So -- so thank you, Mike, and let me say just a couple of other things and then we'll take some questions from the reporters. So, number one, I think a lot of Americans wonder why does Greenland matter so much? Why does the mission of this base matter so much to the American people? And I learned a lot about that today myself.
Of course, you can read about it in a book, but I saw it up close and personal. And if, God forbid, to my fellow Americans, if a missile was fired from an enemy country or an enemy submarine into the United States, it is the people here before us who would give notice to our brave men and women further south in the United States to let people know what was coming, and God willing, to try to shoot it down and prepare for it. That's one of the things that we do at institute installations like this.
We know that Russia and China and other nations are taking an extraordinary interest in Arctic passageways and Arctic naval routes, and indeed, in the minerals of the Arctic territories. We need to ensure that America is leading in the Arctic because we know that if America doesn't, other nations will fill the gap where we fall behind.
So, what you guys do is so critically important. I think a lot of Americans, certainly I, didn't realize it fully until President Trump started talking about the importance of our Arctic mission, about building upon it and ensuring that America can lead in the Arctic for the next generation. And now I want to talk about, of course, the interaction and what Denmark I think has done, and sometimes in partnership with us, but let's be honest, what Denmark over the last 20 years has failed to do in some cases because we know that unfortunately, this place, this base, the surrounding area is less secure than it was 30, 40 years ago because some of our allies haven't kept up. As China and Russia have taken greater and greater interest in Greenland, in this base, in the activities of the brave Americans right here, we know that too often our allies in Europe have not kept pace.
They haven't kept pace with military spending, and Denmark has not kept pace in devoting the resources necessary to keep this base, to keep our troops, and in my view, to keep the people of Greenland safe from a lot of very aggressive incursions from Russia, from China and from other nations. Now President Trump, as he says all the time and as a lot of people recognize, is a president of peace.
We want to have good relationships with everybody, that includes even to the extent possible the Chinese and the Russians. But part of having good relations is showing your strength when you have to. And, unfortunately, the story of Greenland over the past 20 years when it comes to security, is that we've underinvested in the infrastructure.
We've underinvested in the security architecture and we've underinvested in the brave men and women who are doing a very hard job, as Mike said, to keep all of us safe. That has to change. Now, when I pointed out a couple of weeks ago that in some ways, with all due respect to our Danish allies, they had not kept pace, there was a lot of criticism from Denmark, a lot of attacks at the Trump Administration, at the president, at me, at others in our administration for saying the obvious, which is that Denmark hasn't done a good job at keeping Greenland safe.
And you know, one of the things I heard was well, what about the many Danes who lost their lives in the war on terror, fighting alongside the United States? Well, look, we obviously honor the sacrifice of our Danish friends in the war on terror 20 years ago just as, for example, the French honor the sacrifice of Americans in Normandy 80 years ago.
But recognizing that there are important security partnerships in the past, does not mean that we can't have disagreements with allies in the present about how to preserve our shared security for the future. And that's what this is about. There is no amount of bullying, no amount of obfuscating, no amount of confusing the issue.
Our message to Denmark is very simple; you have not done a good job by the people of Greenland. You have underinvested in the people of Greenland and you have underinvested in the security architecture of this incredible beautiful landmass filled with incredible people. That has to change. And because it hasn't changed, this is why President Trump's policy in Greenland is what it is. It's consistent with the first Trump Administration where you saw significant investments in Arctic security, and it will continue over the next four years under President Trump's leadership.
And let me, finally, before I kick it over to the media, make one comment about the people of Greenland. I -- you know, the colonel here, the base commander, who came here first as a second lieutenant, and I guess colonel, this is your second duty station here and we're proud of you and proud of all of you guys who are serving and helping keep us safe.
You know, I heard a lot about the respect that our American troops show for the local Greenlandic population, the way that we make and create shelter for hunters and dog sledders. The way that we found ways to turn over traditional tribal land to some of the local populations in order to ensure that they're able to live in accordance with their values.
We respect, as the president said, in his state of the Union address, we respect the self-determination of Greenlandic -- Greenlanders, excuse me. We believe in the self-determination of the population of the people of Greenland. And our argument is very simple; it is not with the people of Greenland, who I think are incredible and have an incredible opportunity here, our argument really is with the -- is with the leadership of Denmark, which has underinvested in Greenland and underinvested in its security architecture.
That simply must change. It is the policy of the United States that that will change and I'm proud to be able to stand here with so many brave Americans to better understand the security mission and better understand what you guys do each and every day. For that, I'm grateful for your service. I'm even more grateful.
I love you guys. I'm proud of you guys and President Trump stands behind you and will for the remainder of his administration. Thank you all. God bless you. All right. All right now we'll take a few questions. Um, both of you guys have your hands up, whoever can go first. Red scarf, go first.
Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Um, do you have any plans, or are there plans, to expand the US's military presence in Greenland beyond this base?
Well, are there immediate plans to expand our military presence? No. But are there -- are there general objectives that we want to accomplish that will certainly require us investing more resources, investing in additional military, um, you know, icebreakers, investing in additional Naval ships that will have a greater presence in Greenland?
Absolutely. And we know that's necessary because we know, as Mike talked about and certainly I talked about, there has been an expansion of the security footprint and the security interests of Russia and China. They're doing what they believe is in their interest. The United States must do what I know is in our interest, which is to make sure that Greenland is safe.
If Greenland doesn't have self-determination, if the people of Greenland have their future controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, it's not going to make their lives better off. And most importantly, it's going to make American and world national security, world security, much, much weaker. We can't -- we in some ways need to wake up, we need to wake up from a failed 40-year consensus that said that we could ignore the encroachment of powerful countries as they expand their ambitions.
We can't just bury our head in the sand, or in Greenland, bury our head in the snow and pretend that the Chinese are not interested in this very large land mass. We know that they are. They've taken steps to put Greenland in ridiculous debt traps to invest and exploit the resources here and we know that they're sending a lot of military resources here.
Yes, over the medium term, the United States will meet that challenge. We will put our own resources here. We already have a lot of great resources here, but we know we're going to have to do more to counter some of our -- some of the nations that we know that we're competitive with. Sure.
Thank you so much, Mr. Vice President. And the president said today that we have to have Greenland. By being here today, are you also conveying that message that the US is very serious in its desire to acquire Greenland?
Well, the president said we have to have Greenland and I think that we do have to be more serious about the security of Greenland. We can't just ignore this place. We can't just ignore the president's desires, but most importantly, we can't ignore what I said earlier, which is the Russian and Chinese encroachment in Greenland, we have to do more.
Now, what the president said in his state of the Union address, and he was very clear about this is, we respect the self-determination of the people of Greenland. But my argument again to them is, I think that you'd be a lot better having -- coming under the United States security umbrella than you have been under Denmark security umbrella because what Denmark's security umbrella has meant is effectively they've passed it all off to brave Americans and hoped that we would pick up the tab.
We're simply saying to the people of Greenland, when the president says we've got to have Greenland, he's saying this island is not safe. A lot of people are interested in it. A lot of people are making a play. We know that America cares about the security of this island for the people, for the sake of the people of Greenland, but also for the sake of the national security interests of the United States of America.
So, our message is very simple, yes, the people of Greenland are going to have self-determination. We hope that they choose to partner with the United States because we're the only nation on Earth that will respect their sovereignty and respect their security because their security is very much our security as these brave Americans show.
John Parkinson with ABC News. Thanks for bringing us along on this historic trip. I wanted to ask you about last week's news with The Atlantic. We've had a couple questions on Greenland. I feel like you've answered that. But I did want to ask, did you express your concerns to the president that you were opposed to the Houthi strike?
And also, what did you mean when you asked or when you said in that thread that the president wasn't aware that his directions for Yemen were inconsistent with his message on Europe?
Well, I didn't quite say that. I think that's a slight misunderstanding of what I said. But we've talked, of course, in the American media about Signalgate as I called it for the past week. And here's what I told the president and the entire national security team is that yes, it is in the interest of the United States of America to preserve navigation.
Yes, it is in the interest of the United States to kill terrorists who are preventing navigation in the Red Sea, but we've got to make sure that we do it right. We have to be careful, we have to make sure the timing is right. And of course, what that leak revealed, I think, is a private communication between the president's senior advisors about how best to prepare the American people for what we all thought we had to do, about the right timing of when we should do something, and of course surfacing the strategic questions that we needed to decide and brief the president on, so that he could ultimately make the decision about what we would do. What I saw in that Signal chat, And of course, what I've seen in the president's senior national security team is that sometimes we all agree and sometimes we all disagree, but it's important that we all have an honest conversation, amongst ourselves and with the President of the United States, about what we think is the best interest of the national security of the United States of America.
I support the president's decision to strike the Houthis. I always supported the president's decision to strike the Houthis. And I support the national security team having the argument about how best to serve the American people. Go ahead.
In your security briefing today, did you see specific threats coming from China and Russia, things that you did not know about before? Are we talking battleships, icebreakers? Any type of military equipment or is it economic?
Well, I don't want to get too specific, but yes, we know that the Chinese are very, very interested in this island. We've seen some of the economic pressures that they've tried to place on Greenland. We know that they're increasingly engaging in military training and military interest. Certainly, they've started to describe themselves as a near-arctic power.
And I think part of that is justifying taking a further interest in Greenland and some of the surrounding territories. So, we've seen very strong evidence that both the Chinese and the Russians are interested in Greenland. And why wouldn't they be interested in Greenland? It's a beautiful place. It has incredible people.
It has a -- its geographic placement makes it very important for the national security of the United States but for world security. What we have to recognize is that if the Chinese and the Russians are going to pursue their national interest, we need a president who's going to pursue the American national interest, and that means ensuring that Greenland is safe.
When can we expect an update on the internal investigation into that Signal chat leak? Has that investigation concluded and what are the findings?
I think we'll get an update soon. Look, we take it very seriously. We all accept that a journalist should not have been invited into the chat and members of the administration, including my dear friend, Mike, have taken responsibility for it. But I find the American media's obsession with this issue very, very interesting because I happen to remember about four years ago when American military leadership made a catastrophic error that got 13 innocent Americans killed in Afghanistan and had about $80 billion in military equipment turned over to one of the worst terrorist organizations in the world.
And for years, the American media ran cover, ran cover for a Biden Administration that refused to fire any generals or even launch an internal investigation that was meaningful and substantive about what happened. And now the same American media that covered for the Biden Administration after the untimely death and the unnecessary death of 13 brave Americans is really, really interested in forcing the president of the United States to fire someone because of a Signal chat, because of a Signal chat.
That is not honest behavior from the American media. And if you think you're going to force the president of the United States to fire anybody, you've got another thing coming. President Trump has said it on Monday, on Tuesday, on Wednesday, on Thursday, and I'm the vice president saying it here on Friday, we are standing behind our entire national security team.
Yeah, go ahead.
-- the tariffs, um, there's been some retaliation, some signals at least in the media that Canada is going to respond. Some of these others are going to respond to the president's tariffs. What's your message for Americans that are going to see costs increase on auto manufacturing, new cars, that kind of thing?
Is it Buy America, or what's the message going forward there?
Well, let me say a couple of things. First of all for the -- for the Canadians, and we have many dear friends in Canada and of course we love the Canadian people, but the Canadian leadership threatening retaliatory tariffs against the United States, as President Trump often says, they just don't have the cards.
There is no way that Canada can win a trade war with the United States. What President Trump has said is that he wants to level the playing field. For decades, Canadian leadership has forced American farmers and American manufacturers to play by an unfair set of rules. All President Trump has said is that we're done playing by an unfair set of rules.
If you're going to do something to our industries, then we're going to do something back to your industries. That's how you protect American manufacturing and that's how you protect American jobs. Now what I'd say to the American people is look, the president ran on this and he said very clearly that we're done being the piggy bank of the entire world.
For 40 years, in the same way that our European friends I think have neglected international security, for 40 years a lot of our friends all over the world have used America as a piggy bank. They have used us to absorb all of their excess economic production. And what has that meant for Americans? For Americans that's meant manufacturing jobs declining, that's meant middle class wages going down, that's meant whole towns that have been hollowed out by empty factories and that means an America that is less safe because our manufacturing isn't as powerful now as it was 30 years ago.
I've got all these brave Americans in front of me and in a few behind me too. We want to send, if God forbid we have to send Americans to war, we want them to have weapons, the best weapons in the world that are manufactured in America and not in China. The way you do that is to rebuild the American manufacturing sector.
The days of America being the piggy bank of the world, the days of closed factories, the days of people not being able to get a middle class job in this country, they're over. And yes, that means we're going to have to fight back even against some of our friends and their unfair economic practices, but the long term consequence of this is going to be higher wages, more manufacturing and more economic security for the American people.
I'll take a couple more questions.
-- on Russia, has the US agreed to those conditions that the Kremlin said were needed for that truce in the Black Sea including lifting sanctions imposed on Russian banks? Trump said this week that you were still looking at it.
Well, there are a couple of different statements that are floating around out there and some of them I think are mistranslations and some of them are not totally clear what is even being asked for. But the president has said, and he's right, that I think we feel very good about where things are. We trust but verify.
We make sure that what we're seeing from one party is met by the other party and vice versa. But I think that we've made an incredible amount of progress. We have to remember that this war started under Joe Biden's Administration, it has led to an unbelievable amount of death and destruction. And for the first time in almost four years, thanks to President Trump's leadership, we have an opportunity to really achieve a peaceful settlement.
The president is going to fight every single day to make sure that happens. And of course, we'll keep you guys updated as we continue to make progress. I do think if you look at what we've talked about, we've obviously got this energy infrastructure ceasefire. We've got a Black Sea commercial ceasefire that I think is almost done, and once we get there, we'll work on the next stage of the cease fire.
Yeah.
The president has previously not ruled out military force when he's talking about taking over Greenland. But your rhetoric today is more about encouraging the Greenlandic people to vote for independence. Do you think the rhetoric has changed about that or what's your message there?
No, I don't think it's changed at all. Look, the president has said clearly, he doesn't think that military force is going to be necessary, but he absolutely believes that Greenland is an important part of the security, not just of the United States, but of the world. And of course, the people of Greenland, too.
It's very simple. I think the president's been very consistent here from his State of the Union, from his inaugural address and every public statement that he's made, this territory, Greenland, really matters for the security of the United States. It's extremely vulnerable right now and if the people of Greenland were willing to partner with the United States, and I think that they ultimately will partner with the United States, we could make them much more secure, we could do a lot more protection and I think they'd fare a lot better economically as well.
This has to happen, and the reason it has to happen, I hate to say it, is because our friends in Denmark have not done their job in keeping this area safe. They just haven't done it. It's very simple for -- for all of our friends in the American media who attack the administration for pointing out the obvious, what is the alternative?
To give up the North Atlantic? To give up the Arctic to China, to Russia and to other regimes that don't have the best interests of the American people at heart. We have no other option. We need to take a significant position in Greenland to keep the people here safe, but to keep our own country safe too.
We'll do -- we'll just do one or two more. Yeah.
Trump said this week, the US would go as far as we have to go to acquire Greenland. In that same vein, on that question, are there plans that have been drafted to use military force to take over Greenland?
Well, what the president has said is that we need to have more of a position in Greenland. We need it again for the safety of the American people and what we think is going to happen is that the Greenlanders are going to choose through self-determination to become independent of Denmark and then we're going to have conversations with the people of Greenland from there.
So, I think that talking about anything too far in the future is way too premature. We do not think that military force is ever going to be necessary. We think this makes sense, and because we think the people of Greenland are rational and good, we think we're going to be able to cut a deal, Donald Trump style, to ensure the security of this territory, but also the United States of America.
I'll do one more question.
You spoke about economic interests, how the US could develop Greenland more economically. Could you speak a little bit more about that? I know Secretary Wright is here, have you guys spoken about energy? Senator Lee is here as well. Just wondering what those discussions have been like?
My point actually is that other countries have explicitly gone after Greenland and I think with a mind towards economic exploitation. Sometimes asking Greenland to get itself into terrible economic debt traps that would make the people of Greenland not self-determined and sovereign, but to mortgage their future to hostile foreign countries that don't have their best interests at heart.
That is not what the United States of America wants to do. What we want to do is to protect the security of this territory because it matters for us and it matters for the people who live here. All right, guys, thank you all. And let me just say one more final word to the Guardians, the airmen, the other service members gathered here.
Thank you, from the bottom of my heart. It is incredible to be a vice president who has served just as our NSA Mike Waltz has served to know the sacrifice that comes along with it and to see that there is still incredible young Americans willing to put on the uniform and serve this country. You make America a better place and you make an honor to serve as your vice president.
God bless you guys. Thanks for having me.