Trump Vows to ‘Do Something’ With Greenland ‘Whether They Like It or Not’
Original article by Brad Reed republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
The Trump administration has been ratcheting up threats against Europe in the wake of its invasion of Venezuela and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro.
President Donald Trump finished up a busy week by once again leveling threats against longtime allies over their refusal to hand Greenland over to US control.
While taking questions from reporters at the White House on Friday, Trump was asked about a reported plan to win over Greenlanders on joining the US by giving them annual $10,000 payments.
RECOMMENDED…
‘We Must Stop Him’: Gallego Bill Would Ban Funding for Trump Greenland Invasion
‘Greenland Belongs to Its People’: European Leaders Begin Waking Up to Dangers of Trump Imperialism
“I’m not talking about money for Greenland yet,” the president replied. “I might talk about that, but right now we are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not.”
Trump then explained his purported rationale for making Greenland a US territory.
“If we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland,” he said. “And we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor.”
Neither Russia nor China have shown any indication that they want to take over Greenland, which is currently a self-governed Danish territory. Because Denmark is a founding member of NATO, an attack on its territory from Russia or China would trigger a counterattack by all other NATO members, theoretically including the US.
Trump then informed the press that he would “like to make a deal the easy way” to acquire Greenland, before adding that “if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way.”
The president then claimed that he was a “fan of Denmark,” even though seconds ago he hinted at using military force to seize their territory.
“The fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn’t mean that they own the land,” Trump said. “I’m sure we had lots of boats go there also.”
The Trump administration has been ratcheting up threats against Europe in the wake of its invasion of Venezuela and the US abduction of President Nicolás Maduro last week.
Top Trump aide Stephen Miller on Monday refused to rule out using the military to take Greenland, telling CNN host Jake Tapper that “we live in a world… that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power.”
Original article by Brad Reed republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
Progressives Say ‘No Taxpayer Subsidies’ as Big Oil Balks at Trump’s Call to Invest in Venezuela
Original article by Brett Wilkins republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
“Trump must not give these companies billions in handouts and stick American taxpayers with the bill,” implored Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
ExxonMobil’s CEO told President Donald Trump during a Friday meeting that Venezuela is currently “uninvestible” following the US invasion and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, underscoring fears that American taxpayers will be left footing the bill for the administration’s goal of exploiting the South American nation’s vast petroleum resources.
Trump had hoped to convince executives from around two dozen oil companies to invest in Venezuela after the president claimed US firms pledged to spend at least $100 billion in the country. However, Trump got a reality check during Friday’s White House meeting, as at least one Big Oil CEO balked at committing financial and other resources in an uncertain political, legal, and security environment.
RECOMMENDED…
Even as Trump Suggests US Taxpayers May Foot the Bill, How Bullish Is Big Oil on Venezuela?
House Dems Unveil Bill to Prohibit Taxpayer Funding for Trump Occupation, Plunder of Venezuela
“If we look at the legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela today, it’s uninvestable,” ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods told Trump during the meeting. “Significant changes have to be made to those commercial frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment protections, and there has to be a change to the hydrocarbon laws in the country.”
There is also skepticism regarding Trump’s promise of “total safety” for investors in Venezuela amid deadly US military aggression and regime change.
However, many of the executives—who stand to make billions of dollars from the invasion—told Trump that they remain eager to eventually reap the rewards of any potential US takeover of Venezuela’s vast oil resources.
The oil executives’ apparent aversion to immediate investment in Venezuela—and Trump’s own admission that the American people might end up reimbursing Big Oil for its efforts—prompted backlash from taxpayer advocates.
“Trump must not give these companies billions in handouts and stick American taxpayers with the bill,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on social media Friday. “And oil execs should commit now: no taxpayer subsidies, no special favors from the White House.”
Sam Ratner, policy director at the group Win Without War, said Wednesday that “already today, Trump was saying that US taxpayers should front the money to rebuild Venezuelan oil infrastructure, all while oil companies keep the proceeds from the oil.”
“This is not just a war for oil, but a war for oil executives,” Ratner added.
Noting that “Big Oil spent nearly $100 million to get Trump elected in 2024,” former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich—who served during the Clinton administration—described Friday’s meeting as “returning the favor” and “oligarchy in action.”
According to an analysis by the advocacy group Climate Power, fossil fuel industry interests spent nearly $450 million during the 2024 election cycle in support of Trump and other Republican candidates and initiatives.
Reich and others also noted that Trump informed oil executives about the Venezuelan invasion even before he notified members of Congress.
“That tells you everything you need to know: It was never about ‘narcoterrorism’ and always about oil,” Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) said on Bluesky.
The legal watchdog Democracy Forward this week filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding information about any possible Trump administration collusion with Big Oil in the lead-up to the Venezuela invasion.
Other observers shot down assertions by Trump and members of his administration that the attack on Venezuela and Maduro’s ouster are ultimately about restoring democracy.
“Want to know who’s meeting with Trump this morning about Venezuela’s future?” Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) asked on X.
“Not pro-democracy leaders,” she said. “Oil and gas executives.”
Original article by Brett Wilkins republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
- Trump Abandonment of Global Treaties ‘Threatens All Life on Earth’
- ‘I’m Just Talking About Globally’: Forget Greenland, Says Rubio, US Reserves Right for Military Invasion Anywhere It Wants
- The Venezuela Attack Is Part of Trump’s Quest to Be the World’s No. 1 Bad Hombre
- The US Is Committing Terrorism in Venezuela; Why Will Nobody Say That?
‘Break with Trump before world is embroiled in conflict for oil and empire’
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/break-trump-world-embroiled-conflict-oil-and-empire
US President Donald Trump speaks to House Republican lawmakers during their annual policy retreat, January 6, 2026, in WashingtonCampaigners call on public to join protests across the country demanding Starmer stands up to the far-right US president
PEACE campaigners have warned Sir Keir Starmer to break with US President Donald Trump now before Britain is embroiled in a “full-scale conflict” over “oil and empire” as Britons join protests around the country on Saturday.
The Prime Minister’s tepid reaction to the US attack on Venezuela and its abduction of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores has already driven thousands out onto the streets this week.
Even more are expected this weekend at demonstrations in urban centres across the country on Saturday, including outside Downing Street at 1pm on and the US consulate in Edinburgh at 11am.
Campaigners called on the public to join them in keeping pressure on the government after the Labour leader this week said siding with Europe over the US would be a mistake in the wake of further US military threats on Greenland.
His reactions prompted further fury from activists, as the former human rights barrister also refused to say whether the US operations in Venezuela broke international law at PMQs.
Stop the War Coalition (StWC) convener Lindsey German told the Morning Star: “The British government should break with Trump and his far-right racist warmongering policies now before the world is embroiled in a full scale conflict for oil and empire.
…
Article continues at https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/break-trump-world-embroiled-conflict-oil-and-empire
Did Trump and Starmer break international law with tanker seizure?
https://www.declassifieduk.org/did-trump-and-starmer-break-international-law-with-tanker-seizure/
The UK justified its support for North Atlantic operation, saying sanction-dodging ship was stateless. Legal experts say that’s debatable
The US seizure of a Russian-flagged oil tanker, with British military support, in the North Atlantic may have violated international law, legal experts tell Declassified.
“Overall, there would appear to be no credible basis in law for this interdiction,” Douglas Guilfoyle, professor of international law at the University of New South Wales in Sydney said.
…
Just before 2pm on Wednesday, US European Command announced the ship’s seizure, with Britain’s Ministry of Defence confirming soon after that it had provided the US with “enabling support in full compliance with international law”.
The support included Royal Air Force surveillance and the provision of the RFA Tideforce, a Royal Navy auxiliary ship “designed to provide key underway replenishment at sea”.
Defence secretary John Healey justified the UK’s involvement, citing the ship’s “nefarious history” of Russian-Iranian axis sanctions evasion “fuelling terrorism, conflict and misery from the Middle East to Ukraine”.
…
Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, said a vessel could only be stopped, searched and seized on the high seas under four conditions.
These are if it is a pirate ship, engaged in unauthorised broadcasting, is stateless/not-flying a flag or acting in violation of US Security Council resolutions.
“None of those conditions appear to apply in this instance as I understand the tanker was Russian flagged (and that is not in dispute), and the only sanctions it was subject to were US sanctions imposed under US,” he said.
“So, on the facts, this would appear to be extraterritorial US national law enforcement taking place on the high seas/international waters, or even within the UK’s 200 [nautical mile] exclusive economic zone.”
The UK support, he added, was “not exceptional, especially as the tanker was off the coast of Scotland and would have in the normal course of events been under watch by the UK”.
…
https://www.declassifieduk.org/did-trump-and-starmer-break-international-law-with-tanker-seizure/