Trump's Bold Claim: Is International Law Obsolete?!

President Trump has thrown a rather large wrench into the gears of international diplomacy, declaring, in no uncertain terms, that he "doesn't need" international law. According to a report initially published by RT.com, the President believes his "own morality" is a sufficient guide in navigating global affairs. This isn't exactly a new stance for the administration, but the sheer bluntness of the statement is, well, remarkable even by Trump's standards.

Trump's Bold Claim: Is International Law Obsolete?...

The pronouncement, which really does read like something out of a geopolitical thriller, comes on the heels of some pretty eyebrow-raising incidents. These include a reported (and still somewhat murky) military raid against Venezuela, allegedly aimed at ousting President Nicolas Maduro, and, perhaps even more bizarrely, renewed suggestions that the U.S. intends to acquire Greenland. Yes, Greenland. The one that belongs to Denmark.

In an interview with The New York Times on Wednesday, Trump reportedly stated, without hesitation, that he felt no obligation to adhere to established international legal norms. "My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me," he declared, before adding the now infamous line, "I don’t need international law." It’s a statement that’s bound to send chills down the spines of diplomats and legal scholars worldwide.

Now, when pressed about whether the U.S. truly believed it was exempt from global rules, Trump seemingly attempted to walk back the statement, ever so slightly. But, and this is a big but, he quickly followed up with the caveat that "it depends on what your definition of international law is," essentially implying that he alone would determine its relevance to the United States. Which, frankly, isn't much better.

Adding fuel to the fire, Trump signed a memorandum on Thursday halting support for a whole host of international organizations, agencies, and commissions – 66 of them, to be exact. The justification? They were supposedly "operating contrary to US national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty." One can only imagine the diplomatic fallout from that move.

And let's not forget about Greenland. Trump reiterated his desire for the U.S. to acquire the autonomous Danish territory during the same Times interview. Stephen Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy, went so far as to tell CNN that Washington's "formal position" is that the "US should have Greenland as part of the overall security apparatus."

Understandably, this has caused quite a stir. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stated she believed Trump was serious about his intentions and warned that a military attack on another NATO country – even hypothetically – could have devastating consequences, potentially dismantling the entire alliance. A joint statement from EU leaders and the UK has also been issued, reaffirming Greenland's status as part of Denmark. It seems like, for now, the world is pushing back against Trump's vision of a morality-led, law-free foreign policy. The question now is: what will Trump do next?