US Rep. Mike Turner's defense of President Trump's recent threat to use tariffs to secure Greenland as a US territory has raised eyebrows among NATO allies and the American public. The Republican congressman from Ohio, who heads the US delegation to NATO's Parliamentary Assembly, acknowledged that while there are national security issues at play in the Arctic region, invoking military force to seize territory is not an authorized move.
According to Turner, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution gives Congress international trade authority, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act delegates some sanctions power to the president. However, the congressman argues that Trump's actions would be unconstitutional, as tariffs cannot be imposed solely for the purpose of acquiring land from other nations.
Turner emphasized that a military presence in Greenland is necessary for national security, citing its strategic importance in the Arctic region. He also pointed out that seven NATO allies with which the US has defense partnerships are among those subject to potential tariffs, highlighting the severity of the situation.
Critics have likened Trump's approach to the art of chess, rather than a genuine attempt at diplomacy. Critics argue that such actions could destabilize the strongest coalition of democracies in the world and benefit Russia, whose interests align with Trump's plans for Greenland.
Turner admitted that while some allies share his concerns about the President's strategy, others see it as an attempt to negotiate with Greenlanders rather than a threat. He emphasized that enhanced security requires engagement, but presidential authority does not translate into law.
The reaction from the American public has been overwhelmingly negative, with 70% of respondents disapproving of using funds to buy Greenland and 86% rejecting the idea of military force being used to take it over.
According to Turner, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution gives Congress international trade authority, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act delegates some sanctions power to the president. However, the congressman argues that Trump's actions would be unconstitutional, as tariffs cannot be imposed solely for the purpose of acquiring land from other nations.
Turner emphasized that a military presence in Greenland is necessary for national security, citing its strategic importance in the Arctic region. He also pointed out that seven NATO allies with which the US has defense partnerships are among those subject to potential tariffs, highlighting the severity of the situation.
Critics have likened Trump's approach to the art of chess, rather than a genuine attempt at diplomacy. Critics argue that such actions could destabilize the strongest coalition of democracies in the world and benefit Russia, whose interests align with Trump's plans for Greenland.
Turner admitted that while some allies share his concerns about the President's strategy, others see it as an attempt to negotiate with Greenlanders rather than a threat. He emphasized that enhanced security requires engagement, but presidential authority does not translate into law.
The reaction from the American public has been overwhelmingly negative, with 70% of respondents disapproving of using funds to buy Greenland and 86% rejecting the idea of military force being used to take it over.
. Like, Trump thinks he can just strong-arm Greenland into becoming a US territory? Newsflash: that's not how diplomacy works, dude 
. Turner's defense is weak sauce, imo - even if Congress does have some trade authority, tariffs aren't the answer to acquiring land, especially when it could destabilize NATO and give Russia an upper hand 
.
. Meanwhile, Greenlanders are just over here like "Uh, what's good with you guys?" 
. The public is totally right to be shook by this whole thing - it's time for Trump to chill and focus on actual diplomacy instead of trying to pull off some shady chess move 
.
u guys gotta chill! what's with all the drama over US Rep. Mike Turner trying to justify Trump's weird Greenland move? 
like, i get that tariffs are a big deal, but using them to try and grab land from another country? cmon! 
and let's be real, Russia is low-key loving this whole situation, btw 
I mean, think about it... the fact that Trump is even considering buying Greenland as a way to get around Congress is kinda genius? I know it sounds crazy, but he's essentially using the economy as leverage to try and get what he wants! It's like a huge game of poker, where tariffs are the high-stakes bet 
But hey, maybe this whole thing will spark some much-needed conversation about diplomacy vs. aggression? 
It just feels like a whole lot of drama.
turner says Congress has international trade authority and all, but still... it seems kinda extreme to me 
what if Russia gets all up in our grill about this?! 
seriously though, Turner's defense of this move is really weak. i mean, he's saying Article One gives Congress trade authority, but doesn't see how that justifies using tariffs to take over another country? 
. it's like, we have real issues at home and Trump's over here chasing some fictional dream of making us great again. 
. Trump's all about flexing his muscles, trying to make America great again by any means necessary, but honestly, it's just gonna lead to more problems down the line 
. And don't even get me started on the reaction from NATO allies – they're like, "Uh, what's going on here?" 
.
. And now Greenland is just... well, it's just a whole mess 
. 70% of people don't want to spend their tax dollars on buying an island? Yeah, I can get behind that 
. It's like, we've got enough problems on our plate already 
nato should be all about diplomacy not military might 
The Americans are so serious about their national security, but then they try to muscle in on another country's territory and people are like "Uh, no thanks!" 
It's all good that Rep. Turner is trying to justify what Trump did, but I think he's just trying to save face now 
. we can't just let other countries do whatever they want and then get upset when the usa does the same thing 
. but also, lets not forget that its not like trump wants to actually invade or anything 
.
i feel like trump's whole thing on greenland is a masterclass in how NOT to handle geopolitics 
. And honestly, I'm with the 70% who are straight up disapproving of using funds to buy Greenland 
. It's time for some real diplomacy and compromise, not just military posturing and tantrums 
.
. I'm not buying it.