The US president’s push to acquire the Danish territory follows a long and complex historical tradition of American territorial expansion. 

The United States embarked on a dramatic expansion of territory after the end of the American Revolution and into the early nineteenth century. Though the nation’s boundaries consistently changed over a period of roughly seventy years, the country experienced its largest accumulation of land during the 1840s, acquiring Texas, Oregon, California, and New Mexico in only a few years. During this decade, Americans came to believe in “Manifest Destiny,” which held that American settlers were predestined to conquer the continent of North American. 

In several decades, the United States procured more than 2 million sq mi (roughly 3.2 million sq km) of territory in North America. Expansionism was not limited to the North American continent, however; many seafarers extended their reach across the Pacific Ocean in pursuit of Chinese trading profits. 

US President Donald Trump’s acquisition of Greenland, absent Denmark’s consent, would have far-reaching consequences for NATO and America.

“It would be the end of NATO,” warned Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) last week.

The balance of NATO countries would be required to defend Denmark’s sovereign territorial possession, pitting the U.S. against longtime allies such as the U.K. and France. The idea of NATO would effectively collapse.

Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland unilaterally by any means necessary is fundamentally flawed under modern international law.

Any change in Greenland’s status can only legally come from a process led and approved by the Greenlandic people themselves, not from a bilateral sale or purchase by the United States.

Over the last few weeks, Trump has once again declared that Washington would obtain the territory “the easy way” or “the hard way,” insisting the US needs Greenland for “national security.”  He added,

“We are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not.”

“Because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor.” 

Europe’s 32-NATO members have largely refrained from direct public confrontation, but behind the scenes, resistance is mounting. This week, Denmark, which retains responsibility for Greenland’s foreign and defense policy, coordinated with several allies to send small contingents of troops to the island ahead of the bloc’s Arctic Endurance exercises.

Both Danish and Greenlandic authorities have rejected any prospect of ceding the island, insisting that its future must be decided by its people, who voted in 2008 to retain autonomous status within the Kingdom of Denmark.

Tariffs Against NATO Allies

The rebuke from Denmark and Greenland against Trump’s insistence on acquiring the island “one way or another” is not the US president’s only problem with his plans. Trump’s decision to impose new tariffs on NATO allies has created a rift within the Republican party.

The US president has imposed 10% levies on imports from key allies after they sent troops to Greenland amid his push to annex the island. He then plans to ramp those tariffs up further to 25% in June if the US doesn’t acquire Greenland by then. 

Last Friday, Trump imposed import duties on goods from eight European NATO nations after they sent small military contingents to the Arctic island in opposition to his plans to annex the Danish autonomous territory.

“These tariffs are unnecessary, punitive, and a profound mistake. They will push our core European allies further away while doing nothing to advance US national security,” Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski wrote on X on Saturday. She called on Congress to ensure that tariffs are not “weaponized” to harm Washington’s allies.

North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis argued that Trump’s tariff response was “bad for America, bad for American businesses, and bad for America’s allies,” in addition to being great for its adversaries.

“The fact that a small handful of ‘advisors’ are actively pushing for coercive action to seize territory of an ally is beyond stupid,” he wrote on X last Saturday, arguing the push hurts Trump’s “legacy” and his efforts to strengthen NATO.

Last week, Senator Mitch McConnell argued that annexing Greenland would not net the US anything that the island’s people are not already “ready and willing to grant.”

He told the Senate that Trump’s efforts to make European NATO nations spend more on their militaries would go to waste if his push to annex the island were to “shatter” their “trust.”

All eight affected NATO nations condemned the “tariff threats” in a joint statement last Sunday, arguing that the levies “undermine transatlantic relations.” Following an emergency meeting of ambassadors on Sunday, EU member states signaled strong unity with Denmark and Greenland but chose not to immediately trigger the bloc’s Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) – dubbed the “trade bazooka.”

However, the bloc is ready to revive a suspended €93 billion ($108 billion) package of retaliatory tariffs on US goods if Trump imposes new duties, reports Bloomberg news.

More significantly, leaders are actively discussing the unprecedented use of the ACI. Adopted in 2023, the instrument allows the bloc to punish economic coercion with measures like restricting market access, investment, and intellectual property rights. It was designed with adversarial economic powers in mind.

French President Emmanuel Macron reportedly explicitly called for its activation after branding Trump’s threats unacceptable. “He will ask, in the name of France, [for] the activation of the Anti-Coercion Instrument.”

Yet, the Republican president on Sunday seemed to suggest that he was using the tariffs as a bargaining chip to initiate discussions with Denmark and other European nations about the status of Greenland. And there are reasons why he is amenable to further discussions on the issue.

Although disagreement abounds between the parties, one course of action will not eventuate — America invading Greenland. Consider the following: Trump understands that there is considerable pushback in Congress against “boots on the ground”; and even if Trump continues to insist on US control of Greenland, it need not be via annexation or purchase – there are alternatives. This writer has suggested in previous articles US political and financial support of Greenland’s independence from Denmark and compensation for a 100-year lease arrangement to achieve US access to the Arctic region. Moreover, US attacking a member-NATO country would effectively dissolve the alliance which neither Congress nor NATO would abide; thus, the value of the “independence” scenario would preclude the latter and permit Denmark (and NATO) to “save face” politically by agreeing to Greenland’s independence. 

It seems reasonable to suggest that Trump ultimately will obtain control of Greenland without the dissolution of the Western alliance’s military bloc — alternative approaches for the US to achieve access to the Arctic region are feasible with less political and financial costs.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

F. Andrew Wolf, Jr. is director of The Fulcrum Institute, a new organization of current and former scholars, which engages in research and commentary, focusing on political and cultural issues on both sides of the Atlantic. After service in the USAF (Lt.Col.-Intel) Dr. Wolf obtained a PhD-philosophy (Wales), MA-theology (Univ. S. Africa), MTh-philosophical theology (TCU-Brite Div.). He taught philosophy, humanities and theology in the US and S. Africa before retiring from university.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.