'Crazy idea': Jimmy Kimmel breaks down major flaw in Trump's Greenland takeover plan

The proposed takeover of Greenland by the United States has a series of flaws in the plan, according to Jimmy Kimmel.

The talk show host would use part of his opening monologue to mock Donald Trump and his administration's plan to take the country over. Kimmel suggested the broad aims of Trump can be achieved without taking the country over, and that the president now risks angering the Republican Party once more.

Speaking to the audience on Live!, Kimmel said, "Trump says he's considering military action to acquire Greenland if necessary, by force. Trump says we need it for national security reasons, some Republicans are pushing back on this crazy idea and none more forcefully than Mike Johnson."

"He doesn't think it's 'appropriate' to invade, and we all know how much Trump cares about being appropriate. Trump says he would prefer to buy Greenland, but if it's not for sale, we may just take it."

Though Trump has made it clear he wants to take Greenland, and has put his administration to work on doing just that, Kimmel pointed out the reason the president wants the land is the "dumbest part" of all.

He said, "The dumbest part of all of it is we've had an agreement with Greenland and Denmark since 1951 that says we can build military installations pretty much anywhere we want. The agreement allows us to 'construct, install, maintain, and operate' military bases across the country."

"In other words, why would we invade the cow when we can get the ice milk for free? This business of strong-arming other countries, Greenland and Venezuela, is not very popular. He ran on the platform of staying out of other countries, he specifically said they will not be part of regime change, they don't want any part of that, and now that's exactly what they're doing."

Former U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Rufus Gifford blasted President Donald Trump’s escalating threats to seize Greenland — even by military force — warning on MS NOW that such a move would run directly counter to NATO’s mission and could force the alliance to defend Denmark against the United States.

Gifford said, "I mean, I would make the argument that this foreign policy, if you want to even call it a foreign policy, is not only reckless, which it is, but it's also clueless."

He added the national security argument "holds zero water here" because NATO would be "compelled to respond" should the country be attacked.