GREENLAND “CLOSED” TO THE U.S.? CANADA–DENMARK SIGN HISTORIC ARCTIC PACT, TRUMP RESPONDS FURIOUSLY
Greenland “Closed” to the U.S.? Canada–Denmark Sign Historic Arctic Sovereignty Pact, Trump Responds Furiously
COPENHAGEN — A seismic shift is underway in the High North. In a move that has sent shockwaves through global diplomatic circles, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen have signed what is being described as a historic Arctic sovereignty pact, witnessed by representatives from 26 nations. The agreement establishes a clear and unyielding rule: no third country can acquire, control, or militarize Greenland without the approval of both Canada and Denmark.
The pact, signed in Copenhagen following a broader Nordic-Canadian summit in Oslo, represents a direct and coordinated response to months of escalating pressure from the United States . Former President Donald Trump had repeatedly expressed his desire for the U.S. to gain control of the autonomous Danish territory, calling it an “absolute necessity” for national security and even refusing to rule out military force .
A “Dual-Veto” Mechanism Reshapes Arctic Governance
One of the most significant elements of the agreement is a formal dual-veto mechanism. Under the pact, any decision involving foreign military bases, major resource-extraction deals, or changes to the territorial status of Greenland must receive explicit approval from both Ottawa and Copenhagen . The arrangement effectively locks the United States—which had reportedly explored ways to gain strategic access to the island—out of any unilateral decision-making process.
“This agreement sends a clear message—the Arctic is secure, and we will keep it that way,” said a joint statement from the leaders, reaffirming their commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Denmark, including Greenland .
Notably, the United States was not part of the negotiations. The pact was forged among like-minded NATO allies who have grown increasingly alarmed by what they perceive as aggressive rhetoric from Washington. In February, NATO launched the Arctic Sentry initiative to bolster security in the region, a move to assuage U.S. concerns while simultaneously reinforcing the message that Greenland’s future is for Greenlanders and Danes to decide .
Trump’s Furious Response: “A Betrayal”
Following the announcement, Donald Trump reacted with characteristic fury. In a series of statements, he called the agreement a “betrayal” by close allies and warned that economic sanctions could follow if the U.S. is locked out of Arctic decision-making .
During his January speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump had laid the groundwork for this confrontation, telling world leaders: “You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no, and we will remember” . He argued that no country other than the United States is capable of protecting Greenland and accused Denmark of being “ungrateful” for American military protection dating back to World War II .
The new pact appears to be the collective Nordic and Canadian answer to that ultimatum: a unified “no” backed by legal commitments and military cooperation.
Defending Sovereignty in a New World Order
Supporters of the pact argue that it is designed to protect Arctic sovereignty and prevent powerful nations from pressuring smaller countries over strategically important territory. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, speaking after the Nordic-Canadian summit, declared that the “old world order is gone and likely not coming back” .
“So, we have to build something new and it has to be a world order that is built on the values that we represent,” Frederiksen said .
When pressed on whether Canada and its allies would stand up to defend Greenland if another NATO ally—a thinly veiled reference to the United States—attempted to seize the territory, Carney was unequivocal. “Territorial sovereignty must be upheld and the future of Greenland is up to its people and Denmark,” he said. “We will back that with measures as necessary, as a partner” .
Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre echoed the sentiment, emphasizing that the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity are not mere “language in schoolbooks” but “hardcore realities for how we preserve freedom, democracy” .
The Arctic Balance of Power
For many observers, a bigger question is now emerging: Could this deal be reshaping the balance of power in the Arctic? The region is warming three to four times faster than the planet, opening up greater access to resources—including oil, gas, minerals, and fish—as well as new shipping routes . As the ice melts, strategic interest intensifies.
While Trump and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte agreed to a framework for a future deal on Arctic security in January, the new Canada-Denmark pact creates a unified Nordic-Canadian bloc that will be difficult for any outside power to penetrate . The leaders have committed to deepening military ties in the Arctic, enhancing surveillance, and expanding joint operations .
NATO is currently operating its biennial Cold Response training exercises, where 32,000 troops from 14 nations, including the U.S., are conducting military exercises in extreme winter conditions . The message is clear: the Arctic is becoming a militarized frontier, and the rules of engagement are being rewritten.
A Line in the Ice
As the geopolitical winter deepens, the Canada-Denmark pact represents a line drawn in the ice. It signals that the era of unquestioning deference to U.S. strategic interests in the region is over. The dual-veto mechanism ensures that Greenland cannot be traded, sold, or annexed without the consent of those who have governed it for centuries.
For Trump and his allies, the agreement is a provocation. For the Nordic nations and Canada, it is a necessary assertion of sovereignty in a rapidly changing world. And for the people of Greenland, it is a reaffirmation that their future remains, as Carney put it, “for Greenland and Denmark to decide” .
The question now is whether the United States will accept this new Arctic order—or whether the battle for the High North has only just begun.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
