Greenland

Transatlantic relations are unraveling as U.S.-Europe tensions deepen over Ukraine, Iran, and NATO, risking a long-term shift from cooperation to strategic rivalry.

The Trump administration’s own Defense Department policies are undermining the operational means necessary to execute its Arctic strategy.

Experts examine legal, political, and security dimensions of U.S. policy on Greenland, including U.S.-NATO relations, congressional oversight, and geopolitical implications.  

The relationship between the U.S. and its island territories should concern anyone who believes in the “consent of the governed” and the idea of “all created equal."

In his threats against Greenland, President Trump has violated the U.N. Charter, the North Atlantic Treaty, and Section 1928f, prompting Congress to take swift action.

Any acquisition of Greenland by the United States–whether by force or through coerced agreement–would directly violate fundamental principles of international law.

This hypothetical legal review imagines what a senior judge advocate’s legal analysis would be if ordered to plan a U.S. military operation in Greenland without Denmark's consent.

With humility and our collective morals and values, we must extinguish the flames of hubris in US foreign and domestic policy, or "our arrogance will be our doom."

Trump’s threats to invade Greenland risk destroying NATO itself, but a little-known statute, 22 U.S.C. 1928f, could prevent him from doing just that.

The challenge is not recognition of Greenland’s importance; it is ensuring that security enhancements are strategic, sustainable, and allied-driven.

Would NATO have to defend Denmark if the United States attempted to seize Greenland? Article 5 suggests other allies are obligated to come to Denmark's defense if requested.

Trump’s foreign policy remains an inconsistent array of initiatives and adventures: bold in Latin America, bad in Greenland, yet often constructive on Ukrainian security.