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.

BRUSSELS ― EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas privately told lawmakers the state of the world meant it might be a “good moment” to start drinking. Kallas told leaders of the political groups in the European Parliament that while she is not much of a drinker now may be the time to start given events around the globe, according to two people who were in the room. She was speaking around the same time as foreign ministers from Greenland and Denmark were meeting U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio over Donald Trump’s threats to seize the Arctic island. The EU’s top diplomat ― who coordinates the bloc’s foreign policy on behalf of the 27 governments and the European Commission ― cracked the joke in a meeting of the Conference of Presidents, a meeting of the Parliament’s group leaders. Her comments came after top MEPs started wishing each other a happy new year. The same MEPs added that global events meant it wasn’t that happy, according to people in the room. With fears in Europe that Trump might annex Greenland, mass protests against the Islamist regime in Iran, as well as the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza and the U.S. operation in Venezuela, geopolitics has become the EU’s most pressing issue. One of Kallas’ most recent moves was to tell POLITICO that she was prepared to propose fresh sanctions against Iran following the government crackdown that has reportedly killed hundreds of people. Kallas’ spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

BRUSSELS — On Greenland’s southern tip, surrounded by snowy peaks and deep fjords, lies Kvanefjeld — a mining project that shows the giant, barren island is more than just a coveted military base. Beneath the icy ground sits a major deposit of neodymium and praseodymium, rare earth elements used to make magnets that are essential to build wind turbines, electric vehicles and high-tech military equipment. If developed, Greenland, a semi-autonomous part of Denmark, would become the first European territory to produce these key strategic metals. Energy Transition Minerals, an Australia-based, China-backed mining company, is ready to break ground. But neither Copenhagen, Brussels nor the Greenlandic government have mobilized their state power to make the project happen. In 2009, Denmark handed Greenland’s inhabitants control of their natural resources; 12 years later the Greenlandic government blocked the mine because the rare earths are mixed with radioactive uranium. Since then the project has been in limbo, bogged down in legal disputes. “Kvanefjeld illustrates how political and regulatory uncertainty — combined with geopolitics and high capital requirements — makes even strategically important projects hard to move from potential to production,” Jeppe Kofod, Denmark’s former foreign minister and now a strategic adviser to Energy Transition Minerals, told POLITICO. Kvanefjeld’s woes are emblematic of Greenland’s broader problems. Despite having enough of some rare earth elements to supply as much as 25 percent of the world’s needs — not to mention oil and gas reserves nearly as great as those of the United States, and lots of other potential clean energy metals including copper, graphite and nickel — these resources are almost entirely undeveloped. Just two small mines, extracting gold and a niche mineral called feldspar used in glassmaking and ceramics, are up and running in Greenland. And until very recently, neither Denmark nor the European Union showed much interest in changing the situation. But that was before 2023, when the EU signed a memorandum of understanding with the Greenland government to cooperate on mining projects. The EU Critical Raw Materials Act, proposed the same year, is an attempt to catch up by building new mines both in and out of the bloc that singles out Greenland’s potential. Last month, the European Commission committed to contribute financing to Greenland’s Malmbjerg molybdenum mine in a bid to shore up a supply of the metal for the EU’s defense sector.  But with United States President Donald Trump threatening to take Greenland by force, and less likely to offer the island’s inhabitants veto power over mining projects, Europe may be too late to the party. “The EU has for many years had a limited strategic engagement in Greenland’s critical raw materials, meaning that Europe today risks having arrived late, just as the United States and China have intensified their interest,” Kofod said. In a world shaped by Trump’s increasingly belligerent foreign policy and China’s hyperactive development of clean technology and mineral supply chains, Europe’s neglect of Greenland’s natural wealth is looking increasingly like a strategic blunder. With Donald Trump threatening to take Greenland by force, and less likely to offer the island’s inhabitants veto power over mining projects, Europe may be too late to the party. | Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images A HOSTILE LAND That’s not to say building mines in Greenland, with its mile-deep permanent ice sheet, would be easy. “Of all the places in the world where you could extract critical raw materials, [Greenland] is very remote and not very easily accessible,” said Ditte Brasso Sørensen, senior analyst on EU climate and industrial policy at Think Tank Europa, pointing to the territory’s “very difficult environmental circumstances.”  The tiny population — fewer than 60,000 — and a lack of infrastructure also make it hard to build mines. “This is a logistical question,” said Eldur Olafsson, CEO of Amaroq, a gold mining company running one of the two operating mines in Greenland and also exploring rare earths and copper extraction opportunities. “How do you build mines? Obviously, with capital, equipment, but also people. [And] you need to build the whole infrastructure around those people because they cannot only be Greenlandic,” he said.  Greenland also has strict environmental policies — including a landmark 2021 uranium mining ban — which restrict resource extraction because of its impact on nature and the environment. The current government, voted in last year, has not shown any signs of changing its stance on the uranium ban, according to Per Kalvig, professor emeritus at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, a Danish government research organization. Uranium is routinely found with rare earths, meaning the ban could frustrate Greenland’s huge potential as a rare earths producer. It’s a similar story with fossil fuels. Despite a 2007 U.S. assessment that the equivalent of over 30 billion barrels in oil and natural gas lies beneath the surface of Greenland and its territorial waters — almost equal to U.S. reserves — 30 years of oil exploration efforts by a group including Chevron, Italy’s ENI and Shell came to nothing. In 2021 the then-leftist government in Greenland banned further oil exploration on environmental grounds.  Danish geologist Flemming Christiansen, who was deputy director of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland until 2020, said the failure had nothing to do with Greenland’s actual potential as an oil producer. Instead, he said, a collapse in oil prices in 2014 along with the high cost of drilling in the Arctic made the venture unprofitable. Popular opposition only complicated matters, he said. THE CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECT From the skies above Greenland Christiansen sees firsthand the dramatic effects of climate change: stretches of clear water as rising temperatures thaw the ice sheets that for centuries have made exploring the territory a cold, costly and hazardous business. “If I fly over the waters in west Greenland I can see the changes,” he said. “There’s open water for much longer periods in west Greenland, in Baffin Bay and in east Greenland.” Climate change is opening up this frozen land. Climate change is opening up this frozen land. | Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images Greenland contains the largest body of ice outside Antarctica, but that ice is melting at an alarming rate. One recent study suggests the ice sheet could cease to exist by the end of the century, raising sea levels by as much as seven meters. Losing a permanent ice cap that is several hundred meters deep, though, “gradually improves the business case of resource extraction, both for … fossil fuels and also critical raw materials,” said Jakob Dreyer, a researcher at the University of Copenhagen.   But exploiting Greenland’s resources doesn’t hinge on catastrophic levels of global warming. Even without advanced climate change, Kalvig, of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, argues Greenland’s coast doesn’t differ much from that of Norway, where oil has been found and numerous excavation projects operate.     “You can’t penetrate quite as far inland as you can [in Norway], but once access is established, many places are navigable year-round,” Kalvig said. “So, in that sense, it’s not more difficult to operate mines in Greenland than it is in many parts of Norway, Canada or elsewhere — or Russia for that matter. And this has been done before, in years when conditions allowed.”    A European Commission spokesperson said the EU was now working with Greenland’s government to develop its resources, adding that Greenland’s “democratically elected authorities have long favored partnerships with the EU to develop projects beneficial to both sides.” But the spokesperson stressed: “The fate of Greenland’s raw mineral resources is up to the Greenlandic people and their representatives.” The U.S. may be less magnanimous. Washington’s recent military operation in Venezuela showed that Trump is serious about building an empire on natural resources, and is prepared to use force and break international norms in pursuit of that goal. Greenland, with its vast oil and rare earths deposits, may fit neatly into his vision. Where the Greenlandic people fit in is less clear.

The EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, is gearing up to pitch fresh sanctions against Iran following a government crackdown that has reportedly killed hundreds of people since protests broke out nearly two weeks ago. “The EU already has sweeping sanctions in place on Iran — on those responsible for human rights abuses, nuclear proliferation activities and Tehran’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine — and I am prepared to propose additional sanctions in response to the regime’s brutal repression of protestors,” Kallas told POLITICO’s Brussels Playbook.  The proposal marks the strongest response yet from an EU official to Iran’s bloody crackdown. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said over the weekend that Brussels was “monitoring” the situation, while European Parliament President Roberta Metsola wrote on X that “Europe must understand its duty and need to act.” The comments coincide with a rising death toll. Iran Human Rights, an Oslo-based group, said Sunday that nearly 200 protesters had been killed since demonstrations broke out on Dec. 28. Other rights groups put the number at more than 500. “The regime has a track-record of crushing protests, and we see a heavy-handed response by the security forces,” Kallas added in the written comments. “Citizens are fighting for a future of their own choosing and risking everything to be heard.” The protests, which kicked off over spiking inflation, now want an end to the clerical rule of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader. Iranian state-linked media have reported the use of live ammunition against demonstrators, leading to what they described as “mass casualties.” On Friday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz issued a joint statement with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron. “We are deeply concerned about reports of violence by Iranian security forces, and strongly condemn the killing of protestors,” the statement said. 

Germans overwhelmingly don’t trust the U.S. and don’t rate President Donald Trump, according to a survey by ARD DeutschlandTrend. Only 12 percent of respondents rate his performance positively and a mere 15 percent consider the U.S. to be a trustworthy partner for Germany, the lowest figure for the U.S. in the history of the survey. Only Russia fared worse for trustworthiness, at 9 percent. The results are closely tied to Trump’s military assault on Venezuela and the capture of its president, Nicolás Maduro, last weekend. Some 72 percent of respondents said the intervention was unjustified, though opinion diverges on how German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Brussels should respond. The survey gave Germans a concrete choice: to be “rather restrained so as not to provoke Donald Trump” or to “speak out clearly against U.S. actions even if it might upset the president.” Meanwhile, 39 percent favored restraint, citing the complexity of the situation and the need for caution, while half supported a firmer stance, even at the risk of angering Washington. But the transatlantic rupture extends beyond Venezuela. Trump’s renewed interest in seizing Greenland, tariff threats against European exports and his ambivalent stance on support for Ukraine have deepened unease in Germany, reinforcing the sense that U.S. policy is being driven less by alliance management than by presidential impulse. That message landed heavily when Trump recently questioned on Truth Social whether NATO would come to Washington’s aid if the U.S. were in need. From a leader who has repeatedly cast alliances as transactional, the remark struck at a core tenet of German postwar foreign policy. That this shift is unfolding under Merz — a self-described transatlanticist and former head of the Atlantik-Brücke, a private network that fosters political, business and cultural ties between Germany and the U.S. — underscores just how far the relationship has frayed.

BRUSSELS — European governments have launched a two-pronged diplomatic offensive to convince Donald Trump to back away from his claims on Greenland: by lobbying in Washington and pressing NATO to allay the U.S. president’s security concerns. The latest moves mark an abrupt change in Europe’s response to Trump’s threats, which are fast escalating into a crisis and have sent officials in Brussels, Berlin and Paris scrambling to sketch out an urgent way forward. Until now they have attempted to play down the seriousness of Trump’s ideas, fearing it would only add credence to what they hoped was mere rhetoric, but officials involved in the discussions say that has now changed. As if to underscore the shift, French President Emmanuel Macron became the most powerful European leader so far to starkly set out the challenges facing the continent. “The United States is an established power that is gradually turning away from some of its allies and breaking free from the international rules that it used to promote,” Macron said in his annual foreign policy address in Paris on Thursday. Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric this week, telling reporters on Sunday night “we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.” The president has repeatedly refused to rule out military intervention, something Denmark has said would spell the end of NATO ― an alliance of 32 countries, including the U.S., which has its largest military force. Greenland is not in the EU but is a semi-autonomous territory in the Kingdom of Denmark, which is an EU member. Most of the diplomacy remains behind closed doors. The Danish ambassador to the U.S., Jesper Møller Sørensen, and the Greenlandic representative in Washington, Jacob Isbosethsen, held intensive talks with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. The two envoys are attempting to persuade as many of them as possible that Greenland does not want to be bought by the U.S. and that Denmark has no interest in such a deal, an EU diplomat told POLITICO. In an unusual show of dissent, some Trump allies this week publicly objected to the president’s proposal to take Greenland by military force. Danish officials are expected to provide a formal briefing and update on the situation at a meeting of EU ambassadors on Friday, two EU diplomats said. RUSSIAN, CHINESE INFLUENCE At a closed-door meeting in Brussels on Thursday, NATO ambassadors agreed the organization should reinforce the Arctic region, according to three NATO diplomats, all of whom were granted anonymity to talk about the sensitive discussions. Trump claimed the Danish territory is exposed to Russian and Chinese influence, and cited an alleged swarm of threatening ships near Greenland as a reason behind Washington’s latest campaign to control the territory. Experts largely dispute those claims, with Moscow and Beijing mostly focusing their defense efforts — including joint patrols and military investment — in the eastern Arctic. But U.S. Vice President JD Vance told reporters Thursday that Trump wants Europe to take Greenland’s security “more seriously,” or else “the United States is going to have to do something about it.” Europeans see finding a compromise with Trump as the first and preferred option. A boosted NATO presence on the Arctic island might convince the U.S. president that there is no need to own Greenland for security reasons. The Danish ambassador to the US and the Greenlandic representative in Washington held intensive talks with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. | Kevin Carter/Getty Images The NATO envoys meeting Thursday floated leveraging intelligence capabilities to better monitor the territory, stepping up defense spending to the Arctic, shifting more military equipment to the region, and holding more military exercises in the vicinity.  The request for proposals just days after the White House’s latest broadside reflects how seriously Europe is taking the ultimatum and the existential risk any incursion into Greenland would have on the alliance and transatlantic ties. NATO’s civil servants are now expected to come up with options for envoys, the alliance diplomats said. Thursday’s meeting of 32 envoys veered away from direct confrontation, the three NATO diplomats said, with one calling the mood in the room “productive” and “constructive.” Denmark’s ambassador, who spoke first, said the dispute was a bilateral issue and instead focused on the recent successes of NATO’s Arctic strategy and the need for more work in the region, the diplomats said — a statement that received widespread support. The Greenland issue was also raised at a closed-door meeting of EU defense and foreign policy ambassadors on Thursday even though it wasn’t on the formal agenda, the two EU diplomats said. The bloc’s capitals expressed solidarity with Denmark, they added. Jacopo Barigazzi contributed reporting.

Donald Trump has said “it may be a choice” for the U.S. between pursuing his ambition to take control of Greenland and keeping NATO intact.  The U.S. president was asked in a two-hour interview with the New York Times on Jan. 7 whether acquiring Greenland mattered more to him than preserving the 76-year-old military alliance — a question that has taken on new urgency for America’s European allies in recent days as Trump and his colleagues have escalated their rhetoric about obtaining the self-ruling Danish territory. Trump did not answer the question directly but acknowledged that his administration may have to choose between the two, according to the newspaper’s account of the conversation published on Thursday. Trump, when asked why he wanted the U.S. to control Greenland, said: “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do with, you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.” The U.S. president also told the Times he did not feel answerable to international law and was constrained only by his own conscience. “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me,” he said. “I don’t need international law,” he added. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned on Jan. 5 that an American invasion of Greenland would spell the end of the military alliance. “If the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War,” she said. French President Emmanuel Macron, in his annual foreign policy address on Thursday, also said Washington was “gradually turning away from some of its allies and breaking free from the international rules that it used to promote.” Trump, long skeptical of NATO, cast fresh doubt on his commitment to the alliance this week, saying he wasn’t convinced it would come to Washington’s aid in a crisis. “I DOUBT NATO WOULD BE THERE FOR US IF WE REALLY NEEDED THEM,” he posted on Truth Social, although he added that the U.S. would continue to support its NATO allies.

BRUSSELS — NATO countries asked the alliance to beef up its presence in the Arctic after the U.S. ramped up threats to seize Greenland, three NATO diplomats told POLITICO. At a closed-door meeting in Brussels on Thursday, the alliance’s ambassadors agreed the organization should reinforce its Arctic flank, according to the diplomats, all of whom were granted anonymity to talk about the sensitive discussions. U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed the Danish territory is exposed to Russian and Chinese influence. Envoys floated leveraging intelligence capabilities to better monitor the territory, stepping up defense spending to the Arctic, shifting more military equipment to the region, and holding more military exercises in the vicinity.  The flurry of ideas underscores a growing European concern around U.S. intentions on Greenland. This week, the White House ratcheted up its claims on Greenland, and repeatedly refused to rule out a military takeover.  Europe is scrambling to placate the latest Trump threats and avoid a military intervention that Denmark has said would mean the end of the alliance. A compromise with the U.S. president is seen as the first and preferred option. The request for proposals just days after the White House’s latest broadside reflects how seriously Europe is taking the ultimatum and the existential risk any incursion onto Greenland would be on the alliance and transatlantic ties. NATO’s civil servants are now expected to come up with options for envoys, the alliance diplomats said. Alongside its wealth of raw material and oil deposits, Trump has cited an alleged swarm of threatening Russian and Chinese ships near Greenland as a reason behind Washington’s latest campaign to control the territory.  Experts largely dispute those claims, with Moscow and Beijing mostly focusing their defense efforts — including joint patrols and military investment — in the eastern Arctic. Thursday’s meeting of 32 envoys veered away from direct confrontation, the three NATO diplomats said, with one calling the mood in the room “productive” and “constructive.” Denmark’s ambassador, who spoke first, said the dispute was a bilateral issue and instead focused on recent successes of NATO’s Arctic strategy and the need for more work in the region, the diplomats said — a statement that received widespread support. The Greenland issue was also raised at a closed-door meeting of EU defense and foreign policy ambassadors on Thursday, despite it not being on the formal agenda, two EU diplomats said. The bloc’s capitals then expressed their solidarity for Denmark, they added. Denmark is expected to provide a formal briefing and update at a meeting of EU envoys on Friday, the same diplomats said. Zoya Sheftalovich contributed to this report.

PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron criticized the Trump administration for defying the rules-based global order after toppling Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and renewing his threats to annex Greenland. “The United States is an established power that is gradually turning away from some of its allies and breaking free from the international rules that it used to promote,” Macron said during his annual foreign policy address. Macron used the speech to paint an image of predatory global powers seeking to divide the world into spheres of influence, with the U.S. dominating Western Hemisphere under the so-called Donroe Doctrine. “We are evolving in a world of great powers, where there’s a real temptation to carve up the world,” he said. “What has happened these last few months, and sometimes last few days, does not diminish this assessment.” The French president initially came under fire for his emollient reaction to Maduro’s ouster. He wrote online that the Venezuela “can only rejoice” with his departure, omitting to mention whether the method broke international law.  In his speech Thursday, Macron accused the U.S. of breaking rules on trade and “some elements of security.” The French president did not specifically mention Venezuela or Greenland, though both are top concerns for Paris, which is helping to craft a European response to Trump’s threats against the self-ruling Danish territory.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday that he planned to discuss a U.S. acquisition of Greenland with Danish officials next week, as the White House again asserted that President Donald Trump’s preference would be to acquire the territory through a negotiation. The U.S. would even consider purchasing the island. But press secretary Karoline Leavitt held out the possibility of a military takeover should diplomatic efforts fail and likened Trump’s approach to how he dealt with Iran and Venezuela, both of which he opted to attack after negotiations faltered. “Look at Venezuela. He tried ardently to strike a good deal with Nicolás Maduro. And he told him, ‘I will use the United States military if you do not take such a deal and you will not like it.’ And look at what happened,” Leavitt said. “He tried to have serious interest in a deal with the Iranian regime with respect to their nuclear capabilities, and so Operation Midnight Hammer happened.” That the White House makes no distinction between two longtime adversaries openly hostile to the United States with a Democratic ally and NATO member stands to only deepen the fear inside Europe that Trump could break the decades-old alliance. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned Monday that an American attack on another NATO country would mean “everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War.” Pressed on why Trump was openly bullying Denmark, which controls Greenland, instead of working to update existing security agreements and pursuing new economic cooperation with a longtime ally, Leavitt was coy. “Who said diplomacy isn’t taking place behind the scenes?” she said. But the panicked responses from Denmark’s leaders, not to mention several European heads of state who jointly declared on Tuesday that any U.S. violation of Greenland’s sovereignty would be a breach of the NATO charter, made it clear that officials in Copenhagen and Brussels, as well as Greenland’s capital of Nuuk, feel a rising threat. And as several Republican allies have tried to downplay the likelihood of any actual U.S. effort to take Greenland, the White House continues to insist that the president is serious about acquiring the territory — one way or another. “He’s not the first U.S. president that has examined or looked at how could we acquire Greenland,” Rubio said. “There’s an interest there. So, I just reminded [members] of the fact that not only did [President Harry] Truman want to do it, but President Trump’s been talking about this since his first term.” Longtime Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement on Wednesday that strengthening America’s foothold in the increasingly competitive Arctic region does not have to come at the expense of its oldest security alliance. “Close security cooperation between Americans, Danes, and Greenlanders is a tradition older than NATO, the most successful military alliance in human history,” McConnell said. “Threats and intimidation by U.S. officials over American ownership of Greenland are as unseemly as they are counterproductive. And the use of force to seize the sovereign democratic territory of one of America’s most loyal and capable allies would be an especially catastrophic act of strategic self-harm to America and its global influence.” Leavitt insisted the president maintains his stated commitment to NATO and its founding principle that an attack on any member amounts to an attack on all, pointing to a social media post from the president hours earlier that suggested it’s the alliance’s commitment to the U.S. that is in doubt. “I DOUBT NATO WOULD BE THERE FOR US IF WE REALLY NEEDED THEM,” Trump blasted on Truth Social, insisting the U.S. would still defend alliance members. “We will always be there for NATO, even if they won’t be there for us.” The one time NATO’s Article 5 was invoked was after 9/11, when allies, including Denmark, sent troops to fight alongside the U.S. in Afghanistan. “Past leaders have often ruled things out. They’ve often been very open about ruling things in and basically broadcasting their foreign policy strategies to the rest of the world, not just to our allies but most egregiously to our adversaries,” Leavitt said. “That’s not something this president does. All options are always on the table for President Trump.” Leo Shane III contributed to this report.