This article updates prior analysis of the Trump administration’s acts and statements with respect to Greenland since at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, and the potential remedies that may be available to Congress to hold the administration to account and curb more illegalities. It builds on my previous Just Security piece. That analysis demonstrated that the Trump administration had violated a federal statute, 22 U.S.C. 1928f (the “Statute” or “Section 1928f”), which was enacted to help protect the U.S.–NATO relationship, by the administration’s threats against Greenland and its failure to comply with other statutory requirements.
The consequences of President Trump’s repeated threats to conquer and annex Greenland through the use of force – which were first bruited by him on Jan. 7, 2025, and made more explicit in the intervening months – continue to reverberate. Although Trump stepped back from his threat to use force during his appearance on Jan. 21, 2026 at Davos, it was not before he had succeeded in inflicting considerable damage to fundamental norms, laws, institutions, and relationships once prized by the United States. This includes damage both to NATO itself and to the U.S. bilateral relationships with the other countries in the 32-member organization.
Trump departed from Davos with the Greenland controversy still unsettled. The residual effects of the threat to use force will not soon dissipate and are certain to distort any future negotiations about the use of Greenland. Trump’s apparent need to “own” Greenland may well persist. And given Trump famously cultivates his grievances and engages openly in retribution, he may yet devise other coercive tools to achieve his territorial ambitions. “You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no and we will remember,” Trump threatened at Davos. Greenland is thus not in the rear-view mirror.
Trump’s actions were both unlawful and a tell that obeying the law no longer matters much, or at all, to his administration when conducting foreign policy. This was confirmed by Trump himself on Jan. 8 when he made the astonishing but candid admission that “I don’t need international law.” This was amplified by comments made about Greenland by Stephen Miller, the Deputy White House Chief of Staff, in which he shockingly declared that the administration’s intent was to pursue the U.S. national interest guided not by American values and in accordance with the law, but according to a lawless “might makes right” calculus. These views seem congruent to those of Carl Schmidt, the anti-democratic, far-right legal philosopher of the 1930s.
This article asserts that President Trump has violated the U.N. Charter, the North Atlantic Treaty, and Section 1928f by threatening the use of military force against Greenland; that his threats against Greenland equally constitute threats, through the operation of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty (“the Treaty”), against Denmark, NATO, and each of NATO’s member nations; that his continuing threats to the sovereignty of Canada may also may constitute violations of the Treaty and the Statute; that the administration remains in breach of the requirements of the Statute; that the President’s renunciation of the use of force against Greenland, even if sincere, does not cure or moot these violations; and that it is in the national interest for Congress to trigger enforcement of the Statute and hold the administration accountable. The piece concludes with concrete, actionable recommendations for steps that Congress can and should take as soon as possible.
The Legal Analysis
The legal analysis of the Trump administration’s actions regarding Greenland is composed of four parts: (1) The Trump/Miller renunciation of international law; (2) international law obligations: (3) domestic law obligations; and (4) remedies. It should be noted that this analysis does not seek to address other grave legal issues arising from this episode that will also need to be addressed at some point, for example, the scope of the War Powers Act or the concept of “illegal orders” in the context of a hypothetical order given to the U.S. military to initiate wars of aggression.
1) Retreating from the Rule of Law: Trump’s and Miller’s Renunciation of International Law
The recent statements by Trump and Miller about the role of law in the context of both Venezuela and Greenland consist of admissions that they do not factor international law in their decisions to use or threaten force. As previously noted, Trump admitted that he “doesn’t need international law.”
Miller’s statements were more direct:
“I want to reset. . .by making it clear that it has been the formal position of the U.S. government since the start of this administration – frankly, going back to the previous Trump administration – that Greenland should be part of the United States. The President has been very clear about that… The real question is: by what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? … The United States is the power of NATO… There is no need to even think or talk about this in the context … of a military operation. Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.”
And perhaps even more chillingly:
“We live in a world, in the real world,… that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”
Trump’s and Miller’s admissions in combination lay bare the Trump administration’s guiding foreign policy principles: Traditional American values are jettisoned; international law and treaties are irrelevant; might makes right; the world is ruled by strength, force, and power instead of the rule of law; U.S. military power is unchallengeable; and the United States will use its power to coerce submission when it can, but, if lesser nations fail to recognize the inevitable, by raw military power if it must. This is a dark, Hobbesian view in which rights and values do not matter and which pits “all against all.”
2) International Law
The analysis of the applicable international law benefits from a reminder of how the international rules-based order came to be adopted in the first place.
At the end of World War II the victorious Allies sought to create a world order that would help reduce conflict and reduce the risk of future wars. They bequeathed on succeeding generations gifts of inestimable value, which included: the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals, the foundation of modern international criminal law; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has been instrumental in protecting and advancing human dignity worldwide; the United Nations and its myriad specialized agencies which, although not perfect, have yielded enormous benefits; numerous institutions and systems dedicated to economic and trade cooperation, all designed to increase prosperity and lessen the sources of potential conflict; and, not least, NATO, which has helped keep the peace in Europe for more than 75 years.
For all their flaws, all of these institutions have yielded immense benefits. All of them are interconnected and mutually supportive. And all of them are now under assault by the Trump administration. For purposes of the Greenland legal analysis, two international treaties are particularly relevant: the U.N. Charter and the North Atlantic Treaty, which created and governs NATO.
a) The U.N. Charter:
The U.N. Charter was ratified by the U.S. in 1945 and imposes binding legal obligations on the U.S. government. By threatening Greenland with the use of force, Trump breached Article 2(4), one of its central provisions, which reads:
All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, on in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
As Schmitt and Bridgeman have explained in Just Security, Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter leaves no doubt that territorial conquest through the threat or use of force is flatly prohibited, as confirmed by the International Court of Justice, the UN General Assembly, the U.S. DoD’s own Law of War Manual, and decades of state practice.
b) The North Atlantic Treaty
Trump’s threats materially breached or triggered several provisions of the Treaty. As a threshold matter, it is important to clarify that a U.S. use of force against Greenland would indeed be covered by the Treaty (and not, for example, excluded by its geographic limitations), as explained in depth in Mike Schmitt’s article. Next, I will turn to each of the treaty provisions at issue.First, Article 1, which reads in its entirety:
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Because the U.S. threats did not involve “peaceful means” but rather threatened the use of force, the Trump administration breached this provision.
Article 2, which requires the parties to “eliminate conflict in their international economic policies,” arguably would have been breached if the tariffs as announced by the Trump administration on Jan. 17 had been imposed. This is because their imposition against eight NATO members (including Denmark) that opposed the U.S. effort to acquire Greenland through coercion would have been solely to reinforce the U.S. threats of force – likely breaching the Article 2 prohibition.
Next, Article 4, of the Treaty reads: “The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.”
Although this provision might be understood to more explicitly focus on consultation in the face of threats made against NATO members by forces external to the alliance, it is also applicable to threats arising between NATO members. The Trump administration failed to engage in the consultative requirements of the provision either prior to or after issuing its threats against the territorial integrity, political independence, and security of Greenland and Denmark, thus arguably breaching this article as well.
Article 5 provides that “an armed attack against one or more of them … shall be considered an attack against them all….” Although this provision was not “breached,” it seems it was deemed triggered by the other NATO members in that, had the U.S. launched an armed attack against Greenland, it would have also constituted an attack against NATO and all its member nations.
And finally, it bears noting that under Art. 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), the U.S. threat of force against Greenland could be deemed a “material breach” of the North Atlantic Treaty, in that it is a violation of a “provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty” (in this case, keeping the peace and helping ensure the common security of the treaty’s parties). Under the VCLT’s Art. 60.I.A, a material breach by one party “entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground to terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part” (emphases added). By creating the conditions for the other parties to the Treaty to suspend or terminate it (which, fortunately, they have not chosen to do), Trump arguably created an additional violation of Section 1928f.
3) Domestic Law
As argued in detail in my prior analysis, the Trump administration’s threats to use force against Greenland violated, directly or indirectly, the requirement of Section 1928f – a statute enacted to protect the U.S.–NATO relationship from presidential hostility – that the president “shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw” from the Treaty “except by and with the consent of the Senate….”
Thus, when President Trump threatened force against a NATO ally while disregarding international law, he arguably violated and continues to be in violation of Section 1928f in the following ways:
a) By directly or constructively acting to “suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw” U.S. participation in the Treaty, in contravention of each of the four 1928f(a) prohibitions;
b) By failing to meet the prior consultation and notification requirements of 1928f(c)(1) and (2);
c) By failing to observe the mandated 180-day delay requirement following a written notification to the two Foreign Affairs committees before taking any prohibited act, in violation of 1928f(a) and (b);
d) By using appropriated funds to illegally support directly and indirectly his decision to perform prohibited acts, in contravention of the 1928f(b);
e) By failing to seek and obtain the advice and consent of the Senate prior to engaging in prohibited acts, in violation of 1928f(a) and (b); and
f) By admitting that he did not adhere to the Treaty in deciding to threaten Greenland, in violation of 1928f.
In addition, although this analysis focuses on Greenland, it seems increasingly likely that the President’s repeated verbal attacks on Canada, also a NATO member, which constitute threats against its territorial integrity and political independence, may also constitute breaches of the Treaty and violations of Section 1928f.
4) Remedies
The President’s lawless actions damage U.S. national security. They also defy and corrode Congress’s Article I war powers and its legislative, advice and consent, and power of the purse authorities, all of which transgress upon separation of powers boundaries. These offenses cannot be disregarded. Congress should act to compel the President’s compliance with the law and to hold him and others in his administration who were involved in these unlawful acts accountable. It should:
• Condemn the administration’s threats to use force to annex Greenland, preferably by means of a concurrent congressional resolution;
• Declare that the Trump administration violated 22 U.S.C. 1928f by levelling its threats to use force and continues in violation of the Section;
• Establish when the administration’s obligation to consult with the Foreign Affairs Committees first attached. The latest date it could be is Jan. 9, 2026 (the date of his first threat), but the date when the first “deliberation” occurred is certain to be much earlier;
• Require that the administration provide the written notification required by Section 1928f(c)(2) covering the period from the first “deliberation“ until the present, to include an explanation of the purported legal basis for the threats;
• Declare that the limitation of funds prohibiting the use of funds for the prohibited activities attached at least as of Jan. 9 (subject to revisions of this date based on the receipt of further information) and will continue uninterruptedly until Congress provides its advice and consent to such expenditures;
• Request the General Accounting Office and relevant Inspectors General to investigate possible Antideficiency Act violations arising from the failure to comply with the limitation of funds requirement of the Section;
• Declare that the any tariffs (such as those announced by the President on Jan. 17 that did not go into effect) against the eight NATO members that support Denmark’s refusal to capitulate to the administration’s extortionate demand to convey Greenland would be unlawful by reason that they would be imposed in furtherance of, and for the sole purpose of, engaging in the prohibited acts;
• Declare that any negotiations between the Trump administration and Greenland, Denmark, or NATO and its member countries for the purpose of securing any territory, or any form of territorial concessions, relating to Greenland are subject to the funds cutoff and are to be suspended pending the restoration of funding upon the advice and consent of Congress;
• Identify the federal agencies and departments involved directly or indirectly in the commission of the prohibited acts. To date, these appear likely to include the White House, Office of Management and Budget, Office of the United States Trade Representative, and the Departments of Defense, State, Treasury, Justice, and Commerce;
• Request that these entities provide a report on any involvement in the prohibited acts and request the relevant inspectors general to investigate and report on any use of frozen funds;
• Request the State Department to provide an explanation why the administration’s threats to Canada’s territorial integrity and political independence should not constitute violations of 1928f; and
• Conduct hearings, as appropriate, including on the administration’s record of, and policies and practices regarding, compliance with Senate advice and consent treaties.
Conclusion
Coercion in all its forms and the willful disregard of the law are now common features of Trump’s foreign policy. It appears Peter Hegseth was appointed as Defense Secretary for the two primary reasons of deploying the military more aggressively at home and abroad and reducing the legal constraints on its use. He is making progress in accomplishing both. Also, when one examines the trajectory of the administration’s use or threat of military force – the maritime strikes against suspected drug traffickers, Greenland, Denmark, Venezuela, Iran, Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua, Syria, Nigeria, and (because of his threats against Denmark), all NATO members – what one perceives as the unifying feature is consistent lawlessness. Most of the time the administration does not even bother to explain why its actions were lawful, although on occasion it has cobbled together or relied on dubious prior law-like language in order to create a veneer of legality, presumably as a public relations exercise.
The stakes could not be higher for our nation’s values, our constitutional order, our security, and our role in the world. E. J. Dionne, Jr., recently wrote in the New York Times:
It may … be the Greenland madness that finally forces a reckoning with what happens when Congress – yes, that means its Republican majority – sits by and allows a chief executive to run roughshod over any legal limits to his desires, any sense of stewardship toward institutions built over decades to keep the nation secure, and any responsibility to other nations that long stood with us in defense of democracy itself.
The President will almost surely refuse to conform to the requirements of Section 1928f. If so, it is entirely foreseeable that an effort by Congress to hold the administration to account will result in a separation of powers clash. Congress should welcome this clash, because it cannot afford to do nothing, and it cannot afford to lose it.
