Rebel News Podcast – The Ezra Levant Show

Episode Title: Is Donald Trump really going to invade Greenland?
Host: Ezra Levant
Air Date: January 8, 2026

Episode Overview

Ezra Levant digs into the provocative question: Is Donald Trump really going to invade Greenland? Using recent statements, historical context, and Trump’s negotiation style, Levant analyzes the strategic and political motives behind the U.S. posture on Greenland, as well as implications for NATO and Canada. In the second segment, investigative journalist Melanie Bennett discusses her report on the rise of Islamophobia lessons—and the relative neglect of antisemitism—in the Ontario public school system's curriculum.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The U.S. and Greenland—History & Strategic Value

• Historical Context:
  • America “invaded” Greenland during WWII when Denmark was under Nazi occupation, establishing a base to prevent German control (04:00–08:00).
  • The U.S. offered Denmark $100 million in gold for Greenland post-WWII; it was refused, but the American military presence remained (08:00–09:00).
  • Greenland’s Thule Air Base (now “Space Base”): strategically vital in the Cold War, now used for missile detection and as a buffer against Russia (08:30–10:00).
• Notable Quote:
  • “America already did [invade Greenland] in 1940, and they never left.” – Ezra Levant (00:10)
• Major Purchases in U.S. History:
  • Louisiana Purchase (from France), Alaska (from Russia), Philippines (from Spain), Virgin Islands (from Denmark) (03:00–05:00).
  • “The idea of buying territory or swapping territory is not unheard of. … Countries buy and sell land now.” – Ezra Levant (04:30)
• Greenland’s Modern Strategic Significance:
  • Key location for missile defense (‘Golden Dome’), especially against Russia (09:40–11:00).
  • “There’s no other place to put it… It is an enormous buffer of land between Russia and North America.” – Ezra Levant (09:57)

2. Trump’s Motives: Bluster, Negotiation, or Real Threat?

• Trump’s Ambitious Rhetoric:
  • Official statements by Trump’s team are ambiguous—neither ruling out nor confirming military action (10:22–12:31).
  • Strategic ambiguity is a negotiation tactic, “redefining where a normal outcome would be” (13:00–14:45).
• Notable Exchange:
  • Jake Tapper: “Can you rule out that the US is ever going to try to take Greenland by force?”
  • Stephen Miller: “You can’t take it off the table, Jake… That’s a process we’re going to have as a community of nations.” (10:22–12:31)
• Trump’s Style—Art of the Deal:
  • Opens with an “outrageous position” to shift negotiations (13:00–14:45).
  • “If you say something outrageous—‘we’re going to invade and just take it’—you can then abandon that position and now a more moderate position is, ‘okay, well, you’ll just sign a 100-year lease and we have access to it.’” – Ezra Levant (14:12)
• Desire for Historical Legacy:
  • Levant argues Trump wants to be remembered like those who engineered Alaska or the Louisiana Purchase, not just for policy but historical impact (15:30–17:00).

3. NATO, Denmark, and the International Order

• Strain on Alliances:
  • If the U.S. moved aggressively, it would deeply strain NATO (Denmark is a member).
  • “Some say it would be the end of NATO if Trump took Greenland.” – Ezra Levant (12:35)
• Denmark’s Limitations:
  • Small military and budget, little ability to defend Greenland against the world’s superpower.
• Europe’s Weakness:
  • Levant critiques European countries for “talking big” but lacking serious power projection compared to the U.S. (19:00–22:00).

4. Repercussions for Canada and Non-Superpowers

• Canada’s Vulnerabilities:
  • “We’re not going to beat Trump on a one-on-one economic negotiation. ... They outgun us more than 10 to 1.” (23:36)
• Proposal for Asymmetrical Response:
  • Suggests Canada should offer a joint military base in the Arctic with the U.S. (e.g., Inuvik) as a sign of partnership and to gain leverage (23:46–25:20).
• Historic and Existing Precedents:
  • U.S. military presence in allied countries doesn’t necessarily violate sovereignty, can deepen friendships (25:10).

5. “Will Trump Invade Greenland?” – Levant’s Conclusion

• The U.S. “invaded” in 1940 and never truly left.
• Current aggressive posturing is likely more about negotiation and legacy than literal military conquest (25:25).

Noteworthy Quotes & Segments

• Ezra Levant on U.S. Military Superiority:
  “He [Trump] was basically knows in his bones that he is the strongest military in the world and Russia is not going to start a war with America over some tanker shipping sanctioned oil.” (21:59)

• On European Responses:
  “We really are in a unipolar world now. … It’s just America.” (22:27)

• On Canadian Strategies:
  “What if Canada offered Donald Trump a joint base in our North, in our Arctic… That’s an asymmetrical arrangement that might help us with trade.” (24:10)

Greenland Voices: On the Ground (05:09–06:20)

Reporter Jessica Sviatar Nevsky interviews Greenlanders:

• Mixed responses to the prospect of becoming Americans.
• “Would you ever want an American passport?”
  – “Yeah.”
  – “It’d be easier to get around, right? ... Do you want to make Greenland great again?”
  – “Yes, make Greenland great again.”

Segment Two: Education & Islamophobia Curriculum (25:50–43:09)

Guest: Melanie Bennett, investigative journalist

Key Themes

• Islamophobia vs. Antisemitism Focus:

  • Hamilton Wentworth District School Board curriculum embeds Islamophobia lessons but lacks focus on antisemitism despite a rise in anti-Jewish incidents (26:50–29:57).
  • “Learn. Disrupt. Build.” is the board’s motto—Levant critiques “disrupt” as Marxist in intent (26:00).

• Curriculum Examples:

  • Projects frame normal childhood responses to unfamiliar religious attire as “Islamophobia” (28:10–31:08).
  • Levant recalls the honour killing case of Aqsa Parvez, argues for nuance (31:08–32:38).

• Institutional Entrenchment:

  • Trainings often supplied by the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), which receives substantial government grants (40:44–41:56).
  • Complaint systems (“snitch lines”) encourage high reporting of Islamophobia (39:39).

• Broader Educational Trends:

  • Social justice curriculum is entrenched, supported by teachers’ unions, Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the Ministry’s Equity Secretariat (41:56–43:09).
  • “I calculated that NCCM received over $750,000 from the Ministry of Education here in Ontario to develop these anti-Islamophobia strategies… since 2018.” – Melanie Bennett (42:35)

Notable Quotes

• “They are engaging in... gender ideology, could also be decolonial stuff. So they are engaging in that because the Ministry of Education’s Equity Secretariat does demand this.” – Melanie Bennett (36:07)
• “There isn’t a wave of anti-Islamic Islamophobia or discrimination in Canada. There just isn’t, especially proportionately. But this is designed to just Jussie Smollett it—to hoax. This whole thing is a hoax.” – Ezra Levant (38:49)

Listener Letters & Political Commentary (43:31–End)

• Levant takes questions about Christia Freeland’s resignation, Canadian government corruption, and Trump’s stance on foreign investment.
• “A $400 million corruption is now considered minor. That’s how bad things are.” – Ezra Levant (43:30–End)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Historical Context on Greenland: 00:10–08:00
• Greenland’s Strategic Location: 09:40–11:00
• Trump’s Negotiation Tactics: 13:00–14:45
• Trump Spokesperson’s Comments: 10:22–12:31
• European Weakness & Unipolarity: 19:00–22:00
• Canada’s Arctic Response Proposal: 23:46–25:20
• Education Segment Begins: 25:50
• On “Learn. Disrupt. Build.” Curriculum: 26:49–31:08
• NCCM’s Role in Curriculum: 39:39–42:00

Memorable Moments & Tone

• “Make Greenland great again!”
  A light moment as Greenlanders echo Trump’s iconic slogan (06:18).
• Levant’s energetic and unapologetically opinionated delivery infuses the episode with a blend of skepticism, historical savvy, and populist outrage.

Summary Takeaway

Ezra Levant’s deep dive into Trump’s Greenland ambitions frames them as part strategic calculation, part negotiation tactic, part legacy-seeking bravado—with significant historical, geopolitical, and alliance-busting implications. The second half’s focus on education policy in Ontario underscores Rebel News’ ongoing critique of progressive activism in public institutions. The episode is quintessentially confrontational, heavy on historical context, and laced with gusty skepticism of both the established international order and Canada’s current leadership.