Introduction
The growing significance of the Arctic region in security, economic, and geopolitical calculations has transformed Greenland into one of the emerging focal points of competition and attention among major powers. The geographical position of this territory, its natural and mineral resources, its role in defense systems and military early-warning mechanisms, and its proximity to strategic Arctic routes have caused Greenland’s future to extend beyond its internal relations with Denmark and become a matter of broader international concern.
Against this backdrop, the claims made by the administration of Donald Trump regarding the necessity of controlling, purchasing, or expanding the presence of the United States in Greenland have moved this issue from the realm of a geopolitical question to a field involving serious legal and political debates. These developments have gained particular significance from the perspective of the relationship between the security interests of major powers and the fundamental principles of international law.
The right to self-determination, permanent sovereignty over natural resources, territorial integrity, and the limits of legitimate foreign intervention and external pressure are among the most important concepts raised in relation to this case. On the other hand, Greenland’s distinctive status within the structure of the Kingdom of Denmark, as well as the extensive self-government system enjoyed by its people, means that any discussion concerning a change in the political status of this territory is directly linked to the will of its population.
More broadly, this case represents a test of the extent to which states remain committed to the principles of sovereignty, popular consent, and the right of peoples to determine their own political and economic future.
Incidents
Following the purchase of Alaska by the United States in 1867, William Seward, the then U.S. Secretary of State, also explored the idea of acquiring Greenland. In 1910, a proposal for a territorial exchange with Denmark was also put forward. The most significant official effort took place in 1946, when the administration of Harry Truman proposed purchasing Greenland for 100 million dollars in gold, linking the strategic importance of the territory to U.S. security interests at the beginning of the Cold War[1].
The issue of Greenland during Donald Trump’s second presidency evolved from a longstanding idea of “purchasing” the territory into a specific component of U.S. foreign and security policy. Trump, who had once again described control over Greenland as essential for U.S. national security in late 2024, intensified his position in January 2026 and refused to rule out the use of certain pressure tools.
On 17 January 2026, he announced that if eight European countries did not support U.S. efforts to acquire Greenland, he would impose tariffs ranging from 10 to 25 percent on their goods. In a post on the social media platform Truth Social, Trump stated that, beginning on 1 February, an additional 10 percent tariff would be imposed on imports from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, and the United Kingdom. All of these countries had already been subject to tariffs imposed by Trump[2].
However, on 21 January, during the World Economic Forum in Davos, he stepped back from the tariff threats. At the same time, Trump called for immediate negotiations and, following discussions with Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary General, spoke of the emergence of a framework for a future agreement concerning Greenland and the entire Arctic region[3].
From spring 2026 onward, the U.S. administration’s focus shifted increasingly toward expanding its security and military presence in Greenland. On 12 May, Greenland’s Prime Minister confirmed that increasing the U.S. military presence, including the establishment or reactivation of new military facilities, was among the issues discussed in negotiations with Washington, while the United States already operates the Pituffik Space Base in the territory.
Referring to Trump’s interest in controlling Greenland, Jens-Frederik Nielsen stated: “That desire has not disappeared, and we have to reach some kind of agreement in that working group, and I am confident that we can resolve it.[4]”
In the following months, discussions between the United States, Denmark, and Greenland continued, and Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State, also stated that negotiations were proceeding regularly. Nevertheless, this diplomatic process did not result in the abandonment of Trump’s broader objective, as Rubio explicitly stated that he agreed with Trump that existing arrangements regarding the deployment of U.S. forces in Greenland were insufficient and that defending the territory would be easier through ownership of the land itself[5].
Subsequently, on 7 July 2026, during the NATO Summit in Ankara, Trump once again explicitly stated that Greenland should be under U.S. control rather than Danish control, linking this position to security concerns and Russian and Chinese activities in the Arctic region[6].
Two days later, on 9 July 2026, reports indicated that Jeff Landry, Trump’s special envoy for Greenland affairs, had presented the President with a series of proposals aimed at establishing a stronger U.S. presence in the territory. These proposals included increasing military personnel and reactivating U.S. bases. He also proposed the creation of direct shipping routes and commercial flights, the establishment of a joint investment fund, and the expansion of educational, cultural, and public diplomacy cooperation between the United States and Greenland[7].
Furthermore, on 8 August 2026, it was reported that the U.S. company Greenland Energy, which has links to several figures close to Trump, had transferred exploratory drilling equipment to the Jameson Land area without obtaining final authorization. In response, the Greenlandic government warned that any logistical activities and drilling operations must receive prior approval from the relevant mineral resources authorities[8].
Overall, considering the aforementioned developments, the Trump administration’s policy has pursued two parallel tracks: on the one hand, negotiations aimed at strengthening the U.S. security and military presence within the framework of existing arrangements; and on the other hand, maintaining Trump’s political demand for broader control over Greenland.
Challenges and Responses
- Violation of the Right to Self-Determination
The right to self-determination is one of the fundamental principles of international law, recognized in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Under this principle, all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status[9].
This principle holds particular importance in the case of Greenland, as the Greenland Self-Government Act of 2009 explicitly recognizes the people of Greenland as “a people pursuant to international law, possessing the right of self-determination[10].” Furthermore, Article 21 of the same Act provides that any decision regarding Greenland’s independence must be made by the people of Greenland themselves[11].
From this perspective, the Trump administration’s proposal for the transfer of sovereignty, acquisition of ownership, or exercise of political and security control over Greenland—if pursued without the free consent of its people—would conflict with the nature of this right. This is because determining Greenland’s political status cannot be regarded solely as a matter to be decided through agreements between foreign governments.
Legal analyses have likewise emphasized that, under contemporary international law, the transfer of sovereignty over Greenland without the consent of its people would lack legitimacy. Any decision concerning a fundamental change in Greenland’s political status must be undertaken with the participation and consent of its population and within the framework of existing legal mechanisms[12].
- The Principle of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources and the Challenges of External Control over Greenland’s Resources
The right of peoples to freely benefit from and dispose of their wealth and natural resources constitutes part of the right to self-determination under international law. Article 1 common to the two International Human Rights Covenants stipulates that all peoples may freely utilize their wealth and natural resources for their own purposes and must not be deprived of their means of subsistence[13].
This principle was further consolidated through United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII) on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, adopted in 1962, which emphasizes the obligation of states and international organizations to respect the sovereignty of peoples over their wealth and natural resources[14].
In the case of Greenland, the importance of this right is even greater, as mineral and energy resources are among the areas where, under the self-government system, significant decision-making authority has been transferred to the local Greenlandic government through the Ministry of Science and Environment and the Ministry of Mineral Resources[15].
Accordingly, any external attempt to acquire, control, or exploit oil, gas, rare earth elements, or other resources of this territory, if undertaken without the consent and free decision-making of the people and institutions of Greenland, may conflict with the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources.
This issue is particularly significant given that the potential value of Greenland’s natural resources has been identified in the discourse of certain officials and actors close to the Trump administration as one of the motivations behind expanding U.S. presence in the territory.
- Domestic Reactions
The Arctic Institute, an independent think tank based in Washington, D.C., examined the Trump administration’s claims regarding the necessity of acquiring Greenland in a report entitled “Purchasing Greenland: Trump’s Fantasy or a Real National Security Stake for the United States?”
The report emphasizes that Trump’s policy has faced significant and bipartisan opposition within the United States. According to opinion polls, only 8 percent of Americans supported acquiring Greenland through military force, while 73 percent opposed such a measure.
In addition, a number of Republican and Democratic lawmakers have challenged Trump’s position. Mike Johnson, the Republican Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, described the President’s threats regarding Greenland as completely inappropriate.
Furthermore, a bipartisan delegation of members of Congress visited Copenhagen and emphasized the importance of preserving relations between the United States and Denmark.
At the analytical level, the report also questions the persuasiveness of the security arguments presented in favor of establishing U.S. sovereignty over Greenland. It notes that, under the 1951 Defense Agreement, Washington already has extensive capabilities for maintaining its presence and expanding military capacity in Greenland. Therefore, direct U.S. sovereignty over the territory does not represent a clear security necessity[16].
On 14 July 2026, Democratic Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts criticized the energy policies of the Trump administration during a roundtable discussion on the future of the U.S. energy workforce. Markey stated that Trump had “declared war on energy against Iran, declared war on energy against Venezuela, and wants to declare war on energy against Greenland.”
He further argued that the Trump administration had also taken domestic actions against energy projects along the U.S. East Coast, projects that, according to him, provide a significant share of union jobs. These remarks were made during a meeting in which Democratic senators and labor union leaders criticized the reduction of investment in clean energy, the suspension of certain projects, and the loss of employment opportunities as a result of the Trump administration’s policies[17].
Conversely, on 29 May 2026, Democratic Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, following her return from a trip to the Arctic region as part of a bipartisan U.S. Senate delegation, emphasized the importance of strengthening the United States’ presence in the region through cooperation with NATO allies.
The delegation, led by Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski and Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen, visited Canada, Norway, Iceland, and the Pituffik Space Base in Greenland. Cortez Masto highlighted the growing importance of the Arctic in areas such as satellites, radar systems, and missile warning mechanisms, and expressed concern over the expanding military, maritime, and energy capabilities of Russia and China in the region.
She stressed that a strong U.S. presence in the Arctic, in partnership with NATO allies, is necessary for the national security and economic interests of the United States. The Senate delegation also emphasized, during meetings with officials from regional countries, the importance of the NATO alliance and strengthening relations with Canada, Norway, Iceland, and Greenland based on mutual respect and cooperation[18].
Finally, on 22 January 2026, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) examined the implications of the Trump administration’s Greenland policy for Congress in a report entitled “Greenland, Denmark, and U.S. Relations.”
The nonpartisan congressional institution stated that the administration’s intensified efforts to place Greenland under U.S. control had placed longstanding Washington–Copenhagen relations under pressure, become a source of disagreement with European partners, and raised concerns regarding potential consequences for NATO.
The report also indicated that opposition to this policy within Congress had extended to legislative initiatives, including proposals to restrict the use of federal funds for exercising control over the territory of a NATO member and another proposal to prohibit the allocation of funds for purchasing the territory of a NATO member or a territory under NATO protection.
The institution further noted that Congress could use legislative and oversight tools to evaluate the administration’s justifications for acquiring Greenland and to limit the range of policy options available to the executive branch[19].
- International Reactions
On 8 July 2026, in response to Trump’s repeated claim that Greenland must be controlled by the United States, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stated that her country was prepared to defend “every inch of NATO territory,” including the territory of the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenland. She once again emphasized that Greenland was not for sale.
On the same day, Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen rejected Trump’s statements, saying that repeated demands for the acquisition or control of Greenland would not alter Greenland’s position.
At the same time, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Denmark’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, stated that Copenhagen would continue pursuing a diplomatic solution with the United States and Greenland that would both respect the red lines of the Kingdom of Denmark and address Washington’s legitimate security concerns.
He suggested that this objective could potentially be achieved through an expansion of the 1951 Defense Agreement between Denmark and the United States, which already provides Washington with extensive military access to Greenland[20].
On 26 June 2026, Reuters reported that NATO members had sought to strengthen their defensive capabilities in the Arctic through an initiative known as “Arctic Sentry”. This initiative was developed, among other purposes, in response to U.S. security concerns and to reduce pressure from the Trump administration regarding the acquisition of Greenland.
The plan includes increasing military exercises, strengthening maritime and aerial surveillance, developing Arctic infrastructure, and investing in submarines, icebreakers, drones, and satellite systems. European countries and Canada have sought, through increased defense cooperation, to demonstrate that the security of Greenland and the Arctic can be ensured within the framework of collective NATO defense, without any change in territorial sovereignty.
At the same time, concerns among European allies regarding Trump’s claims over Greenland and the possibility of reduced U.S. military commitments in Europe continued to persist[21].
Earlier, on 6 January 2026, the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Denmark, in the Joint Statement on Greenland, emphasized that Arctic security is one of Europe’s fundamental priorities and an integral part of international and transatlantic security.
Referring to the role of NATO and the increasing presence and investment of European allies in the region, they stated that the Kingdom of Denmark, including Greenland, is part of NATO. The statement emphasized that Arctic security must be ensured collectively and in cooperation with NATO allies, including the United States, while respecting the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
The European leaders specifically highlighted sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the inviolability of borders as universal principles and declared that they would defend these principles. They also described the United States as an important partner in ensuring regional security. However, they explicitly stated that Greenland belongs to its people and that only Denmark and Greenland have the right to decide matters concerning the status and future of the territory[22].
On 17 January 2026, Jonas Gahr Støre, the Prime Minister of Norway, responded to the threats concerning Greenland raised by Donald Trump by stating that such threats were unacceptable and had no place in relations among NATO allies.
He emphasized that Norway’s position on this issue had not changed and that Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Støre also expressed Norway’s clear support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark as its neighboring country and welcomed the discussions between the United States and Denmark that had been agreed upon during the same week.
At the same time, he noted that there was broad agreement among NATO members, including the United States, regarding the need to strengthen security in the Arctic region, including Greenland[23].
Within another influential European government in the region, namely the United Kingdom, Yvette Cooper, the then Foreign Secretary, outlined the British government’s position on Greenland and Arctic security in a statement delivered to the House of Commons on 19 January 2026.
She emphasized that Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and that its future should only be determined by the people of Greenland and Denmark. According to her, this principle reflects the fundamental foundations of sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Cooper also described Donald Trump’s threat to impose a 10 percent tariff on several European countries because of their positions on Greenland as entirely incorrect, unjustified, and harmful.
While acknowledging the growing importance of Arctic security and the threats arising from Russian activities, she stressed that these challenges should be managed through transatlantic cooperation and within the framework of NATO.
The British Foreign Secretary stated that enduring alliances are based on respect and partnership, not pressure, and that threatening sovereignty or using economic coercion against allies undermines collective Western security[24].
Conclusion
The Greenland case demonstrates that, in the contemporary international order, the geopolitical and security considerations of major powers can still come into conflict with the fundamental principles of international law. Although the Trump administration’s argument regarding the strategic importance of Greenland relies on security concerns arising from Chinese and Russian influence in the Arctic and broader great-power competition, these considerations cannot replace the fundamental right of the people of Greenland to determine their own political status.
Ultimately, the central question is who possesses the authority to decide Greenland’s future.
At the same time, developments surrounding Greenland demonstrate that even amid increasing geopolitical competition, the legitimacy of state actions remains dependent on their adherence to principles such as sovereignty, popular consent, and respect for international rules.
Addressing Arctic security concerns through multilateral cooperation and existing defense arrangements can be compatible with the international legal order. However, transforming these concerns into claims of territorial control raises serious questions about the future of the rules-based international system and the position of the right to self-determination in relation to the will of major powers.
References
[1] Rico, R. (2026, January 7). Trump’s Greenland push revives a long US interest. The Associated Press. From: https://apnews.com/article/us-greenland-denmark-history-trump-b5e10babd57ae8ab4069e52df09d91df
[2] Reuters. (2026, January 17). Trump Vows Tariffs on Eight European Nations Over Greenland. GV Wire. From: https://gvwire.com/2026/01/17/trump-vows-tariffs-on-eight-european-nations-over-greenland/
[3] Deutsch, A., & Gray, A., & Bayer, L., & Irish, J. (2026, January 22). ‘Trump whisperer’ Rutte steers NATO around Greenland crisis. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/trump-whisperer-rutte-steers-nato-around-greenland-crisis-2026-01-22/
[4] Jacobsen, S., & Jeppesen, S. (2026, May 12). Greenland’s leader says US military presence part of talks with Trump’s diplomats. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/greenlands-leader-says-us-military-presence-part-talks-with-trumps-diplomats-2026-05-12/
[5] Reuters. (2026, June 3). Rubio: Greenland talks continue, ‘in a good place’. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/rubio-greenland-talks-continue-in-good-place-2026-06-03/
[6] Reuters. (2026, July 7). Trump reiterates at NATO summit that Greenland should be controlled by US, not Denmark. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-says-greenland-should-be-controlled-by-us-not-denmark-2026-07-07/
[7] LaRose, G. (2026, July 9). Gov. Landry offers priorities for Trump’s Greenland pursuit. States Newsroom. From: https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/gov-landry-offers-priorities-trumps-greenland-pursuit
[8] Burgis, T. (2026, August 8). Greenland issues ‘strong warning’ as Trump-linked oil firm prepares to drill. The Guardian. From: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/08/greenland-iwarning-trump-linked-oil-firm-prepares-drill
[9] OROFA. (1966, December 16). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). OROFA. From: https://2covenants.ohchr.org/About-ICESCR.html
[10] Weller, M. (2026, January 23). If Trump’s ‘framework’ Greenland agreement relies on creating ‘sovereign’ bases, it would bring long-term legal issues. Chatham House. From: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/01/if-trumps-framework-greenland-agreement-based-creating-sovereign-bases-it-would-bring-long
[11] Government of Denmark. (2009). Act on Greenland Self-Government (Act No. 473 of 12 June 2009). Retsinformation. From: https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2009/473
[12] Hossain, K. (2026). Greenland’s Legal Status in International Law: Beyond Contemporary Geopolitical Dynamics Amid President Trump’s Vision. International Community Law Review. 1–22. From: https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-bja10183
[13] United Nations Economic and Social Council. (2012, July 6). Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Second periodic report submitted by China under articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant (E/C.12/CHN/2). Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. From: https://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=d0YPNXWd2UtTtoAJqA6Ki%2F81ZQqPGcHdKKyIY9Oatu94qkwbR74cSS7t4CUHdtBZUXXqFP4%2BJ9%2BuUwtEcT5Rcg%3D%3D
[14] United Nations General Assembly. (1962, December 14). Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (Resolution 1803 (XVII)). United Nations. From: https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/ga_1803/ga_1803.html
[15] Government of Greenland. (n.d). Organizational Structure. Government of Greenland. From: https://govmin.gl/about-us/organizational-structure/
[16] Lasserre, F. (n.d). Purchasing Greenland Trump’s fantasy or a real national security stake for the United States. The Arctic Institute. From: https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Purchasing-Greenland-report.pdf
[17] Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (2026, July 15). VIDEO: Heinrich, Schatz, Senate Democrats Host Roundtable with Labor Leaders to Discuss the Future of the Energy Workforce. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. From: https://www.energy.senate.gov/2026/7/video-heinrich-schatz-senate-democrats-host-roundtable-with-labor-leaders-to-discuss-the-future-of-the-energy-workforce
[18] Catherine Cortez Masto. (2026, May 29). READOUT: Cortez Masto Joins Bipartisan Senate Delegation to the Arctic. Catherine Cortez Masto. From: https://www.cortezmasto.senate.gov/news/press-releases/readout-cortez-masto-joins-bipartisan-senate-delegation-to-the-arctic/
[19] CRS. (2026, January 22). Greenland, Denmark, and U.S. Relations. CRS. From: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12643/IN12643.1.pdf
[20] Reuters. (2026, July 8). Denmark ready to defend ‘every inch of NATO’, including Danish kingdom, PM says. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmark-ready-defend-every-inch-nato-including-danish-kingdom-pm-says-2026-07-08/
[21] Fouche, G., & Jacobsen, S., & Bayer, L., & Siebold, S. (2026, June 26). NATO allies promised Trump they’d secure the Arctic; they’ve got work to do. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/nato-allies-promised-trump-theyd-secure-arctic-theyve-got-work-do-2026-06-26/
[22] Élysée. (2026, January 6). Joint Statement on Greenland. Élysée. From: https://www.elysee.fr/en/emmanuel-macron/2026/01/06/joint-statement-on-greenland
[23] Office of the Prime Minister. (2026, January 17). Statement from Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre on Greenland. Norway Government. From: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/whats-new/statement-from-prime-minister-jonas-gahr-store/id3146432/
[24] Cooper, Y. (2026, January 19). Foreign Secretary Statement to the House on Greenland and wider Arctic security. UK Government. From: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretary-statement-to-the-house-on-greenland-and-wider-arctic-security
