By EMMA BURROWS, Associated Press

NUUK, Greenland (AP) — President Donald Trump said Wednesday that NATO should help the U.S. acquire Greenland and anything less than American control is unacceptable, hours before Vice President JD Vance was to host Danish and Greenlandic officials for talks.

Related Articles

Oglala Sioux Tribe says three tribal members arrested in Minneapolis are in ICE detention

House passes bill codifying Trump order to rinse away showerhead regulations

Louisiana seeks California doctor’s extradition, testing the limits of shield laws

Justice Department accuses judge of abusing power in questioning prosecutor’s authority

A suspect in the vandalism of JD Vance’s Ohio home must stay in jail until trial

In a post on his social media site, Trump reiterated his argument that the U.S. “needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security.” He added that “NATO should be leading the way for us to get it” and that otherwise Russia or China would — “AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!”

“NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES,” Trump wrote. “Anything less than that is unacceptable.”

Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark, is at the center of a geopolitical storm as Trump insists he wants to own it — and residents of its capital, Nuuk, say it isn’t for sale. The White House hasn’t ruled out taking the Arctic island by force.

Vance is to meet Denmark’s foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and his Greenlandic counterpart Vivian Motzfeldt in Washington later Wednesday to discuss Greenland.

Greenland residents want the US to back off

Along the narrow, snow-covered main street in Nuuk, international journalists and camera crews have been stopping passersby every few meters (feet) asking them for their thoughts on a crisis which Denmark’s prime minister has warned could potentially trigger the end of NATO.

Tuuta Mikaelsen, a 22-year-old student, told The Associated Press in Nuuk that she hoped American officials would get the message to “back off.”

A fisherman carries a bucket onto his boat in the harbor of Nuuk, Greenland, on Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026. (AP Photo/Evgeniy Maloletka)

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen told a news conference in Copenhagen on Tuesday that “if we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark. We choose NATO. We choose the Kingdom of Denmark. We choose the EU.”

Asked later Tuesday about Nielsen’s comments, Trump replied: “I disagree with him. I don’t know who he is. I don’t know anything about him. But, that’s going to be a big problem for him.”

Greenland is strategically important because, as climate change causes the ice to melt, it opens up the possibility of shorter trade routes to Asia. That also could make it easier to extract and transport untapped deposits of critical minerals which are needed for computers and phones.

Trump said in Wednesday’s post that Greenland is “vital” to the United States’ Golden Dome missile defense program. He also has said he wants the island to expand America’s security and has cited what he says is the threat from Russian and Chinese ships as a reason to control it.

But both experts and Greenlanders question that claim.

“The only Chinese I see is when I go to the fast food market,” heating engineer Lars Vintner said. He said he frequently goes sailing and hunting and has never seen Russian or Chinese ships.

His friend, Hans Nørgaard, agreed, adding “what has come out of the mouth of Donald Trump about all these ships is just fantasy.”

Denmark has said the U.S. — which already has a military presence — can boost its bases on Greenland. For that reason, “security is just a cover,” Vintner said, suggesting Trump actually wants to own the island to make money from its untapped natural resources.

Nørgaard said he filed a police complaint in Nuuk against Trump’s “aggressive” behavior because, he said, American officials are threatening the people of Greenland and NATO.

Mikaelsen, the student, said Greenlanders benefit from being part of Denmark, which provides free health care, education and payments during study, and “I don’t want the U.S. to take that away from us.”

More diplomatic efforts

Following the White House meeting, Løkke Rasmussen and Motzfeldt, along with Denmark’s ambassador to the U.S., are due to meet with senators from the Arctic Caucus in the U.S. Congress.

Two lawmakers — Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican — have introduced bipartisan legislation that would prohibit the use of funds from the U.S. Defense or State departments to annex or take control of Greenland or the sovereign territory of any NATO member state without that ally’s consent or authorization from the North Atlantic Council.

A bipartisan delegation of lawmakers is also heading to Copenhagen at the end of the week to meet with Danish and Greenlandic officials.

Last week, Denmark’s major European allies joined Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in issuing a statement declaring that Greenland belongs to its people and that “it is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.”

On Wednesday, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot told RTL radio that his country plans to open a consulate in Greenland on Feb. 6, following a decision last summer to open the diplomatic outpost.

“Attacking another NATO member would make no sense; it would even be contrary to the interests of the United States. And I’m hearing more and more voices in the United States saying this,” Barrot said. “So this blackmail must obviously stop.”

Geir Moulson in Berlin, Lisa Mascaro in Washington and Catherine Gaschka in Paris contributed to this report.

In a single stroke, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. achieved a long-standing goal of his anti-vaccine supporters — and put millions of American children needlessly at risk.

On Jan. 5, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it is narrowing the childhood vaccine schedule — considered the baseline of care for all children — to 11 shots from 17. Some of the vaccines that Kennedy has criticized in the past remain, measles among them. Yet others such as the flu shot will be recommended only for some high-risk groups or after consulting with a doctor.

The CDC’s announcement followed a White House memo last month that called for the agency to review vaccine practices in other rich nations. Although the administration has celebrated the change as “common sense” reform that aligns with global standards, the approach is deeply misguided.

For starters, coordinating the U.S. vaccination schedule with international guidelines is overly simplistic. Not only are European countries smaller and more homogenous — putting them at lower risk for certain diseases — but their universal health-care systems also make preventative treatment more accessible. For decades, the U.S. set a global standard that other countries adjusted to their needs; this policy works in reverse.

The CDC’s decision likewise lacked transparency, bypassed standard processes and by many accounts excluded vaccine experts. It’s also possibly illegal. Last year, the American Academy of Pediatrics sued the Department of Health and Human Services for a similar circumvention of protocols when changing Covid-19 recommendations. Litigation is ongoing.

Making matters worse, the agency has effectively overwhelmed public debate about the current vaccination schedule, which Kennedy says is needed to restore trust. (For the record, the vaccines in question have been meticulously studied and determined to be safe.) If anything, the new guidance risks further confusing the public: Federal health programs will continue to provide all vaccines on request, despite the CDC’s recommendations. Much responsibility will fall to state officials and individual providers, setting the stage for growing gaps in care.

Finally, the policy misconstrues preventative care. Most kids can handle routine infections, the thinking goes. Yet often underlying problems are uncovered only when a common illness such as the flu lands a child in the hospital. For hepatitis B, also now excluded, many adults show no symptoms and can easily infect babies. Again, the cost of waiting to vaccinate — in this case, increased risk of liver disease and cancer — far outweighs the exceedingly low risk of giving a child a shot.

The CDC’s shift couldn’t come at a worse time. Nine children have died of the flu this season, the most serious outbreak since the COVID-19 pandemic. Declining vaccination rates have led to a surge of once-dormant diseases, including whooping cough and measles. The U.S. is perilously close to losing its elimination status for the latter.

The revision nevertheless represents a perverse victory for Kennedy, who remains preoccupied with reshaping the nation’s approach to childhood vaccination despite the reassurances he offered to Congress. Since assuming his post, Kennedy has purged experts, restricted vaccine access, and amplified misinformation about the link between vaccines and autism. Yet no reform to date has posed as direct a threat to as many children as this one.

Although the White House appears to be giving Kennedy free rein, Congress owes him no such privilege. Lawmakers should call for hearings and oversight of the vaccine-policy changes he once promised not to make, as well as demand that he offer sworn testimony (a responsibility Republican leadership has at times absolved him of). They should also be willing to withhold funding for the administration’s other priorities if this decision isn’t reversed.

At a minimum, Congress might ask the secretary a simple question: Why are the nation’s children being asked to bear all the risks of this reckless experiment?

— The Bloomberg Opinion Editorial Board

Related Articles

Trudy Rubin: Trump’s imperial Venezuela policy based on lies and delusions

Oglala Sioux Tribe says three tribal members arrested in Minneapolis are in ICE detention

House passes bill codifying Trump order to rinse away showerhead regulations

Louisiana seeks California doctor’s extradition, testing the limits of shield laws

Justice Department accuses judge of abusing power in questioning prosecutor’s authority

If President Donald Trump thinks piling pressure on the Federal Reserve will further his goal of lowering interest rates and stimulating economic growth, he should think again. On the contrary, it’s likely to have the opposite effect.

It’s hard to see the Justice Department’s criminal investigation of Fed Chair Jerome Powell, purportedly for statements surrounding the renovation of the central bank’s headquarters, as anything other than the latest iteration of Trump’s campaign to subjugate the Fed. As such, it’s a huge mistake — one that further cedes the high ground to Powell.

Let me count the ways in which the move will undercut Trump’s own aims.

First, it’ll now be much more difficult for Powell to back further rate cuts. If he did, investors would worry that the Fed’s independence had already been compromised. Is Powell cutting rates because that’s what the economy needs, or because he’s appeasing Trump?

Second, it motivates Powell to stay on as a Fed governor once his term as chair ends in May. In a video released Sunday, Powell indicated that he wouldn’t be pushed into “following the preferences of the president.” If he sticks around, the Trump administration will lose an opportunity to put another loyalist on the Board of Governors and the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee. That will make it more difficult for Powell’s successor as chair to push through further rate cuts.

Third, it complicates the process of confirming Powell’s successor. As Republican Sen. Thom Tillis put it: “I will oppose the confirmation of any nominee for the Fed — including the upcoming Fed chair vacancy — until this legal matter is fully resolved.” The Senate Banking Committee, which must confirm the new prospective chair, has a two-vote Republican majority. If Tillis were to side with a united Democratic minority, the result would be a 12-12 stalemate.

Fourth, the attack on Powell’s integrity will make it more difficult for the incoming chair to win the hearts and minds of the Fed’s monetary policymakers and staff. Even if the new chair wants to lower rates, concerns about how this might affect perceptions of the Fed’s independence will increase other FOMC members’ resistance.

The Justice Department investigation also raises the stakes in the case of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, whom the Trump administration has sought to fire for allegedly providing false information on one or more mortgage applications. If the Supreme Court, which is supposed to take up the case this month, rules that Cook can be dismissed “for cause,” the precedent will make Powell’s position more vulnerable. Conversely, if the Supreme Court rules in Cook’s favor or sends the case back to the lower courts to adjudicate the facts, Powell will be less vulnerable and more likely to stay on as a governor.

The Trump administration appears to have badly miscalculated. Powell’s term as chair will end long before the investigation is concluded, a prosecution decision is made and the case is litigated. Did anyone think that Powell would go quietly? If so, they don’t understand the man, his integrity and his commitment to the Fed’s independence.

Bill Dudley is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, he is a nonexecutive director at Swiss Bank UBS and a member of Coinbase Global’s advisory council.

Related Articles

Trudy Rubin: Trump’s imperial Venezuela policy based on lies and delusions

Commentary: America’s ‘Common Sense’ revolution

Max Hastings: How to save the U.S. from authoritarianism

Mary Ellen Klas: America needs an education moonshot

Binyamin Appelbaum: Barring investors won’t fix the housing crisis

No one should mourn for Nicolás Maduro, and the U.S. military extraction of the Venezuelan dictator was a military tour de force.

Those are the only two positive things to be said about President Donald Trump’s latest made-for-TV foreign operation, which has squandered American guns and taxpayer money on a lunatic venture based entirely on lies.

Contrary to prior White House claims, the removal of Maduro had nothing to do with drug cartels, terrorism, or threats to U.S. security. Nor was it meant to restore democracy to Venezuela (as Trump stiffs exiled opposition leaders and stifles talk of future elections).

Instead, based on the president’s own words, this monthslong exercise was aimed at taking control of Venezuela’s oil. It was also aimed at reinforcing Trump’s personal role as virtual emperor of the Western Hemisphere (and expediting the collapse of Cuba).

Trump’s emperor complex has also renewed threats to seize Greenland or bludgeon longtime NATO ally Denmark into selling the autonomous island.

In truth, the administration’s Venezuelan adventure threatens to drag America into another foreign quagmire and undermine U.S. security around the world.

After years of denouncing GOP hawks and Democrats over regime change gone bad in Baghdad and Kabul, Trump now says he intends to “run” Venezuela and manage its oil — indefinitely. While he fixates on the derring-do of the Maduro extraction, the president’s proposals for follow-up are incoherent and contradictory. His intense focus on our hemisphere distracts U.S. attention from the growing Russian and Chinese threats in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

As Anne Patterson, a former U.S. ambassador to Colombia and Ecuador who also served as assistant secretary of state for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, told me: What is a carrier strike group doing in the Caribbean?

“We’ve been fighting this drug war for decades, but it is a huge public health problem, not a security threat. It is nothing like China circling” — with ships and planes — “around Taiwan,” she said.

Instead of facing reality, the White House is trying to sell Trump’s fantasies to the public with an endless stream of falsehoods and fake facts.

For starters, the Venezuelan regime change will hardly affect the U.S. drug problem. Fentanyl is the drug that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, and Venezuela neither makes nor exports fentanyl. That drug is manufactured in Mexico using precursor chemicals from China. (Some cocaine passes through Venezuela, but it goes mainly to Europe.)

In other words, the fentanyl problem Trump claims to be addressing can only be resolved via negotiations with Mexico and China.

Moreover, the U.S. Department of Justice has just dropped criminal charges that Maduro led a drug cartel. The reason for this shift? As Latin America experts have told me, the so-called Cartel de los Soles — cited by Trump officials as a terrorist threat — was not a real organization at all. It is a Venezuelan slang term used for officials corrupted by drug money, including the Maduro regime.

Now that the Justice Department plans to bring Maduro to trial, perhaps Attorney General Pam Bondi realized she could not present fake facts about cartels under oath. Maduro is a corrupt thug who no doubt made money off drug dealers, but he did not lead a terrorist cartel.

Again, a distinct downgrade from the monster threat the White House has painted as justification for its raid.

The Trump team has also put forward no plan for a transition from Maduro’s corrupt, repressive government to one that might curb what drug dealing does go on. He has not even spoken to opposition leaders in exile who won the 2024 election before Maduro stole it.

Instead, the president has chosen to recognize Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, and her brutal interior and defense ministers, who have increased repression against political opponents since Maduro was taken.

“In fact, the government remains the same,” I was told by Venezuelan native Carolina Jiménez Sandoval, the head of the Washington Office on Latin America. “Are we seeing a transition without a transition for another strongman more conducive to American interests? Venezuelans want an answer.”

In truth, Trump is himself acting like a strongman, insisting he will “run” Venezuela indefinitely. He seems to believe that by enforcing U.S. (and his personal) control of all Venezuelan oil sales and revenues, in a cockamamie scheme that appears both illegal and unmanageable, the repressive regime in Caracas can be forced to do U.S. bidding.

When asked by the New York Times whether the U.S. would “remain Venezuela’s overlord” for more than a year, the president replied, “I would say much longer.”

Why? What possible reason is there for Trump to expend U.S. resources on running Venezuela? Even the lure of oil money makes little sense.

The president insists there are fortunes to be made if U.S. oil companies return to develop its enormous oil reserves. But apart from Chevron, which remained in the country, large U.S. companies are reluctant. That’s because it will take tens of billions of dollars in investment to make the country’s neglected fields viable, global oil is abundant, prices are low, and Venezuela’s future is uncertain.

If Venezuela pumps more oil and drives global prices down further — as Trump is demanding — it will negatively affect the interests of oil producers on the U.S. mainland. In fact, large producers’ interest in Venezuela is so tepid that Trump is actually offering to use taxpayer money to subsidize the return of U.S. companies to the country.

To sum up, neither drugs, nor cartels, nor terrorism, nor oil are valid or legitimate reasons for taking out Maduro, especially as we are leaving his thuggish government in place.

What’s worse, his Venezuelan venture appears to be inspiring Trump to fantasize about other snatch operations or military takeovers — in tragic imitation of a Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping.

Asked in the Times interview if there were any limits on his global powers, Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

These are the words of a wannabe dictator.

If they don’t awaken more GOP legislators to vote to curb his future use of military force in Venezuela — via a bipartisan bill now under Senate debate — then they will be complicit in the trashing of U.S. security by an egomaniac who believes his own lies.

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member  for The Philadelphia Inquirer, P.O. Box 8263, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101. Her email addressis trubin@phillynews.com.

Related Articles

Commentary: America’s ‘Common Sense’ revolution

Max Hastings: How to save the U.S. from authoritarianism

Mary Ellen Klas: America needs an education moonshot

Binyamin Appelbaum: Barring investors won’t fix the housing crisis

Bruce Yandle: Tax refunds are coming. Will they be vaporized by inflation?