Trump’s Greenland Threats Test the Limits of U.S. Alliances and International Law

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s renewed insistence that the United States must “have Greenland — one way or another” has triggered a diplomatic backlash across Europe, rattled NATO allies, and raised fundamental questions about Washington’s commitment to international law and the post–World War II global order.

“If we don’t take Greenland, Russia or China will,” Mr. Trump said in recent remarks that have circulated widely across American television networks and social media platforms. “I would like to make a deal, the easy way. But if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way.”

The comments, repeated multiple times in public appearances and interviews, have been interpreted by European officials not as offhand bravado, but as a direct threat against the territorial integrity of a NATO ally.

Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. It is not for sale. That point has been reiterated forcefully by Greenlandic leaders, Danish officials, European lawmakers, and NATO partners — all of whom say they are increasingly alarmed by what they describe as an unprecedented shift in American rhetoric.

Europe Pushes Back

Senior members of the European Parliament are now urging a freeze or delay of the EU–U.S. trade agreement, citing what they call a “changed political and strategic situation” created by the Trump administration’s statements.

According to European officials familiar with the matter, a letter circulating among lawmakers ahead of a February vote argues that it is no longer acceptable to deepen economic ties with a partner openly discussing the annexation of another territory.

“This is not about trade technicalities,” one European lawmaker said privately. “This is about whether the United States still respects the most basic principles of sovereignty.”

The reaction reflects a broader erosion of trust between Washington and its European allies — a trend that analysts say has accelerated during Trump’s second term.

Greenlanders Say: Not for Sale

In Greenland itself, the reaction has been visceral.

Greenlandic politicians, labor leaders, and residents have rejected Mr. Trump’s claims outright, emphasizing that the island’s population has no desire to be “liberated” or absorbed by the United States.

“We are not for sale,” said the chair of Greenland’s largest labor union, dismissing U.S. claims that foreign threats justify American intervention. “We do not recognize the security narrative being used to talk about us.”

Local media in Greenland has reported growing anxiety among residents. Some have described sleepless nights and recurring nightmares.

“I dreamed about him last night,” one resident told a reporter. “It was a nightmare — ships coming. It’s frightening because it makes no sense. This is a peaceful place.”

Greenlandic leaders have also rejected assertions that Denmark has failed to protect the territory, pointing to decades of close military cooperation with the United States, including American bases and shared NATO responsibilities.

Denmark Hardens Its Stance

Denmark, a founding NATO member and long-standing U.S. ally, has responded with uncharacteristic firmness.

Danish officials have reiterated that Greenland’s status is non-negotiable and that any attempt to threaten it would violate international law. The Danish prime minister has warned that repeated pressure and “condescending remarks” from allies undermine trust and stability.

Behind the scenes, Denmark has quietly strengthened its military posture around Greenland. According to Danish media reports, a Cold War–era rule of engagement remains in effect: if foreign forces attempt to invade the territory, Danish soldiers are authorized to respond immediately — without waiting for political approval.

The rule, dating back to 1952, underscores the seriousness with which Copenhagen views the situation, even as officials publicly downplay the likelihood of direct confrontation.

NATO Tensions and Republican Dissent

The controversy has also exposed rare fractures within the Republican Party.

Senator Lindsey Graham, who has served as the Republican leader of the Senate’s NATO observer group since 2018, publicly criticized White House adviser Stephen Miller after Miller defended Trump’s Greenland comments.

“Either he needs to get into a lane where he knows what he’s talking about, or get out of the job,” Mr. Graham said, pointing to Denmark’s extensive sacrifices in NATO missions, including Afghanistan, where Danish forces suffered some of the highest casualties per capita among alliance members.

“There is no more important alliance than NATO,” Mr. Graham said. “Denmark has punched above its weight.”

International Law at Stake

Legal experts say Mr. Trump’s rhetoric clashes directly with Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against another state’s territorial integrity or political independence.

“These principles are not optional,” said one European diplomat. “They are the foundation of international order — and they apply to everyone, including the United States.”

The irony, critics note, is that the U.S. has long championed sovereignty and self-determination — values now being questioned by its closest allies.

A Strategic Obsession?

Supporters of Mr. Trump argue that his focus on Greenland reflects legitimate strategic concerns, including Arctic security, rare earth minerals, and growing Chinese and Russian activity in the region.

But critics — including former U.S. officials — suggest economic motivations may be driving the rhetoric.

“There is a belief that Greenland’s mineral wealth could be leveraged to address U.S. financial pressures,” said one former diplomat. “But that logic ignores the rights of the people who actually live there.”

Others see a political motive closer to home. Several commentators on American social media have argued that Trump’s confrontational foreign policy statements conveniently dominate headlines at moments when scrutiny intensifies around unresolved domestic controversies.

Credibility on the Line

Mr. Trump has repeatedly claimed that he is a president who “started no new wars,” portraying himself as a peacemaker who used his personality to avoid conflict.

But European leaders and American critics argue that threatening to seize territory undermines that claim — and risks normalizing coercion as a tool of U.S. policy.

“What we are seeing is not strength,” said one former NATO official. “It’s unpredictability. And unpredictability is dangerous when you’re talking about alliances and nuclear-armed states.”

For decades, America’s power rested not only on military might, but on credibility — the belief that it would uphold the rules it demanded others follow.

As Greenlanders, Danes, and European allies watch Washington closely, many are now asking a question once unthinkable: Can the United States still be trusted to respect the very principles it helped create?