Why the United States SHOULD NOT take Greenland

By: George Marshall

This article is written in tandem with the opposing perspective.

The very notion that there is even a debate surrounding whether America should take Greenland is concerning and something that is rightly causing frustration amongst Denmark’s allies around the world. Kier Starmer’s statement that “the future of Greenland is for the Kingdom of Denmark and for Greenland themselves,” is also echoed by other world leaders, not just as party politics rhetoric, but as international law. Only Greenland and Denmark can decide the future prospects of Greenland, and the United States should have no role in making or forcing that decision. 

The argument that the United States should take Greenland for defence is fanciful to say the least, and the focus of this debate is far too often on defence, rather than the people of Greenland. Defence is important to this debate, considering that the US ‘taking’ Greenland would fracture the NATO alliance, leaving nations like the United Kingdom, France, and many more vulnerable at such an intense geopolitical period. However, the US ‘taking’ Greenland would also have damning impacts for the people of Greenland, impacting their national identity and culture, going against their wishes, and threatening international law and the laws of Greenland.

It is time to re-centre ourselves to focus on the people of Greenland as well as defence: that is how Greenland should be defended against the hands of Trump. 

At the heart of defending Greenland and Denmark against the United States is the principle of self-determination, central to our current world order and ironically set out by US President Woodrow Wilson in his ‘fourteen points.’ Now, as it did in 1918, this principle stands for the process and right by which a country determines its own statehood. With its own parliament, institutions, and political wishes, Greenland is a self-governing society which has a right to that principle. With polls like one by Verian in January 2025 showing that 85% of Greenlanders would not want to become a part of the United States, it is incredibly likely that Greenland would not be receptive to Trump ‘taking’ Greenland. Any suggestion that an external power, like the United States, could ‘take’ Greenland, actively undermines the principle and international morals, which the world order has rested on for over a century. A subjugation of this would reduce Greenlanders to strategic tools rather than people with agency. 

When it comes to self-determination, the President of the United States would not only be denying Greenlanders the right to decide their future by ‘taking’ Greenland, but also undermining some of the biggest international treaties, like the United Nations Charter, introduced to prevent powerful states from imposing territorial changes. Trump’s action of taking over Greenland would normalise the erosion of legal protections which safeguard the sovereignty of the people of Greenland and other smaller, vulnerable communities around the world.

A United States takeover of Greenland would also pose a profound threat to Greenland’s national identity and cultural heritage, essentially turning a beautiful and culturally distinct part of the world into a US military base.

We can argue about the national and international security benefits of this and whether they are valid, but Trump ‘taking’ Greenland would risk Greenlandic culture, priorities and ways of life being ignored, placing pressure on local institutions, its Inuit heritage and its language, Kalaallisut, especially if Greenland loses its ability to make decisions to Washington D.C. 

The potential loss of Greenlandic culture is particularly painful when considering the argument that the two can be done in unison, as it already is: the United States’ Piuffik Space Base is already an example of how America can simultaneously uphold international security, whilst protecting Greenlandic culture. Trump’s demands to take over the island is, therefore, incredibly feeble as there is a capacity for cooperation, rather than control. 

As mentioned before, this debate should have more of a focus on the people of Greenland, whilst also recognising the impacts such a takeover would have on international order and defence. In this sense, the United States ‘taking’ Greenland would carry significant economic and environmental consequences which risk disproportionately impacting Greenlanders. With a small economy that is rightly shaped by local priorities and sustainable development, external control could cause Greenland’s natural resources to become exploited. Besides the environmental impact of rare earth materials and hydrocarbons being taken from Greenland - a United States’ approach - would risk repeating systems of extraction where wealth flows out of Greenland whilst environmental and social damage remains within. An acceleration of mining and militarisation by the United States would irreversibly damage the ecosystems that indigenous communities rely on, prioritising external gain over local wellbeing and preservation.

Trump has made his disregard for Europe clear before: The US National Security Strategy November 2025 states that “should present trends continue, the continent [of Europe] will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less.” In this light, it would be more than stupid to think that Trump should take over the sovereignty of Greenland for national and international security, when this is really a conversation about power. Europe should take pride in its defence of Greenland, not only because its upholding international law, but because by standing up to Trump, Europe is protecting the Greenlandic people from losing their political autonomy, their culture, and their environment. 

America, by international principle and morality, must not subjugate a group of people to be strategic tools rather than people with agency. Not in Greenland, not in South America, not anywhere.

Image: Wikimedia Commons