Ambassador, you served as the U.S. Ambassador to Denmark during the first term of President Trump. How did your direct experience inform your understanding of the recent developments over Greenland? And did anything in the latest escalation surprise you, given what you witnessed firsthand?

When I was studying to become the U.S. Ambassador at Ambassador School and getting briefed, even though Greenland has a tiny population, and you don’t think of it as Denmark, you think of Copenhagen, because it’s a kingdom, it also has the Faroe Islands and Greenland. And I was told even though Greenland’s small population, you know, nobody pays a lot of attention in Denmark to Greenland, it could be 80% of your time, this small 20% of the deal, and isn’t that the way oftentimes things are? Ιt did turn out from time to time that that was true, because learning about the lack of security in the region, the high north, and the fact that Denmark didn’t have the capacity to develop or defend Greenland, or the seas around it, this giant seas called the GI-UK gap, Greenland, Iceland, UK, because the Faroe Islands, part of Denmark, are near the Scottish Shetland Islands. Ιt’s these giant seas, and there are Russian ships and subs, and there are Chinese ships, but also other activity that Denmark doesn’t have the capacity to monitor or defend against.

And so that became really, it was for me, very eye-opening. And I worked to re-establish diplomatic relations with Greenland because of that. So we opened a consulate after 67 years of no diplomatic relations in 2020. I worked with the White House and the interagency of the US government to do that. It took an act of Congress because we close consulates in the Western Hemisphere, we don’t open them. And we also got a Coast Guard billet based in Denmark for Arctic security. The Coast Guard does that, not the blue water navy, but sort of the along coastlines and things. So that was a good start, but that’s a drop in the bucket compared to what needed to be done.

The Polar Silk Road and China’s Arctic Claims

During this term, during this period that you described, which was the biggest threat to Greenland? Was it Russia, China, any other country?

Well, the biggest threat to any country in the world today is China, by far. Because of their godless, their predatory, their national law requires every citizen to spy for them and to do whatever the Chinese Communist Party tells them to do. They take an oath of allegiance if they’re a Communist Party member. It’s a very serious threat to our open and, I will say, democratic way of life where we have the freedoms we do. Chinese citizens have no freedoms; it is the party’s way.

Looking at Greenland, China flew in 2017, the Greenlandic premier and his government and top business leaders to Beijing. They rolled out the red carpet, all the C-suite guys around the table to do a deal. They wanted to bring Greenland into the Belt and Road Initiative. And they offered financing, construction, what do you want? Because Greenlanders really want to be developed and Denmark’s never tried. They don’t have the capacity; they don’t have the interest.

Just to clarify, are you saying Denmark is structurally incapable of defending Greenland – or politically unwilling?

I met with a mayor that just wanted to build a road between two towns. There are no roads between any towns in Greenland. He wanted to build a road, not a fancy road, a gravel road for three-wheeled vehicles, like a humble road, and Denmark wouldn’t finance it. That’s just an example.

But China has tried to buy an old deepwater port that the US military built during World War II. They’ve tried to, using their debt trap diplomacy, bring Greenland into their sphere of influence. And China wrote a white paper in 2018 called the Polar Silk Road. And it lays out the CCP’s ambitions in the Arctic. They call themselves a near Arctic nation. There’s no such thing. And they also said that they are entitled because of the size of their population to 40% of what’s in the water and under the seabed in the Arctic, that they’re entitled to that. And we disagree.

They’re not an Arctic nation. They’re not entitled to anything. But they have this no holds barred military cooperation pact with Russia now. And Russia is highly skilled in the Arctic. That’s where Russia shines. They have over 40 icebreakers. Some have missiles on them. They have the old Cold War bases they refurbished along that huge Russian coast. And then they have new bases that they’ve built. They have capabilities that no other Arctic nation has.

We had previously some discussions with ministers from Greenland and Denmark. They say that probably the threats posed by China or Russia are not significant in the last few years.

I dispute what you just said. They’re just posturing when they say that China is not a threat. In Denmark’s own intelligence strategy report of 2025, they do state that China is a threat in the Arctic and specifically to Greenland. So they’re not being candid with you, these parliamentarians, or they shockingly haven’t read their own country’s intelligence report.

From Star Wars to the Golden Dome: “Greenland Is Part of North America”

Analysts have suggested that the recent U.S. threats to take Greenland could constitute a breach of international norms regarding independence and sovereignty. From your perspective, does such rhetoric risk undermining fundamental principles of international law?

As far as international law goes, so does international law trump your country’s national security? Greenland is part of North America. Denmark cannot afford to defend it or develop it. And it is off the U.S. northeast coast. In order for the U.S. to be secure, we need to secure the Western Hemisphere. And President Trump’s been very clear about that. You saw the surgical removal of Maduro and his wife from Venezuela, not collapsing the government, but keeping the government in place, but enforcing a change so that Iran, Russia, and China aren’t running a country in our hemisphere, because they have been running Venezuela. That’s for example.

If you see how President Trump is re-establishing American influence in the Western Hemisphere, certainly Greenland matters. It’s part of the new Golden Dome. And the Golden Dome is in order to secure the United States. It’ll also secure Canada. It involves Alaska and Greenland. And I know we have a base in Greenland.

We built about 17 bases. We have one that’s a legacy base called Pittifick Space Base, and it’s an early warning radar system. If missiles are coming from say Russia or North Korea, that base will alert us.

But there’s more needed. President Trump intends to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in this Golden Dome. And it’s kind of like Israel’s Iron Dome that keeps all those missiles out.

But it’s a 21st century version because we see now with so many autonomous munitions that there are new kinds of threats, and there are new threats developing every day. China is really moving forward very quickly in their capabilities. So President Trump is securing our country, and it’s kind of like the grandchild of President Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars idea.

It’s just technology has now caught up with the goals of the US presidents to secure the homeland. If I may, in the early days of the escalation, US presidents threatened to invade Greenland. Some suggested that he’s detached from reality.

NATO, Article 3 and the Limits of Allied Responsibility

Critics say that President Trump is detached from reality. Beyond legalities, there’s a mythical dimension to threatening to acquire a territory whose population has its own governance. What’s your take on that?

It’s a fair question. President Trump is the third US president to propose that we buy Greenland, the land. And about 100 years ago, we had a US president buy from Denmark what is now the US Virgin Islands.

And they had to threaten to take them before they could complete the purchase. And that was a $25 million transaction. But the United States has expanded territory over the centuries. We had Thomas Jefferson complete the Louisiana Purchase and increase our land and prosperity.

And we had Seward, President Seward, buy from Russia, Alaska, and also secure us there in the polar region and make us an Arctic nation along with the other Arctic nations. So I think that there’s precedent for President Trump’s decision to speak firmly about this. Looking at the situation, Denmark is a NATO ally. They’re a founding NATO member. But they have always been in violation of Article 3 of the NATO Charter, which clearly states that every NATO ally has the ability to defend their own territory. Denmark cannot defend Greenland.

They will never be able to defend Greenland. They have too small economy. And it’s not the job of another nation to secure another nation’s territory.

Having a base is one thing. It’s quite another to be able to state openly that Denmark can never, will never be able to secure Greenland.

A Deal That Caught Europe Off Guard: Tariffs, Tactics and Transatlantic Tensions

Why Greenland Matters for Europe’s Defence: What Comes Next for the Arctic Deal?

 What are your views on the US President’s tactic of threatening tariffs against countries supporting Greenland militarily, only to drop the idea days later after widespread backlash? And what do you make of the Greenland agreement reportedly reached between President Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, which appears to have taken many European officials by surprise?

First of all, the Prime Minister of Denmark, Mette Friedriksen, in 2019, President Trump said to her, look, Greenland is not secure. You need to secure Greenland. And she said, okay, I’m going to invest $200 million in security for Greenland.

He said, great. She invested 1%, 2 million, and it wasn’t even to Greenlandic security. It was a kind of education effort. So she told him she would invest, and then she didn’t. So she retraded him. That’s the first thing. So not to be trusted, no intention of defending Greenland. And frankly, the Danes pay a lot of taxes. They don’t want their tax money going to Greenland. They want it to go to their own social welfare benefits, free college, free healthcare, free childcare, and all the other benefits that they receive. They don’t like it when less money is spent on them. And so that’s a fact.

And so she’s really putting Denmark first, as the Prime Minister should. But she did not keep her word to President Trump. Now, these EU countries that sent onesies, twosies up to Greenland just to show President Trump who’s boss, I guess, kind of a middle finger to President Trump, like, I’ll show you.

Well, these are minor members of NATO. They need the US in order to prosecute any war, and we are their security guarantee, although President Trump is moving them toward being self-sufficient, which is the goal, that every European nation can actually defend their own territory.

But they did that as a show of, I’ll show you, not to really help Denmark or Greenland. It doesn’t do anything. And so that was a sort of silly juvenile move, and it was disappointing to see, not a strong flex. And so when President Trump said, okay, I’m going to tariff you all if you went up there, you saw Germany immediately pulled those guys back wisely, because that’s not diplomacy. That’s like high school stuff. So President Trump also thrillingly did a deal with Mark Rutte, Secretary General of NATO. This is brilliant.

I’m not sure how it’s going to work, though, because NATO is very egalitarian. Every NATO nation has to agree to anything that NATO does, and he’s saying that the US is going to run the Arctic effort in NATO. So I’ll look forward to seeing the details of that. But it does seem like it has de-escalated the situation and put a framework in place.

France, NATO and European Military Autonomy

French President Emmanuel Macron has said that France does not need the US to guarantee its security on its own territory. How do you assess this stance, alongside reported Republican opposition to threats to take Greenland? And how significant is this episode in terms of undermining President Trump’s authority?

France does have a real military. They’re probably the only European nation that can defend their own territory. They probably can. But France left NATO once before. So I’m not sure how reliable they are.

Everybody talks about the US and our reliability. We’ve never blinked. We’ve always been part of NATO. President Trump has used his own special way to get NATO to be stronger by pushing NATO allies when President Obama asked the same thing back in 2014. And I don’t think anybody paid too much attention to him.

As far as these Republicans that opposed President Trump, these are never Trump Republicans.

So these are Republicans who do not like President Trump, do not like his ways and tactics. And so they’re oppositional. So it’s like having a Democrat, more or less.

I’m sure they’re great people. They just don’t like him. And therefore, they work to oppose his efforts to make America great again, and to benefit the American people’s economic prosperity and national security.

China, Panama and Control of Global Trade Routes

 Could you offer a brief comment on the framework of the future deal announced last week by Mark Rutte and the US President?

Well, they’re working on that with Vice President J.D.Vance, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and with Special Envoy Steve Woodcock. So I think it’s a pretty small group of people out of the White House, and then the Secretary of State, and then President Trump’s own envoy that are working with NATO on this. I’m not sure that all the European allies like the idea.

They like pushing back against President Trump. But the fact is, this is good for them. If Greenland fell into an enemy’s hands, we wouldn’t be able to get a Navy vessel to Europe to work with our allies to defend them.

Because Greenland, southern Greenland is in the North Atlantic. They could control the airspace. It could be that we can’t get planes to Europe, and then trade, it could affect trade.

If you see what China’s doing between their fishing boats making blockades, and then their own Coast Guard attacking fishing boats and other kinds of boats, trading boats in the region of South China Sea, trying to extend not just their sphere of influence, but control, so that they damage our open sea lanes. The open sea lanes, the US Navy has guaranteed over the last 100 years. It’s been why Western Europe and the US have flourished, because we’ve had free trade on the seas, and we haven’t had pirates, more or less, which was a real issue in the United States early days.

So China’s threatening the open seas now, and we wouldn’t like to see that happen in our own Western hemisphere.

That’s why President Trump did what he did in Panama, where the American built and owned Panama Canal turned over to Panama, fell into the hands of control of the Chinese Communist Party associated companies, which could be a real threat to US again, military and trade, getting back and forth between Europe and the US.

Domestic Flashpoints: Minneapolis and Federal Immigration Enforcement

 Ambassador, could I have your comment on the recent fatal encounters involving US federal immigration agents and civilians in Minneapolis? And could you also address the controversy surrounding President Trump’s recent remarks about the US running Venezuela?

 Every death is a tragedy. It’s a tragedy that these two people died. And what is really heartbreaking about it is that it was unnecessary.

The governor of that state, Minnesota, and the mayor of that city are sanctuary cities. There’s a federal law not allowing illegal immigrants into our country, and illegal criminals must be removed if they’ve been ordered removed. But they call themselves a sanctuary so that even criminals, they’re letting out rapists and murderers onto the street rather than turning them over to ICE. And then within the government and other NGOs, they have created a kind of anarchist black bloc control in the region that are using signal chat groups, and they are taking weapons now to these more militant opposition of our federal law enforcement officers.

You can’t have anarchy and black bloc controlling or running cities, because that will lead to absolute anarchy and the breakdown of civil order. They want civil disorder because they’re revolutionaries, and they intend to break down the US government and our capitalistic society. They want to impose a different kind of government.

Venezuela and the ‘Trump Doctrine’

Venezuela has been controlled largely. Iran has Hezbollah there. They have Hezbollah training camps. It’s like a cancer that has spread to nearby countries. Look at what has happened to Colombia, Brazil, just two examples. And then they have Russian and Chinese influence as well. When you have the military of a foreign country that’s an adversary in your neighbouring countries, that’s a very bad thing. And that’s what’s happened is Maduro and before him Chavez had set up a kind of open door to the bad actors in the world.

And so President Trump is reasserting the Monroe Doctrine, I like to call it the Trump Doctrine, of understanding that we are going to make sure that there’s peace and prosperity in the Western Hemisphere, and bad actors don’t exert their influence. China calls the Caribbean their bathtub sometimes. We want to make sure that the Western Hemisphere is not under undue influence from countries like China and Iran.