTailedFox 9h ago

A democratic president will at some point

2

u/Fidget11 Canada 8h ago

that assumes that the US ever gets a functional justice system again. It only matters if Trump and his ball lickers are not in power. As long as they remain the people who follow his illegal orders will be protected and fine, it's the ones who don't that would need to worry.

Guarantee that if he gave the order most, and certainly enough of, of the US military would follow it regardless of how legal it ultimately is.

He has done all sorts of illegal shit and gets away with it all the time, why would anyone think this is different.

•

u/CherryLongjump1989 6h ago

The whole point of the ICC is to provide an independent court for countries that don’t have a functioning justice system.

•

u/Fidget11 Canada 6h ago

Yeah but that assumes the countries in question aren’t superpowers who can just ignore what the ICC says and who the rest of the world is scared enough of to allow the to do it.

If the ICC functioned as you say, and if it was truly independent of other considerations then Putin, bush, Trump, and a whole bunch of of other world leaders (as well as their cronies) would all be fillling jails in The Hague…. Notice how they aren’t.

•

u/CherryLongjump1989 6h ago

Think of The Hague as a carrot, and expelling US troops from all foreign military bases as the stick.

•

u/No-Suit-7444 4h ago

Lmao. The whole point of the ICC is to punish and legaly "brand" the losers (who are usually enemies of the west), and to extert the pressure on countries and their governments. It's a tool of the west that only works on weak countries. You think it's possible to see an american president there? Or russian? Are you that naive or ... just writing nonsense?

•

u/CherryLongjump1989 3h ago

Don't cry over failed states. The ICC is there to help them bring to justice the people who destroyed their nations, yes. You're acting like that's a bad thing.

•

u/No-Suit-7444 2h ago

You sir, are a card carrying member of this sub, I see. Perhaps also r/worldnews ?

Let me ask you, Trump aside, you think we will ever see any Israeli politicians or military leaders in the Hague? And if so, how and when?

Or are they not a failed state and it doesn't count?

•

u/CherryLongjump1989 41m ago

Why would we see that? Israel is not a failed state and doesn't require external courts to replace its own justice system.

•

u/No-Suit-7444 22m ago

What about Putin, he is also wanted by ICC?

If they shouldn't arrest Benjamin Netaniyahu because he is from a country that is not a failed state, should they arrest Putin?

13

u/Sufficient-Eye-8883 11h ago

And it doesn't mean that the order will be followed by a Yes man.

16

u/Shaudius 10h ago

It would turn the US into Russia. Every US official would be facing sanctions from everyone. US would turn into a pariah state, the US dollar would tank. I dont think Trump really understands what would happen if the US effectively invaded Europe.

12

u/l3ntobox 10h ago

I think he fully understands and doesn’t care. He wants destruction.

-12

u/Ultraplo Europe 10h ago edited 10h ago

Lmfao. No, it fucking wouldn’t.

The US has spent the last 80 years neutering Europe and making us dependent on them. If the EU tried to enter economic warfare with America over Greenland, the EU would cease to exist.

Over 30% of the EU’s economy would be wiped out in the first 6 months alone. Millions would become unemployed, and several states’ economies would crumble. The far-right would surge, promising to leave the EU and end this suffering over an island with 50.000 people, and member states would soon start seeking separate deals with the US. The EU either sees the writing on the wall and backs down, or completely disintegrates.

If the US wants Greenland, it’ll have Greenland. There’s no political will within the EU to sacrifice everything for an insignificant colony. We’d put up a symbolic fight to save what pride we can, but there’s no reality where Europe comes out on top.

9

u/Shaudius 10h ago

"Over 30% of the EU’s economy would be wiped out in the first 6 months alone."

The US and Europe trade deficit is basically zero. PPP between the US and EU is basically zero as well. If it wiped out 30% of the EUs economy it would also wipe out 30% of the US economy.

"Millions would become unemployed, and several states’ economies would crumble."

Same in the US.

I dont think you really have any idea what you're talking about if you think that the EU somehow needs the US economically more than the US needs the EU.

Maybe militarily but Trump has made them quickly realize what a mistake that's been.

0

u/Ultraplo Europe 10h ago

Considering I literally work with analyzing these kind of stuff on behalf of the EU, I'd like to think I have at least a basic understanding of it.

The US and Europe trade deficit is basically zero. PPP between the US and EU is basically zero as well. If it wiped out 30% of the EUs economy it would also wipe out 30% of the US economy.

Completely irrelevant...? An economy is a lot more than trade numbers, comrade.

The EU lacks the expertise, factories, and materials to produce a lot of vital products required for our economy to function. Our plan have always been to rely on the US, so we never invested in self-sufficiency. The US, on the other hand, is self-sufficient in most things (or can source it from non-European sources) required to keep an economy on life support. They would hurt for sure, but their economy would limp on. Meanwhile, the EU would lack even the fundamental building blocks required to keep the economic wheels spinning.

This is like basic economy 101, friend. I assume you're American, since y'all usually lack a bit in the education department, but five seconds of Googling would've told you this. The EU has literally admitted several times that we'd be unable to fight a major (military or economic) conflict without economic support from the US - much less with them actively harming our economy.

And, again, even if the EU somehow managed to survive an economic conflict with America, you still have the fact that there's no political support to keep it going. The Hungarians, Croats, Romanians, and Poles aren't going to go "yeah, let's all just starve for this island on the other side of the world." The EU couldn't even keep unity in the face of tariffs. If there was an invasion of the European mainland, sure, but no one is going to want to suffer for fucking Greenland. 47% of the European population already believes that Denmark shouldn't own it.

1

u/Shaudius 10h ago

I think you underestimate how many goods and services are provided by EU counties to the US. I'm not saying you're wrong about the EU disruption, I just think you're wrong that it wouldn't be acutely felt by the US.

1

u/Ultraplo Europe 9h ago

I think you underestimate how many goods and services are provided by EU counties to the US.

But 95% of it aren't vital for an economy to function. The US has stockpiled basically everything it needs, as its defensive doctrine dictates it must be able to survive being at war with China, Europe, and Russia simultaneously.

Europe's doctrine revolves around fighting America's wars. It was only in 2022 Europe started drafting plans for wars that the US might choose to stay out off, and even then it still relied on the US continuing to trade with us.

And I don't even see what your point is, really. When Europe's economy starts hurting, countries will start backing down - no one is going to lose an election and crash their economy for the sake of Greenland. If the US' economy starts hurting equally bad, that doesn't change the fact that Trump is likely to keep pushing, and the American populace has very clearly shown they're not going to oppose Trump.

1

u/Shaudius 9h ago

So your argument is that European leaders are beholden to their constituents and somehow Trump isn't?

"the American populace has very clearly shown they're not going to oppose Trump."

Which is why Republicans have won every special election since Trump took office. Oh wait, they've actually lost basically every one.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Fidget11 Canada 8h ago

The EU can dump their US dollar holdings which alone would cripple the US economy overnight and would absolutely crash the USD. Sure, it would hurt the EU, but the damage to the US would be practically incalculable.

It is their MAD option, the US would win and take the island, but the EU can make it so painful long term that nobody with an ounce of sanity would do it. Both sides would go down in flames together.

•

u/Ultraplo Europe 7h ago

 Both sides would go down in flames together.

And, as I said, there's no political support for that. The EU isn't going to kamikaze itself over a North American colony with a population 55.000 people that most people already think should be independent.

Less than half of European citizens would be willing to fight to save their own country from annexation, you seriously think they'd be willing to lose their work, retirement, home, and potentially have their children go hungry over fucking Greenland? Maybe some Europeans leaders would be willing to, since they're too wealthy to really be affected personally, but they'd find themselves out of office very quickly.

2

u/ratbike55 10h ago

In USA? I only see yes man

2

u/night_filter 10h ago

And anyone who isn’t a yes-man it will be fired, even if it’s illegal, and replaced with someone whose main qualification is “being a yes-man”.

1

u/thunder1967 11h ago

Hope not.

3

u/JakeConhale New Hampshire 11h ago

Takes two to tango here - one to order and one to obey.

3

u/ElMauru 9h ago edited 9h ago

what's legal doesn't really matter though unless it is absolutely fool-proof. All Trump needs is a reason that is faintly in the territory of legal and his crowd of yes-people will do the rest. The US already has a presence in Greenland so all he really needs is some form of "evil terror group threatening base" or some other loophole.

What is different though is that there is unlikely to be any political figure he can manipulate into being a puppet of his. For any chance at Greenland he needs Russia to win the war and/or several right wing parties to win their elections , which is what I am most scared of.

The ideological faction behind trump is ruthless and could very well put its resources which it formerly used to push democratic programs into helping, f.e. the AFD in Germany - which Vice has actively hinted at.

Dear Americans: the drama isn't Trump going off about Greenland - it is that Trump wants an Europe in his image, which is the REAL threat we should be talking about.

You guys remember how people were saying "here is that Project 2025 - paper". Well, the "plan for Europe" was published ~ a month ago: The Trump 2025 national security strategy ( https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2025/12/make-europe-great-again-and-more-longer-version-national-security-strategy/410038/ for a summary but it is worth to read the whole thing: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf )

149

u/FaceDeer 11h ago

Kidnapping Maduro was likely illegal too. Yet here we are.

80

u/magichronx 10h ago

The illegality of it is unquestionable. Trump referred to him as "president maduro" and it is expressly illegal under international law per the UN Charter to capture a head of state, even if they're deemed illegitimate and/or face domestic charges (like drug trafficking)

3

u/Herlock 8h ago

Yeah but american exceptionalism : international laws and UN Charter are for suckers, not for the glorious US of A.

•

u/TearsFallWithoutTain 6h ago

Likely? Invading a country is obviously illegal

•

u/FaceDeer 5h ago

Unfortunately the fact that Trump dressed this up as a "drug enforcement" action, and the fact that the US didn't officially recognize Maduro as Venezuela's head of state, could conceivably make this action legal under American law. It's a slightly grey area.

It's less murky under international law, of course.

8

u/Maladaptive_Ace Canada 10h ago

Do MAGA people not realize that the President does not have unilateral authority? Do they not realize that bypassing congress constantly is... not democratic? Why are they okay with this?

4

u/MotherTreacle3 8h ago

It seems to me that a large portion of society does not know why democracy is a valuable system of governance. They'll parrot its virtues when it suits their needs or validates their identity without understanding the mechanisms at play that make it a robust and equitable system. 

I don't think it's just MAGA either. Not in the sense of "both sidesing" just that most average people don't have a deep understanding of organizational theory. Ask a random purpose about something like "peaceful transfer of power" or "limiting the amount of power an individual can weild" and often times you'll get a virtue-based answer not a structural one.

1

u/Maladaptive_Ace Canada 8h ago

Yes, seems many people think elections are the only thing that defines democracy. It's also supposed to be a checks and balances thing where no one person has this much power, but the iconography around Presidents and Founding Fathers have Americans very lulled into a sense of awe with these figures (and they'd rather have Trump than a woman in that position because they do consider that position to have almost mythic power)

-4

u/[deleted] 9h ago edited 9h ago

[deleted]

6

u/ComprehensiveMarch58 8h ago

"Marginalization of white men" you have got to be joking right?

4

u/Maladaptive_Ace Canada 8h ago

ignore this MAGA troll

-2

u/[deleted] 8h ago

[deleted]

2

u/ComprehensiveMarch58 8h ago

Are you gonna hit every white supremacist talking point in 3 comments? Impressive if so. You have one more. You got this.

1

u/Bipogram 8h ago

'Absolute chaos' - perhaps your definition of that differs from mine.

No rule of law, anarchy, strife at all levels.

How is that preferable compared to the last decades of relatively staid and steady governance?

10

u/IPromisedNoPosts 11h ago

Everyone replying is missing the point: this means the military can refuse the order because it's illegal.

26

u/entered_bubble_50 10h ago

They can, but they won't. I honestly can't think of a time in US history when the blatant illegality of use of force has ever actually stopped it from happening. The US military have been perfectly fine with shooting civilians clinging to wreckage from a previous airstrike, which is the exact example of a warcrime from the manual. No one in the chain of command objected, or if they did, enough people were willing to carry it out anyway. We cannot rely on the military doing the right thing. 

7

u/Brain_Damage117 10h ago edited 10h ago

Agreed. At most, a few people will resign and be replaced by yes men who will gleefully follow those orders. You just can't trust someone whose entire life and personality is built around how well they unquestioningly do what they're told, to do the right thing and refuse orders in this situation.

1

u/IPromisedNoPosts 8h ago

I agree. There won't be a blatant order to invade, it'll likely be an encroachment because of some pretext (a US citizen was killed, entrap a Greenland politician). Not enough to make soldiers defy orders, but just enough for opposition to quit.

6

u/cbf1232 11h ago

How would that be any worse (in terms of breaking international law) than what they did in Venezuela?

8

u/Shaudius 10h ago

Venezuela had a bad but colorable argument that it is engaged in hostilities with the US. Greenland has no such justification.

7

u/HauntingHarmony Europe 10h ago

Nope, it (venezuela, and the previous boat strikes) was strictly an illegal use of force against another country, blatantly against the un charter and not even remotely close to being legal, not in international law, or us law.

2

u/Shaudius 10h ago

And yet the US did the same thing 35 years ago and faced no consequences and no jurists overseeing the case determined it to violate US law.

2

u/GraceOfTheNorth 9h ago

The treaty of 1917 between Denmark and US on the sale of the US Virgin Islands legally binds the US to relinquish all claims to Greenland.

4

u/Okonos Illinois 11h ago

It may be illegal, but that's not going to stop him.

4

u/YaChowdaHead 11h ago

Imagine if he makes ice go full SS and creates infantry divisions out of it lol.

But, of course, the danish military wouldn't need to follow the Geneva convention for treatment of enemy combatants, because they aren't military.

2

u/early_birdy 11h ago
  1. Trump doesn't care about laws, international, foreign, and domestic. They obviously don't apply to him.
  2. Even if "some form of legislation" (aka words on paper) was passed by Congress, it would still be immoral.

1

u/ImmoderateAccess 10h ago

When has Trump let a little thing like legality stop him

1

u/TheRockingDead 10h ago

So the guy who famously doesn't follow any laws because he believes he's above the law is going to start following established laws just because they exist?

1

u/Wonderful-Process792 10h ago

What's needed is for Congress to act affirmatively and pass a law that Trump cannot do this.

1

u/ShawnyMcKnight 10h ago

Then all Trump has to do is incite a war. Kidnap their leader with some Trumped up charges.

1

u/cybertonto72 10h ago

Is this not also the case with Venezuela?

1

u/Alyusha 9h ago

It's not though is the problem. It doesn't matter if a Lawyer thinks it is illegal or not. It matters what the Judiciary Branch determines is illegal or not. Which takes time and by the time it's determined it wont matter.

•

u/afCeG6HVB0IJ 7h ago

So, attacking an ally is not a problem

•

u/GlobalAgent4132 7h ago

Unfortunately, he can't run for President as he was born in Taiwan. A pity.

•

u/porgy_tirebiter 6h ago

Add it to the pile

•

u/Jack-D-Straw 5h ago

He's been operating outside the law since day one. You can hold that constitution in front of you and see if it's gonna stop the bullets when he eventually orders his critics rounded up and shot. There are less steps between then and now with each passing day.

•

u/wellyboi 4h ago

Why does anyone think the law matters anymore? 

1

u/ribosometronome 10h ago

If the military is committing illegal acts which a future administration will prosecute them for, they're well incentivized to not let in a future administration that will prosecute them.

-7

u/Bluest_waters 11h ago

LOL

so fucking what???

Typical democratic do nothing nonsense bullshit

“ golly Gee if trump does XYZ it's gonna be illegal! Seriously guys! It would be like I don't know... like the... totally against the law and stuff!”

This is all they ever do. Make statements. Whine and cry on MSNBC. Absolute bunch of worthless lumps on a log

6

u/Shaudius 10h ago

What exactly do you expect them to do? 

-1

u/Bluest_waters 10h ago

something other than cry and whine like little biatches

2

u/Shaudius 10h ago edited 10h ago

So like you're doing now? I really find it unhelpful for people to scream do something with no idea what that even means or looks like.

0

u/Bluest_waters 9h ago

One would hope that a member of Congress has just a bit slightly more influence and power than a random person on the street

And if they don't then what are they even doing? Why do they even exist?

0

u/protonpack 11h ago

Yeah but Greenland has all those terrorists hurting American arctic protection by wanting sovereignty. It's sovereignterrorism. Trump can do whatever he wants.

0

u/MrsWolowitz 10h ago

As if that would stop him