7 ms·

This isn’t really about Greenland’s strategic value; it’s about the category error. You can trade goods, sign treaties, and negotiate basing rights. You can’t “

This isn’t really about Greenland’s strategic value; it’s about the category error. You can trade goods, sign treaties, and negotiate basing rights. You can’t “buy” a people or their sovereignty especially when they don’t consent. That’s why Europe responds with process and principle: normalize coercion-as-bargaining among allies and you’re reviving a pre-1945 model of politics Europe built institutions to prevent. It’s also lose-lose for the US. There isn’t a positive outcome. If it’s dropped, the damage is “just” reputational and partly repairable. If it’s pursued: tariffs, threats, coercion. It burns trust inside NATO, accelerates European strategic decoupling, and hands a propaganda gift to every US adversary. A forced takeover would be a catastrophic own-goal: legitimacy crisis, sanctions/retaliation, and a long-term security headache the US doesn’t need. And the deeper issue is credibility. The dollar’s reserve status and US financial leverage rest on the assumption that the US is broadly predictable and rule-bound. When you start treating allies like extractive targets, you’re not “winning” you’re encouraging everyone to build workarounds. Part of the postwar setup was that Europe outsourced a lot of hard security while the US underwrote the system; if the US turns that security guarantee into leverage against allies, you should expect Europe to reprice the relationship and invest accordingly. The least-bad outcome is a face-saving off-ramp and dropping the whole line of inquiry. Nothing good comes from keeping it on the table.

oliwarner 9mo ago
The US has some grace here as most of the negative feelings towards it dies with it's government. You're going to pick better next time, right?
- Eddy_Viscosity2 9mo ago
  Except that everyone can see that the US is capable of putting this kind of government into power, and could do so again and again.
  - rstuart4133 9mo ago
    Exactly. The fixes that would go some way to restore my trust are changed to the mechanisms surrounding the democratic process. Things like no more gerrymander, get rid of allowing corporations influencing the voting by flooding the system with money, somehow fix social media every ad is seen by everyone rather than allowing personalised lies be shown to specific voters, fix your electronic voting systems to a maintenance man with a screwdriver can't make new votes pop into existence (as happened once), stop disenfranchising voters - even to the extend of implementing compulsory voting. The distortions the USA allows now to the democratic process are beyond belief. Oh, and a system that allows a politician to incite a mob to attack the sitting parliament, and get away without punishment, then pardon the perps is a joke.
  - UncleMeat 9mo ago
    And the opposition party has proven itself to be unable to take actions necessary to prevent this sort of thing. The democrats could have used the Biden administration as an opportunity to try Trump for his crimes and establish new boundaries on the power of the president. Instead they just hoped he would vanish into the night and left space for his return. If the dems win in 2026 and 2028, what is there to stop a return to fascism and further collapse in 2032?
- EastLondonCoder 9mo ago
  Not American. Also: reputational damage isn’t a skin that sheds when a government changes; allies and markets adapt structurally.
- pupppet 9mo ago
  Sort of. Those of us outside the US are aware his support hasn’t cratered. There’s going to be the concern the US will just swap him out for someone similar.
  - rchaud 9mo ago
    If past history is anything to go by, the US will elect the current opposition, who won't be nearly strong enough to enact the reforms that would prevent an extremist party from returning to power in 4 years' time.
- vidarh 9mo ago
  Picking better next time won't be enough unless a lot of work is done to put in place safeguards to make it impossible for a future government to act the same way.
  - rendall 9mo ago
    Most people do not understand this.
  - cogman10 9mo ago
    That or decades of picking better. Regardless, we are looking at a long time before the world doesn't look at our government in disgust (rightfully).
    - vidarh 9mo ago
      Indeed, but it might be many decades - once this lesson is first learned, it will take a long time to unlearn because it tends to become self-reinforcing. To give an illustration of how long institutional memory over things like this can be: As of when I went to primary school in Norway in the 1980's, we were still taught at length about the British blockade of Norway during the Napoleonic wars due to Denmark-Norway's entry into the war on Napoleons side and its impact on Norway (an enduring memory for many Norwegian school-children is having to learn the Norwegian epic poem "Terje Vigen" about a man evading the blockade). Norwegian agricultural policy to this day has had a costly cross-party support for subsidies intended to provide at least a minimum of food idependence as a consequence of learning the hard way first during the Napoleonic wars with a reinforcement (though less serious) during WW2 of how important it can be. A large part of the Norwegian negotiations for EEA entry, and Norways rejection of EU membership was centered around agricultural policy in part because of this history. The importance of regional development and keeping agriculture alive even in regions that are really not suited to it is "baked in" to Norwegian politics in part because the subsidies means that on top of those who are about the food idependence a lot of people are financially benefiting from the continuation of those policies, or have lived shaped by it (e.g. local communities that would likely not exist if the farms had not been financially viable thanks to subsidies), so structures have been created around it that have a life of their own. Conversely, a lot of support for the US in Europe rests on institutional memory of the Marshall Plan, with most of the generations with first hand experience of the impact now dead. Create a replacement memory of the US becoming a hostile force, and that can easily embed itself for the same 3+ generations after the situation itself has been resolved.
- Someone 9mo ago
  Even if the US does that, trust arrives on foot, but leaves on horseback, so it will take years to get back to the old state of affairs.
  - layer8 9mo ago
    Decades, more likely.
- rjrjrjrj 9mo ago
  True after the first Trump administration. But now? I doubt it.
- fatbird 9mo ago
  Trump's passing and his admin getting tossed won't erase the memory that a good third of America was always happy with him and wanted what he actually did. America is now branded with MAGA in a way that will take generations to fade.
  - ben_w 9mo ago
    At this point, I'd say terms rather than generations. I mean, I'm old enough to remember people saying "Never Forget" about 9/11, but it's barely in any discourse at this point, and that was a single generation ago and had two major wars a bunch of PoW scandals, war crime scandals that led to Manning, and domestic surveillance that led to Snowden. And yet, despite all that, I've only heard 9/11 mentioned exactly once since visiting NYC in 2017, and that was Steve Bannon and Giuliani refusing to believe that Mamdani was legitimate. So, yeah, if Trump fades away this could be forgotten in 8 years or so; if this escalates to a war (I'm not confident, but if I had to guess I'd say 10% or so?), then I see it rising to the level of generations.
    - 1718627440 9mo ago
      You are talking about the US, the others do not.
      - ben_w 9mo ago
        I'm saying "never forget" fades. That's a human condition we all share. I mean, I live in Germany these days, and this country absolutely got the multi-generational thing, and I'm from the UK whose empire ditto, but… the UK doesn't spend much time thinking about the Falklands War and even less about the Cod Wars.
        1718627440 9mo ago
        Nobody disagreed with that it eventually fades, they were all saying it is going to take decades. The consequence of 9/11 of was mostly TSAs, following the USA into wars and the erosion of privacy at the mention of terrorism. The first and the last are still ongoing and I think the current US admin is still using the latter as a narrative, the second one may come at an end currently, because the USA is trying to use it against its (former) allies. What you describe is called "to historicize an event". The WW1 has been historicized by WW2 (some argue it's the same war). But not even WW2 has been historicized yet (at least in Europe) and it already ended 80 years in the past, so I doubt an atlantic conflict is going to be forgotten in the next few decades. Edit: I originally linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicization, but this does not describes what I mean. It is weird, because the supposed German equivalent does. The German article is about a concept from the science of history, while the English article is about a literature concept.
- arw0n 9mo ago
  You have to be incredibly naive to give that much credibility to the US system. A lot more than just a switch of parties would be needed. Personally I highly doubt a possible democratic would return a conquered Greenland. And even if it did, it would have to ensure that kind of derailment doesn't happen again. The opposition so far seems to be about as ineffectual as centrist parties across Europe at dealing with the far right.
- donkeybeer 9mo ago
  As long as the clinically insane trumpie population exists, the USA cannot be trusted.
- mdnahas 9mo ago
  For Americans, many foreigners use the word “government” where we would say “administration”. So, a “new government” or “the government falls”, would be a “new administration” or “the administration’s party loses the next election”.
mooreds 9mo ago
> It’s also lose-lose for the US. Yes. Ian Bremmer keeps pointing out that if the "law of the jungle" becomes the norm for relations between countries, the USA will not benefit as much as autocracies like China and Russia. See https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TLhz6ZbrMuI https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TLhz6ZbrMuI for a more full-throated explanation from Ian.
- codingcodingboy 9mo ago
  Not the case if the US joins the autocracies.
  - stvltvs 9mo ago
    The US will be worse off as an isolated autocracy.
  - rchaud 9mo ago
    Autocracy isn't a switch you can flick. To establish one, you first have to win a protracted civil war, likely between loyalist paramilitary groups like ICE, the standing US Army and regional defense paramilitaries that would spring up. The likely result of this is a stalemate that leads to secession into separate countries.
    - dagss 9mo ago
      Why? Russia didn't have a protracted civil war between 2000-ish and now? Isn't Trump busy replacing US Army leadership with those loyal to him? Why would Army and ICE be on opposite sides? Seems MAGA just have to continue the present course and apply just enough pressure to the election system to keep "winning" half-credibly and autocracy is there in not too many years. I mean they are already past pardoning those attacking congress for not accepting the election result. It is just a gradual process which is well underway, at what point would California and Washington suddenly prop up a militia?
    - s_dev 9mo ago
      >Autocracy isn't a switch you can flick. Plenty of precedents for Autocrats to assume power in legit democracies and seem to flick it handily enough. Hitler, Mussolini, Putin, Erdogan, Orban etc. No battles or violence, just democracies that become autocracies through election.
TrackerFF 9mo ago
Warren Buffett once said: "You can't make a good deal with a bad person" Which is exactly the case as long as Trump is POTUS. There's no good deal to be made for Denmark, Greenland, or Europe in general. Trump is a bad person, and can not be trusted. Any deal that is made will either be altered or voided. And he'll continue to move the goalposts. There are two outcomes with Trump: 1) He tries to bully someone into submission, and keeps coming back for more if successful. 2) He is slapped so hard that he gives up entirely. Unfortunately (2) is a bit shaky these days, as he views the US military as his personal muscle.
- deepfriedchokes 9mo ago
  Regarding option (2), isn’t SCOTUS supposed to rule on the legality of Trump’s tariffs soon?
  - Hamuko 9mo ago
    Are people expecting to SCOTUS rebuff Trump? So far it seems that they're good to go on any Trumpian designs.
    - hrunt 9mo ago
      Yes, people expect SCOTUS to rebuff Trump on the tariffs. [0] Lately SCOTUS has been providing stricter textual interpretations of Constitutional questions. Many of these have aligned with Trump administration arguments based on the power of the executive as outlined in Article II. The text says, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," and, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." One of the key arguments is that Congress can't take that power away from him. For example, Congress can't tell him that he can't fire executive-branch staff, because the executive power rests with him, not with Congress. One thing the Constitution is very clear on, though, is that only Congress can impose tariffs ("The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"). Furthermore, recent rulings of this Court have established the major questions doctrine, which says that even if Congress delegates the specifics of implementing its powers to the Executive branch, that delegation cannot be interpreted broadly. It can't be used to create new broad policies that Congress didn't authorize. Therefore, because the text of the Constitution explicitly grants the right to impose tariffs to Congress /and/ Trump's imposition of tariffs is both very broad and very substantial, many people believe that SCOTUS will deny Trump's tariffs. The case as argued is about Trump's right to issue tariffs under the IEEPA (a law Congress passed to give the President some ability to take economic actions due to international emergencies, which do not explicitly include tariffs), and there is some debate about what a negative ruling would mean for the return of tariffs to merchants who have paid them. Both of those points require careful consideration in the decision. Will the ruling limit itself to just tariffs issued under the IEEPA or to the President's ability to establish tariffs under other laws? If the Court rules against the tariffs, will the government be required to pay people back, and if so, to what extent? It's not surprising that the decision is taking some time to be released. There's a lot of considerations, and every one is a possible point for disagreement by the justices. [0] https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/prediction-market-traders-bet-against-trumps-tariffs-supreme-court-ruling-looms https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/prediction-market-trade...
DoctorOetker 9mo ago
[flagged]
- mooreds 9mo ago
  It seems there is a path to a referendum? https://www.voanews.com/a/greenland-unveils-draft-constitution-for-future-independence-/7070997.html https://www.voanews.com/a/greenland-unveils-draft-constituti... Here's more on that constitution: https://www.naadsn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/26jan-2023-Greenland-Constit-Commission-Report-Lackenbauer-NAADSN-Policy-Primer.pdf https://www.naadsn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/26jan-2023-...
  - DoctorOetker 9mo ago
    It doesn't seem to discuss Trump's "offer". Voting independence from Denmark is different from being given the option to join the United States. As Chomsky would say "whenever there are multiple pictures, the darkest one tends to be closer to the truth". What if natural resources would be more expensive (for both US and EU) to buy if Greenland were independent, than if it were still half-colony of Denmark. Then EU and US would have a common interest in manipulating in the same direction the referendum you referenced (for independence). Both US and EU might have cheaper access to natural resources if the population votes no for independence. Good Cop Bad Cop stuff, to scare the population to stay subjugated (and enjoy imaginary protection from EU against imaginary threat from US).
    - breppp 9mo ago
      unsurprising that Chomsky has a reverse Occam's Razor that assumes the worst in any (western) action
      - DoctorOetker 9mo ago
        his comment was not specific to Western nations, it would apply equally well to asian, african, south american, russian,northern, southern, ... nations, but you are right, he wouldn't treat Western nations with an exception, and that always makes the relevant population feel addressed, and this subjectively feels different, or being picked on with precision, but its just when a population feels addressed.
kurtis_reed 9mo ago
Sure you can buy territory, like the Danish West Indies
Yizahi 9mo ago
But it's not US who is in charge of US, unfortunately. It's Project 2025 who is in charge of US, and it has a vastly different win and lose criteria. For Project 2025 dissolving NATO, UN, WTO and whatever is a win. For Project 2025 weakening dollar is a win. For Project 2025 isolation in the Americas is win. And US is no longer in charge. Congress has voluntarily surrendered its power and others are following the lead. Project 2025 may or may not become future US, we'll see how it goes this year.
duxup 9mo ago
Have they considered giving trump a Eurovision award so that he goes away?
- zombot 9mo ago
  Humoring his whims only encourages him to come back fore more.
anal_reactor 9mo ago
What you're describing is a Q2 problem. This meeting is about Q1 goals. Please stay on the topic.
zombot 9mo ago
> and hands a propaganda gift to every US adversary. This demonstrates, again, that Trump is the prime domestic enemy of the US. Where are the agencies that are sworn to protect the US against enemies foreign and domestic?
hulitu 9mo ago
> You can’t “buy” a people or their sovereignty especially when they don’t consent Who said they don't consent ? There was no referendum. /s

oliwarner 9mo ago

The US has some grace here as most of the negative feelings towards it dies with it's government. You're going to pick better next time, right?

Eddy_Viscosity2 9mo ago
Except that everyone can see that the US is capable of putting this kind of government into power, and could do so again and again.
- rstuart4133 9mo ago
  Exactly. The fixes that would go some way to restore my trust are changed to the mechanisms surrounding the democratic process. Things like no more gerrymander, get rid of allowing corporations influencing the voting by flooding the system with money, somehow fix social media every ad is seen by everyone rather than allowing personalised lies be shown to specific voters, fix your electronic voting systems to a maintenance man with a screwdriver can't make new votes pop into existence (as happened once), stop disenfranchising voters - even to the extend of implementing compulsory voting. The distortions the USA allows now to the democratic process are beyond belief. Oh, and a system that allows a politician to incite a mob to attack the sitting parliament, and get away without punishment, then pardon the perps is a joke.
- UncleMeat 9mo ago
  And the opposition party has proven itself to be unable to take actions necessary to prevent this sort of thing. The democrats could have used the Biden administration as an opportunity to try Trump for his crimes and establish new boundaries on the power of the president. Instead they just hoped he would vanish into the night and left space for his return. If the dems win in 2026 and 2028, what is there to stop a return to fascism and further collapse in 2032?
EastLondonCoder 9mo ago
Not American. Also: reputational damage isn’t a skin that sheds when a government changes; allies and markets adapt structurally.
pupppet 9mo ago
Sort of. Those of us outside the US are aware his support hasn’t cratered. There’s going to be the concern the US will just swap him out for someone similar.
- rchaud 9mo ago
  If past history is anything to go by, the US will elect the current opposition, who won't be nearly strong enough to enact the reforms that would prevent an extremist party from returning to power in 4 years' time.
vidarh 9mo ago
Picking better next time won't be enough unless a lot of work is done to put in place safeguards to make it impossible for a future government to act the same way.
- rendall 9mo ago
  Most people do not understand this.
- cogman10 9mo ago
  That or decades of picking better. Regardless, we are looking at a long time before the world doesn't look at our government in disgust (rightfully).
  - vidarh 9mo ago
    Indeed, but it might be many decades - once this lesson is first learned, it will take a long time to unlearn because it tends to become self-reinforcing. To give an illustration of how long institutional memory over things like this can be: As of when I went to primary school in Norway in the 1980's, we were still taught at length about the British blockade of Norway during the Napoleonic wars due to Denmark-Norway's entry into the war on Napoleons side and its impact on Norway (an enduring memory for many Norwegian school-children is having to learn the Norwegian epic poem "Terje Vigen" about a man evading the blockade). Norwegian agricultural policy to this day has had a costly cross-party support for subsidies intended to provide at least a minimum of food idependence as a consequence of learning the hard way first during the Napoleonic wars with a reinforcement (though less serious) during WW2 of how important it can be. A large part of the Norwegian negotiations for EEA entry, and Norways rejection of EU membership was centered around agricultural policy in part because of this history. The importance of regional development and keeping agriculture alive even in regions that are really not suited to it is "baked in" to Norwegian politics in part because the subsidies means that on top of those who are about the food idependence a lot of people are financially benefiting from the continuation of those policies, or have lived shaped by it (e.g. local communities that would likely not exist if the farms had not been financially viable thanks to subsidies), so structures have been created around it that have a life of their own. Conversely, a lot of support for the US in Europe rests on institutional memory of the Marshall Plan, with most of the generations with first hand experience of the impact now dead. Create a replacement memory of the US becoming a hostile force, and that can easily embed itself for the same 3+ generations after the situation itself has been resolved.
Someone 9mo ago
Even if the US does that, trust arrives on foot, but leaves on horseback, so it will take years to get back to the old state of affairs.
- layer8 9mo ago
  Decades, more likely.
rjrjrjrj 9mo ago
True after the first Trump administration. But now? I doubt it.
fatbird 9mo ago
Trump's passing and his admin getting tossed won't erase the memory that a good third of America was always happy with him and wanted what he actually did. America is now branded with MAGA in a way that will take generations to fade.
- ben_w 9mo ago
  At this point, I'd say terms rather than generations. I mean, I'm old enough to remember people saying "Never Forget" about 9/11, but it's barely in any discourse at this point, and that was a single generation ago and had two major wars a bunch of PoW scandals, war crime scandals that led to Manning, and domestic surveillance that led to Snowden. And yet, despite all that, I've only heard 9/11 mentioned exactly once since visiting NYC in 2017, and that was Steve Bannon and Giuliani refusing to believe that Mamdani was legitimate. So, yeah, if Trump fades away this could be forgotten in 8 years or so; if this escalates to a war (I'm not confident, but if I had to guess I'd say 10% or so?), then I see it rising to the level of generations.
  - 1718627440 9mo ago
    You are talking about the US, the others do not.
    - ben_w 9mo ago
      I'm saying "never forget" fades. That's a human condition we all share. I mean, I live in Germany these days, and this country absolutely got the multi-generational thing, and I'm from the UK whose empire ditto, but… the UK doesn't spend much time thinking about the Falklands War and even less about the Cod Wars.
      - 1718627440 9mo ago
        Nobody disagreed with that it eventually fades, they were all saying it is going to take decades. The consequence of 9/11 of was mostly TSAs, following the USA into wars and the erosion of privacy at the mention of terrorism. The first and the last are still ongoing and I think the current US admin is still using the latter as a narrative, the second one may come at an end currently, because the USA is trying to use it against its (former) allies. What you describe is called "to historicize an event". The WW1 has been historicized by WW2 (some argue it's the same war). But not even WW2 has been historicized yet (at least in Europe) and it already ended 80 years in the past, so I doubt an atlantic conflict is going to be forgotten in the next few decades. Edit: I originally linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicization, but this does not describes what I mean. It is weird, because the supposed German equivalent does. The German article is about a concept from the science of history, while the English article is about a literature concept.
arw0n 9mo ago
You have to be incredibly naive to give that much credibility to the US system. A lot more than just a switch of parties would be needed. Personally I highly doubt a possible democratic would return a conquered Greenland. And even if it did, it would have to ensure that kind of derailment doesn't happen again. The opposition so far seems to be about as ineffectual as centrist parties across Europe at dealing with the far right.
donkeybeer 9mo ago
As long as the clinically insane trumpie population exists, the USA cannot be trusted.
mdnahas 9mo ago
For Americans, many foreigners use the word “government” where we would say “administration”. So, a “new government” or “the government falls”, would be a “new administration” or “the administration’s party loses the next election”.

mooreds 9mo ago

> It’s also lose-lose for the US. Yes. Ian Bremmer keeps pointing out that if the "law of the jungle" becomes the norm for relations between countries, the USA will not benefit as much as autocracies like China and Russia. See https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TLhz6ZbrMuI https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TLhz6ZbrMuI for a more full-throated explanation from Ian.

codingcodingboy 9mo ago
Not the case if the US joins the autocracies.
- stvltvs 9mo ago
  The US will be worse off as an isolated autocracy.
- rchaud 9mo ago
  Autocracy isn't a switch you can flick. To establish one, you first have to win a protracted civil war, likely between loyalist paramilitary groups like ICE, the standing US Army and regional defense paramilitaries that would spring up. The likely result of this is a stalemate that leads to secession into separate countries.
  - dagss 9mo ago
    Why? Russia didn't have a protracted civil war between 2000-ish and now? Isn't Trump busy replacing US Army leadership with those loyal to him? Why would Army and ICE be on opposite sides? Seems MAGA just have to continue the present course and apply just enough pressure to the election system to keep "winning" half-credibly and autocracy is there in not too many years. I mean they are already past pardoning those attacking congress for not accepting the election result. It is just a gradual process which is well underway, at what point would California and Washington suddenly prop up a militia?
  - s_dev 9mo ago
    >Autocracy isn't a switch you can flick. Plenty of precedents for Autocrats to assume power in legit democracies and seem to flick it handily enough. Hitler, Mussolini, Putin, Erdogan, Orban etc. No battles or violence, just democracies that become autocracies through election.

TrackerFF 9mo ago

Warren Buffett once said: "You can't make a good deal with a bad person" Which is exactly the case as long as Trump is POTUS. There's no good deal to be made for Denmark, Greenland, or Europe in general. Trump is a bad person, and can not be trusted. Any deal that is made will either be altered or voided. And he'll continue to move the goalposts. There are two outcomes with Trump: 1) He tries to bully someone into submission, and keeps coming back for more if successful. 2) He is slapped so hard that he gives up entirely. Unfortunately (2) is a bit shaky these days, as he views the US military as his personal muscle.

deepfriedchokes 9mo ago
Regarding option (2), isn’t SCOTUS supposed to rule on the legality of Trump’s tariffs soon?
- Hamuko 9mo ago
  Are people expecting to SCOTUS rebuff Trump? So far it seems that they're good to go on any Trumpian designs.
  - hrunt 9mo ago
    Yes, people expect SCOTUS to rebuff Trump on the tariffs. [0] Lately SCOTUS has been providing stricter textual interpretations of Constitutional questions. Many of these have aligned with Trump administration arguments based on the power of the executive as outlined in Article II. The text says, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," and, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." One of the key arguments is that Congress can't take that power away from him. For example, Congress can't tell him that he can't fire executive-branch staff, because the executive power rests with him, not with Congress. One thing the Constitution is very clear on, though, is that only Congress can impose tariffs ("The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"). Furthermore, recent rulings of this Court have established the major questions doctrine, which says that even if Congress delegates the specifics of implementing its powers to the Executive branch, that delegation cannot be interpreted broadly. It can't be used to create new broad policies that Congress didn't authorize. Therefore, because the text of the Constitution explicitly grants the right to impose tariffs to Congress /and/ Trump's imposition of tariffs is both very broad and very substantial, many people believe that SCOTUS will deny Trump's tariffs. The case as argued is about Trump's right to issue tariffs under the IEEPA (a law Congress passed to give the President some ability to take economic actions due to international emergencies, which do not explicitly include tariffs), and there is some debate about what a negative ruling would mean for the return of tariffs to merchants who have paid them. Both of those points require careful consideration in the decision. Will the ruling limit itself to just tariffs issued under the IEEPA or to the President's ability to establish tariffs under other laws? If the Court rules against the tariffs, will the government be required to pay people back, and if so, to what extent? It's not surprising that the decision is taking some time to be released. There's a lot of considerations, and every one is a possible point for disagreement by the justices. [0] https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/prediction-market-traders-bet-against-trumps-tariffs-supreme-court-ruling-looms https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/prediction-market-trade...

DoctorOetker 9mo ago

[flagged]

mooreds 9mo ago
It seems there is a path to a referendum? https://www.voanews.com/a/greenland-unveils-draft-constitution-for-future-independence-/7070997.html https://www.voanews.com/a/greenland-unveils-draft-constituti... Here's more on that constitution: https://www.naadsn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/26jan-2023-Greenland-Constit-Commission-Report-Lackenbauer-NAADSN-Policy-Primer.pdf https://www.naadsn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/26jan-2023-...
- DoctorOetker 9mo ago
  It doesn't seem to discuss Trump's "offer". Voting independence from Denmark is different from being given the option to join the United States. As Chomsky would say "whenever there are multiple pictures, the darkest one tends to be closer to the truth". What if natural resources would be more expensive (for both US and EU) to buy if Greenland were independent, than if it were still half-colony of Denmark. Then EU and US would have a common interest in manipulating in the same direction the referendum you referenced (for independence). Both US and EU might have cheaper access to natural resources if the population votes no for independence. Good Cop Bad Cop stuff, to scare the population to stay subjugated (and enjoy imaginary protection from EU against imaginary threat from US).
  - breppp 9mo ago
    unsurprising that Chomsky has a reverse Occam's Razor that assumes the worst in any (western) action
    - DoctorOetker 9mo ago
      his comment was not specific to Western nations, it would apply equally well to asian, african, south american, russian,northern, southern, ... nations, but you are right, he wouldn't treat Western nations with an exception, and that always makes the relevant population feel addressed, and this subjectively feels different, or being picked on with precision, but its just when a population feels addressed.

kurtis_reed 9mo ago

Sure you can buy territory, like the Danish West Indies

Yizahi 9mo ago

But it's not US who is in charge of US, unfortunately. It's Project 2025 who is in charge of US, and it has a vastly different win and lose criteria. For Project 2025 dissolving NATO, UN, WTO and whatever is a win. For Project 2025 weakening dollar is a win. For Project 2025 isolation in the Americas is win. And US is no longer in charge. Congress has voluntarily surrendered its power and others are following the lead. Project 2025 may or may not become future US, we'll see how it goes this year.

duxup 9mo ago

Have they considered giving trump a Eurovision award so that he goes away?

zombot 9mo ago
Humoring his whims only encourages him to come back fore more.

anal_reactor 9mo ago

What you're describing is a Q2 problem. This meeting is about Q1 goals. Please stay on the topic.

zombot 9mo ago

> and hands a propaganda gift to every US adversary. This demonstrates, again, that Trump is the prime domestic enemy of the US. Where are the agencies that are sworn to protect the US against enemies foreign and domestic?

hulitu 9mo ago

> You can’t “buy” a people or their sovereignty especially when they don’t consent Who said they don't consent ? There was no referendum. /s