Summary of Dear Ambassador

Overview of Dear Ambassador (The Dispatch roundtable)

This episode of The Dispatch Podcast (Roundtable) discusses three main items: the authenticated letter President Trump sent about Greenland to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre (via a “Dear Ambassador” message); what the episode participants see as the broader threats to NATO, U.S. credibility, and transatlantic relations; and a two-piece conversation about the state (or possible end) of the conservative movement. The show closes with a brief “Not Worth Your Time” segment on an apparent wave of NFL head‑coach departures. Guests: Steve Hayes (host), Jonah Goldberg, Mike Warren, and Declan Garvey.

Greenland letter, U.S. rhetoric, and immediate diplomatic fallout

• What happened

  • A letter/text President Trump sent to Jonas Gahr Støre (Norwegian PM) was published and authenticated. It asserted Trump’s frustration at not receiving a Nobel Peace Prize and argued the U.S. should have “complete and total control of Greenland.” The message questioned Danish sovereignty arguments and suggested the U.S. has done more for NATO than anyone since its founding.
  • The administration followed with trade measures: a 10% tariff on several European countries (including Denmark, the UK, France) and a 25% tariff threatened if the Greenland dispute isn’t “resolved” by June.

• Key reactions on the podcast

  • Tone and seriousness: Hosts grappled with whether the behavior is best described as narcissistic, solipsistic, or insane; consensus that it’s dangerously unfit for the presidency regardless of label.
  • Legal/political concerns: Threatening force or coercive measures against allied sovereign territory was described as dishonorable, illegal in effect, and a grave misuse of presidential power. Several speakers argued Congress should reassert authority if the administration uses emergency tariff powers or other unilateral tools.
  • Diplomacy and optics: The episode emphasized how the rhetoric undermines U.S. credibility and could fracture NATO or invite punitive EU measures in response.

• European and international reactions

  • France (Emmanuel Macron) reportedly explored invoking an EU “anti‑coercion” instrument (never used before) to counteract U.S. economic coercion—potentially tariffs, curbs on U.S. investment, or other retaliatory measures.
  • Moscow and Russian officials (including Kirill Dmitriev and Putin commentary) were portrayed as welcoming the chaos—seeing U.S. moves as useful to Russian narratives and goals (weakening NATO).

• Practical strategic point

  • Hosts argued there is no compelling national‑security case presented for seizing Greenland: existing bases, alliances, and treaties could satisfy military needs without territorial acquisition. The message looked like legacy‑seeking real‑estate-minded thinking rather than sober strategy.

• Notable quotes from the episode

  • The letter’s own line that provoked reaction: “The world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland.”
  • On motives: “He cannot make a distinction between his personal wants and what is good,” (Jonah Goldberg).
  • On coercion: “By putting a gun to the heads of the UK and our other allies… the threat of the use of force is really dishonorable and appalling.” (panel discussion)

NATO, alliances, and the risk of systemic damage

• Is the Greenland push an attack on NATO?

  • Panel view: Trump likely isn’t executing a master plan to “destroy NATO,” but he doesn’t care if his moves weaken or discredit it. Even if territorial grab isn’t the primary goal, the byproducts threaten alliance cohesion and trust.
  • Historical context: Trump’s repeated past threats to withdraw from NATO and frequent framing of allies as “freeloaders” have already strained the alliance; this episode argued the Greenland episode compounds that damage.

• Congressional, legal, and institutional safeguards

  • Concern that Congress has ceded too much authority and might fail to check tariff or emergency powers. Panelists called for congressional pushback and implied potential judicial limits or political remedies (e.g., courts, a reassertion of statutory limits).

• What to watch

  • Whether EU invokes anti‑coercion measures and what retaliatory economic steps it pursues.
  • Congressional pushback on tariff/emergency authority.
  • Any further direct threats, troop movements, or military planning tied to Greenland.

The conservative movement: “Beware the new Americanism” and Douthat’s “end of conservatism”

• Two pieces under discussion

  • Jonah Goldberg: “Beware the New Americanism” — warns about a rising ethno‑nationalist strain on the right, citing propaganda‑style messaging (e.g., Department of Labor video banners) and the National Conservative (NatCon) movement’s appeals to “heritage” as exclusionary.
  • Ross Douthat (NYT): argued conservatism’s institutional house is decaying and that Trump’s presidencies have been destructive rather than reconstructive—leaving a contested post‑conservative field.

• Panel perspectives and synthesis

  • Jonah: Warns that parts of the right are normalizing ethno‑nationalist, “anti‑anti‑fascist” rhetoric and that this damages conservatism’s intellectual and political credibility.
  • Mike: Agrees many institutions of old‑school conservatism have been weakened, but thinks the movement’s ideas (free markets, constitutionalism, alliances) still have staying power and political viability; believes Trumpism may be ephemeral and that conservatism can be rebuilt.
  • Declan: Emphasizes that the political marketplace will decide; current nationalism/Trumpism is losing traction in some polling and events (e.g., Minneapolis reaction), but institutions must fight to preserve conservative ideas.
  • General view: The conservative ecosystem is in flux—some see the end of the old institutional conservative order, others see cyclical renewal possible if these ideas are defended and argued for effectively.

• Political implications

  • The movement’s future will shape 2028+ GOP primaries; contestants will have to choose whether to adopt nationalist/ethnic appeals or return to classical conservative/market‑oriented arguments.
  • The panel stressed that playing footsie with extremist elements is both immoral and poor politics for long‑term majority building.

Not Worth Your Time: NFL coaching turnover trend

• Observations

  • This week’s segment notes an unusual number of long‑tenured or successful coaches leaving or being fired: examples discussed include Mike Tomlin (Pittsburgh), John Harbaugh (Baltimore), Sean McDermott (Buffalo), Kevin Stefanski (Cleveland), among others.
  • The theme: Owners appear to be less tolerant of consistent competence without a Super Bowl championship—“Super Bowl wins or bust” mentality.

• Explanations offered

  • Cycle and alignment: Many firings might be coincidental (contracts, ownership impatience) and can create market dynamics that trigger more moves.
  • Owners’ impatience and desire for a championship: Winning a Super Bowl is the ultimate metric; extended playoff setbacks can be fatal even for historically strong coaches.
  • Historical reality: Long tenures without a title are statistically unlikely to convert into championships as time goes on—teams sometimes opt for a reset.

• Bottom line

  • The current season’s coaching carousel may partly reflect broader impatience among owners and a unique alignment of bad seasons and contract situations, not necessarily a permanent new norm—though owners’ demands for immediate success are clearly rising.

Main takeaways and action items (what to watch next)

• Immediate diplomatic and policy flashpoints

  • Watch for EU/France invocation of anti‑coercion measures and any retaliatory tariffs or investment curbs.
  • Monitor Congressional action: will lawmakers reclaim or constrain emergency tariff authority and push back on threats to allies?
  • Track White House defenses (policy papers, national security rationales) — absence of a credible national‑security case undercuts administration claims.

• Strategic and political implications

  • The Greenland episode may further erode U.S. alliance credibility and embolden adversaries’ propaganda (Russia framing this as U.S. hypocrisy).
  • Within the GOP, watch which 2028‑era political figures align with ethno‑nationalist messaging vs. those who defend classical conservative institutions; this will shape the party’s medium‑term trajectory.

• Cultural/institutional watchlist

  • Monitor conservative institutions (think tanks, journals, staffing moves) and the rise of National Conservative networks—these groups will influence the intellectual future of the right.
  • For sports fans: expect ongoing churn in NFL coaching jobs; keep an eye on front‑office strategies and how championship expectations shape hiring/firing.

If you want a quick, one‑sentence summary: the episode frames the Greenland episode as a dangerous mix of personal ego and coercive diplomacy that risks real alliance damage, uses it as a lens to reassess conservative institutions under strain, and ends with a lighter note about rising impatience in pro‑football coaching decisions.