Was there a cutting of a Greenland cake as 51 states in America?
Executive summary
A video and multiple news reports confirm that guests at a Washington, D.C. gala cut a Greenland-shaped cake iced with an American flag and cheered about it being the “51st state,” with Rep. Anna Paulina Luna shown making the first cut; the moment was widely shared on social media and reported by outlets including The Independent, The Telegraph and ABC News [1] [2] [3]. The incident was presented by participants as celebratory and symbolic amid President Trump’s renewed talk of acquiring Greenland, and it quickly provoked criticism, diplomatic alarm and discussion about political theater [1] [2] [4].
1. What actually happened on the video and who was present
Video posted from a Kennedy Center-era event shows attendees gathered around a cake shaped like Greenland and covered with a U.S. flag while people urged others to “take a picture and cut the cake,” and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna is seen cutting the first slice; other attendees identified in reporting included Reps. Abe Hamadeh and Andy Ogles, and the clip was posted by Republican Michael Casey on X, where a guest can be heard exclaiming “51st state!” as slices are served [1] [2] [5].
2. The symbolic context: why the cake mattered to those present
The cake was served at a one‑year inauguration anniversary gala for the “Republicans for National Renewal,” and reporters linked the stunt directly to President Trump’s remarks in Davos about buying Greenland and recent Republican proposals to change Greenland’s status, including a House bill introduced by Rep. Randy Fine seeking to make Greenland the 51st state—details that frame the cake as political theater tied to an active policy narrative [1] [6] [2].
3. Immediate reactions and the wider diplomatic and political fallout
News outlets recorded a range of responses: some attendees cheered and laughed as the dessert was cut while commentators and foreign officials condemned the gesture as disrespectful to Greenlanders and Danish sovereignty, with commentators and activists characterizing it as a mockery or provocation and noting its potential to become an “international incident” [1] [4] [2]. Reporting also notes that George Simion, a Romanian far‑right leader who appears in some footage cutting the cake, later sought to downplay military implications and affirmed respect for state sovereignty in subsequent comments [7] [8].
4. How the moment was interpreted across outlets and ideologies
Mainstream outlets presented the clip as an outrageous symbolic act linked to talk of annexation (The Independent, The Telegraph, ABC), opinion outlets framed it as emblematic of a broader normalization of imperial rhetoric (New Republic), and niche regional reporting contextualized the gesture within Arctic geopolitics and the sensitivities of Greenland’s autonomous status under Denmark—showing a consensus that the cake was a staged, provocative symbol rather than a policy act [1] [2] [3] [4] [8].
5. What this does — and does not — prove about U.S. policy
The footage proves a public, politically charged symbolic act took place: a Greenland‑shaped, U.S.‑flag‑decorated cake was cut by U.S. congressional figures and allied guests who celebrated it as the “51st state” [1] [2]. Reporting does not show any formal governmental decision to annex Greenland; the incident is documented as theatrical commentary tied to contemporary debate and proposals, not as an official treaty, law, or transfer of sovereignty—sources instead point to speeches, bills and media commentary that frame the stunt amid a larger political storyline [1] [6] [2].
6. Hidden agendas and alternate readings worth noting
The stunt functioned as partisan theater promoting an “America First” narrative and to rally base supporters while tapping into media attention around Trump’s Arctic comments [1] [2]; critics argue it also served opportunistic optics for foreign guests like Romania’s George Simion, whose associations and political positioning were highlighted by commentators as complicating the optics [4] [8]. Coverage shows both deliberate provocation by event organizers and swift defensive spin by participants, underscoring that the episode was meant for spectacle as much as statement [1] [8].