Trump Says He Won Greenland. The Agreement Says Otherwise.

Donald Trump is portraying his Greenland agreement as a historic American triumph. But strip away the salesmanship, put the actual agreement on the witness stand and examine the evidence, and a very different story emerges.

The United States did not acquire Greenland.

Greenland did not become American territory.

The United States did not obtain sovereignty over Greenland.

Denmark did not surrender Greenland to Washington.

And the people of Greenland did not surrender their right to determine their own political future.

Those are not minor details buried in the fine print. They go directly to the heart of what Donald Trump spent months telling Americans he wanted.

Trump wanted Greenland.

What he ultimately obtained was an expanded security and military agreement in Greenland.

That is a significant agreement. But it is not the same thing.

Exhibit A: Greenland Still Isn't American

For months, Trump spoke openly about bringing Greenland under American control. At various points, he discussed acquiring the enormous Arctic island and even refused to rule out force as he pressed Denmark and Greenland over its future.

Now compare that ambition with the agreement actually signed.

Greenland remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark.

The agreement explicitly recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Greenlandic people's right to self-determination.

That language matters.

Sovereignty means political authority. Territorial integrity means the territory remains where it was politically. Self-determination means Greenlanders — not Washington — retain the right to determine Greenland's political future.

That is not American ownership.

That is not annexation.

That is not Greenland becoming a territory of the United States.

Exhibit B: What America Actually Received

So what did Trump get?

Military access.

The agreement gives the United States broad rights to expand its military presence in Greenland.

America can expand the existing Pituffik Space Base and establish additional defense areas at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig. The agreement provides extensive access to Greenland's territory and airspace for defense purposes and creates mechanisms for additional defense areas.

The agreement also places significant restrictions on potential military involvement and certain sensitive investments by non-NATO countries.

Those provisions are consequential for American national security.

But none of them amounts to owning Greenland.

There is a fundamental difference between having military bases in another country or territory and possessing sovereignty over that territory.

The United States has military installations throughout the world. Their existence does not transform those countries into American territory.

A military footprint is not a deed.

A defense agreement is not annexation.

Basing rights are not sovereignty.

Exhibit C: America Already Had Military Rights in Greenland

There is another fact that makes the political presentation of this agreement worth scrutinizing.

The American military presence in Greenland did not begin with Donald Trump's new agreement.

The United States has operated militarily there for decades.

The 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement already gave the United States substantial rights to operate military facilities on the island. Today, the United States operates Pituffik Space Base, an important installation for missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance.

The new agreement expands those rights and strengthens the American position.

But Trump did not suddenly plant the American flag on previously inaccessible territory.

America was already there.

The Claim Versus the Document

This is where the case becomes straightforward.

Trump said the new arrangement gives the United States "permanent control over security and all other needs" in Greenland.

Those are sweeping words.

But the agreement itself recognizes Danish sovereignty and Greenlandic self-determination.

Those two things cannot simply be blurred together.

Trump can accurately say that he negotiated expanded and long-term American military access.

He can accurately say that the United States strengthened its strategic position in the Arctic.

He can accurately argue that preventing hostile powers from establishing military footholds in Greenland serves American security interests.

What the agreement does not establish is American sovereignty over Greenland.

That distinction is essential.

Put the Evidence Before the American People

Imagine this case being presented before a jury.

Question: Did the United States acquire Greenland?

Evidence: No transfer of sovereignty occurred.

Question: Did Greenland become a U.S. territory?

Evidence: No. Greenland remains within the Kingdom of Denmark.

Question: Did Denmark surrender territorial sovereignty to the United States?

Evidence: No. The agreement expressly recognizes the Kingdom's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Question: Did Greenlanders surrender their right to decide their political future?

Evidence: No. Their right to self-determination is expressly recognized.

Question: Did the United States obtain expanded military and security rights?

Evidence: Yes.

That is the deal.

It may be an important defense agreement. It may substantially strengthen America's military position in the Arctic. Those questions can be debated on their merits.

But they do not change what the document actually says.

Greenland Was Not Acquired

Donald Trump spent months talking about Greenland in terms far broader than military cooperation. The final agreement falls substantially short of the acquisition or territorial control he previously sought.

The evidence is the agreement itself.

No American sovereignty.

No American ownership.

No American territory.

No transfer of Greenland.

What America received is an expanded military and strategic presence on territory that remains under the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark, with Greenlanders retaining their right to self-determination.

That is a real agreement.

It is simply not the same deal that Trump's earlier rhetoric led Americans to expect.

Presidents are entitled to promote their accomplishments.

But the American people are equally entitled to compare those claims with the documents their government actually signs.

And in the case of Greenland, the document provides the clearest verdict of all:

The United States gained expanded military access to Greenland. It did not gain Greenland.

Philadelphia Bombed Its Own Neighborhood: The 1985 MOVE Tragedy

PHILADELPHIA — On May 13, 1985, an American city did something almost unimaginable: Philadelphia police dropped a bomb from a helicopter onto an occupied row house in the middle of a predominantly Black residential neighborhood.

This was not a battlefield overseas. It was Osage Avenue in West Philadelphia, a middle-class neighborhood where families lived in tightly packed row houses.

The target was MOVE, a radical organization whose members had been engaged in years of bitter and sometimes violent conflict with Philadelphia authorities.

But the history of May 13 cannot be understood simply as another police standoff that went terribly wrong.

Police fired thousands of rounds, deployed explosives and ultimately dropped a bomb containing C-4 and Tovex onto the MOVE house. When the resulting fire began spreading, authorities initially allowed it to burn as part of their effort to destroy a fortified rooftop bunker.

By the end, much of the block was gone.

And more than four decades later, the event leaves behind a disturbing historical question:

Would authorities have dropped a bomb and allowed the resulting fire to spread if this had been an affluent white neighborhood?

History cannot prove what officials would have done under a different set of circumstances. But the question has followed the MOVE bombing for decades because the neighborhood that actually absorbed the consequences was predominantly Black.

Years of Conflict

MOVE was founded in Philadelphia in the early 1970s by John Africa. The organization combined revolutionary and anti-establishment beliefs with an unconventional back-to-nature lifestyle.

Its relationship with Philadelphia authorities became increasingly hostile.

A 1978 confrontation ended in gunfire and the death of Philadelphia police Officer James Ramp. Nine MOVE members were later convicted in connection with the confrontation.

By the early 1980s, MOVE members were living at 6221 Osage Avenue.

Their own neighbors had serious complaints.

Residents complained about amplified messages broadcast from the property, conditions around the house and MOVE members' behavior. A fortified bunker was constructed on the roof.

Authorities eventually obtained arrest warrants for several MOVE members.

There were legitimate reasons for police intervention.

What remains extraordinary is how that intervention escalated.

Thousands of Rounds — Then a Bomb

Police surrounded the property early on May 13 to execute the warrants.

The confrontation quickly turned violent.

Police used tear gas, water cannons, firearms and explosives. Roughly 10,000 rounds were fired during the operation.

Hours later, officials approved another tactic.

A Pennsylvania State Police helicopter flew above the neighborhood carrying members of the Philadelphia police bomb squad.

An explosive charge containing C-4 and Tovex was dropped onto the fortified structure on the roof.

At approximately 5:27 p.m., it exploded.

An American police department had bombed an occupied house in an American city.

Thirteen Inside. Two Survived.

There were 13 MOVE members inside the house when the confrontation unfolded.

Eleven died.

The dead were six adults and five children, including MOVE founder John Africa.

Only two people survived the destruction of the house: adult MOVE member Ramona Africa and Birdie Africa, a 13-year-old boy.

Both escaped badly burned.

The distinction matters because accounts of the bombing sometimes leave unclear exactly how many people were inside, how many were children and how many escaped.

The overwhelming majority of the people inside the house did not survive.

The Decision That Destroyed a Neighborhood

The bomb itself was only part of the catastrophe.

The explosion started a fire.

Officials initially allowed that fire to burn because they wanted it to destroy the rooftop bunker.

But Osage Avenue consisted of connected row houses.

The flames spread.

By the time the fire was brought under control, 61 homes had been destroyed and more than 250 neighborhood residents were homeless.

Most of those people were not members of MOVE.

They were neighbors — many of whom had themselves repeatedly complained to city officials about MOVE and wanted the government to resolve the situation.

Instead, they lost their homes.

Would This Have Happened in a White Neighborhood?

That question was raised almost immediately after the destruction.

It deserves to be asked carefully because no one can prove what Philadelphia officials would have done in a hypothetical white neighborhood.

But the racial context cannot simply be removed from the history.

Osage Avenue was part of a predominantly African American community. The people whose homes were destroyed were largely Black residents.

One neighborhood resident who lost his home, Gerald Renfrow, publicly questioned whether officials would have permitted such destruction in a white neighborhood.

That question has endured because of the sheer extremity of the government's response.

Would police have fired thousands of rounds into a row house in a wealthy white neighborhood?

Would officials have authorized explosives?

Would a helicopter have been permitted to drop a bomb?

And after the explosion started a fire, would authorities have deliberately allowed it to continue burning while neighboring homes were threatened?

Those questions do not erase MOVE's conduct, the outstanding warrants or the danger police faced.

They ask something different:

Were the lives and homes on Osage Avenue afforded the same protection that Americans would expect government to provide in a more politically powerful community?

The City's Own Commission Condemned the Decision

Philadelphia's own investigation delivered a devastating assessment.

The Philadelphia Special Investigation Commission examined the decisions made before and during the confrontation.

Its conclusion about the bombing was unmistakable:

Dropping a bomb on an occupied row house was "unconscionable."

The investigation sharply criticized the city's planning and decision-making.

Mayor W. Wilson Goode, Philadelphia's first Black mayor, accepted responsibility as the city's chief executive, although he said he had not personally ordered the bombing.

Years of litigation followed, and a federal jury later found that excessive force had been used and awarded damages.

No city official was criminally charged over the bombing.

More Than a Failed Police Operation

The MOVE bombing should not be remembered merely as an unusual police confrontation.

Its historical significance is larger.

A municipal government confronted an armed and deeply controversial organization in a Black residential neighborhood. The confrontation escalated until police employed military-style explosives from the air. Officials then made the decision to allow the resulting fire to burn, and dozens of surrounding homes were consumed.

There is room in an accurate history for more than one truth.

MOVE had engaged in confrontational behavior. Neighbors had legitimate grievances. Police had warrants to execute. Officers faced a dangerous situation.

None of those facts requires minimizing what the government did next.

Philadelphia bombed an occupied row house.

Children were inside.

The fire was allowed to burn.

A predominantly Black neighborhood paid the price.

That is why the most uncomfortable question surrounding May 13, 1985, remains relevant decades later:

If Osage Avenue had been a wealthy white neighborhood, would authorities have believed that dropping a bomb and risking the destruction of the surrounding community was an acceptable option?

We cannot rerun history to discover the answer.

But the fact that the question still needs to be asked is part of the legacy of the day Philadelphia became known as "the city that bombed itself."

The Muslims Were Never One Army: The Almoravids, Almohads and the Forgotten Complexity of the Crusades

 

One of the biggest mistakes we make when talking about the Crusades and medieval Islamic history is reducing centuries of complicated history to two words: Christians versus Muslims.

It wasn't that simple.

Islam was no more politically united in the Middle Ages than Christianity was. There were Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, competing dynasties, rival kingdoms, different schools of religious thought and rulers who regularly fought other Muslims for territory and power.

That matters when we talk about the Muslim armies that fought Christian kingdoms in medieval Spain.

Two of the most powerful forces to enter the Iberian Peninsula during the era associated with the Crusades were the **Almoravids and the Almohads**. Both emerged among Berber populations in North Africa, both established powerful states centered in Morocco, and both eventually crossed into Al-Andalus.

But they were not "all Muslims." They weren't even representatives of all Sunni Muslims.

They were specific religious and political movements with their own leaders, armies, beliefs and ambitions.

## The Almoravids: A Berber Religious Movement Becomes an Empire

The Almoravids emerged in North Africa during the 11th century.

They developed among Saharan Berber populations and were closely associated with Maliki Sunni Islam. Their early religious leader, Abdallah ibn Yasin, sought to impose a stricter religious discipline on the Berber communities associated with the movement.

From those beginnings emerged a powerful political and military state.

Under Yusuf ibn Tashfin, the Almoravids established Marrakesh as their capital and expanded across much of northwestern Africa.

Then events in Spain pulled them north.

By the late 11th century, Muslim-controlled Spain was divided among numerous smaller kingdoms known as the taifas. These Muslim rulers were not one unified government. They competed against one another, sometimes fought one another and sometimes entered political arrangements involving Christian rulers.

That fragmentation became especially important after Alfonso VI of Castile and León captured Toledo in 1085.

Facing increasing Christian military pressure, some Muslim rulers in Al-Andalus appealed to Yusuf ibn Tashfin for military assistance.

The Almoravids crossed from North Africa into Iberia.

In 1086, their forces joined Andalusi Muslims and defeated Alfonso VI at the Battle of Sagrajas, also known as al-Zallaqah.

But the Almoravids did not simply come to Spain, fight a battle and return home.

They eventually took control of many of the Muslim taifa kingdoms themselves.

In other words, these North African Muslims conquered territory from other Muslim rulers.

That fact alone demonstrates why describing the period simply as "Muslims versus Christians" is historically inadequate.

The Almoravids eventually reunited much of Muslim-controlled Iberia under their authority. Their rulers operated from Marrakesh, while governors administered their Iberian territories.

Their armies continued fighting the Christian kingdoms to the north.

The Almohads Overthrow the Almoravids

Then another Muslim movement arose—and its first major enemy wasn't Christianity.

It was the Almoravids.

The Almohads originated among the Masmuda Berbers of North Africa during the 12th century.

Their religious founder, Ibn Tumart, preached a reform movement emphasizing an uncompromising understanding of the unity of God. He also proclaimed himself the Mahdi, a divinely guided figure.

The Almohads considered aspects of Almoravid religious practice unacceptable and challenged their authority.

Following Ibn Tumart's death, Abd al-Mu'min transformed the movement into an extraordinarily powerful state.

The Almohads defeated the Almoravids, seized Marrakesh and replaced their empire.

They then expanded into Al-Andalus.

So once again, the story was not simply Christians attacking Muslims or Muslims attacking Christians.

A Muslim movement overthrew another Muslim dynasty and took its territory.

The Almohads subsequently established a caliphate stretching across substantial portions of North Africa and Muslim Iberia.

 The Almohads and the Iberian Crusades

The Almohads became one of the strongest opponents of the Christian kingdoms during the later stages of the Reconquista.

In 1195, Almohad forces inflicted a major defeat on King Alfonso VIII of Castile at the Battle of Alarcos.

But the balance changed dramatically seventeen years later.

In 1212, a coalition of Christian forces confronted the Almohad army at the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa.

The battle was closely connected with the medieval crusading movement and became one of the most important military encounters in Iberian history.

The Almohads suffered a devastating defeat.

Their empire did not disappear overnight, but its power in Iberia was severely damaged. Internal political problems followed, and Almohad authority gradually fragmented.

This Was Not the Entire Sunni World

This distinction is extremely important.

The Almoravids and Almohads came from particular historical circumstances in North Africa. They had their own political structures, armies and religious programs.

They did not represent every Sunni Muslim.

The overwhelming majority of Sunni Muslims living elsewhere had no involvement whatsoever in the decisions made by Almoravid or Almohad rulers.

And Shia Muslims certainly cannot simply be lumped together with these governments.

During this same broad period, the Islamic world contained competing Sunni and Shia powers as well as rival Sunni dynasties. Political and theological divisions within the Muslim world were substantial.

Even within Al-Andalus, Muslim rulers didn't always welcome the North African movements.

Some Andalusi Muslims regarded the incoming Berber rulers as outsiders. Muslim rulers could fight other Muslims, just as Christian rulers could fight other Christians.

There were even circumstances in medieval Iberia where political interests produced alliances that crossed religious boundaries.

Acknowledging the Suffering Without Assigning Collective Guilt

None of this should be interpreted as an attempt to minimize suffering caused by medieval Muslim armies or governments.

Where the Almoravids, Almohads or other rulers engaged in conquest, religious persecution, forced displacement, repression or brutality, that history deserves to be acknowledged.

Victims don't become less important simply because the historical circumstances were complicated.

But acknowledging suffering is different from assigning collective guilt.

We should hold the actual rulers, governments, armies and movements responsible for what they did.

Calling every Muslim responsible for an Almohad military campaign would make about as much historical sense as holding every Christian responsible for every action committed by every Christian king, crusading army or medieval European state.

Neither approach tells us much about history.

 The Crusades Were More Complicated Than Two Religions Fighting

The medieval Mediterranean world was filled with shifting alliances and competing centers of power.

Christians fought Muslims. Christians fought Christians. Muslims fought Christians. And Muslims fought Muslims.

The Almoravids themselves conquered Muslim taifa states.

The Almohads then overthrew the Almoravids.

Christian kingdoms fought among themselves while also fighting Muslim states.

That is why historical precision matters.

We can condemn atrocities committed by medieval armies without turning history into collective guilt against people living centuries later.

The Almoravids were the Almoravids.

The Almohads were the Almohads.

They were powerful Berber-led Islamic movements and states that played major roles in the wars of medieval Iberia. The Almohads eventually established a caliphate; the Almoravid ruler used the title "Commander of the Muslims."

They were not synonymous with Sunni Islam.

They certainly were not synonymous with Shia Islam.

And they were never synonymous with every Muslim.

Understanding that distinction doesn't erase the darker parts of history.

It simply tells that history more accurately.

Genesis 15:18 Is Not a Modern Land Deed — And It Cannot Justify Territorial Claims Today

Genesis 15:18 is sometimes invoked as though it settles one of the most complicated political disputes in the world:

“On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, ‘To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates.’”

But quoting this passage does not establish that the modern State of Israel possesses a permanent divine title to every piece of territory described in Genesis.

Historically, politically, legally and — for Christians especially — theologically, that argument requires several enormous leaps that the verse itself does not make.

Genesis 15 is Scripture. It is not a twenty-first-century property deed.

The covenant was made with Abraham, not the modern State of Israel

The first problem is basic chronology.

Genesis describes a covenant between God and Abraham in the ancient Near East. The modern State of Israel was established thousands of years later, in 1948.

Those are not the same political entities.

The passage does not mention the State of Israel created in 1948. It does not establish its governmental boundaries. It does not describe international borders. It does not establish jurisdiction over Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Iraqis or Egyptians.

Turning Abraham directly into a modern nation-state skips thousands of years of history.

It also raises a question that is frequently ignored: Who exactly are Abraham’s “descendants”?

Abraham's descendants in the biblical tradition are not limited to one modern political population. Isaac descends from Abraham, but so does Ishmael. Abraham is also presented as the ancestor of additional peoples.

That alone should caution anyone against treating the phrase “your descendants” as though it were a modern legal description of citizenship or exclusive national sovereignty.

The Bible itself does not treat the land as an unlimited political blank check

Even within Scripture, the land is never presented as permission to ignore morality, justice or the rights of other human beings.

Leviticus 25:23 makes an extraordinary declaration:

“The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers.”

That dramatically changes the perspective.

Ultimately, according to the Bible, the land belongs to God.

The biblical prophets repeatedly condemn injustice by Israel itself. Possession of the land never meant that every action taken by Israel's rulers was automatically righteous simply because Israel had a covenant with God.

A covenant cannot logically be transformed into the proposition:

“Anything a government does to acquire or retain territory is justified because God promised the land thousands of years ago.”

The Bible never says that.

Christianity fundamentally broadens the Abrahamic promise

For Christians, the argument becomes even more difficult.

The New Testament does not establish a political program for recovering the territorial boundaries of Genesis 15.

Instead, it repeatedly expands the Abrahamic promise beyond ethnicity and geography.

Paul writes in Galatians 3:29:

“If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

That is enormously important.

Paul does not tell Christians that Abraham's promise requires establishing political control from Egypt to the Euphrates. He identifies those who belong to Christ as heirs to Abraham's promise.

Romans 4 similarly describes Abraham as heir not merely of one geographical territory but of the “world.”

And Hebrews 11 takes the argument further.

Abraham lived in the promised land as a foreigner while looking forward to something greater. Hebrews says Abraham and the patriarchs desired a “better country — a heavenly one.”

The Vatican's Pontifical Biblical Commission makes this point explicitly when discussing Hebrews: the earthly promised land has a “provisional and incomplete character” and points ultimately toward a “heavenly homeland.” 

That is a radically different concept from using Genesis to draw modern military borders.

Christianity transformed a territorial expectation into something universal and ultimately eschatological.

Jesus did not command his followers to establish Abraham's borders.

The apostles did not campaign to establish them.

Paul did not demand them.

The early Church did not teach that Christians had a religious obligation to create a state extending to the Euphrates.

If Genesis 15:18 were intended as an eternal geopolitical mandate binding Christians, its near-complete absence as a territorial program in the New Testament would be extremely difficult to explain.

Even recognizing an enduring covenant does not produce modern borders

There is an important distinction here.

A Christian can believe that God's covenant with Abraham retains theological significance. A Christian can reject the idea that God abandoned the Jewish people. A person can recognize the Jewish people's ancient and profound historical connection to the land.

None of those propositions establishes that Genesis 15:18 functions as a modern title deed.

That conclusion has to be argued separately.

Even the Catholic Church's Pontifical Biblical Commission, while affirming the importance of Israel and the Hebrew Scriptures, explains that the New Testament gives the land promise a transformed and universalized significance rather than simply reproducing it as a territorial program. 

So saying “God's covenant remains significant” and saying “therefore this modern government owns this territory” are two entirely different statements.

A literal application creates an enormous problem

Consider what taking Genesis 15:18 as a modern territorial deed would actually mean.

The passage describes territory extending from the “river of Egypt” to the Euphrates.

The Euphrates runs through modern states far beyond Israel's internationally recognized territory.

If the verse establishes an enforceable political boundary today, then the argument cannot conveniently stop wherever modern political preference wants it to stop.

It would potentially implicate territory inhabited and governed by other peoples and states.

And once that principle is accepted, another question immediately follows:

Why would only this ancient religious territorial claim remain politically enforceable?

Human history is filled with peoples, kingdoms and religions possessing sacred accounts of ancestral territories.

Modern civilization cannot establish national borders by determining which population has the oldest religious text claiming that God gave its ancestors a particular piece of land.

That is precisely why contemporary sovereignty is governed through international law rather than competing interpretations of ancient scripture.

Genesis cannot override the rights of people living there today

This may be the most important distinction of all.

Whatever theological meaning someone gives Genesis 15, Palestinians living today are human beings with rights today.

Their rights do not disappear because of something written about Abraham thousands of years ago.

The International Court of Justice stated in its July 2024 advisory opinion that the Palestinian people possess a right to self-determination and that occupation cannot itself create sovereign title to territory. The Court also reaffirmed the international-law principle prohibiting acquisition of territory through force. 

The Court specifically concluded that Israel is not entitled to sovereignty over occupied Palestinian territory merely because it exercises control over it. 

That legal conclusion does not determine anyone's theology.

It establishes something different:

Biblical theology and international sovereignty are separate questions.

No modern court has to determine whether God actually spoke to Abraham before deciding whether Palestinians possess rights.

And it should not.

Scripture cannot become a loophole around international law

Imagine the precedent created by saying otherwise.

Suppose every nation could reach thousands of years into its religious history, identify territory once promised to or controlled by its ancestors, and declare that modern borders no longer matter.

The international system would become impossible.

Historical connection matters.

Religious connection matters.

Archaeology matters.

Cultural identity matters.

But none of those things, standing alone, gives a modern government unlimited sovereignty over another population.

The same standard must apply to everyone.

Genesis 15:18 should be read as Scripture — not a real-estate document

Genesis 15:18 has enormous importance in Judaism and Christianity.

But respecting Scripture does not require turning Scripture into something it never purported to be: a modern deed recorded in an international land registry.

The passage describes God's covenant with Abraham within an ancient biblical narrative.

Christian theology subsequently expands Abraham's inheritance far beyond one strip of territory. Hebrews points toward a heavenly homeland. Paul extends Abrahamic inheritance to those who belong to Christ. Jesus establishes no territorial boundaries for his followers.

And modern international law recognizes the rights and self-determination of peoples presently inhabiting these territories rather than adjudicating sovereignty according to competing religious claims.

That leads to a distinction that should not be controversial:

A biblical promise can remain sacred without functioning as a modern territorial deed.

Believing that Abraham received a promise from God does not require believing that a government created thousands of years later possesses an unlimited right to territory from Egypt to the Euphrates.

It certainly does not mean that the rights of millions of people living there today cease to exist.

Genesis 15 belongs to the Bible.

It should not be turned into a blank check for modern territorial expansion.

Trump’s White House Media Ban Runs Headfirst Into the First Amendment

President Donald Trump has every right to criticize CNN, MS NOW and Politico. He can call their reporting unfair, inaccurate or biased. He can publicly challenge their stories and present evidence that he believes proves them wrong.

What the government cannot simply do, however, is punish journalists because it dislikes what they report.

That distinction is at the center of a major First Amendment confrontation after the Trump administration barred journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House.

On Saturday, journalists representing all three organizations were denied entry to the White House grounds, and their press credentials were confiscated or disabled, according to Reuters. The action followed Trump's announcement that he was banning the organizations because of what he characterized as "FAKE NEWS." Trump also indicated that additional news organizations could face similar treatment. 

This is not merely an argument about whether someone likes CNN, Politico, MS NOW or Donald Trump.

It is a constitutional question about whether the government can grant journalists access to an established White House press system and then withdraw that access because the president objects to their reporting.

Existing federal precedent creates serious constitutional problems for doing exactly that.

The First Amendment Doesn't Protect Only the Press a President Likes

The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press. Through constitutional doctrine developed over generations, those protections constrain the federal government more broadly.

That does not mean every journalist has an unlimited constitutional right to walk anywhere inside the White House.

The White House obviously has legitimate authority to protect the president, secure sensitive areas, control physical access and establish reasonable procedures for journalists.

But that isn't the end of the constitutional analysis.

Once the government establishes press facilities and a credentialing system, federal precedent limits its ability to decide who receives access for arbitrary or viewpoint-based reasons.

That principle goes back decades.

In the landmark 1977 case Sherrill v. Knight, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that White House press access could not be denied arbitrarily once the government had established press facilities for journalists.

The court also established procedural protections for journalists denied credentials, including notice of the reasons for the decision and an opportunity to respond.

That precedent remains extremely important today.

Trump's Own Explanation Could Be the Biggest Constitutional Problem

Perhaps the most significant part of this controversy is Trump's stated reason for imposing the ban.

Trump did not publicly frame the decision primarily as a Secret Service security matter or as a neutral limitation on the number of reporters who could fit inside a particular room.

Instead, he attacked the organizations' journalism.

Trump wrote that media outlets should not be able to continually report what he described as fiction and lies about his presidency and administration. He later told reporters that he was tired of what he considered "fake news." 

That distinction matters enormously under the First Amendment.

If a government official restricts access because of genuine security requirements or applies a neutral rule equally to journalists, that presents one constitutional question.

Punishing journalists because government officials dislike their reporting presents a very different one.

First Amendment attorneys quoted following the ban have characterized Trump's justification as viewpoint discrimination. Bruce D. Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said that once the White House permits journalists access, it cannot exclude particular journalists simply because officials dislike their reporting. 

We've Been Down This Road Before

There is also precedent involving Trump himself.

During Trump's first administration, the White House revoked CNN correspondent Jim Acosta's press credential following a contentious White House news conference.

CNN sued.

A federal judge ordered the government to restore Acosta's credential. The White House ultimately restored his pass.

The administration also suspended the credentials of reporter Brian Karem. That dispute also resulted in litigation over the government's authority to remove a journalist's White House access.

More recently, the Trump administration restricted the Associated Press's access to certain presidential events after the AP continued referring to the Gulf of Mexico by that name rather than adopting the administration's "Gulf of America" terminology.

That produced another major First Amendment lawsuit.

A federal district judge ruled in 2025 that the government could not exclude AP journalists from otherwise available presidential press spaces because of the organization's viewpoint. The appeals process complicated the scope of that ruling, particularly regarding highly restricted spaces such as the Oval Office, and the litigation has continued. 

Importantly, the D.C. Circuit has reiterated that existing precedent prohibits viewpoint-based restrictions on White House press access in areas covered by that precedent. 

This Isn't About Defending CNN

That is the part of this controversy Americans across the political spectrum should understand.

You don't have to like CNN.

You don't have to trust Politico.

You don't have to watch MS NOW.

And you certainly don't have to agree with their reporting.

The constitutional issue is bigger than any of those organizations.

Imagine the same principle under a Democratic president.

Suppose that president announced that Fox News, Newsmax and conservative reporters would no longer be allowed into the White House because the president believed their stories were dishonest and unfair.

The constitutional question would be the same.

The First Amendment does not change depending on which party controls the White House or which news organization is being targeted.

The President Can Fight Bad Journalism With More Speech

Presidents are not powerless when they believe journalists publish inaccurate information.

They can challenge stories.

They can release documents.

They can hold press conferences.

They can demand corrections.

They can give interviews explaining their position.

They can criticize reporters publicly.

They can present their evidence directly to the American people.

And, where legally appropriate, individuals and organizations retain access to the courts.

What government officials face constitutional limits on doing is using governmental power to retaliate against speakers because of their viewpoints.

That principle protects conservatives, liberals and everyone in between.

A Constitutional Fight Is Now Taking Shape

CNN has called the White House action illegal. MS NOW and Politico have said they intend to defend their First Amendment rights. The White House Correspondents' Association has also called for the journalists' access to be restored. 

The specific September 2026 ban has not yet produced a final court judgment declaring it unconstitutional.

That qualification matters.

Courts, not commentators or presidents, ultimately decide the legal challenge before them.

But the existing precedent presents the administration with a serious constitutional obstacle: the government has substantially more authority to impose neutral security and logistical restrictions than it does to exclude journalists because officials object to what those journalists say or publish.

And Trump's publicly stated justification puts that issue squarely at the center of this controversy.

The First Amendment was never designed to protect only agreeable speech.

Its importance becomes clearest when the speech angers the people who currently possess governmental power.

That principle should remain the same regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.

Records Complicate Claims in Dearborn Religious-Favoritism Lawsuit

DEARBORN, Mich. — A newly filed federal lawsuit accuses the City of Dearborn of favoring Islam by spending public money on Ramadan decorations while failing to provide comparable recognition for Christian and Jewish holidays.

But city spending records provide additional context to those allegations, showing Dearborn has spent substantially more on Christmas and broader holiday-related decorations and programming than on Ramadan displays.

Records show the city spent nearly $300,000 on Christmas and holiday-related items during a single year, compared with approximately $6,860 on Ramadan-related decorations over several years.

Based on those figures, the Christmas and holiday-related expenditures were more than 40 times the amount identified for Ramadan decorations.

The spending records are significant because the federal lawsuit filed Sept. 17 by Dearborn resident Margot Cleveland against the city and Mayor Abdullah Hammoud alleges that city officials used public money and property to recognize the Islamic holy month of Ramadan while denying comparable recognition to Christian and Jewish religious observances.

The American Freedom Law Center filed the civil rights lawsuit on Cleveland's behalf in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The complaint alleges violations of the First and 14th Amendments and claims Cleveland faced retaliation after raising concerns about the city's practices.

According to the complaint, Dearborn spent about $1,500 on "Ramadan Kareem" banners and approximately $5,000 on a large illuminated crescent moon displayed on public property. The lawsuit also points to Ramadan-themed displays installed in subsequent years.

Cleveland contends she contacted city officials seeking comparable recognition for Christian and Jewish observances, including Easter and Passover, and did not receive the treatment she requested. The lawsuit argues the city's actions amount to unconstitutional religious favoritism.

Dearborn disputes the broader characterization that it discriminates among religions. The city has said it remains committed to treating residents equally and has described Dearborn as a diverse and welcoming community.

Public records and city activities also show Dearborn has recognized Christmas and other seasonal celebrations.

Dearborn has hosted and promoted Christmas and holiday events, including Christmas tree-lighting activities, holiday performances, Santa-related events and other seasonal programming.

The city's official 2025 holiday schedule included a Christmas tree lighting, Victorian Christmas Open House, Jingle Bell Bash, holiday performances and Skate with Santa, among other events.

Dearborn also installed a 32-foot Christmas tree at PEACE Park West in 2025 and held an official tree-lighting ceremony featuring thousands of lights, entertainment, food and other activities.

Historical records also show Dearborn has budgeted for both holiday and Ramadan lighting, rather than exclusively funding Ramadan displays.

Those records do not necessarily resolve the constitutional questions raised in Cleveland's lawsuit. The case focuses not simply on the total amount of money spent but on whether the city treated religious observances differently and whether Cleveland's requests for comparable recognition were handled in a constitutionally permissible manner.

However, the spending figures provide important context to the allegation that Dearborn has used taxpayer money to promote Islam while failing to provide comparable recognition for Christian holidays.

Based strictly on the expenditures identified in the records, Dearborn's Christmas and broader holiday spending substantially exceeds the amount spent on Ramadan decorations.

The lawsuit remains pending in federal court. Cleveland's allegations have not been proven, and the city will have an opportunity to respond to the claims as the case proceeds.

FORCED STERILIZATION OF NATIVE AMERICAN WOMEN: A DARK AND DOCUMENTED CHAPTER IN AMERICAN HISTORY

  

Thousands of Native American women were sterilized through Indian Health Service facilities and government-contracted hospitals during the 1960s and 1970s, often under circumstances that failed to meet federal standards for informed consent.

The documented abuses represent one of the darkest chapters in the history of the relationship between the federal government and tribal nations. Nearly five decades later, questions remain about how many women were affected and whether the federal government ever fully accounted for the damage inflicted on Native families and communities.

A 1976 investigation by the U.S. General Accounting Office, now known as the Government Accountability Office, examined sterilization practices in four of the Indian Health Service’s 12 regions: Aberdeen, Albuquerque, Oklahoma City and Phoenix.

Investigators identified 3,406 sterilization procedures performed on Native American women in those four regions between 1973 and 1976.

The investigation found widespread failures to follow federal regulations intended to protect patients. Although consent forms appeared in the medical records, most failed to satisfy Indian Health Service requirements. The forms frequently did not establish whether patients had been given enough information to understand the nature and permanent consequences of the procedures.

Investigators also discovered that women younger than 21 had been sterilized despite federal restrictions against performing the procedures on patients in that age group.

The GAO ultimately concluded that the four Indian Health Service regions it examined were generally not complying with federal sterilization regulations.

Consent forms failed to guarantee informed decisions

The presence of a patient’s signature did not necessarily establish that she had provided meaningful consent.

True informed consent requires medical professionals to explain the purpose of a procedure, its risks, available alternatives and whether its effects will be permanent. Patients must also be given an opportunity to make the decision without pressure, intimidation or deception.

Native American women later described being pressured into accepting sterilization, misled about whether the procedure could be reversed or inadequately informed about what was being done to them. Some reportedly did not learn that they had been sterilized until they later attempted to have another child.

Those accounts raised serious questions about whether women understood the consent forms they signed and whether the decisions were made voluntarily.

Sterilization is an irreversible medical procedure that can permanently eliminate a woman’s ability to have children. Any failure to provide complete and understandable information therefore carries consequences extending far beyond an ordinary administrative error.

Federal investigation had serious limitations

The GAO report confirmed significant regulatory violations, but it did not establish the full national scope of the sterilization abuses.

Investigators examined only four of the Indian Health Service’s 12 regions and reviewed records covering a period of approximately three years. They did not conduct direct interviews with the women who underwent the procedures.

As a result, the 3,406 procedures identified by the investigation cannot be considered a complete count of all Native American women sterilized through the federal healthcare system.

Dr. Connie Redbird Uri, a Choctaw and Cherokee physician who investigated the issue during the 1970s, alleged that as many as one-quarter of Native American women of childbearing age had been sterilized in certain communities.

Uri interviewed women who said they had been pressured, misled or subjected to sterilization without understanding that the procedure was permanent. Her findings helped generate public attention and contributed to demands for a federal investigation.

The one-quarter estimate continues to be cited in historical accounts, although the exact national percentage remains disputed. Incomplete records, the narrow scope of the federal investigation and the government’s failure to interview affected patients made it impossible to determine the total number conclusively.

That uncertainty, however, does not erase what federal investigators documented: thousands of sterilization procedures, widespread failures to follow consent requirements and operations performed on underage patients despite federal restrictions.

Abuse occurred within a larger historical pattern

The sterilizations did not occur in isolation.

For generations, Native American communities had been subjected to federal policies involving forced relocation, broken treaties, the seizure of tribal land and the removal of Native children to government-supported boarding schools.

At those schools, children were frequently separated from their families, prohibited from speaking their languages and pressured to abandon their religious and cultural identities.

By the 1970s, many Native families depended on the Indian Health Service for medical treatment. That dependence created a substantial imbalance of power between patients and the federal institutions responsible for providing their care.

Women who had limited access to other hospitals or physicians could not simply seek treatment elsewhere when confronted with pressure or inadequate information.

The sterilization controversy therefore became part of a broader history of government policies that weakened Native families, restricted tribal autonomy and attempted to control Indigenous populations.

Federal investigators established that thousands of sterilizations occurred in just four Indian Health Service regions. Most of the consent documentation reviewed failed to meet federal requirements. Women younger than 21 were sterilized despite restrictions, and investigators never interviewed the patients whose experiences were at the center of the controversy.

The government’s limited examination left major questions unanswered about how many women were affected, what they were told and how many procedures were performed without genuine consent.

Consequences extended across generations

For the women involved, sterilization was not simply a medical procedure recorded in a government file.

Some lost the ability to have the families they wanted. Others lived with emotional trauma after discovering that a permanent decision had been made without their complete knowledge or voluntary agreement.

The effects also extended into tribal communities, where family, ancestry and cultural continuity carry profound importance.

Every sterilization performed without genuine informed consent represented more than a violation of medical regulations. It affected a woman’s personal future and potentially altered the future of her family and community.

The scandal also damaged trust between Native Americans and government healthcare institutions. That distrust did not disappear when federal regulations were strengthened or when the original investigation ended.

A continuing demand for accountability

The sterilization of Native American women remains an important warning about the dangers created when government authority, medical power, racial prejudice and inadequate oversight come together.

The case also demonstrates why a signed form alone cannot establish informed consent. Patients must understand what is being proposed and must be free to accept or reject treatment without coercion.

Acknowledging this history does not require condemning every person who worked for the Indian Health Service. It requires recognizing that systemic failures allowed irreversible procedures to be performed without adequate safeguards and that the government’s response never fully established the extent of the harm.

Native American women were entitled to the same honesty, dignity and medical protections as every other patient. Thousands entered a federal healthcare system that failed to guarantee those rights.

The victims were not merely statistics. They were mothers, daughters, wives, sisters and members of sovereign tribal nations.

Their experiences remain part of American history, even if that history is uncomfortable to confront.

The strongest way to honor them is to present the facts accurately, acknowledge the government’s failures and preserve their stories for future generations.

The forced and coerced sterilization of Native American women was a profound violation of bodily autonomy, medical ethics and basic human rights. It should neither be exaggerated nor forgotten.

Sources: U.S. General Accounting Office, “Investigation of Allegations Concerning Indian Health Service,” 1976; National Library of Medicine, “Government Admits Unauthorized Sterilization of Indian Women.”