Buying Greenland? Illegal, Unwanted, and Destabilizing

When Donald Trump first proposed purchasing Greenland in 2019 during his first term, the idea was widely dismissed as absurd, ridiculed, and quickly forgotten. In his second term, however, acquiring Greenland appears to have become a serious foreign policy objective. Since returning to office, President Trump has repeatedly asserted that U.S. ownership and control over Greenland is an ‘absolute necessity’, and has refused to rule out the use of force to achieve this goal. These ambitions are illegal and dangerous. The future for Greenland must be determined through a constitutional, democratic process that respects the right to self-determination. American control would pose significant threats not only to global security but also to Greenland’s sovereignty over its natural resources and its unique system of natural resource governance that prioritizes environmental sustainability, social license, and equitable economic benefits for the Greenlandic people.

Imperiality of ‘Getting’ a Territory

Territorial expansion has dominated international relations throughout history. All major empires—Roman, Mongol, Ottoman, Spanish, British, Dutch, French, Russian—sought to enlarge their geographic domain to increase power, wealth, and control, and to fulfill their visions of greatness. Territories were acquired through military conquest, discovery and occupation, settlement, or treaties of cession or purchase. To legalize these practices and regulate conflict with colonized polities and between colonial powers, early modern legal and political thinkers such as Francisco Vitoria, Hugo Grotius, or John Locke developed doctrines like just war, free sea, common ownership of the earth, natural rights, and sovereignty. These ideas became foundational to emerging international law, which facilitated colonial expansion and regulated relations among European states. This legal framework enshrined a system in which law was equated with power, and in which violence, enslavement, dispossession, and exploitation of people and resources were not only permitted but often justified.

The United States entered this imperial game of territorial expansion in the 19th century. Justified by the ideology of Manifest Destiny and enacted in the 1830 Indian Removal Act, the U.S. expanded westward, in a process that involved the forced displacement, dispossession, and ethnic cleansing of Native Americans (see Brown 1971; Blackhawk 2008; Dunabr-Ortiz 2015). The 1823 Monroe Doctrine declared the Americas a sphere of exclusive U.S. influence, pushing out European colonial powers. In this context, the U.S. acquired Louisiana from France (1803), Florida from Spain (1819), and, after the Mexican-American War (1848), purchased a large portion of the American Southwest. Alaska was bought from Russia in 1867, the Philippines from Spain in 1898, and the Danish West Indies (now the U.S. Virgin Islands) from Denmark in 1916. When President Andrew Johnson purchased Alaska in 1867, he also considered acquiring Greenland from Denmark.

New Norms of Territorial Integrity and Self-determination

Curiously, it was the United States that played a major role in delegitimizing the colonial norms of territorial acquisition through military force, treaty, or purchase. In a landmark speech to Congress on January 8, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson introduced his Fourteen Points as principles for rebuilding the postwar world. Invoking the right to self-determination, he called for the dismantling of European empires and the creation of new sovereign states. This principle was further codified in Article 10 of the League of Nations Covenant, which called for the respect of territorial integrity and political independence.

After World War II, the United Nations Charter enshrined sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and non-intervention as foundational norms of international law, explicitly prohibiting the use of force for territorial acquisition. The 1960 UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples further established self-determination as a cornerstone of international justice. These developments rendered the acquisition of territory by force—or even by purchase—not only morally unacceptable but also legally invalid.

The postwar decolonization process became the largest geopolitical realignment in modern history. While not always smooth and consensual, it solidified the global consensus that the forcible or commercial acquisition of territory is incompatible with international law. The United States, which had previously expanded through such means, became a prominent supporter of decolonization, encouraging European withdrawal from their colonies. The U.S. granted independence to the Philippines in 1946. That same year, President Truman secretly offered to purchase Greenland for $100 million. Instead of a sale, the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark concluded the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement to support NATO’s collective security. This agreement is significant for two reasons: first, it affirmed Danish sovereignty over Greenland; second, it granted the U.S. broad authority to pursue military objectives on Greenlandic territory. A 2004 amendment further authorized the U.S. to establish and operate ‘defense areas’ for NATO purposes, without prejudice to Danish sovereignty.

Denmark and Greenland: From Colonial Rule to Autonomy

Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland dates to 1721, when Danish-Norwegian missionary Hans Egede arrived and ‘discovered’ the island—despite Inuit communities having lived there for over 4,500 years. Since then, Denmark has exercised authority over Greenland, a claim largely uncontested by other nations, including the United States. While externally recognized, Danish control must be critically examined as a colonial relationship marked by political and economic domination and cultural suppression—including forcible Christianization of the indigenous people, the settlement of Danish nationals, and strict economic control. Denmark established economic monopolies over Greenland’s natural exports—train oil, sealskin, narwhal tusks, whale bones, and fox furs—while also controlling imports for both settlers and the indigenous population.

Following Denmark’s entry into the United Nations in 1945, it listed Greenland as a non-self-governing territory under Article 73 of the UN Charter, committing to promote the political, social, and economic advancement of the territory. However, in 1953, Denmark unilaterally integrated Greenland into the kingdom, a move seen by many as an act of annexation. Subsequent reforms in the 1950s and 1960s—referred to as ‘danisation’—included urbanization, educational restructuring, and forced sterilization programs. These policies disrupted indigenous people’s lifeways, language, and traditional subsistence practices (hunting) and have been described by some scholars as cultural genocide (Petersen 1995; Kingston 2015; Jimenez Barca 2025).

Greenland’s path toward autonomy began in the late 1970s as part of a global trend recognizing indigenous rights and a regional movement advocating for the recognition of Arctic indigenous communities. The Home Rule Act of 1979 established a legislative assembly and an executive government for Greenland. This process was further advanced by the Self-Government Act of 2009, which recognized Greenlanders as a distinct people entitled to self-determination and granted them expanded authority over internal affairs, including control of natural resources. Under this legal framework, full independence is possible through a democratic process involving negotiations between Greenland and Denmark, approval by the Greenlandic Parliament, a referendum in Greenland, and final consent from the Danish Parliament, as stipulated by Section 19 of the Danish Constitution.

Greenland is on a path toward independence. In 2023, a government-appointed commission released a draft constitution for an independent Greenland. Although still under public discussion, the draft reflects a strong political and societal will to move beyond colonial legacies. Former premier Múte B. Egede, in his 2025 New Year’s address, referred to the effort as an attempt to cast off the ‘shackles of colonialism’. In recent years, the polls indicated a majority support for independence in the future, although opinions remain divided on the timing and potential impact on living standards that a break from Denmark might entail. In response to Donald Trump’s renewed interest in purchasing Greenland, Greenland’s parliament issued a firm statement asserting that the island’s future must be determined solely by its inhabitants. Greenland’s politicians have consistently rejected any suggestion that Greenland is for sale. The United States’ aggressive rhetoric has galvanized public opposition to American acquisition efforts, intensified skepticism toward U.S. intentions. These threats also reinvigorated ties to Copenhagen, as many Greenlanders viewed Danish protection as a buffer against foreign pressure. At the same time, U.S. actions strengthened pro-independence sentiment and gave renewed momentum to Greenland’s nation-building aspirations.

Two Risks: Global Security and Resource Sovereignty

There are two key areas in which the risks of Trump’s efforts to assert control over Greenland are particularly pronounced: global security and natural resource extraction.

Due to its geostrategic location as a gateway to the Arctic, Greenland has long been central to U.S. geopolitical and security interests ranging from missile defense and space surveillance to Arctic access and monitoring the GIUK gap, a critical naval choke point for tracking Russian military movements. The U.S. has maintained a military presence in Greenland since World War II. Under the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement and its 2004 amendment mentioned above, the U.S. is authorized to build and operate military installations, including the Pituffik Space Base, which plays a vital role in missile defense and space surveillance within NATO’s Arctic strategy.

Historically, U.S., Danish, and Greenlandic security interests have aligned. As a founding NATO member, Denmark supports U.S. operations in the region and recently announced a $1.5 billion defense investment package to bolster its presence in Greenland. Greenland’s 2024 defense strategy underscores its importance to U.S. security while signaling a growing local role in Arctic defense, including continued support for the Sirius Patrol (a special military dog-sled patrol) and ambitions to establish a nonmilitary coast guard. Given these overlapping interests, the U.S. can meet its strategic goals in Greenland without altering the political status quo. Continued cooperation sustains regional stability and upholds the rules-based international order. Any attempt to seize Greenland by force would not only violate international norms of territorial integrity and non-aggression—already under strain following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—but would also constitute an attack on a NATO ally, potentially collapsing the alliance and triggering global instability.

The second major risk concerns Greenland’s vast mineral wealth and the extraction of critical minerals and rare earth elements essential to strategic sectors such as defense, renewable energy, and digital technologies. Greenland is the world’s twelfth-largest country by area, covering over 2.1 million km², with an additional 895,541 km² claimed as continental shelf. Together, these areas represent immense untapped natural resources. As climate change accelerates ice retreat, more of Greenland’s mineral deposits become accessible, intensifying global competition. Both the U.S. and the EU have expressed strong interest in securing access, and the U.S. has already signed a strategic mineral cooperation agreement with Greenland.

Since the 1979 Home Rule Act, Greenland has gained increasing control over its natural resources. The 2009 Self-Government Act granted full authority over its natural wealth and extractive sector. In response, Greenland has developed a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework designed to ensure that resource development aligns with environmental protection, public health, and community welfare. The Mineral Resources Act from 2010, supported by institutions such as the Mineral License and Safety Authority and Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, prioritizes sustainability, social licensing, and the fair distribution of benefits. Requirements include social impact assessments and plans to establish a Greenland Mining Fund to ensure long-term economic gains for Greenlandic society. While the U.S. remains a potential partner in extractive development, any future cooperation must respect Greenland’s sovereignty and governance systems. However, the aggressive pro-fossil fuel agenda carried out by Trump’s current administration—marked by withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and environmental deregulation—stands in stark contrast to Greenland’s sustainable development priorities. Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” rhetoric suggests that U.S. control over Greenland could be used to bypass local environmental regulations, reviving colonial patterns of resource exploitation that bring minimal local benefit while imposing significant environmental and social costs.

Conclusion

Trump’s renewed efforts to “get” Greenland reflect an imperial approach to international relations—one that treats territory as property to be acquired for strategic and economic gain, regardless of legality or the will of its people. Such ambitions violate core principles of international law, including self-determination, human rights, territorial integrity, and the prohibition of aggression. Trump’s hyper-realist rhetoric of territorial acquisition signals a rejection of the international rule of law and the pursuit of negotiated, mutually beneficial solutions in favor of a zero-sum logic of power assertion and narrow national interest. This is especially troubling at a time when the world faces urgent shared challenges—from climate change and environmental degradation to AI governance, global health, poverty, and security. Upholding the rules-based international order is more critical than ever to ensure global stability, cooperation, and justice.

Foto von Freepik