Jon B. Wolfsthal

Portrait of Jon B. Wolfsthal
Center for Strategic and International Studies

Jon B. Wolfsthal is Fellow for U.S. Nuclear Policy at PAX sapiens and a former National Security Council senior director for arms control and nonproliferation. He was most recently director of Global Risk at the Federation of American Scientists.

What we have documented

We have documented 1 statement by Jon B. Wolfsthal, in 1 case. Each statement below gives the quotation, its original source and a link to the full case.

Case updates

Next steps for the Greenland deal Trump called 'permanent control'

Get an email if Denmark's and Greenland's parliaments act on the agreement, or if officials dispute or repeat Trump's 'permanent control' description.

Important updates only. Free. Confirm your email to start. Unsubscribe anytime. How we handle your email.

Statements by Jon B. Wolfsthal

Portrait of Jon B. Wolfsthal

Jon B. Wolfsthal

Role at the time: Fellow for U.S. Nuclear Policy at PAX sapiens and former National Security Council senior director for arms control and nonproliferation, posting on his own Bluesky account

Minimized

Statement summary

Jon Wolfsthal, a nuclear policy fellow and former National Security Council official, quoted a New York Times breaking-news post reporting that President Trump said the U.S. had reached a security deal with Greenland, and added: "He could have just asked and gotten this result with less alliance damage." The Times post also said Denmark had said an agreement would be signed soon.

“He could have just asked and gotten this result with less alliance damage.”
Read the original post (opens in a new tab)Jon Wolfsthal on Trump's Greenland deal: "He could have just asked" · Jon B. WolfsthalBluesky post 3mvtd6ewmgs2r by @jonatomic.bsky.social, created 2026-09-18T23:30:21.162Z (7:30 PM EDT); quote-post of The New York Times' post 3mvtbiasshg2g; the whole text of his post is the quotation.
Why we used this label

Wolfsthal's own words say Trump "could have just asked" to get "this result", which treats the announced outcome as easily obtained and so downplays its significance, and add that the approach cost the alliance more than necessary; he does not say what the agreement contains or dispute Trump's description of it. The closest competing label is condemns, because "alliance damage" is critical. That loses because the criticism is aimed at the route Trump took to the result, not at the agreement or at Trump's description of it.

A participant is a subject of the case. A speaker has a statement documented in it. A commentator has an opinion or editorial documented in it.

Topics in this coverage