Trump's threat to Greenland is an emergency, and it must be treated as one.
This is not just a territorial dispute. It is a deliberately chosen test of whether coercion can be normalised and then repeated to spread an empire in a way and for an aim that can only be described as evil.
This video sets out:
-
Why Greenland is symbolically massive.
-
Why diplomatic understatement now is denial of the political reality of this moment
-
Why propaganda and intimidation are central tools of authoritarian expansion.
-
Why democracies must regain moral clarity and plan countermeasures now.
The question is not “can we negotiate?” The question is: will we resist, and in time?
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
If you are not worried about the world at this moment, do you really know what's going on? Are you aware that Donald Trump is threatening to take Greenland by force? And let's stop pretending that this is just Donald Trump being Donald Trump. Greenland is not the whole story right now, important as it is, and real as the threats are. It isn't the whole story because it is only the opening chapter in a bigger saga.
Greenland is the pretext, but what is happening is bigger, darker, and far more organised than a threat to Greenland alone. We are watching the early stages of an imperial project that is going to be rolled out by Trump, called the Donroe Project, and the consequences for you, for me, and for everyone else are going to be mighty serious.
Let's be clear about what is happening. Trump is, of course, threatening Greenland, and he is saying he must have it, and he is saying that nobody will stand in his way, but this is not just about a territorial dispute, even though that is what it looks like. Too many people think that this is the whole story, but it isn't. This isn't even just a mad bargaining tactic or a publicity stunt. It is part of a pattern, and it's a consistent pattern, and that is a pattern of expansion of the USA, which is being justified by intimidation.
He's already gone for Venezuela.
He's talking about Cuba.
He's threatening Greenland, and we'll see, the story does not end there.
What Trump is doing is setting out a plan to create a North American Empire. This is a Western Hemisphere doctrine, as it is called, which is something that was set out in 1823 by US President James Monroe; long dead, long gone, but unfortunately not forgotten by Donald Trump.
What Monroe said right back then was that Europe should not interfere in what he called the Western hemisphere, which he described as the USA and its hinterlands, including all the states around it. He said that if Europe left the US to dominate that sphere of influence, then the US wouldn't meddle in Europe.
Basically, this doctrine held true for a century. It was why, in fact, in 1914, the USA was so reluctant to come into the First World War because the Monroe Doctrine still held, and now, a century later, Donald Trump is reviving it.
What he says is that he wants to dominate North America and maybe the South as well because, let's be clear, it doesn't seem that we know how far his territorial ambitions go, and he wants us in Europe to stand back and let him do what he wants, including taking Greenland, which, as far as he's concerned, is American and not European when frankly, the whole issue is open to dispute because it's really in geophysical terms, not a part of either. But the point is, he isn't looking for partners, he's not looking for allies, he's not looking for friends in the whole of the Americas. What he's looking for is territory to be dominated, and that is the whole basis for this "Donroe" Doctrine.
Steve Bannon made this clear over the last weekend. He told a UK newspaper, The Daily Mail, but it doesn't matter which, that Canada is next. His framing was very clear. What he said was that Canada could be attacked by anyone, because it cannot defend itself, because it is too big and it has an arctic border, which it is leaving undefended, which is open to Russia and therefore it must be defended by the USA who must now take control of it, and that is his justification for the US apparently annexing what has been an independent state for as long as the US has been.
The comparison is crude, and it's also crude in the sense that Bannon aligned Canada with Ukraine. What he said is that Canada is available to be pressured , just as he obviously thought that Ukraine was available to be pressured by Russia in its conflict with a broader Europe. This implies that he simply sees Canada as a piece in a game, and the game that he's talking about is not one of normal diplomacy; it's that he thinks that Canada is the next piece to be taken in the creation of this empire that he, Trump, and Steven Miller, who is the assistant chief of staff in the White House, want to create.
This is predation as geopolitics. It's how Empire justifies itself. Empire always needs a story after all, and it says "we must act before others, because we have the might to do so". Then it claims "we are defending", even though they're actually expanding. It uses fear as a cover for its actions. What it does is rebrand aggression as a necessity to defend a homeland, which it believes is vulnerable, and we have, of course, seen as policy far too often.
It was that of Germany in the 1930s.
It was that of Russia after the Second World War.
It has been the policy of nations for centuries, including to some degree the UK when it came to the creation of empire, because that is what this is about. It is about seizing territory to be exploited as empire to defend failing policy at home, and to maintain incomes in the base location of the state where the emperor wishes to live at the time when they would otherwise be depleted by their actions overseas, with the exploitation of the acquired overseas territories being used to placate the domestic audience for the actions of this so-called president, or emperor, as they would now be as a way to buy domestic support for the policy that is being delivered.
The real target here is sovereignty, and subordination is the whole point. Greenland is not valuable because of its people. The 56,000 people who live there do not matter to Donald Trump; let's not pretend that they do. He couldn't give a damn about them. He values them because he wants to break the principle of sovereignty of Denmark over Greenland, and then make the world accept his coercion as normal. He's picked a small state for this reason, very deliberately. It isn't chance that Greenland is first on the list that he wants to acquire, because when he normalises domination through coercion, he believes that he can spread the policy into Canada and onwards. Mexico, wait, your turn. The rest of South America, Donald is on his way.
This is what this is all about, and Europe is making a fatal mistake in the face of this; its naivete is deeply dangerous at present. It seems as if European leaders still think that they are involved in a negotiation with Donald Trump. They still think that polite diplomacy will work, and they still think that careful wording is power, but this is no longer a rules-based game. Why? Because Donald Trump isn't taking part in the game anymore.
He's not trying to win by negotiation. He's simply seeking domination in plain sight, and therefore, the idea that diplomacy can work, which is based upon the assumption that shared rules apply, is simply not true now. Authoritarians do not accept restraint by treaty. Instead, they set out to exploit weakness. They use a delay as a weapon, and they escalate while others negotiate.
Donald Trump will be delighted at what Europe is doing at this moment. He will be particularly delighted by the actions of Keir Starmer, who seems to be fence-sitting as ever. But the fact is, whilst they prevaricate, he is making progress, and the rate of progress is phenomenal. It's frightening. Bluntly, I used that word wisely. We're seeing the world change before our eyes. We have to wake up every morning and say, "Are international boundaries what they were yesterday?" It is that mad.
The problem with European understatement is that it is delaying action. The language of concern that is being used by European leaders is not enough. The language of dialogue is not enough. Understatement is no longer an indication of maturity and seniority in the process of negotiation. Understatement is now a denial of the reality of the situation we face. It postpones resistance until it's too late, and the fact is that the enemy must now be named.
This is fascism that we are talking about here. There is one thing we must do if we're serious, and that is name the opponent that we face. We can't soften the fact that we're talking about fascism. We can't euphemise it, we can't normalise it, we must name it. And in this context, fascism looks like misogyny, racism, and thuggery.
It isn't just populism; it is misogyny, the hatred of women turned into power, and that is undoubtedly a key driver of everything that Trump does.
It is prejudice turned into state policy, and we can see that in action on the streets of the USA now.
And it is racism turned into border violence.
What is more, thuggery is now an instrument of government in the USA, when people can't literally walk the streets without fear of being killed by US troops in their own domestic cities.
This is what fascism looks like, and if you don't describe it, you can't defeat it. People will not resist what they cannot see. The public will not be mobilised around euphemisms. If leaders can't say fascism, they can't confront it. Silence is not neutrality. Silence becomes surrender.
And there is a point here too, because surrender is a keyword to use because we are talking about the use of violence in the USA, and that is clearly going to expand. All of those countries living in fear of being taken over by the USA have good reason to literally be in fear because what we're seeing is a Gestapo-like operation on the streets of the USA.
The ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency in the USA, is quite literally now behaving in a Gestapo-like fashion. It is dragging people out of their cars. It is shooting people in the streets, and when force becomes routine policy, something changes. When fear becomes governance, something changes. When intimidation becomes administration, something changes. This is, of course, the authoritarian method, and it spreads if it is allowed to succeed, and that is what Europe is permitting at present by not calling this out.
Let's go back to the point. Greenland isn't small. It is symbolically massive. It might only have 56,000 people, but it matters because it's a test of principle. If coercion works here, it will be used elsewhere, and even everywhere. Empire spreads in this way.
The required propaganda war in response hasn't even started. Authoritarians use propaganda constantly. They lie, they repeat, they normalise, and they win by narrative before force is needed.
Democracies must answer that propaganda with truth and moral clarity, but nonetheless, they must be pumping out their message now. Democracies must persuade. Democracies must tell the truth. Democracies must speak plainly. Democracies must not pretend that both sides are the same in this dispute, because very clearly they are not.
Donald Trump, let's spell out the words is 'evil'. There is no other way to describe him and his regime. These are the forces of darkness. Use whatever metaphor you wish; these people are literally threatening humankind, and democracy must regain the moral confidence to say things like that.
We must, of course, still be planning the countermeasures. There are counter-narratives to promote , but we must also be looking at the same time at the pragmatic measures that must be taken now to ensure that Europe and other countries can survive the challenges being faced. There must be trade sanctions. There must be the closure of US bases if that becomes necessary, because why should we be hosting hostile US forces in our countries? Intelligence and defence sharing must end. There must be a realignment, and much more.
This is going to be painful, even difficult, and costly because the US is going to retaliate, but it must be planned now, and the fact that it is being planned must be made known because the USA must know this before it escalates the dispute. It's no good doing this after capitulation. It must be done now while choices remain open, and that's what leaders must do: they must lead with language.
They mustn't leave the public floating, wondering what is going on. They must shape opinion by leadership, and leadership begins with naming threats. If you can't explain what's happening, then you can't win consent for the action. If you can't name fascism and say you're opposing it, you will not win the consent of people to defend a real democracy, and you must ensure that you promise that it is a real democracy that will survive this conflict.
We must not, in other words, normalise evil, which is what we risk doing.
What's going on right now in the world is something very real and very dangerous. We are fighting against authoritarian expansionism by the USA in a way that is unprecedented in the lifetimes of anyone now on this planet. We are fighting fascism again.
Let's not beat around the bush. We are where we were roughly a century ago. We've defeated it before, but only when we stopped pretending it wasn't there. We have to stop pretending it isn't there now. Fascism is alive. It's functioning in the USA. It has mimics in Europe. It has people who want to import it here.
We have to oppose the far right, and what they wish to do to oppress people across the USA, and in its neighbouring states, and in Europe, and beyond, or all we will all suffer enormously.
That is the challenge we face. That is the challenge that our political leaders must rise to. That is the leadership crisis that they aren't yet addressing, and it's time they did because we need them to do so right now.
What do you think? There's a poll down below.
Poll
Loading ...Tickets are now on sale for the Funding the Future live event in Cambridge on 28 February. Tickets and details are available here.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Trump is certainly evil, but the people steering his increasing volatility are even more so. They manipulate his notoriously short span of attention to further their malevolent agendas.
We should no forget the money behind all this. The creation of a city state, governed by the rich and entitled, is one objective of the techbros like Thiel. This can be accommodated within the fascist empire as it builds, though it would not survive its full flowering. The frog being boiled is an apt metaphor for the slow return of fascism.
Yes, Trump is (and long has been) evil. But I think it is clear that he no longer runs things. He is mentally demented and physically decrepit, and simply not capable of the things that are happening in his name. He is now a puppet, and it is those behind and around him that our attention should be on. Because they will continue, the end of Trump himself (however that happens) will not mark the end of the American project that is being built in his name.
Paul
I think you are seriously understating Trump.
He may be deranged – bit his derangement appears to be controlling things.
I think that President Bunt has pleonexia.
It is the output of that which is rather evil.
Other people’s right’s will be ignored; laws will be overridden and allies and enemies will be rattled into producing their own evil output.
But at the root of President Bunt’s existence is us. No one really wants to look at where and how he got his wealth, because the system that enabled that is our system. Too many simply cannot face up to the awful truth.
So, President Bunt ploughs on – indeed he has no choice, he knows he is a criminal, he knows he is effectively a KGB operative and disloyal to the U.S., so he has no choice but to go on and make himself untouchable in the process and grab as much as he can to bargain with later.
I don’t think he is evil, just a typical rich sociopath who unfortunately has much greater power than his money would normally provide. There is probably some age-related mental degradation thrown in too, although he has obviously found like-minded younger people to surround himself with.
I think you are kidding yourself.
Killing Renee Goode was not evil?
The killing of Renee Goode was not an act of ‘evil’ in my view, no matter how awful. ‘Sorry to disagree.
Goode’s death was instead the tragic collateral damage of policies that are designed to divide and conquer to preserve the power of an authoritarian leader and his greed. They are moments of chaos and misunderstanding as new policies take hold. I would not wish it on anyone believe you me, but it happens.
The time to really worry is when the U.S. starts to shoot lots of people who disagree with the government in the street all in one go – like the Peterloo massacre here in dear old blighty or events not so long ago in the Ukraine.
There is something about killing in broad daylight that is matter of fact. It did not need to happen. It was a badly managed situation.
Doing something that makes people suffer and imperceptibly alters the power balance – now that is really evil. Putting people on trains and ‘evacuating them’ only to put them into gas chambers out of sight is really evil. Pretending to put America first whilst enriching your family – again, really evil. Killing in broad daylight will not/is not going to help this president at all and any reckoning he has with what is left of democracy. Goode was a tragedy that has a causal link, but no more than that in my view.
Let’s calm down a bit. And not forget that humour and derision are also more useful and cooling down tools to help us ‘take back control’ from misfits like you know who.
And again you ask, how can people be taken in by this? We’ve done that to death haven’t we? Answers:
(1) Money – lots of money from those we’ve allowed to become too rich.
(2) Russian interference in U.S. democracy (revenge).
(3) The under-regulation of social media platforms (corruption).
(4) The immiseration of voters through Neo-liberal policies (desperation).
(5) The unmet need for change (political failure).
(6) The abject failure of Liberalism & the Left (weakness).
The list could go on.
Along with deriding our tormentors, let’s also have some music as well? This is The Chameleons ‘Saviours are a Dangerous Thing’ (2025) – a truly remarkable band in my view. Sums up our situation very well. ‘Hope it plays.
https://youtu.be/icZ5KUBleAY
We are going to have to disagree on Renee Goode.
And there is nothing to calm down about. I wish there was.
What, then, would you count as evil? (To Richard K) I’m genuinely interested.
At the risk of invoking Godwin, I am sure we can all agree that Hitler was evil, because he knowingly put in place a system to systematically kill millions of Jews and others he considered undesirable.
I don’t think Hitler was evil for invading Poland per se – that was just a typical empire building action, and no different to our colonial and European past (including our taking of America from native Americans, before some of us decided to secede in Boston). Was Napoleon evil for example?
In the same way, it is entirely rational if you want to build an Empire, for Trump to want to take more territory. He is not AFAIK proposing to deport Greenlanders (like we did with the Chagosians), and appears to offer them US citizenship which some people would give their right arm for. He is probably very puzzled why the Greenlanders are not jumping at the chance to join the best country in the world ever!
To Richards’ point, Trump did not kill Renee Goode of course, and he did not order ICE agents to commit murder – at least I don’t think he has. However he has obviously cultivated a culture which has allowed this to happen. Is that evil though? Is it intended directly by him to have ICE agents murdering fellow citizens?
We may wish a different world, one where there is a strong International rule of law, where every country leader can be brought to justice by the World. Unfortunately the US is too big and has enough nukes to stop this from happening. There is zero chance of European special forces landing at the White House, abducting Trump and family, and bringing them back to the Hague for example (or heading to Moscow to capture Putin). Simply unimaginable. However, I could imagine US special forces abducting the PM of Greenland. The asymmetry in power is clear and obvious. We can only wish that the POTUS has enough self-constraint to not do something like this. If he did, would that be evil? I guess there is a spectrum – how far along do you need to be to be classed as evil vs say self-obsessed, self-grandising, indifferent to other people (especially non-rich) or just bad?
Trump is a bully, and Richard is right that we need to stand up to bullies. Are bullies evil though?
Yes.
For heaven’s sake – they have said her death was justified.
Why offer avil excuses?
Posts like this really do make me feel giving up.
I’m less worried about whether Trump is an evil person (there is plenty of evidence that he is), as to why our leaders couldn’t recognise his actions as evil long ago – whether he was committing fraud in New York, or grabbing women by the crotch (“because you can when you are a celebrity”), or building border fences, or organising street murder squads in Minneapolis, or supporting genocide (like Biden did too) – so that here we are in Jan 2026 – he has gradually escalated the severity and scope of his actions, and now they are affecting US, and our leaders STILL don’t have the moral clarity to even get to the “oh s**t, this is REALLY bad” moment. It’s like the fire brigade not using hoses in case they damage the soft furnishings, or the paramedic not doing CPR in case they fracture the (dying) patient’s rib.
On spreading the politics of care in the UK, I feel hopeful, but on getting the UK government to “grow a pair” with regard to our rogue state “allies” in the USA & Israel, I feel powerless. Every time I hear one of his ministers gabbling out their morally bankrupt tripe (Lisa Nandy at the w/e) I get more outraged.
How can 400 Labour MPs be so collectively morally paralysed?
If not now, when?
If not them, who?
Precisely
I disagree with this interpretation:
“He said that if Europe left the US to dominate that sphere of influence, then the US wouldn’t meddle in Europe. Basically, this doctrine held true for a century. It was why, in fact, in 1914, the USA was so reluctant to come into the First World War because the Monroe Doctrine still held”.
The USA used the period 1830 through to 1930 to prey upon its neighbours & absorb territory i.e. pursue an imperialist policy (Mexico ad nauseum, covetous eyes on Canada, Puerto Rico, Philipines etc etc ). In WW1, the USA was making money from both sides and saw no need to take part. What changed was the prospect of France & UK winning (the UK had “the tank” nobody else did). Thus the USA needed to have a place at the peace table, if only to make sure it was repaid. As for the blather from the idiot/racist Woodrow Wilson about nation building, this was mostly for home consumption. All this helped by having a half-breed in the UK government called Winston Churchill.
Noted
I think we need to be careful to ascribe a unitary purpose to American behaviour. There were large parts of the population in 1914 who felt no need to be involved. Germans and Irish made up a significant part of the population and actively opposed involvement. Politicians had to gather support across the board in a way less so than here.
OTOH the Anglo-Saxons ( a term often used ) tended to support Britain and France. Some of the people coming from the Slavonic elements of the Austro-Hungarian Empire did hope a war might bring change. Others were outraged by the Invasion of Belgium and U-boat sinkings – well amplified by quite effective British propaganda. And new nations were created and some, like Poland reemerged not having been on the map of 1914.
Finance did play a part as did the influence of nationalism and a wish to be an Imperial power ( with some denial that they were ) I have come to think anything more than a small bit of nationalism soon turns toxic and has fuelled many of the atrocities of the last century or so.
The US is a complex beast with some unpleasant aspects but also some which are positive. There are many who think as we do and we need them to find their voice.
What do you think is driving the US regime – greed? Ego? Making up for other inadequacies?
And will the 300m+ US population accept it?
Madness
Fear
Paranoia
The dread of going to prison – which is where Trump should be
Why did people fall for it?
They were left out and they punished those who left them out.
Epstein. We must all be keeping that narrative going.
It seems like Epstein plays into it. However, this is not just Trump, it’s the people around him who at best facilitate his actions, and at worst exploit his madness, to achieve their own aims
I’ve just read “Caste”, Isabel Wilkerson. If she is right about the low-caste position of blacks in the US, and the terror of poor whites that they will have no-one below them, then the election of Trump, both times, was predictable. This description of US society from the black point of view is horrifying, but I think it’s probably correct.
I have, reluctantly, voted evil because of the failure to consider the effect of Trump’s policies on people. All people matter equally, but not to most politicians. My reluctance is related to my fear that something similar could happen here and in many other countries, and i cannot accept that most politicians are evil, I struggle to accept the concept of evil, stupid, uncaring, incompetent, even deranged but evil?
Trump is a symptom of deeper problem. He wouldn’t have got there by himself.
My Jungian friends ( followers of Carl Jung the psychologist ) feel he has invoked a dark archetype and loyalty to him and MAGA is emotional. Perhaps. He won’t be defeated by reason alone. To pick up your point of last year we have to find a better story to tell and a better vision to invoke.
He is a product of a predatory system which feeds on its own greed and sense of entitlement. Others have to be put down so they can feel one up. But the feeling doesn’t last and has to be repeated. That might be a vulnerability.
For reasons I gave the other day ( German bunkers in my village in Jersey) I always felt appeasement was a failing. Later I came to understand why it was so popular. But I feel there was an element of seeing the world as they wished it to be rather than as it was.
We face IMO another indirect threat from Putin. And one from within with Reform types sucking up to them and repeating their script.
For all its faults Europe is a continent where we still have some freedom to protest. Women and LGBT people can be more equal. We have more democratic systems -in need of improvement sure, but they are there. We have better care for the population. We have retreated from narrow nationalism and do support international organisations like the ICJ or UN aid agencies.
We need to build on these strengths and provide an alternative in a dangerous world. There can be allies out there in those organisations Colonel Smithers mentioned yesterday. But they won’t all be allies. So in a roundabout way ‘what are we defending”? But we must also be clear about the threat.
Thanks. Agreed.
Is it evil to put your own wants and needs before those of others? Is it evil to force your ideology and way of life on people who don’t see the world your way? Is it evil to dismiss the lives of millions of people as cultural degradation and attempt to make them conform or suffer? It feels evil, so that’s what I will call it.
Trump isn’t doing it for the greatness of the USA. Lying about crime to justify sending in lawless ICE agents is not ruthless politics, it’s repression. He isn’t threatening Greenland for ruthless political reasons because he could just re-open military bases there to achieve the stated protective goals. He has said, quite straightforwardly, that having ownership [of Greenland] matters psychologically, and when pushed about whether for the American people or to him, said to him.
If it was ruthless politics in Venezuela it Machado would have been put in place – she has been bending over backwards to try to curry favour with Trump and would have been more clearly willing to make deals with the USA.
No. It’s about getting $1/2bn in Qatari bank accounts from siezed Venezuelan oil under Trump’s control. It’s seeking billions under Trump’s control joining a board of peace. It’s seeking billions for Trump’s family through various cryptocurrency arrangements. It’s seeking billions in real estate deals in Qatar, Gaza and probably elsewhere.
Trump isn’t a ruthless politician, he’s a malignant narcissist who is doing everything in his power to enrich himself, his family and his closest associates (I say associates because I’m not sure he understands the idea of friendship except perhaps when it came to Epstein).
I could be wrong, but the $3bn estimated increase in wealth from his first year back in office may be a larger Presidential enrichment than the sum of all previous Presidents. It’s almost $10m PER DAY. Anyone buying that he’s not in it for money because he didn’t take the $400k Presidents salary has been tricked into looking in entirely the wrong direction. With their hands over their eyes.
Trump represents the apotheosis of the 7 deadly sins made flesh.
You are serioiusly misreading Trump, and understating what he is doing.
It is indeed difficult to characterise the enormity of what is going on. ‘Evil’ doesn’t really do it for me – too sort of religious and abstract. ‘Project 2025’ – which is what Trump is implementing – with added Greenland Venezuela Cuba stuff – was apparently devised by the Thiel’s and some of the other tech bros. These want a ‘post democracy’ world run by a network of big corporations. It will be so ‘technically advanced that no one will be hungry’
It certainly looks like a post modern form of fascism, Nazism. And the rise of the far right across the world is pretty terrifying. ICE apparently have expanded under every recent U.S. government – and seem to be as much SS as Gestapo – roaming around murdering civilians – no proper uniforms, or identification as law enforcement – sort of state sponsored gang violence.
I do think Europe and even UK ‘get it’ in that they have all defined the Greenland takeover as a red line. They can be implacably opposed to it – and yet still do it in measured tones – and not mirror Trump’s ridiculous rhetoric. But I think as you imply Richard they are not ‘getting it’ in opposing the far right generally – notably Starmer being happy to fight on the anti immigrant ground defined by Farage – ‘we are all fascists now’ . So far only Polanski seems to ‘get it’.
But how is the British Establishment going to cope with their own religion ‘the special relationship’ being blown up? We are already seeing protesters being locked up and CIA-Mossad which is admitted to infect MI5 MI6 GCHQ hunting down Chief Constables that don’t tow the line. Could get very nasty before we can extricate ourselves out from being the 51st state /airstrip one.
Trump is resentful, vengeful, impulsive, etc. He believes that he is a force for good. He says that his power is only restrained by his own morality. I don’t believe he knows what he is talking about. He is ruthlessly mistaken. He is incapable to serve as president and those around him need to remove from office.