NBC’s “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker repeatedly drilled Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent about multiple different angles of President Trump’s effort to take control of Greenland, as the U.S. threatens new tariffs on European countries that try to prevent it. Bessent says Greenland is vital for U.S. long-term security, specifically noting its role in the proposed “golden dome” missile defense system and “beyond next year to what could happen in a battle in the Arctic” with Russia or China. Bessent said the only way the U.S. can fully depend on access to Greenland is if it becomes an American territory, citing European countries continuing to purchase Russian oil while asking the U.S. to fund the defense of Ukraine. President Trump told the Europeans, ‘Do not build Nord Stream 2. Do not rely on Russian oil.’ And guess what is funding Russia’s efforts against Ukraine? European purchases of Russian oil,” he said. “If there were an attack on Greenland from Russia or from some other area, we would get dragged in.” “President Trump is being strategic here,” Bessent said. “What evidence was there that the Russians were going into Crimea?” “What we know is that Greenland can only be defended if it is part of the U.S., and it will not need to be defended if it is part of the U.S. The president is trying to avoid a conflict,” he said. “We are not going to outsource our Western Hemisphere security to others.” “It is a strategic decision by the president. This is a geopolitical decision. And he is able to use the economic might of the U.S. to avoid a hot war. So why wouldn’t we do that?”

KRISTEN WELKER: It’s great to have you hear. Thank you for being here in person. Let’s start right there. President Trump threatening to impose steep tariffs against some of America’s closest European and NATO allies. The leaders of Denmark and Greenland say bluntly, “Greenland is not for sale.” What makes President Trump think it is? TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: Kristen, if we look for years, for over a century, American presidents have wanted to acquire Greenland. And what we can see is that Greenland is essential to the U.S. national security. We’re building the golden dome, the missile system. And look, President Trump is being strategic. He is looking beyond this year. He’s looking beyond next year to what could happen in a battle in the Arctic. We are not going to outsource our national security. We are not going to outsource our hemispheric security to other countries. In Trump 1.0, President Trump told the Europeans, “Do not build Nord Stream 2. Do not rely on Russian oil.” And guess what, Kristen? Guess what is funding Russia’s efforts against Ukraine? European purchases of Russian oil. So America has to be in control here. KRISTEN WELKER: I want to delve into everything that you said. But I just want to ask you big picture. Is this a negotiating tactic, Mr. Secretary? Or is President Trump serious about annexing Greenland? TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: President Trump strongly believes that we cannot outsource our security. Because Kristen, let me tell you what will happen. And it might not be next year, might not be in five years. But down the road, this fight for the Arctic is real. We would keep our NATO guarantees. And if there were an attack on Greenland from Russia, from some other area, we would get dragged in. So better now, peace through strength, make it part of the United States, and there will not be a conflict because the United States right now, we are the hottest country in the world. We are the strongest country in the world. Europeans project weakness. U.S. projects strength. KRISTEN WELKER: But just very quickly, is this a negotiating tactic, Mr. Secretary? Is the goal to get a deal to have enhanced security in Greenland, for example? TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: The president believes that enhanced security is not possible without Greenland being part of the U.S. KRISTEN WELKER: Okay. Let me press you on what you have said are national security concerns, particularly as it relates to Russia and China. Senior Democrats say there are no pressing threats on Greenland’s security from Russia or China. The Danish foreign minister says there hasn’t been a Chinese warship in Greenland for a decade. What evidence do you have that the is a pressing threat? TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: Well, first of all, Kristen, we have asymmetric information. And again, President Trump is being strategic here. What evidence was there that the Russians were going into Crimea? Well, actually there was a lot of evidence that the Russians were going to go into Ukraine. And Joe Biden said, “Well, just take a little bit of it.” But what we know is that Greenland can only be defended if it is part of the U.S., and it will not need to be defended if it is part of the U.S. The president is trying to avoid a conflict. KRISTEN WELKER: You bring up Crimea. The president, as far as I have heard, has not taken military force off the table. If the United States were to take Greenland by force, how would that be different than Russia’s annexation of Crimea? TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: Look, I believe that Europeans will understand that this is best for Greenland, best for Europe, and best for the United States. KRISTEN WELKER: But military action is still on the table? TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: I haven’t spoken with the president on that. And again, I believe that the Europeans will understand that the best outcome is for the U.S. to maintain or receive control of Greenland. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, so far what we’ve heard and seen from the Europeans is alarm and outrage. In fact they’re, as you know, holding an emergency meeting today. And part of the issue, the president has already reached a trade deal with the E.U. How can countries have confidence in trade deals moving forward if President Trump is prepared to blow them up? TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: Well, first of all, the trade deal hasn’t been finalized. And, you know, an emergency action can be very different from another trade deal. So we’re in a very good equilibrium right now with China. But if China did something to upset that balance, I think the president would be willing to act. You know, same thing with India. We were working on a trade deal with India. But the president, unlike the Europeans, started charged the Europeans 25% for buying Russian oil. So the president leverages his emergency powers to do this. KRISTEN WELKER: I hear you saying that the deal hasn’t been finalized. And yet it was moving towards finalization. Doesn’t it undercut the United States’ word by threatening these steep new tariffs? TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: I think it does not. What it does is it enhances United States security. And again, we have seen that Europeans are unable to push back against Russia. This was that never would have started in Ukraine, Kristen, we are going to settle it. But it wouldn’t have started. And what President Trump is trying to do is prevent a taking or the Russian, Chinese action in Greenland in the future. So why not be strategic? Why? Always live in the moment. KRISTEN WELKER: Okay, let’s talk about being strategic. The United States has a base in Greenland. I’ve been talking to lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Denmark has given the United States a green light to beef up its security as much as is needed in Greenland. Why not take that route? Why is it necessary to take over and annex all of Greenland, something that 85% of people living Greenland oppose? TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: Well, again let’s look back. Denmark has a terrible history with Greenlanders. There were forced sterilizations up until the ’80s or the ’90s. So all of a sudden, now that the U.S. has expressed an interest, there is, you know, this new interest. And again, the United States needs to be in control to prevent a war. And we do not want to get dragged into someone else’s war. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, but this is about the United States relationship with its allies, NATO allies, again reacting with alarm. They’re warning that this move to annex Greenland could in fact destroy NATO. So let me just put this to you bluntly. Is Greenland or NATO more essential to the United States national security? TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: Both. Kristen, that’s obviously a false choice. You know, that’s an absolute– KRISTEN WELKER: Not from the perspective of European leaders. TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: The European leaders will come around. And they will understand that they need to be under the U.S. security umbrella. What would happen in Ukraine if the U.S. pulled its support out? The whole thing would collapse. Kristen, to be clear, since 1980 the U.S. military spending versus NATO military spending, we have spent $ 22 trillion more than the Europeans have, that we are peace through strength And the Europeans now are only trying to play catch-up. And that is only through President Trump. President Trump believes in NATO. But he does not believe in the American people being dragged in. KRISTEN WELKER: Well, in terms of the cost that has been paid, Denmark has stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States including after 9/11. In fact, it lost more soldiers per capita in Afghanistan than any other NATO nation apart from the United States itself, Mr. Secretary. Does President Trump want the United States to remain a part of NATO? TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: Of course, we are going to remain a part of NATO. But what President Trump does not want is for a war to start and the U.S. gets dragged in. Again, we are not going to outsource our Western Hemisphere security to others. KRISTEN WELKER: Let me ask you broadly speaking about the tariff portion of this. The president, as you well know, has justified his authority to impose previous tariffs without going to Congress by declaring national emergencies. It’s an issue before the Supreme Court right now. We’re all awaiting the high court’s decision. What is the national emergency that justifies these new slate of tariffs? TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency. It is a strategic decision by the president. This is a geopolitical decision. And he is able to use the economic might of the U.S. to avoid a hot war. So why wouldn’t we do that? You know, same thing that what if we had a national emergency coming with these gigantic trade balances that we had with the rest of the world? I’ve been in financial markets for 30, 45 years. Much better to be strategic, avoid the emergency.

RealClearPolitics Videos