据路透社报道，多位知情人士透露，上个月美国、丹麦和格陵兰的官员在北极岛屿首府举行会晤时，会议气氛平静，并未讨论美国从军事或财政上接管丹麦领土的问题。

然而，不到两周后，情况发生了巨大变化。特朗普宣布任命杰夫·兰德里为格陵兰特使。兰德里在社交媒体上发文称，他将帮助“使格陵兰成为美国的一部分”。消息人士称，这一任命和兰德里的信息令哥本哈根方面震惊，也让负责欧洲和北约事务的美国政府高级官员措手不及。

特朗普将自己的外交官排除在外，这符合他一贯的外交政策制定模式。特朗普的外交政策在诸多问题上摇摆不定，而且经常在没有国家安全官员参与的情况下制定，而这些官员在其他美国总统任期内通常会参与政策制定。

相反，特朗普政府的一系列举措，包括暗示要吞并格陵兰岛、计划对美国盟友加征新关税以及试图从格陵兰岛的管辖国丹麦那里获得让步，似乎完全是由特朗普及其一小群亲信主导的。

正如路透社本周报道的那样，这些亲信包括提出加征关税方案的商务部长霍华德·卢特尼克，以及试图劝阻特朗普不要考虑动用武力的副总统约翰·迪·万斯、国务卿马可·卢比奥等人。

从很多方面来看，这种做法对特朗普来说行之有效，因为他怀疑华盛顿的官僚机构，并且希望自己的决定能够迅速得到执行。但由此产生的突然宣布和出人意料的政策逆转，可能会对美国与关键盟友的关系造成持久的损害。

当被问及白宫在格陵兰、乌克兰和叙利亚等事件中令相关外交官感到意外的一系列举措时，白宫发言人安娜·凯利表示，“向路透社泄露消息的人”并不了解敏感的讨论内容，特朗普国家安全团队的成就本身就足以说明一切。

凯利说：“总统当选是为了推行‘美国优先’的外交政策，而他通过自上而下的方式更有效地实现了这一目标。”

过去几周，这种集中化且个性化的方式所带来的危险性逐渐显现。

1月5日，白宫副幕僚长斯蒂芬·米勒接受CNN采访后，跨大西洋双方就格陵兰问题爆发的激烈争论进一步升级。当被问及在两天前委内瑞拉军事行动之后，白宫是否会排除以军事行动夺取格陵兰的可能性时，米勒拒绝直接回答。

特朗普及其政府官员在接受采访和在社交媒体上似乎更加强调了美国可能在格陵兰使用武力的可能性。

这些言论在华盛顿和美国盟友中引发了混乱和恐慌。据两位知情人士透露，国会山的民主党人和共和党人都感到焦虑不安——政府似乎又一次在未事先咨询国会的情况下推进一项重大军事行动。

其中一位消息人士称，议员们致电卢比奥和白宫高级官员，表达了他们的担忧，并建议政府不要继续推进。消息人士还表示，一些共和党议员告诉政府官员，他们担心任何入侵格陵兰岛的军事行动都可能引发弹劾调查。

本周，特朗普缓和了紧张局势，撤回了对支持格陵兰岛的盟友征收关税的威胁，并表示他已与北约就该岛的未来达成协议框架。

特朗普表示，他和北约秘书长马克·吕特在瑞士达沃斯会谈期间“就格陵兰岛乃至整个北极地区的未来协议制定了框架”。

但据两位接近政府的消息人士称，军事行动从未被认真考虑过。

美国企业研究所前五角大楼和白宫官员科里·沙克表示，特朗普威胁武力夺取格陵兰岛，损害已经造成。

沙克说，“特朗普的威胁反复无常，根本无法保证他不会再次故伎重演。他已经让美国连最亲密的盟友都失去了信任。”

当被问及对包括米勒言论在内的评论时，白宫发言人凯利表示：“如果这项协议达成……美国将以极低的代价，永久实现其在格陵兰岛的所有战略目标。”

兰德里办公室尚未对此置评。丹麦大使馆发言人也未对此事发表评论。

特朗普及其支持者坚称，美国需要格陵兰岛来抵御俄罗斯和中国在北极地区的威胁，而丹麦无法确保其安全。但美国在该岛上已经拥有军事基地，并且根据1951年与丹麦签订的条约，美国有能力扩大其在该岛的存在。

When officials from the United States, Denmark and Greenland met last month in the Arctic island’s capital, the session was reassuringly normal, with no discussion of a U.S. military or financial takeover of the Danish territory, multiple people familiar with the talks told Reuters.

That all changed less than two weeks later when Trump announced a special envoy to the vast island, Jeff Landry, who posted on social media that he would help “make Greenland part of the U.S.” The appointment and the message stunned Copenhagen and blindsided senior U.S. officials across the administration who work on European and NATO issues, the sources said.

The exclusion of his own diplomats fit the pattern of Trump’s foreign policy-making, which has veered wildly on a range of issues and has often been formulated without the national security officials who in other U.S. presidencies have helped steer policy.

Instead, the Trump administration’s moves, which included an implied threat to seize Greenland, a plan for new tariffs on U.S. allies and a push to wring concessions from Denmark, which governs Greenland, appeared to be driven solely by Trump and a small group of close aides.

As Reuters reported this week, those aides included Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who proposed the idea of tariffs, and Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others who tried to steer Trump away from considering military force.

In many ways it’s an approach that works for Trump, given his suspicion of the Washington bureaucracy and desire to have his decisions implemented quickly. But the sudden announcements and surprise reversals that flow from it risk lasting damage to relations with key U.S. allies.

When asked to comment on various examples of White House moves that surprised the diplomats involved in cases including Greenland, Ukraine and Syria, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said people “who leak to Reuters” were not clued in on sensitive discussions, and that the achievements of Trump’s national security team spoke for themselves.

“The president was elected to implement America First foreign policy, and he has done so more effectively through his top-down approach,” Kelly said.

The danger in this centralized – and personalized – approach became clear over the past few weeks.

Transatlantic fury over Greenland escalated after a January 5 CNN interview by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. Asked whether the White House would, after the military operation in Venezuela two days before, rule out military action to acquire Greenland, Miller declined to answer directly.

Trump and officials in his administration appeared to double down on the possibility that the U.S. could use force in Greenland in interviews and on social media.

The comments sowed confusion and alarm in Washington and among U.S. allies.

On Capitol Hill, Democrats and Republicans grew anxious – the administration appeared to be yet again moving forward with a major military operation without consulting Congress first, two sources familiar with the matter said.

Lawmakers phoned Rubio and senior White House officials, laying out their concerns and advising the administration not to move forward, one of those sources said. Some Republican lawmakers also told administration officials that they feared a potential impeachment investigation over any military invasion of Greenland, the sources said.

This week, Trump brought down the tension, withdrawing his threat to impose tariffs on allies supporting Greenland and saying he had reached the outlines of a deal with NATO on the island’s future.

Trump said he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had “formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region” during talks in Davos, Switzerland.

But military action was never seriously considered, according to two sources close to the administration.

Kori Schake, a former Pentagon and White House official with the American Enterprise Institute, said that with Trump’s threat to seize Greenland by force, the damage has already been done.

“Trump is so erratic with his threats, there’s no way to establish that he won’t turn right around and do it again. He has made the United States untrustworthy to our closest friends,” Schake said.

Asked for comment, including about Miller’s remarks, White House spokeswoman Kelly said: “If this deal goes through … the United States will be achieving all of its strategic goals with respect to Greenland, at very little cost, forever.”

Landry’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the Danish embassy did not have a comment for this story.

Trump and his backers have insisted the U.S. needs Greenland to fend off threats from Russian and Chinese in the Arctic and that Denmark cannot ensure its security. But the United States already has a base on the island and the ability to expand its presence there under a 1951 treaty with Denmark.

Trump’s practice of centralizing foreign policy decisions, relying on trusted aides and effectively sidelining experts, has been a consistent theme of his second term.

It happened several times during negotiations to end Russia’s war in Ukraine. Most recently in the fall, a 28-point plan to end the war emerged from meetings between Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, his son-in-law Jared Kushner and Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev, who heads the Russian Direct Investment Fund, one of Russia’s largest sovereign wealth funds.

Many senior U.S. officials inside the State Department and on the National Security Council, who would typically be in the know about the evolution of such a plan, were not briefed on the process, two people familiar with the plan said at the time.

The approach has also been apparent in Washington’s Syria policy.

In May, Trump met with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa in Saudi Arabia in front of cameras, effectively granting U.S. support to the former Islamist militant, even as some in his administration had advised against it. His decision to lift all U.S. sanctions on Syria caught many U.S. officials off guard.

Since then, U.S. envoy Tom Barrack has been the main implementer of Syria policy with officials at the State Department and other parts of the administration having little room to make policy suggestions, according to three sources familiar with the process.

Communications between Barrack and the subject matter experts in Washington have not been frequent, sources added.

A State Department spokesperson said: “There is tremendous collaboration throughout President Trump’s administration, and there are dedicated public servants dutifully advancing key priorities. Then there are the anonymous sources whining to the press who clearly don’t have the judgment or temperament to implement President Trump’s agenda.”