potential

The Pentagon in the United States has ordered some 1,500 active duty soldiers in Alaska to be ready to be deployed to Minnesota, where large protests have been taking place against federal immigration raids, US media reported.

Two unnamed officials told Reuters on Sunday that two infantry battalions from the Army’s 11th Airborne Division, which is based in Alaska and specialises in operating in arctic conditions, have been given prepare-to-deploy orders to the twin cities of Minneapolis and St Paul, where protests against raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers are continuing, despite freezing conditions.

In a statement emailed to The Associated Press news agency, Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell did not deny that the orders were issued and said the military “is always prepared to execute the orders of the Commander-in-Chief if called upon.”

ABC News was the first to report the development.

The news comes as widespread protests continue in the twin cities of Minneapolis and St Paul against violent tactics used by close to 3,000 federal ICE agents deployed to the city, following the shooting death of Minneapolis resident and mother Renee Nicole Good, 37.

Multiple people have been injured as the raids continue, with ICE also reporting on Sunday that a man had died in ICE detention after being arrested in Minneapolis.

Victor Manuel Diaz, a 36-year-old from Nicaragua, died in ICE custody at Camp East Montana in El Paso, Texas, on Sunday afternoon, 12 days after he was arrested in Minneapolis, ICE said in a statement.

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is also part of the federal operation in Minnesota, said that a federal officer shot a Venezuelan man in the leg on Wednesday as the immigration raids continued.

The Minneapolis Fire Department also said that a six-month-old baby and a child were hospitalised on Wednesday after they sustained injuries from tear gas deployed by ICE agents, according to Minnesota Public Radio (MPR).

ICE director Todd M Lyons said on Wednesday that US federal agents had arrested 2,500 people since starting their operation in Minnesota.

However, human rights advocates and legal observers have expressed concerns about overcrowding and inhumane conditions in the country’s immigration detention facilities, as well as on deportation flights.

Hundreds of Venezuelan men were deported to the Centre for the Confinement of Terrorism (CECOT) maximum security prison in El Salvador in March 2025.

An expose on CECOT, which was reportedly delayed from airing on CBS News’s 60 Minutes programme last month, prompting backlash, went to air on Sunday night.

Insurrection Act

The potential deployment of troops to Minnesota comes after the Pentagon sent some 700 US Marines to Los Angeles in June and July in response to protests over aggressive immigration enforcement operations under way there, although the soldiers’ role was limited to guarding two federal properties in the greater Los Angeles area.

At the time, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, a law from 1807, to broaden the soldiers’ role, but ultimately did not do so.

Trump has again threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act in recent days, this time in Minnesota, before appearing to walk back the threat a day later, telling reporters at the White House that there was not a reason to use it “right now”.

“If I needed it, I’d use it,” Trump said. “It’s very powerful.”

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey on Sunday described the 3,000 ICE and border control agents waging Trump’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants as an “occupying force that has, quite literally, invaded our city”.

“It’s ridiculous, but we will not be intimidated by the actions of this federal government,” Frey told CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday. “It is not fair, it’s not just, and it’s completely unconstitutional.”

Thousands of Minneapolis citizens are exercising their First Amendment rights, and the protests have been peaceful, Frey said, referring to the section of the US Constitution that covers freedom of speech and the right to peacefully protest.

Governor Tim Walz has also mobilised the Minnesota National Guard, although no units have been deployed to the streets.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem has said that the crackdown will continue “until we are sure that all the dangerous people are picked up, brought to justice and then deported back to their home countries”.

Since taking the White House in January last year, President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that he wants to annex Greenland “very badly,” with a range of options on the table, including a military attack.

Amid opposition from Greenlandic lawmakers, Trump doubled down on Friday, threatening that the United States is “going to do something [there] whether they like it or not”.

“If we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland. And we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbour,” Trump said at a meeting with oil and gas executives at the White House.

“I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way. But if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way,” he added.

Since the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro last week from Caracas in a military operation, Trump and his officials have upped the ante against the Greenlandic capital, Nuuk.

So, what are the ways that US President Trump could take control of Greenland, a territory of Denmark?

Is Trump considering paying out Greenlanders?

Paying out to Greenland’s nearly 56,000-strong population is an option that White House officials have been reportedly discussing.

Located mostly within the Arctic Circle, Greenland is the world’s largest island, with 80 percent of its land covered by glaciers. Nuuk, the capital, is the most populated area, home to about one-third of the population.

Trump’s officials have discussed sending payments to Greenlanders – ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per person – according to a Reuters report, in a bid to convince them to secede from Denmark and potentially join Washington.

Greenland is formally a part of Denmark, with its own elected government and rules over most of its internal affairs, including control over natural resources and governance. Copenhagen still handles foreign policy, defence and Greenland’s finances.

But since 2009, Greenland has the right to secede if its population votes for independence in a referendum. In theory, payouts to Greenland residents could be an attempt to influence their vote.

Trump shared his ambitions of annexing Greenland during his first term as well, terming it “essentially a large real estate deal.”

If the US government were to pay $100,000 to each Greenland resident, the total bill for this effort would amount to about $5.6bn.

Can the US ‘buy’ Greenland?

Earlier this week, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt confirmed to reporters on Wednesday that Trump’s officials are “actively” discussing a potential offer to buy the Danish territory.

During a briefing on Monday with lawmakers from both chambers of Congress, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told them that Trump would prefer to buy Greenland rather than invade it. Rubio is scheduled to hold talks with Danish leaders next week.

Both Nuuk and Copenhagen have repeatedly insisted that the island “is not for sale”.

There are few modern historical precedents to compare Trump’s threats with Greenland, much like the abduction of Maduro on his orders.

The US purchased Louisiana from France in 1803 for $15m and Alaska from Russia in 1867 for $7.2m. However, both France and Russia were willing sellers — unlike Denmark and Greenland today.

Washington has also purchased territory from Denmark in the past. In 1917, the US, under President Woodrow Wilson, bought the Danish West Indies for $25m during World War I, later renaming them the United States Virgin Islands.

Can Trump really just pay off his way?

While Greenlanders have been open to departing from Denmark, the population has repeatedly refused to be a part of the US. Nearly 85 percent of the population rejects the idea, according to a 2025 poll commissioned by the Danish paper Berlingske.

Meanwhile, another poll, by YouGov, shows that only 7 percent of Americans support the idea of a US military invasion of the territory.

Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist and a professor at Columbia University, told Al Jazeera, “The White House wants to buy out Greenlanders, not to pay for what Greenland is worth, which is way beyond what the US would ever pay.”

“Trump thinks he can buy Greenland on the cheap, not for what it’s worth to Denmark or Europe,” he said. “This attempt to negotiate directly with the Greenlanders is an affront and threat to Danish and European sovereignty.”

Denmark and the European Union “should make clear that Trump should stop this abuse of European sovereignty,” said Sachs. “Greenland should not be for sale or capture by the US.”

Sachs added that the EU needs to assess “[Greenland’s] enormous value as a geostrategic region in the Arctic, filled with resources, vital for Europe’s military security.” And, he added, “certainly not a plaything of the United States and its new emperor”.

Denmark and the US were among the 12 founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949 to provide collective security against Soviet expansion.

“Europe should tell the US imperialists to go away,” Sachs said. “[Today] Europe is far more likely to be invaded from the West (US) than from the East,” the economist told Al Jazeera.

Has the US tried to buy Greenland earlier?

Yes, on more than one occasion.

The first such proposal surfaced in 1867 under Secretary of State William Seward, during discussions to successfully purchase Alaska. By 1868, he was reportedly prepared to offer $5.5m in gold to acquire both Greenland and Iceland.

In 1910, a three-way land swap was discussed that would involve the US acquiring Greenland in exchange for giving Denmark parts of the US-held Philippines, and the return of Northern Schleswig from Germany back to Denmark was proposed.

A more formal attempt was made in 1946, immediately following World War II. Recognising Greenland’s critical role in monitoring Soviet movements, President Harry Truman’s administration offered Denmark $100m in gold for the island.

But Denmark flatly rejected the idea.

Can the US attack Greenland?

While political analysts say that a US attack to annex Greenland would be a direct violation of the NATO treaty, the White House has said that using military force to acquire Greenland is among the options.

Denmark, a NATO ally, has also said that any such attack would end the military alliance.

“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark isn’t going to be able to do it,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Sunday. “It’s so strategic.”

Greenland is one of the world’s most sparsely populated, geographically vast regions.

But through a 1951 agreement with Denmark, the US military already has a significant presence on the island.

The US military is stationed at the Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base, in the northwestern corner of Greenland, and the 1951 pact allows Washington to set up additional “defence areas” on the island.

The Thule base supports missile warning, missile defence, space surveillance missions, and satellite command and control.

Nearly 650 personnel are stationed at the base, including US Air Force and Space Force members, with Canadian, Danish and Greenlandic civilian contractors. Under the 1951 deal, Danish laws and taxation don’t apply to American personnel on the base.

Denmark also has a military presence in Greenland, headquartered in Nuuk, where its main tasks are surveillance and search and rescue operations, and the “assertion of sovereignty and military defense of Greenland and the Faroe Islands”, according to Danish Defence.

But the US forces at Thule are comfortably stronger than the Danish military presence on the island. Many analysts believe that if the US were to use these troops to try to occupy Greenland, they could do so without much military resistance or bloodshed.

Trump told reporters on Sunday that “Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place”. Both global powers have a presence in the Arctic Circle; however, there is no evidence of their ships anywhere near Greenland.

Is there another option for the US?

As Trump’s officials mull plans to annex Greenland, there have reportedly been discussions in the White House on entering into a type of agreement that defines a unique structure of sovereignty-sharing.

Reuters reported that officials have discussed putting together a Compact of Free Association, an international agreement between the US and three independent, sovereign Pacific island nations: the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau.

The political arrangement grants the US responsibility for defence and security in exchange for economic assistance. The precise details of COFA agreements vary depending on the signatory.

For a COFA agreement, in theory, Greenland would need to separate from Denmark.

Asked why the Trump administration had previously said it was not ruling out using military force to acquire Greenland, Leavitt replied that all options were always on the table, but Trump’s “first option always has been diplomacy”.

Why does Trump want Greenland badly?

Trump has cited national security as his motivation for wanting to take Greenland.

For the US, Greenland offers the shortest route from North America to Europe. The US has expressed interest in expanding its military presence in Greenland by placing radars in the waters connecting Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom. These waters are a gateway for Russian and Chinese vessels, which Washington aims to track.

But Greenland is also home to mineral riches, including rare earths. According to a 2023 survey, 25 of 34 minerals deemed “critical raw materials” by the European Commission were found in Greenland. Scientists believe the island could also have significant oil and gas reserves.

However, Greenland does not carry out the extraction of oil and gas, and its mining sector is opposed by its Indigenous population. The island’s economy is largely reliant on its fishing industry at the moment.

A U.S. Army squadron tasked with a reconnaissance mission in South Korea was deactivated last month, a congressional report showed Thursday, amid speculation that Washington could consider a troop drawdown in the allied country in a force posture adjustment.

The 5th Air Cavalry Squadron, 17th Cavalry Regiment (5-17 ACS) at Camp Humphreys, a key U.S. base in Pyeongtaek, some 60 kilometers south of Seoul, ceased its operation on Dec. 15, a recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report said, citing information from the U.S. Army. It had served in Korea to support the 2nd Infantry Division since May 2022.

Its deactivation as part of an Army transformation initiative came amid lingering concerns that U.S. President Donald Trump‘s administration could seek a ground troop reduction of the 28,500-strong U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) as part of an adjustment to better counter threats from an assertive China.

5-17 ACS is known to have had hundreds of personnel, as well as aviation and reconnaissance assets, including AH-64E Apache helicopters and RQ-7B Shadow drones. It is unclear whether the deactivation means the pullout of the unit’s personnel and assets or whether there will be a replacement unit.

Comment from the U.S. Army on the deactivation was not immediately available.

A day after the 5-17 ACS deactivation, the Army restructured the 2nd Infantry Division’s Combat Aviation Brigade Medical Evacuation (CAB MEDEVAC) unit, the CRS report said without elaboration.

5-17 ACS was activated in 2022, taking over the role of what had been rotational air cavalry squadrons to provide more stability to U.S. defense operations and enhance defense readiness in South Korea.

Speculation about a potential U.S. troop cut in Korea has persisted as Washington calls for Seoul to take greater responsibility for its own defense while seeking to bolster U.S. capabilities to better address potential China-related contingencies, including those related to Taiwan.

That speculation was reinforced as last year’s key security document between Seoul and Washington omitted language committing the U.S. to maintaining the “current” USFK troop level, with U.S. officials emphasizing the importance of “capabilities” rather than the troop numbers.

Last May, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. was weighing the idea of pulling out roughly 4,500 troops from South Korea and moving them to other locations in the Indo-Pacific, including Guam. The Pentagon dismissed it as “not true,” reaffirming that America remains “fully” committed to the defense of South Korea.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Kim Ju Ae’s first public visit to the Kumsusan Mausoleum added to speculation she may become the next in line.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s daughter, Ju Ae, who is widely speculated to be his potential successor, made her first public visit to the Kumsusan Mausoleum in Pyongyang alongside her parents, state media images show.

Photographs released by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on Friday captured the family paying respects to Ju Ae’s grandfather and great-grandfather, Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung, the founder of the North Korean state. Analysts say that propaganda surrounding the Kim family’s “Paektu bloodline” has allowed its members to dominate daily life in the isolated country and maintain power for decades.

Over the past three years, Ju Ae has appeared more frequently in state media, prompting speculation from analysts and South Korea’s intelligence services that she may be positioned as the country’s fourth-generation leader.

Photographs show Ju Ae accompanying her father, mother Ri Sol Ju, and senior officials on the visit on January 1, standing between her parents in the main hall of the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun.

Ju Ae was first publicly introduced in 2022 when she accompanied her father to the launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Believed to have been born in the early 2010s, she also took part in this year’s New Year celebrations, and in September made her first public overseas visit, travelling to Beijing with her father.

The visit to the mausoleum coincided with key dates and anniversaries, reinforcing the dynastic narrative of the nuclear-armed state. North Korean media have referred to her as “the beloved child” and a “great person of guidance” – or “hyangdo” in Korean – a term traditionally reserved for top leaders and their designated successors.

Prior to 2022, Ju Ae’s existence had only been indirectly confirmed by former NBA player Dennis Rodman, who visited the North in 2013.

North Korea’s leaders have never formally announced their successors, instead signalling transitions gradually through public appearances and expanding official responsibilities.

Meanwhile, Kim Jong Un has pledged to further increase production of missiles and artillery shells, describing them as a “war deterrent” amid heightened military readiness from the United States and South Korea.

Brennan Johnson will meet Crystal Palace manager Oliver Glasner on Thursday before making a final decision on whether to complete a £35m move from Tottenham.

BBC Sport understands the growing expectation is for the deal to be completed, but the talks will be pivotal towards the transfer’s successful progression.

Palace have agreed the fee with Tottenham to sign the 24-year-old forward but are still waiting for the green light to conclude the deal.

Wales international Johnson’s talks with Glasner will centre around the player’s role in the team and the club’s future and ambitions to ensure all parties are aligned.

If talks are successful, Johnson is expected to sign for Palace in the coming days.

Mexico City, Mexico, December 11, 2025 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuela accused the United States of committing “international piracy” after US authorities seized an oil tanker in the Caribbean, denouncing the action as part of a long-running US campaign to strip the country of its energy resources.

US President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that Washington seized an oil tanker sanctioned by the US off Venezuela’s coast. He described the vessel as the largest oil tanker ever seized and indicated that the United States would retain the crude aboard.

The move was met with a sharp rebuke from Caracas.

“The Bolivarian Government will appeal to all existing international bodies to denounce this grave international crime and will defend its sovereignty with absolute determination,” read the communiqué. “Venezuela will not allow any foreign power to take from the Venezuelan people what belongs to them by historical and constitutional right.”

According to Reuters, the “Skipper” tanker loaded an estimated 1.8 million barrels of crude at Venezuela’s José terminal early this month before unloading 200,000 to a Cuba-bound ship. The remaining cargo was believed to be destined for Asian markets. The move was viewed as aggression against Cuba as well, which relies on Venezuelan oil shipments for energy and income.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parilla condemned “the vile act of piracy” as a violation of international law.

Michael Galant, member of the Progressive International Secretariat, said that calling the US seizure an act of piracy fell short.

“This is the deliberate immiseration of the Cuban people, already suffering debilitating fuel shortages, blackouts, and a chikungunya outbreak thanks to the US blockade,” wrote Galant on social media.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi posted a video on social media on Wednesday evening showing armed US forces boarding the vessel. There was reportedly no resistance from the crew nor any casualties. The assault involved Coast Guard members, Marines, and special forces who were seen in the video descending from helicopters onto the ship’s deck.

The seizure of the tanker comes only days after Delaware District Judge Leonard P. Stark approved the sale of Venezuela’s US-based refiner CITGO to Amber Energy, a process that Venezuela called a “barbaric theft” of a Venezuelan asset via a “fraudulent process.”

In past years, the United States has intercepted shipments of Iranian fuel bound for Venezuela, ultimately taking control of the gasoline and selling it at auction. While US-led sanctions have created significant challenges for the sale of Venezuelan oil on international markets, Wednesday’s seizure marks the first time the US has directly impeded a crude shipment of from Venezuela. Reuters reported that buyers in Asia were demanding further discounts on Venezuelan crude as a result of the seizure.

Trump’s latest move is a significant escalation in the latest US effort to oust the Nicolás Maduro government from power. Since September, the US has built up its forces in the region, including the mobilization of the Gerard Ford Carrier Fleet, and has carried out deadly strikes on boats that the administration claims are tied to drug trafficking.

Washington’s decision to seize the tanker drew scrutiny from US lawmakers who have questioned the true intentions behind military mobilization and campaign in the Caribbean.

“If Trump’s aggression in the Caribbean is about drugs, why did he just seize an oil tanker?” asked US Representative Nydia Velázquez. “This is yet another dangerous escalation that brings us closer to a regime change war.”

Senator Mark Warner, who serves as the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, questioned how the US was able to seize an oil tanker but has opted to strike alleged drug smuggling boats from the skies without an effort to arrest the occupants or seize the purported contraband.

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen spoke Wednesday on the floor of Congress to call on lawmakers to stop Trump’s ”regime change war” against Venezuela.

Caracas maintains that the US attacks are motivated by a desire for regime change in order to secure access to Venezuela’s natural resources.

Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, speaking from Oslo where she traveled to receive her Nobel Peace Prize, publicly endorsed the seizure of the tanker as a “very necessary step.”

Juan González, Joe Biden’s former chief Latin America adviser and the architect behind the former president’s Venezuela policy, said that a US Naval blockade was “potentially a viable option” despite admitting that it would constitute an act of war against Venezuela.

The White House has repeatedly threatened further escalation, including land strikes. The New York Times reported that US officials expected additional seizures in the coming weeks. This action would constitute an act of force and place additional pressure against Venezuela’s oil industry.

The United Nations (UN) Charter expressly prohibits all Member States from using or threatening force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. Blockades imposed without a declaration of war or that are not sanctioned by the UN Security Council are not considered legal. Likewise, UN independent experts have consistently maintained that the extraterritorial application of unilateral sanctions is contrary to international law.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.