The United States continues to consider the possibility of a military seizure of Greenland, according to Reuters, a fact causing panic in Congress as fears mount over the initiation of impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump. As the agency reports, the prospect of using military force on the island has "sown confusion and concern" in Washington and among US allies. Republican politicians fear that any military intervention in Greenland could trigger an impeachment process against the US President.
The United States has not abandoned plans for a military takeover of Greenland—an autonomous territory of Denmark, Reuters writes. At the same time, Donald Trump is facing a negative climate domestically due to ICE actions in Minneapolis.
Anxiety in Congress and panic phone calls
"According to two sources familiar with the situation, the administration [of US President Donald Trump] appears to be pushing once again for a large-scale military operation without prior consultation with Congress," the report states. According to the agency, the possibility of using force in Greenland "caused confusion and concern in Washington and among US allies," while Republican lawmakers "began to express intense concern." A Reuters source stated that legislators made phone calls to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and high-ranking White House officials, expressing their concerns and "advising the administration not to proceed with further actions."
As Reuters notes, some Republicans fear that any military invasion of Greenland could lead to the start of Trump's impeachment process. However, according to two agency sources close to the White House, military operations against the island "were never seriously considered."
The "Golden Dome" plan
On January 21, Trump, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, stated that he does not intend to use military force to gain control of Greenland. According to him, Washington intends to start negotiations for the purchase of the Danish island, which he considers necessary for the development of the "Golden Dome" missile defense system.
The following day, Trump announced that he had a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, during which the basis of a future agreement for Greenland and the entire Arctic region was formed. According to Axios, the plan provides for the maintenance of Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland and the updating of the 1951 defense agreement. The new framework would allow the US to create military bases and "defense zones" if NATO deems it necessary.
Denmark's "calm determination"
In the opinion of the New York Times, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen managed to contain Trump's pressure and prevent the transfer of Greenland under American control. "There is no doubt that Frederiksen's carefully structured stance helped block Trump from achieving what he truly wanted. For months, Frederiksen played a dangerous game of brinkmanship with Trump and seems to have succeeded—at least for now," the newspaper writes.
The newspaper underlines that "calm determination rather than flattery" distinguished Frederiksen from other European leaders in their relationship with Trump, a fact that made her "extremely popular within the country." "I am not starting a conflict. I am trying to resolve a conflict," she stated. On January 22, Frederiksen emphasized that Copenhagen is ready to discuss Arctic security issues with Washington but will not accept a violation of its "red lines" regarding Greenland. Denmark is a sovereign state, and this is not up for negotiation, she added.
"Strategic control priority"
American jurisdiction "will certainly be imposed" on Greenland, estimates military analyst Alexander Stepanov of RANEPA’s Institute of Law and National Security. "Greenland is a priority platform for them. They want no third-party involvement, no European control, no official Danish presence," he stated in an interview with TASS.
Stepanov did not rule out the possibility that the US plans to develop a logistics base for its nuclear submarine fleet in Greenland, as well as the installation of land-based infrastructure for the "Golden Dome." As he emphasized, military objectives have absolute priority. "The Arctic is the region where the conflict will peak in the second half of the 21st century, and we already see all the signs of maximum Western military buildup under US leadership," he concluded.
Negative climate and chaos in Minneapolis due to ICE
The political situation for Donald Trump is becoming increasingly precarious as two fatal incidents—involving alleged involvement of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Minneapolis—have sparked a wave of public outcry, mass protests, and sharp political reactions in the United States. Over the last month, two American citizens were killed by gunfire from federal immigration agents during extensive law enforcement operations in the city, leading to widespread social anger and questioning of federal tactics.
The political cost for Trump
The Trump administration maintains that the agents acted lawfully under conditions of self-defense, a position that has sparked intense reactions. Trump publicly supported the actions of ICE and the Border Patrol on social media, accusing local officials of inciting "insurrection" instead of defending federal agents.
However, numerous politicians and public polls show that a significant portion of Americans consider ICE tactics excessively harsh, with several advocating for the abolition of the agency itself following the Minneapolis incidents. Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, demanded that federal agents withdraw from the state and lashed out against the increase of their presence, characterizing the operations as "untrained" and dangerous. At the same time, politicians such as Kathy Hochul, Governor of New York, called for the resignation or even the removal of Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, as well as the head of the Border Patrol, amid behaviors that many criticize as excessive use of force.
Indications of political rift in Congress
Conflicts are also manifesting in Congress, where Democrats have threatened to block funding bills that include appropriations for ICE, demanding significant reforms and increased oversight of federal agents. At the same time, even some Republicans are calling for a deeper investigation into immigration enforcement tactics following the shootings, suggesting that Trump's support for the hardline is not absolute within his own party.
How Trump's political capital is affected
Trump's steadfast support for ICE operations—even after videos and mobilizations indicating asymmetric use of force—intensifies the divisive image of his administration. While the hard stance toward illegal immigration reinforces Trump's profile among a portion of his electoral base, the intense dissatisfaction of citizens, local officials, and lawmakers creates a broad political rift that could damage the cohesion of support for his presidency.
The case in Minneapolis now functions as a divisive point where the national agenda for security and immigration clashes with demands for accountability and human rights, with unpredictable consequences for Trump's political survival ahead of future electoral contests.
What is the process for impeaching a US President?
The initiation of impeachment does not automatically mean removal from office. It involves charges or a "formal call to trial" against the President (or other federal officials) for serious misconduct, such as:
Treason, Bribery, Other "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" is intentionally broad, leaving the interpretation of acts considered serious misconduct to Congress.
2. Step 1: Impeachment proposal in the House of Representatives
The House of Representatives has the exclusive authority to start the impeachment process. Usually, the process begins with an investigation by the Judiciary Committee, which examines evidence and drafts charges. Then, the House votes on one or more Articles of Impeachment. A simple majority (50%+1 of members present) is required to approve an article. If approved, the President is considered "impeached," and the process moves to the Senate.
3. Step 2: Trial in the Senate
The US Senate conducts the impeachment trial. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides if the President is on trial. Senators act as a large body of judges and jurors. During the trial, the House is represented by "Impeachment Managers" who present the evidence. The President can defend himself or have lawyers.
4. Step 3: Vote in the Senate
The Senate votes for conviction or acquittal. At least a 2/3 majority (67 out of 100 senators) is required for conviction.
If convicted:
-
The President is immediately removed from office.
-
The Senate may also decide to disqualify the President from future public office (rarely applied).
If the 2/3 threshold is not reached, the President remains in office.
5. Historical examples
Only three US Presidents have undergone a formal impeachment process:
-
Andrew Johnson (1868) – acquitted by one vote in the Senate.
-
Bill Clinton (1998) – acquitted.
-
Donald Trump (2019 and 2021) – acquitted in both cases.
No US President has been removed through impeachment to date.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών