×
Trump Claims ‘Concept of a Deal’ Reached for Greenland, Says He’ll Cancel New Tariffs

Trump Claims ‘Concept of a Deal’ Reached for Greenland, Says He’ll Cancel New Tariffs

President Donald Trump, a perpetual threat to the safety and security of every democratic country on the planet, announced Wednesday that he has a “concept of a deal” with European countries involving his plan to “acquire” Greenland.

It’s unclear if that means the U.S. will have some new control over the country. But he said that his plan to impose 10% tariffs on all the European countries that had sent troops to defend Greenland against a U.S. invasion was off. Those tariffs had originally been threatened for Feb. 1 and were going to be raised to 25% in June if Greenland wasn’t handed over to U.S. control.

Appearing in an interview with CNBC’s Joe Kernen from Davos, Switzerland, the U.S. president was asked for details, but Trump wasn’t giving up much. He even said there was “pretty much the concept of a deal,” which was about as non-committal as it comes.

The short version: It’s a deal that would be done “forever” (Trump has previously suggested purchasing Greenland under a 99-year lease), some kind of mineral deal will be included, and it involves the security of the Arctic region.

Trump: “We have a concept of a deal. I think it’s gonna be a very good deal for the United States. Also for them. And we’re gonna work together on something having to do with the arctic as a whole, but also Greenland. And it has to do with the security and other things.”

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) January 21, 2026 at 12:17 PM

Trump apparently negotiated this deal with Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, but it’s not clear how many other countries may be involved in the discussions. Kernen asked Trump if Rutte was speaking with Denmark, which controls the semi-autonomous territory of Greenland. Trump replied, “I assume he’s been speaking to them, I assume he’s been speaking to all of them.”

Trump went on to say that Rutte was a “very strong leader,” suggesting that he thinks the Secretary General of NATO is some kind of natural representative of European countries.

Rutte is a big fan of Trump and has previously referred to the MAGA madman as “daddy.” And it’s entirely possible that Trump either misinterpreted Rutte’s fandom as a concession to hand over Greenland in some way (something Rutte doesn’t have the authority to do) or that Rutte genuinely made some kind of offer for the country to be absorbed by the U.S.

If Rutte truly had spoken with Denmark about any major concessions for handing over control, it seems like something he would’ve mentioned to Trump. The president’s answer doesn’t inspire any confidence that something tangible has been achieved.

NATO released a statement not long after the CNBC interview aired that was similarly vague about what had been agreed to: “Talks among NATO allies on the framework Trump referenced will focus on ensuring Arctic security through the collective efforts of allies, especially the seven Arctic allies.”

Trump complained about the stock market, whining that whenever he announces great news, the market seems to go down. Markets rallied after Trump’s Truth Social post about a potential deal on Greenland being announced, and his interview on CNBC aired about an hour later.

The CNBC interview, conducted by super-MAGA-fan Joe Kernen, was embarrassingly flattering of Trump. At one point, Trump said Kernen was “too young” to remember a previous era, leading to a gag-inducing volley of flattery about the men’s respective ages and youthfulness.

Trump also said he was going to sell Venezuela’s oil to help the country, but “we’re going to keep some.” Trump has long complained that the Iraq War was a blunder simply because the U.S. didn’t keep the oil, as he put it.

President Trump has ramped up his threats against Greenland in recent days, making a stunningly awful speech on the topic on Wednesday at the World Economic Forum. At one point, Trump referred to Iceland when he clearly meant Denmark.

Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, Finland, and the Netherlands all sent a small number of troops to Greenland in an effort to dissuade Trump from attacking. Global leaders have pushed back against Trump’s plan to invade Greenland, with some of America’s most steadfast allies talking in ways that make it clear they’re done putting up with the country’s bullshit. French President Emmanuel Macron said in a speech on Tuesday that his country prefers respect to bullies and prefers science to conspiracies, clear references to Trump’s worldview.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech on Tuesday similarly said that American hegemony was useful for a time and suggested that his country’s relationship with the U.S. was forever changed and wouldn’t be going back to normal, as it were. “This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition,” Carney said.

Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard signaled cautious optimism that things would work out, but stressed they won’t be blackmailed over Greenland.

“Good that Trump has now ‍backed away from tariffs ​on ​those of us who have supported Denmark and Greenland,” Stenergard wrote on X, according to an English language translation from DW. “The demands about moving ‍borders has received well-earned criticism. That is also ​why we have repeated that we will ⁠not ​be blackmailed. It appears that our ‌work ‌together with allies has had an impact.”

Presumably, we’ll learn more from the Europeans in the days and weeks ahead when it comes to the future of Greenland. But whatever deal may eventually be reached, the U.S. has set itself down a lonely path. America is no longer a true ally to the liberal democracies of the world. And even if some kind of understanding is developed between the U.S. and Europe about more military assets in Greenland, nothing is stopping Trump from later saying he’s unhappy with the arrangement and threatening to invade again.

Source link
#Trump #Claims #Concept #Deal #Reached #Greenland #Hell #Cancel #Tariffs


The new Star Wars animated series Maul: Shadow Lord is doing some very cool things with lightsabers—and not just spinning them around with reckless abandon because we’ve got Maul himself and a couple of Inquisitors who all love to do exactly that with their weapons. They look almost unlike any time we’ve seen the weapons in Lucasfilm’s past output: blades that flicker and snarl like their wielders do, living flames that carve paths of incandescent energy across the screen instead of that typically clean, minimalistic energy we see from them.

It makes Shadow Lord look even more visually impressive than it already is, and of course, the idea of lightsabers as gouts of flaming plasma is also naturally very befitting everyone’s favorite slightly pathetic but trying-his-best edgelord in a character like Maul. But it turns out Shadow Lord‘s lightsabers—Maul’s specifically—are going the extra edgelord mile. Because there’s screaming in the sound mix.

Not just any screaming either, but Sam Witwer’s own howls.

The delightfully silly factoid was revealed by the supervising sound editor for the show, David W. Collins, in a new featurette about the process of creating Shadow Lord, which also shows off Witwer performing some of his own moves for animation reference. While Lucasfilm creatives were quick to note that the show does not use mocap for its animation, and the footage was strictly as a reference point, there’s still something very funny about Witwer even giving himself some Maul tattooing makeup for the footage, to boot.

It’s long been clear that Witwer has put a lot of time and thought into his approach to Maul’s animated legacy over the past decade and a half, but now at least he’s put his vocals into it in a very different manner for Shadow Lord.

Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

#Mauls #Lightsabers #Shadow #Lord #Powered #Sam #Witwers #ScreamsMaul: Shadow Lord,sam witwer,Star Wars">Maul’s Lightsabers in ‘Shadow Lord’ Are Powered by Sam Witwer’s Screams
                The new Star Wars animated series Maul: Shadow Lord is doing some very cool things with lightsabers—and not just spinning them around with reckless abandon because we’ve got Maul himself and a couple of Inquisitors who all love to do exactly that with their weapons. They look almost unlike any time we’ve seen the weapons in Lucasfilm’s past output: blades that flicker and snarl like their wielders do, living flames that carve paths of incandescent energy across the screen instead of that typically clean, minimalistic energy we see from them. It makes Shadow Lord look even more visually impressive than it already is, and of course, the idea of lightsabers as gouts of flaming plasma is also naturally very befitting everyone’s favorite slightly pathetic but trying-his-best edgelord in a character like Maul. But it turns out Shadow Lord‘s lightsabers—Maul’s specifically—are going the extra edgelord mile. Because there’s screaming in the sound mix.

 Not just any screaming either, but Sam Witwer’s own howls.  The delightfully silly factoid was revealed by the supervising sound editor for the show, David W. Collins, in a new featurette about the process of creating Shadow Lord, which also shows off Witwer performing some of his own moves for animation reference. While Lucasfilm creatives were quick to note that the show does not use mocap for its animation, and the footage was strictly as a reference point, there’s still something very funny about Witwer even giving himself some Maul tattooing makeup for the footage, to boot. It’s long been clear that Witwer has put a lot of time and thought into his approach to Maul’s animated legacy over the past decade and a half, but now at least he’s put his vocals into it in a very different manner for Shadow Lord.  Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.      #Mauls #Lightsabers #Shadow #Lord #Powered #Sam #Witwers #ScreamsMaul: Shadow Lord,sam witwer,Star Wars

Maul: Shadow Lord is doing some very cool things with lightsabers—and not just spinning them around with reckless abandon because we’ve got Maul himself and a couple of Inquisitors who all love to do exactly that with their weapons. They look almost unlike any time we’ve seen the weapons in Lucasfilm’s past output: blades that flicker and snarl like their wielders do, living flames that carve paths of incandescent energy across the screen instead of that typically clean, minimalistic energy we see from them.

It makes Shadow Lord look even more visually impressive than it already is, and of course, the idea of lightsabers as gouts of flaming plasma is also naturally very befitting everyone’s favorite slightly pathetic but trying-his-best edgelord in a character like Maul. But it turns out Shadow Lord‘s lightsabers—Maul’s specifically—are going the extra edgelord mile. Because there’s screaming in the sound mix.

Not just any screaming either, but Sam Witwer’s own howls.

The delightfully silly factoid was revealed by the supervising sound editor for the show, David W. Collins, in a new featurette about the process of creating Shadow Lord, which also shows off Witwer performing some of his own moves for animation reference. While Lucasfilm creatives were quick to note that the show does not use mocap for its animation, and the footage was strictly as a reference point, there’s still something very funny about Witwer even giving himself some Maul tattooing makeup for the footage, to boot.

It’s long been clear that Witwer has put a lot of time and thought into his approach to Maul’s animated legacy over the past decade and a half, but now at least he’s put his vocals into it in a very different manner for Shadow Lord.

Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

#Mauls #Lightsabers #Shadow #Lord #Powered #Sam #Witwers #ScreamsMaul: Shadow Lord,sam witwer,Star Wars">Maul’s Lightsabers in ‘Shadow Lord’ Are Powered by Sam Witwer’s ScreamsMaul’s Lightsabers in ‘Shadow Lord’ Are Powered by Sam Witwer’s Screams
                The new Star Wars animated series Maul: Shadow Lord is doing some very cool things with lightsabers—and not just spinning them around with reckless abandon because we’ve got Maul himself and a couple of Inquisitors who all love to do exactly that with their weapons. They look almost unlike any time we’ve seen the weapons in Lucasfilm’s past output: blades that flicker and snarl like their wielders do, living flames that carve paths of incandescent energy across the screen instead of that typically clean, minimalistic energy we see from them. It makes Shadow Lord look even more visually impressive than it already is, and of course, the idea of lightsabers as gouts of flaming plasma is also naturally very befitting everyone’s favorite slightly pathetic but trying-his-best edgelord in a character like Maul. But it turns out Shadow Lord‘s lightsabers—Maul’s specifically—are going the extra edgelord mile. Because there’s screaming in the sound mix.

 Not just any screaming either, but Sam Witwer’s own howls.  The delightfully silly factoid was revealed by the supervising sound editor for the show, David W. Collins, in a new featurette about the process of creating Shadow Lord, which also shows off Witwer performing some of his own moves for animation reference. While Lucasfilm creatives were quick to note that the show does not use mocap for its animation, and the footage was strictly as a reference point, there’s still something very funny about Witwer even giving himself some Maul tattooing makeup for the footage, to boot. It’s long been clear that Witwer has put a lot of time and thought into his approach to Maul’s animated legacy over the past decade and a half, but now at least he’s put his vocals into it in a very different manner for Shadow Lord.  Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.      #Mauls #Lightsabers #Shadow #Lord #Powered #Sam #Witwers #ScreamsMaul: Shadow Lord,sam witwer,Star Wars

The new Star Wars animated series Maul: Shadow Lord is doing some very cool things with lightsabers—and not just spinning them around with reckless abandon because we’ve got Maul himself and a couple of Inquisitors who all love to do exactly that with their weapons. They look almost unlike any time we’ve seen the weapons in Lucasfilm’s past output: blades that flicker and snarl like their wielders do, living flames that carve paths of incandescent energy across the screen instead of that typically clean, minimalistic energy we see from them.

It makes Shadow Lord look even more visually impressive than it already is, and of course, the idea of lightsabers as gouts of flaming plasma is also naturally very befitting everyone’s favorite slightly pathetic but trying-his-best edgelord in a character like Maul. But it turns out Shadow Lord‘s lightsabers—Maul’s specifically—are going the extra edgelord mile. Because there’s screaming in the sound mix.

Not just any screaming either, but Sam Witwer’s own howls.

The delightfully silly factoid was revealed by the supervising sound editor for the show, David W. Collins, in a new featurette about the process of creating Shadow Lord, which also shows off Witwer performing some of his own moves for animation reference. While Lucasfilm creatives were quick to note that the show does not use mocap for its animation, and the footage was strictly as a reference point, there’s still something very funny about Witwer even giving himself some Maul tattooing makeup for the footage, to boot.

It’s long been clear that Witwer has put a lot of time and thought into his approach to Maul’s animated legacy over the past decade and a half, but now at least he’s put his vocals into it in a very different manner for Shadow Lord.

Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

#Mauls #Lightsabers #Shadow #Lord #Powered #Sam #Witwers #ScreamsMaul: Shadow Lord,sam witwer,Star Wars

Medical experts I spoke with balked at the idea of uploading their own health data for an AI model, like Muse Spark, to analyze. “These chatbots now allow you to connect your own biometric data, put in your own lab information, and honestly, that makes me pretty nervous,” says Gauri Agarwal, a doctor of medicine and associate professor at the University of Miami. “I certainly wouldn’t connect my own health information to a service that I’m not fully able to control, understand where that information is being stored, or how it’s being utilized.” She recommends people stick to lower-stakes, more general interactions, like prepping questions for your doctor.

It can be tempting to rely on AI-assisted help for interpreting health, especially with the skyrocketing cost of medical treatments and overall inaccessibility of regular doctor visits for some people navigating the US health care system.

“You will be forgiven for going online and delegating what used to be a powerful, important personal relationship between a doctor and a patient—to a robot,” says Kenneth Goodman, founder of the University of Miami’s Institute for Bioethics and Health Policy. “I think running into that without due diligence is dangerous.” Before he considers using any of these tools, Goodman wants to see research proving that they are beneficial for your health, not just better at answering health questions than some competitor chatbot.

When I asked Meta AI for more information about how it would interpret my health information, if I provided any, the chatbot said it was not trying to replace my physician; the outputs were for educational purposes. “Think of me as a med school professor, not your doctor,” said Meta AI. That’s still a lofty claim.

The bot said the best way to get an interpretation of my health data was just to “dump the raw data,” like clinical lab reports, and tell it what my goals were. Meta AI would then create charts, summarize the info, and give a “referral nudge if needed.” In other chats I conducted with Meta AI, the bot prompted me to strip personal details before uploading lab results, but these caveats were not present in every test conversation.

“People have long used the internet to ask health questions,” a Meta spokesperson tells WIRED. “With Meta AI and Muse Spark, people are in control of what information to share, and our terms make clear they should only share what they’re comfortable with.”

In addition to privacy concerns, experts I spoke with expressed trepidation about how these AI tools can be sycophantic and influenced by how users ask questions. “A model might take the information that’s provided more as a given without questioning the assumptions that the patient inherently made when asking the question,” says Agrawal.

When I asked how to lose weight and nudged the bot towards extreme answers, Meta AI helped in ways that could be catastrophic for someone with anorexia. As I asked about the benefits of intermittent fasting, I told Meta AI that I wanted to fast five days every week. Despite flagging that this was not for most people and putting me at risk for eating disorders, Meta AI crafted a meal plan for me where I would only eat around 500 calories most days, which would leave me malnourished.

#Metas #Asked #Raw #Health #Dataand #Gave #Terrible #Advicehealth,artificial intelligence,health care,machine learning,chatbots,meta,personalized medicine">Meta’s New AI Asked for My Raw Health Data—and Gave Me Terrible AdviceMedical experts I spoke with balked at the idea of uploading their own health data for an AI model, like Muse Spark, to analyze. “These chatbots now allow you to connect your own biometric data, put in your own lab information, and honestly, that makes me pretty nervous,” says Gauri Agarwal, a doctor of medicine and associate professor at the University of Miami. “I certainly wouldn’t connect my own health information to a service that I’m not fully able to control, understand where that information is being stored, or how it’s being utilized.” She recommends people stick to lower-stakes, more general interactions, like prepping questions for your doctor.It can be tempting to rely on AI-assisted help for interpreting health, especially with the skyrocketing cost of medical treatments and overall inaccessibility of regular doctor visits for some people navigating the US health care system.“You will be forgiven for going online and delegating what used to be a powerful, important personal relationship between a doctor and a patient—to a robot,” says Kenneth Goodman, founder of the University of Miami’s Institute for Bioethics and Health Policy. “I think running into that without due diligence is dangerous.” Before he considers using any of these tools, Goodman wants to see research proving that they are beneficial for your health, not just better at answering health questions than some competitor chatbot.When I asked Meta AI for more information about how it would interpret my health information, if I provided any, the chatbot said it was not trying to replace my physician; the outputs were for educational purposes. “Think of me as a med school professor, not your doctor,” said Meta AI. That’s still a lofty claim.The bot said the best way to get an interpretation of my health data was just to “dump the raw data,” like clinical lab reports, and tell it what my goals were. Meta AI would then create charts, summarize the info, and give a “referral nudge if needed.” In other chats I conducted with Meta AI, the bot prompted me to strip personal details before uploading lab results, but these caveats were not present in every test conversation.“People have long used the internet to ask health questions,” a Meta spokesperson tells WIRED. “With Meta AI and Muse Spark, people are in control of what information to share, and our terms make clear they should only share what they’re comfortable with.”In addition to privacy concerns, experts I spoke with expressed trepidation about how these AI tools can be sycophantic and influenced by how users ask questions. “A model might take the information that’s provided more as a given without questioning the assumptions that the patient inherently made when asking the question,” says Agrawal.When I asked how to lose weight and nudged the bot towards extreme answers, Meta AI helped in ways that could be catastrophic for someone with anorexia. As I asked about the benefits of intermittent fasting, I told Meta AI that I wanted to fast five days every week. Despite flagging that this was not for most people and putting me at risk for eating disorders, Meta AI crafted a meal plan for me where I would only eat around 500 calories most days, which would leave me malnourished.#Metas #Asked #Raw #Health #Dataand #Gave #Terrible #Advicehealth,artificial intelligence,health care,machine learning,chatbots,meta,personalized medicine

Gauri Agarwal, a doctor of medicine and associate professor at the University of Miami. “I certainly wouldn’t connect my own health information to a service that I’m not fully able to control, understand where that information is being stored, or how it’s being utilized.” She recommends people stick to lower-stakes, more general interactions, like prepping questions for your doctor.

It can be tempting to rely on AI-assisted help for interpreting health, especially with the skyrocketing cost of medical treatments and overall inaccessibility of regular doctor visits for some people navigating the US health care system.

“You will be forgiven for going online and delegating what used to be a powerful, important personal relationship between a doctor and a patient—to a robot,” says Kenneth Goodman, founder of the University of Miami’s Institute for Bioethics and Health Policy. “I think running into that without due diligence is dangerous.” Before he considers using any of these tools, Goodman wants to see research proving that they are beneficial for your health, not just better at answering health questions than some competitor chatbot.

When I asked Meta AI for more information about how it would interpret my health information, if I provided any, the chatbot said it was not trying to replace my physician; the outputs were for educational purposes. “Think of me as a med school professor, not your doctor,” said Meta AI. That’s still a lofty claim.

The bot said the best way to get an interpretation of my health data was just to “dump the raw data,” like clinical lab reports, and tell it what my goals were. Meta AI would then create charts, summarize the info, and give a “referral nudge if needed.” In other chats I conducted with Meta AI, the bot prompted me to strip personal details before uploading lab results, but these caveats were not present in every test conversation.

“People have long used the internet to ask health questions,” a Meta spokesperson tells WIRED. “With Meta AI and Muse Spark, people are in control of what information to share, and our terms make clear they should only share what they’re comfortable with.”

In addition to privacy concerns, experts I spoke with expressed trepidation about how these AI tools can be sycophantic and influenced by how users ask questions. “A model might take the information that’s provided more as a given without questioning the assumptions that the patient inherently made when asking the question,” says Agrawal.

When I asked how to lose weight and nudged the bot towards extreme answers, Meta AI helped in ways that could be catastrophic for someone with anorexia. As I asked about the benefits of intermittent fasting, I told Meta AI that I wanted to fast five days every week. Despite flagging that this was not for most people and putting me at risk for eating disorders, Meta AI crafted a meal plan for me where I would only eat around 500 calories most days, which would leave me malnourished.

#Metas #Asked #Raw #Health #Dataand #Gave #Terrible #Advicehealth,artificial intelligence,health care,machine learning,chatbots,meta,personalized medicine">Meta’s New AI Asked for My Raw Health Data—and Gave Me Terrible Advice

Medical experts I spoke with balked at the idea of uploading their own health data for an AI model, like Muse Spark, to analyze. “These chatbots now allow you to connect your own biometric data, put in your own lab information, and honestly, that makes me pretty nervous,” says Gauri Agarwal, a doctor of medicine and associate professor at the University of Miami. “I certainly wouldn’t connect my own health information to a service that I’m not fully able to control, understand where that information is being stored, or how it’s being utilized.” She recommends people stick to lower-stakes, more general interactions, like prepping questions for your doctor.

It can be tempting to rely on AI-assisted help for interpreting health, especially with the skyrocketing cost of medical treatments and overall inaccessibility of regular doctor visits for some people navigating the US health care system.

“You will be forgiven for going online and delegating what used to be a powerful, important personal relationship between a doctor and a patient—to a robot,” says Kenneth Goodman, founder of the University of Miami’s Institute for Bioethics and Health Policy. “I think running into that without due diligence is dangerous.” Before he considers using any of these tools, Goodman wants to see research proving that they are beneficial for your health, not just better at answering health questions than some competitor chatbot.

When I asked Meta AI for more information about how it would interpret my health information, if I provided any, the chatbot said it was not trying to replace my physician; the outputs were for educational purposes. “Think of me as a med school professor, not your doctor,” said Meta AI. That’s still a lofty claim.

The bot said the best way to get an interpretation of my health data was just to “dump the raw data,” like clinical lab reports, and tell it what my goals were. Meta AI would then create charts, summarize the info, and give a “referral nudge if needed.” In other chats I conducted with Meta AI, the bot prompted me to strip personal details before uploading lab results, but these caveats were not present in every test conversation.

“People have long used the internet to ask health questions,” a Meta spokesperson tells WIRED. “With Meta AI and Muse Spark, people are in control of what information to share, and our terms make clear they should only share what they’re comfortable with.”

In addition to privacy concerns, experts I spoke with expressed trepidation about how these AI tools can be sycophantic and influenced by how users ask questions. “A model might take the information that’s provided more as a given without questioning the assumptions that the patient inherently made when asking the question,” says Agrawal.

When I asked how to lose weight and nudged the bot towards extreme answers, Meta AI helped in ways that could be catastrophic for someone with anorexia. As I asked about the benefits of intermittent fasting, I told Meta AI that I wanted to fast five days every week. Despite flagging that this was not for most people and putting me at risk for eating disorders, Meta AI crafted a meal plan for me where I would only eat around 500 calories most days, which would leave me malnourished.

#Metas #Asked #Raw #Health #Dataand #Gave #Terrible #Advicehealth,artificial intelligence,health care,machine learning,chatbots,meta,personalized medicine

Post Comment