How far will Trump go to seize Greenland?

0:00This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

0:30how to invest and manage money. Learn more at schwab.com. When Donald Trump was talking about wanting to take over Greenland about a year ago, it was widely treated as something of a joke. But now it seems as though he might be genuinely serious about wanting to incorporate it into the United States. We're less than a week out now from the seizure of the Venezuelan president, and we've got Donald Trump and some of his top aides making it clear that they really are quite serious about wanting to take Greenland. The United States should have Greenland as part of the United States. There's no need to even think or talk about this in the context that you're asking of a military operation.

1:12Nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland. So is there going to be a fight over the future of Greenland? Why does Donald Trump so badly want to take it over? And just how far might he go to try and make that happen? Welcome to AmeriCast.

1:56Hello, it's Sarah here, back in the BBC's Bureau in Washington. And it's Anthony, right next to Sarah here in Washington, D.C. Hey, Sarah, good to have you back. And Happy New Year, Anthony. I haven't seen you since 2026 began. I know. Well, it's been a slow year so far, hasn't it? It feels like it's been a long year already. And of course, so much has happened. But one of the things that's making it feel particularly febrile, I guess, at the moment, is the fact that Donald Trump has been talking again about wanting to acquire Greenland. But his press secretary told the BBC that his advisers were considering a range of options that actually included using military force.

2:34So that came after comments that the president made on Sunday night flying back to D.C. from his Mar-a-Lago, Florida resort on Air Force One, where he said that the United States needed Greenland. Do you expect to take an action against Greenland? Well, I don't want to talk about Greenland. Let's talk about Venezuela, Russia, Ukraine. We'll worry about Greenland in about two months. Let's talk about Greenland in 20 days. The President's President Biden is well. We've talked so much about energy. The President's President Biden. By the way, I have to, I will say this about Greenland. We need Greenland from a national security situation.

3:11It's so strategic. Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place. We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security. and Denmark is not going to be able to do it, I can tell you. You know what Denmark did recently to boost up security in Greenland? They added one more dog sled. It's true. They thought that was a great move. Now, Anthony, we've heard Donald Trump talk about Greenland before, but this felt really significant because it's off the back of that military operation in Venezuela. That's, in fact, what he was talking about when he was asked about Greenland.

3:48And I think it's pretty clear, watching him over the last few days, that he really is flushed with that success. He feels emboldened by how well that mission went and possibly tempted to go further. Yeah, he's not going to talk about Greenland. And then he goes on to talk about Greenland pretty extensively and then make that joke about dog sleds. And, you know, Denmark is a NATO member. There is already a U.S. military presence in Greenland. And I think Denmark has shown a willingness to expand that military presence. But clearly, Donald Trump has bigger designs on the island than just an expanded U.S.

4:24base there. And this isn't the first time he's talked about it. He mentioned it during his first term. He was talking about it about a year ago. But a lot of people were kind of shrugging it off then as a joke or it was his way of trawling Denmark and the rest of the European Union. You probably remember when Donald Trump Jr. flew in there on Trump Force One. And he had a little bobblehead, one of those little dolls of Donald Trump on the jet. It didn't seem so serious then. It didn't. It was Donald Trump with the Truth Social Post back in December of 2024 that first really kicked off the second round of Greenland speculation.

5:01You're right. He did mention it in his first term, although everyone definitely laughed about it at that point. And maybe they laughed about it a little bit with that Truth Social Post and with the Don Jr. visit. maybe not laughing quite as much when J.D. Vance went there and reviewed the military base that the United States has. Our message to Denmark is very simple. You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland. You have underinvested in the people of Greenland and you have underinvested in the security architecture of this incredible, beautiful landmass filled with incredible people.

5:34That has to change. It did die down. There was talk about Canada, which we had chewed on quite a bit on this podcast. and talk about the United States in other parts of the Western Hemisphere. Greenland kind of took a back burner. But then with the Venezuela action and the quick, I mean, lightning fast turn to focus on Greenland, all of a sudden it doesn't seem quite so funny or so far-fetched. Yeah, and we had those comments that we just heard from Donald Trump on Air Force One. And then on Tuesday, the White House Press Secretary, Carolyn Levitt, gave a statement to the BBC in which she said, The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal.

6:13And of course, utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the commander in chief's disposal. And that was what set a lot of alarm bells ringing in Europe. And we had a joint statement on Tuesday as well from the leaders of many European countries, including Sir Keir Starmer from the U.K. and the Danish prime minister, saying the future of Greenland should be decided by Greenlanders so that it's up to Greenland and Denmark, not up to the U.S. to decide on this. Yeah, not ruling out the military when we're talking about a NATO ally. I mean, that is a pretty astounding twist. And, you know, maybe the White House will downplay that and say, well, you know, we always keep all our options on the table.

6:50And there had been talk even last year about contingency plans, military contingency plans for all different scenarios, including Greenland. Again, kind of kind of astounding. But I guess we should talk a little bit about why Greenland is important. I mean, why care about this island? It's the biggest island in the world, yes, but still an island, kind of remote, covered in ice. What's important about it? It's where it's located, right, and what's on the island. Yeah, that's absolutely right. And it's for economic and national security reasons that Donald Trump's interested. He highlights national security.

7:28I guess it's a better justification for wanting to take over somewhere like this. But he's not entirely wrong, is he? Because you've got shipping routes that go through there that were important in the Second World War will become ever more important as more Arctic ice melts and more routes can go through. I mean, it's basically a boundary between the US and Russia, isn't it? Essentially, and a boundary that's opening up. But it's also the point, if missiles were being fired, certainly from Russia into the United States, You want to knock them out with Donald Trump's Golden Dome idea of air defence.

7:59You want to knock them out at the highest point in their trajectory. And that's when they're going over Greenland. So that's where you want to situate missiles to take out anything that's incoming, as well as the trade and the routes for warships going through being absolutely vitally important. Right. And then there are these critical minerals. There are resources on Greenland that the United States, in theory, could exploit economically, could have these minerals more under American control rather than relying on, say, China, which has kind of cornered the market on a lot of these really important ingredients to technology of all different sorts in the modern world.

8:35Also, oil and gas reserves, untapped oil and gas reserves there. So clearly, the Trump administration thinks about these mineral resources, these non-renewable fuels and having access to them. Of course, The big question is, why do you need to take over Greenland to have all of this? You could build your missile defense base on Greenland without taking over Greenland. You could strike up economic agreements with Denmark, with the people of Greenland to exploit the resources there. There's something more to it than just, you know, we need to have a presence there. There's something almost visceral about what they want and the territory and have control over the territory.

9:19Yes, and something very Trumpian about wanting to acquire more real estate, isn't there? As you go back to, it's a shame Justin's not here because he could tell us all what it was like when Thomas Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase and how exciting that was to practically double the size of the United States. And was it William McKinley that took over? Alaska. They bought Alaska, Seward, his Secretary of State bought Alaska from the Russians. And that obviously ended up being a bargain for them. The United States has purchased other little stretches of property, a bit of Arizona from Mexico.

9:57And of course, we've taken other things by wars, large swaths of Mexico during the Mexican-American War. We had a war with Spain where we took over Puerto Rico and the Philippines. So, you know, this is not exactly out of keeping with the United States's foreign policy over the past 250 years. But it is unusual in the last, let's say, 120 years to see something like this now. Oh, well, season. So, of course, we're talking about purchases, aren't we? The Louisiana purchase of Alaska. And there have been White House officials saying that actually that's a much more likely route to go down, that they would be looking to buy Greenland rather than invade it.

10:34And Marco Rubio gave a behind closed doors briefing to lawmakers where apparently he told them as well that buying Greenland really is the aim and that nobody's talking about an imminent invasion. I mean, certainly one would assume that you would try and buy it before you would seize it. Right. And so the idea is this is a negotiating tactic, a way to pressure Denmark into striking a deal with the United States where the United States would buy it. which, I mean, I guess in theory that makes sense. But of course, you know, we had been talking about how this giant fleet in the Southern Caribbean was a negotiating tactic to pressure Maduro to step down.

11:11And there were actually negotiations between the United States and Maduro throughout much of the latter half of 2025. The negotiations took place right up until when they didn't and right up until when the American helicopters came in. So I guess, yes, this could be seen as a negotiation. But I think we should also keep an eye on, you know, American amphibious assault groups. If they start moving into into the Labrador Sea, then maybe maybe this is going to turn into something a little different. Well, that's the thing, is it? Because Donald Trump does tell you what he's going to do. And we shouldn't be so surprised when he does things like seize the Venezuelan president, because he had told us that he had already authorized CIA actions on the ground.

11:54He had talked about possibly some kind of land incursion. And he had mentioned doing this. Of course, the problem is he mentions doing so many things. We don't know when he means it and when he doesn't, which is why it's difficult to work out what's going on with Greenland. But, I mean, you were saying, Anthony, that the U.S. could achieve its objectives there through other means. And that's worth exploring a bit because, I mean, the only military presence there is in Greenland at the moment, I think, is American anyway, isn't it, where there's a base? Yeah, there's a Space Force base, the one that J.D.

12:22Vance went and visited. and actually if we want to get into you know the practicalities of an invasion that's something that Stephen Millard Donald Trump's senior advisor the White House deputy chief of staff mentioned in a lengthy interview with CNN on Tuesday night where he talked about not having any kind of a military presence outside of the United States there was no one there that would resist the United States so let's let's listen to it because I think that interview is really one that's worth unpacking in detail because he said a lot of things that kind of shed some light on maybe where Trump's mind is right now, where the US foreign policy when it comes to Greenland is.

13:05I just wanted to reset Jake by making clear that it has been the formal position of the US government since the beginning of this administration, frankly, going back into the previous Trump administration, that Greenland should be part of the United States. The president has been very clear about that. That is the formal position of the U.S. government. Right, but can you say that military action against Greenland is off the table? You're going to be military action against Greenland. Greenland has a population of 30 ,000 people, Jake. The real question is, by what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland?

13:38What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark. The United States is the power of NATO. For the United States to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the United States. And so that's a conversation that we're going to have as a country. That's a process we're going to have as a community of nations. So you can't take it off the table that the U.S. would use military force to seize Greenland. You can't take it off the table. Jake, I understand you're trying very hard to, which, again, is your job.

14:13I respect it. It's great to get exactly the headline, right, that catchy headline. I'm trying to get an answer. That says Miller refuses to rule out. The United States should have Greenland as part of the United States. There's no need to even think or talk about this in the context that you're asking of a military operation. Nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland. One last question, Stephen. It doesn't make any sense. So he's not quite right when he says that there's a population of only 30 ,000 people in Greenland. It's more like double that. But is Stephen Miller right there when he says nobody is going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland?

14:53I mean, there is a diplomatics back going on at the moment. But it's inconceivable, isn't it? NATO on NATO forces fighting for Greenland. I mean, you know, there's a mutual defense pact in NATO where everyone agrees to come to the defense of one country if it's attacked. So if the United States attacked a NATO member, I'm not even sure, you know, what would Europe do? What would it would destroy NATO? And I think there have been some, including the Danish officials who have said that that if this became some sort of a confrontation, it would be the end of NATO. But Stephen Miller goes on to talk about American strategy writ large for the rest of the world and why this is in the U.S.'s national security interest.

15:35Let's listen to that. The United States, this is sort of foundational. The United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere. We're a superpower. And under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower. It is absurd that we would allow a nation in our own backyard to become the supplier of resources to our adversaries, but not to us. To hoard weapons from our adversaries. To be able to be positioned as an asset against the United States rather than on behalf of the United States. Sovereign countries shouldn't be able to do what they want to do.

16:12The Monroe Doctrine and the Trump Doctrine is all about securing the national interests of America. For years, we sent our soldiers to die in deserts in the Middle East to try to build them parliaments, to try to build them democracies, to try to give them more oil, to try to give them more resources. The future of the free world, Jake, depends on America being able to assert ourselves and our interests without apology. This whole period that happened after World War II, where the West began apologizing and groveling and begging and engaging these mass reparations. schemes. What I'm talking about, Jake, is the idea.

16:51By the way, you do. I know you love doing that smarmy thing, Jake, and I was hoping to be better than that this time. So is it smarmy to question the idea that America needs to be able to assert itself and its own interests without apology? Because I think that Stephen Miller is basically describing what they're now calling the Trump doctrine, of which he is a great advocate because he's very pugnacious, might be the polite way to put it. But it's a new idea, isn't it, where they're basically saying we can bully our way towards our own national interests within the Western hemisphere, what we say goes.

17:25Yeah. And it's interesting where he started there talking about what happened after World War II. And, you know, he is criticizing the entire kind of international regime that the United States, which was unquestionably the dominant power in the world after World War II, constructed this kind of post-war economic political order that had the United States as the central power, but also the United States trying to construct frameworks with other countries and norms and traditions and laws, international laws that would govern how nations related. He's kind of saying all of that was going around apologizing.

18:01All of that was the United States not being willing to exercise its power in the way that it should and casting back to this idea of a 19th century might equals right sort of an outlook on what the United States should be doing. Yeah. In that post-Second World War compact that you're talking about, the United States was essentially the guarantor of the rules-based order. It didn't just follow along. It maintained it. And what Stephen Miller is talking about there is about actually totally rewriting the way in which nations engage with each other, whether or not that involves some kind of intranatal conflict or whether it is just the way in which they're asserting their right to do what they want to from Venezuela or Colombia all the way up to Greenland.

18:43It is an entirely new view of foreign relations. Yeah, and I guess it gets out. I mean, did the United States actually benefit from this rules-based order? I think most historians will look at the American century, as it's called, after World War II, and say the United States actually really did benefit, prosper from the systems that it set up. But if you listen to people like Stephen Miller now and Donald Trump, he kind of has this nostalgic view of the 19th century in the United States where it had tariffs and it looked after its own interests and it operated prior to being this global superpower, operated in its own interests, I suppose.

19:25That was the good old days that we need to get back to. Yeah. And of course, what it does mean, if you look at it in those kind of hemispheric ways, is if the United States has the right to interfere in Central and South America and all the way up to Greenland, then does that not mean by the same token China can interfere and do what it wants in its backyard, notably in Taiwan, and it helps you understand possibly why Trump is so sympathetic to Putin's designs on Ukraine and what seems to be his desire to hand him the Donbass. And of course, it's Ukraine that's making this so uniquely difficult for European leaders at the moment because normally they would rush out statements very strongly, not just in defense of Denmark and Greenland, but by saying that might does not make right.

20:06That's not how international relations are conducted. But they don't want to annoy Donald Trump too much at the moment. They're just almost possibly at the point of getting a Ukraine deal over the line. So they need to be kind of careful of that, whilst at the same time they are potentially supporting a view of the world that supports Putin's right in Ukraine. None of this is easy. Yeah, as Stephen Miller talks directly about the US using force and how it should use force in a kind of an unapologetic way, let's listen to what is really a key part of this interview, where he just puts it all on the table and spells it all out.

20:39Jake, we live in a law, or sorry, we live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else. But we live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world. But are you saying that the beginning of time? Yeah, we've actually had a lot of questions specifically about Stephen Miller from our AmeriCasters. And Paul asks us, after Stephen Miller's public interview, that's the one we've been listening to, is it once again clear that he and the Heritage Foundation are the ventriloquists using the Trump dummy.

21:19And Derek has been in touch to ask who's really in charge of American policies, such as the military attack in Venezuela. Is it Stephen Miller? And there's not much daylight between Stephen Miller and Donald Trump. You listen to Stephen Miller, you listen to Donald Trump, they're on the same wavelength and have been on a variety of issues, mostly domestic issues in the past, but on all of these different issues. Since Donald Trump first ran for president in 2015, I remember Stephen Miller essentially was Trump's warm-up Act and all of these rallies in 2015, it come out and throw red meat to the crowds and talk about the threat of the liberals and Hillary Clinton and everything else.

21:55And then Donald Trump would come out and pick up and hit on the same themes in Trump's sort of way. But Miller, obviously, and we've talked about him before, and we actually had a podcast about him in particular last year. But Miller's a key player in this White House. And it's not just Stephen Miller. It's actually his wife to Katie Miller, who was a Trump official in the first White House and now is a conservative podcaster. And she was the one who started all of this latest round of Greenland talk off. She posted shortly after the U.S. attack, the U.S. raid in Venezuela on social media, a picture of Greenland with a big American flag, colored an American flag on the map, just with a message soon.

22:41Yeah, because the thing about Stephen Miller and his wife is they're not, I can't believe I'm going to say this, but they don't have Donald Trump's subtlety. Now, that's not what he's famous for. But when you get this belligerent rhetoric from Donald Trump, it's often leavened with a bit of humour or there's a sort of wry sense of himself he has. Stephen Miller is just absolutely hard line with the kind of brutal and aggressive rhetoric all the time, isn't he? Whether that's on immigration, which is his big, big topic, and border security. and now moving into foreign relations as well. He can come across as sounding really rather rabid when you hear him being interviewed.

23:18Although actually, as you say, Anthony, if you break down what he's saying in policy terms and then look at what Donald Trump's doing, there's not that much space between them. Right. On immigration, it was Miller in the middle of last year who was really pushing the Homeland Security Department and the immigration enforcement to do more deportations. There were reports of a White House meeting where he said he could go down onto the streets of D.C. and round up 100 undocumented migrants in a matter of minutes. And then shortly after that was when you saw the enforcement really step up, the use of National Guard to kind of back up enforcement, particularly in D.C., where they were rounding up people from the streets of D.C.

23:55and deporting them or putting them into detention camps prior to deportation. But I think Stephen Miller is an interesting character, And he is definitely influential in this White House. And yes, he does have more of an edge than Donald Trump does. But they are both practicing the same policies. And I went back and looked and see if there was any talk in the Heritage Foundation, the Project 2025, about Greenland directly. And there wasn't. There was broader geopolitical strategy in the Project 2025, which the Heritage Foundation put together. but this was Donald Trump and this is Donald Trump and now this is Stephen Miller backing up Donald Trump who started talking about Greenland at the very first.

24:41Now Miller is giving that edge and that hardness to the policy which is kind of his role. Yeah and also is it fair to say about him that not only does he come with some pretty hard line ideas and is able to shape the policy as to how to get those ideas into place he's pretty much an enforcer in terms of getting it done as well and that his title of deputy chief of staff in the White House maybe doesn't do justice to just quite how much power he has, because he's not only devising these policies, he is making sure that they happen. Yeah, he's been around, as I mentioned, for a long time in Trump's orbit.