President Trump’s myriad pronouncements on Greenland have been confusing and convoluted, and appear to serve no American national interest.

I agree with him that Greenland is vital to our national security, and that increased measures must be taken for missile defense and to prevent incursions by Russia and China into the Arctic region. Trump’s insistence, however, that the United States must “own” Greenland is wrong and actually counter to our national security interests.

For starters, Greenland is a territory of Denmark, one of our most loyal allies and a founding member of NATO, the linchpin of our defense against Russian aggression for more than 75 years, which caused the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union. Under our existing treaty agreements with Denmark, the U.S. has the power to take whatever measures we believe necessary to defend Greenland, including constructing military bases, installing missile defense systems and deploying troops on the ground.

If we simply allow Greenland to remain under Danish “ownership” while we take whatever strategic security measures we deem essential, we would have the full support of NATO, which, with its 32 member nations, is the most powerful and effective military alliance in history, and under Article 5 is required to come to the defense of any member nation when attacked.

Trump’s threat to invade Greenland and take it by force made no sense. Such a move would fracture NATO — and, ironically, constitute the first attack ever made against a NATO nation, weakening our defenses at a time when we are facing major military challenges in the Caribbean, Pacific and Middle East. It would be the diplomatic and military equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot — “America First” turned upside down.

Almost as damaging to our national interest was Trump’s demeaning language and attitude toward a nation that has stood so loyally with us. Describing Denmark’s military capabilities as limited to “dogsleds” ignores the reality that Danish troops fought side by side with Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, and suffered more combat deaths in Afghanistan, as a percentage of Denmark’s population, than any country except the U.S. From a personal perspective, I visited Denmark in 1987 and 2024, and found the people to be exceptionally pro-American.

The dismissive, condescending disparagement of such a loyal friend, for no apparent or meaningful purpose, sends a chilling message not just to allies, but also to other nations thinking of engaging with the U.S. It reflects Trump’s proclivity to demean democratic allies such as Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, whom Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance ganged up on and berated in the Oval Office) while extolling enemy dictators like Russia’s Vladimir Putin (whom Trump greeted literally with a red carpet), China’s Xi Jinping (“my friend”) and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un (“sends me love letters”).

What is so disappointing about Trump’s actions toward Denmark is how they contrast with his clear foreign policy successes: standing with Israel against Hamas and bringing about a cessation of that war; carrying out immensely effective attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities; brilliantly extricating Nicolas Maduro from his Venezuelan hideout and bringing him to the U.S. for trial; and sealing our borders more successfully than at any time in recent memory. Those successes, with no loss of American lives, make Trump’s actions toward Greenland and Denmark all the more inexplicable. Sometimes it appears that he is seeking almost immediate validation of his diplomatic policies. History shows, however, that world affairs don’t lend themselves to neat, precise timetables or overnight successes.

Most notably, President Harry S. Truman’s Marshall Plan, enacted in 1948 to rebuild Europe, and his support of NATO, which was formed in 1949, did not receive acclaim until more than four decades later, with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Nor did President Richard Nixon’s skillful diplomatic efforts, which rescued Israel from defeat by Egypt and ended the Yom Kippur War in 1973, have their maximum effect until the signing of the Camp David Accords in 1978, which brought about a peace that has lasted almost 50 years.

To consolidate the legacy of his already considerable foreign policy achievements, Trump must cease his needless antagonism of our closest allies so America can further the quest for world peace. If not, “America First” might well become “America Alone.”

Peter King is a former congressman, and a former chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Comments? pking@liherald.com.