Sen. James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma, rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s military takeover threat against Greenland on Sunday, stating that the US would not attack another nation. We’re not like that.
Lankford added, “We’ve seen this over how he’s done negotiations, whether it be for real estate or whether he served as a great president just four years ago.” Trump speaks quite strongly on a variety of topics.
Trump has expressed a renewed interest in annexing Greenland in recent weeks, which coincides with Lankford’s remarks.
“The United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity for purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World,” Trump stated in a statement last month announcing his choice to be ambassador to Denmark.
Days later, in a post on TruthSocial on Christmas Day, the president-elect spoke to the people of Greenland, which the United States needs for national security reasons. They want the United States to be there, and we will!
The president-elect implied last week during a press conference in Florida that he would even consider using military force to seize control of Greenland and the Panama Canal.
He went on to say that we require them for financial stability.
The president has been very explicit, to be honest, Lankford stated on Sunday. As president, he prevented American forces from going to war. He wants to be able to safeguard America’s national security, which includes our economic security and future, but he is not interested in starting a war or increasing the number of American soldiers.
Presidents have carried out extensive terrorist operations under the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force, or AUMFs, which were passed more than 20 years ago in response to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, notwithstanding Lankford’s claim that Trump would not attempt to invade Greenland. The use of military force against those responsible for the 2001 attack and the ongoing threat presented by Iraq has mostly been justified by those authorizations.
Trump’s supporters have used Russia’s threats to national security as an excuse for acquiring Greenland.
Last week, Mike Waltz, Trump’s new national security adviser, told Fox News that the Arctic is the reason for Trump’s interest in Greenland.
With more than 60 icebreakers, some of which are nuclear-powered, Russia is attempting to dominate the Arctic, according to Waltz.
Vice President-elect JD Vance stated in an interview on Fox News Sunday that the United States does not have to employ military action to defend Greenland, but it must ensure that Greenland is adequately maintained from an American security standpoint.
According to Vance, the Danish government, which is currently in charge, has not done a sufficient job of securing Greenland.
According to Vance, there is a genuine chance for us to assume leadership, safeguard American security, and see to it that those amazing natural resources are utilized. And Donald Trump is skilled at it. I believe there is a deal to be made in Greenland, and he is skilled at closing transactions.
For the first time, Lankford also stated on Meet the Press that he would support former Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s choice for director of national intelligence.
Lankford responded, “I am,” to moderator Kristen Welker’s question about whether he agreed with Gabbard. This implied that he was persuaded by Gabbard’s recent endorsement of Section 702, an intelligence collection method that she had continuously opposed during her time in Congress.
For me, that was a really significant aspect. She voted against 702 authority, of course. However, Lankford stated that when she publicly stated, “Hey, this is something I’m going to stand for,” she was referring to the Office of National Intelligence’s responsibility to ensure that we are truly keeping an eye out for potential attacks and preventing them before they materialize.