Greenland and the Limits of American Power
‎
By ‎Ajibade Esther Mosunmola
‎
‎What many once dismissed as a far-fetched idea has resurfaced with renewed urgency. U.S. President Donald Trump has reignited his controversial ambition to acquire Greenland, the world’s largest island and a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, reviving a proposal he first floated in 2019 during his first term, and again at the start of his second term in 2025. The move has sparked widespread protests across Europe and Arctic communities.
‎
‎Over the years, Trump has steadily intensified his rhetoric about bringing Greenland, an autonomous region within the Kingdom of Denmark and a NATO ally, under U.S. control. He argues that Greenland’s vast natural resources and its strategic location in the Arctic are critical to U.S. national security. “If we don’t do it, Russia or China will,” he warned, suggesting that inaction could cede geopolitical advantage to rival powers.
‎
‎While the world was still reeling from Trump’s renewed Greenland ambitions, global attention was abruptly diverted southward. On January 3, 2026, the United States launched a highly controversial military operation in Venezuela, resulting in the reported capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Both were taken into U.S. custody to face federal charges, including alleged narco-terrorism and drug trafficking offenses.
‎
‎The operation triggered an international outcry and raised serious legal and diplomatic questions. Critics condemned the unilateral use of force, warning that it undermined international norms and sovereignty. Yet, even as the world grappled with the implications of the Venezuela intervention, the Greenland issue remained unresolved, and, in many ways, the two crises are deeply intertwined.
‎
‎Both episodes reflect a broader pattern: the Trump administration’s willingness to assert American power unilaterally, often at the expense of international consensus. In Venezuela, the justification was criminal accountability. In Greenland, it is strategic geography, military utility, and resource wealth. In both cases, the underlying message is the same, U.S. interests come first, regardless of global opinion.
‎
‎Support for the U.S. actions has been limited. A few hard-line governments welcomed Maduro’s removal, but most nations expressed unease over the precedent set by unilateral military intervention and expansionist rhetoric. Many fear that such moves erode international law and embolden larger powers to impose their will on smaller nations.
‎
‎Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland has long been met with fierce resistance. Greenland’s government has consistently rejected any notion of a U.S. takeover, asserting that their future is not a bargaining chip in great-power politics. The idea of purchasing Greenland dates back to the 1860s, when Secretary of State William Seward proposed buying it alongside the Danish West Indies, shortly after the U.S. acquired Alaska. The strategic calculus has remained unchanged, but the political context has not.
‎
‎NATO allies have warned that any attempt to use military force to seize Greenland, an option Trump has not ruled out, would jeopardize the transatlantic alliance. In response to Washington’s escalating rhetoric, Denmark has increased its military presence in and around Greenland, joined by other NATO members including France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden.
‎
‎In January 2026, tens of thousands of people across Denmark and Greenland took to the streets to protest U.S. intentions. In Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, Indigenous Inuit demonstrators demanded self-determination and sovereignty, insisting that decisions about their homeland must be made locally, not in Washington or Copenhagen.
‎
‎Denmark has exercised sovereignty over Greenland since 1933, when it successfully disputed Norway’s claims. In 1979, Greenland was granted home rule, and many Greenlanders today reject any comparison to U.S. territories like Puerto Rico or American Samoa, where residents lack full constitutional representation.
‎
‎Denmark’s government has dismissed the U.S. approach as “problematic” and “disrespectful,” emphasizing that Greenland’s future must be determined democratically and without external coercion.
‎
‎Together, the crises in Venezuela and Greenland underscore a troubling trend: the erosion of international norms governing sovereignty, power, and the rule of law. As protests rise and alliances strain, one lesson becomes clear, force and coercion cannot substitute for legitimacy and consent.
‎
‎How the world responds to these challenges will shape not only Greenland’s fate but also the global rules that protect smaller nations from domination. In an increasingly fractured world, unity and respect for international law remain our strongest defense.