From Greenland to Ukraine, Trump's centralized diplomacy creates whiplash for allies

Highlights:

• Denmark and some US officials were surprised by Trump's renewed Greenland focus
• Centralized approach to foreign policy becomes established pattern in Trump administration
• Experts say Greenland demands created lasting damage to US alliances

When officials from the United States, Denmark and Greenland met last month in the Arctic island's capital, the session was reassuringly normal, with no discussion of a US military or financial takeover of the Danish territory, multiple people familiar with the talks told Reuters.

That all changed less than two weeks later when Trump announced a special envoy to the vast island, Jeff Landry, who posted on social media that he would help "make Greenland part of the US."

The appointment and the message stunned Copenhagen and blindsided senior US officials across the administration who work on European and NATO issues, the sources said.

The exclusion of his own diplomats fit the pattern of Trump's foreign policy-making, which has veered wildly on a range of issues and has often been formulated without the national security officials who in other US presidencies have helped steer policy.

Instead, the Trump administration's moves, which included an implied threat to seize Greenland, a plan for new tariffs on US allies and a push to wring concessions from Denmark, which governs Greenland, appeared to be driven solely by Trump and a small group of close aides.

As Reuters reported this week, those aides included Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who proposed the idea of tariffs, and Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others who tried to steer Trump away from considering military force.

In many ways it's an approach that works for Trump, given his suspicion of the Washington bureaucracy and desire to have his decisions implemented quickly. But the sudden announcements and surprise reversals that flow from it risk lasting damage to relations with key US allies.

When asked to comment on various examples of White House moves that surprised the diplomats involved in cases including Greenland, Ukraine and Syria, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said people "who leak to Reuters" were not clued in on sensitive discussions, and that the achievements of Trump's national security team spoke for themselves.

"The president was elected to implement America First foreign policy, and he has done so more effectively through his top-down approach," Kelly said.

Military action

The danger in this centralized - and personalized - approach became clear over the past few weeks.

Transatlantic fury over Greenland escalated after a 5 January CNN interview by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. Asked whether the White House would, after the military operation in Venezuela two days before, rule out military action to acquire Greenland, Miller declined to answer directly.

Trump and officials in his administration appeared to double down on the possibility that the US could use force in Greenland in interviews and on social media.

The comments sowed confusion and alarm in Washington and among US allies.

On Capitol Hill, Democrats and Republicans grew anxious - the administration appeared to be yet again moving forward with a major military operation without consulting Congress first, two sources familiar with the matter said.

Lawmakers phoned Rubio and senior White House officials, laying out their concerns and advising the administration not to move forward, one of those sources said. Some Republican lawmakers also told administration officials that they feared a potential impeachment investigation over any military invasion of Greenland, the sources said.

This week, Trump brought down the tension, withdrawing his threat to impose tariffs on allies supporting Greenland and saying he had reached the outlines of a deal with NATO on the island's future.

Trump said he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had "formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region" during talks in Davos, Switzerland.

But military action was never seriously considered, according to two sources close to the administration.

Kori Schake, a former Pentagon and White House official with the American Enterprise Institute, said that with Trump's threat to seize Greenland by force, the damage has already been done.

"Trump is so erratic with his threats, there's no way to establish that he won't turn right around and do it again. He has made the United States untrustworthy to our closest friends," Schake said.

Asked for comment, including about Miller's remarks, White House spokeswoman Kelly said: "If this deal goes through ... the United States will be achieving all of its strategic goals with respect to Greenland, at very little cost, forever."

Landry's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the Danish embassy did not have a comment for this story.

Trump and his backers have insisted the US needs Greenland to fend off threats from Russian and Chinese in the Arctic and that Denmark cannot ensure its security. But the United States already has a base on the island and the ability to expand its presence there under a 1951 treaty with Denmark.

Centralized decision-making

Trump's practice of centralizing foreign policy decisions, relying on trusted aides and effectively sidelining experts, has been a consistent theme of his second term.

It happened several times during negotiations to end Russia's war in Ukraine. Most recently in the fall, a 28-point plan to end the war emerged from meetings between Trump's Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, his son-in-law Jared Kushner and Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev, who heads the Russian Direct Investment Fund, one of Russia's largest sovereign wealth funds.

Many senior US officials inside the State Department and on the National Security Council, who would typically be in the know about the evolution of such a plan, were not briefed on the process, two people familiar with the plan said at the time.

The approach has also been apparent in Washington's Syria policy.

In May, Trump met with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa in Saudi Arabia in front of cameras, effectively granting US support to the former Islamist militant, even as some in his administration had advised against it. His decision to lift all US sanctions on Syria caught many US officials off guard.

Since then, US envoy Tom Barrack has been the main implementer of Syria policy with officials at the State Department and other parts of the administration having little room to make policy suggestions, according to three sources familiar with the process.

Communications between Barrack and the subject matter experts in Washington have not been frequent, sources added.

A State Department spokesperson said: "There is tremendous collaboration throughout President Trump's administration, and there are dedicated public servants dutifully advancing key priorities. Then there are the anonymous sources whining to the press who clearly don't have the judgment or temperament to implement President Trump's agenda."