Trump on Greenland
Donald Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland—first floated in 2019 and revived aggressively in early 2025—has now become one of the most unusual and destabilizing geopolitical disputes of his presidency. By February 2026, the White House continues to insist that “all options” remain on the table, ranging from economic pressure on Denmark to direct financial incentives for Greenlanders. Trump has repeatedly called U.S. control of Greenland “essential,” threatened tariffs on Danish exports, and refused to rule out taking the island “the hard way.”
Danish and Greenlandic leaders have responded with rare unity. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens‑Frederik Nielsen has reiterated that “Greenland is for Greenlanders,” while Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has dismissed the idea of a sale as “not up for discussion.” Public opinion remains overwhelmingly opposed: a January 2026 poll found 85% of Greenlanders reject joining the United States.
To understand what might happen next, it helps to look at Greenland through three analytical lenses: distributive justice, territorial sovereignty, and shared sovereignty in the 21st century.
1. Greenland Is a People, Not a Real‑Estate Asset
Greenland’s 57,000 residents—mostly Inuit—have their own culture, language, and political aspirations. The 2009 Self‑Government Act grants them wide autonomy over internal affairs and natural resources, while Denmark retains foreign policy and defense.
Any forced change of sovereignty would violate:
- Greenland’s legal status under the 2009 Act
- The principle of self‑determination in international law
- The requirement that Greenlanders themselves must approve any change in status
International law is unambiguous: territory cannot be transferred without the consent of the people who live there.
2. Why a Forced Takeover Would Be Illegal and Unworkable
A U.S. takeover faces three major obstacles:
Normative (law and legitimacy)
- The UN Charter prohibits the use of force to seize territory.
- Self‑determination requires a free and genuine expression of Greenlandic will.
- Coerced treaties are invalid under the Vienna Convention.
Factual (control on the ground)
The U.S. already operates Pituffik Space Base under a 1951 agreement, but expanding that into territorial control would require occupation — something Greenlanders and Denmark would resist.
Axiological (identity and values)
Greenlanders overwhelmingly identify as Inuit, not Danish or American. Polls consistently show support for autonomy or independence, not annexation.
3. What the U.S. Could Actually Try in 2026
A formal annexation is unrealistic. But the U.S. could pursue de facto control through:
- Economic pressure on Denmark, including tariffs or threats to NATO funding
- A “free association” model, similar to U.S. relationships with the Marshall Islands or Palau
- Heavy investment in mining, creating economic dependence
This would not be annexation, but a form of neo‑colonial shared sovereignty—appearing voluntary while structurally unequal.
4. Possible Outcomes (as of February 2026)
A. Greenlandic resistance and a push for independence
If U.S. pressure intensifies, Greenlanders may accelerate their long‑standing independence movement. Independence would be economically difficult—Denmark’s annual block grant is 25% of Greenland’s GDP—but outside powers (China, Russia) would quickly step in, destabilizing the Arctic.
B. Danish capitulation under U.S. pressure
Denmark is economically vulnerable to U.S. tariffs. A compromise expanding U.S. basing rights is possible, but would trigger backlash in both Denmark and Greenland. The result could be a U.S. protectorate in all but name.
C. Stalemate and rising tension (still the most likely scenario)
The most probable short‑term outcome remains continued tension without formal change. Greenland rejects any deal, Denmark refuses to sell, and Trump escalates rhetoric but stops short of military action. Meanwhile:
- Russia expands its Arctic presence
- China offers infrastructure and mining partnerships
- NATO struggles to maintain unity
The long‑term risk is that Greenlanders, frustrated by economic stagnation and external pressure, eventually vote for independence, creating a new contested micro‑state in a warming Arctic.
5. A Better Path: Shared, Limited, and Just Sovereignty
In my 2023 work on cosmopolitanism and sovereignty, I argue that modern sovereignty is increasingly shared and plural, not absolute. Greenland could become a model for this:
- Greenlanders hold the decisive voice
- Denmark retains symbolic ties
- The U.S. gains legitimate strategic access through transparent agreements
- Mineral wealth benefits the local population
Anything else—coercion, purchase without consent, or occupation—would repeat a long history of powerful states treating small peoples as bargaining chips.
The Real Lesson
Territorial disputes are never just about land. They are about people, justice, identity, and fairness. Greenlanders remind us that sovereignty is a living relationship between a people and their place. Any solution that ignores that relationship will create conflict, not stability.
Previous post pertaining to Greenland (2025 and 2026)
AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):
State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)
AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:
Thursday 12th February 2026
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World
No comments:
Post a Comment