Russia said on Friday it used its new hypersonic Oreshnik missile in an attack against Ukraine, according to reports.

The Kremlin said that the strike was carried out in response to what it said was an attempted Ukrainian drone strike on one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s residences, something Kyiv has denied, according to Reuters. 

The outlet noted that Ukraine and the U.S. have cast doubt on Russia’s claims about the alleged attempted attack on Putin’s residence on Dec. 29, the report said. Ukraine called it ‘an absurd lie,’ while President Donald Trump also doubted the veracity of the claim, saying he did not believe the strike occurred and that ‘something’ unrelated happened nearby.

This is the second time Russia has used the intermediate-range Oreshnik, which Putin has said is impossible to intercept because of its velocity, Reuters reported.

The Russian Defense Ministry said that the strike targeted critical infrastructure in Ukraine, according to Reuters, which added that Russia said the attack also used attack drones and high-precision long-range land and sea-based weapons.

While Moscow did not say where the missile hit, Russian media and military bloggers said it targeted an underground natural gas storage facility in Ukraine’s western Leviv region, CBS News reported. Lviv Mayor Andriy Sadoviy said the attack hit critical infrastructure but did not give details, the outlet added.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the attack on social media, saying that the aftermath was ‘still being dealt with.’

‘Twenty residential buildings alone were damaged. Recovery operations after the strikes also continue in the Lviv region and other regions of our country. Unfortunately, as of now, it is known that four people have been killed in the capital alone. Among them is an ambulance crew member. My condolences to their families and loved ones,’ Zelenskyy wrote.

The Ukrainian leader said the attack involved 242 drones, 13 ballistic missiles, one Oreshnik missile and 22 cruise missiles. Zelenskyy added that the ballistic missiles were aimed at energy facilities and civilian infrastructure as the people of Ukraine faced ‘a significant cold spell.’ He said the attack was ‘aimed precisely against the normal life of ordinary people.’ However, he assured that Ukraine was working to restore heating and electricity.

Zelenskyy claimed that in addition to the civilian infrastructure, a building of the Embassy of Qatar was damaged in the attack.

‘A clear reaction from the world is needed. Above all from the United States, whose signals Russia truly pays attention to. Russia must receive signals that it is its obligation to focus on diplomacy, and must feel consequences every time it again focuses on killings and the destruction of infrastructure,’ Zelenskyy added.

A spokesperson for the State Department told Fox News Digital that the U.S. remains committed to ending the war through diplomatic means, emphasizing that it is the only path toward a durable peace. The spokesperson underscored Trump’s desire to end the war that is approaching its fourth year.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.

A bipartisan cohort of senators is nearing a final plan to tackle rising healthcare costs, but the issue of more-stringent restrictions preventing taxpayer-funded abortions remains a major hurdle in the way to sealing the deal.

The working group, led by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, has held several meetings since dueling, partisan proposals to either extend or replace expired enhanced Obamacare premium subsidies failed late last year.

Now, they’re on the verge of unveiling their plan and have started sharing what exactly the rough framework would look like. But while selling the bones of the latest idea to tackle healthcare will be one thing, overcoming the issue of taxpayer-funded abortions will be another.

The Hyde Amendment, which dictates that taxpayer dollars can’t fund abortions, has proven a sticking point on both sides of the aisle. Senate Republicans argue that Obamacare doesn’t completely follow the law, while Senate Democrats contend that no modifications need to be made to the longstanding statute.

‘There’s no disagreement that there should not be federal funding for abortion,’ Moreno said. ‘Nobody on either side is wanting to relitigate that question. So we’re past that mountain. The next mountain is a dispute as to whether that is actually happening today through [Obamacare].’

‘A group of people, very good people, say that it is happening, and there’s a group of other people who have good people, too, that say it’s not happening,’ he continued. ‘So we have to resolve that.’

That wrinkle, in particular, was further amplified by President Donald Trump, who earlier this week urged that House Republicans ‘have to be a little flexible’ when it comes to the Hyde Amendment. That edict was met with backlash from Senate Republicans, who argued there was no room for flexibility on the issue. 

Moreno didn’t say whether the current plan addressed the Hyde issue, but he laid out what the skeletal framework that senators have built would look like.

It would play out over two years and act as more of a temporary fix than a permanent bridge, which Moreno noted would be crucial in selling the plan to his Republican colleagues.

‘That’s a key thing that I got to convince my colleagues to understand, who hate Obamacare, they hate the policy, and say, ‘Let’s take two years to actually deliver for the American people truly affordable healthcare and solve this problem for the people who are going to suffer as a result of not having these enhanced premium tax credits,’’ Moreno said. ‘They didn’t cause the problem, politicians caused that problem.’

Up front, their plan would extend the subsidies for two years and prolong the open enrollment period for the Obamacare marketplace until March 1.

During the first year, an income cap would be added, which was blown away when the subsidies were enhanced under former President Joe Biden, at 700% of the federal poverty level. There would also be a requirement of either a $5 or $60 minimum premium payment as a fraud prevention method. That would be coupled with a $100,000 fine for insurance companies that are ‘deliberately causing fraud, and signing [someone] up without their consent.’

In the second year, people would have a choice to either stick with the subsidies or switch their coverage plan in favor of a health savings account (HSA) — a key demand from Republicans and Trump.

Their plan would also reinstate cost-sharing reduction payments, ‘which, according to [Congressional Budget Office], would reduce premiums for everybody on the exchange by 11%,’ Moreno said.

The dramatic capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has handed President Donald Trump a rare strategic opening — one that could reshape Venezuela’s crippled oil industry, redirect global crude flows and weaken the foothold that rivals like Russia, China and Iran have built in the Western Hemisphere.

But unlocking the world’s largest oil reserves won’t be easy. Years of political turmoil, sanctions and infrastructure collapse mean U.S. energy companies face steep risks — and any production rebound would take time, capital and sustained political stability.

Now, Trump and energy CEOs must address three key challenges in order to seize opportunities. 

1. Venezuela holds massive oil reserves, but production remains severely constrained

Venezuela, a country almost twice the size of California, sits atop extraordinary wealth. 

With more than 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, Venezuela holds more crude than established energy heavyweights like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait. The Latin American country’s reserves are nearly quadruple those of the United States.

Once a major oil producer, the country pumped about 3.5 million barrels a day in the late 1990s. Since then, its oil industry has sharply deteriorated, with production falling to roughly 800,000 barrels a day, according to energy analytics firm Kpler.

A key reason: much of Venezuela’s oil is difficult and expensive to extract.

The country’s reserves are dominated by heavy and extra-heavy crude, which is costly to extract and relies on specialized equipment and refining capacity that have deteriorated after years of underinvestment, U.S. sanctions and political instability.

Similar dynamics have unfolded in countries such as Iran and Libya, where turmoil, financial distress and crumbling infrastructure have kept vast reserves locked underground.

As a result, scaling operations back up would require significant time, capital and technical expertise, with any production increase likely to be gradual rather than immediate.

2. Political risk remains a major concern for American energy companies

Decades of political instability, shifting regulations and U.S. sanctions have made Venezuela a high-risk environment for long-term investment. 

That risk dates back to the mid-2000s, when then-President Hugo Chávez reshaped Venezuela’s relationship with international energy companies by tightening state control over the oil industry.

Between 2004 and 2007, Chávez forced foreign companies to renegotiate their contracts with the government. The new terms sharply reduced the role and profits of private firms while strengthening Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA).

The move drove some of the world’s largest oil companies out of the country.

ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips exited Venezuela in 2007 and later filed claims against the government in international arbitration courts. Those courts ultimately ruled in favor of the companies, ordering Venezuela to pay ConocoPhillips more than $10 billion and ExxonMobil more than $1 billion. The cash-strapped country has paid only a fraction of those awards.

That history looms over Trump’s latest proposal.

Trump said on Saturday he would seek to revive the once-prominent commodity by mobilizing investment from major U.S. energy companies.

‘We are going to have our very large United States oil companies go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken oil infrastructure and start making money for the country,’ Trump said during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago. 

It remains unclear whether U.S. energy companies are prepared to do so. American firms have yet to say whether they plan to return to Venezuela to resurrect an oil industry hollowed out by years of neglect.

Chevron, the only U.S. oil titan operating in Venezuela, said in a statement to Fox News Digital that it was following ‘relevant laws and regulations.’

‘Chevron remains focused on the safety and well-being of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets,’ a Chevron spokesperson added.

ConocoPhillips wrote in a statement to Fox News Digital that it is monitoring the developments in Venezuela as well as the ‘potential implications for global energy supply and stability.’ 

‘It would be premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments,’ a spokesperson for ConocoPhillips added.

ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil company, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

3. The push reflects a broader effort to leverage energy for geopolitical influence

As U.S. and European companies withdrew from Venezuela, Russia, China and Iran expanded their footprint in the country’s energy sector, using financing, fuel shipments and technical support to maintain influence.

That shift has also reshaped how Venezuelan oil is traded. Sanctions have fueled the rise of so-called ‘ghost ships,’ nondescript oil tankers that disable tracking systems to quietly move Venezuelan crude to foreign buyers outside traditional markets. The opaque trade has reduced transparency in global oil flows while helping Caracas sustain exports despite financial isolation.

For the Trump administration, the outcome has underscored an uncomfortable trade-off: restricting access to U.S. markets can limit revenue for sanctioned governments, but it can also push them deeper into the orbit of strategic rivals, turning energy policy into a front line of geopolitical competition.

The entire Senate GOP demanded that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz provide a paper trail on the state’s role in the Minnesota fraud scandal, cranking up the scrutiny in Washington, D.C. in the process. 

In a letter led by Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., Republicans reiterated that Congress controls the flow of taxpayer dollars that are alleged to be used in the unfurling scandal, where federal prosecutors estimate that up to $9 billion was stolen through a network of fraudulent fronts posing as daycare centers, food programs and health clinics.

‘The state’s apparent negligent management of federal funds raises significant concerns about the adequacy of the state’s oversight, verification, and compliance systems for safeguarding taxpayer dollars intended to support vulnerable children and working families,’ they wrote. ‘Unfortunately, these latest reports appear to reflect only the tip of the iceberg.’

They support the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) move earlier this week to freeze funding to several childcare grant programs in the state, including the Child Care and Development Fund, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Social Services Block Grant programs.

Cassidy, who chairs the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, called on Walz to provide receipts on several issues and warned that failure to do so could lead to even more streams of federal money flowing to Minnesota drying up. 

In the letter, backed by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., lawmakers demanded that Walz clarify how the state was complying with federally directed audits and what verification requirements the state has ‘adopted or plans to implement in the near term to support proof of legitimate use of federal child care payments.’ 

They also called for a detailed outline of several issues, like how often the state conducted on-site monitoring, inspections or investigative visits to childcare facilities that received federal dollars, and specifically wanted examples of any information uncovered on fake children, false attendance records, over-billing, ineligible enrollments and shell or fake business structures. 

Lawmakers also demanded to know how many investigations the state has conducted into the matter since 2018, any oversight actions the state has taken, and why the Walz administration has, so far, not complied with a slate of recommendations from a DHS Office of Inspector General report that included action to recover overpayments, strengthen attendance monitoring at childcare facilities and implement real-time electronic attendance reporting.

Cassidy and Senate Republicans gave Walz until Jan. 22 to comply with their slate of requests. 

‘The Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse,’ they wrote. ‘And the United States Senate is exercising its duty to ensure proper stewardship of federal taxpayer dollars for child care programs, and we take this responsibility very seriously.’

A Senate Republican intends to block President Donald Trump’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) nominees until Secretary Kristi Noem appears on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told reporters that he was putting holds on future nominees for the agency because Noem had not yet committed to appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

‘My chairman has made two requests in this Congress to have the Homeland Security Secretary [Kristi Noem] come before the committee, and they have yet to confirm that they’re coming,’ Tillis said. ‘That is unacceptable, and so I am putting a hold on anything related to Homeland Security measures until we get an agreement and a scheduled time to come for committee at the least.’

But he made clear that the blockade was not in response to the death of Renee Nicole Goode, whose fatal shooting by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent on Wednesday sparked protests.

‘The only thing that moves through Homeland Security where I will consider an exception would be having anything to do with the disaster response,’ he said.

His holds come after Grassley sent two separate invites for Noem to appear before the committee, one in June and the other in September.

It also comes on the heels of Senate Republicans touting their blistering pace to confirm several hundred of Trump’s picks.

Still, the move to block Trump’s DHS picks is another instance of Tillis pushing back against the administration. Tillis announced last year that he would not support Trump’s crowning legislative achievement of his second term, the ‘big, beautiful bill,’ over issues with cuts to Medicaid.

He also announced that he would not seek re-election shortly after and has since on occasion broken ranks with Republicans to push back on the president’s agenda.

Most recently, he pushed back on recent rumblings from the White House and administration officials that military force was not off the table to advance Trump’s desire to control Greenland.

‘I’m sick of stupid,’ Tillis said on the Senate floor earlier this week. ‘I want good advice for this president, because I want this president to have a good legacy. And this nonsense on what’s going on with Greenland is a distraction from the good work he’s doing, and the amateurs who said it was a good idea should lose their jobs.’

Still, Tillis voted against a related resolution on Thursday to curtail Trump’s future usage of the military in Venezuela, which ultimately advanced with the aid of five Senate Republicans. 

DHS did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

The U.S. seizure of the tanker formerly known as Bella I marks a rare escalation in sanctions enforcement against Russia’s so-called ‘dark fleet,’ but experts say the move is unlikely to trigger a broader confrontation with Moscow, at least in the near term.

Analysts largely agree that the interdiction — one of the most direct U.S. actions against a vessel Russia claims was operating under its flag — comes at a moment when the Kremlin has limited appetite for escalation outside Europe and is focused primarily on its war against neighboring Ukraine.

‘This is unique,’ said Brent Sadler, senior research fellow at the Washington conservative Heritage Foundation think tank. 

The U.S. rarely boards foreign-flagged vessels on the high seas unless the ship’s nationality is in doubt, which he said was the case here due to rapid reflagging and a pattern of sanctions violations.

Peter Rough, a senior fellow and director of the Center on Europe and Eurasia at the Hudson Institute think tank, said that the seizure of the tanker reinforces the message that the U.S. is aiming to ‘call the shots in its own backyard.’ Meanwhile, he said that Russia is bogged down fighting its war against Ukraine, meaning it will be challenging for it to engage in a significant way in Latin America. 

Likewise, Russia is also attempting to curry favor with the Trump administration for a favorable outcome in a peace deal ending the conflict with Ukraine, he said. 

‘The Donroe Doctrine,’ as President Donald Trump has called it, fashions the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning against European expansion into Latin America after himself. 

The empty vessel was seized in international waters during an operation overseen by U.S. European Command. The Wall Street Journal reported that Russia dispatched a submarine to escort the tanker after the U.S. attempted to seize it off Venezuela, heightening the risk of a naval standoff between two nuclear-armed states.

Russia has operated a so-called ‘shadow fleet’ of oil tankers for years to evade sanctions imposed after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Wednesday’s seizure marks one of the most direct U.S. enforcement actions to date against a vessel tied to that network.

‘There’s really not a whole lot of cards the Russians have to play at this point,’ Sadler said, anticipating a muted response. 

Rough also noted that similar actions like the one on Wednesday have not triggered major escalation previously. In October, French authorities boarded and detained a Russia-linked tanker suspected of being part of the shadow fleet off the coast of France without sparking a new crisis. 

In that instance, the tanker was not a Russian-flagged vessel. 

‘The upshot is that in light of the administration’s determination to dictate terms on Venezuela-related issues like this and Putin’s desire to work with Trump on what matters most to the Kremlin — Ukraine — I’m inclined to say that Moscow’s response will consist mostly of protesting this action and lodging political and legal complaints,’ Rough said in an email to Fox News Digital. ‘I don’t think it will lead to a full-blown political crisis in U.S.-Russian relations.’

John Hardie, deputy director of the Russia program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, also predicted the seizure of the Bella I tanker wouldn’t dramatically impact relations between Washington and Moscow. 

‘I suspect Moscow reacted the way it did because it worries about a precedent that could lead to U.S. interdiction of tankers moving Russian oil,’ Hardie said. ‘That said, I don’t think the Bella incident alone will have significant impact on relations between the Trump administration and Moscow or the peace talks.’

Russia has accused U.S. naval forces of illegally boarding the vessel — which had been reflagged as the Merinera under temporary Russian authorization Dec. 24 — arguing the action violated international maritime law. U.S. officials have not publicly detailed the legal justification for the seizure.

While Moscow’s response has so far been limited to diplomatic and legal objections, the incident has drawn attention because of how unusual the operation was. 

Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic & International Studies’ defense and security department, said that there are hundreds of sanctioned oil ships in the sea — with at least 100 of them belonging to Russia. If the U.S. started targeting more tankers, that would have a ‘huge’ impact on countries like Russia and Iran, he said. 

‘The one tanker will be an annoyance to Russia, and they’ll complain,’ Cancian told Fox News Digital Wednesday. ‘I think the bigger issue is whether we or other countries, start going after other tankers with sanctioned oil.’ 

President Donald Trump announced in an early Friday morning Truth Social post that he has ‘cancelled the previously expected second Wave of Attacks’ against Venezuela in light of the ‘cooperation’ between the foreign nation and the U.S.

‘Venezuela is releasing large numbers of political prisoners as a sign of ‘Seeking Peace.’ This is a very important and smart gesture. The U.S.A. and Venezuela are working well together, especially as it pertains to rebuilding, in a much bigger, better, and more modern form, their oil and gas infrastructure. Because of this cooperation, I have cancelled the previously expected second Wave of Attacks, which looks like it will not be needed, however, all ships will stay in place for safety and security purposes,’ Trump said in the post.

He noted that he will meet with ‘BIG OIL’ figures at the White House on Friday.

‘At least 100 Billion Dollars will be invested by BIG OIL, all of whom I will be meeting with today at The White House. Thank you for your attention to this matter!’ he declared in the post.

The president’s comments come after he unilaterally ordered an attack against Venezuela last week in which U.S. forces successfully captured Nicolás Maduro.

Trump noted in a Wednesay Truth Social post, ‘I have just been informed that Venezuela is going to be purchasing ONLY American Made Products, with the money they receive from our new Oil Deal. These purchases will include, among other things, American Agricultural Products, and American Made Medicines, Medical Devices, and Equipment to improve Venezuela’s Electric Grid and Energy Facilities.’

‘In other words, Venezuela is committing to doing business with the United States of America as their principal partner – A wise choice, and a very good thing for the people of Venezuela, and the United States. Thank you for your attention to this matter!’ he added.

President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.

During an appearance on Fox News’ ‘Hannity,’ Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.

‘Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,’ Trump said.

This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated ‘doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country’ to lead.

According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.

But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had ‘nothing to do with my decision’ about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.

The House of Representatives passed a bill to revive and extend COVID-19 pandemic-era enhanced Obamacare subsidies in a major victory for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

Seventeen House Republicans broke ranks with GOP leaders to support the legislation after Democrats were successful in forcing a vote via a mechanism called a privileged resolution. The bill passed 230-196.

A discharge petition is a mechanism for getting legislation considered on the House floor even if the majority’s leadership is opposed to it, provided the petition gets a majority of House lawmakers’ signatures.

Jeffries filed a discharge petition late last year, which was then signed by four House Republicans — helping it clinch the critical majority threshold.

Five more House Republicans joined Democrats in a vote Wednesday evening to advance the legislation for final consideration Thursday.

The 17 Republicans who voted for the legislation were Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.; Mike Lawler, R-N.Y.; Rob Bresnahan, R-Pa.; Ryan Mackenzie, R-Pa.; Mike Carey, R-Ohio; Monica De La Cruz, R-Texas; Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y.; Will Hurd, R-Colo.; Dave Joyce, R-Ohio; Tom Kean Jr., R-N.J., Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., Max Miller, R-Ohio; Zach Nunn, R-Iowa; Maria Salazar, R-Fla.; Dave Valadao, R-Calif.; Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis.; and Rob Wittman, R-Va.

It underscores the perilously slim margins Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is governing with.

House Republicans hold just a two-vote majority with full attendance on both sides, numbers that could easily shift when lawmakers are absent for personal or health reasons.

As Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., put to reporters on Wednesday morning, ‘We are one flu season away from losing the majority.’

The successful vote on Thursday is a blow for Johnson, who argued for weeks that the majority of House Republicans were opposed to extending the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax subsidies.

But a significant number of GOP moderates were frustrated that their party leaders in the House and Senate had done little to avert a price hike for millions of Americans’ insurance premiums. 

A Democrat-controlled Congress voted twice, in 2020 and in 2021, to enhance Obamacare subsidies to give more people access to federal healthcare during the pandemic.

Those subsidies were only extended through 2025, however.

The vast majority of Republicans believe the subsidies are a COVID-era relic of a long-broken federal healthcare system. Conservatives argued that the relatively small percentage of Americans who rely on Obamacare meant that an extension would do little to ease rising health costs that people across the country are experiencing.

But a core group of moderates has been arguing that a failure to extend a reformed version of them would force millions of Americans to grapple with skyrocketing healthcare costs this year.

Those moderates were also frustrated with Jeffries for not working with Republicans on a bipartisan solution to the subsidies but felt they were left with little choice but to support Democrats’ bid in the end.

House Republicans passed a healthcare bill in mid-December aimed at lowering those costs for a broader swath of Americans, but that legislation has not been taken up in the Senate.

There’s also little chance the three-year extension will pass the upper chamber, however. Similar legislation led by Senate Democrats failed to reach the necessary 60-vote threshold to advance in December.

The Trump administration is considering paying each Greenland resident thousands of dollars as part of a bid to encourage the territory to secede from Denmark and join the United States, according to Reuters. 

U.S. officials, including White House aides, have discussed payment figures ranging from $10,000 to $100,000, the outlet reported, citing sources. 

For an island with a population of roughly 57,000, the total cost could range from more than half a billion dollars to nearly $6 billion.

While discussions of a lump-sum payment are not new, Reuters reported that officials have become more serious in recent days and are considering higher amounts.

The White House referred Fox News Digital on Thursday to remarks by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who said during a Wednesday briefing that buying Greenland would benefit U.S. national security.

‘The acquisition of Greenland by the United States is not a new idea,’ Leavitt said. 

‘The president has been very open and clear with all of you and the world that he views it as in the best interest of the United States to deter Russian and Chinese aggression in the Arctic region,’ she said. ‘That’s why his team is currently talking about what a potential purchase would look like.’

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday that he plans to meet with his Danish counterpart next week to discuss Greenland.

Trump has long contended that the U.S. should acquire Greenland, arguing that its mineral resources are vital in advancing U.S. military technologies and that the Western Hemisphere should broadly fall under Washington’s geopolitical influence.

On Sunday, Trump told reporters Greenland is surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships and that Denmark, which governs Greenland, lacks the capability to provide the level of defense and oversight that meets U.S. national security standards.

‘It’s so strategic,’ Trump told reporters on Air Force One. ‘We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it.’

Authorities in Greenland and Denmark insist that Greenland is not for sale, and European leaders have criticized the proposal, arguing that it undermines trust between the U.S. and Denmark as NATO allies. Under the NATO defense agreement, allies are obliged to support one another militarily if attacked, making the idea of a sale particularly sensitive.

‘This is enough,’ Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen wrote in a Facebook post on Sunday, responding to Trump’s Sunday remarks about acquiring the island. ‘No more pressure. No more hints. No more fantasies about annexation.’

On Tuesday, Nielsen added that Greenland will remain part of Denmark despite U.S. efforts.

‘Our country isn’t something you can deny or take over because you want to,’ he added. ‘Once again, I urge the United States to seek respectful dialogue through the correct diplomatic and political channels and utilizing pre-existing forums that are based on agreements already in place with the United States. The dialogue must take place with respect to the fact that Greenland’s status is rooted in international law and the principle of territorial integrity.’