INTERNACIONAL
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the ‘talking filibuster’ and the SAVE Act
Trump demands Congress pass the SAVE Act
Fox News chief congressional correspondent Chad Pergram reports on President Donald Trump calling on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act and the DHS funding battle on ‘Special Report.’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Passage of the SAVE Act is of paramount importance to President Trump and many congressional Republicans.
In his State of the Union speech, the president implored lawmakers «to approve the SAVE America Act to stop illegal aliens and other unpermitted persons from voting in our sacred American elections.»
The House approved the plan to require proof of citizenship to vote last month, 218-213. But, as is often the case, the hurdle is the Senate. Specifically the Senate filibuster.
So some Republicans are trying to save the SAVE Act.
TRUMP PUSHES CONGRESS TO PASS SAVE ACT DURING STATE OF THE UNION; NO MEDDLING WITH TARIFFS
The SAVE Act has become the Trump administration’s latest congressional cause célèbre. (Emma Woodhead/Fox News Digital)
It’s important to note that President Trump never called for the Senate to alter the filibuster in his State of the Union address. But in a post last week on Truth Social, President Trump declared that «The Republicans MUST DO, with PASSION, and at the expense of everything else, THE SAVE AMERICA ACT.»
Again, the president didn’t wade into questions about overcoming a filibuster. But «MUST DO» and «at the expense of everything else» is a pretty clear directive from the Commander in Chief.
That’s why there’s a big push by House Republicans and some GOP senators to alter the filibuster – or handle the filibuster differently in the Senate.
TRUMP VOWS BLOCK ON SIGNING NEW LAWS UNTIL SAVE AMERICA ACT PASSES SENATE
It’s rare for members of one body of Congress to tell the other how to execute their rules and procedures. But the strongest conservative advocates of the SAVE Act are now condemning Senate Republicans if they don’t do something drastic to change the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act.
Some Senate Republicans are ready to push for changes. Or, at the very least, advocate that Senate Republicans insist that Democrats conduct what they’re referring to as a «talking filibuster» and not hold up the legislation from the sidelines. It takes 60 votes to terminate a filibuster. The Senate does that by «invoking cloture.» The Senate first used the cloture provision to halt a filibuster on March 8, 1917. Prior to that vote, the only method to end a filibuster was exhaustion – meaning that senators finally just run out of gas and quit debating.
So let’s explore what a filibuster is and isn’t – and dive into what Republicans are talking about when they’re talking about a talking filibuster.
The Senate’s leading feature is unlimited debate. But ironically the «debate» which holds up most bills is not debate. It’s simply a group of 60 lawmakers signaling to their leaders offstage that they’ll stymie things. No one has to go to the floor to do anything. Opponents of a bill will require the majority tee up a cloture vote even if legislation has 60 yeas. Each cloture vote takes parts of three to four days to process. So that inherently slows down the process – and is a de facto filibuster.
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., gave a record-breaking, 25-hour speech last year – however, it wasn’t necessarily a «filibuster» in the truest sense of the word. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
But what about talking filibusters? Yes, senators sometimes take the floor and talk for a really long time. Hence, the «unlimited debate» provision in the Senate. Senators can generally speak as long as they want, unless there’s a time agreement, greenlit by all 100 members.
That’s why a «filibuster» is hard to define. You won’t find the word «filibuster» anywhere in the Senate’s rules. And since senators can just talk as long as they want, they might argue that suggesting they are «filibustering» is pejorative. They’re just exercising their Senate rights to speak on the floor.
However, a true filibuster is a delay. For instance, the record-breaking 25 hour and 8 minute speech last year by Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., against the Trump administration was technically not a filibuster. Booker began his oratory on the evening of March 31, ending on the night of April 1. Once Booker concluded, the Senate voted to confirm Matt Whittaker as NATO Ambassador. The Senate was supposed to vote on the Whitaker nomination on April 1 anyway. So all Booker’s speech did was delay that confirmation vote by a few hours. But not much.
FETTERMAN EXPECTS DHS SHUTDOWN AMID PARTISAN FUNDING FEUD, BREAKS WITH DEMOCRATS ON VOTER ID
In 2013, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, held the floor for more than 21 hours, in his quest to defund Obamacare. But despite Cruz’s verbosity (and a recitation of «Green Eggs and Ham» by Dr. Suess), the Senate was already locked in to take a procedural vote around 1 pm the next day. That automatically ended Cruz’s speech. Thus, that truly wasn’t a filibuster either.
So, this brings us to the «talking» filibuster which actually gums up the Senate gearboxes. A talking filibuster is what most Americans think of, thanks to the iconic scenes with Jimmy Stewart in the Frank Capra classic, «Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.»
Most senators «filibuster» by forcing the Senate to take two cloture votes – spread out by days – to handle even the simplest of matters. That elongates the process by close to a week. But if advocates of a given bill have the votes to break the filibuster via cloture, the gig is up.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, held the floor for more than 21 hours back in 2013. (Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
But what happens if a senator – or a group of senators – delays things with long speeches? That can only last for so long. And it could potentially truncate the Senate’s need to take ANY cloture vote, needing 60 yeas.
Republicans who advocate for passage of the SAVE Act believe they can get around cloture – and thus the need for 60 votes – by making opponents of the SAVE Act talk. And talk. And talk.
And once they’re done talking, the Senate can vote – up or down – on the SAVE Act. Passage requires a simple majority.
Senate Rule XIX (19) states that «no senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day.»
TRUMP, THUNE CLASH ON VOTER ID ULTIMATUM AS GOP REMAINS DIVIDED ON PATH FORWARD
Easy enough, right? Two speeches per day. You speak twice on Monday, then you have to wait until Tuesday? Democrats would eventually run out of juice with 47 senators who caucus with their party.
But it’s not that simple. Note the part about two speeches per «question.»
Well, what’s a «question,» in Senate parlance? That could be the bill itself. It could be an amendment. It could be a motion. And just for the record, the Senate usually cycles through a «first degree» amendment and then a «second degree» amendment. So, if you’re scoring at home, that could be six (!) speeches per senator, per day, on any given «question.»
Questions?
It may be up to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., whether the Senate «adjourns» or «recesses.» (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
But wait. There’s more.
Note that Rule XIX refers to a «legislative day.» A legislative day is not the same as a calendar day. One basic difference is if the Senate «adjourns» each night versus «recessing.» If the Senate «adjourns» its Monday session, then a new legislative day begins on Tuesday. However, the legislative day of «Monday» carries over to Tuesday if the Senate «recesses.»
It may be up to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., whether the Senate «adjourns» or «recesses.» The creation of a new «legislative day» inhibits the GOP effort.
Moreover, talking filibuster proponents could object to a request by Thune to adjourn. If the Senate votes to stay in session, that forces the legislative day of Monday to bleed over to Tuesday.
SCHUMER ONCE BLOCKED TRUMP’S MOVE TO FILL THE NATION’S OIL RESERVES, NOW HE WANTS THEM OPENED
Pro tip: watch to see if the adjournment vs. recess scenario unfolds. If a talking filibuster supporter tries to prevent the Senate from adjourning, that could signal whether the GOP has a shot at eventually passing the SAVE Act. If that test fails, the SAVE Act is likely dead in the water.
We haven’t even talked about a custom practiced by most Senate Majority Leaders to lock down the contours of a bill when they file cloture to end debate.
It’s a Senate custom to recognize the Senate Majority Leader first on the floor for debate. So Thune and his predecessors often «fill» what’s called the «amendment tree.» The amendment tree dictates how many amendments are in play at any one time. Think of the underlying bill as a «trunk.» A «branch» is for the first amendment. A «sprig» from that branch is the second amendment. Majority leaders often load up the amendment tree with «filler» amendments, not changing the subject of the bill. He then files cloture to break the filibuster.
That tactic curbs the universe of amendments. That blocks the other side from engineering controversial amendments to alter the bill. But if Thune doesn’t file cloture to end debate, then the Senate must consider amendment after amendment, repeatedly filling the tree and voting on those amendments. This scenario unfolds during a «talking» filibuster. Not when Thune is controlling the process by filing cloture and «filling the tree.»
Forcing a talking filibuster may well preclude the confirmation of Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., as Secretary of Homeland Security. ( Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
This is why Thune is skeptical of a talking filibuster to pass the SAVE Act.
«This process is more complicated and risky than people are assuming at the moment,» said Thune.
In fact, the biggest «benefit» to filing cloture may not even be overcoming a filibuster, but blocking amendments via management of the tree. Republicans are bracing for amendments Democrats may offer.
«If you don’t think Democrats have a laundry list of amendments, talking about who won the 2020 election, talking about the Epstein files – if you don’t think they have a quiver full of these amendments that they’re ready to get Republican votes on the record, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you,» said George Washington University political science professor Casey Burgat.
Plus, forcing a talking filibuster for days precludes the Senate from passing a DHS funding bill. That’s to say nothing of confirming Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., as Homeland Security Secretary.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
That’s why there’s a reluctance by some Republicans to push the talking filibuster. And it could come at the expense of the SAVE Act – despite the president’s push.
congress,senate,voting
INTERNACIONAL
El uso de biocombustibles ayuda a estabilizar los precios en Brasil pese al shock petrolero por Irán
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
What would you say if one body of Congress didn’t take a formal roll call vote on a major piece of legislation – yet passed it at 2:19 on a Friday morning?
Would you try to outdo your colleagues across the Capitol Rotunda with some Congressional chicanery of your own? Perhaps by passing an equally important version of the same bill – while officially sidestepping a direct up/down vote on the measure – at 11:28 p.m. on that same Friday night.
That’s what happened late last week. The Senate scored approval from all 100 senators to pass a bill to fund most of the Department of Homeland Security for the rest of the fiscal year – but did it on a voice vote at 2:19 a.m. Friday with only five senators in the chamber.
House Republicans scoffed at this. So they passed their own bill – to fund all of DHS – just before the witching hour Friday. But technically, the House didn’t even vote directly on the legislation itself. The House voted to approve a «rule» (which manages debate for bills). With adoption of that rule, the House «deemed» the underlying DHS funding measure as passed.
GOP LEADERS ENDORSE TRUMP’S SHUTDOWN-PROOF MOVE TO END DHS FUNDING LAPSE
The Senate managed to net the approval of 100 senators to pass a bill to fund most of the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of the fiscal year – but did it on a voice vote at 2:19 am Friday with only five senators in the chamber. (Emma Woodhead/Fox News Digital)
But despite all of this, the House and Senate weren’t aligned. They hadn’t approved the same bill. And despite the parliamentary antics, House Republicans then implored the Senate to pass the measure it approved Friday night on Monday morning – without a roll call vote and with just two senators in the chamber.
If you followed all of that, that is exactly what’s unfolded on Capitol Hill the past few days as lawmakers struggled to end the six-week Department of Homeland Security shutdown.
It was clear early Thursday evening that there wasn’t a path in the Sente to approve a partisan GOP bill to fund DHS after a lengthy roll call vote which started in the afternoon.
But something was afoot.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MAKES MAJOR MOVE TO RELIEVE ‘UNFAIR BURDEN’ ON DHS WORKERS AS SHUTDOWN DRAGS ON
Congress was staring at a 15-day recess for Easter and Passover on Friday. Failure to address the crisis now meant that lawmakers would leave town until the middle of April – extending the shutdown until then as airport lines swelled.
So Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., got to work on something which could pass the Senate – and potentially pass the House – before everyone abandoned Washington for the break.
Thune suggested earlier in the week that the Senate usually has to get «to Thursday» before frozen positions may begin to thaw. He was right. There was a corridor for the Senate to approve a bipartisan bill to tackle most of the funding crisis at DHS. So Thune’s charge late Thursday night and into the wee hours of Friday morning was not necessarily to persuade bipartisan senators to support the bill he was putting on the floor. But instead, Thune’s goal was to coax skeptical senators not to object and blow the whole thing up.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., hatched a plan for something that could pass the Senate before Washington was abandoned for the Easter Recess. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)
There’s something called a «hotline» in the Senate. Any time the leadership wants to set up a series of votes, make particular amendments in order and perhaps allocate wedges of time to debate, it sends around a «hotline» to all 100 senators. If any senator objects, they let the leadership know. This streamlines the process ahead of time. It also ensures that senators aren’t blindsided by something called a «unanimous consent» request. Unanimous consent requests, or «UC’s,» happen all the time in the Senate.
One of the most powerful tools in the Senate is «unanimous consent.» If you obtain the «unanimous consent» of all 100 senators, you can make the sun rise in the west. But all it takes is one objection to block a UC – even if all other 99 senators agree.
The behind the scenes hotline takes care of this in advance. Any senator could object and block Thune’s proposal to fund most of DHS. But there shouldn’t be any problem if he cleared it with all 100 senators offstage in advance.
That’s why Thune went to the floor at 2:19 a.m. Friday. Not a single senator flagged his proposal. And so the South Dakota Republican went to the floor with a team of five senators – and passed the bill. Not by UC. But by something called a «voice vote. Those in favor shout yea. Those who oppose holler nay. The louder side wins. The Senate passed the bill. There was no roll call vote.
HOUSE GOP RAMS THROUGH NEW DHS FUNDING PLAN WITH SHUTDOWN FAR FROM OVER
So, this wasn’t something snuck by in the dead of night on the sly. If any senator had a reservation, they could have flagged it. Or better yet, come down to the floor at 2:19 a.m. and contested it. In short, there were 100 senators, 100 chiefs of staff, 100 legislative directors and 100 counsels who should have known about Thune’s plan. That’s a universe of at least 400 people – if not more. So, this wasn’t an episode of someone pulling a fast one.
By morning, Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said he «opposed this bill.» Same with Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
Well, that’s fine. But no one objected nor pushed back on the hotline. No one went down to the floor to demand a roll call vote – or even argued that the Senate couldn’t do anything because there wasn’t a quorum present to conduct business. So anything said by Republican senators upset about the bill were simply academic or rhetorical objections. If those senators truly opposed the bill, they missed their opportunity to do something about it.
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., even signaled support for the bill. (Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)
It was thought that the House might take up the bill – reluctantly – the next day to end most of the shutdown and pay TSA workers. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., signaled support. So did Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee. Granted, liberal Democrats might oppose the bill because there weren’t changes at ICE. But the bill probably would have passed with some Republicans and lots of Democrats. In fact, there may have been more Democratic yeas than Republican yeas. That would have been toxic for House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., lost his gavel over moving a bipartisan bill to avoid a shutdown in the fall of 2023.
So by Friday afternoon, Johnson strenuously lodged his opposition to the Senate bill.
«Republicans are not going to be any part of any effort to reopen our borders or to stop immigration enforcement,» said Johnson, noting that the Senate plan left out funding for ICE and the Border Patrol. «This gambit that was done last night is a joke. I’m quite convinced that it can’t be that every Senate Republican read the language of this bill.»
In other words, were they not dialed in on the hotline?
THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO WHAT TO EXPECT ON DHS FUNDING WHEN THE SENATE MEETS MONDAY
Yours truly questioned the Speaker, asking why he and Thune weren’t on the same page. Johnson accused Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. of being behind the bill. I pointed out that Thune «was the engineer behind this.»
«I wouldn’t call John Thune the engineer of this,» said Johnson.
«He didn’t have the accept it,» I countered.
«Let me answer the question, Chad,» sighed an exasperated Johnson.
So the House forged ahead and passed its own bill to fully fund DHS Friday night. Some House Republicans then expected the Senate to break custom and pass its bill – by unanimous consent – during a brief pro forma session Monday. In other words, House Republicans ripped the Senate for what it did early Friday morning. But those same House Republicans wanted senators to approve THEIR bill on Monday the same way they criticized the Senate for passing its bill on Friday.
Note that there was no hotline for the House bill at that point.
«We’d love to see them do that,» said Rep. Mike Haridopolos, R-Fla., on Friday.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., said he «wouldn’t call John Thune the engineer» behind the bill. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
But Democrats dispatched a watchdog to guard the floor against any possible GOP chicanery as the Senate met for 31 seconds with meager attendance.
The Senate gaveled in. The Senate gaveled out. Nothing happened.
«I was there to object,» said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. «I was here just in case there were some shenanigans.»
Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., called it «insane» that Senate Republicans «didn’t even try» to pass the House bill. But the lone Senate Republican on duty said the presence of Coons doomed that to failure.
«We don’t have consent yet,» said Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., who presided over the session. «They declined. Obviously Sen. Coons was there to do that.»
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
But by Wednesday, the bill which Johnson trashed Friday afternoon was on its way to passage. Despite a sea of opposition from conservative Republicans, the House would accept the Senate bill and end most of the DHS shutdown. The Earth shifted. President Trump was fine with this. Suddenly, Johnson and Thune were on the same page.
So the Republican House would eat what the Senate originally cooked up early Friday morning. And the House would likely approve it with lots of Republicans spread around the country. But like Senate Republicans early Friday morning, no one would likely return to block it.
And by now, this wasn’t something engineered in the dead of night that only 400 people knew about. The entire country was more than aware what happened.
congress, homeland security, senate, house of representatives politics
El ejército estadounidense intensifica sus esfuerzos para obtener un mayor acceso a Groenlandia, una clara señal de que el interés del presidente Donald Trump por la enorme isla ártica no ha disminuido.
Estados Unidos está negociando con Dinamarca el acceso a tres bases adicionales en Groenlandia –incluidas dos previamente abandonadas por los estadounidenses–, lo que supondría la primera expansión estadounidense allí en décadas, según un alto mando del Pentágono, el general Gregory Guillot.
Leé también: Lo que Donald Trump no dice sobre Groenlandia: historia, riquezas y el sueño de construir una Cúpula Dorada
Guillot, jefe del Comando Norte de Estados Unidos, declaró ante los legisladores en una audiencia del Congreso a mediados de marzo que el ejército quería “un mayor acceso a diferentes bases en toda Groenlandia, dada la creciente amenaza y la importancia estratégica de Groenlandia”.
“Estoy trabajando con nuestro departamento y con otros para intentar desarrollar más puertos y más aeródromos, lo que proporcionará más opciones a nuestro secretario y al presidente, en caso de que los necesitemos en el Ártico”, añadió Guillot.
La solicitud coloca a Dinamarca en una situación delicada. Groenlandia es un territorio semiautónomo que forma parte del reino danés desde hace más de 300 años. Trump, por su parte, se ha obsesionado con adquirir Groenlandia y, durante meses, amenazó con usar la fuerza antes de ceder en enero.
El Gobierno danés ha invocado un pacto de defensa danés-estadounidense de 1951 para hacer frente a las amenazas de Trump y ha señalado que Estados Unidos ya tiene un amplio acceso militar.
Los funcionarios estadounidenses ahora utilizan ese mismo acuerdo para trazar planes de expansión. Los expertos afirman que Dinamarca puede hacer poco para frenarlos, aunque la confianza entre Estados Unidos y Dinamarca se haya visto sacudida, si no es que rota.
La capitana de corbeta Teresa Meadows, portavoz del Comando Norte de Estados Unidos, afirmó que los planificadores militares tenían en el punto de mira las localidades de Narsarsuaq, en el sur de Groenlandia, que cuenta con un puerto de aguas profundas, y Kangerlussuaq, en el suroeste de Groenlandia, que ya dispone de una larga pista capaz de recibir aviones de gran tamaño.
Ambos lugares habían sido bases estadounidenses durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial y la Guerra Fría, pero fueron cedidos a las autoridades danesas y groenlandesas después de que los estadounidenses abandonaran Narsarsuaq en la década de 1950 y Kangerlussuaq en la de 1990. Gran parte de su infraestructura militar ha sido desmantelada, aunque ambos emplazamientos aún cuentan con pequeños aeropuertos en funcionamiento.
Los funcionarios del Pentágono no especificaron cuántas tropas se enviarían a la isla. Guillot indicó que el ejército necesita bases para soldados de operaciones especiales y “capacidades marítimas”.
Durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, cuando Dinamarca fue ocupada por los nazis, Estados Unidos ayudó a defender Groenlandia. Envió miles de soldados y abrió más de una decena de bases. Mantuvo muchas de ellas operativas durante la Guerra Fría. En la actualidad, solo queda una base activa: una remota instalación de defensa antimisiles con unos pocos cientos de soldados.
Trump parece decidido a cambiar eso. Sus amenazas del año pasado de “conseguir” Groenlandia, “de un modo u otro”, desencadenaron una crisis en Europa. Esa crisis se ha calmado, por ahora, ya que el presidente se ha visto absorbido por la guerra en Irán. Pero muchos europeos, incluida la líder de Dinamarca, Mette Frederiksen, temen que Trump no haya renunciado a adquirir la gigantesca isla cubierta de hielo, lo que podría dejar a Dinamarca acorralada de nuevo.
Hasta ahora, las conversaciones sobre la ampliación de la base parecen ir sobre ruedas. Guillot citó el acuerdo de 1951 durante su testimonio ante el Congreso, y cuando los legisladores demócratas le preguntaron si Dinamarca o Groenlandia habían puesto algún obstáculo, respondió que no.
“Han sido socios muy, muy comprensivos”, dijo el general.
A diferencia de lo que ha sugerido Trump, Guillot dijo: “En realidad no necesitamos un nuevo tratado. Es muy completo y, francamente, muy favorable para nuestras operaciones o posibles operaciones en Groenlandia”.
Leé también: Detrás del vértigo que generó Trump con su reclamo de Groenlandia, hay una estrategia que empezó a fallar
El plan de expansión sigue envuelto en el secreto. El Departamento de Estado se negó a emitir comentarios, al igual que el Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores de Dinamarca y la oficina del primer ministro de Groenlandia. Jens-Frederik Nielsen, primer ministro de Groenlandia, junto a la premier danesa Mette Frederiksen en una conferencia de prensa en Copenhague el 13 de enero de 2026. (Foto: Tom Little/REUTERS)
No está claro cómo reaccionarán los groenlandeses, la mayoría de los cuales son indígenas inuits. El sentimiento antiestadounidense ha ido en aumento en la isla, que cuenta con menos de 60.000 habitantes. A principios de este año estallaron protestas contra Trump y varios groenlandeses entrevistados expresaron su preocupación por la llegada de más tropas estadounidenses.
“Mucha gente no quiere más militares en Groenlandia, pero si eso es lo que deciden, no hay nada que podamos hacer”, dijo Anso Lauritzen, que dirige un centro de trineos tirados por perros en el oeste de Groenlandia.
Agnetha Mikka Petersen, una residente jubilada de Nuuk, la capital, dijo que la perspectiva de una mayor presencia estadounidense la hace sentir “inquieta”.
“No me gusta nada”, afirmó.
El acuerdo de defensa de 1951 y su actualización de 2004 otorgan a los estadounidenses una posición de fuerza. Antes de realizar cualquier cambio importante en su presencia militar, se supone que Estados Unidos debe “consultar e informar” a las autoridades de Dinamarca y Groenlandia. Los expertos afirman que eso significa que Estados Unidos puede hacer prácticamente lo que quiera y comunicárselo a los daneses y groenlandeses más tarde.
“Dinamarca y Groenlandia pueden, en principio, decir que no a Estados Unidos, pero en la práctica nunca se hace”, afirmó Ulrik Pram Gad, investigador sénior del Instituto Danés de Estudios Internacionales. “Porque si lo hacen, Estados Unidos puede presentar el control de Dinamarca y Groenlandia sobre la isla como un riesgo para la seguridad y argumentar que él mismo debería asumir el control”.
*Por Jeffrey Gettleman, corresponsal internacional radicado en Londres y que cubre sucesos mundiales. Ha trabajado para el Times por más de 20 años.
Eric Schmitt es corresponsal de seguridad nacional para el Times. Ha informado sobre asuntos militares y de antiterrorismo de Estados Unidos durante más de tres décadas.
The New York Times, groenlandia
El horóscopo de hoy: jueves 2 de abril
Pese al bono que otorgó el Gobierno, las fuerzas federales mantienen la marcha en reclamo por los salarios
Jornada perfecta para el tenis argentino en Houston: Tomás Etcheverry, Thiago Tirante y Román Burruchaga avanzan a paso firme
Manuel Adorni recibió siete veces en la Casa Rosada a la escribana que avaló las compras del departamento en Caballito y la casa del country
Fuerte apoyo empresario al proyecto de la Corte Suprema para transparentar la selección de jueces
El uso de biocombustibles ayuda a estabilizar los precios en Brasil pese al shock petrolero por Irán
El Gobierno cambia su propuesta de reforma: endurece penas para delitos comunes, pero no para los casos de corrupción
Nuevas críticas de Marcela Pagano contra los Milei: “Karina es la que gobierna”, aseguró
Dos jubiladas que le habrían prestado dinero a Manuel Adorni negaron conocerlo
Quiénes son las dos acreedoras del préstamo con el que Adorni compró su departamento en Caballito
POLITICA2 días agoDos jubiladas que le habrían prestado dinero a Manuel Adorni negaron conocerlo
- POLITICA2 días ago
Quiénes son las dos acreedoras del préstamo con el que Adorni compró su departamento en Caballito
- POLITICA18 horas ago
El Gobierno reevalúa la estrategia de comunicación por el caso Adorni y mide el impacto en la imagen de Milei
