By Don Terry | Monday, January 12, 2026 | 5 min read
There’s an old saying that President George W. Bush once famously mangled: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” For many Americans — and much of the rest of the world — it increasingly feels as though Donald Trump has been fooling people nonstop. When he’s not disappointing MAGA supporters who paid for his branded watches and now feel misled, he’s pushing claims that Nicolás Maduro is a narco-terrorist, or insisting that Renee Nicole Good attempted to kill an ICE agent before she was shot.
Independent fact-checking projects documented more than 30,000 false or misleading claims during his first term in office, averaging roughly 21 a day, a tally that many commentators have described as unprecedented in modern political life.
That pattern has not faded. In recent months, critics have noted examples ranging from overstated threats abroad to disputed accounts of domestic events. Such controversies have left many observers wondering whether political rhetoric has outpaced the standards of accuracy historically expected of national leaders.
The latest claim is that Russia is poised to steamroll Greenland and seize it from Denmark. The falsehoods haven’t slowed down; they’ve accelerated, piling up faster by the day. Against this backdrop, diplomatic and military sources on both sides of the Atlantic are voicing growing concern over reports that President Trump has asked U.S. special operations planners to examine options for a potential takeover of Greenland — a request senior military leaders are said to be quietly resisting.
According to sources cited by The Mail on Sunday, Trump has instructed the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) to outline contingency plans related to Greenland, amid fears among some of his advisers that the strategically vital Arctic territory could become a target for Russian or Chinese influence. The reports suggest that hardline policy voices within Trump’s orbit believe time is running out to secure American dominance in the region.
At the centre of those concerns is Stephen Miller, the influential political adviser widely regarded as a leading figure among Trump’s more confrontational foreign policy “hawks.” Sources familiar with the internal discussions claim that this group has grown increasingly assertive, encouraged by what they describe as recent US successes in projecting power abroad.
European diplomats, however, see other motivations at play. Several believe the Greenland issue is being used as a political pressure point at home, particularly as the US heads toward mid-term elections that could reshape control of Congress. With economic concerns weighing on voters, a dramatic foreign policy confrontation could serve as a distraction — or a rallying cry — for Trump’s base.
Such a move would not only provoke Denmark, which governs Greenland, but would also place Washington on a collision course with its closest allies. British officials warn that any attempt to seize Greenland by force would put the US at odds with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and risk shattering the NATO alliance.
According to sources briefed on the discussions, senior US military leaders have pushed back forcefully. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are said to have raised serious legal objections, noting that any such action would lack congressional approval and violate international law. One diplomatic source described the situation bluntly: “The generals think it’s illegal and unworkable. They’re trying to slow-walk it.”
Instead, military leaders are reportedly offering alternative options to divert Trump’s attention, including maritime operations against Russian “ghost ships” used to evade sanctions, or escalating pressure on Iran. “It’s about giving him something big enough to chew on,” one source said, “without blowing up NATO.”
European diplomats have war-gamed what they call an “escalatory scenario,” in which Trump uses military pressure or political coercion to force Greenland away from Denmark. One confidential cable warns that the worst-case outcome would be “the destruction of NATO from the inside,” as European members could be forced to abandon the alliance rather than legitimize such an occupation.
Some officials suspect that this internal collapse may be precisely the point. Unable to formally withdraw from NATO without congressional approval, occupying Greenland could trigger a crisis so severe that the alliance simply fractures.
A more optimistic “compromise scenario” has also been discussed, in which Denmark agrees to formalize US military access to Greenland and bar Russian and Chinese involvement. While the US already operates freely on the island, such an agreement would place that presence on firmer legal ground.
For now, the concern in European capitals is timing. With mid-term elections approaching and a NATO summit scheduled for early July, diplomats fear that Trump’s window for dramatic action is narrowing.
As one source put it, “The worry isn’t just Greenland. It’s the pattern. The military is trying to uphold the law, while the politics are pushing toward chaos.”
Whether the reports reflect genuine intent or internal brinkmanship, the episode underscores a broader anxiety among allies: that American power, once predictable, is becoming harder to contain — even from within.