Trump's Crazy Greenland Threats Already BACKFIRED!!
PDS Published 01/19/2026
-
Donald Trump says the reason he wants to gobble up a landmass three times the size of Texas is that he got snubbed on his Nobel Peace Prize.
This is not The Onion, this is the Philip DeFranco Show, and when Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere [Pronounce 00:10] texted Trump about Greenland yesterday, Trump reportedly messaged him back: [image]
“Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.” [Post andB roll]
Now to be clear, yes, that is a real text message the U.S. president typed with his actual fingers to another head of state.
But also, the Norwegian PM says, “I have several times clearly explained to Trump what is well known, namely that it is an independent Nobel Committee, and not the Norwegian government, that awards the prize.” [Quote and [B roll]
Plus Trump got it anyway; right, because María Corina Machado gave her Nobel Peace prize to him when she visited the White House last week. [Screenshot, 00:08]
[Clip, 00:08 - 00:20] Caption: “Well she offered it to me. I thought it was very nice. She said, you know, you’ve ended eight wars, and nobody deserves this prize more in history than you do, and I thought it was a very nice gesture.”
So you’ve got people reacting like, “At this point, just give him a ‘Super Nobel Peace Prize for the Most Peace,’ a coloring book of Greenland, so we can all move on with our lives.” [Post]
But anyway, Trump’s text message to Jonas [Yonas] continued:
“Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you!” [Post andB roll]
And that brings us to the big bombshell that shook the world over the weekend: Trump’s new trade war.
Because in a post on Truth Social that took even his own party off guard, he threatened new tariffs against Europe “until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.” [Post]
Starting with a 10% tariff on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland after February 1. [Same post]
Then upping that to 25% on June 1 if he still hasn’t gotten what he’s demanding. [Same post]
With this threat coming as thousands of Danes and Greenlanders braved near-freezing temperatures, rain and icy streets to assert their right to self-governance in protests Saturday. [B roll, 00:42]
And you saw them waving their national flag, wearing mock red hats reading, “Make America Go Away,” holding signs saying, “Greenland is not for sale,” and chanting stuff like: “No means no,” “Greenland is already great” and “Yankee, go home!” [Same B roll]
But Trump doesn’t seem too concerned with any of that; instead, he laid out his rationale for taking Greenland on Truth Social: [B roll, 00:28]
“We have subsidized Denmark, and all of the Countries of the European Union, and others, for many years by not charging them Tariffs, or any other forms of remuneration. Now, after Centuries, it is time for Denmark to give back — World Peace is at stake! China and Russia want Greenland, and there is not a thing that Denmark can do about it. They currently have two dogsleds as protection, one added recently. Only the United States of America, under PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, can play in this game, and very successfully, at that! Nobody will touch this sacred piece of Land, especially since the National Security of the United States, and the World at large, is at stake. On top of everything else, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland have journeyed to Greenland, for purposes unknown. This is a very dangerous situation for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Planet. These Countries, who are playing this very dangerous game, have put a level of risk in play that is not tenable or sustainable. Therefore, it is imperative that, in order to protect Global Peace and Security, strong measures be taken so that this potentially perilous situation end quickly, and without question. … The United States has been trying to do this transaction for over 150 years. Many Presidents have tried, and for good reason, but Denmark has always refused. Now, because of The Golden Dome, and Modern Day Weapons Systems, both Offensive and Defensive, the need to ACQUIRE is especially important. Hundreds of Billions of Dollars are currently being spent on Security Programs having to do with “The Dome,” including for the possible protection of Canada, and this very brilliant, but highly complex system can only work at its maximum potential and efficiency, because of angles, metes, and bounds, if this Land is included in it. The United States of America is immediately open to negotiation with Denmark and/or any of these Countries that have put so much at risk, despite all that we have done for them, including maximum protection, over so many decades.” [Post]
Now there are several things we’ve gotta talk about there.
First of all, it’s totally unclear at this point why Trump actually wants Greenland.
Right, he’s given so many different reasons: national security, the minerals, the Nobel Prize — some even think it’s just a distraction from the still unreleased Epstein files. [B roll, thenB roll, 00:28]
And let’s not forget, when The New York Times asked him why he needs to own it rather than just having near-limitless access to it, he said, “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success.” [Quote]
But even if we just go through the things he noted in his post, you’ve got critics saying none of it makes any sense.
Right, for starters, it’s not true that hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent on the so-called golden dome.
It’s actually 150 billion dollars, and none of that money’s been allocated yet; in fact, contractors are still in the proposal stage.
Though Bloomberg estimates the real cost would exceed a trillion dollars, and the key technologies haven’t even been developed yet. [Quote, find “1.1”]
Speaking of which, those technologies chiefly consist of space-based missile intercepters, so experts have no idea why Trump thinks he needs Greenland for that. [Quote, find “no idea why”]
In fact, the Pentagon itself never mentioned Greenland when it mapped out potential locations for the dome’s land infrastructure. [Quote same link, find “mapped”]
But even if Greenland was somehow necessary, the U.S. doesn’t need to own it.
Right, we already have a military base there, and we have the right to expand our presence under a 1951 agreement with Denmark. [Image]
Next, the idea that Denmark has stubbornly refused the United States’s territorial bids for 150 years is also false.
Right, quite the contrary, Washington recognized Greenland as “an equal part of the Kingdom of Denmark” in a 2004 amendment to the agreement I just mentioned. [Quote]
And then, as for the supposed threat from Russia and China, there’s no indication either of them are planning to invade, if that’s even something they ever considered.
But again, it arguably still wouldn’t matter, because the U.S. can put its troops there.
Also, needless to say, Greenland has more defending it than just two dog sleds. [Image]
And as for the European countries that “journeyed to Greenland for purposes unknown,” as Trump put it, we do know the purpose of that; it was for the very thing Trump claims Greenland doesn’t have: defense.
Right, they were conducting military exercises alongside Danish forces, and it’s not like this was some kind of surprise for Trump.
Right, because the United States took part in a planning meeting Friday in Greenland with NATO allies to discuss Arctic security. [Quote, find “planning meeting”]
So these tariffs that Trump’s imposing — they’re not just gonna further weaken the NATO alliance; they’re also about to blow up the trade deal Trump himself struck with Europe in Turnberry, Scotland last year.
Right, because under that deal, he agreed to lower tariffs on the EU to 15% and Britain to 10%, but presumably these new duties will pile on top of those rates.
So to figure out a response, European leaders held an emergency meeting yesterday, and reportedly they discussed retaliatory tariffs.
With those potentially including duties worth over a hundred billion dollars that were drawn up during last year’s trade war. [Quote, find “107”]
Though some leaders, notably French President Emmanuel Macron, are considering a much more drastic, never-before-used toll officially called the “anti-coercion instrument,” but unofficially known as the “trade “bazooka.” [Quote same link]
With that reportedly targeting American service industries, most notably its big tech companies.
And of course, a long list of European leaders verbally condemned Trump’s threats, including those from Denmark, France, Germany, and the U.K.
With not just the British Labor Party’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer denouncing it, but also the Conservative Party leader, Kemi Badenoch [Pronounce], who called the tariffs a “terrible idea,” and even the usually Trump-aligned, right-wing populist party leader, Nigel Farage [Pronounce], who said they “certainly don’t” agree with the tariffs. [B roll, then B roll, then B roll]
With Italy’s far-right Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, also calling them a “mistake” and saying she doesn’t agree with them. [B roll]
As well as some American conservatives drawing a red line here, with GOP Representative Don Bacon saying:
“Greenland is our ally and threatening an ally is foolish policy, especially when we’d be able to add bases there if we wanted. We sound too much like Putin and it is wrong.” [Post and B roll]
And Senator Thom Tillis writing that the tariffs are “bad for America, bad for American businesses, and bad for America’s allies,” but adding, “It’s great for Putin, Xi and other adversaries who want to see NATO divided.” [Post and B roll]
And one more: Senator Lisa Murkowski called Trump’s tariffs “unnecessary, punitive, and a profound mistake” that would only “push our core European allies further away while doing nothing to advance U.S. national security.” [Post and B roll]
And then, among the people celebrating the tariffs, you had Russia and Ted Cruz, though for different reasons.
⚔️ Play ASSASSIN’S CREED in Raid ⚔️ Get Ezio + LEGOS & EPICS instantly via my link only 👉 Raid Start strong on Mobile & PC. No grinding.
-
But getting back into the news, ICE is reportedly now tear gassing kids, lawmakers are calling for it to be abolished, and all while Trump and Tim Walz are waging a cold war for control of Minnesota.
The Department of “War” now putting 1,500 active duty troops on standby to be deployed into Minnesota,
Saying those troops, who are from Alaska and specialize in cold weather operations, will “execute the orders of the Commander-in-Chief if called upon."[]
Meanwhile, Walz has mobilized the Minnesota National Guard, though they also haven’t been deployed yet either. [][]
But if Walz does pull that trigger, the Guard says their mission will be to assist local law enforcement and public safety agencies. []
Noting that they're “focused on protecting life, preserving property, and ensuring Minnesotans can safely exercise their First Amendment rights.”
Adding that they’ll wear reflective vests to “distinguish” themselves from other agencies – AKA ICE.
And while Trump on Friday walked back his threat to invoke the insurrection act, he didn’t take it off the table. []
And he’s not letting up on Walz either.
The same day, reports came out that the Justice Department is criminally investigating both him and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey (Fry) for allegedly obstructing federal law enforcement. []
Fry responding by saying he won’t be intimidated and Walz saying:
“Two days ago it was Elissa Slotkin. Last week it was Jerome Powell. Before that, Mark Kelly. Weaponizing the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic. The only person not being investigated for the shooting of Renee Good is the federal agent who shot her.” []
And with all of that, a Democratic Representative from Michigan has now introduced a bill to abolish ICE.[]
AOC also renewing her call to abolish ICE, though not every Democrat is on the same page. []
Senator Reuben Gallego (guy-A-go, pronunciation) saying abolishing ICE would be a mistake but adding that it does need to be “totally torn down” and “created in the image of what people want.”
And California Governor Gavin Newsom being accused of being soft by some for saying this in a podcast with Ben Shapiro:
Shapiro: “AOC said this week that ICE should be abolished. You disagree?”
Newsom: “Oh I disagree when I think um a candidate for president by the name of Harris said that in the last campaign I came out it was I remember being on Chris Hayes hours later saying I think that's a mistake. So absolutely.” (27:09-27:23)
This after he was also criticized by the right for calling ICE “state sponsored terrorism:”
Shapiro: Your press office said it was "state-sponsored terrorism."
Newsom: "Yeah..."
Shapiro: "Our ICE officers obviously are not terrorists…"
Newsom: "Yeah, I think that's fair." 0:17-0:35
Though at the same time, you now have a judge telling ICE and the Trump administration that they can’t keep targeting protesters who aren’t breaking the law, ruling:
Granted there, that may not stop the Trump administration.
All they’d have to do is make the argument that protesters were being violent – whether they actually were or not.
In fact, they’re already doing as much – even as we’re seeing reports that ICE tear gassed two parents and their six kids who accidentally drove into a confrontation between protesters and ICE on their way home from a basketball game. [] (broll: 0:16-0:21)
The mom, Destiny Jackson, says they pulled over because protesters and parked cars were making it difficult to pass.
Her husband, Shawn, then tries to back up, but federal agents had already surrounded their car, trapping them.
An agent get yells for them to “get the fuck out of here,” they say “we’re trying,”
Destiny tells Shawn not to move, scared out of her mind they’re all about to become the next Renee Good.
Then she see flash bangs, a tear gas canister rolls under the car, she feels the car bounce and come back down,
Next thing she knows, the air bags have inflated, tear gas is filling the car, they’re fumbling to unlock the doors for their kids, (broll)
And all the while, their six month old is still strapped in a car seat until a bystander reportedly frees the baby and brings him to Destiny.
With Destiny saying he wasn’t breathing and was foaming at the mouth, so she starts giving him CPR as other people pour milk over his eyes to wash away the tear gas.
But in the end, the baby was revived and taken to the hospital, with the whole family expected to be okay.
And that story is something CBS host Margaret Brennan confronted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about directly yesterday on Face the Nation before also asking Noem about the judge’s order to stop using chemical agents.
And Noem’s response?
Noem: “That federal order was um a little ridiculous because that federal judge came down and told us we couldn't do what we already aren't doing.” (13:05-13:12)
Except the very next moment?
Brennan: “Well, we just saw video of chemical agents being used.”
Noem: “...any… we only use those chemical agents when there's violence happening and perpetuating and you need to be able to establish law in order to keep people safe. That's the only situation. So that judge's order didn't change anything for how we're operating on the ground because it's basically telling us to do what we've already been doing.” (13:12-13:35)
Brennan also pressing Noem on Walz’ claim that the agent who killed Renee Good isn’t under any sort of investigation:
Brennan: “Let me talk to you about the officer, Jonathan Ross. He was struck.
He was hospitalized.”
Noem: “Don't say his name. I mean, for heaven's sakes, we don't we shouldn't have people continue to dox uh law enforcement when they have an 8% increase in death threats against them.”
Brennan: “His name is public. He was struck and hospitalized.”
Noem: “I know, but that doesn’t mean it should continue to be said.” (5:11-5:28)
Brennan: “Is he correct that the federal agent is not being investigated in any way? Is there any review of protocol here?
Noem: “We are following the exact same investigative and review process that we always have under uh ICE and under the Department of Homeland Security and within the administration.” (6:41-7:00)
Noem: “Do I understand you saying that the Office of Professional Responsibility is doing its own probe to determine that the ICE agent violated protocol and that he was on three days of administrative leave because that is what is in the handbook?
Noem: “The protocol and the advice and the guidance within that handbook and within our policies is being followed exactly like it has been for years.” (7:29-7:51)
But Noem never actually saying outright that Ross was put on administrative leave or under investigation – instead blaming the left for attacking ICE agents.
And while Brennan did reference CBS reporting from last week that Ross suffered internal bleeding, reports have since come out that there was a major internal divide at CBS on reporting this. []
Right, CBS says it got this info from two anonymous US officials, but it was never able to confirm the extent of the bleeding.
CBS News’ senior VP even noting in an email:
“I’m no doctor, but internal bleeding is a very broad term and can range in severity.” []
“A bruise is internal bleeding. But it can also be something serious.”
Though Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss was reportedly very interested in covering that angle.
-
And that is just the latest hot water CBS News has found itself in under Weiss’s leadership.
Because last week, the outlet ran a full 13-minute interview with Trump and Evening News anchor Tony Duh-co-pull.
Which might sound unusual, right, you usually don’t get a complete 13-minute interview in a network news show that is crunched for time.
But over the weekend, the New York Times reported on an audio clip where press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump would sue the network if the conversation did not air that way.
While the Times didn’t publish the audio, independent reporters shared clips matching the Times’ transcript, where you can hear a person who appears to be Leavitt say:
“He’s saying make sure you guys don’t cut the tape. Make sure the interview goes out in full…Yeah, we’re doing it…he said if it’s not out in full, we’ll sue your ass off…oh great! Okay…he always says that! [crosstalk] We only have 19 minutes and 30 seconds, so 13 minutes will be…the whole thing will be out?...Yeah, yeah, yeah, I appreciate you Karoline.” (0:02-0:22)
And the idea that the president would sue a major news outlet if it made editorial decisions he disagreed with has caused a ton of backlash.
Because, well, Trump has already controversially done this many times now.
In fact, he landed a massive settlement from CBS last year over a 60 Minutes interview it ran with Kamala Harris.
So the threat is very real.
According to the the Times, some of the CBS personnel who were there read Leavitt’s remarks as “in jest.”
But the outlet also noted that, if you don’t find it funny, that’s fair, because:
“Once a president is willing to sue a news outlet, and the outlet is willing to settle, the calculus for its journalists has indelibly, inexorably changed.”
For its part, CBS released a statement claiming they decided to air the Trump interview unedited the moment they booked it.
Leavitt also defended her demands by saying that:
“The American people deserve to watch President Trump’s full interviews, unedited, no cuts. And guess what? The interview ran in full.”
But many see CBS airing the entire thing not as an independent decision, but as another case of it functioning as a mouthpiece for the Trump administration.
Right, with David Ellison now in charge of its parent company, and Bari Weiss specifically in charge of news, many think CBS is sort of morphing into Fox News.
One of the biggest controversies happened late last year when Weiss decided to shelve a 60 Minutes piece about abuses in an El Salvador prison, with the correspondent behind the piece claiming this was a political decision.
And we actually got an update on there, because that piece ended up airing last night.
The correspondent reportedly had to record a new intro and ending to incorporate some of the additions Weiss requested, but the main body and reporting in the story was the same as it was back in December when it was originally delayed.
And a spokesperson insisted the network was always committed to running the story “as soon as it was ready,” claiming last night’s segments:
“speak to CBS News’ independence and the power of our storytelling.”
But now that people are watching the story, they think it is just unethical and absurd that Weiss ever tried to shelve it in the first place.[][]
And as for why there is this rightward shift at CBS, well, some have tied it to the fact that Paramount’s CEO, David Ellison, is the son of Larry Ellison, a billionaire who has supported Trump.
Others think it is because Paramount is trying to throw a hail mary to acquire Warner Bros, which is a merger that will need Trump administration approval.[]
But whatever it is, it is clear Trump is not afraid to try to assert power over CBS here, something made very apparent in that threat to sue the network.
And this is part of a larger friction between the Trump administration, and a fully functioning free press.
Just on Friday, we learned that the Pentagon is revamping the military newspaper Stars & Stripes.
With the Department of Defense’s, I mean, Department of War’s, assistant secretary saying the outlet will refocus “away from woke distractions that syphon morale.”[]
But in case it does not go without saying, that paper is not the Pentagon’s to revamp.
Right, Stars and Stripes said this announcement:
“appears to challenge the editorial independence of Stars and Stripes, which while a part of the Pentagon’s Defense Media Activity has long retained independence from editorial oversight from the Pentagon under a congressional mandate that it be governed by First Amendment principles.”[]
With the Editor Chief also saying that:
“The people who risk their lives in defense of the Constitution have earned the right to the press freedoms of the First Amendment. We will not compromise on serving them with accurate and balanced coverage, holding military officials to account when called for.”
So there has been a ton of backlash over the Pentagon’s intervention.
Especially since this news came just after the Washington Post reported that people applying to work for Stars and Stripes were asked if they support Trump’s policies.
Applicants using the government’s job site have been asked things like:
“How would you advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”
So I would love to know your thoughts on anything here, whether it be the CBS of it all, or overall concerns with Trump cracking down on the press.
