7 Explosive Ways the US Could Acquire Greenland

7 Explosive Ways the US Could Acquire Greenland — Inside Trump’s high-risk Arctic gambit. President Donald Trump has made one thing unmistakably clear during his second term: the United States, in his view, needs Greenland.

What remains deeply unclear — and increasingly controversial — is how the United States could legally, politically, or militarily acquire a vast Arctic territory that is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, protected by NATO, and home to a population that overwhelmingly rejects American rule.

Trump has not ruled out force. He has openly threatened tariffs against European allies. He has questioned international law. And he has repeatedly framed Greenland as a matter of “national and international security.”

This article examines every realistic pathway — and obstacle — to a US acquisition of Greenland, grounded in constitutional law, historical precedent, geopolitics, and the lived reality of Greenlanders themselves.

7 Explosive Ways the US Could Acquire Greenland

Why Greenland Matters to Trump and the US

Greenland is not merely a block of ice.

It is:

• The world’s largest island
• Home to critical rare earth minerals
• Strategically positioned between North America, Europe, and Russia
• A cornerstone of Arctic missile defense and space surveillance

Trump argues that US control of Greenland is essential to counter threats from Russia and China, particularly in the Arctic and North Atlantic.

Greenland already hosts the US Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), a key node in America’s missile-warning and space-tracking systems. Yet Trump insists that ownership provides leverage and security that agreements do not.

Path One: Buying Greenland Through a Treaty

The Constitutional Route

The most lawful path for acquiring Greenland would be through a treaty of cession negotiated with Denmark — and crucially, with Greenland itself.

Under the US Constitution:

• Treaties require approval by two-thirds of the Senate
• That means 67 senators, if all are present
• Congress must also approve funding for the purchase

In today’s polarized environment, this is an extraordinarily high bar.

Political Reality

• Denmark has repeatedly said Greenland is not for sale
• Greenland’s government insists its people have the right to self-determination
• Senators from both US parties have introduced legislation to block any acquisition

Without willing sellers and a cooperative Congress, a treaty remains theoretical.

Historical Precedent: The US Has Bought Land Before

The Louisiana Purchase

In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson doubled the size of the United States by purchasing Louisiana from France for $15 million.

Jefferson himself worried the deal exceeded his constitutional authority — yet he still sent it to the Senate, which ratified it.

Alaska and “Seward’s Folly”

In 1867, the US bought Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million. Critics mocked the purchase at the time. History proved them wrong.

The US Virgin Islands: A Greenland Parallel

Perhaps the most relevant precedent is the US acquisition of the Virgin Islands from Denmark.

• First attempt in 1867 failed due to Senate opposition
• Second attempt failed due to Denmark’s parliament
• Final deal succeeded in 1916, under wartime pressure, for $25 million

It took 50 years and a looming global war.

Greenland today presents far greater legal, political, and moral complications.

Path Two: Executive Agreements — A Dead End

Modern presidents often bypass the Senate using executive agreements.

These are binding under international law but:

• They have never been used to acquire territory
• Congress retains authority over US lands and territories

Any attempt to take Greenland without Senate approval would almost certainly face constitutional challenges.

Path Three: Coercive Diplomacy and Economic Pressure

Trump has already signaled a different tactic: economic coercion.

Tariffs as Leverage

Trump has threatened:

• Tariffs of up to 25% on European exports
• Punitive measures against countries resisting Greenland talks

This approach mirrors Trump’s broader foreign policy style:

forcing concessions through economic pain.

The China Factor

A key subtext is China.

Greenland holds vast reserves of rare earth minerals critical for:

• Electric vehicles
• Renewable energy
• Military hardware, including fighter jets

China currently dominates global rare earth supply chains. Trump’s strategy may be less about owning Greenland — and more about locking China out.

Path Four: Expanded Military Presence Without Ownership

Ironically, the US already has what it claims to need.

Under a 1951 defense agreement, Washington can:

• Expand military infrastructure in Greenland
• Deploy additional forces
• Operate radar, missile defense, and space systems

Denmark and Greenland have said they would accept a larger US military footprint.

Trump, however, argues that agreements are insufficient.

“Ownership gives you things you can’t get from just signing a document,” he told US media.

Path Five: Annexation or Military Force

An Unprecedented Move

Using military force to seize Greenland would be:

• A violation of international law
• An attack on a NATO ally
• Constitutionally dubious without congressional authorization

Historical parallels — Hawaii in 1893 and the Philippine-American War — are widely regarded as dark chapters in US history.

Greenland’s Response

Greenland’s prime minister has warned citizens to prepare for “everything,” including possible escalation.

Denmark has already strengthened its military presence in the Arctic.

A US invasion would almost certainly fracture NATO.

Path Six: UN Mandates and International Constraints

Under the UN Charter, any transfer of sovereignty requires:

• The consent of the people
• Respect for self-determination

Greenlanders have made their views clear:

“We don’t want to be Americans. We want to be Greenlanders.”

Ignoring this principle would undermine the international order the US helped build after World War II.

Path Seven: Strategic Pressure Without Formal Acquisition

Some analysts argue Trump’s threats are deliberate brinkmanship.

By escalating rhetoric, he may be aiming to:

• Secure exclusive US access to minerals
• Block Chinese investment
• Lock Greenland into US-centric economic and security arrangements

In this scenario, ownership is leverage, not the goal.

Why the Senate Is the Ultimate Barrier

Even if Denmark and Greenland miraculously agreed, Trump would still need:

• 67 senators
• Congressional funding
• Compliance with US constitutional norms

Many lawmakers — including Republicans — have expressed alarm.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, whose state includes Alaska, has openly questioned the plan.

What This Means for NATO and Europe

European leaders see Trump’s Greenland push as:

• A challenge to sovereignty
• A threat to NATO cohesion
• A shift toward rule-by-power diplomacy

French President Emmanuel Macron warned of a “world without rules,” while Canada and other allies have rallied behind Denmark.

Conclusion: Can the US Really Acquire Greenland?

Legally, only one path exists:

a treaty approved by Denmark, Greenland, the US Senate, and backed by Congress.

Politically, that path is nearly impossible.

Militarily, the cost would be catastrophic.

Economically and strategically, Trump may already be achieving his underlying objective:

reshaping Arctic power dynamics and curbing China.

Greenland’s future, however, remains tied to one fundamental principle — one Trump has repeatedly tested:

The right of a people to decide their own fate.

Also Read: 9 Stark Signals as US Deploys Aircraft to Greenland Base

Also Read: Trump’s Greenland ‘framework’ deal: What we know about it, what we don’t