Seizing Greenland would shock the world. It shouldn’t.
The United States has often violated international law when that suited its purposes.
By Stephen Kinzer – Boston Globe - January 14, 2026
Flush with triumph after his dramatic intervention in Venezuela, President Trump is focusing on an even bigger prize. Seizing Greenland sounded like a bizarre notion when Trump first floated it last year. The Venezuela operation suddenly makes it seem more possible. If it happens, it will set off a geopolitical earthquake.
Enormous differences separate what Trump did in Venezuela from what he threatens to do in Greenland. First, the Venezuela operation has been aimed — at least so far — at removing a single leader. Trump’s threat to Greenland is far more profound. He wants to seize territory from a foreign nation and make it part of the United States. That would vindicate a principle that goes back to Presidents Andrew Jackson and James K. Polk: Invade now, negotiate legal niceties later.
Second is the fact that Greenland is today part of Denmark, which is a NATO ally of the United States. NATO was designed to protect its members against attack by outside powers. None of its founders imagined that one NATO member would invade another. It’s hard to see how any military alliance could survive a conflict among its own members.
Perhaps the most profound result of an American seizure of Greenland would be the end of America’s image as a defender of international law and order. Pulling Greenland away from Denmark would be a bold assertion of the “might makes right” approach to geopolitics.
One of Trump’s senior aides, Stephen Miller, made this explicit in an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN. “We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power,” Miller said. “These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”
Seizing and annexing Greenland would be radical, but Miller was doing little more than saying the quiet part out loud. The United States has often violated international law when that suited its purposes.
American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were examples. So were bombings of nearly a dozen countries during the Obama and Biden administrations. So was US support for the Israeli attack on Gaza.
The origins of this decline of international law in the post-Cold War era can be traced back to President Clinton’s bombing of Serbia in 1999. The United States concluded that Serbia had no right to keep one of its provinces, Kosovo, and used military power to pull it away from Serbia. Our NATO allies approved of that attack and dutifully recognized the independence of Kosovo. That makes it awkward for Denmark now to insist that national borders must be sacrosanct.
There are plenty of good reasons for the United States to covet Greenland. It is vast and lightly populated — twice the size of Texas with a population equivalent to that of Galveston. It has rich resources, especially rare-earth minerals. Geographically it is part of North America, not Europe. It could be vital to American defense if war breaks out between the United States and Russia or China.
Denmark, however, has shown itself ready to accommodate American desires. American soldiers are stationed at a permanent military base in Greenland. If Trump asks permission to open more bases, Denmark will surely grant it. A deal allowing American companies to exploit Greenland’s resources could also be arranged. Trump insists, however, that this would not be enough.
“Ownership is very important,” he told The New York Times. “That’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success.” In the same interview, he said, “I don’t need international law.” Asked if he felt any constraints on what he might do in the world, he replied: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
Trump’s Venezuela operation shows that he is ready to make good on even his most outlandish threats. One day soon, Americans may wake up to news that our military has taken control of Greenland. The world will be shocked, but it shouldn’t be. American respect for the sovereign rights of other countries has always been more of a rhetorical device than a real policy. Just ask Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, Cubans, Chileans, Congolese, Libyans, Afghans, Iraqis, or Yemenis.
European countries, conditioned by seven decades of fealty to the United States, have either applauded our foreign interventions or, at most, offered airy expressions of concern. Now after riding the back of the American tiger for generations, they risk ending up inside.
Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson School of International and Public Affairs at Brown University.