Speaker 1: And tonight, this Danish lawmaker did not mince words when it comes to the president and Greenland.

Speaker 2: Dear President Trump, listen very carefully. Greenland has been part of the Danish kingdom for 800 years. It's an integrated part of our country. It is not for sale. Let me put it in words you might understand. Mr. Trump, f*** off.

Speaker 1: Now for now, that Danish member of European Parliament who told President Trump to f*** off, you heard him, Anders Visesen. And Mr. Visesen, I really appreciate your time. And thank you so much. I know it's late where you are. Look, you made a choice to use that word, right? You didn't just do it in a heated moment, right? You chose to do it, very blunt language, to address the sitting president of the United States. Why were you so blunt?

Speaker 3: For two reasons. First of all, it is completely unacceptable attack on Danish sovereignty to want to claim territory that have been Danish since the 10th century, three times as long as the United States have existed. But also because we, my party, are unhappy with the Danish government not taking a more clear stand towards these signals from the U.S. president. We think the Canadian and Panama governments have been standing more firmly and regarded this claim to gain territory from sovereign and allied nations.

Speaker 1: It's interesting how you lay it out. Since the 10th century, three times as long as the United States has existed. These are serious things, and if there's anyone who says borders need to be respected and mattered, it is, of course, Donald Trump. But obviously, you chose to use that language, and that's why we're talking. So in a sense, that's the reason you did it, right? Because the world is hearing it. But the vice president of your parliament was not so pleased with your choice of words. Here's how they put it.

Speaker 4: It is not okay in this house of democracy. Thank you. Regardless of what we think of Mr. Trump, it is not possible to use such language.

Speaker 1: Do you have any regrets or no?

Speaker 3: I don't really. The European Parliament has quite biased way of interpreting these rules. It's okay to call people fascist, racist, communist, but apparently you cannot use the same language as Mr. Trump has used regarding his own top generals in the Pentagon. If they have a problem, they can take it up with me. I have not heard from the president of parliament since my speech, so I'm waiting for her to contact me, but I don't assume it will be a big deal.

Speaker 1: So you've been clear that you believe Trump's push to buy Greenland is absurd. As you just said now, you laid out your reasons that you think it's an insult to people of Greenland and people of Denmark. But you know what the president has said, and you know this, Anders, he has continued to come out and say, Denmark's going to want to do a deal and Greenland's going to want to do a deal. They're going to have a change of heart. And here is what he says.

Speaker 5: Greenland is a wonderful place. We need it for international security. And I'm sure that Denmark will come along. I think it's costing them a lot of money to maintain it, to keep it.

Speaker 1: That's a sore point. I mean, obviously Denmark does send money to Greenland, a lot of it, right? That is true. Is it possible he ends up being right?

Speaker 3: No, for two reasons. You have two arguments there. One is what is best for American security. We take those concerns very seriously. We are a NATO ally, but America has had a military presence in Greenland since 1941, and we have accommodated all security concerns. So if America wants to have more bases, a different kind of equipment in Greenland, there is actually no one contesting that, neither in Greenland nor in Denmark. So that concern can be taken aside quite rapidly. And for the other argument that America can make a great deal, we actually have some historical precedents for this. A hundred years ago, we sold you what you call the U.S. Virgin Islands today. And that territory still doesn't have voting rights for your presidential elections. That place doesn't have a voting member of your parliament, the Congress, or the House of Representatives and the Senate. And when I visited, when we had the 100 years commemoration, there was not a great lot of enthusiasm about the way the U.S. is handling that. So I think if the Greenlandic people are looking carefully at this and looking on the U.S. overseas territory, so looking at how indigenous people are treated in the U.S., it's very hard to make a compelling argument that they will have a better deal from the United States than what they have within the Danish rail, the Kingdom of Denmark, where they have full voting rights in the Danish parliament, actually are overrepresented. And as you clearly stated, they have a very beneficial agreement economically with Denmark.

Speaker 1: All right. Well, Anders Visussen, I very much appreciate your time. Thank you very much. It is amazing to be having these conversations, but I appreciate your taking the time, staying up late and having one with me.

Speaker 3: Thanks. Of course. Have a nice evening. Thank you.