This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
As the Trump administration asserts its control over Venezuelan oil following the stunning capture of ousted President Nicholas Maduro, President Trump has set his sights elsewhere on Greenland, a strategic Arctic island that is a self governing territory of Denmark.
We need Greenland from a national security to situation. It's so strategic. Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese.
Ships all over the place.
We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able.
To do it.
Trump has been talking about acquiring Greenland since its first term, but this time it may be more than just rhetoric. The White House has said that all options are on the table, including using the military, Although Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a group of lawmakers that it was the administration's intention to eventually buy Greenland. European leaders have
expressed concerns about a possible takeover. Back In April, Danish Prime Minister Meta Frederickson said that Greenland is not for sale and the US needs to respect its borders and sovereignty.
You cannot annex another country, not even with an argument about international security.
Joining me is an expert in international law. Monica Hakimi a professor at Columbia Law School. She was formerly an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor in the US State Department. Monica, the capture of Maduro has sort of set the stage for the latest talk by Trump about acquiring Greenland. So let's start with Maduro and tell us whether has capture violated international law.
As a matter of international law, I think there's really no question that the capture of Maduro was unlawful, and that's because it involves the enforcement powers of the United States in the territory of another state, Venezuela.
In this case. International law does provide limited circumstances in which such exercises of power are lawful, but none of them applies in this case.
The Trump administration is indicating that it's going to run Venezuela. I don't know if that is even going to happen, because it seems like the vice president is in control right now. I mean, is this about a regime change.
It's really hard to know what the administration intends to do or in what way. I'm not sure regime changes exactly the right way to describe what's happening, because, as you say, a member of the regime is still now running the country, and the regime itself is largely in place, even if the singular leader has been removed. But in any event, it would be again unlawful for the United States to assert its authority or coercive power in Venezuela to tell that state how to run its own country.
Talking about the broader questions here, it seems that the Trump administration and President Trump don't want to stop at Venezuela. On Saturday he was talking about problems with Colombia and Cuba, and now the administration is being completely open about wanting to acquire Greenland. How concerning is.
That this claim on Greenland in particular is especially disturbing because it is part of an increasing trend in which states that have the raw power to take the territory of another state are claiming that they will do so.
Of course, this is exactly.
What President Putin of Russia did in Ukraine. It's also embedded in the conflict between Iran and its proxy groups on the one hand, and Israel and the Palestinians on the other hand, and so it's a deeply, deeply corrosive move. It is likely to trigger further actions to this effect. It's not just the United States in Russia and states in the Middle East or entities in the Middle East that want to eliminate other states off the.
Map or acquired territory from other states.
So we've seen China increasingly being assertive with its neighbors in the East and South China Sea, and in the Himalayas, we're seeing Morocco increasingly a certain control over Western Sahara, which is a portion of the territory that does not
technically belong to it. And these claims for territorial aggression and annexation really undercut the fundamental principle of the international legal and political order since World War Two, which is that each state is entitled to establish its authority in its own borders as defined by international law, territorial and maritime borders, and that it ought to be given priority in those spaces.
The White House says it's considering a range of options for acquiring Greenland. What are the legal ways that it could do that.
The possibility exists for one state to enter into an agreement with another not subject to coercion, where there's a consentual arrangement for the transfer of territory. There's no indication at all that any of these entities, which are being subjected to coercion by more powerful states, is interested in selling part of its territorial and maritime space.
President Trump has said, we need greenland for our national security. But if you look at what's happening in Venezuela, it's not about drugs coming into the United States from that country. It's all about the oil in Venezuela, and in Ukraine, the US signed a deal after it got access to that country's mineral resources, and Lynn has what's been called
a treasure trove of untapped raw materials. So I wonder if the goal is really national security or it's about getting access to their oil and gas reserves and their mineral deposits and the like.
Yeah, I think.
There's been an increasing move and this is not to be honest, entirely specific to the Trump administration, but there's been an increasing move in the United States and elsewhere to tie together economic security with national security, with maritime security and channels for the movement of goods and people and services across the globe. And I think what we're seeing, and this would connect the actions in South America with the claims on Greenland, and you might remember there were
earlier claims about acquiring Canada as well. It's an effort to say, like this is our zone. We are going to control this entire space, including the resources in this space. And you China might be able to take Asia and Russia, you might be able to take Europe or at least part of Europe, but we are defining the space over
which we are going to have dominance. And that, it seems to me, is a way of explaining the Trump administration's actions in a number of different theaters, as well as the actions of China and Russia.
You mentioned Canada and Trump saying he wanted to make it the fifty first state. He's also threatened to attack Panama to supposedly keep China from exerting influence over the Panama Canal, and on Saturday, he even warned that we have to do something about Mexico because the president is unable to clamp down on the drug Card tells so now Trump appears to be targeting even historic allies of the United States.
Yes, I think the United States is we're fundamentally to transform the terms based on which states interact and relate to one another on the world stage.
And again it's not just the United States that is doing this.
So I think Russia's invasion of Ukraine was an action to say, look, we're no longer going to recognize Ukraine as an independent state, and we are going to change the terms based on which we interact with our near neighbors.
And I think that's also what China is doing. But because the United States has a long history of trying to sustain this international legal and political order that is structured around separate and semi independent states or interdependent states, the moves by the United States basically to say, now we're also participating in this game, and we are just going to exert our raw power wherever we can, and especially in our defined space, to demand that others do
as we tell them without regard for what they might insist on doing themselves. That is a massive shift, in my view, relative to where we were, I don't know, five ten years ago, Monica.
Can you put this into context historically? Is this similar to other actions the US has taken or different.
Well, there is a relatively long history of the United States intervening in various ways in the affairs of Latin American countries as well as countries and other parts of
the world. But what is significant and I think unique about the current moment is that it's openly claiming the right to displace the state authorities basically across the globe or wherever it's not pleased with how the governments are running their own countries and not at all claiming to do so in the service of or through the mechanisms of international law, which is collectively made and which is sort of applied through collective processes that at the very
least provide some transparency about what has happened, some reason giving about what is happening, the opportunity for others to express their voice and their agency about.
What they want in the exchange.
And so we're just seeing a fundamental shift away from let's say, legalized international relations toward a much more power based, coercive set of interactions.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has the firm that the move was sort of a revised play on the nineteenth century Monroe doctrine do you agree with that and what are the implications.
It seems to be?
And I think that we've seen this administration say repeatedly in various ways that it's trying to revive some kind of Monroe doctrine, and I think the implications are exactly as I described, which are that the United States will increasingly just use its coercive power to dominate those around it, particularly in the.
Western hemisphere, or what it defines is its space.
Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue this conversation with Columbia Laws professor Monica Hakimi. Are these moves by the Trump administration a complete repudiation of the world order that has defined US foreign policy since the Cold War? I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. President Trump and his advisors are discussing a range of options to acquire Greenland, a self governing territory of Denmark.
Those options include military action. In response, European nations released a joint statement saying security in the Arctic must be achieved collectively with NATO allies, including the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says he plans to meet with Danish officials next week to discuss the US interest in Greenland. But will Denmark's answer be any different from that of the Danish Prime Minister Metefredericson in April, when a US
delegates that included Vice President JD. Vance visited Greenland and got a frosty reception.
When you demand to take over a part of the Kingdoms of Denmark territory, When we are met by pressure and by threats from our closest ally, what are we to believe in about the country that we have admired for so many years. National borders, sovereignty of states, and our integrity. These are all principle rooted in international law. These are fundamental principles formed after the Second World War so that small countries don't have to fear big ones.
But is that world order changing and how much can international law play a part today? I've been talking to an expert in international law, Monica Hakimi, a professor at Columbia Law School. Monica. President Trump has attacked seven countries since returning to office. There were strikes in Somalia, Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and now in Venezuela, as well as in international waters. There was nothing done in Congress, and there was nothing
done internationally. I mean, Stephen Miller, a top aid to President Trump, actually said on CNN yesterday that Greenland rightfully belongs to the United States and quote, nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.
Yeah, I think that's an open question.
You know. One of the common criticisms of international law is that it's not enforceable or not easily enforceable against powerful states and in this case, the United States, and that it doesn't therefore constrain powerful state in the same way that it constrains weaker states. I think there's no way to know actually to what extent the United States has historically been constrained by international law and to what extent it's just chosen a path that has been more consistent.
With international law. But in any event, I think.
The real change now is not so much that international law has become has suddenly become unenforceable against the United States, but.
Rather that the United States.
Is no longer itself committed to upholding the international legal system. And that is a significant shift, because the United States has actually, even as it has historically acted in various ways that have undermined specific norms in international law. It has also historically done an enormous amount to try to bolster this entire system, and with that retreat from its own commitment to the legal system, the question is, is anyone capable of filling that gap?
And if so, who, in out what terms?
Is that alternative party going to be exercising its power with or without international law? And if not, we're just going to live in a world in which it's much harder to understand what those who exercise power are doing and why. Because one of the things that international law does, no matter what else it does, is clarify the terms based on which states and other actors interact on the world stage.
Let's talk for a moment about NATO, and you know what the power or lack of power is there. Chomp has been pulling back from NATO, and today he criticized it again. Does NATO have any role to play here?
The action against Greenland is in many ways causing a deep fissure within NATO.
And I say that because, of course Denmark is a NATO state.
It's historically been a very strong military ally of the United States, and so one NATO country directly attacking another NATO country just undermines the entire arrangement, which is that these countries are supposed to act collectively in their mutual
defense and cooperatively in their mutual defense. Now, to answer your question more specifically, if the United States were to attack and try to acquire Greenland, other NATO countries could come to Denmark's defense against the United States, that would be a deep, deep fissure again within NATO, and it would raise again the question that you asked earlier about whether any other state could actually enforce Denmark's rights against the United States given the overwhelming military power of the
United States.
I mean, do you think that NATO's days are numbered.
I've been worried for some time actually that NATO's days are, if not numbered, that NATO is going to have to transform itself to preserve its relevance and its saliens and quick. Frankly, it's been the position of the United States for well over a decade, nearing two decades, that the United States cannot continue to to provide the bulk of support for
NATO's operations. That European states had to do more. Now that has become increasingly obvious over the course of the second Trump administration, and the question I guess is whether NATO states can collectively figure out how to reconstitute themselves in a way that is responsive to the Trump administration's new moves, but still protective of the entire group of states that currently comprise it.
The United Nations Security Council held an emergency meeting on Monday. Because of the way the Security Council is set up, with the members having veto power, it seems unlikely that anything useful is going to come out of the Security Council. I mean, what's the point of the United Nations today.
One of the essential components of the United Nations Security Council is that it is comprised of the five victors of World War Two as well as others. But those five members of veto power, as you say, and during the Cold War, the Security Council was largely stalled out because the United States and the Soviet Union could not
agree to make decisions really through the Security Council. Nevertheless, I think some would say that the Security Council provided a useful venue for these two great powers who were very, very severely in odds with one another to figure out what the other was doing, and at least to talk to one another on terms that were sort of detached from the conflicts that were playing out on the ground,
whether hot or cold. After the end of the Cold War, the Security Council was sort of revitalized and it became a really important mechanism for dealing with security threats around the world. Now again, we're going to a position where making decisions through the Security Council will be very, very
difficult because of the geopolitical dynamics. Still, it might be a useful venue for those who want to understand what is happening or to express their own voice about what is happening, to do so and at least for those views to be aired and in that way serve as some kind of accountability mechanism or at least transparency about what their positions are.
As you mentioned, Russia invaded Ukraine. China might use this as a template to eventually go after Taiwan. I mean, during the Trump administration the next three years, are we looking at a changing world order?
I think absolutely.
I think I'm on record as having said that the old world order, however one defined it is really no longer available to us, and it's not just the United States that's making that decision. The United States is of course responding to a broader set of global trends, including the limits of its own security umbrella, as was evidenced by you know, Russia's in China's actions that predated the
second Trump administration, as well as Iraq. So I do think we are moving toward an entirely different world order, and that part of what's happening right now in these conflicts is that states are and other entities are basically defining the terms based on which any future order would have to be created. And there's a question about how different the next world order, if there is going to be some world order, will be relative to the one that we're leaving behind.
How different do you think it'll be.
I think it's going to be dramatically different, and I think it's going to be different in ways that are far worse for a greater number of people around the world. I think if one pays attention to the legal and political trends over the past couple of years, one sees a few things. The first is a reduction in the commitment to states as states, so we've seen that again with the denial of the authority of states in many
parts of the world Ukraine, Venezuela, Denmark over Greenland. The second is backlash against the humanitarian impulses of international law. So we're seeing in many conflicts around the world an increased disregard for protecting civilians for humanity, as well as, in more limited ways, a backlash from human rights law more generally, as it applies even in peace time, not only in conflicts. The third, I would say, is a
retreat in the legalization of international affairs. Again, I think legalization is extremely important for reasons of transparency, accountability, basic coordination, and understanding of what is happening around us, no matter to what extent it constrains or empowers particular entities. And then finally, we're seeing an increased resort to force in other forms of coercion to structure international affairs. These are trends that again predated the Trump administration, but they are
trends that are being accelerated by the Trump administration. And they're all trends that, in my view, reflect a retreat from humanity and from basic ideas about governance and the service of the general good.
Former President Joe Biden embraced NATO. Now we have President Trump with an anti NATO stance. If the next president wants to embrace NATO, will that change anything? Considering the new world order that you just described.
I don't think the option is available to go back to what existed before. And actually, I myself was quite critical of the Biden administration for not seeing the writing on the wall and trying to put the world in a better position than it was when he left office, for what was inevitably going to be continued resistance to the US power structure that existed in the post Cold War period. And so, you know, I don't think a new administration could try to revive NATO and create the
security that once existed through NATO. I think any new administration would have to deal with the hand that will have been created over the next three, if not more years.
This has been a really fascinating conversation. Thanks so much, Monica for sharing your insights with us. That's Professor Monica Hakemi of Columbia Law School coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. It's the state that sued the Trump administration more than any other. Get ready for the twenty twenty six court battles between California and Trump. I'm June
Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. California's response to the Trump administration has prompted a flood of litigation, with several major hearings over the line between state law and federal authority teed up for hearings early this year. At stake are hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds and the state's ability to steer policy in key areas including education, health,
and infrastructure. Joining me is Bloomberg Law's correspondent for Los Angeles, Mayaespodo California in the first Trump administration and in this Trump administration has a sort of history of bringing lawsuits against the administration, and California's Attorney General Rob Banta often seems to be leading the charge in states suing the Trump administration.
Right, It's true. During the start of President Trump's second presidency, the California Legislature convened and pumped twenty five million dollars into Bonton's office, readying for another round of those fights. From the first time.
The court battles that gained a lot of attention in twenty twenty five, were centered on Trump's sending troops into LA and federal funding cuts.
Are those suits still.
Going on or have they been settled?
Many of the federal funding related lawsuits are still working out on appeal or going into their merit stages now, meaning that a lot of the wins that Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom were discussing as of August they cited a number of one hundred and sixty eight billion dollars in federal funding being restored came from these early court rulings that were weighing which side was likely to prevail.
So we'll have to see if those victories are preserved during the appellate process. Let's turn now to several cases brought by the Trump administration in response to laws passed by California. Tell us about the legal challenge over the No Secret Police Act and the No Vigilantes Act.
So, in response to these reports of federal immigration agents in California wearing masks and being unidentifiable, the state lawmakers passed a set of laws requiring them to show their faces and wear id The Trump administration sued, saying that the laws violate the supremacy clause, which allows federal law to take priority over conflicting state laws. And that case is tied up for a preliminary injunction hearing next week.
So we'll find out soon after next week probably whether they'll issue a preliminary injunction. Now, the next lawsuit strikes me as a little unusual. The Trump administration is suing California over its laws banning tight cage confinement for egg laying hens.
They did say that California's requirements for agri culture were causing the price of eggs to go up, and California has said in court filings that actually, the first Trump administration previously agreed that the federal law the current administration is citing does not supersede the state's cage free law. So that's what they are arguing, and.
The cage free laws about humane treatment of the hens.
It governs the amount of space that hens have.
California is going to try to get that case dismissed. It's filed a motion to dismiss and to some rejudgment motion.
This is one where California's odds seem pretty high.
Now, let's talk about challenges by California based litigants to administrative actions of the Trump administration. The first one, which sounds familiar, maybe because it's similar to a federal case, is about ICE agents stopping people to arrest them without reasonable suspicion. So tell us what's happening there.
Right, So this case came out of that set of immigration raids early in the Trump administration in twenty twenty five in central parts of California, particularly Bakersfield, and it led to one of the first court orders from a federal judge requiring ICE agents not to stop these folks without reasonable suspicion that they were in the country unlawfully.
This case is decently similar to the one that unfolded a few months later in Los Angeles Federal court that also got a court order from the district court, but was paused by the US Supreme Court this fall.
So in September, the Supreme Court backed the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement efforts, allowing federal immigration agents in Los Angeles to resume tect that critics say amount to racial profiling, and the court's order put on hold the district court order that barred ICE agents from questioning and detaining people based solely on their ethnicity, language, occupation, or presence at
a particular location. And in the case we're discussing, the Trump administration is arguing that there's no standing, is that the plaintiffs don't have a stake in the fight, right.
They are citing Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence in the Los Angeles case.
Interestingly, the plaintiffs are also saying that the emergency docket order isn't binding and that the federal agents have violated the preliminary injunction.
You know, it's part of this broader question that we're dealing with across cases, particularly concerning the Trump administration, which is how should federal courts weigh the thoughts of the US Supreme Court justices that are made on an emergency basis.
Now a Ninth Circuit panel is going to hear arguments in a challenge to the use of Trump administration executive orders on gender identity and diversity initiatives.
Right, So, there is an upcoming argument before the Ninth Circuit concerning a challenge brought by nonprofits based in Northern California that support LGBTQ plus clients. They are fighting to reinstate funds that were pulled after the Trump administration's executive order related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and gender identity.
There are a couple of cases related to elections, and one is over the California redistricting Who is suing over that.
The California redistricting lawsuit was brought by a Republican state assembly member and the Republican Party in California alleging that California's new congressional map, which was drawn in response to the redistricting in Texas, is an unlawful racial jerry mander, and those parties argued before a panel of judges in December. The judges are still considering what to rule, but the US Supreme Court did uphold Texas's new map for the midterms.
It seems hard to argue that this wasn't politically motivated when you had the governor saying, let's do this to match Texas. So but we'll see, you never know where the court what happens.
That's what the state argued, and the judges two of three certainly seemed to seize on that political argument.
And the Trump administration wants California to turnover voter information right.
The Trump administration wants California to turn over its VOTs, including personal information like registered voter strivers, licenses, and social Security numbers, and California is saying that state privacy laws keep that data safe. And so the judges in that case still considering what to do.
Thanks so much. Maya will check back and see how these cases develop. That's Bloomberg Law LA correspondent Mayaspodo, and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg