Stephen Miller Claims US Has Right to Take Greenland After Venezuela Intervention – Shocking 2026 Controversy Exposed!
Stephen Miller Greenland controversy 2026: Following President Trump’s military strike in Venezuela, top advisor Stephen Miller claimed that the U.S. has the “right” to seize Greenland. His statement sparked global outrage and fears of a new era of American imperialism.
Trump’s renewed push for the Danish territory has Greenland’s Prime Minister brushing off takeover threats, while Denmark’s leader warns it could threaten NATO.
This post explores every angle: Miller’s statements, the Venezuela connection, international reactions, and what it could mean for global security.
Stephen Miller’s Bold Claims: US “Right” to Seize Greenland
Stephen Miller, Trump’s influential advisor known for hardline policies, made waves in a New York Times interview on January 5, 2026, declaring the U.S. could annex Greenland without military pushback.
He stated: “Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.” Miller framed this as part of a broader “vision” for American dominance, justifying it through historical and strategic lenses.
He tied it directly to the recent Venezuela operation, where U.S. forces captured President Nicolás Maduro, suggesting such actions pave the way for bold moves like acquiring Greenland.
Miller’s comments echo Trump’s longstanding obsession with the island, first floated in 2019 and revived post-Venezuela.
Trump, on Air Force One January 4, said: “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security,” claiming it’s “full of Chinese and Russian ships.” In an NBC interview January 5, he doubled down: “I am very serious” with “no timeline.”
Analysis: Miller’s rhetoric revives 19th-century Manifest Destiny, positioning the U.S. as entitled to territories for “security.” Critics call it dangerous neo-colonialism, especially after Venezuela’s intervention showed Trump’s willingness to act unilaterally.
Must Read: Why Did the US Assault Venezuela? Details on Charges, Detention and Proceedings
The Venezuela Connection: How Maduro’s Capture Fuels Greenland Ambitions
The Greenland buzz ignited right after Trump’s Venezuela triumph on January 3, 2026. The U.S. strike captured Maduro, a move Trump hailed as ending a “dictatorship.”
Miller linked this to Greenland, implying successful interventions embolden further expansions. Trump boasted: “We got Maduro—now Greenland is next on the list for national security.”
Venezuela’s oil riches parallel Greenland’s mineral wealth (rare earths, uranium) and strategic Arctic position for missile defense.
Experts say Venezuela’s “success” gives Trump momentum, but it risks alliances. Greenland, a self-governing Danish territory, hosts U.S. bases like Thule Air Base—key for NORAD. Trump’s “buy Greenland” talk dismisses its autonomy, treating it as a real estate deal.
Greenland’s Response: PM Brushes Off Fears, Calls It “Fantasies”
Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen responded firmly but calmly on January 6, 2026. In a GMT press conference, he said: “The situation is not such that the United States can simply conquer Greenland…
Our country is not really the right one to compare with Venezuela—we are a democratic nation.” He dismissed takeover fears, emphasizing desire for “good cooperation” with the U.S. Nielsen added: “Threats, pressure and talk of annexation have no place between friends… Enough is enough. No more fantasies about annexation.”
Polls show 85% of Greenlanders oppose U.S. control, favoring independence from Denmark. Nielsen’s stance balances defiance with diplomacy, acknowledging U.S. ties while asserting sovereignty.
A Greenlandic MP warned of preparing for the worst, calling Trump’s remarks “the most serious yet” and signaling a “new world order.”
Danish PM’s Stark Warning: US Attack Means “End of NATO”
Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen didn’t hold back in a TV2 interview on January 5: “If the United States decides to militarily attack another NATO country, then everything would stop—that includes NATO and post-World War II security.”
She accused the U.S. of “unacceptable pressure” and an “unreasonable attack on the world community,” stressing: “You cannot go in and take over part of another country’s territory.” Frederiksen has been vocal, telling Trump directly that Greenland isn’t for sale.
As Greenland’s administering power, Denmark recently boosted defense—adding 16 F-35 jets and increasing healthcare/infrastructure spending. Frederiksen’s NATO warning underscores alliance fragility: An attack on Danish soil (Greenland) could invoke Article 5, but U.S. aggression would shatter the pact.
Global Backlash: EU, UK, Germany & Nordics Rally Against US
Reactions poured in worldwide:
- EU: Foreign policy spokesperson Anitta Hipper affirmed: “The EU will continue to uphold principles of national sovereignty… We will not stop defending them, especially if a member state’s integrity is questioned.”
- UK: Prime Minister Keir Starmer: “Greenland and Denmark must determine Greenland’s future, nobody else.”
- Germany: Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul suggested NATO discuss Greenland protection, implying U.S. overreach.
- Sweden: PM Ulf Kristersson: “Only Denmark and Greenland decide… Sweden fully supports our neighbor.”
- Norway/Finland: Echoed support for Denmark.
Nordic unity is strong, with Greenland’s pro-independence leader Pele Broberg noting: “The US can’t do anything to us that Denmark hasn’t done already.” Opposition MP Aaja Chemnitz urged readiness.
Geopolitical Analysis: Risks of Trump’s Expansionist Vision
Miller’s claims and Trump’s threats signal a revival of U.S. unilateralism, linking Venezuela’s intervention to broader ambitions. Venezuela’s capture (over drug ties) sets a precedent for “security”-justified actions. Greenland’s strategic value—Arctic routes, minerals, bases—makes it tempting amid China/Russia rivalry.
But risks abound: NATO dissolution could weaken U.S. alliances, alienate Europe, and embolden adversaries. Economically, Greenland’s resources are vital for tech (e.g., electric vehicles), but annexation would spark legal battles. Domestically, Trump’s moves divide Americans—supporters see strength, critics fear endless conflicts.
In 2026, this controversy could redefine alliances. Greenland/Denmark’s firm stance may deter action, but Trump’s unpredictability keeps the world on edge.
FAQs
1. What did Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen say about a US attack on Greenland?
Frederiksen warned that any military attack by the United States on a NATO ally would mean the end of NATO and post-World War II security structures. She described Trump’s threats as “unacceptable pressure” and a potential attack as an “unreasonable attack on the world community.”
“If the United States decides to militarily attack another NATO country, then everything would stop – that includes NATO and therefore post-second world war security,” Frederiksen said.
2. Why is Greenland important to the US?
- Greenland is strategically located between Europe and North America, making it critical for the US ballistic missile defense system.
- The island has significant mineral resources, aligning with US goals to reduce reliance on Chinese exports.
- Its location and resources make it a geopolitical hotspot for Arctic dominance.
3. What did Greenland’s Prime Minister say?
Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Greenland’s PM, condemned Trump’s statements as “fantasies about annexation” and “completely and utterly unacceptable.”
“Threats, pressure, and talk of annexation have no place between friends. Enough is enough. No more pressure. No more innuendo. No more fantasies about annexation,” Nielsen said.
He emphasized that Greenland is a democratic country and that a US takeover is not imminent.
4. What is the EU’s position on Greenland?
The European Union fully supports territorial integrity and the principle of sovereignty.
“These are universal principles, and we will not stop defending them, especially if the territorial integrity of a member state is questioned,” said EU foreign policy spokesperson Anitta Hipper.
5. What do Greenlandic leaders say about US threats?
- Aaja Chemnitz, a Greenlandic MP, urged people to “prepare for the worst” while hoping for the best.
- She called Trump’s remarks “the worst and most serious” and said they signal the emergence of a new world order.
- Pele Broberg, leader of Greenland’s pro-independence party Naleraq, expressed confidence that the US would respect Greenland’s independence when desired.
6. What did Trump say about Greenland and national security?
Trump claimed Greenland is “full of Chinese and Russian ships” and argued that the US needs Greenland for national security reasons. He mocked Danish defense capabilities, suggesting they could not handle the situation.
- Trump stated he was “very serious” about acquiring Greenland but admitted he had “no timeline” for action.
- On Air Force One, he claimed:
“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.”
Trump’s renewed focus on Greenland came shortly after the US captured Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, raising fears that similar action could be taken in Greenland.
7. What was Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s response?
Mette Frederiksen warned that a US takeover of Greenland would spell the end of NATO. She said:
“If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops. That is, including NATO and the security that has been provided since the end of the Second World War.”
She emphasized that Trump’s intentions should be taken seriously but that Greenland and Denmark’s territorial integrity must be respected.
8. Why is Greenland strategically important?
Resources: The island is rich in minerals, which are valuable for reducing reliance on Chinese exports and supporting strategic economic interests.
Location: Greenland sits between Europe and North America, making it critical for military and missile defense systems.
