Jan. 6 2026, just days into the New Year, Donald Trump issued a stochastic threat to Greenland, (and by default Denmark), with a military takeover, if they refuse to become our 51st state.
This plot was introduced in two stages; the initial dementia riddled rant announced aboard Air Force 1, with Trump speaking in innuendo, flanked by Senator Lindsey Graham and Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick acting as drunken cheerleaders, both claiming … “we need Greenland”, as a valid national security interest. Graham and Lutnick were attempting to legitimize a violent military takeover–aka an illegal act of war against an ally that never attacked us. Then, on January 10th, 2026, the Daily Mail reported that Trump had officially ordered the U.S. Army to devise an invasion plan for Greenland. On Jan. 14, Trump’s newly minted ambassador to Iceland, “joked” about it becoming a 52nd state.
One last thing, this order to invade a sovereign nation that has never attacked us–is criminal.
The fact that Greenland is part of Denmark, and Denmark is a signatory nation under NATO, wasn’t a problem for Trump or his GOP henchmen, though it should have been. The fact that the U.S. is a founding signatory nation to NATO remains a quaint joke to the second Trump Department of Justice and State Department, and little more than an ‘inconvenient truth’ for Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other republican leaders. For the record, Canada is also a NATO member, and yes, Trump is floating threats their direction as well.
Trump’s stochastic terrorism via innuendo…
Though innuendo is not the equivalent of any direct threats; it can serve as a looming precursor to actual attacks. The NATO treaty is quite clear on the duties of member nations, of which the U.S. is–again—a founding member.
Ironically, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been orchestrating talks with Greenland and other NATO nations, emphasizing how the Trump administration wants to ‘purchase’ Greenland as the preferable mode of takeover. JD Vance was also present. Unfortunately, Rubio has either forgotten our responsibilities as a NATO member or has chosen to simply disregard them. So, I will remind ‘Little Marco’ specifically about articles 4 and 5 of the NATO treaty.
ARTICLE 4 “The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.”
ARTICLE 5 “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all, and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually, and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
Now, there is a single sentence in article 5 that has served as the clearly understood mantra of the NATO treaty, namely… “an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”… I’m curious as to what part of that simple declarative sentence remains confusing to Marco Rubio or JD Vance. Article 6 goes on to describe exactly what constitutes an ‘attack’ against signatories. To quote:
ARTICLE 6 “For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”
The text of the NATO treaty is clear, yet Secretary Rubio and JD Vance remain silent on the international crimes they are conspiring to commit. Greenland, Denmark, Canada, and now Iceland are all NATO members presently threatened by the Trump administration. Neither the DOJ nor State departments have produced any judicial citations to justify this unprovoked aggression against our allies in the EU. This proposed plot not only breaks our NATO treaty responsibilities; it also represents an illegal theft of power by the executive.
So, why is the Trump administration attacking NATO? Would a U.S. attack on another NATO nation essentially “break” the alliance? What could be the ramifications of this illegal war against a NATO nation by the U.S.?
The ‘Donroe Doctrine’ … piracy by any other name….
Trump has taken the illegitimate “Monroe Doctrine” and “licensed” it to carry his name—aka the “Donroe Doctrine.’ The name itself would make for a cringeworthy joke, if the consequences of this conspiracy weren’t so dangerous. His “Donroe Doctrine” is not merely a vanity moniker broadcast in the corporate media. It serves as a reminder of Trump’s desire to be a monarch and how far his republican sycophants will go to hold on to power. This attack on Greenland is an illegal attack on our NATO allies. While Trump’s disregard for rule of law is well established; formerly silent republicans, (many of whom are Ivy League trained attorneys); are actively enabling this breach of international law. Why is the same republican party which historically claimed the mantle of national security guardians working to sabotage the national security of the EU and the USA?
Are the answers to these questions as simple as corporate greed?
Is this a plot engineered to legitimize the theft of massive oil deposits, the petrodollar upon which it depends, and other mineral wealth, under the dubious guise of the newly minted “Donroe Doctrine?” Is Greenland the first shot in an illegal war against our historic allies?
This ham handed policy has been pushed by presidential advisor Stephen Miller, claiming that the U.S. will… “conduct ourselves as a superpower” by using our military “to secure our interests un-apologetically in our hemisphere.” Miller’s statement reads more like a criminal confession, as opposed to the rhetoric of an executive branch official. Is this premeditated claim of bogus national security needs, a military fig leaf intended to mask a plot to steal Greenland’s reportedly vast mineral wealth–in particular a motherlode of rare earth elements?
BBC report on Greenland’s mineral wealth…
Adrienne Murray writing for the BBC explained how Greenland is…”endowed with the eighth largest reserves of so-called rare earth elements, which are vital for making everything from mobile phones to batteries and electric motors. It also has large amounts of other key metals, such as lithium and cobalt. There is oil and gas too, but new drilling is banned, while deep-sea mining has also been ruled out.”
The BBC piece quoted Eldur Olafsson, the chief executive of Amaroq Minerals. Olafsson explained that his company is …”looking for copper, nickel, and rare earths.” Referencing Greenland, he added that …”this is uncharted, and still has the potential to have multiple big deposits.”
The mineral wealth of Greenland potentially makes the island nation a military target for unscrupulous leaders, including the current president of the United States. So, the question must again be asked…is the possible military invasion of Greenland by the United States a ‘means to an end’? Is Trump ordering an invasion plan orchestrated to steal–what Greenland refuses to sell? The next question remains, can a president unilaterally order such invasion plans without congressional approval? The answer is–NO. So, the Trump administration is prepared to invade Greenland, and take by force what they want, like any other rapist.
Disregarding the ravings of Stephen Miller; what does the Constitution say about a president unilaterally declaring war?
The Brennan Center for Justice of the NYU Law School wrote the following:
“The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to raise, support, and regulate the military and to declare war.”
The statement is clear. It doesn’t matter what excuses the Trump administration provides. Notice the focus on the ‘Trump administration’ and not merely Donald Trump. This distinction is important. Donald Trump could not have pushed through his many abuses and violations of federal and international law to date, without republican congressional support. Congressional republicans didn’t even have to directly support these abuses; all they had to do was refuse to perform their legal oversight function. In all fairness, Trump isn’t the only president to abuse power; he’s merely the most egregious example of corruption on a wholesale level never before seen in our nation’s history. When we calculate how congressional republicans have collectively abdicated their duty to the constitution, with Trump’s cabinet of sycophants and opportunists; we have a formula for the current fascism on parade now.
The Brennan Center also made the case that … “Presidents have overread their power to take the nation to war and have violated civil liberties in wartime.” The Brennan Center has been working to …”rein in overbroad war authorities.”
So, what specifically does the law say regarding war powers?
Historically speaking, the courts (including past Supreme Courts), have interpreted the “Declare War” clause of the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 to grant…”Congress the power “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water[.]” “This statement was part of an academic discussion found on the Congress.gov website titled: The Declare War Clause, Part 3: Authorizations for Use of Military Force and Debate over Initiating Military Action.
Now, this is by no means an exhaustive discussion, but it does grant clarity to important constitutional restrictions on the executive and the power to declare war. To quote from the discussion;
“The Supreme Court has long construed the Declare War Clause to mean not only that Congress can issue formal declarations of war, but that it can also authorize the use of armed force for more limited operations short of a full-scale war.”
Notice who is excluded from this scenario; the executive. It is painfully obvious that serious reforms are needed to reign in the excessive power of the presidency. Once again the Brennan Center weighs in on this issue and states that …”Congress must reclaim its constitutional role in matters of war and peace. The Brennan Center has endorsed repealing outdated and overstretched war authorizations like the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force. We have also endorsed reforms to strengthen the 1973 War Powers Resolution, a law that Congress can use to force the president to end U.S. participation in unauthorized hostilities.”
Conclusion:
Legal theories from far-right extremists aside, the Constitution is clear that Congress must approve and create war declarations–not the executive. The implications of the Trump administrations’ threats to NATO allies could possibly trigger WWIII. Threatening Greenland, and now Iceland, will break the NATO alliance, which puts into question the allegiances of this administration. It begs the question, why is this administration threatening to invade a NATO ally? Why is the Trump administration, (along with the republican majority in Congress), determined to do Putin’s dirty work for him? The answer is simple; wholesale corruption and treasonous intent. Put bluntly, Trump and his republican enablers are determined to take by violent force what is refused them; just like any other rapist.
COMMENTS