Tangle - Trump's comments about Greenland.

Episode Date: January 14, 2025

In recent weeks, President-elect Donald Trump has reiterated his desire to acquire Greenland in an effort to expand U.S. territory and influence, calling its acquisition an “absolute necessity.” In response to questions from the press last week, Trump said he would not rule out using military or economic pressure to acquire the territory after he takes office, drawing strong rebukes from Democrats and European allies.Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to tanglemedia.supercast.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: What do you think Greenland’s relationship with the United States should be? Let us know!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In a darkly comedic look at motherhood and society's expectations, Academy Award-nominated Amy Adams stars as a passionate artist who puts her career on hold to stay home with her young son. But her maternal instinct takes a wild and surreal turn as she discovers the best, yet fiercest, part of herself. Based on the acclaimed novel, Nightbitch is a thought-provoking and wickedly humorous film from Searchlight Pictures. Stream Night Bitch January 24th only on Disney Plus. From executive producer Isaac Saul welcome to the Tangle Podcast, the place

we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we're going to be talking about Trump's comments about Greenland. Pretty interesting story here, and maybe I have a take that you might not expect. So excited to dig into that. Before we jump in though, I just want to give a quick apology. Yesterday, the podcast was published without our left and right arguments included.

We updated the version of the podcast, but it was up for a few hours without the whole center part of the podcast that includes what the left and the right were saying. It's just a uploading, editing mistake that happened. Apologies for those of you who caught that version of the episode. Thanks to the listeners who wrote in and let us know that something was up. We appreciate it. It's always nice to know that you guys are listening closely. All right. With that, I'm going to pass it over to John to break down today's

main story and I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up confirmation hearings for President elect Donald Trump's cabinet nominees began this week with hearings on Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Haggiseth, Secretary of Veterans Affairs nominee Doug Collins, and Secretary of the Interior nominee Doug Burgum starting Tuesday. Number two, the National Weather Service issued a particularly dangerous situation warning for parts of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, citing hazardous

fire weather conditions created by wind gusts. The Palisades and Eaton fires continue to burn with 14% and 33% containment respectively. Number three, Qatar delivered a finalized draft of a ceasefire and hostage release deal to Israel and Hamas negotiators, raising the prospect of an agreement to pause the fighting in Gaza as early as this week. 4. The U.S. government extended the deadline for Nippon Steel to cancel its planned acquisition of U.S. Steel, giving the company until June to potentially advance a different version of the deal that President Joe Biden blocked.

And number five, global oil prices surged following new sanctions on Russia's energy sector unveiled by the Biden administration last week. Now, it's the world's largest island, but Greenland is home to only 57,000 people, many of whom will be talking about just one subject this week. Donald Trump, the US president-elect, refused to rule out using military force to take control of the island, describing it as critical to America's national security. Today President-elect Trump's allies in Congress proposed a new bill dubbed Make Greenland Great Again. It's meant to expedite a negotiation process with Denmark, which protects Greenland's autonomy, given Mr. Trump's repeated desire to buy the Arctic territory.

In recent weeks, President-elect Donald Trump has reiterated his desire to acquire Greenland in an effort to expand U.S. territory and influence, calling its acquisition an absolute necessity. In response to questions from the press last week, Trump said that he would not rule out using military or economic pressure to acquire the territory after he takes office, drawing strong rebukes from Democrats and European allies. military or economic pressure to acquire the territory after he takes office, drawing strong rebukes from Democrats and European allies. Greenland, the world's largest island, is currently an autonomous territory of Denmark,

though its population of 56,000 citizens has recently shown support for full independence. Roughly 80% of the island is covered in ice and snow, and the majority of its population lives in five towns. Eric the Red became the first European to discover Greenland in 982 after being banished from Iceland. The island was populated mostly by Vikings for centuries, though by 1600 the Norse settlements had disappeared and sparsely inhabited by the Inuit by the 17th century. Denmark began colonizing the island in 1721, then granted the territory home rule in 1979. Though it now has its own government and prime minister, currently Mut Ajit, Greenland remains part of Denmark.

Trump floated the possibility of acquiring Greenland in his first term and has now returned to the idea. His desire is not without precedent. The US first attempted to buy Greenland in 1868, and Harry S. Truman pursued a deal in 1946. The US even took protective custody over Greenland during World War II. Trump reportedly views the issue as a potential legacy-defining achievement comparable to Alaska and Hawaii becoming U.S. states in 1949 under Dwight D. Eisenhower. Greenland is appealing for both military and economic reasons. The island is rich in critical minerals, key to wind farms, magnets, tanks, chipmaking, artificial intelligence, and more.

Geographically, it is placed near burgeoning trade routes becoming available due to Arctic ice melt and is already home to one US military base. Finally, US trade rivals like China have already pursued mining and economic partnerships with the island. Trump's comments received a stiff criticism from European allies like France and Germany who warned of destabilizing territorial disputes at a time when Russia and China are pursuing Ukraine and Taiwan. Prime Minister Aguide, meanwhile, has insisted the island is not for sale and it will decide its own future on its own terms. However, Aguide said on Monday that the country is looking to strengthen its defense and mining

ties with the U.S. Today we're going to explore some arguments about Trump's pursuit of Greenland from the left and the right, and then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick break. In a darkly comedic look at motherhood and society's expectations, Academy Award-nominated Amy Adams stars as a passionate artist who puts her career on hold to stay home with her young son. But her maternal instinct takes a wild and surreal turn as she discovers the best, yet

fiercest, part of herself. Based on the acclaimed novel, Nightbitch is a thought-provoking and wickedly humorous film from Searchlight Pictures. Stream Nightbitch January 24th, only on Disney+. Alright, first up let's start with what the left is saying. The left is critical of Trump's proposal, with many suggesting that his rhetoric alone could destabilize U.S. alliances. Some say the U.S. should expand its relationship with Greenland even if buying it is off the

table. Others criticize Trump's openness using military force for territorial gains. In Vox, Josh Keating wrote about the real danger of Trump's Greenland Gambit. Trump first publicly discussed the idea of the United States purchasing the world's largest island back in 2019 during his first term. The idea was rejected out of hand by the government of Denmark at the time, Keating said. How serious Trump is now is known to him alone, but he has not let the idea go as he prepares to return to the White House. The Greenland proposal comes alongside Trump's repeated is he joking or not suggestions that

Canada be made the 51st state and demands that Panama return control of the Panama Canal, altogether an agenda for territorial expansion on a level not seen since the James K. Polk administration in the mid-19th century. None of these reasons why Greenland is strategically important for the United States explain why it needs to be part of the United States. American companies, including a new mining venture backed by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, are already investing in Greenland's minerals. The U.S. also already has a military base in the country,"

Keating wrote. The US benefits from Greenland being under the jurisdiction of a friendly NATO ally. In 2017, the Danish government blocked an effort by a Chinese mining company to acquire an abandoned military base in Greenland, in part out of a desire to maintain good relations with the US. These are the sort of relations that are potentially threatened by publicly musing about annexing a territory by force. In Bloomberg, James Stavridis suggested Trump is right. Greenland is vital to US national security. In 2019, the Prime Minister of Greenland had an excellent response.

Greenland is not for sale, but we are open for business. We ought to take his point. Trump is right about one thing. Greenland, with its 56,000 people in an expanse larger than Mexico, is an immensely valuable piece of real estate, Stavridis wrote. There are three principal reasons for the island's geopolitical importance. First, it is a vital element of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap that guards the northern approaches to the Atlantic Ocean from Russian naval forces. Second, Greenland has important natural resources, including likely deposits of heavy and light

rare earth minerals, including neodymium and dysprosium, both vital for computing and green energy. Finally, climate change will make most vast areas of Greenland more temperate. Over time, there may be significant agrarian potential. Ecotourism is already providing a significant economic benefit and could grow exponentially," Stavridis wrote. Given that no sale or military annexation is in the offing, the best approach for Washington is furthering the military, diplomatic, and economic ties that it already has with Greenland

and Denmark. This would not only benefit all parties, but would box out China and Russia. In MSNBC, Zashina Leem said, Any way you look at it, Trump's threats of war expose the scam of America first. Trump has recently floated far-fetched proposals to buy Greenland and wrest back control of the Panama Canal. In response to a question from a reporter at the news conference about what he'd be willing to do to secure them, Trump said something that sounded more dire. He refused to rule out military or economic coercion to obtain Greenland or the Panama

Canal, Alim wrote. The United States is the richest and most powerful country in the world, dominating trade routes, institutions and agreements around the globe. The idea that it needs ownership of the mostly frozen island of Greenland for economic security is ludicrous. One can only conclude that by floating the idea of possible wars, Trump is in some sense defrauding the public. If he's not being serious about being willing to take military action, then his language

is the kind of false bravado that depletes the United States' credibility and makes him look like a witless cowboy. And if Trump is serious, which I believe is unlikely, then he is undermining all of his talk about how America first means opposing endless war. Trump has no mandate for arbitrarily returning the United States to a new era of old-school colonialism and annexation. All right, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right is mixed on the proposal, though many say Trump's ambitions are rooted in countering China.

Some argue the US should be looking to shrink, not grow, its territorial holdings. Others suggest alternate ways to foster deeper economic and military ties with Greenland without needing to own it. In the New York Post, Mark Toth and Jonathan Sweet said Trump's Greenland push is about the growing China threat. It's about China, stupid. President-elect Trump's answer to an I gotcha question is capturing all of the headlines, his refusal to rule out military force in the Panama Canal.

But many in the media are missing its intended messaging, Toth and Sweet wrote. Trump and his incoming national security team are putting Chinese President Xi Jinping on notice. They are essentially telling him and the rest of the world, we see what Beijing is aiming to economically and militarily achieve in the Western Hemisphere. Canada, Greenland, the Panama Canal, and even the Drake Passage at the end of the world are all interconnected. China is their common denominator. It is the 21st century version of the Monroe Doctrine, and it is coming at a time when

China is increasingly asserting itself on the global stage. Beijing is working to strangle economically and militarily U.S. maritime and naval sea routes by controlling key choke points and naval transit routes, Toth and Sweet said. As is his custom, Trump is arguing the case against Beijing in largely economic terms. However, the impetus for his argument is primarily driven by China and its dual-track approach to building a global military projection force. Greenland may appear to most Americans to be an isolated concern, yet the Danish territory will play an increasingly vital role in. national security in the decades ahead.

In Cato, Doug Bandow called Trump's proposal nonsense. Tempting as it might be to use Washington's undoubted hard power to acquire more territory, making America great again would be better achieved by shrinking rather than expanding the nation's borders. When it comes to countries, bigger is not always better," Bandau wrote. There are legitimate security issues at play in Panama, Canada, and Greenland, but none require U.S. control. The Panama Canal functioned even during the Noriega dictatorship. Today the country is democratic and stable. Diplomatic suasion and economic aid should be enough

to avoid future hostile management of the facility. Washington need not occupy the island. It already hosts America's northernmost military facility, Patufik Space Base. Neither a Chinese nor a Russian invasion is likely and most threats can be confronted from afar," Bandau said. Donald Trump was elected by challenging and ever aggrandizing Washington elite, which views bigger government as always better government. He shouldn't fall into a similar trap of wanting the US to ever expand. Trump should focus on cutting Washington down to size in both domestic and foreign affairs. In National Review, Henry Olsen wrote about an alternative to buying Greenland that could

actually work. America is not buying Greenland that could actually work. America is not buying Greenland from Denmark. There is nevertheless another way to secure our vital security interests in the vast island nation that is much more realistic. Signing a compact of free association, Olsen said. The United States has three such treaties with the Republic of Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands. The US supplies each with economic aid and access to many government programs such as Medicaid. Imports from these countries are largely tariff-free, and citizens of these nations can live and

work in the United States. In exchange, the US handles all defense obligations, and can exclude other nations' militaries, has certain rights to station troops and establish bases, and can operate its military forces within these nations' boundaries," Olson wrote. This would meet the American desire to keep China, and to a lesser extent Russia, out of its backyard. The Arctic Ocean ice is rapidly melting, making the Arctic sea lanes viable for shipping. China has shown a keen interest in the region, establishing a polar Silk Road program to encourage its dominance in this increasingly important part of the world.

All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for with the left and the right are saying, which brings us to My Take. So for those of you who are listeners to the Sunday podcast, I sort of spoiled my view on this with a rant on the podcast that came out on Sunday, but sitting down and writing the My Take section for me is always a space where I get to articulate my views in a more organized manner. So here goes. I think Trump is right views in a more organized manner. So here goes. I think Trump is right to be thinking about Greenland. Before I explain why, let me say from the jump that this story is a great example of how frustrating Trump can be for someone like me

with moderate politics. He's broaching an important subject to US influence in Greenland, and his instincts are right. We should have a stronger relationship with them. He's also approaching it in a way that very few buttoned up politicians would, making it a front page story, and his approach is just novel enough that it might work. Greenland is, after all, already playing nice. And yet, he can't do a basic thing, like bring this debate into the public sphere, without ruling out the possibility of using our military and absurd prospect, or riffing on scratching out the border between us and Canada, an obvious troll of Justin Trudeau, if you ask me, which gives his opponents

easy ammunition to shoot down the entire notion, thus poisoning the whale for something that should otherwise be an important debate. So now Trump has championed what I think is a worthwhile cause, a potential acquisition of Greenland, but in a way that immediately makes it a divisive issue. Here's the reality though. Greenland's geography alone makes it strategically important, which should be true even in calmer times just for its political shipping routes and proximity to Russia's Siberian waters. But it's even more important now, with Russia on the march in Europe and China already working for inroads in Greenland. It is home to 30 of the 50 minerals the U.S. government has defined as critical for developing future technologies, minerals that we mostly rely on adversaries

to acquire today. While I have no interest in seeing us plunder Greenland for natural resources, a preposterously beautiful and wild place, I'm also realistic enough to know that China and Russia are already headed in that direction. I'd rather us have control over the environmental process than them. Do I think we will or even should buy Greenland? No. But I also don't think it is all that hair brain to imagine Greenlanders wanting to have more formal ties with the US or even being open to being a US territory. Yes, the current prime minister and current population is moving toward independence. Yes, Greenlanders should be the ones deciding their future. And yes,

it is unlikely that their future is as a US state or territory. But also, we could fit the entire population of Greenland into Heinz Field. A charm offensive could easily move a majority of 56,000 people toward wanting to become a US state or territory down the line. This does not have to be colonialism or imperialism or any other bad sounding word. Greenland is an autonomous territory with democratically elected leaders who, if they believe it is good for their country, might favor selling all or part of their territory to the United States. Or as Henry Olson suggested under what the right is saying, they could simply want to develop deeper economic and military ties with us like what we have with some Pacific Island nations today.

Just as Eisenhower wasn't insane for seeing the value of Alaska and Hawaii, Trump is not insane for seeing the value of Greenland. He's just crazy enough to actually try it, which is part of his appeal. Obviously, making a play for Greenland has enormous risks. For one, Trump's language about artificially drawn lines among nations and his simple insistence that we must take another country is precisely the kind of thing Putin says about Ukraine and Xi Jinping says about Taiwan. The differences should be obvious. Ukraine and Taiwan intentionally broke away from the version of the countries that preceded modern China and Russia, and Putin has already killed tens of thousands of people while

Xi potentially would have to kill an order of magnitude more to take Taiwan. Yet, an American president's words echoing leaders like Xi and Putin does have an impact globally, and his critics are right that this matters. Also, the effectiveness of the madman theory of Trump is often exaggerated. As Fareed Zakaria put it, the idea is that the president appearing unpredictable or even irrational throws off our adversaries, an idea I subscribe to, but it does not always hold true. In Trump's first term, he attempted to intimidate Kim Jong-un with threats of nuclear war, and then the two seemingly became pals while North Korea's nuclear arsenal and missile tests

continued and advanced. However, the critics mostly focus on how Trump is going about this and don't address the main point. Greenland is a large and sparsely inhabited island in a critically important region where US adversaries are making inroads. It's currently transitioning away from its longstanding relationship with Denmark, a European country and a US ally,

and its prime minister at the very least seems open to playing ball. If we could flip a switch and simply make it a US territory, it would obviously be smart to do so. Any country in the world would say yes to that. Short of such simplicity, though, it seems genuinely worth investing some political capital in deepening our relationship with Greenland's government, increasing our presence there, or pursuing some kind of grand acquisition. And I don't think everyone's knee-jerk reaction should be that Trump is an idiot for suggesting it, government, increasing our presence there or pursuing some kind of grand acquisition.

And I don't think everyone's knee-jerk reaction should be that Trump is an idiot for suggesting it, even if I think his approach can be self-defeating. We'll be right back after this quick break. In a darkly comedic look at motherhood and society's expectations, Academy Award-nominated Amy Adams stars as a passionate artist who puts her career on hold to stay home with her young son. But her maternal instinct takes a wild and surreal turn as she discovers the best, yet fiercest, part of herself. Based on the acclaimed novel, Night Bitch is a thought-provoking

and wickedly humorous film from Searchlight Pictures. Stream Night Bitch January 24th, only on Disney+. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one is from Eliana in Plano, Texas. Eliana said, do you think there's a chance a Trump administration would try to push something like Canada's Bill C-24, which created a two-tiered citizenship system? Do you know if they've expressed any interest in doing something like that? So let's start with what Bill C-24 is. In 2014, during then Prime Minister Stephen

Harper's term, Canada passed Bill C-24, the snappily named Act to Amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. This bill introduced several reforms to the immigration system, such as strengthening residency requirements for anyone asking for Canadian citizenship, but one change in particular received the most scrutiny. Allowing the state to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who were convicted of fraud, treason, spying, serving in an armed force in conflict with Canada, or terrorism in Canada or abroad. The new law was the target of a lot of debate. Supporters said it would prevent Canadians of convenience from claiming Canadian dual citizenship without having any ties or desire

to be part of Canada. Opponents said it created two classes of citizenship and provided the government a flimsy excuse to revoke the citizenship of recent immigrants. Ultimately, the controversial aspects of the bill were repealed shortly after Justin Trudeau was elected prime minister. Personally, I think describing the law as creating two-tiered citizenship is an enormous overstatement, but it seemed like the repeal relegated the debate to the dustbin of history. Could Donald Trump enact a similar law here? I doubt it. For starters, C-24 targeted people accused of treason or other national security offenses,

which would complicate the process for political asylees and refugees who come here after being falsely accused of crimes in their homeland. Second, while the exact number of dual citizens in the U.S. is unknown, it's estimated to be several million, so any law targeting them would be a charged political issue. And third, Donald Trump's wife Melania and son Baron are dual citizens of Slovenia, and Trump hasn't proposed any plans targeting dual citizens. Instead, his immigration reform focus has been almost entirely on unauthorized migrants and residents who have committed crimes. I would expect that focus to continue.

All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your Under the Radar story for today, folks. Last week, Senator Joni Ernst, the Republican from Iowa, proposed legislation that would require federal agencies to move 30% of their Washington, D.C.-based workers out of the region within one year of the bill

becoming law. The law would apply to all federal agencies except those dealing with national security, and employees who are relocated would not be eligible for remote work. Ernst also proposed a second bill that would require agencies to closely monitor employees' computer activity while they are working remotely. also proposed a second bill that would require agencies to closely monitor employees' computer activity while they are working remotely. While roughly 85% of the federal workforce already lives and works outside of the DC area, Ernst says her bill aims to target waste and abuse in federal agencies. Government executive has this story and there's a link in today's

episode description. Alright next up is our numbers section. The approximate percentage of the world's fresh water contained in Greenland's ice sheet is 7%. The approximate percentage of Greenland that is not covered by ice and snow is 20%. The approximate percentage of Greenlanders who voted in favor of self-governance in the 2008 non-binding referendum is 76%. The amount in gold that the Truman administration offered Denmark to purchase Greenland in 1946 is $100 million.

The number of minerals deemed critical raw materials by the European Commission found in Greenland is 25 out of 34, according to a 2023 survey. The estimated value of Greenland's rare earth mineral deposits is 500 to 700 billion, according to a 2019 report by Alphaville. The estimated value of Greenland's other natural resources is 300 to 400 billion. And the estimated range in the cost to purchase Greenland is 12.5 to $77 billion, according to a recent estimate by economist David Barker. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. The invasive species Water hyacinth has been taking over Lake Navasha in Kenya, leaving the water unnavigable and killing many of the lake's fish.

It's not just Lake Navasha that faces problems due to water hyacinth, and issues caused by the plant cost the global economy $700 million annually. Joseph Nguithiru wanted to do something about it. He founded a company, HyPak Ecotech Ltd., that uses the pesky plant to create a biodegradable form of plastic. In one use case, seedling bags made from the bio plastic can be used to plant new trees. Nguitharu says it's a win-win situation for all involved. CNN has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright everybody, that is it for today's episode.

As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to readtangle.com and sign up for a membership. You can also go to tanglemedia.supercast.com and sign up for a premium podcast membership, which gets you ad free daily podcasts, Friday editions, Sunday editions, interviews, bonus content, and much more. We'll be right back here tomorrow for Isaac and the rest of the crew. This is John Wall signing off. Have a great day, y'all. Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited and engineered by John Wall. The script is edited by our managing editor, Ari Weitzman, Will Kedak, Bailey Saul, and Sean Brady.

The logo for our podcast was designed by Magdalena Bacopa, Will Kedak, Bailey Saul, and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was designed by Magdalena Makova, who is also our social media manager. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. If you're looking for more from Tangle, please go to readtangle.com and check out our website. In a darkly comedic look at motherhood and society's expectations, Academy Award-nominated Amy Adams stars as a passionate artist who puts her career on hold to stay home with her young son. But her maternal instinct takes a wild and surreal turn as she discovers the best, yet fiercest, part of herself. Based on the acclaimed novel, Nightbitch is a thought-provoking and wickedly humorous

film from Searchlight Pictures. Stream Nightbitch January 24th, only on Disney+.