Trump Weighs Military Options for Greenland Acquisition President Donald Trump signaled that the United States is evaluating a spectrum of strategies to obtain Greenland, including the possible use of military force, according to White House insiders and statements from Stephen Miller [1][2]. The consideration of forceful acquisition has revived memories of the 2019 proposal and now appears tied to broader strategic calculations in the post‑Cold War era. Analysts note that such a posture marks a shift from purely diplomatic overtures to a hard‑line power play.

European Allies Warn Alliance Risks Denmark’s prime minister warned that any U.S. attack on Greenland, a NATO member, would halt the alliance’s security framework, echoing broader European anxiety about Washington’s intentions [1][2]. A joint declaration from France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Denmark reaffirmed Greenland’s sovereignty and condemned unilateral moves, highlighting limited leverage Europe possesses while relying on U.S. deterrence against Russia [2][1]. The statements underscore how the Greenland issue threatens cohesion of NATO at a time when the alliance is focused on Ukraine commitments.

Trump Reaffirms Unconditional NATO Support While Boasting Military Gains In a Truth Social post, Trump asserted that the United States will always stand by NATO even if allies fail to reciprocate, framing his stance as essential to global deterrence [2]. He also claimed credit for rebuilding the U.S. military, pushing NATO members toward a 5 % of GDP defense‑spending target by 2035, and preventing further Russian advances in Ukraine, narratives absent from the CNN report [2]. CNN experts, however, urged non‑military measures to raise the political cost of any unilateral U.S. action, suggesting diplomatic channels remain viable [1].

Recent U.S. Actions Heighten Fears of Aggressive Territorial Moves Reports of a U.S. military operation aimed at Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro this month have intensified concerns that Washington might pursue Greenland with force under the guise of national security [2]. While CNN did not mention the Venezuela operation, it highlighted analysts’ recommendations for economic and diplomatic deterrence to avoid a military showdown over Greenland [1]. The divergence illustrates differing media focus: Yonhap emphasizes concrete U.S. actions, whereas CNN concentrates on alliance‑level strategic assessments.