Karoline Leavitt Flails Trying to Explain Why Trump Needs Greenland
Even the White House press secretary can’t seem to defend Donald Trump’s incessant warmongering.
Karoline Leavitt couldn’t muster a logical explanation for the president’s escalating fixation on Greenland during a press conference Wednesday, vaguely suggesting that acquiring the Danish-controlled territory would be beneficial for national security purposes.
“I’m curious if you could just spell out for the American public what specifically would the U.S. gain by taking control of Greenland that the U.S. doesn’t already have access to right now?” asked a reporter, highlighting myriad existing treaties that effectively give the United States unfettered access to Greenland as a military base.
“Um—more control over the Arctic region,” Leavitt stuttered. “And ensuring that China and Russia and our adversaries cannot continue their aggression in this very important and strategic region. And there would be many other benefits as well that, again, the president and his national security team are currently talking about.”
Reporter: There are treaties that give the US access to construct and maintain military bases there. What specifically would the US gain by taking control of Greenland that the US doesn't already have access to now?
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 7, 2026
Leavitt: Um… more control over the arctic region pic.twitter.com/Mv4EdwLSct
In the immediate aftermath of Trump’s bombardment of Venezuela for oil, America’s European allies have weighed whether the U.S. president’s jabs at annexing Greenland—another major international oil resource—actually carried weight. Of particular concern were repeat comments made by the president in which Trump declared he would use “military force” to secure the Arctic island for U.S. interests.
Fears about Trump’s militaristic dreams for Greenland were, in part, rejuvenated by Leavitt herself during the same press briefing, when she refused to rule out the possibility of using U.S. troops to seize the island.
“Past presidents and past leaders have often ruled things out, they’ve often been very open about ruling things in and basically broadcasting their foreign policy strategy to the rest of the world. Not just to our allies but, most egregiously, to our adversaries,” Leavitt said. “That’s not something our president does.
“But I will just say that the president’s first option, always, has been diplomacy,” Leavitt continued, before pointing her finger to the situation in Venezuela. “And look at what happened.”