Trump Talks Venezuela, Greenland, and Presidential Authority in New York Times Interview
President Trump stated on Wednesday evening that his authority as commander in chief is limited solely by his “own morality,” disregarding international law and other constraints on his capacity to deploy military strength to strike, invade, or compel nations globally. When questioned in an expansive interview with The New York Times about any limits on his international powers, Mr. Trump responded: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.” He added, “I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people.”When further pressed about whether his administration was obliged to follow international law, Mr. Trump stated, “I do.” However, he clarified that he would determine when those limitations were applicable to the United States. “It depends what your definition of international law is,” he remarked. Mr. Trump’s evaluation of his own liberty to apply any means of military, economic, or political influence to reinforce American dominance was the most straightforward acknowledgment yet of his perspective. At its core is the belief that national power, instead of laws, treaties, and conventions, should drive decisions as powers intersect. He did recognize some restrictions domestically, even as he has engaged in an aggressive strategy of punishing institutions he disapproves of, seeking revenge against political rivals, and sending the National Guard to cities despite the dissent of state and local officials. He underscored that he capitalizes on his reputation for unpredictability and a readiness to resort to military action swiftly, frequently to compel other countries. During his interview with The Times, he engaged in a lengthy phone call with President Gustavo Petro of Colombia, who was evidently worried after repeated threats suggested Mr. Trump was contemplating an assault on the nation akin to the one in Venezuela. “Well, we are in danger,” Mr. Petro mentioned in a discussion with The Times just prior to the call. “Because the threat is real. It was made by Trump.” The discussion between the two leaders, the specifics of which were confidential, illustrated coercive diplomacy in practice. This conversation occurred just hours after Mr. Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio had removed the United States from numerous international organizations aimed at enhancing multinational collaboration. Mr. Trump conveyed to The Times a sense of boldness like never before. He pointed to the triumph of his strike on Iran’s nuclear project — he maintains a model of the B-2 bombers involved in the operation on his desk; the rapid action of dismantling the Venezuelan government last weekend; and his ambitions regarding Greenland, which is under Denmark’s control, a NATO ally. When asked which was more important to him, acquiring Greenland or maintaining NATO, Mr. Trump avoided giving a direct answer but acknowledged “it may be a choice.” He asserted that the trans-Atlantic alliance is practically ineffective without the United States at its center. Despite labeling the norms of the post-World War II order as unnecessary constraints on a superpower, Mr. Trump dismissed the notion that leaders like Xi Jinping of China or Vladimir V. Putin of Russia might use similar reasoning that could harm the U.S. On various issues, he conveyed the belief that in his eyes, U.S. power is the ultimate factor — and that earlier presidents have been too prudent to fully utilize it for political dominance or national benefit. The president’s insistence that Greenland must become part of the United States exemplified his perspective. It was insufficient to exercise the U.S. right, as laid out in a 1951 treaty, to reactivate long-dormant military bases on the vast landmass, a critically significant junction for U.S., European, Chinese, and Russian maritime activities. “Ownership is very important,” Mr. Trump articulated while assessing, with the mindset of a real estate tycoon, the landmass of Greenland — three times the size of Texas yet housing fewer than 60,000 people. He appeared to dismiss the notion of having Greenland under the jurisdiction of a close NATO ally. When questioned about his necessity for controlling the territory, he replied: “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do with, you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.” The dialogue underscored that in Mr. Trump’s viewpoint, sovereignty and national borders hold less significance than the unique position of the United States as the defender of the West. He contended that only he — and not the two predecessors he criticized, Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Barack Obama — demonstrated the capability to convince NATO countries to allocate 5 percent of their gross domestic product for defense. (Approximately 1.5 percent of that figure is actually for domestic infrastructure — encompassing everything from power grids to cybersecurity — that can bolster defense. The objective won’t be reached until 2035, six years after Mr. Trump concludes his term.) “I want them to shape up,” he mentioned. “I think we’ll always get along with Europe, but I want them to shape up. I’m the one that got them to spend more on the, you know, more G.D.P. on NATO. But if you look at NATO, Russia I can tell you is not at all concerned with any other country but us.” The president remarked: “I’ve been very loyal to Europe. I’ve done a good job. If it weren’t for me, Russia would have all of Ukraine right now.” He appeared untroubled by the looming expiration of the last significant nuclear arms control agreement with Russia in four weeks, which would allow the world’s two largest nuclear powers to enhance their arsenals without limits for the first time in half a century. “If it expires, it expires,” he stated. “We’ll just do a better agreement,” he added, insisting that China, which has the fastest-growing arsenal globally, needs to be included in any future agreement. “You probably want to get a couple of other players involved also,” Mr. Trump mentioned. The president seemed equally unconcerned about whether his choice to deploy Special Operations forces into Caracas to oust Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela might be taken advantage of by China or Russia. Since the intervention in Venezuela, there have been discussions suggesting that the U.S. precedent could lend justification to a Chinese initiative to take Taiwan or Russia’s efforts to claim Ukraine, which Mr. Putin has referred to as a historical part of the Russian empire dating back more than a thousand years. When asked if he had set a precedent he might regret later, Mr. Trump insisted that his evaluation of the threat from Mr. Maduro’s Venezuela vastly differs from Mr. Xi’s perception of Taiwan. “This was a real threat,” he said concerning Venezuela. “You didn’t have people pouring into China,” he contended, reiterating his frequently mentioned claim that Mr. Maduro shipped gang members into the United States. Mr. Trump continued: “You didn’t have drugs pouring into China. You didn’t have all of the bad things that we’ve had. You didn’t have the jails of Taiwan opened up and the people pouring into China,” or, he noted later, criminals and others “pouring into Russia.” When a reporter pointed out that Mr. Xi viewed Taiwan as a separatist challenge to China, Mr. Trump replied: “That’s up to him, what he’s going to be doing. But, you know, I’ve expressed to him that I would be very unhappy if he did that, and I don’t think he’ll do that. I hope he doesn’t.” Then, when asked if Mr. Xi might take advantage of recent events to launch an attack or blockade on Taiwan, he implied that the Chinese leader would hesitate to take that action while Mr. Trump was in office. “He may do it after we have a different president, but I don’t think he’s going to do it with me as president,” he stated. Domestically, Mr. Trump suggested that judges only possess authority to limit his domestic policy initiatives — from deploying the National Guard to imposing tariffs — “under certain circumstances.” However, he was already contemplating alternatives. He mentioned that if his tariffs, issued under emergency powers, were overturned by the Supreme Court, he could possibly reframe them as licensing fees. Additionally, Mr. Trump, who asserted he was elected to restore law and order, reiterated his willingness to invoke the Insurrection Act and send in the military within the United States while also federalizing some National Guard units if he deemed it necessary. Thus far, he indicated, “I haven’t really felt the need to do it.”
Published: 2026-01-08 20:24:00
source: www.nytimes.com
