President Donald Trump’s centralized foreign policy decision-making has created sudden reversals and confusion among U.S. allies and his own administration, according to sources familiar with internal discussions. From a potential military threat over Greenland to secretive Ukraine peace talks, the approach has sidelined career experts and relied on a small circle of aides, risking lasting damage to key relationships.
What Recently Happened with Greenland?
Less than two weeks after normal diplomatic talks between U.S., Danish, and Greenlandic officials, Trump appointed a special envoy to the vast island. The envoy, Jeff Landry, posted on social media that he would help “make Greenland part of the U.S.,” a statement that stunned Copenhagen and blindsided senior U.S. officials working on European and NATO issues. The move appeared driven solely by Trump and close aides, excluding diplomats who typically steer policy.
Was Military Action Seriously Considered?
Transatlantic tensions escalated after White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, in a January 5 CNN interview, declined to rule out military action to acquire Greenland. Trump and officials subsequently doubled down on the possibility in interviews and on social media, sowing alarm. On Capitol Hill, lawmakers from both parties grew anxious, with some Republicans warning administration officials of a potential impeachment investigation over any military invasion, sources said. Two sources close to the administration later stated military action was never seriously considered.
What Does the White House Say?
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly, asked about moves that surprised diplomats in cases including Greenland, Ukraine, and Syria, said people “who leak to Reuters” were not clued in on sensitive discussions. “The president was elected to implement America First foreign policy, and he has done so more effectively through his top-down approach,” Kelly said. Regarding Greenland, she added, “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.”
How Has This Pattern Played Out Elsewhere?
This centralized approach has been a consistent theme. During Ukraine war negotiations, a 28-point peace plan emerged from meetings between Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev. Many senior U.S. officials at the State Department and National Security Council were not briefed on the process. In Syria, Trump’s decision to lift all U.S. sanctions and meet with President Ahmed al-Sharaa caught many officials off guard, with envoy Tom Barrack now the main policy implementer.
What is the Fallout?
Experts warn the erratic process damages trust. “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,” said Kori Schake, a former Pentagon and White House official. While Trump this week withdrew tariff threats and said he reached a framework deal on Greenland’s future with NATO, the episode highlighted the whiplash inherent to his policy style.
FAQs
Q: What did Trump’s special envoy to Greenland say?
A: Envoy Jeff Landry posted on social media that he would help “make Greenland part of the U.S.,” shocking Danish and U.S. officials.
Q: Did the U.S. government consider military action for Greenland?
A: According to two sources close to the administration, military action was never seriously considered, despite public comments from officials not ruling it out.
Q: How has this affected U.S. diplomacy in Ukraine?
A: A Ukraine peace plan was developed by a small Trump envoy team meeting with a Russian official, while many typical U.S. national security officials were not briefed on the process.
Q: What is the White House’s defense of this approach?
A: The White House says the “top-down approach” effectively implements an America First foreign policy and that leakers are not privy to sensitive discussions.
