logo
Greenland's new parliament convenes for first time amid Trump pressure

Greenland's new parliament convenes for first time amid Trump pressure

Reuters07-04-2025
COPENHAGEN, April 7 (Reuters) - Greenland's new parliament convened for the first time on Monday after a general election in March, amid repeated expressions of interest by U.S. President Donald Trump to control the semi-autonomous Danish island.
Jens-Frederik Nielsen, 33, who has called for political unity against external pressures since his Demokraatit (Democrats) party won the March election, took office as the youngest prime minister of Greenland and will face the challenges posed by Trump's ambitions.
"It has never been more important to stand together for our country and stable governance. That's why I'm happy with this broad coalition with 75% of the votes," Nielsen said, according to Greenlandic broadcaster KNR.
Nielsen said last week Greenland would strengthen ties with Denmark, calling it "Greenland's closest partner", until the Arctic island could become a sovereign nation. He noted that the semi-autonomous Danish territory ultimately wishes to become independent.
The pro-business Democrats Party, which favours a slow march to independence, emerged as the winner last month in a general election, tripling its representation to 10 seats. The party said it would form a coalition government with three other parties.
The coalition, which spans much of the political spectrum, represents 23 of the 31 parliamentary seats. The Naleraq party, a staunch pro-independence party that doubled its seats to eight in the election, will not be part of the coalition.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Latest: Harvard heads to court in $2.6B lawsuit against Trump administration
The Latest: Harvard heads to court in $2.6B lawsuit against Trump administration

The Independent

time13 minutes ago

  • The Independent

The Latest: Harvard heads to court in $2.6B lawsuit against Trump administration

Harvard University is in federal court Monday to make the case that President Donald Trump's administration illegally cut $2.6 billion from the storied college. It's a pivotal moment in the school's battle against the federal government. If U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs decides in the university's favor, the ruling would reverse a series of funding freezes that later became outright cuts as the administration escalated its fight with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects. Harvard's lawsuit accuses the administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal antisemitism task force. Here's the latest: However, even with the nation's largest endowment at $53 billion, the university has warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. Federal agencies say grants can be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies In court filings, Harvard has said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. Hearing begins in Harvard's lawsuit over funding cuts A lawyer for Harvard opened the hearing by saying the Trump administration violated the university's First Amendment rights by cutting more than $2.6 billion in federal funding. Steven Lehotsky said the government conditioned research grants on Harvard, 'ceding control' to the government over what is appropriate for students and faculty to say. US envoy doubles down on support for Syria's government and criticizes Israel's intervention A U.S. envoy doubled down on Washington's support for Syria's new government, saying Monday there is 'no Plan B' to working with it to unite the country still reeling from years of civil war and wracked by new sectarian violence. In an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, Tom Barrack also criticized Israel's recent intervention in Syria, calling it poorly timed and saying it complicated efforts to stabilize the region. Barrack is ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria, with a short-term mandate in Lebanon. He spoke in Beirut following more than a week of clashes in Syria's southern province of Sweida between militias of the Druze religious minority and Sunni Muslim Bedouin tribes. Tom Barrack, who is ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria and also has a short-term mandate in Lebanon, told The Associated Press that Israel's intervention in the latest round of conflict in Syria had further complicated matters. (AP Video shot by Fadi Tawil; Production by Abby Sewell) Syrian government forces intervened, ostensibly to restore order, but ended up siding with the Bedouins before withdrawing under a ceasefire agreement with Druze factions. Hundreds have been killed in the fighting, and some government fighters allegedly shot dead Druze civilians and burned and looted homes. Neighboring Israel intervened last week on behalf of the Druze, who are seen as a loyal minority within Israel and often serve in its military. Israel launched dozens of strikes on convoys of government forces in Sweida and struck the Ministry of Defense headquarters in central Damascus. Over the weekend, Barrack announced a ceasefire between Syria and Israel. Syrian government forces have redeployed in Sweida to halt renewed clashes between the Druze and Bedouins, and civilians from both sides were set to be evacuated Monday. ▶ Read more about the U.S. support for Syria's new government Trump threatens to hold up stadium deal if Washington Commanders don't switch back to Redskins Trump is threatening to hold up a new stadium deal for Washington's NFL team if it does not restore its old name of the Redskins, which was considered offensive to Native Americans. Trump also said Sunday that he wants Cleveland's baseball team to revert to its former name, the Indians, saying there was a 'big clamoring for this' as well. The Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians have had their current names since the 2022 seasons, and both have said they have no plans to change them back. Trump said the Washington football team would be 'much more valuable' if it restored its old name. His latest interest in changing the name reflects his broader effort to roll back changes that followed a national debate on cultural sensitivity and racial justice. The Commanders and the District of Columbia government announced a deal earlier this year to build a new home for the football team at the site of the old RFK Stadium, the place the franchise called home for more than three decades. ▶ Read more about Trump's attempt to strongarm the NFL team

Coalition outlines plans to disrupt JD Vance's Cotswolds holiday
Coalition outlines plans to disrupt JD Vance's Cotswolds holiday

The Independent

time13 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Coalition outlines plans to disrupt JD Vance's Cotswolds holiday

US Vice President JD Vance is expected to visit the Cotswolds next month with his family, shortly after Donald Trump completes a five-day tour of his golf courses in Scotland. The Stop Trump Coalition has announced plans to protest Vance's visit, stating he is 'every bit as unwelcome' in the UK as President Donald Trump. The coalition, which includes trade unions and anti-Trump demonstrators, is already organising protests against Mr Trump's visit in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, London, and Windsor. A spokesperson for the Stop Trump Coalition indicated that Mr Vance will encounter 'resistance waiting', even in the Cotswolds. Mr Vance's previous holiday in Vermont was disrupted by pro-Ukraine protesters in March, reportedly forcing his family to move to an undisclosed location.

What order? Trump team ignoring 1 in 3 major judicial rulings against them, analysis finds
What order? Trump team ignoring 1 in 3 major judicial rulings against them, analysis finds

The Independent

time13 minutes ago

  • The Independent

What order? Trump team ignoring 1 in 3 major judicial rulings against them, analysis finds

Multiple federal court judges have accused the Trump administration of deliberately defying court orders by being slow to respond, misrepresenting facts in filings, and not taking prompt action as President Donald Trump continues an unprecedented campaign to expand his executive authority. In an analysis of 165 court orders filed against the Trump administration, the Washington Post found that it was accused of resisting court orders in at least 57 of those cases – approximately 34 percent. Since taking office, Trump has sought to implement his agenda as swiftly as possible, particularly in cases involving his immigration policies and attempts to drastically reduce the federal workforce. Despite multiple district court judges issuing temporary injunctions to stop the administration from deporting immigrants without due process or sending them to third countries they've never been to, filings indicate the administration has continued its efforts. This has, most notably, occurred in the case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant who was previously granted permission to remain in the U.S. by a court. The administration inadvertently sent Abrego Garcia to a maximum security prison in El Salvador, under accusations that he was a gang member. Multiple courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, ordered the administration to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return, yet officials made no swift efforts – leading to a judge's admonishment. 'Defendants have failed to respond in good faith, and their refusal to do so can only be viewed as willful and intentional noncompliance,' Judge Paula Xinis, appointed by former president Barack Obama, said after the administration failed to provide updates on how it was returning Abrego Garcia. It was just one of several immigration cases in which judges have raised concerns about the administration not following orders. In April, D.C. Judge James Boasberg, appointed by Obama, admonished the administration for 'willful disobedience of judicial orders' after they did not comply with his order to turn around planes carrying dozens of people to a prison in El Salvador. 'The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it,' Boasberg wrote. Accusations against the administration have also occurred in cases involving the federal workforce. Also in April, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, appointed by Obama, raised 'significant grounds for concern' that the administration was deliberately disobeying her order to keep more than 1,000 employees with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 'There is reason to believe that the defendants simply spent the days immediately following the Circuit's relaxation of the Order dressing their RIF in new clothes, and that they are thumbing their nose at both this Court and the Court of Appeals,' Jackson wrote. The Independent has asked the White House for comment. Courts can hold the administration accountable with contempt hearings for noncompliance but they're traditionally slow to bring such action because many of the rulings are being appealed. Hearings in which a party is found noncompliant can result in fines or imprisonment. But the U.S. Marshal Service, a federal law enforcement agency tasked with serving as security for the federal judiciary, can serve subpoenas or warrants as well as make arrests when indicated by a court. But some experts raised concerns that, under Trump's authority, the Marshal Service would not carry-out those orders. Trump and his officials consistently lash out against judges who rule against them, misrepresenting them as Democratic and far-left extremists. A vast majority of the accusations have been brought by Democratic-appointed judges in immigration cases, but a handful of Republican appointees, including two judges tapped by Trump, have also either accused or raised questions about the administration's compliance. Jessica Roth, a former federal prosecutor and professor at Cardozo School of Law, told The Hill in April that it was 'deeply distressing' to see lawyers for the government act this way. 'This is extremely unusual behavior, both from the administration and from the lawyers representing the administration in court, and it's deeply distressing to see the behavior from these Department of Justice lawyers, which is not the norm for how Department of Justice lawyers conduct themselves in court,' Roth told The Hill.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store