Tensions have escalated over Greenland’s status as U.S. officials, including White House aide Stephen Miller, have publicly questioned Denmark’s authority over the ice-covered territory. This comes amid renewed interest from the Trump administration in potentially controlling Greenland, which the United States views as strategically significant.
Experts assert that Greenland’s status as part of Denmark is firmly established under international law. According to legal scholars, any attempt to acquire Greenland through force would violate international norms. The discourse surrounding Greenland intensified following the U.S. government’s involvement in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, with some officials suggesting that Greenland could become the next target for U.S. control.
The island, which is approximately five times the size of California and home to around 56,000 residents, was colonized by Denmark centuries ago and has been formally incorporated into the Danish state. Miller raised questions about Denmark’s claims, asking, “What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony?”
In response, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly indicated that President Trump believes Greenlanders would benefit from U.S. protection against threats in the Arctic region. Despite this, legal experts emphasize that Greenland has not been a colony for over seventy-five years. Following World War II, colonialism was largely rejected, particularly in the context of the United Nations Charter, which Denmark adhered to in its governance of Greenland.
Greenland’s Sovereignty and International Law
Denmark formally transitioned Greenland from a colonial status to that of an equal part of the Kingdom of Denmark in 1953. This change was recognized by the United Nations, which informed its members that Denmark had ended any colonial-type status over Greenland. Today, Greenland operates as a district within Denmark, with two elected representatives in the Danish Parliament, a structure that grants them full voting rights. This level of representation exceeds that afforded to U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico and Guam.
Legal scholars like Diane Marie Amann, emerita law professor at the University of Georgia, contend that Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland is comprehensive. Tom Ginsburg, an international law professor at the University of Chicago, noted that Denmark’s authority has been consistently recognized by the U.S. government. He explained that the U.S. has historically acknowledged Denmark’s territorial sovereignty through multiple treaties.
Furthermore, the United Nations Charter stipulates that member states must abstain from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any nation. Amann emphasized that no nation may intervene to facilitate a secession from Denmark without violating this principle.
Strategic Importance of Greenland
The United States views Greenland as strategically vital, given its location between North America and Europe. The naval corridor surrounding the island is a main transit route for shipping between these regions. Officials within the Trump administration have argued that controlling Greenland is essential to deter adversaries in the Arctic.
Despite these assertions, experts warn that any military action to take control of Greenland could undermine the credibility of NATO, an alliance that the U.S. has led for decades. Mark F. Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, cautioned that such a move would send a troubling message to NATO allies regarding the robustness of the U.S. commitment to collective security.
The geopolitical landscape surrounding Greenland is complex. While the United States has expressed interest in the island’s resources and logistical advantages, the legal framework affirming Denmark’s sovereignty remains robust. As discussions continue, it is clear that the future of Greenland will depend on diplomatic negotiations rather than military intervention.
