Donald Trump’s campaign to bring Greenland under United States control has often been dismissed as bluster. That is a mistake. Behind the language of a property deal lies a serious attempt to revive an old imperial principle: that Washington may decide the political and economic future of the entire Western Hemisphere. Greenland, strategically placed between North America and Europe, has become a test of that claim – and of whether the sovereignty of a small Indigenous nation counts when it conflicts with the ambitions of a great power.

Trump floated buying Greenland during his first presidency in 2019. After his re-election, the proposal became more aggressive. In December 2024 he declared US “ownership and control” of Greenland as an “absolute necessity.” On January 7, 2025, he refused to rule out military or economic coercion against Greenland and the Panama Canal, saying, “We need Greenland for national security purposes.” He subsequently insisted that the United States would obtain the island “one way or the other.” The claim mixed several arguments: Greenland is vital to missile defense, Russia and China threaten the Arctic, Greenland’s rare-earth deposits are strategically valuable, and Greenlanders would supposedly welcome US rule.

The last claim was demonstrably false. A January 2025 survey conducted in both Greenlandic and Danish found that 85% of Greenland’s population opposed leaving the Danish realm to join the United States, while only 6% supported it. Yet the same poll showed a majority favoring eventual independence. That distinction is central. Greenlanders’ desire to end Danish colonial tutelage cannot be converted into consent to US annexation.

A military relationship without annexation

The security case for US ownership is misleading because Washington already enjoys extensive military rights in Greenland. The relationship began during the Second World War. With Denmark occupied by Nazi Germany, its ambassador in Washington signed a 1941 agreement permitting the United States to defend Greenland and construct facilities there. Denmark sought a US withdrawal after the war, but Cold War strategy prevailed.

The 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement, concluded under the North Atlantic Treaty, authorized the United States to establish and operate “defense areas.” It enabled the rapid construction of Thule Air Base – renamed Pituffik Space Base in 2023 – at a location ideal for the shortest air and missile routes between the Soviet Union and North America. At its Cold War height, the US operated numerous installations across Greenland. Today Pituffik, Washington’s northernmost military base, performs missile-warning, missile-defense and space-surveillance functions.

The agreement offers Washington wide operational freedom. A 2004 amendment – the Igaliku Agreement – recognized Greenland’s Home Rule government, made Pituffik the sole existing defense area, and required consultation before significant changes or the creation of new defense areas. It also established cooperation on economic, technical, and environmental issues. In other words, if the United States believes more radar, ports, airfields or personnel are necessary, a legal mechanism already exists to negotiate them with Denmark and Greenland. Sovereignty is, therefore, not a military requirement.

The history of the bases also explains why “security” is not a neutral word in Greenland. In 1953, Danish authorities ordered 116 Inughuit – 27 families – to leave the newly established Qaanaaq, while the others relocated to settlements elsewhere in the district. Camp Century was constructed beneath the ice in 1959-60 and was connected with the secret Project Iceworm proposal for an extensive network of nuclear-missile launch sites.

In 1968, a US B-52 carrying four hydrogen bombs crashed on the sea ice at Thule Air Base, causing plutonium and other contamination. The accident exposed the inconsistency between Denmark’s publicly declared policy against nuclear weapons on Danish territory in peacetime and the Danish government’s secret permissions for the US to store nuclear weapons in Greenland. Abandoned installations left fuel, waste and other pollution. Greenlandic reporting continues to question who will pay for future clean-ups. The military relationship protected US strategic interests while its human and environmental costs were disproportionately borne by Greenlanders.

Greenland ceased formally to be a colony in 1953, gained Home Rule in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009. The Self-Government Act recognizes Greenlanders as a people entitled to self-determination and provides a path to independence. Washington reopened its Nuuk consulate in 2020, and cooperation grew in trade, education, mining, and research. Greenland’s governments (from Kuupik Kleist to Jens-Frederik Nielsen) have welcomed economic ties with Washington, but reject the tendency of Washington to want more and more from the island for its military needs.

From Monroe to Donroe

Trump’s Greenland demand belongs to a wider hemispheric policy. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 warned European powers against new colonial intervention in the Americas. Presented as anti-colonial, it evolved into a claim of US supremacy. Theodore Roosevelt’s 1904 corollary asserted a right of intervention in Latin America, furnishing ideological cover for occupations, regime changes, and control over strategic assets.

Trump’s supporters rechristened its latest version the “Donroe Doctrine.” The label links pressure on Greenland with demands concerning the Panama Canal, threats against Cuba and Colombia, claims over Canada, and US intervention in Venezuela. In late 2025, the White House formally proclaimed a Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, asserting US leadership throughout “our hemisphere.” Greenland is swept into this sphere because it is geographically part of North America, even though it is politically tied to Denmark and its Inuit people possess their own right of self-determination. This doctrine contains a revealing contradiction. Trump denounces European control of Greenland as an anachronism while demanding that the island be transferred to the United States. Colonialism is not abolished; the proposed colonizer merely changes. Trump’s references to minerals, sea routes, and military geography reduce Greenland to an asset and its 56,000 people to an obstacle in a transaction between powers.

A crisis inside the Western alliance

Trump’s threats produced an extraordinary rupture between the United States and Europe. Denmark is not an adversary, but a NATO ally whose troops fought alongside US soldiers in Afghanistan. A threat to seize territory from one ally by force attacks the premise of the alliance itself. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that a US attack on another NATO country would bring the post-war security order to an end. European governments rallied behind the principle that borders cannot be changed by coercion, a principle they invoke against Russia in Ukraine.

The crisis exposed Europe’s dependency. NATO has no comfortable procedure for defending one member against its strongest member. European states rely heavily on US military power while being asked to resist US coercion. Copenhagen responded with careful diplomacy, greater Arctic military spending, and insistence that decisions belong to Greenland and Denmark. France, Germany, the Nordic states, and the European Union expressed solidarity, but the episode sharpened calls for European strategic autonomy. It also damaged Washington’s claim to lead an alliance of democracies against authoritarian revisionism.

On September 18, 2026, Trump announced an emerging trilateral security agreement after months of negotiation, claiming “permanent control” over Greenland’s security. Danish and Greenlandic leaders described it more narrowly: an expansion of US military cooperation that preserves sovereignty and Greenlandic self-determination. The full text remains to be signed and approved. If their account holds, the outcome confirms what was apparent from the beginning: the United States could obtain additional security arrangements without owning Greenland. Yet the pressure that preceded the deal remains a warning about negotiations conducted under threats.

Greenland speaks for itself

Greenland’s response has combined rejection, unity, and political complexity. Kalaallit Nunaat – the Greenlandic name for the country – became the center of declarations that Greenland belongs to its people and is not for sale. In March 2025, large demonstrations in Nuuk, Sisimiut, and Qaanaaq marched under the red-and-white Erfalasorput flag. Protesters told Trump to respect Inuit, their country, and their nationality. Greenland’s political parties, despite deep disagreements over the speed and economic terms of independence, jointly condemned external pressure. Parliament prohibited foreign and anonymous political donations, explicitly defending the integrity of Greenlandic democracy amid great-power interest.

Danish colonialism left profound injuries: forced assimilation, social engineering, unequal development, and decisions taken in Copenhagen about Greenlandic land and people (the entire fourth season of the popular television drama, Borgen, in 2022 centered on a conflict between Copenhagen and Nuuk about the discovery of a new oil field with a China and Russia angle). Many Greenlanders want independence, and some see heightened US interest as leverage for investment and a more equal relationship with Denmark.

Greenland reveals the real content of the Donroe Doctrine: a twenty-first-century claim that geography gives Washington superior rights over neighboring peoples. The answer from Greenland is equally modern and universal. Strategic location does not cancel popular sovereignty, minerals do not erase nationhood, and no great power acquires a country merely by declaring that it needs one.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian and journalist. He is the author of forty books, including Washington Bullets, Red Star Over the Third World, The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World, The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South, and How the International Monetary Fund Suffocates Africa, written with Grieve Chelwa. He is the executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, the chief correspondent for Globetrotter, and the chief editor of LeftWord Books (New Delhi). He also appeared in the films Shadow World (2016) and Two Meetings (2017).

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

For a brief time, Sacha Jafri was both the creator of the world’s largest painting and one of the world’s most expensive living artists, after his 17,000‑square‑foot work The Journey of Humanity was theatrically “sold” for $62 million at a Dubai charity auction. The buyer, French “crypto billionaire” André Abdoune, never paid a cent and, given his history as a serial fraudster, almost certainly never will—meaning no money ever reached the charities that were promised the proceeds. So what was the real story: a giant painting, or a giant scam?

Many of Jafri’s other claims do not stand up to scrutiny. He is often touted as an artist whose work sells in the millions, but publicly available commercial auction records are more modest. His most expensive painting before The Journey Of Humanity was a piece called Dance of the Midnight Samurai, which sold in 2019 for approximately $70,000. The previous year, another work, Dreamscape II, went unsold at two auctions, before eventually being acquired for $893. Newspaper articles document purchases by Kevin Spacey and Guy Ritchie, but there are no reports of sales to Bill Gates, Leonardo DiCaprio, Barack Obama or Bill Clinton. No pictures exist of their red-printed hands.

A coalition of Democratic states and Paramount reached a settlement in a lawsuit against its proposed $111 billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery on Monday, paving the way for one of the largest media mergers in history — and a massive consolidation of power over a huge swath of the entertainment and news industries under the conservative billionaire Ellison family.

The antitrust lawsuit was the last major obstacle for the deal, which has already been blessed by the Trump administration. Attorneys general from 12 states had sued to block the merger, which leading California Attorney General Rob Bonta had called “unlawful,” amid a flurry of antitrust concerns from prominent Hollywood figures and press freedom groups. The Writers Guild of America’s (WGA) lawsuit against the merger was also settled on Monday, with the union saying that its members could not afford to continue the legal battle on their own.

The merger will grant widespread power to a company that would effectively control CNN; CBS News; and, in all, roughly 30 percent of wide-release theatrical film distribution and basic cable channel licensing. It amounts to roughly 20 percent of Americans’ television watching time — all conglomerated under the leadership of Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison. David Ellison is a major ally to Trump and son of Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, who has personally donated millions to Israel’s military; Paramount had once dubiously suggested that opposition to the merger was a result of antisemitism.

David Ellison, who thanked California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) in his statement celebrating the deal, has said that the merger is expected to go through in two weeks. Pro-Israel David Zaslav, the president of Warner Brothers Discovery — an entity that’s a conglomerate on its own, formed as a result of several other contentious mergers — is slated to receive $660 million from the merger, which would likely make him a billionaire.

Under the settlement, the newly formed megacorporation will be obligated to comply with several provisions, including the theatrical release of 30 films a year (something Paramount already independently pledged to do last year); a requirement for separate negotiations for cable channel distribution; management of two historic production lots; and an apparent commitment to domestic filmmaking.

The deal also includes a supposed commitment to a “News Editorial Independence Board” for the management of CNN and CBS, which will comprise of former or current journalists who are hand-picked by the conglomerate’s board of directors. News analysts and advocates have already cast doubt on the idea that the board will be effective, however, as past efforts to form similar such structures have failed.

David Ellison has already demonstrated a willingness to steer the news toward the right wing in his appointment of right-wing media figure Bari Weiss as CBS’s editor-in-chief last year. Meanwhile, press freedom advocates on Monday also urged David Ellison to oppose Trump’s recent ban on CNN in the press pool, noting his silence on the issue despite his stated commitments to press freedom.

Some of the world’s most repressive regimes will have a say at the company, too. The settlement comes just days after the Federal Communications Commission approved Paramount Skydance’s plan to allow the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates to have a 49.5 percent equity stake in the newly merged company.

The deal immediately faced a deluge of criticism after it was announced on Monday, with critics saying that it will have “devastating” results for the nation’s media landscape and press freedom at a time of massive repression under the Trump administration.

“Today, billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top,” said Alvaro Bedoya, a senior advisor for the American Economic Liberties Project. “As a result, a billionaire media conglomerate closely allied with the president will soon own one of its closest rivals, including some of the nation’s most critical news outlets.”

Over 5,000 filmmakers, documentarians, and other movie and television professionals signed a letter in April stating their opposition, including prominent directors and actors, under the umbrella of a group called the Block the Merger coalition. The coalition said that their members “vehemently oppose” the agreement on Monday.

“This is a bad deal for the future of film, entertainment, independent journalism, and a strong democracy in this country,” the group said. “We are disappointed and angry that the interests of average Americans have been trampled to benefit oligarch billionaires.”

The settlement comes despite experts saying that the states had a chance at blocking the merger, having secured a pause by a judge earlier this year.

“The Paramount/Warner Brothers merger seems facially illegal,” said Lina Khan, former Federal Trade Commission chair and leading antitrust expert, in a statement on Sunday. Khan noted that the lawsuit against it was strong, meaning it had a chance of succeeding.

However, she said, “[i]t’s troubling to hear that the states may now settle for behavioral remedies, allowing the deal to go through subject to various promises from the firms. Behavioral remedies routinely fail, and the stakes here are particularly high given that a strong democracy requires open markets for sound journalism and creative expression.”

Depuis le 31 août 2026, le centre hospitalier de Condom (Gers) n’a plus de service de médecine générale. Vingt lits fermés faute de médecin titulaire. L’Agence régionale de santé (ARS) d’Occitanie a prolongé une suspension temporaire "jusqu’à nouvel ordre".

Le 20 septembre, le conseil municipal a voté une motion de soutien aux personnels, s’opposant à cette fermeture de fait et exigeant une réouverture pérenne. Il a saisi l’ARS... c’est tout ce que la commune peut faire.

Une fermeture devenue indéfinie

Le service de médecine générale du centre hospitalier de Condom devait déjà composer avec des interruptions temporaires. Durant deux ans, des médecins intérimaires se sont succédé sans permettre de stabiliser les effectifs. Début septembre, même un remplacement prévu a été annulé à la dernière minute, rendant impossible la continuité des soins. Les derniers patients ont alors été orientés vers d’autres structures.

Motion de soutien au service médecine - Gers - Condom - Le Petit Journal

Depuis le 31 août 2026, le service de médecine du centre hospitalier de Condom est fermé faute de médecin. Cette Lire la suite

Le directeur départemental de l’ARS, Frédéric Lopez, reconnaît que le service de vingt lits connaissait des difficultés récurrentes. Les urgentistes de Condom, déjà mobilisés le soir et le week-end, avaient été sollicités pour assurer la continuité. Mais cette organisation n’était pas tenable durablement. Selon l’ARS, aucune date de réouverture ne peut aujourd’hui être annoncée. Malgré le coût élevé des médecins intérimaires, calculé en milliers d’euros par vacation, l’ARS estime que l’absence d’activité coûte encore davantage à l’établissement. La fermeture ne constitue donc même pas une économie évidente.

Quand l’administration suspend sans fermer

Le conseil municipal, dans sa motion du 20 septembre, demande une réouverture « rapide et pérenne » et saisit officiellement l'ARS. Mais une motion municipale n'a aucune force contraignante face à une agence régionale de santé qui répond à une tutelle parisienne, elle-même arbitrée par des enveloppes budgétaires nationales. Les élus et les personnels réclament des réponses alors que le territoire de la Ténarèze dépend de cet établissement de proximité.

Val de Briey : les urgences ferment encore cette nuit, après onze jours de fermeture en août

À Val de Briey, les urgences de l’hôpital Maillot ferment une nouvelle fois leurs portes, cette fois du 9 septembre à 20 heures au 10 septembre à 9 heures. Après onze jours de fermeture consécutifs en août, cette succession de suspensions pose une question simple : comment un service d’

Cette fermeture le rapport de force entre une administration centrale et des territoires ruraux dépossédés de toute capacité de décision. Les communes paient le prix d’une organisation sanitaire qui concentre les moyens ailleurs et laisse les petites structures à la merci d’un recrutement national défaillant. Pendant que l’ARS parle de sécurité et de pérennité, les patients du Gers perdent un service de proximité sans que quiconque ait réellement tranché devant eux.

Em Castro Marim a Câmara Municipal foi visitar o traçado da Rede Rega da Várzea de Odeleite, que estará em testes no próximo mês de Outubro, depois de décadas à espera e uma conturbada obra, assumida pelo município

O Município de Castro Marim realizou recentemente uma visita técnica ao terreno para acompanhar o progresso de duas infraestruturas hídricas decisivas para o futuro do concelho e para a sustentabilidade da agricultura local.

A comitiva municipal esteve a inspecionar o traçado da Rede de Rega da Várzea de Odeleite. Este projeto, aguardado há décadas pela população e pelos produtores locais, entra finalmente na sua fase final de concretização. Após um processo complexo e uma empreitada conturbada — que o próprio Município assumiu para garantir a sua conclusão —, o sistema estará em fase de testes já no próximo mês de outubro. O arranque deste regadio representa uma conquista histórica para o concelho, permitindo otimizar o aproveitamento da água, apoiar os agricultores e revitalizar a economia rural da Várzea de Odeleite.

No âmbito desta mesma deslocação, a comitiva visitou a localidade da Tenência para observar no terreno os locais onde está prevista a implantação do paredão da futura Barragem da Foupana. Esta infraestrutura estratégica é considerada fundamental para reforçar a resiliência hídrica e o armazenamento de água no Algarve.

O processo da Barragem da Foupana encontra-se atualmente numa fase determinante, estando em discussão pública até ao próximo dia 16 de outubro. O Município de Castro Marim sublinha a importância da participação de toda a comunidade, agricultores e entidades locais nesta consulta pública, garantindo que as necessidades do concelho e da região sejam devidamente acauteladas.

Com a entrada em testes da Rede de Rega de Odeleite e o avanço do projeto da Barragem da Foupana, Castro Marim reafirma o seu compromisso direto e empenho na gestão inteligente da água, no combate à escassez hídrica e na valorização do seu território.

Even as the Euro-American stellionate collapses under its own weight and two-faced diplomacy signs its own bankruptcy, at the same time, Africa is charting its own paths to sovereignty beyond the impasse of hybrid partnerships. Since time immemorial, a basic principle of law has dictated that one should never be both judge and party. Yet […]