Luigi Mangione returns to federal court for pretrial hearing over potential death penalty

(LONDON) — U.S. officials are expected to meet with Danish and Greenlandic counterparts in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, amid President Donald Trump’s continued expressions of intent to acquire the semi-autonomous Arctic territory despite collective opposition in both Copenhagen and Nuuk.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and Greenlandic Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt are set to lead the delegation to meet with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance. Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark.

In Denmark, “this is the big national news,” Jonas Parello-Plesner, a Danish political analyst and former diplomat, told ABC News. “If in the first Trump period the saying was, ‘You should take him seriously, but not literally,’ I think the saying this time around is, ‘You should both take him seriously and literally.'”

Trump first raised the prospect of acquiring the territory during his first term, when Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen dismissed the idea as “absurd.” Trump’s second term has seen the president speak more aggressively about the proposal.

“Even from a year ago, I see a quite stark difference in both Greenlandic and Danish attitudes that this is actually potentially really serious and life changing for the Kingdom of Denmark,” said Parello-Plesner, who is now the executive director at the Copenhagen-based nonprofit Alliance of Democracies Foundation.

Mikkel Runge Olesen, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, told ABC News that the furor is prompting deeper questions among Danes and Greenlanders about their long-standing ties to the U.S.

“Is this who the U.S. is now? A superpower going around, invading its small democratic allies?” he asked. “That’s scary to think of.”

“Just think of what it will do for the American alliance system worldwide,” he added. “What kind of signal it sends — if you’re allied with the U.S., you may be invaded whenever it suits the U.S.”

‘You need ownership’
Trump has repeatedly suggested that U.S. sovereignty over the world’s largest island is necessary to ensure American security and blunt Chinese and Russian influence in the Arctic region.

As a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland is covered by NATO’s collective defense clause. Greenland hosts the U.S. Pituffik Space Base and around 150 American troops, the U.S. having significantly downgraded its footprint from its high point during the Cold War.

A 1951 defense agreement grants the U.S. military access to Greenland, and Danish politicians have repeatedly expressed willingness to work with Washington to expand the American and NATO presence there.

Danish officials have also sought to head off concerns about the supposed vulnerability of the Arctic. Last year, Copenhagen announced a $6.5 billion Arctic defense package in response to U.S. criticism that it had failed to adequately protect Greenland.

But Trump and his administration appear undeterred. “One way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland,” the president told reporters aboard Air Force One this weekend.

“If we don’t take Greenland, Russia or China will and I’m not letting that happen,” Trump said, before deriding Denmark’s military strength on the island.

“Basically, their defense is two dog sleds,” Trump said. “In the meantime, you have Russian destroyers and submarines and China destroyers and submarines all over the place.”

Asked if there was a deal to be done to avoid further tensions, Trump said he would “love to” because “it would be easier.”

But when pressed, the president said, “I could put a lot of soldiers there right now if I want. But you need more than that. You need ownership.”

Ahead of this week’s meeting, Danish and Greenlandic politicians issued statements again rebuffing any suggestion of a U.S. acquisition of the island, statements which were backed by other European leaders.

“If the United States decides to attack another NATO country, then everything would stop — that includes NATO and therefore post-World War II security,” Frederiksen said in a statement.

“Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Greenland is a member of NATO through the Commonwealth and therefore the defense of Greenland is through NATO,” the government in Nuuk said in a statement.

On Wednesday, Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen posted a photo to social media showing a message sent to him by Frederiksen.

“Greenland will not be owned by the United States,” the message — written in Greenlandic — said. “Greenland does not want to be ruled by the United States. Greenland does not want to be a part of the United States. We want Greenland to continue to function as part of the Kingdom.”

The leaders of all five political parties holding seats in Greenland’s parliament also released a joint statement. “We do not want to be Americans, we do not want to be Danes, we want to be Greenlanders,” they said.

Before heading to the U.S. on Tuesday, Rasmussen — the Danish foreign minister — told reporters in Copenhagen, “Our reason for seeking the meeting we have now been given was to move this whole discussion, which has not become less tense since we last met, into a meeting room where we can look each other in the eye and talk about these things.”

Appealing to ‘the deal-maker’
Olesen, of the Danish Institute for International Studies, said Trump’s most recent comments “should worry Danish politicians.” His apparent dismissal of Copenhagen’s efforts to bolster its Arctic readiness “means that either he hasn’t noticed” or “he doesn’t care. And either way, it’s pretty bad.”

Trump told The New York Times he believed U.S. ownership of Greenland “is what I feel is psychologically necessary for success.” That, too, is “problematic” for Copenhagen, Olesen said. “How do you deal with that?” he asked.

“That’s the conundrum for the Danish and the Greenlandic politicians,” Olesen said, “trying not to provoke Trump too much and trying to give him something.”

“It will be difficult to offer a compromise if all he wants is ownership,” he added.

Parello-Plesner, the former Danish diplomat, said the experiences of other nations during Trump’s second term may offer models.

Trump’s focus on Panama and perceived Chinese overreach produced a proposed deal for a U.S. firm to take control of two ports there owned by a Hong Kong conglomerate. The president described the deal as “reclaiming the Panama Canal.”

José Raúl Mulino, the president of Panama, addressed Trump’s comments about the Panama Canal in a post on X last March, saying in part: “President Trump is lying again. The Panama Canal is not in the process of being recovered, and this was certainly not a topic of discussion in our conversations with Secretary Rubio or anyone else. On behalf of Panama and all Panamanians, I reject this new affront to the truth and to our dignity as a nation.”

In Ukraine, Kyiv alleviated U.S. pressure by agreeing to a rare earth minerals sharing deal as part of the U.S.-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund.

“There’s also a very pragmatic side to Trump — the deal maker,” Parello-Plesner said. “I think our side needs to give him something to work with,” he added.

That could mean fresh commitments on American military deployments in Greenland, a deal related to the territory’s untapped mineral wealth or a pledge to do more to block autocratic states from asserting their Arctic ambitions, Parello-Plesner said.

It is unclear what might appeal to the U.S. side, he continued. “We’ve seen for 30 years that the U.S. has just wanted to cut down on the presence up there and only uses it for limited missile defense purposes,” he said.

Regarding Greenland’s believed mineral wealth, Parello-Plesner said the U.S. government and private companies have been largely uninterested given the territory’s inhospitable weather and terrain, extraction challenges and global market forces.

A symbolic win might be enough to take the heat out of Trump’s push, Olesen said.

“It’s going to be interesting to see how far Danish and Greenlandic politicians feel they can go in order to avoid being humiliated, in order to avoid handing over the Greenlandic underground to a bully,” Olesen continued.

“But then again, the stakes are so high, so I wouldn’t rule it out, and I wouldn’t rule out that if this is something that could solve the crisis.”

In the meantime, both analysts said Copenhagen and Nuuk are likely to focus on bolstering the image of domestic unity, European solidarity, backing from the U.S. Congress and NATO-led Arctic security.

“The Trump policy line is not invulnerable,” Olesen said, noting pushback from U.S. voters and members of Congress — including prominent Republicans.

“At some point, Trump may decide that it’s not worth the bother anymore, and in that case, it would probably be wise to offer him some way to save face and get out of it,” he said.

But months of back and forth over Greenland have already done significant damage to transatlantic sentiment in Denmark, Parello-Plesner said, in a country he said has long prided itself on broad support for NATO and for close relations with the U.S. Danish forces, for example, sustained a comparable per capita casualty rate as the U.S. in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

That strength of feeling, he said, “has dropped tremendously.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(LONDON) — President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu kicked off their joint military campaign against Iran in late February, urging the fall of the Islamic Republic.

“When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations,” Trump said, addressing Iranians in announcing the start of “major combat operations.”

A month of unrelenting combined U.S.-Israeli strikes appears to have significantly eroded Iran’s military capabilities and killed many of its most senior leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who died alongside dozens of top Iranian officials in a series of airstrikes on his official residence in Tehran in the opening salvos of the war.

But despite Trump’s assertion that the “war has been won,” Iranian forces continue to launch attacks on Israel, regional U.S. bases and American partners across the Middle East, while commercial shipping through the strategic Strait of Hormuz remains constrained, with large numbers of cargo vessels in limbo on either side of the narrow waterway at the southern entrance to the Persian Gulf.

Trump has also asserted that there had been “complete regime change,” with the leaders the U.S. is now dealing with in recently announced negotiations “more moderate” and “much more reasonable,” the president told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl.

Trump named Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the powerful speaker of the Iranian parliament, as the direct U.S. negotiating partner, though Ghalibaf has denied the assertion.

But in Tehran, the cadre of officials – Ghalibaf among them – emerging to take the reins of power appear as committed as the slain figures they are replacing, many of them veterans of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), analysts have said.

The regime in Tehran, according to Danny Citrinowicz – the Israel Defense Forces’ former top Iran researcher, now at the Institute for National Security Studies think tank in Israel – “is weaker than it was before the conflict, but it is also more radical. The IRGC has further consolidated its influence over decision-making, eroding what little internal balance once existed within the regime.”

The war appears to have given Tehran long-term leverage over the Strait of Hormuz – a “weapon of mass disruption,” as described by Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group during an online briefing hosted by the think tank this week.

If the Islamic Republic survives the war, and its immediate aftermath by suppressing simmering anti-regime movements, its new leaders may be emboldened to retain perceived strategic advantages, chief among them control of the Strait of Hormuz, analysts who spoke to ABC News said.

That regime sentiment seems to be crystalizing. Ghalibaf, for example, told the IRNA state news agency that Iran’s strategy now rests on its control of three pillars: “missiles, the streets, and the Strait.”

Inside Iran, some sense that shift. Darius – who did not wish to use his real name for fear of reprisal – told ABC News from Tehran of a growing sentiment that “the source of legitimacy for the Islamic republic is shifting” from the clerical establishment to the IRGC.

“Now, the de facto leaders of the country are the generals in the IRGC. And they are actually running the show at the moment,” Darius said.

IRGC ascendant

The IRGC was formed shortly after the Iranian Revolution by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979, ultimately emerging as the new Islamic Republic’s primary tool for projecting its ideology and influence beyond its own borders.

The IRGC entrenched and expanded its power during the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988. With its battlefield exploits and ideological zeal, the IRGC came to embody the wartime concept of “sacred defense,” Johns Hopkins University professor Vali Nasr wrote in his recent book, “Iran’s Grand Strategy.”

Observers have long considered the IRGC to be the most powerful military, political and economic institution in Iran.

Even before the most recent U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran, many experts warned that decapitation strikes or a push for regime change risked empowering the IRGC to seize the state’s other mechanisms of power – though others suggested the force had no need to openly seize control, given its de facto hold over the country.

The new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of Ali Khamenei, served in an elite IRGC unit during the Iran-Iraq War, and analysts have suggested his candidacy was strongly supported by the force.

Mojtaba Khamenei’s newly appointed military adviser, Mohsen Rezaei, was drawn from the senior ranks of the IRGC, as was the new secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, who was selected to replace Ali Larijani when the latter was killed by Israeli airstrikes in mid-March.

Meanwhile, IRGC veteran Ghalibaf – who has reportedly long been close to Mojtaba Khamenei – remains alive and appears to be in a position of influence, one of the few top prewar officials to have survived the U.S.-Israeli campaign.

Inside Iran, some sense that shift. Darius told ABC News from Tehran of a growing sentiment that “the source of legitimacy for the Islamic republic is shifting” from the clerical establishment to the IRGC.

“Now, the de facto leaders of the country are the generals in the IRGC. And they are actually running the show at the moment,” Darius said.

Reading the ‘mosaic’

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi credited a “mosaic defense” strategy with enabling the Iranian military to launch retaliatory strikes despite the killing of so many senior military officials in the opening hours of the U.S.-Israeli campaign.

That decentralized approach also appeared to cause some tactical confusion. Araghchi and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, for example, both denied Iranian responsibility for several reported Iranian drone and missile attacks in the region in the days after the war erupted.

A decapitated regime in Tehran may pose challenges to American negotiators seeking a peace deal, Citrinowicz said, telling ABC News that the killings have created a “worse” strategic situation by dispersing power.

The centralized decision-making power enjoyed by Ali Khamenei is no more, he said. “Now, how are you going to work with them? It’s going to be very hard to reach an agreement with them,” Citrinowicz said, referring to the newly emergent group of leaders.

Trump himself appeared to acknowledge a diffusion of power in Iran as a result of the American-Israeli assassination campaign. “We have nobody to talk to, and you know what, we like it that way,” the president said earlier this month.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told “Good Morning America” this week there are “fractures” within the Iranian leadership, though he would not say with whom the administration is in contact.

Yossi Kuperwasser – the former head of the IDF’s military intelligence research division – told ABC News that the emergence of hardliners “was to be expected.”

“Once you eliminate Khamenei, he’s not going to be replaced by some wishy-washy character, but somebody who is committed to the cause and the IRGC is going to be in charge,” Kuperwasser said.

But Kuperwasser also noted that figures currently touted as Iranian negotiators, such as Ghalibaf, might not live to see the end of the war. Indeed, Larijani was often noted as among the prime negotiating candidates before his killing. “I’d guess there are going to be more eliminations,” Kuperwasser said.

As the war progressed, both U.S. and Israeli officials have distanced themselves from earlier suggestions of regime change. Instead, officials refocused the strategic narrative on their ambitions to degrade Iran’s conventional military – especially ballistic missile – and nuclear programs.

These targets, according to Kuperwasser, were always the Israeli priority.

“Simultaneously, we are trying to weaken the regime so as to create the conditions that can be used by the people of Iran in order to promote something that can bring about the removal of the regime from power,” Kuperwasser said. But that will not necessarily occur in the short term, he added.

‘Missiles, the street, the strait’

Citrinowicz said that whatever structure emerges to negotiate with the Trump administration will likely be influenced toward more hardline demands by the killing of its predecessors.

On the nuclear file, too, “it goes without saying” that Tehran’s outlook will have shifted, Citrinowicz said. Before the war, Iranian leaders had already publicly committed not to pursue nuclear weapons, though Tehran was refusing to accept Trump’s demands of zero enrichment. Now, Citrinowicz said, the new Iranian leadership “might find themselves rushing toward a bomb.”

Iran also has more leverage in the Strait of Hormuz than it did before the conflict, even with the significant military degradation that the U.S. and Israel appear to have inflicted. Officials in Tehran have suggested that Iranian control over the strait – and the requirement for those transiting it to coordinate with Tehran and pay tolls – is the new baseline.

Rubio hinted at long-term disruption in the Persian Gulf last week. “Immediately after this thing ends, and we’re done with our objectives, the immediate challenge we’re going to face is an Iran that may decide that they want to set up a tolling system in the Strait of Hormuz,” Rubio said.

Hamidreza Azizi of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs think tank said during the Crisis Group briefing that Tehran will be set on a conclusive settlement, not merely a ceasefire that would allow the U.S. and Israel to rearm and resume the conflict at a later date, as was the case after the 12-day conflict in June.

“Deep inside Iran’s strategic thinking, there is an understanding that ceasefires are only a means for the United States and Israel to buy time,” Azizi said. While before the conflict, Tehran appeared willing to make concessions on the nuclear file and other issues, now Iranian leaders see an opportunity to achieve what they were unable to across years of negotiations.

The endgame, Azizi said, could be one in which Iran preserves “some sort of leverage” over the Strait of Hormuz or secures “substantial sanctions removal.”

For its part, Citrinowicz said the U.S. appears to be scrambling. “There are so many people in the U.S. that understand this regime, but the administration is behaving like it’s Venezuela. It’s crazy,” Citrinowicz said, referring to the American operation in January to seize Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and support his vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, as Maduro’s successor.

Last week, the U.S. delivered 15-point plan to end the war, which was widely interpreted as a blueprint for Tehran’s capitulation. Iranian demands are likewise maximalist, calling for reparations and for the U.S. to abandon its regional bases.

“Nobody’s getting their wish list,” Dalia Dassa Kaye of the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations said during this week’s Crisis Group briefing.

In the meantime, the battlefield costs will rise and geopolitical implications deepen across the Middle East. “Even if this ends tomorrow,” Kaye said, the costs have already been paid. “It’s going to take years to recuperate the damage.”

“This is not something you put back in a box,” he added.

ABC News’ Desiree Adib and Somayeh Malekian contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(LONDON) — A total of nine people were killed — most of them at a school — and more than two dozen were wounded, after a shooter opened fire on Tuesday in a small community in Canada’s British Columbia.

The suspected shooter is dead from what is believed to be a self-inflicted injury, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police said in a statement.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced seven days of mourning after the deadly shooting. A visibly emotional Carney called it “a very difficult day for the nation.”

“This morning, parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers in Tumbler Ridge will wake up without someone they love. The nation mourns with you. Canada stands by you,” Carney told reporters on Wednesday in Ottawa. 

“We thank the first responders, the teachers, the staff, the residents, for everything that they’ve done in this terrible situation. I, on the advice of the Clerk of the Privy Council and Heritage Canada, I’ve asked that the flags of the Peace Tower here and across all government buildings be flown at half-mast for the next seven days,” he said.

The gunfire was reported at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School at about 1:20 p.m., the RCMP said.

Officers responding to the scene found six people dead inside the school, and another person died while being taken to the hospital, police said. 

Two other victims were airlifted to the hospital with serious or life-threatening injuries. About 25 others were being assessed for injuries that were not believed to be life-threatening, authorities said.

As part of the investigation, police identified what they called a “secondary location believed to be connected to the incident” where two other victims were found dead inside a residence, police said.

“Officers are conducting further searches of additional homes and properties to determine whether anyone else may be injured or otherwise linked to today’s events,” the RCMP said in the statement.

In a statement, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said he was “devastated” by the shooting.

“I join Canadians in grieving with those whose lives have been changed irreversibly today, and in gratitude for the courage and selflessness of the first responders who risked their lives to protect their fellow citizens, Carney said in the statement.

Tumbler Ridge is a small community of about 2,400 people located in the Northern Rockies in northeastern British Columbia.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.