Trump rules out using military force to acquire Greenland in Davos speech
US President Donald Trump, during the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2026. The annual Davos gathering of political leaders, top executives and celebrities runs from Jan. 19-23. (Photographer: Krisztian Bocsi/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(DAVOS, Switzerland) — President Donald Trump, speaking Wednesday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland amid heightened tensions with Europe, notably ruled out using military force to acquire Greenland.
“We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won’t do that,” Trump said.
“I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force,” Trump said.
Still, Trump said no other country can defend Greenland but the United States and said he is seeking “immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition of Greenland by the United States.”
“I have tremendous respect for both the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark, tremendous respect. But every NATO ally has an obligation to be able to defend their own territory, and the fact is, no nation or group of nations is in any position to be able to secure Greenland other than the United States. We’re a great power,” Trump said.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
The construction for the ballroom on the White House’s East Wing as seen from the top of the Washington Monument, Nov. 17, 2025. (ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — Even before a federal judge has decided whether he’ll halt construction of the White House ballroom, the Trump administration has preemptively asked the judge to stay any injunction he might issue, warning that the project is “imperative for reasons of national security.”
The government’s overnight filing, entered just before the end of the day Monday, also says halting the construction would “leave an unsightly excavation site in President’s Park indefinitely.”
The administration’s stay motion comes a week-and-a-half after Judge Richard Leon publicly aired his deep skepticism of the government’s arguments that the president has the power to build a ballroom with private donations and without express authorization from Congress, comparing the plan to a “Rube Goldberg contraption.” Leon also said he expected the losing side of the case to appeal.
The Justice Department’s filing restates many of the arguments its lawyer made before Leon last month, including the administration’s view that it would be “unworkable” to allow security-related portions of the project to continue while work on the ballroom has been stopped.
“[A]s the Secret Service attested, halting construction would imperil the President and others who live and work in the White House,” the administration argues, citing a senior agency official who said in court papers last month that the current open construction site is, “in and of itself, a hazard and complicates Secret Service operations.”
The government now says it will submit a second classified declaration from the Secret Service that further explains why halting construction “will endanger national security and therefore impair the public interest.”
It’s widely believed the plan is to replace the bunker FDR had built underneath the East Wing — destroyed in the demolition.
The filing also casts the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s challenge to the project as one that presents questions judges have never grappled with before, including whether a 1912 statute prohibiting the construction of federal buildings absent congressional authorization applies to the president.
Acknowledging Leon’s own expectation of an appeal by the losing side, the Justice Department is preemptively asking him to press pause on a potential ruling against the government.
“The D.C. Circuit should have the opportunity to weigh in on these significant and novel issues of first impression before the President is ordered to stop work in the middle of a high-priority construction project that implicates national security,” the filing concludes.
U.S. Supreme Court building on March 31, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — For more than a century, an American birth certificate has been a key to unlocking the benefits of American citizenship.
Most parents of newborns on U.S. soil have simply needed proof of birth from a hospital to apply for social security numbers, passports and early life benefits for their children. Into adulthood, the birth certificate has been universally recognized as proof of citizenship for voter registration, employment, home loans and military service.
A landmark case before the Supreme Court on Wednesday will determine whether that longstanding cultural norm and legal precedent will continue, or whether sweeping bureaucratic changes that could impact millions will soon take effect.
President Donald Trump is asking the justices to uphold his Day 1 executive order eliminating birthright citizenship under a novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment and requiring parents to prove their own legal status before citizenship is granted to their children.
All lower courts that have considered the case struck the order down.
The amendment, which was ratified in 1868, says all “persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. Congress later codified the same language in federal citizenship law in 1940.
“Look at the dates of this long ago legislation – THE EXACT END OF THE CIVIL WAR!” Trump posted on social media Monday. “It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES!”
Trump argues children born to parents who are not American citizens or legal permanent residents were never considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. because they still owe political “allegiance” to a foreign nation.
Courts and the government, however, have repeatedly interpreted the 14th Amendment to unambiguously confer citizenship on all children born on U.S. soil, including to babies of unauthorized noncitizens and temporary residents, such as international students, foreign nationals who are in the U.S. on tourist visas and seasonal workers.
“The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States,” wrote Justice Horace Gray in an 1898 Supreme Court opinion addressing the status of children born to noncitizens.
Immigrant advocates and civil liberties groups insist Trump’s order is blatantly unconstitutional — contrary to the plain text of the Constitution and history of the citizenship clause — and would unleash “chaos” nationwide.
“The impacts on this country would be catastrophic,” said ACLU attorney Cody Wofsy, who is leading the case against the order.
“Most directly, the children who would be stripped of their citizenship would be … subject to arrest, detention and deportation from the only country they’ve ever known,” Wofsy said.
An estimated 255,000 children born every year on U.S. soil to noncitizen parents could lose legal status under Trump’s order, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Some may have difficulty establishing citizenship in any country, effectively being born as “stateless.”
“Babies [born to parents] from countries like Nepal, Afghanistan, Bhutan, where there is not a clear pathway to citizenship in their home countries,” said Anisa Rahm, legal director of the South Asian American Justice Collaborative. “So therefore, where do they belong?”
While the administration insists the order will only apply to children born after it takes effect, legal scholars have warned that a ruling striking down birthright citizenship could have retroactive consequences.
“The citizenship of other Americans could be called into question,” said Winnie Kao, an attorney with the Asian Law Caucus, one of the groups that brought a class-action suit against the administration over the order.
“Vast swaths of U.S. law would need to be reexamined because they are premised on birthright citizenship,” added Kao. “It will also be a total administrative and bureaucratic nightmare for everyone — even for parents who are U.S. citizens.”
An ABC News review of Trump administration plans for implementing a new citizenship policy across federal agencies suggests a more involved and potentially complicated process for new parents than currently exists, if the executive order takes effect.
The Social Security Administration says birth certificates would no longer be sufficient documentation to obtain a new Social Security Number for a newborn.
“SSA will require evidence that such a person’s mother and/or father is a U.S. citizen or in an eligible immigration status at the time of the person’s birth,” the agency wrote in a July 2025 guidance memo.
Parents would first need to submit their own citizenship documentation by mail, phone or online, the agency said. Alternatively, parents could provide a “self-attestation” of citizenship subject to “state and federal penalties for perjury,” according to the memo.
The State Department says it would adopt similar verification measures for passport applicants.
For children born to lawful but temporary immigrants — who would no longer be eligible for citizenship — the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says parents would need to register to obtain the same temporary legal status for their kids.
Federally funded benefits for children, like nutrition assistance and health care services, provided by the Department of Health and Human Services would also require extensive documentation by all parents to prove their children were citizens at birth, the agency said in a memo.
During oral arguments last year in a predecessor case involving Trump’s birthright citizenship order, Justice Brett Kavanaugh — often a key vote in hotly contested cases — voiced concern about whether the government would be able to carry out citizenship checks for parents of the more than 3.6 million babies born in the U.S. each year.
“Federal officials will have to figure that out essentially,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer told the justice under questioning.
“How?” Kavanaugh responded skeptically.
“So, you can imagine a number of ways –” Sauer began.
“Such as?” Kavanaugh quipped. “For all the newborns? Is that how it’s going to work?”
Sauer replied at the time that the administration did not have all the details worked out because courts had blocked the executive order in full.
Polls show the nation is sharply divided over the issue of American citizenship for newborn children of unauthorized immigrants. Half of adults — 50% — say they should receive U.S. citizenship; 49% say they should not, according to an April 2025 Pew Research Center survey.
(WASHINGTON) — U.S. Southern Command said it targeted three vessels traveling in a convoy in undisclosed international waters — leaving “narco-terrorists” as survivors after they jumped overboard, according to a social media statement.
The strikes occurred on Dec. 30, according to the post on X.
“Three narco-terrorists aboard the first vessel were killed in the first engagement,” the statement said. “The remaining narco-terrorists abandoned the other two vessels, jumping overboard and distancing themselves before follow-on engagements sank their respective vessels.”
At least six people survived the Dec. 30 strikes, which took place in the Eastern Pacific, according to a U.S. official.
The U.S. Coast Guard was notified to begin searching for the survivors in a search and rescue operation, the statement said.
The U.S. Coast Guard confirmed that a search-and-rescue operation was underway, and that Coast Guard C-130 aircraft had been deployed for the operation. The Coast Guard has put out a signal to other mariners for the survivors in distress.
In a statement shared with ABC News, the Coast Guard said, “on December 30th, the U.S. Coast Guard was notified by the Department of War of mariners in distress in the Pacific Ocean.”
“The U.S. Coast Guard is coordinating search and rescue operations with vessels in the area, and a Coast Guard C-130 aircraft is en route to provide further search coverage,” it said.
Several hours after announcing the Dec. 30 strikes, Southern Command posted on social media that another series of strikes — carried out on New Year’s Eve — had targeted two more vessels alleged to be engaged in drug trafficking. The post did not specify where the strike took place.
A total of five people were killed — three in the first vessel and two in the second, according to the post.
There have now been at least 34 strikes — and at least 115 people killed — in the U.S. military campaign in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific targeting alleged drug traffickers since September.
In the posts about the strikes, the military said the vessels targeted were operated by designated terrorist organizations and that intelligence confirmed the vessel were “were transiting along known narco-trafficking routes and engaged in narco-trafficking.”
The U.S. campaign targeting alleged drug boats came under scrutiny last month after the Trump administration acknowledged survivors of an initial series of strikes on an alleged drug vessel on Sept. 2 were killed in a follow-up series of strikes.
In another attack in the Caribbean in October, two survivors of a strike on a submarine suspected of carrying drugs were later returned to the countries of origin — Ecuador and Colombia — to be detained and prosecuted, President Donald Trump said.
On Oct. 27, a mariner, now presumed dead, also survived U.S. strikes.
