US Politics

New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, a Republican, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 16, 2025, as part of her confirmation process to become the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

International diplomacy is the essence of the U.N. As a former United Nations official and an academic who has published widely on the U.N., I know that diplomacy is an art, not a science.

And a good ambassador can make a real difference.

U.S. Representative Elise Stefanik, right, is Donald Trump’s nominee to become the next U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
Allison Robbert-Pool/Getty Images

A direct line from the UN to the president

The alliances countries form and maintain at the U.N. are necessary to help confront global crises that exceed the reach and power of any single nation.

All of the 193 governments that make up the U.N. have ambassadors who negotiate different U.N. agreements on issues ranging from terrorism to nuclear proliferation.

Of all these ambassadors, the U.S. envoy is a particularly high-profile and unique job. First, the U.S. is the host country to the U.N. headquarters. The U.S. is also the U.N.’s largest financial contributor.

Some U.S. ambassadors have been career diplomats, like Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the current ambassador who was appointed by President Joe Biden in February 2021.

Other former U.S. ambassadors to the U.N. have backgrounds in other areas, including academia, journalism and U.S. politics.

The U.S. ambassador can be part of a president’s Cabinet and report directly to the president, or may not have the Cabinet rank and instead report to the secretary of state. Nikki Haley, who served as ambassador to the U.N. during the first Trump administration, had Cabinet status, as would Stefanik, assuming she is confirmed.

Having the ear of the president strengthens the ambassador’s influence at the U.N.

The ambassador’s top jobs

The U.S. ambassador serves as an effective international advocate for the government’s interests, be it on reducing food insecurity and preventing famine in other countries or trying to stop North Korea from launching ballistic missiles.

The ambassador explains the U.S. government’s particular positions to other countries’ ambassadors and representatives at the U.N.

The U.S. ambassador also listens to foreign representatives about their political positions. The ambassador then acts as a bridge between the U.N. in New York and the U.S. government in Washington, navigating difficult conversations on human rights and terrorism, for example.

The ambassador’s third, day-to-day role involves overseeing the 150 State Department and other staff at the U.S. mission to the U.N., a building right across the street from U.N. headquarters on First Avenue in Manhattan.

The U.S. mission’s employees do everything from negotiating Security Council resolutions to advising the ambassador and other top offices on media relations.

The U.S. ambassador is also heavily involved in selecting the U.N. secretary-general, who leads the organization in its varied political and humanitarian work over a five-year term.

Countries can nominate particular candidates to serve as the secretary-general. But any candidate must be able to win the support of the U.S. and the other Security Council permanent members, which have the power to shoot down and reject a potential U.N. leader.

Countries will next vote to appoint a new secretary-general in 2026.

U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield speaks during a U.N. Security Council meeting on the Middle East in August 2024.
Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

The UN Security Council

A large part of the U.S. ambassador’s work happens at the Security Council, a key part of the U.N. that is tasked with maintaining international peace and security. Since the U.N. was founded in 1945, the Security Council has been almost exclusively crisis and emergency driven.

The council has more power than arguably any other branch of the U.N., since its recommendations and decisions, known as resolutions, are considered binding under international law. The council has voted on sanctions – which could look like travel bans or freezing of international assets – against a range of individuals, countries like Iran and Somalia, and terrorist groups like al-Qaida. It also has the power to authorize U.N. peacekeeping operations to be deployed to conflict zones.

The U.S., China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom are the five permanent members of the council. While other countries rotate and take turns participating in the council’s work, only these permanent council members can veto resolutions – leading to frequent stalemates.

In 2024, the U.S. used its veto power five times to reject resolutions related to the war between Israel and Hamas.

The U.S. ambassador can help decide what issues the council discusses, draft and share resolutions, and influence how other council members vote.

Real negotiations occur not in formal meetings that are routinely aired live but in informal consultations behind closed doors. This is where diplomats exercise their ingenuity and settle their differences.

Days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte, an appointee of then-President George W. Bush, negotiated a resolution that called for governments to take on different counterterrorist activities.

Six months after the U.S. Senate confirmed Susan Rice as ambassador in 2009, she led the Security Council in approving a resolution that imposed economic sanctions on North Korea in response to its nuclear and missile tests.

Today, the Security Council is dealing with various conflicts in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East. The council also focuses on counterterrorism, energy, climate, natural resources and other issues.

Making the case

The U.S. ambassador to the U.N. is a public figure who is expected to frequently travel outside of the country to make the case for why the United States’ participation and leadership at the U.N. matters.

This is important because about 40% of Americans in 2023 said that the U.S. does not benefit from being a member of the U.N. And in a democracy, a successful foreign policy approach must have public support.

This story is part of a series of profiles of Cabinet and high-level administration positions. More

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, will testify before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee as part of his confirmation process on Jan. 15, 2025.

Rubio’s nomination is remarkable for several reasons, including the fact that Rubio has been a harsh critic of Trump.

But the relationship between Trump and Rubio has improved in recent years, so much so that Rubio was a finalist to serve as Trump’s running mate in 2024. Rubio would also be the first Latino to serve in this important role.

The secretary of state is one of the most important U.S. government Cabinet positions, and the secretary of state is fourth in line for the presidency.

In my work as a scholar of international affairs, I’ve seen how secretaries of state have had lasting impact on U.S. foreign policy and how the rest of the world perceives the U.S.

Marco Rubio, Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, speaks to reporters in Washington, D.C., in December 2024.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Secretaries of state who left their mark

Thomas Jefferson, who served as the first U.S. secretary of state from 1790 through 1793, laid the groundwork for U.S. diplomacy. He helped establish the U.S. as a sovereign country and advocated for neutrality during European conflicts. This allowed the nascent nation to develop its interests without foreign entanglements.

Jefferson also advocated for diplomacy over war and thought that negotiations should be used to resolve conflict. Jefferson wrote in a 1799 letter, “I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, & little or no diplomatic establishment: and I am not for linking ourselves, by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance.”

Centuries later, World War II elevated another secretary of state, George C. Marshall, who served from January 1947 through January 1949.

Marshall designed the strategy – aptly called the Marshall Plan – that rebuilt and stabilized Europe after World War II, blunting communism’s spread and solidifying an alliance between a Western bloc of countries. As a result of his work, Marshall received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953.

U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall presents Cub Scouts with a ‘Junior Marshall Plan’ in February 1948.
Bettmann/Contributor

The incoming secretary of state in 2025 will face critical challenges, including multiple wars across the world, as well as the potential threat of a nuclear confrontation with Iran or other countries.

This tough job demands significant intelligence, knowledge and grit.

The role of the secretary of state

Above all, the secretary of state is the country’s top diplomat. The secretary oversees and implements all of the president’s foreign policies through the State Department, which includes several agencies, including the Foreign Service.

The secretary of state is also the president’s top adviser on foreign policy. The secretary gives the president updates and recommendations on how a foreign policy decision might be tackled.

The secretary also regularly speaks with different heads of state, ambassadors and foreign ministers to deal with global challenges and crises, and to negotiate international treaties or ceasefire deals.

A day in the life

On a day-to-day basis, the secretary oversees a large bureaucracy, with over 69,000 employees, including ambassadors, foreign service officers and other workers stationed in more than 270 embassies, consulates and missions worldwide.

The secretary’s daily schedule might include morning meetings and updates from senior officials, intelligence agencies or regional experts on ongoing crises. In Washington, D.C., the secretary will also host or attend meetings with ambassadors and foreign dignitaries or with leaders from Congress.

The secretary also reviews budgets, personnel decisions and the many reports that U.S. embassies and other offices overseas produce about the political situations in other countries and regions.

The secretary of state is charged with resolving global conflicts and helping maintain peace. This involves frequent travel abroad to meet with various foreign counterparts.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, for example, traveled in February and March 2024 to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, the West Bank, Israel, Albania, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Jamaica, Austria, South Korea and the Philippines.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken disembarks from a plane at Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv, Israel, on April 30, 2024.
Evelyn Hockstein/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Budget monitoring, too

Not all of the secretary’s work is glamorous or exciting.

Since the secretary of state oversees the State Department, this person must carefully monitor budgets to help ensure that the correct amount of money from the department’s large budget – currently at US$58.8 billion for July 2024 through June 2025 – reaches the various U.S. diplomatic and foreign aid missions.

The secretary also needs to understand and make sure the U.S. lives up to its obligations under different international agreements, such as arms control treaties and trade deals. The secretary is involved in negotiating agreements that come out of international organizations, such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Another crucial but less high-profile role for the secretary of state is protecting U.S. citizens abroad. The State Department helps U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad with issues ranging from renewing passports and visas to helping them evacuate due to a medical emergency.

The State Department also helps U.S. citizens who experience a natural disaster, political unrest or a kidnapping abroad.

Finally, the secretary must navigate and balance international expectations of how the U.S should respond to escalating conflicts in other countries. At the same time, the secretary has to balance domestic U.S. political considerations.

Why experience matters

The secretary of state takes the lead on responding to crises, from humanitarian disasters to foreign cyberattacks, which can escalate quickly. It is essential to have someone in this post who has crisis management experience, a clear understanding of global politics and history, and strong decision-making skills.

An adept secretary can build bipartisan support and effectively communicate the importance of foreign policy decisions to the public. Lack of political acumen can lead to gridlock or undermine initiatives the U.S. wants to undertake.

If a secretary of state is inexperienced or has poor judgment, it could also exacerbate crises or lead to long-term damage for the U.S.’s national security and its relationships with other countries.

This story is part of a series of profiles of Cabinet and high-level administration positions. More

Donald Trump has become America’s first convicted felon president after a New York state court formally sentenced him on January 10 over 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal. However, this is no win for the rule of law. Trump’s constant attempts to delegitimise and pick apart the American justice system have worked.

As a convicted felon, Trump won’t be able to buy a gun in some states, travel to 38 countries including Canada and Japan without a waiver, or do jury duty. Yet Trump was sentenced only to an “unconditional discharge”, meaning he will face no further penalties. Nearly half of people convicted of the same crime in the state of New York would go to prison, and Trump could have faced a fine of up to US$170,000 (£140,000).

Even Trump’s former advisers, Paul Manafort and Steve Bannon, went to prison for the same hush money case that eventually led to the president-elect’s conviction, as did his former fixer Michael Cohen. But Trump’s relationship with the justice system is to use delay tactics such as appeals and public and private pressure campaigns to bend the rules.

In July, the US Supreme Court ruled that presidents have immunity for actions taken while in office. With that ruling, the judiciary effectively gave up its ability to check a sitting president, undercutting horizontal forms of accountability that are so critical to democracy. This has given Trump the green light to carry on with his assaults on the rule of law.

The only recent check on Trump’s power was the Supreme Court’s decision, passed by five votes to four, to allow the sentencing for the hush money trial to take place. This decision followed a call between Trump and Justice Sam Alito, in which Alito said the case was not discussed. In the world of authoritarian regimes, similar types of phone calls are known as telephone law, a legal framework where a leader habitually contacts judges to direct the outcome of critical cases.

When Trump is not trying to influence judges directly, he is denigrating those who do not comply with his agenda. With this latest case, Trump has shown no contrition and even showed contempt for Justice Juan Merchan, the judge who oversaw his trial. In a social media post on January 4, Trump claimed the charges against him were “made up” by Merchan, whom Trump referred to as “the most conflicted judge in New York state history”.

It is not just Merchan who has faced Trump’s wrath. Trump has in the past attacked US-born federal judge Gonzalo Curiel over the blocking of a border wall with Mexico, saying Curiel could not be impartial because he was “Mexican”. While this is not as bad as when former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez sent a sitting judge to prison for ruling against his wishes, it is not yet clear where Trump’s new justice system will take the US.

Donald Trump arrives at the Manhattan Criminal Court in New York for his hush money trial in April 2024.
Jabin Botsford / POOL / EPA

Trump has certainly revolutionised the way we think about the US presidency. In 1972, burglars were arrested after breaking into the Democratic party’s national headquarters in Washington. Former US president Richard Nixon was subsequently accused of engaging in a cover-up in what became known as the Watergate scandal. By the autumn of 1974, 58% of Americans said that Nixon should be tried for criminal charges and 53% felt that he should not be pardoned if found guilty.

Trump has not faced the same level of backlash. According to a YouGov survey released on the day of his sentencing, 48% of Americans believed Trump had committed a crime in the hush money case. However, 28% did not. In addition, though 42% of Americans thought Trump is treated more leniently than other people, 30% think he is treated too harshly.

Tracking Trump’s trials

Trump faces a few other active cases, too. But these criminal cases have mostly faded away. Special Counsel Jack Smith had to give up the January 6 insurrection case (and recently resigned from the Justice Department) after Trump’s electoral victory. And over the summer, Judge Aileen Cannon, whose name is being cited for a potential role in the Trump administration, threw out the case against Trump over taking classified documents to his home in Florida.

Trump was also accused of conspiring with others to overturn the results of the 2020 US election in the state of Georgia. This appeared the most dangerous of the four criminal cases that Trump was facing as the crimes were more serious and he could not potentially pardon himself for state-level crimes.

But numerous delays, appeals and accusations of conflicts of interest caused the case to stall. District Attorney Fani Willis was moved off the case, and though she has appealed, this will take months to come to a resolution. She would probably have to wait until Trump is out of office for him to be tried, and it is not clear if there will still be an appetite for this.

Jack Smith, who led two federal criminal cases against Donald Trump, has now resigned from the Justice Department.
Michael Reynolds / EPA

Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, has also been convicted of 17 counts of tax fraud, among other crimes. A civil court found Trump guilty of business fraud in February 2024 and fined him a staggering US$350 million due to years of engaging in fraud. This has now swelled to more than US$500 million, but Trump has yet to pay anything.

And another civil court found him liable for sexual assault in May 2023, something he tried to appeal unsuccessfully. When ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos referred on air to the decision of this case as one of “rape” rather than “sexual abuse”, Trump sued and ABC was forced to cough up US$15 million, a scary omen of things to come for the free press.

Trump will now forever have a stain on his record as the only US president who broke the law (Nixon resigned before any criminal charges were filed). For many Americans, though, it doesn’t seem to really matter. More

Less than 24 hours after Donald Trump was elected president of the United States in November 2024, the German state-owned news service Deutsche Welle published an article with the headline “Trump’s election victory is a nightmare for Germany.”

A few hours later, Germany’s chancellor, Olaf Scholz, announced that his three-party political coalition had collapsed. Disagreements about how to help strengthen Germany’s weak economy were a major factor, but Scholz mentioned that the U.S. election outcome also fueled the coalition breaking up.

One month later, Scholz lost a confidence vote, ending the government he has led since 2021. Germany will have federal elections on Feb. 23, 2025.

Germany is considered one of the United States’ closest allies in Western Europe, partnering on everything from economic trade to military defense.

But this might change with Trump returning to office. As Angela Merkel, the longtime former chancellor of Germany, said in November 2024, the looming second Trump presidency “is a challenge to the world, especially for multilateralism.” Indeed, Trump’s U.S.-centric approach to international affairs runs counter to multilateralism, which is the idea that different countries working together helps everyone involved.

As someone who researches German-American relations in the 20th century, I share German politicians’ worries that the incoming Trump administration poses a serious threat to the relationship.

The German concerns include Trump potentially launching a tariff-induced trade war, as well as the possibility of the president-elect withdrawing financial and military support for Ukraine in its war against Russia. Both scenarios would further hurt the weak German economy – especially since, following the U.S. and the European Union, Germany is the third-largest donor to Ukraine and would be required to shoulder even more of this financial support if the U.S. stopped giving Ukraine money.

German politicians also remain dumbfounded by Trump’s particular style of politics, despite the fact that he already served as president.

Merkel wrote in her 2024 memoir “Freedom: Memoirs 1954-2021” that when she first met Trump in 2017, she acted as though she were having a conversation with “someone completely normal.” Merkel quickly realized, though, that Trump was not like other American politicians. She observed that Trump seemed to think all countries competed and the success of one meant the failure of another.

Angela Merkel, German’s then-chancellor, talks with Donald Trump on the sidelines of a G7 summit in June 2018 in Charlevoix, Canada.
Tesco Denzel/Bundesregierung via Getty Images

A long-lasting alliance

That was not the type of American president Merkel and other Germans were used to. Merkel was born in 1954, when Germany was split into two countries: communist, Soviet-aligned East Germany, where Merkel grew up, and capitalist West Germany, which was formed out of the three western sectors controlled by France, the U.S. and the United Kingdom at the end of World War II and was aligned with the U.S.

The U.S. embraced West Germany as an important ally shortly after the war. This alliance helped the U.S. make sure that Germany, not too long ago an enemy of the U.S. during World War II, would never again become a threat to world peace.

West Germany also served as an important front line in Europe as the U.S. navigated the Cold War with the Soviet Union starting in 1947.

West Germany, meanwhile, appreciated the power of having an American überpartner during the Cold War, especially since West Germany flourished economically during most of the conflict. East Germany’s economy, on the other hand, was relatively weak throughout the Cold War.

Perhaps the most visible symbol of Germany’s division was the Berlin Wall, a 96-mile partition that cut through Berlin. East German authorities built the wall in 1961 in order to prevent East Germans from fleeing to West Germany.

It was only after the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989, symbolizing the looming end of the Cold War that year and opening up the possibility for German unification, that Merkel entered politics.

Unified Germany and the United States

As a politician in the 1990s, Merkel witnessed how then-President George H.W. Bush convinced France and the United Kingdom to put aside their fears about a new German dominance over Europe and allow their former World War II enemy to unify and gain full sovereignty.

The four main Allied powers of World War II in Europe – the United Kingdom, U.S., Soviet Union and France – had initially denied Germany the right to sovereignty after the end of the war.

But in 1990, the four Allies signed the Two Plus Four Treaty – an international agreement that allowed Germany to unify as a fully sovereign state in October 1990.

Immediately afterward, Bush praised the transatlantic alliance between the U.S. and Germany. The American president emphasized the two countries’ common “love of freedom” and expressed his hope that they become “partners in leadership.”

Bush’s words signaled an important turnaround in the international expectations of Germany, and the need for it to become a more influential political and military player in world politics. It was a turnaround, however, that many Germans did not necessarily welcome. Germans felt reluctant to step into the powerful leadership role that the U.S. expected of the country.

At the time, there was a common belief in Germany that military restraint had finally made their country a stable and prosperous one, following two devastating wars.

In fact, in almost all the global crises since 1990 – from the war in Bosnia in 1992 to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 – Germany has shown a reluctance to take the lead. Instead, Germany prefers a secondary role in navigating international conflicts, primarily through its membership with the military coalition NATO and the United Nations.

George H.W. Bush, then-vice president of the U.S., surveys East Germany over the Berlin Wall in 1983.
Sahm Doherty/Getty Images

Germany’s international position today

After Russia launched a full invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Germany’s approach to international conflicts dramatically changed, and it finally stepped into the leadership role envisioned by Bush in 1990. In a historic speech on Feb. 27, 2022, Scholz called the attack a “Zeitenwende”, meaning “a watershed era” in German, and announced a significant increase in military spending.

The U.S. and other Western allies have welcomed this shift.

While NATO members had already agreed to invest a minimum of 2% of their gross domestic product in defense spending in 2006, Germany – like other European countries – did not meet this commitment for many years.

It was only in February 2024 that Germany finally achieved its 2% spending target for the first time in the wake of the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine.

That it did so was not just a result of that conflict.

Pressure by American presidents, above all Trump, also played a major role. Trump’s continuous threat throughout his first presidency to “pay your bills or we leave NATO” had apparently paid off.

It will be up to the new German government to remind Trump of the history of German-American relations and the many benefits of the transatlantic alliance between the two powers since 1945. More

Donald Trump has long been interested in Greenland becoming part of the United States. Yesterday, he told reporters he would not rule out using military force to acquire the Danish territory, saying “we need” it for the “economic security” of the United States. As he spoke, his son Donald Jr was in Greenland, on what is described as a private visit.

Last week, Greenland’s prime minister Múte Egede called for independence from Denmark and for the “shackles of the colonial era” to be broken. Last year, on December 23, he explicitly rejected Trump’s interest: “Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale.”

The Danish prime minister similarly dismissed the notion of Trump buying Greenland as absurd when he first raised it in 2019. Yet, Trump’s fascination with the Arctic island persists, reflecting broader geopolitical interests in the region.

Donald Trump Jr in Nuuk, Greenland, this week, as his father calls its acquisition by the US essential.
Emil Stach/Denmark Out/AAP

As the ice melts, new shipping routes and untapped resources, particularly rare earth minerals, have elevated Greenland’s strategic importance. It is the site of one of the world’s largest known rare earth metal deposits. And the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources reports “huge potential for oil exploitation in the waters” offshore.

But while Trump’s rhetoric is outlandish, Greenland’s history tells a deeper story of colonial entanglements, autonomy struggles, and international manoeuvring.

On the map, Greenland is nearest to Canada, though also very near Nordic Europe. Canada’s Ellesmere Island lies just 26 km to the north and Iceland is about 320 km to the southeast. While geographically part of North America, Greenland has maintained political and cultural ties with Europe, particularly Norway and Denmark, for over a millennium.

Denmark’s king sends a message

The Danish Royal Coat of Arms, revised in 2024.
Danish Royal Household

On December 20 2024, Denmark’s king, Frederik X, proclaimed a significant, but not unexpected, update to the royal coat of arms. Gone were the three crowns symbolising the historic Kalmar Union between Denmark, Norway and Sweden, which lasted from 1397 to 1523. In their place, the king opted for symbols more reflective of Denmark’s current realm: a prominent polar bear for Greenland and a ram for the Faroe Islands.

Denmark’s royal household announced: “The King wishes to create a contemporary royal coat of arms that both reflects the Realm and takes into account history as well as the heraldic tradition.”

The change, therefore, is essentially a modernisation, giving equal status to all parts of the kingdom. Political commentators around the world interpreted it as a message of solidarity with Greenland and the Faroe Islands at a time of growing tensions, particularly in light of Trump’s aggressive interest and Greenland’s calls for independence.

A brief colonial history of Greenland

Greenland has been inhabited for over 4,500 years by peoples moving there in a series of migrations from regions as diverse as Siberia, Alaska and Arctic Canada. The most recent Inuit migration occurred in the 13th century.

In the 10th century, Erik the Red, a Norwegian-born exile from Iceland, settled on the island. He named it Greenland and led expeditions that established several prosperous Norse settlements. Christianity was introduced in the 11th century by Erik’s son, Leif Eriksson. The first bishop’s seat was established in 1126.

Greenland was named by Erik the Red, a Norwegian-born exile from Iceland who settled there in the 10th century.
Dana File/AAP

From the 13th century onwards, Norse settlers engaged with the Inuit cultures. However, by the 14th century, climate cooling led to the decline of Norse communities, which were abandoned by the 15th century. Approximately a century later, expeditions from England and Norway arrived in Greenland. By the 17th and 18th centuries, European whalers frequently interacted with the Inuit, leading to extensive trade and Lutheran mission of Norwegian clergyman Hans Egede.

The US recognised Danish sovereignty in 1916

Greenland has been under Danish control for centuries, but full sovereignty over the island was not always guaranteed. In fact, a key development came from an unlikely source: the US. On August 4 1916, the US signed a declaration recognising Denmark’s sovereignty over the entirety of Greenland. This agreement was annexed to the sale of the Danish West Indies (now the US Virgin Islands) to the US. This represented a shift in America’s interpretation of its own Monroe Doctrine.

The Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, warned European powers against further colonisation or intervention in the Americas. Yet, in 1916, the US effectively supported Denmark’s colonial ambitions by legally recognising its claim to Greenland. At the time, Denmark’s control was limited to settlements along Greenland’s west coast. From the 1880s onwards, Danish outposts expanded into the north and east, culminating in the formal declaration of sovereignty over the entire island in 1921.

This US recognition was critical: it legitimised Denmark’s claim internationally, barring objections from Norway, which sought to expand its Arctic fishing territories. Norway’s ambitions were thwarted, solidifying Greenland’s status as a Danish possession.

Colonial legacy and calls for independence

Denmark’s relationship with Greenland has evolved from outright colonisation to the current status of Greenland as an autonomous territory. Since gaining home rule in 1979 and self-government in 2009, Greenland has taken steps toward greater independence. Yet, it remains tied to Denmark in crucial ways, particularly through defence and foreign policy.

Greenland’s relationship with Denmark has evolved from outright colonisation, and continues to evolve.
Mads Claus Rasmussen/Denmark Out/AAP

Despite autonomy, Greenland’s colonial legacy casts a long shadow. Controversies such as the forced contraceptive scandal of the 1960s and 1970s, where Greenlandic women were subjected to coerced sterilisation, have fuelled resentment toward Denmark.

This painful history resurfaced last week, with prime minister Egede accusing Denmark of genocide over the scandal.

Why does Trump want Greenland?

Greenland’s importance on the global stage is multifaceted. Its location in the Arctic makes it a key focus for military strategy, climate research and resource extraction.

For Denmark, retaining Greenland is not only a matter of historical continuity, but also geopolitical necessity. Meanwhile, for the US, the Arctic represents a frontier of strategic competition, particularly with Russia and China.

For Denmark, retaining Greenland is a geopolitical necessity.
Ida Marie Odgaard/Denmark Out/AAP

In this context, Trump’s 2019 suggestion to “buy” Greenland seemed tone-deaf but not entirely without precedent. The US has long sought influence in Greenland, dating back to World War II, when it established military bases on the island. The 1916 recognition of Danish sovereignty may have been a legal formality, but it underscored the US’s pragmatic interest in Greenland’s strategic location.

Greenland’s future

King Frederik’s decision to emphasise Greenland and the Faroe Islands in Denmark’s coat of arms reflects the kingdom’s current priorities. The new design asserts they are integral parts of Denmark, not negotiable assets to be sold or relinquished.

As Greenland edges closer to independence, its journey reflects the reality of its history, geography and politics. For centuries, Denmark’s control over Greenland was contested and tenuous. Today, the question is not whether Denmark can retain sovereignty, but whether Greenland will choose to remain part of the Danish realm.

Trump’s remarks about “mak[ing] Greenland great again” may have been met with ridicule, but they inadvertently highlight the broader significance of this icy island.

Greenland’s colonial history, evolving autonomy and geopolitical importance ensure it will remain at the centre of global attention. More

Throughout 2024, many home owners and prospective first-time buyers would have kept a close eye on the Bank of England’s base interest rate. Eventually, the first cut arrived in August (from 5.25% to 5%), followed by another drop to 4.75% in November.

Those changes were in line with market expectations. But they were not enough for many households feeling the economic squeeze.

For example, the average mortgage lending rate for a typical first-time buyer (based on a two-year fixed rate with a 10% deposit) was around 5.4% in both January and November 2024.

And the full impact of higher mortgage rates, which began rising in late 2021, has not yet been felt. The Bank of England expects that around 50% of mortgage holders (approximately 4.4 million households) will have to switch to higher rates between now and December 2027.

Of these, an estimated 2.7 million borrowers will experience rates above 3% for the very first time. Around 420,000 households will face monthly payment increases of more than £500.

There is some good news in the latest projections which suggest that by the end of this year, the Bank’s base rate will drop to around 3.75%. An estimated 2.4 million borrowers will then see a drop in their monthly mortgage payments.

Banks and building societies are also expected to increase mortgage lending by 11% in 2025, as affordability constraints ease with falling rates and rising real wages. Some major lenders have already started the new year by announcing marginal reductions. Others are likely to follow suit.

But that may be as good as it gets. The recent rise in the UK’s annual inflation rate to around 2.6% is troubling, for example. Inflation is expected to remain above the Bank of England’s 2% target throughout 2025, which could slow the pace of rate cuts.

Another downside, particularly for first-time buyers, is the continued increase in UK house prices. Over 2024, they increased by 4.7%, with the average price now £270,000. So gains from reduced mortgage rates could be swiftly cancelled by the increasing pressure on housing affordability.

There are also signs that households are being cautious with their home purchase decisions as mortgage demand dropped unexpectedly after the government’s budget of November 2024.

The effects of that budget are still coming into play, but early signs are not promising, as the economy is expected to show zero growth for the second half of 2024. For 2025, the predictions for UK economic growth is 2% at best.

Tariffs and Trump

One of the controversial policies introduced in the budget was the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions – which could have a couple of knock-on effects for mortgage holders.

Don’t bank on a slide in interest rates.
Jane Rix/Shutterstock

First, the increase in cost to businesses could be passed on to households as price increases. This would put further pressure on inflation, and could affect interest rate decisions. Second, it may slow down wage growth, making houses even harder to afford.

Another risk in 2025 is that the UK’s sluggish economic growth could lead to reduced tax revenues. If that happens, the government may face having to raise taxes again or resort to additional borrowing. Government borrowing costs have risen sharply since the budget, and further borrowing could exacerbate this trend.

This is significant for mortgage borrowers, as government borrowing costs serve as a key indicator of overall interest rate levels in the economy. As a result, mortgage rates may follow a similar trend.

There are also economic uncertainties linked to Donald Trump’s return to the White House. There are predictions that UK economic growth could even be halved if the returning president Trump follows through on his proposed trade tariffs, significantly reducing UK exports to the US.

Other global risks include the potential for retaliatory trade wars which could exacerbate global inflation and drive up interest rates further.

One small piece of good news for UK home buyers has been the prime minister’s commitment to build more affordable homes in the next four years. Such a move will certainly help, and could slow down house price increases.

However, these plans are likely to stall as it is much more costly for builders to build new houses on the targeted “grey-belt” areas. And the UK still faces skills shortages in things like bricklaying and carpentry.

Overall then, for anyone with a mortgage, and anyone hoping to get hold of one, 2025 looks full of uncertainty. And while the political and economic winds do not look particularly favourable, those all important interest rates will dominate many people’s biggest life decisions for another year. More

Billionaires played an unprecedented role in the 2024 US elections, with 150 of the world’s wealthiest families contributing nearly US$2 billion (£1.57 billion) trying to influence the outcome. This included donations from the likes of Elon Musk (US$133 million for the Republicans) and Michael Bloomberg (US$45 million for the Democrats).

It was a big spend – but from their perspective, a very affordable one. The US$2 billion sum represents just 0.07% of their collective wealth.

Many of those donors were very open about their political spending. But it has also been claimed that some extremely wealthy people often engage in “stealth politics” in the US – seeking to influence policies that may conflict with the majority’s preferences, without attracting public attention.

Tactics might include covert lobbying and gaining private access to public officials, which largely go unnoticed. And even though it is hard to establish exactly how much political influence the elites really have, there is evidence which suggests that US government policy is disproportionately shaped by the preferences of the wealthy.

Ordinary citizens, meanwhile, exert minimal influence – yet effectively pay higher tax rates than the richest Americans.

So it is perhaps easy to see why some question the fundamental fairness of the country’s economic and political systems.

One option for change could be new legislation that focuses on areas like campaign funding and media regulation. This might create a greater separation between money and politics, which could in turn lead to greater equality in political influence. This separation is far clearer elsewhere, and may be one of the reasons why in other countries, the preferences of poorer people seem to affect government policy.

But the apparent political power afforded to billionaires has led some to propose bolder changes. Philosopher Ingrid Robeyns, for example, has made the case for “limitarianism”, which argues for a cap on individual wealth to safeguard democracy and curb inequality (among other goals).

A related idea links limitarianism to billionaires’ political influence, suggesting that the super-rich should face a stark choice. Either they should accept a 100% tax on wealth above a certain threshold, or forfeit certain political rights, such as party donations or standing for office.

These proposals face their own criticisms, including concerns that limiting wealth could negatively affect economic growth and innovation. But they still form part of an ongoing discussion about how to balance individual wealth accumulation with the needs of democratic systems and the principle of economic fairness.

Public opinion

But what do voters think?

One study suggests that most Americans favour higher taxes on the ultra-rich while hinting at widespread public misconceptions about the lives of many billionaires. When they learn more about how luxurious those lives really are, support for taxing the ultra-rich increases significantly.

So perhaps greater public awareness of the realities of extreme wealth would shift attitudes further in favour of policies geared to more distribution of the country’s wealth.

There also seems to be broad support for policies like President Biden’s billionaire minimum income tax, which seeks to impose a minimum 25% tax rate on billionaires’ income and their assets. California’s “extreme wealth tax”, a proposal for a new tax for those worth over US$50 million, also appears popular.

Beyond tax policy, one of our recent working papers explores public attitudes toward limiting billionaires’ wealth. Our findings indicate that many Americans – regardless of political affiliation, and even in a hypothetical situation where inequality is significantly reduced – support wealth caps.

Our study also suggests that people who support wealth caps are concerned about the effects of wealth concentration on economic, political and environmental systems.

Washington and wealth.
Ceri Breeze/Shutterstock

That said, we do not expect such caps being part of the next US president’s plans. After all, Trump’s previous tax cuts were said to have overwhelmingly helped the richest.

But as the likes of Elon Musk become more openly involved in politics their influence is becoming more visible. And this increased visibility could attract more public scrutiny and even a backlash.

Then, ideas like wealth caps and higher top tax rates may gain traction as more Americans question the legitimacy of an economic system that allows a tiny elite to wield disproportionate power. And perhaps with their recent expensive interventions aimed at picking the next occupant of the White House, the ultra-wealthy may have inadvertently strengthened the case for sweeping reforms aimed at limiting their power and wealth. More