The Brief: I Can't Believe I Have to Say This
Hi friends,
Amidst a week of deeply upsetting and disturbing domestic news here in the U.S., there has been no shortage of foreign policy developments also demanding our attention, among them events related to Venezuela, Iran, and Greenland. With respect to the latter, in an interview with The New York Times last week, President Trump stated that “Ownership is very important…Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success.”
He has since doubled down on those statements, saying that the U.S. “is going to do something [in Greenland] whether they like it or not…either the nice way or the more difficult way.”
It beggars belief that you or I, or indeed anyone, would have to seriously address this idea from a U.S. head of state, but since apparently we do:
Invading Greenland is a terrible idea! Here’s why:
Greenland (and Denmark!) do not want this
The relationship between Denmark and Greenland is a complex one. Greenland is a semi-autonomous part of Denmark, and Denmark has acknowledged that the people of Greenland have the right to self-determination under international law, such that “decisions regarding Greenland’s independence shall be taken by the people of Greenland.” A 2009 law transferred further authorities from Denmark to the government of Greenland, though Denmark retains responsibility in areas including foreign, defense, and security policy.
A 2025 poll found that 84% of Greenlanders support independence from Denmark (for just one example, you can reference the statement by a leader of Greenland pro-independence party Naleraq that “the U.S. can’t do anything to us that Denmark hasn’t done already”), but in the same poll, only 6% of Greenlanders backed a U.S. takeover. The Greenlandic government, including Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen, have been clear that “enough is enough,” and have condemned U.S. “fantasies about annexation.”
The Guardian also reports that Jess Berthelsen, the leader of Greenland’s largest labor union, has stated, “We are not for sale and we will not be annexed…How can we cooperate when we are receiving constant threats with military intervention? Nobody does that to their friends, or people they cooperate with.”
The leaders of five political parties in Greenland issued a united statement on Friday night, saying, “We don’t want to be Americans, we don’t want to be Danish, we want to be Greenlanders. The future of Greenland must be decided by Greenlanders.”
For her part, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said in an interview last week, “I have made it very clear where the kingdom of Denmark stands, and Greenland has repeatedly said that it does not want to be part of the United States.” She also stated that the U.S. has “no right to annex” Denmark, Greenland, or the Faroe Islands, referring to them as “the three countries in the Danish kingdom.”
It would violate international and domestic law
If you read last week’s edition of Foundations on jus ad bellum, you already know that “I need this, psychologically” is not a basis for military intervention under international law. Nor are there any other facts about the situation suggesting that the U.S. has the right to invade Greenland as an act of self-defense against an armed attack.
It should also be beyond dispute that an attack on Greenland would be an act of war that would require Congressional authorization, and not just unilateral executive branch action.
It would take a chainsaw to our most significant military alliance and upend the international order
Denmark and the United States are both founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which also includes countries such as Canada, Norway, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. The North Atlantic Treaty underpinning the organization is, at its heart, about collective self-defense, and includes, in Article 5, the agreement that “an armed attack against one or more of [the Parties] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
In the context of this language, it’s easy to see why Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said that if the U.S. attacks another NATO country, “everything would stop - that includes NATO and therefore post-second world war security.”
Even taken at face value, the tradeoffs do not make sense
Let’s start with the reasons President Trump appears to want to “own” Greenland, and we can go from there. The first is national security, including the strategic importance of the region as sea ice melts, which makes it more accessible by both military and commercial ships. Russia and China are also both increasing their presence in the Arctic accordingly.
But there’s been a lot of good and thorough reporting on the reasons why somehow obtaining Greenland isn’t actually necessary to attain U.S. aims. Foreign Policy lays out some of them in this article, which I recommend: the U.S. already has a military base in Greenland, called Pittufik; a 1951 agreement between Denmark and the U.S. allows the U.S. to build new bases on Greenland as well, should it so choose; and the government of Greenland has already taken steps to block Chinese investment there.
Trump administration officials have also pointed to Greenland’s “vast natural resources” and “critical minerals” as a reason for wanting the island, which, again, is not a legitimate reason for military action under international law. Even if it were, as Foreign Policy points out, “it’s not so easy to mine or even access desired mineral deposits in a place where an estimated 80 percent of the land is covered in ice. Beyond that obstacle, the island lacks much of the mining and processing infrastructure that would be necessary to get an industry off the ground.”
The article quotes one mining strategist as stating, “There’s so many rare-earth projects that if you were to rank them in terms of doable down to not doable, Greenland’s project would be in the bottom quartile.” And to the extent there are already such companies operating in Greenland, U.S. processing and magnet firms can, and have, made arrangements to partner with them.
If none of the administration’s proffered reasons seem like they’re worth disregarding a people’s right to self-determination, alienating some of our longest-standing foreign partnerships, and completely torching NATO, you’re not wrong.
But here we are.
What you can do
Senator Tim Kaine has already stated that if necessary, he and likeminded colleagues will force a vote in the Senate to prohibit U.S. military action in Greenland or Denmark, which makes this a great (and crucial) time to call your representatives and ask them to support such a measure.
Also on my radar
- Human rights groups are raising alarms that hundreds of protestors have been killed by security forces in Iran. The Iranian government shut down access to the Internet last Thursday night, in response to protests against economic hardship and calling for regime change. In response, President Trump has said he will impose a 25% tariff on goods from any country doing business with Iran, and is also reportedly considering military strikes;
- President Trump is scheduled to meet with Maria Corina Machado, Venezuela’s opposition leader, on Friday. The U.S. has largely sidelined Machado since it abducted President Maduro earlier this month, in favor of cooperating with Vice President Delcy Rodriguez. Meanwhile, President Trump has threatened to bar ExxonMobil from investing in Venezuela after the president of the company called the country “uninvestable” during a meeting at the White House.
Thanks as always for joining me this week, friends. Stay safe, and I’ll see you back here again soon.
Alexis
You can follow The Connection on Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Threads.