Vance and wife to tour US military post in Greenland after diplomatic spat over uninvited visit
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said on Tuesday that the visit, which was originally set for three days, created 'unacceptable pressure.' On Thursday she was cited by Danish public broadcaster DR as saying: 'We really want to work with the Americans on defense and security in the kingdom. But Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders.'
Advertisement
Initially, Usha Vance had announced a solo trip to the Avannaata Qimussersu dogsled race in Sisimiut. Her husband then subsequently said he would join her on that trip, only to change that itinerary again — after protests from Greenland and Denmark — to a one-day visit of the couple to the military post only.
Nonetheless, in an interview on Wednesday, Trump repeated his desire for U.S. control of Greenland. Asked if the people there were 'eager' to become U.S. citizens, Trump said he didn't know 'but I think we have to do it, and we have to convince them.'
As the nautical gateway to the Arctic and North Atlantic approaches to North America, Greenland has broader strategic value as both China and Russia seek access to its waterways and natural resources.
During his first term, Trump floated the idea of purchasing the world's largest island, even as Denmark insisted it wasn't for sale. The people of Greenland also have firmly rejected Trump's plans.
Advertisement
Vance has several times criticized long-standing European allies for relying on military support from the United States, openly antagonizing partners in ways that have generated concerns about the reliability of the U.S.
In the meantime, opponents of Trump's plans to control Greenland, announced a rally in front of the American embassy in the Danish capital for Saturday, DR reported Thursday.
The protesters were planning to speak out against 'American pressure against Greenland and Denmark' and 'unwanted visits from the U.S. government,' DR reported.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
25 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
IRS says churches can now endorse political candidates. Miami faith leaders weigh in
The Internal Revenue Services is reversing a long-standing policy and will now allow religious institutions to endorse political candidates without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status — a move that has divided faith leaders and advocacy groups. Earlier this month, the IRS sided with the National Religious Broadcasters, an evangelical media group, and two Texas churches in a court filing intended to settle a lawsuit that challenged a ban on most nonprofits from endorsing political candidates in elections. While most Americans, according to multiple public opinion polls, want to keep politics out of the pulpit, many conservative Christian groups, including the ones named in the lawsuit, have been pushing for more freedom for faith leaders to voice opinions — a view repeatedly advocated by President Donald Trump throughout his time in office. Many advocates and faith leaders in South Florida who spoke with the Miami Herald remain strongly opposed to the decision, fearing raising such issues threaten to create rifts within individual congregations. But while conservative Christian groups have been most outspoken in support of the move, it also could work both ways, allowing more freedom for progressive churches and leaders to advocate for issues that straddle the line of religion and politics. The lawsuit argues that the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 measure named after its author, former President Lyndon B. Johnson, restricts churches from exercising freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It also contends that the amendment is not enforced fairly — allowing some nonprofits, such as newspapers, to endorse candidates while others are banned. During President Donald Trump's first term in 2017, he vowed to 'get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.' While, the IRS didn't go that far, it did suggest that when a house of worship 'in good faith' speaks to its congregation through 'customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services concerning electoral politics,' it did not constitute participation or intervention in politics, as the Johnson Amendment prohibits. In a proposed consent judgment between the tax agency and religious groups, the IRS said those types of communications are akin to 'a family discussion,' and 'do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,' according to the proposed settlement filed in U.S. District Court in Texas. The IRS, in its court filing, also admitted that the Johnson amendment has not been consistently enforced since it was enacted, despite the fact that churches throughout the country violate it on a regular basis, according to a 2022 investigation from the Texas Tribune and ProPublica. The proposed settlement could have broad implications for political rhetoric in places of worship. WhiIe it applies specifically to plaintiffs in the lawsuit, advocacy groups and faith leaders who spoke with the Miami Herald are concerned it sets a precedent that will embolden other houses of worship to engage in partisan endorsements. 'It's a slippery slope and I feel like this is crossing the line. This is definitely crossing the line,'said Rabbi Gayle Pomerantz, senior rabbi at Temple Beth Sholom, a Reform synagogue in Miami Beach. 'Endorsing a candidate outright from the pulpit can lead to divisiveness and alienation within our congregations,' said Rev. Keny Felix, the senior pastor of Bethel Evangelical Baptist Church in Miami Gardens. 'Weaponizes religious freedom' Interfaith Alliance, a nonprofit that advocates for religious freedom and against Christian Nationalism, said the lawsuit 'weaponizes religious freedom.' 'They talk about free speech and religious freedom, when in reality what keeps our houses of worship free for religious communities is the separation of church and state,' said Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, vice president of programs and strategy at Interfaith Alliance. 'Imagine if every church in Florida was just an outpost of the GOP or the DNC, that would be a complete denial of religious freedom. It would destroy institutions that are sacred to so many Floridians.' Graves-Fitzsimmons, who is also an ordained Baptist deacon, pointed out that current law already allows houses of worship to engage with politics in many ways. For example, faith leaders can invite candidates to speak with their congregations as long as they provide equal opportunity to all parties. Many houses of worship host events encouraging members to vote — Souls to the Polls is an important event in many Black churches, for example — and some churches are polling places themselves. Nonprofits and churches are even allowed, under current law, to donate to campaigns on certain issues or ballot questions that align with their mission, as long as it is not a partisan race. The Catholic Church donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-abortion efforts to defeat a recent ballot question in Florida, for example. Local faith leaders weigh in 'I am absolutely taken back by that ruling,' said Rev. Laurie Hafner, lead pastor at Coral Gables Congregational United Church of Christ. Hafner's church has been on the front lines of advocating for issues some might see as political. In 2023, the church partnered with local bookstore, Books & Books, to organize a protest march against Florida's recent efforts to ban certain books in public schools. In recent years, she made national news for suing the state of Florida over its abortion ban on the grounds of religious rights. Hafner said after a close call with the IRS at her past church in Cleveland, she's been careful about how she speaks about political candidates from the pulpit. Still, she said, most of her congregants know where she stands politically, due to her strong stances on issues. 'I have never from the pulpit endorsed a particular candidate, although I think I make it very clear what side I'm on,' Hafner told the Miami Herald. 'And that's the side of the oppressed, the hungry, the homeless, the folks who are in prison, the immigrant … and certain candidates are a reflection of those values.' 'I don't know if this is going to change my position about endorsing the candidate from the pulpit, but it does give me a little more freedom, I think, to express myself if need be,' she said. Others expressed their disapproval over the IRS statements. 'I am strongly opposed to abolishing the Johnson Amendment,' said Rabbi Pomerantz, who was also the first female president of the Rabbinic Association of Greater Miami. 'I think it's helped to preserve the separation of church and state, and we at Temple Beth Sholom have always been very careful about promoting our Jewish values in non-partisan ways,' she said, referring to the Johnson Amendment. Pomerantz said her synagogue does not endorse candidates or advocate for issues in the name of Democrats or Republicans. She said, however, Temple Beth Sholom may take a position on an issue — like reproductive rights for example — informed by Jewish tradition and Jewish texts. 'We'll always have members of the congregation who don't agree with the position the synagogue has taken. But we feel it is our right and our duty to take positions on meaningful issues, in a non partisan way.' Concerns about endorsement Miami Gardens pastor Felix said he agrees with encouraging members to participate in the political system but draws the line at candidate endorsements. 'We have to be careful to not conflate God's kingdom with any one political party or candidate. If we do, our efforts will eventually prove to be misguided,' said Felix in an email to the Herald. Felix said he believes that pastors are responsible for 'providing moral leadership and clarity' on issues impacting the community — which may sometimes include advocating for justice and speaking 'on behalf of the marginalized and the underrepresented.' 'What unifies a diverse congregation is our common faith, not our political affiliation,' said Felix. Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said one of his main issues with the IRS ruling is that it potentially can 'corrupt' institutions that have always remained non-partisan. 'Part of what makes them spiritually pure is that they stay non-partisan,' Pesner said. 'They're about values, morals, deeply held beliefs … but when money starts flowing into religious institutions to win partisan battles and elect individual candidates, it corrupts those institutions.' Pesner's concern about the potential for the decision to interfere with campaign finance was also echoed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 'Weakening this law would undermine houses of worship and nonprofits by transforming them into political action committees, flooding our elections with even more dark money,' the group wrote in a statement. Faith leaders 'can move the needle' One advocacy group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, took steps last week to reverse the decision in the lawsuit by filing a motion to intervene. The nonprofit, which advocates for the separation of church and state and religious freedom, said the decision 'would grant favor and privilege to religious organizations and treat them differently than secular nonprofits.' 'The Trump administration's radical reinterpretation of the Johnson Amendment is a flagrant, self-serving attack on church-state separation that threatens our democracy by favoring houses of worship over other nonprofits and inserting them into partisan politics,' said AU President and CEO Rachel Laser in a statement. Laser went on to say that the Johnson Amendment 'protects the integrity' of elections and nonprofit organizations, including houses of worship. Many who spoke with the Herald pointed to recent polling that shows that most Americans want to leave politics out of the pulpit. According to a 2022 poll from Pew Research Center, 77 percent of U.S. adults said churches and other congregations should not make political endorsements. Majorities in both the Democratic and Republican parities and every religious group that was polled also said churches should avoid political endorsements. On the other hand, the National Faith Advisory Board, a faith coalition founded and led by Paula White Cain, senior advisor to President Trump in the newly established White House Faith Office, celebrated the move by the IRS, calling it a 'tax clarification' that was 'born out of faith leaders advocating for their God-given rights.' 'It is a crucial reminder that faith leaders can move the needle when it comes to influencing the law of the land. Our collective voice matters,' the organization wrote in a weekly newsletter. The newsletter also went on to advise its readers to avoid 'paid ads, public rallies hosted by your church and using church resources to endorse a candidate to the public.' The faith advisory board was founded during Trump's first presidency by White and says it communicates with over 70,000 faith leaders across the country. This story was produced with financial support from Trish and Dan Bell and from donors comprising the South Florida Jewish and Muslim Communities, including Khalid and Diana Mirza, in partnership with Journalism Funding Partners. The Miami Herald maintains full editorial control of this work.
Newsweek
26 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Sends Message To Iran Over Nuclear Ambitions
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump has warned Iran not to attempt to rebuild their nuclear facilities, after he claimed recent U.S. military strikes in June "completely destroyed" Iran's sites. The President wrote on Truth Social on Saturday: "All three nuclear sites in Iran were completely destroyed and/or OBLITERATED. It would take years to bring them back into service and, if Iran wanted to do so, they would be much better off starting anew, in three different locations, prior to those sites being obliterated, should they decide to do so. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Why it Matters The stakes surrounding Iran's nuclear program remain high for U.S. national security interests and for stability across the Middle East. President Trump's warning comes against a backdrop of ongoing debates about the effectiveness of U.S. strikes and the future of diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. What To Know On June 21, the U.S. military—under an operation code-named Midnight Hammer—conducted airstrikes against three of Iran's principal nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. President Trump and defense officials publicly claimed that all three sites were "completely destroyed," saying that Iran would require years to reconstitute its nuclear program if it tried to rebuild. Trump reiterated this with his message on Saturday. But some U.S. intelligence assessments have challenged the administration's narrative. Only one out of three of Iran's nuclear sites was destroyed with the other two surviving enough to be able to resume nuclear enrichment within several months if Tehran wants it, according to NBC News, which cited five current and former U.S. officials familiar with the assessment. The Defense Department and the White House have pushed back, asserting that their own intelligence showed all three facilities were "completely and totally obliterated." Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Purnell said: "President Trump was clear and the American people understand: Iran's nuclear facilities in Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz were completely and totally obliterated. There is no doubt about that." "The credibility of the Fake News Media is similar to that of the current state of the Iranian nuclear facilities: destroyed, in the dirt, and will take years to recover." Iran maintains that its nuclear program serves peaceful purposes, despite long-standing Western suspicions. Iranian diplomats are set to meet in Europe next week for discussions about a possible nuclear deal, according to the Institute for the Study of War. "Iran has not softened its position on its right to enrich uranium on Iranian soil, which makes it unlikely that Iran will accept a nuclear deal that includes a zero uranium enrichment demand," the Institute said in its most recent report. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at a press briefing with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room in the White House in... U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at a press briefing with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room in the White House in Washington, D.C. on Friday, June 27, 2025—President Trump addressed Iran, the "Big, Beautiful Bill" and tariffs. More AP What People Are Saying Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell previously told reporters that American strikes had "degraded (Iran's) program by one to two years." He said: "We believe, and certainly, all of the intelligence that we've seen have led us to believe that Iran's—those facilities especially, have been completely obliterated." Trump said in an interview on Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures: "It was obliterating like nobody's ever seen before. And that meant the end to their nuclear ambitions, at least for a period of time." What Happens Next The debate over the true impact of the U.S. airstrikes on Iran's nuclear capabilities is likely to persist, with calls for independent verification of the destroyed facilities. Iran's response to both the military strikes and diplomatic overtures remains uncertain, as tensions in the region continue to simmer.
Business Insider
26 minutes ago
- Business Insider
The Trump-Powell feud keeps heating up. Meet the betting markets' top picks to replace the Fed chief.
Scott Bessent Who is he: Treasury Secretary Polymarket odds: 23% Market commentary: Bessent is the top pick to replace Powell, but he's in a tricky position as Trump's right-hand man for all things markets. Trump himself has flagged Bessent as a potential candidate for Fed chair, but the president said on Tuesday that he likes Bessent where he is now. When Bessent first assumed the role of Treasury Secretary, Wall Street believed he would promote policies that appeased markets. However, he's often come out on Trump's side when stocks have crumbled, stating that he and the president aren't concerned about a little volatility. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman wasn't particularly bullish on Bessent in a recent Substack post. "What Trump looks for in his personnel choices is, above all, groveling loyalty. So anyone he chooses will, more or less by definition, be a spineless toady. Even if the appointee looks qualified for the position, we can be sure that he or she will indulge and cheer on every Trump idea, no matter how bad," Krugman wrote. "I call this Bessent's Law because when Trump chose Scott Bessent as Treasury Secretary a number of Wall Street people assured us that he was a good, competent choice." Key quote: Bessent's been tight-lipped about any Powell replacement details. "There's a formal process that's already starting. There are a lot of great candidates and we'll see how rapidly it progresses," Bessent told Bloomberg on Tuesday. Kevin Warsh Who is he: Former Federal Reserve Governor Polymarket odds: 20% Market commentary: Warsh is seriously pulling out all the stops for the chance to take Powell's job. In a twist, he was passed over for Fed Chair in 2017, when Trump picked Powell to replace Janet Yellen. Earlier in July, Warsh appeared on Fox Business, where he pushed for lower interest rates and argued that "tariffs are not inflationary." His current stance is an interesting reversal from his time as a hawkish Federal Reserve Governor from 2006 to 2011, when he expressed concern that aggressive rate cuts could lead to higher inflation. Neil Dutta, head of economics at Renaissance Macro, said he thinks Warsh is one of the worst picks for Fed Chair. Key quote: "I don't think we need continuity when the central bank doesn't have credibility," Warsh said on CNBC on Thursday, criticizing Powell's decision to make a jumbo 50 basis point rate cut last September. "We need regime change at the Fed." Kevin Hasset Who is he: National Economic Council Director Polymarket odds: 16% Market commentary: There's another Kevin in the running. As Trump's current economic advisor, Wall Street strategists think Hasset is likely to follow Trump's orders. When asked about Hasset during a press briefing, Trump said "Kevin is fantastic." Hasset has been critical of the Federal Reserve's renovation project budget and has voiced support toward the idea of firing Powell. But similar to Bessent, Hasset hasn't commented much on whether Trump has asked him to be the next Fed chair. However, he has backed Trump's call to cut interest rates by up to three points. "Kevin Hassett and Scott Bessent are blatant political picks, which may struggle to achieve Senate confirmation," Michael Brown, senior research strategist at Pepperstone Group, wrote in a note late last month. Christopher Waller Who is he: Federal Reserve Governor Polymarket odds: 12% Market commentary: Waller is gaining momentum in the race as a dark horse candidate, receiving a 9% boost on Polymarket early Friday after giving a speech arguing for a July rate cut. Waller cited weak private payroll growth as one of the main reasons for the Fed to lower rates at this month's meeting. Out of all the options, Waller would probably be the one most palatable to investors, as his arguments for cutting are the least political, and he would represent a fairly establishment pick to run the central bank. "He is not talking about cost overruns on the Eccles building or lowering the cost of government finance or 'regime change,' but he is talking about the shifting balance of risks in the economy," Dutta wrote in a note on Thursday. "There is a huge distance from him — someone who has an intellectual consistent/defensible/sound position — and the sycophants (Hassett, Bowman, Warsh) who are extensions of DJT," Warren Pies, founder of 3Fourteen Research, wrote in an X post on Thursday. Key quote: "While the labor market looks fine on the surface, once we account for expected data revisions, private-sector payroll growth is near stall speed, and other data suggest that the downside risks to the labor market have increased. With inflation near target and the upside risks to inflation limited, we should not wait until the labor market deteriorates before we cut the policy rate," Waller said on Thursday.
