Trump Wants Greenland

0:00The thing about AI for business, it may not automatically fit the way your business works. At IBM, we've seen this firsthand, but by embedding AI across HR, IT and procurement processes, we've reduced costs by millions, slash repetitive tasks and freed thousands of hours for strategic work. Now we're helping companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business, IBM. If you follow markets, you know the value of long-term thinking. You plan, you diversify, you prepare for volatility. But even the best strategies can't prevent every bad day.

0:42For more than 75 years, Cincinnati Insurance has helped individuals and businesses navigate tough moments with expertise, personal attention, and independent agents who focus on relationships, not transactions. the Cincinnati insurance companies. Let them make your bad day better. Find an agent at CINFIN.com. This podcast is brought to you by WISE, the smarter way to manage your money internationally. If you're getting a headache from juggling different currencies and different bank accounts in different countries, there's a better way to receive money in the currency you need without the slow transfer times or hidden fees.

1:20Meet WISE, the savvy way to handle your money internationally. Hold balances in up to 40 currencies with the mid-market exchange rate on every conversion. Whether you're receiving payments from tenants abroad, earning as a digital nomad, or converting dividends from your international investments, the WISE multi-currency account is for you. Be smart. Get WISE. Download the WISE app today or visit WISE.com. Terms and conditions apply. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. As the Trump administration asserts its control over Venezuelan oil following the stunning capture of ousted President Nicolas Maduro, President Trump has set his sights elsewhere, on Greenland, a strategic Arctic island that is a self-governing territory of Denmark.

2:10We need Greenland from a national security situation. It'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. Trump has been talking about acquiring Greenland since his first term. But this time, it may be more than just rhetoric. The White House has said that all options are on the table, including using the military. Although Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a group of lawmakers that it was the administration's intention to eventually buy Greenland.

2:53European leaders have expressed concerns about a possible takeover. Back in April, Danish Prime Minister Mehta Fredriksen said that Greenland is not for sale and the U.S. needs to respect its borders and sovereignty. You cannot annex another country, not even with an argument about international security. Joining me is an expert in international law, Monica Hakimi, a professor at Columbia Law School. She was formerly an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor in the U.S. State Department. Monica, the capture of Maduro has sort of set the stage for the latest talk by Trump about acquiring Greenland.

3:40So let's start with Maduro and tell us whether his capture violated international law. As a matter of international law, I think there's really no question that the capture of Maduro was unlawful. And that's because it involves the enforcement powers of the United States in the territory of another state, Venezuela in this case. International law does provide limited circumstances in which such exercises of power are lawful, but none of them applies in this case. The Trump administration is indicating that it's going to run Venezuela. I don't know if that is even going to happen because it seems like the vice president is in control right now.

4:21I mean, is this about a regime change? It's really hard to know what the administration intends to do or in what way. I'm not sure regime change is exactly the right way to describe what's happening, because as you say, a member of the regime is still now running the country and the regime itself is largely in place, even if the singular leader has been removed. But in any event, it would be, again, unlawful for the United States to assert its authority or coercive power in Venezuela to tell that state how to run its own country. Talking about the broader questions here, it seems that the Trump administration and President Trump don't want to stop at Venezuela.

5:06On Saturday, he was talking about problems with Colombia and Cuba. And now the administration is being completely open about wanting to acquire Greenland. How concerning is that? This claim on Greenland in particular is especially disturbing because it is part of an increasing trend in which states that have the raw power to take the territory of another state are claiming that they will do so. Of course, this is exactly what President Putin of Russia did in Ukraine. It's also embedded in the conflict between Iran and its proxy groups on the one hand, and Israel and the Palestinians on the other hand.

5:51And so it's a deeply, deeply corrosive move. It is likely to trigger further actions to this effect. It's not just the United States and Russia and states in the Middle East or entities in the Middle East that want to eliminate other states off the map or acquire territory from other states. So we've seen China increasingly being assertive with its neighbors in the East and South China Sea and in the Himalayas. We're seeing Morocco increasingly assert control over Western Sahara, which is a portion of the territory that does not technically belong to it. And these claims for territorial aggression and annexation really undercut the fundamental principle of the international legal and political order since World War II, which is that each state is entitled to establish its authority in its own borders, as defined by international law, territorial and maritime borders, and that it ought to be given priority in those spaces.

6:49The White House says it's considering a range of options for acquiring Greenland. What are the legal ways that it could do that? The possibility exists for one state to enter into an agreement with another, not subject to coercion, where there's a consensual arrangement for the transfer of territory. There's no indication at all that any of these entities, which are being subjected to coercion by more powerful states, is interested in selling part of its territorial or maritime space. President Trump has said we need Greenland for our national security. But if you look at what's happening in Venezuela, it's not about drugs coming into the United States from that country.

7:32It's all about the oil in Venezuela. And in Ukraine, the U.S. signed a deal after it got access to that country's mineral resources. And Greenland has what's been called a treasure trove of untapped raw materials. So I wonder if the goal is really national security, or it's about getting access to their oil and gas reserves and their mineral deposits and the like. Yeah, I think there's been an increasing move. And this is not, to be honest, entirely specific to the Trump administration, but there's been an increasing move in the United States and elsewhere to tie together economic security with national security, with maritime security, and channels for the movement of goods and people and services across the globe.

8:27And I think what we're seeing, and this would connect the actions in South America with the claims on Greenland, And you might remember there were earlier claims about acquiring Canada as well. It's an effort to say, like, this is our zone. We are going to control this entire space, including the resources in this space. And you, China, might be able to take Asia and Russia. You might be able to take Europe or at least part of Europe. But we are defining the space over which we are going to have dominance. And that, it seems to me, is a way of explaining the Trump administration's actions in a number of different theaters, as well as the actions of China and Russia.

9:07You mentioned Canada and Trump saying he wanted to make it the 51st state. He's also threatened to attack Panama to supposedly keep China from exerting influence over the Panama Canal. And on Saturday, he even warned that we have to do something about Mexico because the president is unable to clamp down on the drug cartels. So now Trump appears to be targeting even historic allies of the United States. Yes, I think the United States is working fundamentally to transform the terms based on which states interact and relate to one another on the world stage. And again, it's not just the United States that is doing this.

9:53So I think Russia's invasion of Ukraine was an action to say, look, we're no longer going to recognize Ukraine as an independent state. And we are going to change the terms based on which we interact with our near neighbors. And I think that's also what China is doing. But because the United States has a long history of trying to sustain this international legal and political order that is structured around separate and semi-independent states or interdependent states, the moves by the United States basically to say now, we're also participating in this game and we are just going to exert our raw power wherever we can, and especially in our defined space, to demand that others do as we tell them.

10:37without regard for what they might insist on doing themselves, that is a massive shift, in my view, relative to where we were, I don't know, five, 10 years ago. Monica, can you put this into context historically? Is this similar to other actions the U.S. has taken or different? Well, there is a relatively long history of the United States intervening in various ways in the affairs of Latin American countries, as well as countries in other parts of the world. But what is significant and I think unique about the current moment is that it's openly claiming the right to displace the state authorities basically across the globe or wherever it's not pleased with how the governments are running their own countries.

11:23and not at all claiming to do so in the service of or through the mechanisms of international law, which is collectively made and which is sort of applied through collective processes that at the very least provide some transparency about what is happening, some reason giving about what is happening, the opportunity for others to express their voice and their agency about what they want in the exchange. And so we're just seeing a fundamental shift away from, let's say, a legalized international relations toward a much more power-based, coercive set of interactions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has affirmed that the move was sort of a revised play on the 19th century Monroe Doctrine.

12:11Do you agree with that? And what are the implications? It seems to be. And I think that we've seen this administration say repeatedly in various ways that it's trying to revive some kind of Monroe doctrine. And I think the implications are exactly as I described, which are that the United States will increasingly just use its coercive power to dominate those around it, particularly in the Western Hemisphere or what it defines as its space. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue this conversation with Columbia Law School professor Monica Hakimi. Are these moves by the Trump administration a complete repudiation of the world order that has defined U.S.

12:53foreign policy since the Cold War? I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. Support for the show comes from Public. Public is an investing platform that offers access to stocks, options, bonds and crypto. And they've also integrated AI with tools that can assist investors in building customized portfolios. One of these tools is called Generated Assets. It allows you to turn your ideas into investable indexes. So let's say you're interested in something specific like biotech companies with high R &D spend, small cap stocks with improving operating margins, or the S &P 500 minus high debt companies.

13:29Chances are there isn't an ETF that fits your exact criteria. But on public, you just type in a prompt and their AI screens thousands of stocks and build a one-of-a-kind index. You can even backtest it against the S &P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Go to public.com slash market and earn an uncapped 1 % bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com slash market.

14:03Sample prompts are for illustrative purposes only, not investment advice. All investing involves risk of loss. See complete disclosures at public.com slash disclosures. Being a small business owner isn't just a career. It's a calling. Chase for Business knows how much heart and effort go into building something of your own. That's why they make business growth their priority. The Chase team takes the time to understand your mission, where you are now, and where you want to go. Their broad range of solutions is designed with you in mind so you can bring your ideas to life. From banking to payment acceptance to credit cards, you can conveniently manage all your business finances all in one place with their digital tools.

14:41Looking for tips and advice? Their online resources are always available to give you the solutions you need to help your business thrive. See how your business can get stronger and go farther with Chase for Business. Learn more at chase.com slash business. Chase for Business. Make more of what's yours. The Chase mobile app is available for select mobile devices. Message and data rates may apply. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. Member FDIC. Copyright 2026. JPMorgan Chase and Company. Deadlines move. Plans change. And sometimes opportunities pop up out of nowhere. When you need branded gear fast, 4imprint is ready to deliver.

15:194imprint offers hundreds of promotional products in their 24-hour category. Everything from custom apparel, bags, and drinkware to writing tools, trade show staples, and high-tech gear. At 4imprint, they're focused on getting the details right, printing your logo with precision, packing your order with care, and shipping it out fast. And it's backed by their 360-degree guarantee. That's 4imprint's promise your order will show up right on time, just the way you planned it. That's what it means to be 4imprint certain. So, if you're prepping for a last-minute event or jumping on a big opportunity, you don't have to settle or scramble.

15:55With 4imprint, fast, reliable service and peace of mind are built right in. Check out their full 24-hour selection at 4imprint.com. 4imprint. 4certain. President Trump and his advisors are discussing a range of options to acquire Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark. Those options include military action. In response, European nations released a joint statement saying security in the Arctic must be achieved collectively with NATO allies, including the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says he plans to meet with Danish officials next week to discuss the U.S. interest in Greenland.

16:42But will Denmark's answer be any different from that of the Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, in April when a U.S. delegation that included Vice President J.D. Vance visited Greenland and got a frosty reception? When you demand to take over a part of the kingdoms of Denmark territory, when we are met by pressure and by threats from our closest ally, What are we to believe in about the country that we have admired for so many years? National borders, sovereignty of states and our integrity. These are all principles rooted in international law. These are fundamental principles formed after the Second World War so that small countries don't have to fear big ones.

17:40But is that world order changing? And how much can international law play a part today? I've been talking to an expert in international law, Monica Hakimi, a professor at Columbia Law School. Monica, President Trump has attacked seven countries since returning to office. There were strikes in Somalia, Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and now in Venezuela, as well as in international waters. There was nothing done in Congress and there was nothing done internationally. I mean, Stephen Miller, a top aide to President Trump, actually said on CNN yesterday that Greenland rightfully belongs to the United States and, quote, nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.

18:32Yeah, I think that's an open question. You know, one of the common criticisms of international law is that it's not enforceable or not easily enforceable against powerful states. And in this case, the United States, and that it doesn't therefore constrain powerful states in the same way that it constrains weaker states. I think there's no way to know, actually, to what extent the United States has historically been constrained by international law and to what extent it's just chosen a path that has been more consistent with international law. But in any event, I think the real change now is not so much that international law has become, has suddenly become unenforceable against the United States, but rather that the United States is no longer itself committed to upholding the international legal system.

19:23And that is a significant shift because the United States has actually, even as it has historically acted in various ways that have undermined specific norms in international law. It has also historically done an enormous amount to try to bolster this entire system. And with that retreat from its own commitment to the legal system, the question is, is anyone capable of filling that gap? And if so, who and on what terms is that alternative party going to be exercising its power with or without international law? And if not, we're just going to live in a world in which it's much harder to understand what those who exercise power are doing and why.

20:04Because one of the things that international law does, no matter what else it does, is clarify the terms based on which states and other actors interact on the world stage. Let's talk for a moment about NATO and, you know, what the power or lack of power is there. Trump has been pulling back from NATO and today he criticized it again. Does NATO have any role to play here? The action against Greenland is in many ways causing a deep fissure within NATO. And I say that because, of course, Denmark is a NATO state. It's historically been a very strong military ally of the United States. And so one NATO country directly attacking another NATO country just undermines the entire arrangement.

20:49which is that these countries are supposed to act collectively in their mutual defense and cooperatively in their mutual defense. Now, to answer your question more specifically, if the United States were to attack and try to acquire Greenland, other NATO countries could come to Denmark's defense against the United States. That would be a deep, deep fissure again within NATO. And it would raise, again, the question that you asked earlier about whether any other state could actually enforce Denmark's rights against the United States, given the overwhelming military power of the United States. I mean, do you think that NATO's days are numbered?

21:30I've been worried for some time, actually, that NATO's days are, if not numbered, that NATO is going to have to transform itself to preserve its relevance and its salience. And quite frankly, it's been the position of the United States for well over a decade, nearing two decades, that the United States cannot continue to provide the bulk of support for NATO's operations that European states had to do more. Now, that has become increasingly obvious over the course of the second Trump administration. And the question, I guess, is whether NATO states can collectively figure out how to reconstitute themselves in a way that is responsive to the Trump administration's new moves, but still protective of the entire group of states that currently comprise it.

22:20The United Nations Security Council held an emergency meeting on Monday. Because of the way the Security Council is set up with the members having veto power, it seems unlikely that anything useful is going to come out of the Security Council. I mean, what's the point of the United Nations today? One of the essential components of the United Nations Security Council is that it is comprised of the five victors of World War II, as well as others. But those five members have veto power, as you say. And during the Cold War, the Security Council was largely stalled out because the United States and the Soviet Union could not agree to make decisions really through the Security Council.

23:03Nevertheless, I think some would say that the Security Council provided a useful venue for these two great powers who were very, very severely at odds with one another to figure out what the other was doing and at least to talk to one another on terms that were sort of detached from the conflicts that were playing out on the ground, whether hot or cold. After the end of the Cold War, the Security Council was sort of revitalized and it became a really important mechanism for dealing with security threats around the world. Now, again, we're going to a position where making decisions through the Security Council will be very, very difficult because of the geopolitical dynamics.

23:43Still, it might be a useful venue for those who want to understand what is happening or to express their own voice about what is happening to do so, and at least for those views to be aired and in that way serve as some kind of accountability mechanism or at least transparency about what their positions are. As you mentioned, Russia invaded Ukraine. China might use this as a template to eventually go after Taiwan. I mean, during the Trump administration, the next three years, are we looking at a changing world order? I think absolutely. I think I'm on record as having said that the old world order, however one defined it, is really no longer available to us.

24:32And it's not just the United States that's making that decision. The United States is, of course, responding to a broader set of global trends, including the limits of its own security umbrella, as was evidenced by, you know, Russia's and China's actions that predated the second Trump administration, as well as Iran's. So I do think we are moving toward an entirely different world order. And that part of what's happening right now in these conflicts is that states are and other entities are basically defining the terms based on which any future order would have to be created. And there's a question about how different the next world order, if there is going to be some world order, will be relative to the one that we're leaving behind.

25:16How different do you think it'll be? I think it's going to be dramatically different. And I think it's going to be different in ways that are far worse for a greater number of people around the world. I think if one pays attention to the legal and political trends over the past couple of years, one sees a few things. The first is a reduction in the commitment to states as states. So we've seen that, again, with the denial of the authority of states in many parts of the world, Ukraine, Venezuela, Denmark over Greenland. The second is a backlash against the humanitarian impulses of international law.

25:54So we're seeing in many conflicts around the world, an increased disregard for, you know, protecting civilians for humanity, as well as in more limited ways, a backlash from, you know, human rights law more generally, as it applies even in peacetime, not only in conflicts. The third, I would say, is a retreat in the legalization of international affairs. Again, I think legalization is extremely important for reasons of transparency, accountability, basic coordination and understanding of what is happening around us, no matter to what extent it constrains or empowers particular entities. And then finally, we're seeing an increased resort to force and other forms of coercion to structure international affairs.

26:38These are trends that, again, predated the Trump administration, but they're trends that are being accelerated by the Trump administration. And they're all trends that, in my view, reflect a retreat from humanity and from basic ideas about governance in the service of the general good. Former President Joe Biden embraced NATO. Now we have President Trump with an anti-NATO stance. If the next president wants to embrace NATO, will that change anything considering the new world order that you just described? I don't think the option is available to go back to what existed before. And actually, I myself was quite critical of the Biden administration for not seeing the writing on the wall and trying to put the world in a better position than it was when he left office for what was inevitably going to be continued resistance to the U.S.

27:47power structure that existed. in the post-Cold War period. And so, you know, I don't think a new administration could try to revive NATO and create the security that once existed through NATO. I think any new administration would have to deal with the hand that will have been created over the next three, if not more, years. This has been a really fascinating conversation. Thanks so much, Monica, for sharing your insights with us. That's Professor Monica Hakimi of Columbia Law School. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, it's the state that sued the Trump administration more than any other.

28:24Get ready for the 2026 court battles between California and Trump. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. Support for the show comes from Public. Public is an investing platform that offers access to stocks, options, bonds, and crypto. And they've also integrated AI with tools that can assist investors in building customized portfolios. One of these tools is called Generated Assets. It allows you to turn your ideas into investable indexes. So let's say you're interested in something specific like biotech companies with high R &D spend, small cap stocks with improving operating margins, or the S &P 500 minus high debt companies.

29:04Chances are there isn't an ETF that fits your exact criteria. But on public, you just type in a prompt and their AI screens thousands of stocks and build a one-of-a-kind index. You can even backtest it against the S &P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Go to public.com slash market and earn an uncapped 1 % bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com slash market.