Britain’s chief foreign minister plans to make a standalone visit to China, a move designed to further boost economic and diplomatic engagement with Beijing in the wake of an imminent trip by Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Yvette Cooper said she “certainly will” travel to the country after Starmer moved her to the role of foreign secretary in September. She declined to comment on a possible date or whether it would be this year. Cooper’s aim will be unsurprising to many, given Cabinet ministers including Chancellor Rachel Reeves, Cooper’s predecessor David Lammy and the former Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds all visited China last year in a drumbeat that will culminate in Starmer’s visit, widely expected around the end of January. However, they indicate that Britain’s ruling Labour Party has no intention of cooling a courtship that has generated significant opposition — including from some of its own MPs — due to concerns over China’s human rights record and espionage activity. Cooper herself said Britain takes security issues around China “immensely seriously,” adding: “That involves transnational repression, it involves the espionage threats and challenges that we face.” Speaking to POLITICO ahead of a visit Thursday to the Arctic, where China is taking an increasing strategic interest, Cooper added: “There are also some wider economic security issues around, for example, the control of critical minerals around the world, and some of those issues.  “So we’re very conscious of the broad range of China threats that are posed alongside what we also know is China’s role as being our third-largest trading partner, and so the complexity of the relationship with China and the work that needs to done.” SECURITY TAKEN ‘VERY SERIOUSLY’ Labour officials have repeatedly emphasised their desire to engage directly with the world’s second-largest economy, including frank dialogue on areas where they disagree. Starmer said in December that he rejected a “binary choice” between having a golden age or freezing China out. However, the timing is acutely sensitive for the Labour government, which is likely to approve plans for a new Chinese “mega-embassy” in London in the coming days. The site near Tower Bridge is very close to telecommunications cables that run to the capital’s financial district. Cooper declined to answer directly whether she had assured U.S. counterparts about the embassy plans, after a Trump administration official told the Telegraph newspaper the White House was “deeply concerned” by them. Keir Starmer said in December that he rejected a “binary choice” between having a golden age or freezing China out. | Pool Photo by Ludovic Marin via EPA The foreign secretary said: “The Home Office, the foreign office, also the security agencies take all of those security issues very seriously, and we also brief our allies on security issues as well.” However, Cooper appeared to defend the prospect of approving the plans — which have run parallel to Britain’s aim to rebuild its own embassy in Beijing.  “All countries have embassies,” she said. “We have embassies all around the world, including in Beijing.” She added: “Of course, security is an important part of the considerations around all embassies. So we need to have those diplomatic relationships, those communications. We also have to make sure that security is taken very seriously. The U.K. and the U.S. have a particularly close security partnership. So we do share a lot of information intelligence, and we have that deep-rooted discussion.” Asked if she plans to make her own visit to China, Cooper responded: “I certainly will do so.”

Faced with a barrage of American threats to grab Greenland, Denmark’s foreign minister and his Greenlandic counterpart flew to Washington for — they hoped — sympathetic talks with Marco Rubio, the secretary of state. But their plan for a soothing diplomatic chat escalated into a tense White House head-to-head with the EU’s nemesis, JD Vance. Over the past year the U.S. vice president has earned a reputation for animosity toward the old continent, and many governments in Europe fear his hardline influence over President Donald Trump when it comes to seizing territory from a longstanding ally. Among the 10 ministers and officials who spoke anonymously to POLITICO for this article, none regarded Vance as an ally — either in the Greenland talks or for the transatlantic relationship in general.  “Vance hates us,” said one European diplomat, granted anonymity to give a candid view, like others quoted in this article. The announcement that the vice president would be helming the Washington talks on Greenland alarmed the European side. “He’s the tough guy,” the same diplomat said. “The fact that he’s there says a lot and I think it’s negative for the outcome.”  Trump says he wants “ownership” of Greenland for reasons of U.S. national security and will get it either by negotiation or, if necessary, perhaps through military means. At stake is much more than simply the fate of an island of 57,000 inhabitants, or even the future of the Arctic.  The bellicose rhetoric from the White House has dismayed America’s NATO allies and provoked warnings from Denmark that such a move would destroy the post-war Western alliance. Others say it is already terminal for the international order on which transatlantic relations rely.  In the event, the talks in Washington on Wednesday went as well as could be expected, officials said after: The Americans were blunt, but there was no declaration of war. Nor did the occasion descend into a public humiliation of the sort Vance unleashed against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a White House visit last year. The two sides clearly argued their cases with some force but resolved to keep talking. A high-level working group will explore whether any compromise can be reached between the Danes and Greenlanders, and Trump.  ‘FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT’ The discussion “wasn’t so successful that we reached a conclusion where our American colleagues said, ‘Sorry, it was totally a misunderstanding, we gave up on our ambitions,’” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen quipped to reporters after what he described as a “frank” exchange with Vance and Rubio. “There’s clearly a disagreement.”  “The president has this wish of conquering over Greenland,” Rasmussen added. “For us, ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark, or the right of self determination of the Greenlandic people, are of course totally unacceptable. And we therefore still have a fundamental disagreement. And we agree to disagree.” Talks in future must, he said, respect the “red lines” set by Greenland and Denmark. It is hoped that the working group will help lower “the temperature” on the issue when it begins its work in the coming weeks, Rasmussen added.  While Donald Trump can be distracted, some EU officials say, JD Vance appears to be more ideological in his hostility to Europe. | Aaron Schwartz/EPA The small win, for the Danes, is that the question of Greenland has — for now — moved from wild social media images of the island dressed in the American flag to a proper diplomatic channel, giving everyone time to calm down.  If it holds, that would be something. A stream of X posts from Trump’s allies — alongside uncompromising statements from the president himself — have left European officials aghast. In one that the White House posted this week, Trump can be seen peering out of his Oval Office window at a scene depicting the icy map of Greenland.  Behind him, looking on, is Vance. “It was terrible,” the first diplomat cited above told POLITICO.  NO FRIEND Few Europeans will forget Vance’s attacks on Zelenskyy in last February’s Oval Office showdown. Vance also left Europeans shocked and horrified when he savaged them for refusing to work with the far right, and complained bitterly how much he resented America paying for European security.  By contrast, Rubio is often described as “solid” by European officials, and is generally seen as someone who is more aligned with the priorities of the European mainstream especially on security and the war in Ukraine.  At the time of writing, Vance had not given his account in public of Wednesday’s talks on Greenland. In response to a request for comment, Vance’s deputy press secretary pointed to previous remarks in which the vice president had said “I love Europe” and European people — but also said European leaders had been “asleep at the wheel” and that the Trump administration was frustrated that they had failed to address issues including migration and investment in defense. One EU official, speaking after the meeting, suggested it was actually a good thing Vance was involved because he “calls the shots” and holds sway with Trump.  Elsewhere, however, the skepticism remains deep — and turns to alarm at the prospect that when Trump’s second term ends, it could be Vance who takes over in the White House.  While Trump can be distracted, some EU officials say, Vance appears to be more ideological in his hostility to Europe. That would be a risk not just for Greenland but also for NATO and Ukraine. Some EU diplomats see Trump’s territorial ambitions as part of a pattern that includes Vance’s attacks and the new White House national security strategy, which sets out to redirect European democracy toward the ends of Trump’s MAGA movement. When it comes to the dispute over Greenland, many in Brussels and European capitals are pessimistic. Even Rasmussen, the Danish foreign minister, didn’t pretend a deal was in sight and confessed one may never come. “Trump doesn’t want to invest in something he doesn’t own,” one EU diplomat said. The U.S. has wide access to Greenland for military deployments under existing agreements, and could easily invest in further economic development, according to the Danes and their allies.  “It’s not clear what there is to negotiate because the Americans can already have whatever they want,” another diplomat said. “The only thing that Denmark cannot give is to say Greenland can become American.”  It may not be a question of what Greenland can give, if in the end the president and his eager deputy decide simply to take it.  Victor Goury-Laffont and Nicholas Vinocur contributed reporting.

President Donald Trump has linked his desire to own Greenland with the development of his nascent missile defense shield, Golden Dome. Except that he doesn’t need to seize the Danish territory to accomplish his goal. Golden Dome, Trump’s pricey vision to protect the U.S., is a multi-layered defense shield intended to block projectiles heading toward the country. The president announced a $175 billion, three-year plan last year, although gave few details about how the administration would fund it. “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security,” Trump said Wednesday in a Truth Social post. “It is vital for the Golden Dome we are building.” But the country already has the access it needs in Greenland to host interceptors that could knock down enemy missiles. And the U.S. has other locations it could place similar defense systems — think New York or Canada — if many of the interceptors are even based on land, instead of space as envisioned. “The right way for the U.S. to engage with an ally to improve our homeland defense — whether through additional radars, communication antennas or even interceptor sites — is to engage collaboratively with that ally,” said a former defense official. “If strengthening homeland defense is the actual goal, this administration is off to a truly terrible start.” Here are three reasons why Golden Dome has little to do with Trump’s desire to take Greenland: HE COULD HAVE JUST ASKED DENMARK The U.S. military’s presence in Greenland centers on Pituffik Space Base, which operates under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark that grants the U.S. regular access to the island. The base is a key outpost for detecting threats from the Arctic, although it doesn’t host any interceptor systems. If the Pentagon wanted to station interceptors or more sensors on the island, the U.S. could simply work with Denmark to do so, according to the former official and a defense expert. Greenland has been part of the U.S. homeland missile defense and space surveillance network for decades and it would continue that role under Golden Dome, said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “We already have unfettered access to what we need for Golden Dome in Greenland, but the president talks as if he’s not aware of that,” Harrison said. “His statements about Greenland are detached from reality.” The White House, when asked for comment, pointed to Trump’s post. HE COULD CHOOSE SOMEWHERE ELSE — THAT THE U.S. OWNS Greenland could prove a good location for ground-based interceptors that block missiles launching from Russia and the Middle East towards the U.S. But the U.S. has other options for interceptor locations, and none would necessitate taking another country (a seizure that could threaten to destroy the NATO alliance). The Pentagon has examined potential locations for interceptor sites and Fort Drum, an Army base in upstate New York, has routinely survived deep dive analysis by the Missile Defense Agency, said the former defense official, who, like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to speak about internal discussions. “Compared to Fort Drum, Greenland does not appear to be a better location for such interceptors,” the person said. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Ala.) has also said his state could play a “critical role” in housing interceptors. MUCH OF THE DEFENSE SHIELD IS SUPPOSED TO BE BASED IN SPACE Trump’s assertion about needing Greenland for Golden Dome also raises questions about what the multibillion-dollar architecture will actually look like. The Pentagon has largely avoided discussing the price tag publicly. And officials originally envisioned most of it located above the Earth. A key part of Golden Dome is space-based interceptors — weapons orbiting the planet that can shoot down incoming missiles. But moving missile defense systems to space would require fewer ground-based systems, negating the importance of acquiring more land for the effort. “If Golden Dome’s sensor network and defenses are primarily space-based — as per the current plan — Greenland might still be of value,” said a former defense official. “But less so than it would be for terrestrial architecture.”

Britain has evacuated its ambassador and all embassy staff from Iran, a U.K. official said Wednesday, as U.S. President Donald Trump weighs launching strikes against the Islamist regime. The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said the decision had been taken based on the assessment of the security situation and to prioritize the safety of staff. A U.K. government spokesperson said: “We have temporarily closed the British Embassy in Tehran, this will now operate remotely.  “Foreign Office travel advice has now been updated to reflect this consular change.” The move came shortly after the U.S. ordered the evacuation of some personnel from the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, its largest base in the Middle East, which hosts 10,000 U.S. troops. A former U.S. official familiar with the situation said aircraft had also been moved. Reuters first reported the evacuation. The U.K. already advises against all travel to Iran and for British nationals already in the country to “carefully consider” their continued presence. Britain’s envoy to Iran was summoned alongside European diplomats on Monday to a fractious meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, European officials said. In turn, Britain’s Middle East Minister Hamish Falconer summoned Iran’s Ambassador to London for a meeting Tuesday. Speaking to POLITICO on a tour of Finland and Norway — before the evacuation was public — U.K. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper praised Tehran’s “brave protesters, especially for women to be out protesting, who are facing such huge repression in their daily lives.” With some protesters facing execution, she said: “Iran needs to understand the whole world is watching, and they need to end this violence. The idea that they would escalate the violence further with these executions is absolutely horrific.” Cooper said her priority was sanctions and economic pressure on Iran rather than military strikes. However, she did not rule out allowing the U.S. to use British resources, including air bases, to launch such strikes.

Denmark and Greenland “still have a fundamental disagreement” with the U.S. over President Donald Trump’s desire to control the Arctic territory, Denmark’s foreign minister said Wednesday. Lars Løkke Rasmussen and his Greenland counterpart Vivian Motzfeldt finally had their chance to try to turn down the temperature at the White House after more than a year of aggressive internet trolling, statements and demands from the U.S. Their conversation did little to dissuade Trump and his team from their hold on Greenland. “We didn’t manage to change the American position,” Rasmussen said. “It’s clear that the president has this wish of conquering over Greenland. We made it very very clear that this is not in the interest of the Kingdom.” Rasmussen and Motzfeldt took pains to describe the session as respectful, but their frustration that their longtime ally would not cooperate was clear. “It is of course very emotional for all of us,” Rasmussen said. The U.S., Denmark and Greenland agreed in the meeting to convene high-level working groups to see if they could find a way forward, but Rasmussen said he was unsure whether it would be possible. Demands that would violate Denmark and Greenland’s sovereignty are “totally unacceptable,” he said. Denmark has contributed $15 billion to Arctic security over the past two years and has pressed the U.S. and other NATO countries to do more through the alliance, Rasmussen added. Denmark announced earlier Wednesday that it would beef up its security presence in Greenland, which has been under Danish control for nearly 300 years. The officials noted much of what Trump and his team continue to say about Greenland is untrue, including Trump’s often repeated claim that Greenland is crawling with Russian and Chinese warships. Rasmussen said there has not been a Chinese warship in the Arctic for a decade. Those statements and Trump’s threatening tone do not yield a constructive dialogue, Rasmussen said. “It is not easy to think innovatively about solutions when you wake up every morning to different threats,” he said. On Wednesday morning, Trump posted on Truth Social that the United States needed to acquire Greenland for his Golden Dome missile defense project, his latest rationale. “NATO should be leading the way for us to get it,” Trump wrote. “IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.”

Two new polls released Wednesday show that most voters do not want the U.S. to take military action against Iran and think President Donald Trump is overstepping abroad. A Quinnipiac University poll of registered voters found that 70 percent oppose U.S. military involvement in Iran, even if protesters there are killed while demonstrating against the Iranian government, compared to 18 percent who support military action. Opposition was mostly along party lines, with 79 percent of Democrats and 80 percent of independents opposing military involvement. Republicans were more supportive, with a majority — 53 percent — saying the U.S. should not get involved. The poll also found that 70 percent of voters think the president should receive congressional approval first before taking military action. Trump did not receive congressional approval prior to capturing Maduro, prompting criticism from both Democrat and Republican lawmakers. Five GOP senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Todd Young of Indiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri, joined Democratic lawmakers to advance legislation forcing Trump to obtain Congress’ approval before taking any further military steps in Venezuela. Trump scolded the senators in a post on Truth Social, saying Republicans should be “ashamed” of them and they should “never be elected to office again” as the vote “greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security.” Voters were less supportive of other aggressive foreign policy moves by the Trump administration to expand U.S. influence abroad. Trump argued that the push for U.S. control over Greenland was for national security purposes and to benefit NATO. Regardless, 86 percent opposed using military force to take over Greenland, and 55 percent opposed buying it. The results mirror growing resistance among voters against U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts amid a slew of executive efforts. A separate poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that a growing number of Americans want the U.S. to take a “less active role” in global affairs. Following the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, the poll revealed that 56 percent of Americans think Trump has “gone too far” in using military power abroad, and 45 percent say they want the country to be less involved in solving global problems — up from 33 percent in September 2025. Despite broad skepticism of foreign military action, many Americans still seem optimistic about the effects of U.S. intervention in Venezuela. About half of adults think Maduro’s capture and military action in Venezuela will be “mostly a good thing” for halting the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S., and 44 percent believe it will benefit the people of Venezuela more than harm them. The Quinnipiac University poll was conducted from Jan. 8 to Jan. 12, 2025, by phone and surveyed 1,133 self-identified registered voters. The AP-NORC poll was conducted from Jan. 8 to Jan. 11, 2025, and surveyed 1,097 by web and 106 by phone.

LONDON — Prime Minister Keir Starmer usually goes out of his way not to annoy Donald Trump. So he better hope the windmill-hating U.S. president doesn’t notice what the U.K. just did. In a fillip for the global offshore wind industry, Starmer’s government on Wednesday announced its biggest-ever down payment on the technology. It agreed to price guarantees, funded by billpayers to the tune of up to £1.8 billion (€2.08 billion) a year, for eight major projects in England, Scotland and Wales. The schemes have the capacity to generate 8.4 gigawatts of electricity, the U.K. energy department said — enough to power 12 million homes. It represented the biggest “wind auction in Europe to date,” said industry group WindEurope. It’s also an energy strategy that could have been tailor-made to rankle Trump. The U.S. president has repeatedly expressed a profound loathing for wind turbines and has tried to use his powers to halt construction on projects already underway in the U.S. — sending shockwaves across the global industry. Even when appearing alongside Starmer at press conferences, Trump has been unable to hide his disgust at the very sight of windmills. “You are paying in Scotland and in the U.K. … to have these ugly monsters all over the place,” he said, sitting next to Starmer during a visit to his Turnberry golf course last year. The spinning blades, Trump complained, would “kill all your birds.” At the time, the prime minister explained meekly that the U.K. was seeking a “mix” of energy sources. But this week’s investments speak far louder about his government’s priorities. The U.K.’s strategy — part of a plan to run the British power grid on 95 percent clean electricity by 2030 — is a clear signal that for all Starmer’s attempts to appease Trump, the U.K. will not heed Washington’s assertions that fossil fuels are the only way to deliver affordable bills and secure supply. “With these results, Britain is taking back control of our energy sovereignty,” said Starmer’s Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, a former leader of the Labour party. “With these results, Britain is taking back control of our energy sovereignty,” said Energy Secretary Ed Miliband. | Pool photo by Justin Tallis via Getty Images While not mentioning Trump or the U.S., he said the U.K. wanted to “stand on our two feet” and not depend on “markets controlled by petrostates and dictators.” WIND VS. GAS The goal of the U.K.’s offshore wind drive is to reduce reliance on gas for electricity generation. One of the most gas-dependent countries in Europe, the U.K. was hit hard in 2022 by the regional gas price spike that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The government ended up spending tens of billions of pounds to pay a portion of every household energy bill in the country to fend off widespread hardship. It’s a scenario that Miliband and Starmer want to avoid in future by focusing on producing electricity from domestic sources like offshore wind that are not subject to the ups and downs of global fossil fuel markets. Trump, by contrast, wants to keep Europe hooked on gas — specifically, American gas. The U.S. National Security Strategy, updated late last year, states Trump’s desire to use American fossil fuel exports to “project power.” Trump has already strong-armed the European Union into committing to buy $750 billion worth of American liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a quid pro quo for tariff relief. No one in Starmer’s government explicitly named Trump or the U.S. on Wednesday. But Chris Stark, a senior official in Miliband’s energy department tasked with delivering the 2030 goal, noted that “every megawatt of offshore wind that we’re bringing on is a few more metric tons of LNG that we don’t need to import.” The U.K.’s investment in offshore wind also provides welcome relief to a global industry that has been seriously shaken both by soaring inflation and interest rates — and more recently by a Trump-inspired backlash against net zero and clean energy. “It’s a relief for the offshore sector … It’s a relief generally, that the U.K. government is able to lean into very large positive investment stories in U.K. infrastructure,” said Tom Glover, U.K. country chair of the German energy firm RWE, which was the biggest winner in the latest offshore wind investment, securing contracts for 6.9 gigawatts of capacity. A second energy industry figure, granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record, said the U.K.’s plans were a “great signal for the global offshore wind sector” after a difficult few years — “not least the stuff in the U.S.” The other big winner was British firm SSE, which has plans to build one of the world’s largest-ever offshore wind projects, Berwick Bank — off the coast of Donald Trump’s beloved Scotland.

LONDON — Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is set to take up a role in making decisions on Gaza’s future, according to three people familiar with the plans. The ex-leader is being lined up for a seat on an executive committee attached to the larger “Board of Peace,” the body that will oversee the transitional governance of Gaza under the deal negotiated with U.S. President Donald Trump last year for a truce in the war that followed the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel. Blair had been discussed as a candidate to serve on the Board of Peace, but POLITICO has learned he is instead in line for a place on the executive committee, while the larger Board of Peace effort will be led by Bulgarian diplomat Nikolay Mladenov. The FT reported that the executive committee will also include U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The White House, Witkoff and Kushner did not immediately reply to questions. The Board of Peace is now expected to consist of the heads of state of at least nine countries, according to one person familiar with the matter: the U.S., U.K., Italy, Germany, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Jordan. The Sunday Times reported this past weekend that Keir Starmer had been offered a place on the board, but U.K. officials said Wednesday that no formal invite for the British PM has yet been received, and no decision has been made about his future role. Starmer’s spokesman told reporters: “Engagement with the U.S. to support the implementation of the 20-point peace plan continues. The board of peace is one element of the plan. Conversations about the exact shape of that are ongoing.” Witkoff posted on X: “Today, on behalf of President Trump, we are announcing the launch of Phase Two of the President’s 20-Point Plan to End the Gaza Conflict, moving from ceasefire to demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.” When he announced his 20-point peace plan, Trump said he himself would chair the Board of Peace. The only other potential member he named was Blair, who was closely involved in drafting the U.S.-led deal. Since then, British officials have stressed that while Blair had played a valuable role he had not been put forward as a broker by the U.K. government, and that the E3 group of Britain, France and Germany would seek their own representatives on the board. Middle Eastern leaders had reportedly voiced concerns about the involvement of Blair because of his role in the invasion of Iraq. The FT reported that the executive committee will also include U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. | Pool Photo by Ludovic Marin via EPA The executive committee is separate from the Palestinian-led committee responsible for managing reconstruction, security and political transition. On Wednesday, Egypt, Qatar and Turkey announced in a joint statement that Ali Shaath, a former Palestinian Authority official, had been chosen to head the Palestinian technocratic committee charged with administering the Gaza Strip. Nahal Toosi, Dan Bloom and Emilio Casalicchio contributed reporting.

BERLIN — German Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil has assailed U.S. President Donald Trump for his rhetoric on Greenland and actions in Venezuela, saying the situation is worse than politicians like to admit. The comments lay bare divisions inside Germany’s governing coalition over how to handle Washington as transatlantic tensions mount. They also mark a divergence between Klingbeil’s approach and that of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has taken a far more cautious approach to Trump to avoid a rupture with Washington. “The transatlantic alliance is undergoing much more profound upheaval than we may have been willing to admit until now,” Klingbeil said Wednesday in view of Trump’s assertion that the U.S. needs control over Greenland as well as the U.S. administration’s decision to deploy its military to seize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. “The transatlantic relationship that we have known until now is disintegrating,” he added. Merz, by contrast, has said with regard to Greenland that the U.S. president has legitimate security concerns that NATO should address in order to achieve a “mutually acceptable solution.” And while other EU governments strongly criticized the Trump administration following the capture of Maduro, Merz was more restrained, calling the matter legally “complex.” Behind Klingbeil’s more strident criticism of Trump lies a clear political calculus. The vice chancellor — who also serves as finance minister — is a leader of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which governs in coalition with Merz’s conservative bloc and has seen its popularity stagnate. Attacking Trump more forcefully may be one way for the party to improve its fortunes. Polls show most Germans strongly oppose Trump’s actions in Venezuela and his rhetoric on Greenland, and views of the U.S. government more generally are at a nadir. | Pool Photo by Shawn Thew via EPA Polls show most Germans strongly oppose Trump’s actions in Venezuela and his rhetoric on Greenland, and views of the U.S. government more generally are at a nadir. Only 15 percent of Germans consider the U.S. to be a trustworthy partner, according to the benchmark ARD Deutschlandtrend survey released last week, a record low. This underscores the political risk for Merz as he seeks to avoid direct confrontation with an American president deeply unpopular with the German electorate. But Merz has calculated that keeping open channels of communication with the U.S. president is far more critical. Klingbeil, on the other hand, is less encumbered by international diplomacy. “The Trump administration has made it clear that it wants to dominate the Western hemisphere,” he said on Wednesday. “One could sit here and say, ‘Yes, what the US has done in Latin America is not pretty. Yes, there are also threats against Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba, but what does that actually have to do with us?’ But then we look at President Trump’s statements today about Greenland. Then we look at what the Trump administration has written in its new national security strategy with regard to Europe. “All the certainties we could rely on in Europe are under pressure,” Klingbeil added.

Denmark and allied countries said Wednesday they will increase their military presence in Greenland as part of expanded exercises, amid intensifying pressure from Washington over the Arctic island’s sovereignty. “Security in the Arctic is of crucial importance to the Kingdom and our Arctic allies, and it is therefore important that we, in close cooperation with allies, further strengthen our ability to operate in the region,” said Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen. “The Danish Defense Forces, together with several Arctic and European allies, will explore in the coming weeks how an increased presence and exercise activity in the Arctic can be implemented.” In a statement, Denmark’s defense ministry said additional Danish aircraft, naval assets and troops will be deployed in and around Greenland starting immediately as part of expanded training and exercise activity. The effort will include “receiving allied forces, operating fighter jets and carrying out maritime security tasks,” the ministry said. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said on X that Swedish officers are arriving in Greenland as part of a multinational allied group to help prepare upcoming phases of Denmark’s Operation Arctic Endurance exercise, following a request from Copenhagen. A European diplomat said that troops from the Netherlands, Canada and Germany were also taking part. The diplomat and another official with first-hand knowledge said France was also involved. Defense ministries in other countries did not immediately respond to requests for comment. So far, the deployment remains intergovernmental and has not been formally approved by NATO, according to two people familiar with the matter. “The goal is to show that Denmark and key allies can increase their presence in the Arctic region,” said a third person briefed on the plans, demonstrating their “ability to operate under the unique Arctic conditions and thereby strengthen the alliance’s footprint in the Arctic, benefiting both European and transatlantic security.” The announcement landed the same day U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with the Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers in Washington, following days of rising transatlantic tensions over President Donald Trump’s bid to take over the strategic island. Trump escalated the dispute earlier Wednesday in a Truth Social post, declaring that “the United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security,” calling it “vital” for his planned “Golden Dome” missile defense system.  He also insisted that seizing Greenland would not destroy NATO, despite warnings from Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen that such a move would end the Atlantic alliance. “Militarily, without the vast power of the United States … NATO would not be an effective force or deterrent — Not even close!” Trump posted. “They know that, and so do I. NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES.” Denmark and Greenland have repeatedly rejected any suggestion of a transfer of sovereignty, stressing that Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and that its future is for Greenlanders alone to decide. Greenland’s government said it is working closely with Copenhagen to ensure local involvement and transparency, with Denmark’s Arctic Command tasked with keeping the population informed. “If we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark,” Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Greenland’s prime minister, said at a press conference Tuesday. In response, Trump said, “That’s their problem. I disagree with him. I don’t know who he is. Don’t know anything about him, but that’s going to be a big problem for him.”