Trump DEFEATED in ultimate HUMILIATION

Congresswoman Jacobs asserts that Trump's interest in annexing Greenland was purely a 'vanity project.' She explains that the US would gain nothing strategically that was not already available through existing treaties with Denmark. Furthermore, such an acquisition would incur significant financial burdens (Denmark subsidizes Greenland by $1 billion annually) and add to US Arctic security responsibilities without adequate current investment in Alaska's Arctic needs.

The guest states, 'It was 100% a vanity project; there is literally nothing that we could will be getting now that we couldn't have gotten under existing treaties.' She adds that Denmark subsidizes Greenland by 'about a billion dollars a year that's a billion dollars we would have had to take on.'

The Greenland proposal and subsequent diplomatic friction caused profound damage to US alliances, particularly with Denmark and across Europe. Jacobs notes that Danish and Greenlandic officials were 'baffled' by US demands and that polling showed a dramatic drop in Danish perception of the US as an important ally. This erosion of trust makes it difficult for other nations to commit to long-term agreements with the US, fearing policy reversals with changes in administration.

Jacobs mentions, 'the biggest protest in Danish history was while we were there' and 'prior to all of this 80% of Danes thought that the United States was an important ally. Now only single digits level of Danish people think that we are an important ally.' She also states, 'I don't think anyone in the world will agree to make a deal with the United States that's longer than four years because they just don't believe that any deal will actually be implemented longer than four years.'

The host and guest discuss how US erraticism on the global stage, particularly alienating allies, directly contradicts Republican goals of containing China. By undermining trust and stability, the US inadvertently creates opportunities for China to step in as a more reliable trade and security partner, as exemplified by Canada dropping tariffs on Chinese EVs.

The host notes, 'by alienating ourselves on the global stage, all we're doing is creating openings that China's perfectly content to fill.' Jacobs confirms, 'China has said that we are an unreliable ally, an unreliable partner. That has been their main line of attack against us. And we are feeding right into that idea.'

Trump's rationale for wanting to acquire Greenland—to protect it from Russia or China—reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of NATO. Jacobs explains that NATO's core principle is collective defense, meaning an attack on Greenland (a Danish territory) would trigger a response from the entire alliance, rendering US ownership unnecessary for its protection.

Jacobs states, 'Donald Trump doesn't care about, believe in, or understand NATO. Because he, I think, truly believes that the only way the US would protect Greenland is if we owned Greenland. Not recognizing that the whole point of NATO is that if Greenland were to be attacked or invaded by Russia or China, the entire NATO alliance would come to its defense.'